Federal Judge Sides With Trump on Rule Allowing for Non-Obamacare — More Affordable — Insurance Plans

A Trump administration effort to make more affordable, short-term medical insurance plans available to more people despite Obamacare’s onerous regulations survived a federal court challenge on Friday.

In a ruling for the United States District Court in Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon dismissed a challenge to the 2018 regulation brought by a group of organizations offering insurance plans. The suing organizations say that the rule undermined the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

“Not only is any potential negative impact” from the Trump regulation “minimal,” Leon wrote, “but its benefits are undeniable.”

In August 2018, the Trump administration announced a regulation that would re-expand the availability of short-term medical insurance plans that are less expensive partly because they are not subject to the same kinds of regulations that make Obamacare-compliant insurance plans so expensive.

“We will deliver relief to American workers, families, and small businesses, who right now are being crushed by Obamacare, by increasing freedom, choice, and opportunity for the American people,” read a statement from the president alongside the White House’s announcement.

Opponents of the plans say that these less expensive plans undermine Obamacare and provide people with spotty coverage.

However, since Congress set the Obamacare individual mandate penalty at zero, Judge Leon ruled that the new rule simply helps people who cannot afford skyrocketing insurance costs.

“Because Congress effectively eliminated the individual mandate, relatively healthy Exchange enrollees are no longer choosing between paying ACA-compliant plan premiums or a fine. Their choice now is between paying ACA plan premiums and going uninsured altogether,” Leon continued. “By modestly (re)expanding the utility of less expensive [less-regulated] plans, the Rule aims to minimize the harm and expense that would result from these individuals opting to forgo health insurance in the face of rising premiums.”

To claims that the short-term plans would sabotage Obamacare, Leon added, “There is no indication in the evidence submitted that the Rule is having or will have the type of impact — substantial exodus from the individual market Exchanges — that would threaten the ACA’s structural core,” despite plaintiffs’ claims to the contrary.

The judge also ruled that the Trump administration was completely within the power afforded to it by federal law to issue the rule, writing, “Congress clearly did not intend for the law to apply to all species of individual health insurance” because the lawmakers who passed it “were not rigidly pursuing the ACA-compliant market at all costs, e.g., at the risk of individuals going without insurance altogether.” (For more from the author of “Federal Judge Sides With Trump on Rule Allowing for Non-Obamacare — More Affordable — Insurance Plans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Facebook Is Forming a ‘Supreme Court’ That Will Weigh in on Content Moderation

There are legitimate concerns about bias within social media. Tweets are hidden, innocuous content is flagged, and people are banned and de-platformed for arbitrary reasons. All of these instances happen almost exclusively to conservatives. At the same time, there are also issues posts with graphic violence. And by that, I mean people live streaming murders. The New Zealand mosque attack was livestreamed on Facebook and the link was up for quite a bit until it was taking down. The harrowing video, which was roughly a half-hour long, showed a white supremacist gunning down scores of Muslims. So, how can these tech giants be more reactive to such posts? Well, they’re creating something that will certainly have conservatives on edge: a supreme court (via WaPo) [emphasis mine]:

Should Facebook take down a doctored video of Nancy Pelosi? Ban a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones?

These are the kind of content moderation quandaries that have been vexing the world’s largest social network, and after years of controversies and missteps, the company says it can’t make these decisions alone. That’s why Facebook has been building a “Supreme Court” of independent experts that would weigh in on the company’s toughest content moderation decisions — and it’s hope is that it will one day govern decisions across Silicon Valley.

“It’s just going to impact our platforms, but the hope absolutely is that at some point this is going to be an industry-wide body,” said Facebook public policy manager Shaarik Zafar at a panel on free expression online yesterday at the New America Foundation. “At that point you would have some type of consistency across platforms.”

(Read more from “Facebook Is Forming a ‘Supreme Court’ That Will Weigh in on Content Moderation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Report Reveals the Reality of ‘Family Separation’ Under Trump Administration

By Daily Wire. As Democrats and their media supporters continue to claim that the Trump administration is putting “kids in cages” — despite no such outrage when President Barack Obama did the same — a new report finds that the administration has reunited nearly all of the children separated at the border.

The report, from Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, looked at data produced by the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services and found that 95% of children who had been discharged from HHS custody had been “reunified with an individual sponsor or released to a parent.”

The data provided had identified 2,648 children who were believed to have been separated at the southern border. The committee only had data from HHS on 1,619 of those children, but found that 99% had been discharged from HHS custody.

“Of the 1,603 discharged children, 1,546 children—or 95 percent—were either reunified with an individual sponsor or released to a parent. Specifically, 1,061 children were released to a parent and 485 children were reunified with an individual sponsor,” the report found.

The remaining 73 children who were discharged but not reunited have also been accounted for. Sixteen are being cared for by HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (which determined four of the 16 hadn’t been separated from a parent), 21 had sought a voluntary departure and went back to his or her home country, 20 turned 18 while in custody and could no longer be held by ORR, eight were sent to another migrant program, six went to a DHS family shelter, one was granted immigration relief, and that last child was a runaway. (Read more from “Report Reveals the Reality of ‘Family Separation’ Under Trump Administration” HERE)

_________________________________________________________

Homeland Security chief: Family border separations are down

By AP News. A top Trump administration official said Thursday the number of family separations at the border has fallen since last summer’s zero tolerance policy, and they are done only for compelling reasons.

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said fewer than 1,000 children have been separated from families out of 450,000 family groups that have crossed the border since October. He said they are separated because of health and safety concerns, among other reasons. . .

McAleenan was speaking Thursday before the House Oversight Committee investigating border problems. His testimony comes amid a growing outcry over the treatment of migrants at the border, an internal investigation into Border Patrol agents who posted crude and mocking posts in a secret Facebook group and the move this week to effectively end asylum on the U.S.-Mexico border. (Read more from “Homeland Security chief: Family border separations are down” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Poll: ICE Nearly Twice as Favorable as Left-Wing ‘Squad’

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, tasked with deporting illegal aliens, is nearly twice as favorable among Americans as a group of four progressive Democrat congresswomen known as the “Squad.”

The latest Economist/YouGov survey finds that favorability for ICE among American adults far surpasses the popularity of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), who blasted President Trump this week.

Overall, about 42 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the ICE agency — which Ocasio-Cortez has advocated for abolishing altogether. Meanwhile, Omar holds a favorability of only 25 percent, Ocasio-Cortez a favorability of only 33 percent, Tlaib a favorability of only 24 percent, and Pressley a favorability of only 22 percent.

Likewise, a plurality of 43 percent of Americans said they oppose Ocasio-Cortez’s plan to abolish ICE. A minority, 33 percent, of Americans said they support abolishing ICE, while 25 percent said they were unsure. . .

This week, Trump slammed elected Democrats on Twitter for “viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run” despite arriving “from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world.” (Read more from “Poll: ICE Nearly Twice as Favorable as Left-Wing ‘Squad’” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Actor Chris Pratt Attacked Over Conservative Shirt

By Fox News. Yahoo is facing heavy criticism for an article calling Chris Pratt a “white supremacist” because he wore a T-shirt with the Gadsden flag.

Pratt, best known for his starring roles in “Guardians of the Galaxy” and the “Jurassic World” franchises, was seen wearing a T-shirt featuring the American flag with a coiled rattlesnake in front of it with the text, “Don’t tread on me.”

The coiled rattlesnake and the “Don’t tread on me” motto are from the iconic Gadsden flag, which was created by American general Christopher Gadsden in 1775 during the Revolutionary War. It was meant to symbolize liberty and freedom.

In recent years, the flag has been revived by the Tea Party.

The Yahoo Movies UK article, titled “Chris Pratt criticized for ‘white supremacist’ T-shirt,” stated: “Although it is one of the symbols and flags used by the U.S. Men’s Soccer Team, Metallica, as well as some libertarian groups, over the years the flag has been adopted by Far Right political groups like the Tea Party, as well as gun-toting supporters of the Second Amendment,” the article described the Gadsden flag. (Read more from “Actor Chris Pratt Attacked Over Conservative Shirt” HERE)

_________________________________________________________

Paul Batura: Chris Pratt T-Shirt Craziness – Liberals’ Hypocrisy Says Much More Than Star’s Wardrobe Choice

By Fox News. . .The popular television and Marvel star was spotted wearing an American flag T-shirt with the phrase, “Don’t Tread on Me” along with a superimposed coiled rattlesnake across the design.

It turns out the T-shirt was created by the Brain Treatment Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress or brain injuries. . .

Yet to the scores of people who took to Twitter to criticize the actor, Pratt’s choice was racially insensitive, homophobic, transphobic and simply offensive. . .

In recent years, some politically conservative groups, from the Tea Party to Second Amendment advocates, have used versions of the “Gadsden Flag” to rally supporters and remind the general public that America was founded upon liberty and flourishes when government sees its role in supportive rather than supreme terms.

In modern-times, conservative groups aren’t alone in reprising or repurposing the Revolutionary War era symbolism. In addition to the Brain Treatment Association, USA Soccer has used the catchphrase, and ten states have even made the design available for license plates. (Read more from “Paul Batura: Chris Pratt T-Shirt Craziness – Liberals’ Hypocrisy Says Much More Than Star’s Wardrobe Choice” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here Comes the McConnell Budget ‘Deal’ That Will Rule the Rest of Trump’s Presidency

“The huge increase in the national debt demanded by and incurred during the current Administration has placed a significant burden on future generations. We must impose firm caps on future debt, accelerate the repayment of the trillions we now owe in order to reaffirm our principles of responsible and limited government, and remove the burdens we are placing on future generations.” ~GOP Platform, July 2016

Three years later and $2.6 trillion deeper into the red, will the last conservative in Washington turn out the lights?

Senate Republicans are now “praying” that President Trump accepts the “deal” they cut with House Democrats to destroy Trump’s presidency and any leverage he will ever have – not just on spending but on important policy issues, such as immigration and abortion funding. Now is the time for conservatives not just to pray but to demand that the president reject the deal and simply call for a continuing resolution to keep fighting for spending cuts and the proper policy riders in the fiscal year 2020 budget.

Thanks to the one policy success conservatives secured in the past decade, spending will automatically go down by $35 billion on October 1, when the budget caps kick in, and by another $89 billion on January 1, when sequestration takes effect. Yet from day one of budget negotiations, there was no disagreement between GOP leaders and Nancy Pelosi. They both agreed on unconditionally raising the debt ceiling for two years and busting the budget caps for not just this year but next year as well, for a total of over $300 billion in more spending.

We are now spending 18 percent more than in Obama’s final year and more than during the Great Recession, even though this is a time of economic prosperity. It’s a black mark and an embarrassment to this party. But rather than applying the brakes to the runaway train, they are seeking to disable the brakes. They believe that the debt limit, not the debt itself, is the problem.

And so they have agreed to an unconditional debt ceiling suspension for two years with absolutely no spending cuts. On top of that, they would bust the budget caps for the next two years over and beyond current levels, for a price tag that will likely be north of $300 billion.

Trump needs to announce that he will veto this bill. He needs to announce his red lines both on spending levels and border policy and that he will be willing to sign a clean continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government while debate continues but will not sign a long-term bill consigning his presidency to failure and our country to indebtedness to China. At least with a clean CR, current levels are maintained, and he always has the leverage looming over Democrats that once the short duration of the CR expires, the budget cuts automatically go into place. By immediately signing a long-term busting of the budget caps, however, he will not only lose the opportunity to cut spending, but will increase spending well above current levels.

This “deal” demonstrates that there is no daylight between the two parties on spending. Republicans have no desire to fight for defunding Planned Parenthood or securing the border in return for spending like socialists. Thus, they are fiscal, social, and national defense liberals.

By signing this deal, Trump will irrevocably put us on a trajectory of immutable indebtedness, where just the interest payments on the debt alone will surge higher than the cost of the runaway Medicaid program in a few years. As serious as the spending crisis was during Obama’s tenure, because interest rates were so low, interest payments remained stagnant. This is an entirely new ballgame today and is holding us back from what should be 4-5 percent GDP growth.

Also, by singing this deal, he will give away his last remaining point of leverage on the border for the remainder of this term. As it stands now, Trump has the status quo of automatic budget caps on his side. Democrats are the ones who need a deal for a new law in order to secure their spending priorities. Trump merely has to allow the status quo to play out. This gives him leverage to demand more funding for ICE deportations, border enforcement, and the wall in return for more welfare spending.

The only thing worse than not fulfilling his campaign promises is for Trump to permanently give away his leverage so he can’t live on to fight another day. This was the big mistake in the February omnibus. Had he just demanded a clean CR, he would have had leverage over the Democrats, because the news of the border emergency reached a breaking point in early March when CBP announced the February border numbers. Remember, back then, Democrats were still saying that border numbers were at historic lows. Had Trump been working with a continuous government funding deadline coinciding with that news, he would have been able to batter them into submission. Instead, he signed a bill that made current border policy worse in several key ways.

In March 2018, after Trump reluctantly signed two consecutive budget bills increasing spending and jettisoning his immigration priorities, he promised he would “never again” sign bills like that. Instead, that is exactly what he has been convinced to do multiple times both by GOP congressional leaders and by swamp-dwellers in the administration. Now is quite literally his last chance to fulfill that promise.

In this case, “never again” requires nothing more than holding the line on the status quo. The veto pen is the single most powerful tool in government. (For more from the author of “Here Comes the Mcconnell Budget ‘Deal’ That Will Rule the Rest of Trump’s Presidency” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Holds MAGA Rally, Proves Overwhelming Support; Crowd Goes After Omar: SEND HER BACK [VIDEO]

____________________________________________________

Trump Goes After Extremist Congresswomen

By Fox News. President Trump, at a fiery “Make America Great Again” campaign rally Wednesday night in Greenville, North Carolina, blasted four progressive congresswomen, Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, with whom he continues to spar after an ongoing feud over comments he made against them that critics deemed “racist.” . . .

Trump slammed Omar on Wednesday saying she “smeared U.S. service members in ‘Black Hawk Down.’ She slandered the brave Americans trying to keep peace in Somalia,” a dig at her Somali-American heritage. . .

Trump moved on to his critique of Tlaib, saying she “used the F-word to describe the presidency and your president.”

“That’s not nice, even for me,” Trump said. “That’s not somebody who loves our country.” . . .

Of Pressley, Trump said the congresswoman “thinks that people with the same skin color all need to think the same. She said, ‘we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be brown voices, we don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice,'” a reference to remarks she gave at a conference this past weekend. “Can you imagine if I said that?” (Read more from “Trump Goes After Extremist Congresswomen” HERE)

____________________________________________________

Watch: Trump Rally Chants ‘Send Her Back’ After President Slams Ilhan Omar

By Breitbart. Attendees of President Donald Trump’s rally in Greenville, North Carolina, chanted “send her back” after the president slammed Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) repeated criticism of the United States on Wednesday evening.

“Omar has a history of launching vicious screeds,” the president said to chants of “send her back.”

Prior to the chants, President Trump listed off various critical statements that Omar previously said about the country, including her trivialization of the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks. (Read more from “Watch: Trump Rally Chants ‘Send Her Back’ After President Slams Ilhan Omar” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

House Orders Pentagon to Reveal Whether It Turned Ticks into Biological Weapons

House lawmakers passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) last week that ordered the Pentagon to reveal whether the U.S. military made ticks into biological weapons.

The amendment, proposed by Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., requires the Pentagon to examine “whether the Department of Defense experimented with ticks and other insects regarding its use as a biological weapon between the years of 1950 and 1975.” . . .

“If true, what were the parameters of the program? Who ordered it?” Smith said during a debate for the amendment. “Was there any accidental release anywhere or at any time of any of the diseased ticks?”

He said he was inspired to add the amendment after reading material that suggested: “significant research had been done at U.S. government facilities including Fort Detrick, Maryland and Plum Island, New York to turn ticks and other insects into bioweapons.”

Smith, a long-time advocate for raising awareness about Lyme disease, is also the co-chair of the House Lyme Disease Caucus. Earlier this year, he introduced a bill that would authorize $180 million in funding for Lyme disease research, prevention and treatment programs. (Read more from “House Orders Pentagon to Reveal Whether It Turned Ticks into Biological Weapons” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

What Ilhan Omar Just Said About the Anti-Israel BDS Movement and the Boston Tea Party Should Strip Her of Committee Seat

Rep. llhan Omar (D-MN) is doing what she does best: ruffle the feathers of everyone and peddling her anti-Semitic agenda on the Hill. She’s trash. Pure and simple, but sits on the House Foreign Relations Committee, which brought forward a non-binding resolution condemning the anti-Israel Boycotts, Disinvestments, and Sanctions movement. Omar, in true fashion, defended the movement and compared it to the Boston Tea Party. She also referred to Israel as an occupier regarding the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) wasn’t having any of her nonsense, but it didn’t stop her from introducing a resolution that counters the one passed by the committee. The BDS crew was quite pleased (via NRO):

We are introducing a resolution . . . to really speak about the American values that support and believe in our ability to exercise our first amendment rights in regard to boycotting,” Omar told Al-Monitor. “And it is an opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement.”

The announcement comes on the same day that the House Foreign Affairs Committee, on which Omar sits, plans to vote on another non-binding resolution explicitly condemning the BDS movement as an attempt to “undermine the two state solution” by demanding “concessions of one party alone and encourag[ing] Palestinians to reject negotiations in favor of international pressure.”

The anti-BDS resolution further notes that the movement’s founder, Omar Bharghouti, has openly dismissed the possibility of reaching any settlement that allows the state of Israel to retain its sovereignty.

Omar is expected to cast the lone vote against the anti-BDS resolution, further highlighting the divide between herself and the panel’s older, more-established lawmakers, who have condemned her comments about Israel in the past.

(Read more from “What Ilhan Omar Just Said About the Anti-Israel BDS Movement and the Boston Tea Party Should Strip Her of Committee Seat” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Dems Attempt at Impeachment Is Instantly Shot Down

Texas Rep. Al Green’s wild pipe dream of forcing his Democratic colleagues to vote in favor of articles of impeachment has been tabled for now. Wednesday afternoon, the House officially voted to table impeaching President Donald J. Trump. This does not mean that the dream for Rep. Green has officially died, but it does mean that it essentially gets moved to Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s desk, who will decide if and when to bring the issue back for consideration. . .

The official vote tally was 332 yeas to 95 nays with one voting present. The biggest name who voted “nay,” meaning they wanted to the actual vote to move forward was Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York.

(Read more from “Dems Attempt at Impeachment Is Instantly Shot Down” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE