Displaying posts published in

November 2017

Why America Can’t Lower Child-Poverty Rates Allowing millions of low-skilled immigrants into the U.S. every year swells the ranks of the poor. Kay S. Hymowitz

Articles about America’s high levels of child poverty are a media evergreen. Here’s a typical entry, courtesy of the New York Times’s Eduardo Porter: “The percentage of children who are poor is more than three times as high in the United States as it is in Norway or the Netherlands. America has a larger proportion of poor children than Russia.” That’s right: Russia.

Outrageous as they seem, the assertions are true—at least in the sense that they line up with official statistics from government agencies and reputable nongovernmental organizations like the OECD and UNICEF. International comparisons of the sort that Porter makes, though, should be accompanied by a forest of asterisks. Data limitations, varying definitions of poverty, and other wonky problems are rampant in these discussions.

The lousy child-poverty numbers should come with another qualifying asterisk, pointing to a very American reality. Before Europe’s recent migration crisis, the United States was the only developed country consistently to import millions of very poor, low-skilled families, from some of the most destitute places on earth—especially from undeveloped areas of Latin America—into its communities, schools, and hospitals. Let’s just say that Russia doesn’t care to do this—and, until recently, Norway and the Netherlands didn’t, either. Both policymakers and pundits prefer silence on the relationship between America’s immigration system and poverty, and it’s easy to see why. The subject pushes us headlong into the sort of wrenching trade-offs that politicians and advocates prefer to avoid. Here’s the problem in a nutshell: you can allow mass low-skilled immigration, which many on the left and the right—and probably most poverty mavens—consider humane and quintessentially American. But if you do, pursuing the equally humane goal of substantially reducing child poverty becomes a lot harder.

In 1964, the federal government settled on a standard definition of poverty: an income less than three times the value of a hypothetical basic food basket. (That approach has its flaws, but it’s the measure used in the United States, so we’ll stick with it.) Back then, close to 23 percent of American kids were poor. With the important exception of the years between 1999 and 2007—following the introduction of welfare reform in 1996—when it declined to 16 percent, child poverty has bounced within three points of 20 percent since 1980. Currently, about 18 percent of kids are below the poverty line, amounting to 13,250,000 children. Other Anglo countries have lower child-poverty rates: the OECD puts Canada’s at 15 percent, with the United Kingdom and Australia lower still, between 11 percent and 13 percent. The lowest levels of all—under 10 percent—are found in the Nordic countries: Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and Finland.

How does immigration affect those post-1964 American child-poverty figures? Until 1980, it didn’t. The 1924 Immigration Act sharply reduced the number of immigrants from poorer Eastern European and southern countries, and it altogether banned Asians. (Mexicans, who had come to the U.S. as temporary agricultural workers and generally returned to their home country, weren’t imagined as potential citizens and thus were not subject to restrictive quotas.) The relatively small number of immigrants settling in the U.S. tended to be from affluent nations and had commensurate skills. According to the Migration Policy Institute, in 1970, immigrant children were less likely to be poor than were the children of native-born Americans.

Darkest Hour – A Review By Marilyn Penn

Call it a case of unfortunate timing, but there are three scenes of Churchill, as played by Gary Oldman, behaving in a way that we are now calling sexual harassment of an employee. The first shows his young, pretty secretary (Lily James) ushered into his bedroom where he dictates to her from his bed; upon finishing, he throws back the covers and tosses his bare legs up in the air as he propels himself out – the camera moves to her shocked reaction. The second has him dictating to her in what looks like a dressing room – we see his bare legs exiting the bathroom as he announces that he is coming out of his shower in a state of nature – she hurries away. The third has him taking a seat next to her at her desk and staring at her intensely; after a few moments she squirms uncomfortably and asks if anything is wrong – he states that he is just looking at her.

There have been three Churchills released within a few months of each other – John Lithgow in The Crown, Brian Cox in Churchill and now Oldman who has received the most praise. He is the least recognizable, having been outfitted in major prosthetic get-ups and ample padding and he plays the man as louche, drunk and unforgivably cantankerous. Although there may be biographical justification for some of this, it is played so broadly and noisily that we see too little of the calm, controlled statesman and heroic leader whom many consider the outstanding figure of the twentieth century. I can only assume that this is what director Joe Wright had in mind since Oldman has proven to be a talented actor in the past and the one-dimensional portrayal he gives us here may be due to editorial decisions in the cutting room. Both Darkest Hour and Churchill show Winston as an outlier challenging the conventional political and military advice for the evacuation at Dunkirk and the landing in Normandy. Both show his stubborness, his persuasiveness and his ability to summon his talent for oratory to instill enormous courage in his constituents Of the three, only Lithgow achieves the dignity that is missing from the other two characterizations.

Darkest Hour offers the most disturbing portrayal of a man subject to depression, addicted to alcohol and tobacco and temperamentally unable or unwilling to control his outbursts. The film reminds us of his parentage – Winston’s father died of tertiary syphillis and his beautiful mother was undoubtedly “too much loved.” The decibel level of this movie is high, Oldman’s performance is histrionic in the extreme and we leave the theater wondering how to forgive him his excesses when they have filled the screen for more than two hours. Though it’s worth seeing Darkest Hour for its historic content, I prefer the more controlled performance by Brian Cox and urge you to see Churchill to and judge for yourself.

GOOD NEWS FROM AMAZING ISRAEL….MICHAEL ORDMAN

ISRAEL’S MEDICAL ACHIEVEMENTS

Repairing severed spinal cord. Scientists at Israel’s Technion Institute and Tel Aviv University have reconnected severed spinal cords of rats. Previously paralyzed rodents were implanted with cells induced into a neural phenotype, and regained motor control. It could lead to major advances in treating spinal cord injury.
http://www.sagol.tau.ac.il/en/prof-dani-offen-israeli-scientists-make-paralyzed-rats-walk-again/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.00589/full

Predicting diabetes. (TY Atid-EDI) I reported previously (twice) on Israel’s Medial EarlySign and its blood test for early detection of colon cancer. Now Medial has developed an algorithm with a 64% success rate for identifying which of 645,000 prediabetics were at risk of becoming diabetics within 12 months.
http://earlysign.com/news-and-events/medial-earlysign-machine-learning-algorithm-predicts-risk-prediabetics-becoming-diabetic-within-1-year-2/

Hope for bone marrow failure patients. Israeli biotech Pluristem has opened clinical centers in Israel and extended the trial of its stem cell treatment for insufficient hematopoietic recovery following hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). HCT is performed when bone marrow fails for reasons including cancer treatment.
http://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/following-approval-of-israels-ministry-of-health-pluristem-extends-its-trial-of-plxr18-to-treat-20171026-00612

Managing chronically ill patients. (TY Atid-EDI) I reported previously (Nov 2012) on Israel’s Vaica and its system for reminding individuals to take their meds. Vaica has now launched Capsuled – a personally customized medication adherence solution.
http://www.vaica.com/vaicas-complete-solution/ https://www.youtube.com/embed/GYbcNnfm8fE?rel=0

Medical solutions for disasters. The Israeli pavilion at MEDICA 2017 in Dusseldorf, showcased specialized emergency medical services products for intensive care, respiratory, cardiac, central nervous system and trauma. Israeli companies presenting included Inovytec, Medisim, CardiacX and Guide in Medical.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-firms-display-life-saving-tech-in-dusseldorf/

Preparing Toronto hospital for disasters. A team of experts from Israel’s Rambam hospital shared their knowledge with Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children on how to prepare for disasters, such as mass casualties. As the city gets larger, the Canadian hospital needs to prepare for taking many casualties at one time.
https://unitedwithisrael.org/israeli-team-trains-torontos-sick-kids-hospital-on-disaster-preparedness/

Treating children in Georgia. Twice a year, for the past five years, doctors from Haifa’s Rambam Medical Center have traveled to capital city of Tbilisi to perform operations on local youngsters with serious congenital defects. The delegation consists of pediatric surgeons, anesthesiologists and intensive care specialists.
http://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Rambam-doctors-operate-on-children-in-Georgia-514601

The most teenage volunteer EMTs. (TY Hazel) 60 percent of the volunteer Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) staff of Magen David Adom, Israel’s national emergency-response network, are teenagers – the highest percentage in the world. 11,000 Israeli teenagers work voluntary shifts on MDA ambulances throughout Israel.
https://www.israel21c.org/why-israel-has-worlds-highest-percentage-of-teenage-emts/

Israeli MS treatment featured on UK TV. The normally anti-Israel UK TV Channel4 aired a rare positive feature about Mark Lewis and the trial stem cell treatment he received for Multiple Sclerosis at Israel’s Hadassah hospital. https://www.thejc.com/search-for-a-miracle-cure-follows-patient-31-mark-lewis-as-israeli-medics-develop-ms-treatment-1.448893
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/miracle-in-jerusalem-mark-lewis-seeks-out-a-revolutionary-ms-cure/

The Call of Freedom Giving thanks for the world’s most powerful idea By Matthew Continetti ****

“From the Berlin Wall, to Vietnamese and Cuban boat people, to the DMZ, the prisoners of communism run in only one direction: toward liberty and self-government, toward the bounty of the marketplace and the possibilities of representative democracy.”

On November 13, a 24-year-old North Korean soldier, known only by his surname Oh, commandeered a jeep and sped toward the De-Militarized Zone that for 64 years has separated his communist homeland from the democratic capitalist south.

As he approached the border, the young man abandoned the vehicle and scrambled on foot toward the line of control. North Korean soldiers began firing on him. He was hit five or six times before collapsing onto South Korean ground. Transported to a hospital in Suwon, near Seoul, doctors performed emergency surgery. They discovered and extracted parasitic worms from his small intestine. Diagnosed with tuberculosis and hepatitis B, he is nonetheless expected to recover.

Oh risked everything to live in freedom. He has joined the ranks of other defectors, refugees, and exiles that fled oppression for the chance of a life free of tyrannical control. From the Berlin Wall, to Vietnamese and Cuban boat people, to the DMZ, the prisoners of communism run in only one direction: toward liberty and self-government, toward the bounty of the marketplace and the possibilities of representative democracy.

Many did not—many do not—make it. They die imprisoned, like the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, or do not survive the crossing, like Peter Fletcher, murdered by the Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic at the age of 18.

And there are millions more still who, having been born and raised in democratic capitalist societies, do not fully recognize or appreciate the novelty and blessing of their lives. The story of Oh is not only a reminder that the call of freedom persists. It is a rebuke to those who ignore freedom’s song.

For it has become fashionable, on both left and right, to downplay or ignore or deprecate the idea of freedom, to blame individualism, self-determination, and choice for inequality, pollution, corruption, immorality, decline, and other tragic aspects of the human condition. The fact that all of these pathologies flourish in autocratic, socialist, and communist societies as well as in our own seemingly escapes the notice of the intellectual critics of freedom.

Even so, we are told that free will is a delusion, that we are better off being “nudged” by our cognitive and moral superiors, that freedom and democracy are like rubber bands that snap back when stretched to the limit. “We are drowning in freedom,” says one editor. Tell that to Oh.

#14 The Humanitarian Hoax of Unconditional Love: Killing America With Kindness by Linda Goudsmit

The humanitarian hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Unconditional love is the Holy Grail for millennials. They talk about it, dream about it, want it, need it, and are outraged if anyone dares to question its value. Unconditional love is, after all, “settled” science among millennial “experts” whose opinions are accepted and observed with religious conformity by their devotees.

Wikipedia defines unconditional love as “affection without any limitations or love without conditions.” The current demand for unconditional love is consistent with the left-wing liberal campaign to value feelings over facts and effort over achievement as metrics for what is good in society. So, let’s examine unconditional love.

First, an appropriate season for unconditional love exists during infancy and early childhood. Parents accept anything and everything that babies do – we love them for just being. Babies and young children lack the ability for any self-control so we do not expect standards of behavior – anything goes. Unconditional love separates the individual from his/her behavior which is entirely appropriate for infants and young children. When the demand for unconditional love is extended into adulthood the individual inappropriately demands to be loved without regard for his/her behavior in the same way an infant is loved.

Relationships are structured with written, spoken, and unspoken rules and standards of behavior. Family relationships, social relationships, business relationships, professional relationships, sexual relationships are all organized on some level by rules that participants are expected to follow. Societies are similarly organized by their infrastructure of rules/laws that citizens are expected to observe. What makes infancy and early childhood so exceptional is its distinguishing “no rules” formula. Society temporarily accepts the separation of the individual from his/her behavior. What happens when a society refuses adulthood and instead strives for permanent childhood?

When the no rules formula is protracted and adulthood is rejected the result is an infantilized population and social chaos. Consider the societal implications of adults who refuse to abide by laws – traffic laws, property laws, environmental laws, civil rights laws, family laws. All rules and regulations are considered anathema to chronological adults living in the subjective reality of “no rules” infancy including college campuses that no longer respect Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Fragile infantilized students require safe spaces and trigger warnings to protect them from ideas that they disagree with. College students have historically been considered future leaders. How can a leader be a leader in a pluralist society if he/she cannot even listen to an opposing point of view?

South Florida Muslim Leader Posts Video in Order to “Beat the F**king Jews” How long will Crime Stoppers and Citizens’ Crime Watch continue to harbor Sofian Zakkout? Joe Kaufman

Sofian Zakkout, President of the Miami, Florida-based American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA), likes to air out his extremist view in public, regularly posting his bigoted and radical provocations onto social media. This month has been no exception, as he has taken to Facebook to belittle the members of the Jewish community with a post that refers to them as “fucking Jews.” Though many of Zakkout’s Muslim colleagues and acquaintances may sympathize with him, this should be alarming to the people who serve with him on local anti-crime boards.

On November 10th, AMANA President Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout promoted on his personal Facebook page a video with the following description in Arabic: “The opening of the al-Aqsa Mosque after pressure on Israel. Praise be to Allah. Spread the video to beat the fucking Jews.”

Israeli authorities had restricted access to the mosque, following the July 14th murder of two Israeli police officers by three Palestinian gunmen, at the entrance to the mosque. In late July, the mosque was reopened to all Palestinians.

Zakkout had taken the video from a Facebook page, which goes under the name ‘Campaign for the Victory of al-Aqsa Mosque.’ The site actively promotes Hamas and glorifies knife and vehicle-ramming attacks perpetrated by Palestinians against Israeli civilians. It publishes Hamas announcements of terrorist attacks and features a large number of Hamas-related images, including different photos of Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin, Hamas suicide bomber Reem Riyashi, and toddlers dressed in Hamas garb.

The site also features much anti-Semitic content. One photo on the site depicts three Orthodox Jewish men sitting and reading; a description on the side in Arabic labels the three “the descendants of the Jewish pigs.” Another photo portrays a Hamas member waving a flag with the statement next to him in Arabic, “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, Muhammad’s army will return.” The threatening slogan is in reference to the Saudi Arabian city of Khaybar, where Muhammad’s disciples attacked and enslaved the city’s Jewish inhabitants, in the year 629.

It makes perfect sense that Zakkout would share a video from this particular site, as he too embraces both Hamas and anti-Semitism.

The Soros District Attorney-Buying Binge An investment from the subversive billionaire can cripple local law enforcement for years. Matthew Vadum

Left-wing currency manipulator George Soros’s push to radically reshape the judiciary and elect extremist district attorneys across the country to weaken law enforcement and protect lawless sanctuary cities is bearing fruit.

Soros has been pouring money into local elections because he supports local efforts to resist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and wants to cripple police in order to advance the neo-Marxist abstraction known as social justice that simplistically breaks the world down into race, class, and sex or gender. Radicals claim that American laws and institutions are inherently corrupt and that these systems protect, for example, wealthy, white, native-born, non-disabled males at the expense of everyone else.

Soros wants prosecutors to empty prisons and coddle the prisoners who remain, scale back drug prosecutions, lower bail, and eliminate alleged racial disparities in sentencing, among other things.

Getting people who share Soros’s worldview into public office at every level is key to promoting his ugly vision of how America, which he calls “the main obstacle to a stable and just world order,” should look.

Soros’s backing helped elect radical leftist Lawrence (Larry) Krasner (D) as Philadelphia DA this month. Krasner, who quipped that his track record as a civil rights lawyer made him “completely unelectable,” somehow managed to best seven other candidates in the primary election.

“Krasner, who has represented Occupy Philadelphia and Black Lives Matter, and has sued the police department more than 75 times, had a major fundraising advantage that was provided almost exclusively by Soros,” the indispensable Joe Schoffstall reported at the Washington Free Beacon.

On the campaign trail, Krasner promised never to seek the death penalty in any criminal case and to keep Philadelphia a lawless sanctuary city. A segment of his platform titled “Resist the Trump Administration” spelled out his plan to “protect immigrants,” “reject the drug war,” and “stand up to police misconduct.”

“As District Attorney, he will work to maintain Philadelphia as a ‘sanctuary city’ and protect the Fourth Amendment rights of all residents, cooperating with federal authorities only to the degree required by law,” according to his campaign website.

“Because legal proceedings can affect the status of immigrants and therefore relations between communities and law enforcement, Larry will take those effects into account when making prosecutorial decisions and setting prosecutorial policy. He will oppose renewal of ICE’s access to the PARS database, a city police database used by ICE to identify ‘deportable’ immigrants.”

In April, Soros gave $1.45 million to the Philadelphia Justice and Public Safety PAC, which was created to support Krasner and listed its address as the Democrat law firm Perkins Coie in the nation’s capital. Soros threw another $214,000 the super PAC’s way in May, bringing his pro-Krasner donations to $1.7 million, “an unusual[ly] high [amount] for the average district attorney race.” It was also the first time a PAC had ever backed a candidate for Philly DA.

Sanctuary Cities and Judicial Madness Judge blocks Trump’s effort to end sanctuary cities — the day after a border patrol agent is bludgeoned to death. Michael Cutler

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 two United States Border Patrol agents were attacked and one of the agents, identified as 36 year-old Rogelio Martinez, died of massive injuries to his head and body, possibly caused by rocks. His partner, who has not yet been identified, was grievously injured but is expected to survive.

On November 20th CBS News and the Associated Press jointly reported on the attack which reportedly occurred about 110 miles southeast of El Paso Texas and 30 miles from the U.S. / Mexican border.

El Paso is directly across the U.S./Mexican border from Ciudad Juarez, one of the most violent cities in Mexico and has become synonymous with the deadly drug trade.

Meanwhile even as news reports about the deadly attack on members of the United States Border Patrol were being made public, on November 20, 2017 San Diego-Union Tribune reported, “Judge permanently blocks Trump order that cut funding to sanctuary cities.”

That disheartening and infuriating report began with this excerpt:

A federal judge has permanently blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued the ruling on Monday in lawsuits brought by two California counties, San Francisco and Santa Clara. Orrick said Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.

There is a clear nexus to these two events that has not been covered in the news.

Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez was killed because he and his seriously injured partner were performing their sworn duties, protecting America and America by securing our dangerous border.

The individuals who attacked those valiant agents escaped and, for all we know, are presently hiding out in a city in the United States. It is likely that they would feel most secure in a Sanctuary City that will happily ignore that they are illegally present in the United States.

Following the Trump-Russia Dossier Money Proof solidifies that Fusion GPS took money from Democrat law firms. Matthew Vadum

Unsealed bank records appear to reinforce the claim that Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign bought and paid for the sensational “piss-gate” dossier that used anonymous sources to smear President Trump by falsely linking him to Russia.

The dossier is the salacious, 35-page report commissioned by Democrat-aligned opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The statements in the partisan hit job were compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and published by BuzzFeed. One claim was that Donald Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on a bed.

The dossier was just one of many particularly outrageous dirty tricks Clinton’s campaign to undercut her opponent’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. Clinton also personally authorized the illicit efforts of socialist felon Bob Creamer and organizer Scott Foval who fomented violence at Trump campaign rallies, as James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas group revealed in undercover videos.

President Trump and his defenders have repeatedly suggested Democrats, Russia, or the FBI – or all three – may have helped fund the infamous document dump.

What’s new here are bank records from two Democrat-aligned law firms listing 112 transactions involving Fusion GPS. Clinton campaign and DNC lawyer Marc Elias reportedly hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to conduct opposition research against Trump.

The documents were made public after Washington, D.C.-based federal Judge Richard Leon, who is presiding over a lawsuit related to Fusion’s records, ordered them unsealed. Fusion fought the unsealing request.

As the Daily Caller reports:

Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the Clinton campaign and DNC, paid Fusion a total of $1,024,408 between May 24, 2016 and Dec. 28, 2016, the records show.

The largest payment was made just before the election. Perkins Coie made a $365,275 payment to Fusion GPS on Oct. 28, 2016, according to the records.

ObamaCare’s Death Payments A program to reduce hospital admissions may have led to more deaths.

ObamaCare has caused hard-to-quantify economic damage, but some of the law’s regulations may be lethal—literally. Consider a Medicare hospital payment initiative, which a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology suggests may have contributed to an increase in deaths.

Readers are likely familiar with ObamaCare’s mandate and subsidies to impel individuals to obtain health insurance. But the law also included monetary incentives and penalties aimed at inducing changes in health-care delivery and spending reductions. The government rolled out these payment models nationally without careful study, and they are having unintended side effects.

A case in point is the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, which penalizes hospitals with above-average readmissions for Medicare patients. Readmissions are expensive, and the goal of the penalties is to encourage providers to take measures that reduce repeat hospitalizations—for instance, providing patients with clearer discharge instructions and coordinating with primary-care physicians.

Hospitals are graded on a curve and dunned if their 30-day readmission rate exceeds the national average. Hospitals can thus be penalized even if they reduce readmissions. The penalties, which are assessed as a share of hospitals’ Medicare payments, have been applied to an increasing number of medical conditions including knee and hip replacements.

Liberals have touted data showing that readmissions have fallen since the penalties took effect in 2013, but the JAMA researchers examined whether quality of care has improved as a result. Their observational study examined 115,245 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with heart failure across the U.S. in the four years prior to and first two years following implementation of the program.

Researchers found that the 30-day readmission rate (adjusted for patient risk) declined to 18.4% from 20% after the penalties were introduced. Yet the 30-day mortality rate increased to 8.6% from 7.2%—about 5,400 additional deaths per year. Over a one-year period the readmission rate fell by 0.9 percentage points while the mortality rate rose by five. In other words, while fewer patients were being readmitted, many more were dying.

The researchers hypothesize that the penalties might “incentivize hospitals to ‘game’ the system, using strategies such as delaying admissions beyond day 30, increasing observation stays, or shifting inpatient-type care to emergency departments.” These tricks may end up hurting patients.

Hospitals with above-average readmissions are also more likely to care for low-income patients and deal with complicated medical cases. They are usually financially strapped due to low Medicaid reimbursements, and the ObamaCare penalties may make it even harder to deliver quality care.

ObamaCare effectively enrolled Medicare patients and hospitals without their consent in a mandatory policy experiment—you’ll be better off, trust us—but then neglected to evaluate the adverse effects. A drug trial with the same results would have been shut down long ago.

The JAMA researchers conclude that, “like drugs and devices, public health policies should be tested in a rigorous fashion—most preferably in randomized trials—before their widespread adoption.” Sounds like good advice, but not the sort that ObamaCare architects and masters of the economic-planning universe like Peter Orszag and Jonathan Gruber are inclined to take.

The Trump Administration is seeking to redesign some of ObamaCare’s payment programs, including making policy experiments voluntary for providers. This has caused a fury among those on the left who believe that government coercion is the cure for all health-care maladies. Testing incentives on a small scale could prevent untold economic harm and deaths.