wnd--2020-11-21--Barr & Durham: From supposed bulldogs to Deep State lapdogs

Are William Barr and John `` Bull '' Durham just running out the clock on their Russia hoax investigation ?
Have they been counting on , for whatever reason , Trump losing his reelection bid ?
Did the president ever really have anyone to fight for him ?
Unless President Trump wins his challenges , it 's looking as if there will not be the `` justice '' we were assured was right around the corner .
And worse , it 's looking to me that there never was going to be any indictments , no jail time , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest crimes perpetrated against a sitting president in American history .
There 's only two possible reasons for this , and neither is that they simply did n't have enough time to make their case .
As I see it , Barr and Durham are themselves just a couple swamp rats , or one or other or both are not the tough-guy fighters they were billed as – that are in fact utterly spineless , lacking the courage to stand up against the Deep State swamp .
TRENDING : Flashback : Just last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ switching votes William Barr was confirmed as attorney general on Feb. 14 , 2019 – going on two years ago .
He was treated as the second coming of Elliot Ness .
He would be the one who would finally cut through the bureaucratic red-tape and obstacles and get to the bottom of the Russia collusion hoax .
He would bring to account all those shady operators who tried and failed to bring down the president .
Barr was tough – no nonsense , we were told .
He would n't cow to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their constant badgering and inept questioning .
And then , in May of 2019 , he enlisted U.S. Attorney John Durham to examine the origins of the Russia investigation .
And we all cheered .
Hope sprang eternal .
After the all-talk-no-action Republican promises for two years , we finally had a couple of Trump-like fighters to flush out the Deep State crime family .
I mean , just look at Durham 's picture !
He even looks like the kind of Wyatt Earp we needed !
In June of 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : `` I can tell you that John Durham and Attorney General Barr are going to get to the bottom of it .
They are including in part of their surveillance - really looking at the intelligence community to make sure that justice is brought . ''
And then we waited and waited … and waited .
It was July 2020 , after 13 months had passed and well into election season , when the Daily Mail reported , `` Prosecutor John Durham reveals the report into 'spying ' on Trump 's campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer and says : 'The American people deserve to hear this story . '
'' Yes , Mr. Durham .
We did then and still do today !
According to the Daily Mail story , Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said that `` the report was not the 'goal ' of the criminal investigation but that it will be 'pivotal to the restoration of that one tiered system of justice . '
'' However , she rather ominously added that she hoped a report would emerge sooner rather than later in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from being potentially buried by a Democrat win , should Trump lose in November .
Since the time Barr was hired and Durham signed on , can anyone tell me a single thing they have accomplished to hold to account the criminals who framed the president of the United States ?
And why is that ?
Well , I had my suspicions then , and I 'm saddened to say that I and others were probably correct .
Both Barr and Durham have off and on been part of the federal swamp for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said many times that no one is able to withstand the allure of the Deep State if he has spent a substantial amount of time in the `` system . ''
No one – ever !
It has literally corrupted all comers .
And that is reason I surmised that neither Barr nor tough-guy John `` Bull '' Durham would do jack-squat to indict or jail any of the swamp-things responsible for the three ring circus of leftist clowns that tried to bury Trump .
Sure , they would go through the motions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopeful conservatives would be left with yet another hollow feeling of disappointment .
But hey – we ought to be used to it by now .
Listen to an audio version of this column :

Are William Barr and John "Bull" Durham just running out the clock on their Russia hoax investigation? Have they been counting on, for whatever reason, Trump losing his reelection bid? Did the president ever really have anyone to fight for him?
Unless President Trump wins his challenges, it's looking as if there will not be the "justice" we were assured was right around the corner.
And worse, it's looking to me that there never was going to be any indictments, no jail time, no one held accountable for one of the greatest crimes perpetrated against a sitting president in American history.
There's only two possible reasons for this, and neither is that they simply didn't have enough time to make their case.
As I see it, Barr and Durham are themselves just a couple swamp rats, or one or other or both are not the tough-guy fighters they were billed as – that are in fact utterly spineless, lacking the courage to stand up against the Deep State swamp.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
William Barr was confirmed as attorney general on Feb. 14, 2019 – going on two years ago. He was treated as the second coming of Elliot Ness. He would be the one who would finally cut through the bureaucratic red-tape and obstacles and get to the bottom of the Russia collusion hoax. He would bring to account all those shady operators who tried and failed to bring down the president.
Barr was tough – no nonsense, we were told. He wouldn't cow to the left or wither under the pressure of their constant badgering and inept questioning. And then, in May of 2019, he enlisted U.S. Attorney John Durham to examine the origins of the Russia investigation.
And we all cheered. Hope sprang eternal. After the all-talk-no-action Republican promises for two years, we finally had a couple of Trump-like fighters to flush out the Deep State crime family.
I mean, just look at Durham's picture! He even looks like the kind of Wyatt Earp we needed!
In June of 2019, then-Rep. Mark Meadows, told Sean Hannity: "I can tell you that John Durham and Attorney General Barr are going to get to the bottom of it. They are including in part of their surveillance - really looking at the intelligence community to make sure that justice is brought."
A buoyed Rep. Jim Jordan echoed the sentiments of Meadows.
And then we waited and waited … and waited.
It was July 2020, after 13 months had passed and well into election season, when the Daily Mail reported, "Prosecutor John Durham reveals the report into 'spying' on Trump's campaign will be released by the end of summer and says: 'The American people deserve to hear this story.'"
Yes, Mr. Durham. We did then and still do today!
According to the Daily Mail story, Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said that "the report was not the 'goal' of the criminal investigation but that it will be 'pivotal to the restoration of that one tiered system of justice.'" However, she rather ominously added that she hoped a report would emerge sooner rather than later in an effort to prevent the Durham's work from being potentially buried by a Democrat win, should Trump lose in November.
Since the time Barr was hired and Durham signed on, can anyone tell me a single thing they have accomplished to hold to account the criminals who framed the president of the United States?
And why is that?
Well, I had my suspicions then, and I'm saddened to say that I and others were probably correct.
Both Barr and Durham have off and on been part of the federal swamp for 30 years or more. I've said many times that no one is able to withstand the allure of the Deep State if he has spent a substantial amount of time in the "system." No one – ever! It has literally corrupted all comers.
And that is reason I surmised that neither Barr nor tough-guy John "Bull" Durham would do jack-squat to indict or jail any of the swamp-things responsible for the three ring circus of leftist clowns that tried to bury Trump.
Sure, they would go through the motions, but in the end, we hopeful conservatives would be left with yet another hollow feeling of disappointment.
But hey – we ought to be used to it by now.
Listen to an audio version of this column:


wnd--2020-11-21--Canceling student debt 'crude, inefficient, and ineffective way' to address economy

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Education . ]
With the White House flipping blue this winter , calls for student loan cancellation are resurging .
Fielding questions after an address in Delaware on November 16 , the president-elect stated that canceling some student loan debt was part of his economic policy agenda .
Biden referenced proposed COVID-19 relief legislation from House Democrats that would cancel up to $ 10,000 per person .
Earlier this month , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer renewed his call for the Biden administration to forgive up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive order .
Both ideas are crude , inefficient , and ultimately ineffective ways to help Americans in need .
According to a November report from the Congressional Budget Office ( CBO ) , the student debt crisis has been driven mostly by students at graduate programs and selective schools , who overwhelmingly fall into affluent and high-income populations .
As a result , canceling student debt would cost billions of dollars each year and would exacerbate , not lessen , economic inequalities .
Among undergraduates , two of every three federal student @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to students of selective institutions in 2017 , up from just over half ( 52.3 % ) in 2010 .
Undergraduates at nonselective schools and two-year programs each hover around 10 % of total borrowing during this period .
Borrowing at for-profit institutions declined from 27.5 % of total federal student loans in 2010 to 15.7 percent in 2017 .
TRENDING : Flashback : Just last year Dem senators warned of voting machines switching votes Additionally , nearly half ( 47 % ) of all outstanding federal student loan debt is owed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 32 percent in 1995 .
Graduate students are borrowing a lot more than they used to––since 1995 , the average federal loan to a graduate student increased by $ 8,268 in 2017 dollars , compared to just $ 642 for undergraduates .
Graduate programs include professional degrees like medical school and law school .
Graduate students and undergraduates at selective schools are substantially more likely to be financially secure than other student loan borrowers .
Undergraduates of selective schools are significantly less likely to default on their debt––their three-year default rate is 9.8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most recent data .
In comparison , that rate was 17.6 % for nonselective undergraduate students , 25.7 % for for-profit undergraduate students , and 26.4 % for students of two-year programs .
For their part , graduate students at selective schools have a three-year default rate of 3.9 % , while those at nonselective schools have a rate of 5.6 % .
In short , not all students with debt struggle in the same way , and most student debt is concentrated among those with relatively greater financial security .
Capping the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change how top-heavy the policy is .
According to the Urban Institute , Biden ’ s plan to cancel $ 10,000 of debt per borrower would cost the federal government $ 369 billion .
Of that amount , about $ 314 billion ( 85 % ) would go to Americans above the lowest income quintile .
Sen. Schumer ’ s idea of $ 50,000 of forgiveness per borrower would cost $ 961 billion , about $ 829 billion ( 86 % ) of which the lowest income quintile will not see .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debt of a financially secure , affluent person is a dollar that can not be dedicated to other measures .
Because most of the hundreds of billions of dollars required would go to the financially secure , these sweeping proposals for loan forgiveness would be terribly inefficient ways to improve the wellbeing of struggling Americans .
Education affordability is , of course , a crucial policy goal .
Lack of education access generates far-reaching impacts for low-income Americans .
But there are better ways policymakers could help .
In the short term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeted to help those who need it .
Targeting on a policy level is easier said than done , however .
Policymakers could start by identifying borrowers with low incomes , receiving SNAP or TANF benefits , or other indicators signaling a high risk of defaulting .
In the long term , we need systemic reform .
Income-based repayment systems , like that designed in the REPAYE plan and practiced by Purdue University , ensure loan repayment works for students ’ particular situations .
Payments consist of a certain percentage of a person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be , for a set number of years .
Making repayment plans automatically income-based would reduce delinquency and improve credit scores because the repayment burden is relative to the family income and circumstance .
Higher education reform requires thoughtfulness and foresight .
If lawmakers are serious about keeping opportunity affordable , they can not indiscriminately throw money at student loans .
Doing so gets in the way of actually helping those in need .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Education.]
By John Kristof
Real Clear Education
With the White House flipping blue this winter, calls for student loan cancellation are resurging. Fielding questions after an address in Delaware on November 16, the president-elect stated that canceling some student loan debt was part of his economic policy agenda. Biden referenced proposed COVID-19 relief legislation from House Democrats that would cancel up to $10,000 per person. Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer renewed his call for the Biden administration to forgive up to $50,000 of debt per borrower through executive order.
Both ideas are crude, inefficient, and ultimately ineffective ways to help Americans in need. According to a November report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the student debt crisis has been driven mostly by students at graduate programs and selective schools, who overwhelmingly fall into affluent and high-income populations. As a result, canceling student debt would cost billions of dollars each year and would exacerbate, not lessen, economic inequalities.
Among undergraduates, two of every three federal student loan dollars (64.7%) went to students of selective institutions in 2017, up from just over half (52.3%) in 2010. Undergraduates at nonselective schools and two-year programs each hover around 10% of total borrowing during this period. Borrowing at for-profit institutions declined from 27.5% of total federal student loans in 2010 to 15.7 percent in 2017.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Additionally, nearly half (47%) of all outstanding federal student loan debt is owed by graduate students, a sizable jump from 32 percent in 1995. Graduate students are borrowing a lot more than they used to––since 1995, the average federal loan to a graduate student increased by $8,268 in 2017 dollars, compared to just $642 for undergraduates. Graduate programs include professional degrees like medical school and law school.
Graduate students and undergraduates at selective schools are substantially more likely to be financially secure than other student loan borrowers. Undergraduates of selective schools are significantly less likely to default on their debt––their three-year default rate is 9.8%, according to CBO’s most recent data. In comparison, that rate was 17.6% for nonselective undergraduate students, 25.7% for for-profit undergraduate students, and 26.4% for students of two-year programs. For their part, graduate students at selective schools have a three-year default rate of 3.9%, while those at nonselective schools have a rate of 5.6%.
In short, not all students with debt struggle in the same way, and most student debt is concentrated among those with relatively greater financial security.
Capping the relief each borrower receives doesn’t change how top-heavy the policy is. According to the Urban Institute, Biden’s plan to cancel $10,000 of debt per borrower would cost the federal government $369 billion. Of that amount, about $314 billion (85%) would go to Americans above the lowest income quintile. Sen. Schumer’s idea of $50,000 of forgiveness per borrower would cost $961 billion, about $829 billion (86%) of which the lowest income quintile will not see.
Is canceling student loan debt an efficient way to address the economy? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 10% (11 Votes) 90% (96 Votes)
Every dollar the federal government spends on forgiving the debt of a financially secure, affluent person is a dollar that cannot be dedicated to other measures. Because most of the hundreds of billions of dollars required would go to the financially secure, these sweeping proposals for loan forgiveness would be terribly inefficient ways to improve the wellbeing of struggling Americans.
Education affordability is, of course, a crucial policy goal. Lack of education access generates far-reaching impacts for low-income Americans. But there are better ways policymakers could help.
In the short term, any loan forgiveness proposal must be targeted to help those who need it. Targeting on a policy level is easier said than done, however. Policymakers could start by identifying borrowers with low incomes, receiving SNAP or TANF benefits, or other indicators signaling a high risk of defaulting.
In the long term, we need systemic reform. Income-based repayment systems, like that designed in the REPAYE plan and practiced by Purdue University, ensure loan repayment works for students’ particular situations. Payments consist of a certain percentage of a person’s discretionary income, whatever that might be, for a set number of years. Making repayment plans automatically income-based would reduce delinquency and improve credit scores because the repayment burden is relative to the family income and circumstance.
Higher education reform requires thoughtfulness and foresight. If lawmakers are serious about keeping opportunity affordable, they cannot indiscriminately throw money at student loans. Doing so gets in the way of actually helping those in need.


wnd--2020-11-21--God's plan: Save America by destroying current government

In her famous book `` Atlas Shrugged , '' written in 1957 , during a time in the country 's history when it was thought that communism was on the rise – today it truly is – Ayn Rand created a character named John Galt , who , along with other powerful people , checked out of society when a corrupt government , in exercising dictatorial powers , dumbed down our body politic by falsely making all people `` equal , '' that is , reduced to mindless moronic zombies .
The goal of John Galt and his followers was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expertise , in effect allowing the United States to be taken down to ground zero , in order that someday it could resurface to recreate the vision of our Founding Fathers on July 4 , 1776 – a free , capitalist nation where individual achievement thrived .
This indeed is what is on the near horizon for the United States of America today , with the pending presidency of the brain-dead Joe Biden and vice presidency of the evil leftist witch Kamala Harris .
Given Biden 's deteriorating neurological health – it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strokes – and perhaps nefarious `` Clintonesque '' fatal deeds by those on the left , I predict that Biden will be dead within six months , at which time a total socialist/communist takeover will be in full swing .
This will also be furthered by a likely Democratic takeover of the U.S. Senate , given that election fraud is relatively certain to again take place in the Georgia run-off in a few weeks .
New laws , putting in place a socialist/communist gulag , will be enacted , and We the People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even far surpassed what Ayn Rand and George Orwell in is book `` 1984 '' predicted would come to pass someday .
This week , in one of the few times that I glimpsed at a Fox cable channel , I turned on Maria Bartiromo who , during her morning show on Fox Business , confronted Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona .
Maria , the only honest real conservative left on the Fox channels , asked Biggs why Republicans had done nothing many months ago when it was apparent that mail-in ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be used to steal the election from President Trump .
In response , the congressman looked like a deer caught in the headlights .
Later , after several seconds of silence , Biggs was forced to concede that the television host was right .
What Biggs did not say , but that which we all know to be true , is that the Republican establishment is not just a bunch of hapless felonious clowns , but they , from the get go of the Trump administration , wanted to see the president gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tea to put it most mildly .
Now they have all but succeeded .
All of this means that We the People have no government that will preserve and protect that shining city on a hill once described by our greatest modern-day president , Ronald Reagan .
What we have is a filthy bunch of moneychangers , feeding at the trough like pigs in excrement , squealing all the way to the bank of power and money .
And , they have put in place a federal judiciary , bought and paid for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order , who will look the other way to the corruption of those who put them on the bench , just as did the yes men on the Court of King James under King George III .
TRENDING : Flashback : Just last year Dem senators warned of voting machines switching votes In short , do not expect any federal or for that matter state court , including the U.S. Supreme Court , to bail us out of the nosedive the nation now is enmeshed in .
But , just as in `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now that the country is on the verge of total destruction , not just physically but also ethically and morally , the time is right for patriots to reenter society and save the republic .
I am convinced this is God 's plan .
He has done this before , destroying civilizations only to have others in his image rise up in their place .
We the People need to understand that there is a higher order to the nation and the universe that the corrupt , degenerate felons and stooges that occupy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in state capitals and courts around the country .
And , as we face a socialist/communist takeover , remember that we must now forget the scandal industry , turning off the likes of the two-faced Fox News and Newsmax , the latter of which is owned and run by a CEO who has given $ 1 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation .
With God 's divine guidance and grace , We the People will rise up to save the republic .
I have a plan on how this can be done in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revolution : Forget the Scandal Industry !
, ' available at Amazon.com and all major online booksellers .
And , finally , before your read my book , be inspired and motivated by the Declaration of Independence , our nation 's loadstar , which begins by proclaiming to the tyrannical king and the world : '' When in the course of human events , it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another , and to assume among the powers of the earth , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Laws of Nature and of Nature 's God entitle them , a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation .
… That whenever any Form of Government , becomes destructive of these ends , it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it , and to institute new Government .
… '' That is the road God has again paved for us going forward .
And we will prevail !
Go to www.freedomwatchusa.org and join and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short to reclaim the nation from the moneychangers and criminals of our present `` government '' and its federal judiciary who have all but destroyed our beloved country , as Thomas Jefferson predicted would happen over time !

In her famous book "Atlas Shrugged," written in 1957, during a time in the country's history when it was thought that communism was on the rise – today it truly is – Ayn Rand created a character named John Galt, who, along with other powerful people, checked out of society when a corrupt government, in exercising dictatorial powers, dumbed down our body politic by falsely making all people "equal," that is, reduced to mindless moronic zombies. The goal of John Galt and his followers was to deprive a corrupt government of their expertise, in effect allowing the United States to be taken down to ground zero, in order that someday it could resurface to recreate the vision of our Founding Fathers on July 4, 1776 – a free, capitalist nation where individual achievement thrived.
This indeed is what is on the near horizon for the United States of America today, with the pending presidency of the brain-dead Joe Biden and vice presidency of the evil leftist witch Kamala Harris. Given Biden's deteriorating neurological health – it has been reported that he has suffered multiple strokes – and perhaps nefarious "Clintonesque" fatal deeds by those on the left, I predict that Biden will be dead within six months, at which time a total socialist/communist takeover will be in full swing. This will also be furthered by a likely Democratic takeover of the U.S. Senate, given that election fraud is relatively certain to again take place in the Georgia run-off in a few weeks. New laws, putting in place a socialist/communist gulag, will be enacted, and We the People will be living under a tyrannical government that even far surpassed what Ayn Rand and George Orwell in is book "1984" predicted would come to pass someday.
This week, in one of the few times that I glimpsed at a Fox cable channel, I turned on Maria Bartiromo who, during her morning show on Fox Business, confronted Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona. Maria, the only honest real conservative left on the Fox channels, asked Biggs why Republicans had done nothing many months ago when it was apparent that mail-in ballots and other dishonest means were going to be used to steal the election from President Trump. In response, the congressman looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Later, after several seconds of silence, Biggs was forced to concede that the television host was right.
What Biggs did not say, but that which we all know to be true, is that the Republican establishment is not just a bunch of hapless felonious clowns, but they, from the get go of the Trump administration, wanted to see the president gone. He is not their cup of tea to put it most mildly. Now they have all but succeeded.
All of this means that We the People have no government that will preserve and protect that shining city on a hill once described by our greatest modern-day president, Ronald Reagan. What we have is a filthy bunch of moneychangers, feeding at the trough like pigs in excrement, squealing all the way to the bank of power and money. And, they have put in place a federal judiciary, bought and paid for yes men and women of the lowest order, who will look the other way to the corruption of those who put them on the bench, just as did the yes men on the Court of King James under King George III.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In short, do not expect any federal or for that matter state court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, to bail us out of the nosedive the nation now is enmeshed in. But, just as in "Atlas Shrugged" and John Galt, now that the country is on the verge of total destruction, not just physically but also ethically and morally, the time is right for patriots to reenter society and save the republic. I am convinced this is God's plan. He has done this before, destroying civilizations only to have others in his image rise up in their place.
We the People need to understand that there is a higher order to the nation and the universe that the corrupt, degenerate felons and stooges that occupy space in Washington, D.C., and in state capitals and courts around the country. And, as we face a socialist/communist takeover, remember that we must now forget the scandal industry, turning off the likes of the two-faced Fox News and Newsmax, the latter of which is owned and run by a CEO who has given $1 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. With God's divine guidance and grace, We the People will rise up to save the republic.
I have a plan on how this can be done in my new book "It Takes a Revolution: Forget the Scandal Industry!,' available at Amazon.com and all major online booksellers.
And, finally, before your read my book, be inspired and motivated by the Declaration of Independence, our nation's loadstar, which begins by proclaiming to the tyrannical king and the world:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. … That whenever any Form of Government, becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. …"
That is the road God has again paved for us going forward. And we will prevail!
Go to www.freedomwatchusa.org and join and support our Justice League as time is short to reclaim the nation from the moneychangers and criminals of our present "government" and its federal judiciary who have all but destroyed our beloved country, as Thomas Jefferson predicted would happen over time!
Listen to Larry's recent podcast:
Listen to Larry's weekly radio show:


wnd--2020-11-21--'Existential threat' claims of Paris Accord 'unsupported by the evidence'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets . ]
Joe Biden has pledged to rejoin the Paris climate agreement on the first day of his administration , a promise unambiguous and therefore certain to be fulfilled , notwithstanding the essential absurdity of the Paris agreement narrowly and of climate policies more generally .
Applying the EPA climate model under highly favorable assumptions , the Paris agreement if implemented immediately and enforced strictly would reduce global temperatures in 2100 by about 0.17 degrees C , an effect that would be barely detectable given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden proposal for net-zero emissions by the U.S. : 0.137 degrees C. The temperature effect by 2100 from either net-zero emissions by the entire OECD or a 30 percent cut in GHG emissions by the entire world : less than 0.3 degrees C. The ostensible reductions in GHG emissions under the Paris agreement are merely the summed promises ( “ nationally determined contributions ” ) submitted by the various nations .
There is neither “ science ” nor rigorous benefit/cost analysis underlying them , and there is no enforcement mechanism in any event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such enforcement would be impossible , notwithstanding all the current talk about “ border adjustment ” tariffs to be imposed upon economies failing to satisfy the demands of the international climate and environmental left .
Indeed , the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC ) , under the authority of which the Paris agreement was negotiated , makes it quite clear that the resolution of disputes is wholly voluntary : TRENDING : Flashback : Just last year Dem senators warned of voting machines switching votes A conciliation commission shall be created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties to the dispute .
The commission shall be composed of an equal number of members appointed by each party concerned and a chairman chosen jointly by the members appointed by each party .
The commission shall render a recommendatory award , which the parties shall consider in good faith .
( Italics added ) Notice also that almost all of the NDCs are promised emissions reductions relative to a “ business as usual ” baseline , that is , an emissions path unconstrained by any policies at all .
Because GHG emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself driven by gross domestic product , even a small overestimate of future economic growth will yield a BAU baseline assumption for future GHG emissions higher than realistic .
When economic growth proves lower than assumed , so will GHG emissions ; accordingly , the NDCs can ( and many or most of them will ) be fulfilled without any change at all in actual underlying emissions behavior .
Commitments fulfilled !
The Paris agreement obviously is a treaty requiring ratification by the U.S. Senate , but because it was doomed to defeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama , he pretended that it was merely an administrative agreement , agreeing to its terms in September 2016 by sending a letter to the UN .
That this is clearly unconstitutional should be obvious : If presidents can decide unilaterally which international agreements require Senate ratification and which do not , the presidential “ power , by and with the advice and consent of the Senate , to make treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur ” becomes unconstrained , a blatant destruction of the Senate ’ s explicit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Accordingly , the failure of President Trump to submit the Paris agreement to the Senate for a certain defeat was a major mistake , as doing so would have preserved the proper respective roles of the president and the Senate under the constitution , while relegating the agreement to its well-deserved place on the trash heap of history .
His decision merely to implement a formal exit appeared attractive because it circumvented opposition by the State Department bureaucracy to a treaty ratification vote ; the certain defeat was inconsistent with the bureaucracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the scope of international negotiations regardless of the harm to U.S. interests .
But Trump ’ s chosen path of less resistance has yielded the current situation in which Obama and Trump have created a precedent that Biden can exploit without so much as a nod to the Senate ’ s proper role .
And so it is unsurprising that Biden will implement that seemingly straightforward course of action , but rejoining the Paris agreement entails crucial complications and serious adverse effects far beyond the obvious higher energy costs and weaker economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter to the UN , the U.S. formally would become again a party to the agreement after thirty days .
But then the U.S. would have to submit an NDC ; that initially might be a placeholder , an example of which might be the original Obama NDC , an emissions cut of 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 .
Largely because of the massive expansion in U.S. natural gas production attendant upon the fracking/horizontal drilling technological revolution -- -vehemently opposed by the environmental left as part of its ideological stance against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 were over 16 percent below those in 2005 .
But even a projected fulfillment of the Obama NDC by 2025 would not satisfy the political corner into which Biden has painted himself .
He pledged , prominently , net-zero U.S. GHG emissions from the electric power sector by 2035 , and net-zero for the whole economy by 2050 .
As a central policy dynamic , those goals are indistinguishable from those typically subsumed under the heading “ Green New Deal , ” regardless of Biden ’ s attempt to claim that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That means that legislation would be needed to effect the necessary massive shifts in the U.S. economy , but such Congressional acts simply will not be forthcoming from a House of Representatives with a Democratic majority of , say , 225-210 , or from even a Senate divided 50-50 , with Vice President Kamala Harris casting deciding votes .
There are too many Democratic Congressmen and Senators whose constituents would suffer large economic losses from such policies , and the 60-vote supermajority rule in the Senate would make matters even more difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon fulfilling his self-imposed mandate would find it necessary to use the regulatory process to force the promised upheaval in U.S. energy markets , presumably under the authority of the Clean Air Act .
The Obama administration attempted to employ precisely this approach , and encountered towering legal obstacles that essentially made achievement of its climate policy goals impossible .
Even were a Biden administration able to overcome these central legal problems -- -not a plausible outcome given the change in the federal judiciary over the last four years -- -any such regulatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Administrative Procedures Act .
Alternatively , or perhaps in combination with a massive regulatory effort , a Biden administration in concert with leftist environmental legal groups might try to persuade various judges to rule that formal U.S. participation in the Paris agreement overrides the legislative powers of Congress and the constraints imposed by actual existing legal authority upon expansive regulatory activity .
Such rulings would be certain to receive attention at the appellate level , and very likely from the Supreme Court .
How probable is it that the latter would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Paris agreement -- -never ratified by the Senate -- -has diminished U.S. sovereignty in such a way as to render the legislative powers of Congress null ?
That is not all .
“ Climate policy ” is an attempt to impose a large artificial increase in energy costs , and the asserted costs of “ mitigating ” the purported adverse effects of anthropogenic climate change must be borne by someone .
( I shunt aside here the reality that there is no actual evidence of such adverse effects . )
Accordingly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15th Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen a commitment from the developed economies for large annual subsidies .
The result was the Green Climate Fund , established in 2010 ; it is supposed to raise $ 100 billion per year beginning in 2020 .
( As of earlier this year , a total of $ 10.3 billion has been pledged . )
The Obama administration pledged about $ 3 billion in total , and actually transferred about $ 1 billion ; needless to say , the Trump administration has been far more skeptical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Will the Biden administration find the $ 3 billion pledge sufficient politically ?
The developing economies have been vociferous in their demands for large financial transfers as a quid pro quo for acceptance of higher energy costs , and without such transfers it is easy to envision a large-scale refusal to implement the Paris NDCs , in particular because Article 9 of the Paris agreement mandates such financial aid .
The aforementioned State Department bureaucracy will be aghast , and the leaks and other tools with which to embarrass the Biden White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not obvious that the closely-divided Congress will be willing to appropriate the requisite dollars , especially given all the other continuing and new spending demands certain to be manifest .
Note that the GCF says that the “ advanced economies have agreed to jointly mobilize significant financial resources ” and that the “ GCF engages directly with the private sector through its Private Sector Facility.
” And so it is not difficult to predict that the Biden administration will attempt to assuage the GCF financing demands by putting the squeeze on the private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of regulatory , tax , and other dimensions of policymaking .
In a word , the U.S. contribution to the GCF will take the form of a shakedown , accelerating the already-destructive practice of the federal government to behave like a protection racket .
The basic political problem created by the net-zero policies advocated by Biden is simple : the destruction of a substantial part of the economic value of the energy-producing and -using capital stock , and therefore an unavoidable impoverishment for millions of people .
The Biden answer to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise mandate the creation of millions of replacement “ green jobs , ” a hallucination that only ideologues can believe .
Sharp increases in energy costs mean a smaller economy and less employment , a reality that no amount of central planning can overcome .
It is no accident that electricity prices in California are the highest in the lower forty-eight states .
So much for the argument that wind and solar costs now are competitive , a preposterous assertion that shunts aside the costs of their inherent unreliability and the massive subsidies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Climate policy ” -- -a forced reduction in GHG emissions -- -inexorably means , again , a substantial increase in the cost of energy , a reality that no amount of propaganda about the “ competitiveness ” of wind and solar power , batteries , carbon capture , and other unconventional technologies can change .
That is the basic reason that such policies can not be enacted democratically .
Instead they must be forced upon the body politic by bureaucracies acting both alone and in concert with leftist environmental pressure groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomenklatura , all justifying their policy diktats on the basis of “ existential threat ” assertions utterly unsupported by the evidence .
Such are the implications of reentering the Paris agreement : a further erosion of the rule of law , of U.S. sovereignty , and of the protection of property rights .
It is deeply unwise and destructive .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets.]
By Benjamin Zycher
Real Clear Markets
Joe Biden has pledged to rejoin the Paris climate agreement on the first day of his administration, a promise unambiguous and therefore certain to be fulfilled, notwithstanding the essential absurdity of the Paris agreement narrowly and of climate policies more generally. Applying the EPA climate model under highly favorable assumptions, the Paris agreement if implemented immediately and enforced strictly would reduce global temperatures in 2100 by about 0.17 degrees C, an effect that would be barely detectable given the normal variation in annual temperatures. The Biden proposal for net-zero emissions by the U.S.: 0.137 degrees C. The temperature effect by 2100 from either net-zero emissions by the entire OECD or a 30 percent cut in GHG emissions by the entire world: less than 0.3 degrees C.
The ostensible reductions in GHG emissions under the Paris agreement are merely the summed promises (“nationally determined contributions”) submitted by the various nations. There is neither “science” nor rigorous benefit/cost analysis underlying them, and there is no enforcement mechanism in any event; short of military action, any such enforcement would be impossible, notwithstanding all the current talk about “border adjustment” tariffs to be imposed upon economies failing to satisfy the demands of the international climate and environmental left. Indeed, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), under the authority of which the Paris agreement was negotiated, makes it quite clear that the resolution of disputes is wholly voluntary:
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
A conciliation commission shall be created upon the request of one of the parties to the dispute. The commission shall be composed of an equal number of members appointed by each party concerned and a chairman chosen jointly by the members appointed by each party. The commission shall render a recommendatory award, which the parties shall consider in good faith. (Italics added)
Notice also that almost all of the NDCs are promised emissions reductions relative to a “business as usual” baseline, that is, an emissions path unconstrained by any policies at all. Because GHG emissions are closely correlated with energy consumption, itself driven by gross domestic product, even a small overestimate of future economic growth will yield a BAU baseline assumption for future GHG emissions higher than realistic. When economic growth proves lower than assumed, so will GHG emissions; accordingly, the NDCs can (and many or most of them will) be fulfilled without any change at all in actual underlying emissions behavior. Commitments fulfilled!
The Paris agreement obviously is a treaty requiring ratification by the U.S. Senate, but because it was doomed to defeat had it been so submitted by President Obama, he pretended that it was merely an administrative agreement, agreeing to its terms in September 2016 by sending a letter to the UN. That this is clearly unconstitutional should be obvious: If presidents can decide unilaterally which international agreements require Senate ratification and which do not, the presidential “power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur” becomes unconstrained, a blatant destruction of the Senate’s explicit power to provide or to withhold consent.
Accordingly, the failure of President Trump to submit the Paris agreement to the Senate for a certain defeat was a major mistake, as doing so would have preserved the proper respective roles of the president and the Senate under the constitution, while relegating the agreement to its well-deserved place on the trash heap of history. His decision merely to implement a formal exit appeared attractive because it circumvented opposition by the State Department bureaucracy to a treaty ratification vote; the certain defeat was inconsistent with the bureaucracy’s eternal goal of endless expansion of the scope of international negotiations regardless of the harm to U.S. interests. But Trump’s chosen path of less resistance has yielded the current situation in which Obama and Trump have created a precedent that Biden can exploit without so much as a nod to the Senate’s proper role.
Are the 'existential threat' claims of the Paris Accord unsupported by evidence? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 75% (18 Votes) 25% (6 Votes)
And so it is unsurprising that Biden will implement that seemingly straightforward course of action, but rejoining the Paris agreement entails crucial complications and serious adverse effects far beyond the obvious higher energy costs and weaker economic growth.
Once Biden sends the requisite letter to the UN, the U.S. formally would become again a party to the agreement after thirty days. But then the U.S. would have to submit an NDC; that initially might be a placeholder, an example of which might be the original Obama NDC, an emissions cut of 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Largely because of the massive expansion in U.S. natural gas production attendant upon the fracking/horizontal drilling technological revolution---vehemently opposed by the environmental left as part of its ideological stance against fossil fuels---U.S. GHG emissions in 2019 were over 16 percent below those in 2005.
But even a projected fulfillment of the Obama NDC by 2025 would not satisfy the political corner into which Biden has painted himself. He pledged, prominently, net-zero U.S. GHG emissions from the electric power sector by 2035, and net-zero for the whole economy by 2050. As a central policy dynamic, those goals are indistinguishable from those typically subsumed under the heading “Green New Deal,” regardless of Biden’s attempt to claim that his plan and the GND fundamentally are different. That means that legislation would be needed to effect the necessary massive shifts in the U.S. economy, but such Congressional acts simply will not be forthcoming from a House of Representatives with a Democratic majority of, say, 225-210, or from even a Senate divided 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting deciding votes. There are too many Democratic Congressmen and Senators whose constituents would suffer large economic losses from such policies, and the 60-vote supermajority rule in the Senate would make matters even more difficult.
Accordingly, a President Biden intent upon fulfilling his self-imposed mandate would find it necessary to use the regulatory process to force the promised upheaval in U.S. energy markets, presumably under the authority of the Clean Air Act. The Obama administration attempted to employ precisely this approach, and encountered towering legal obstacles that essentially made achievement of its climate policy goals impossible. Even were a Biden administration able to overcome these central legal problems---not a plausible outcome given the change in the federal judiciary over the last four years---any such regulatory process would consume years under the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Alternatively, or perhaps in combination with a massive regulatory effort, a Biden administration in concert with leftist environmental legal groups might try to persuade various judges to rule that formal U.S. participation in the Paris agreement overrides the legislative powers of Congress and the constraints imposed by actual existing legal authority upon expansive regulatory activity. Such rulings would be certain to receive attention at the appellate level, and very likely from the Supreme Court. How probable is it that the latter would be willing to adopt the position that the Paris agreement---never ratified by the Senate---has diminished U.S. sovereignty in such a way as to render the legislative powers of Congress null?
That is not all. “Climate policy” is an attempt to impose a large artificial increase in energy costs, and the asserted costs of “mitigating” the purported adverse effects of anthropogenic climate change must be borne by someone. (I shunt aside here the reality that there is no actual evidence of such adverse effects.) Accordingly, the developing economies demanded at the 2009 15th Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen a commitment from the developed economies for large annual subsidies. The result was the Green Climate Fund, established in 2010; it is supposed to raise $100 billion per year beginning in 2020. (As of earlier this year, a total of $10.3 billion has been pledged.) The Obama administration pledged about $3 billion in total, and actually transferred about $1 billion; needless to say, the Trump administration has been far more skeptical of the UNFCCC and the GCF.
Will the Biden administration find the $3 billion pledge sufficient politically? The developing economies have been vociferous in their demands for large financial transfers as a quid pro quo for acceptance of higher energy costs, and without such transfers it is easy to envision a large-scale refusal to implement the Paris NDCs, in particular because Article 9 of the Paris agreement mandates such financial aid. The aforementioned State Department bureaucracy will be aghast, and the leaks and other tools with which to embarrass the Biden White House will become prominent. And it is not obvious that the closely-divided Congress will be willing to appropriate the requisite dollars, especially given all the other continuing and new spending demands certain to be manifest.
Note that the GCF says that the “advanced economies have agreed to jointly mobilize significant financial resources” and that the “GCF engages directly with the private sector through its Private Sector Facility.” And so it is not difficult to predict that the Biden administration will attempt to assuage the GCF financing demands by putting the squeeze on the private sector, by threatening adverse actions in terms of regulatory, tax, and other dimensions of policymaking. In a word, the U.S. contribution to the GCF will take the form of a shakedown, accelerating the already-destructive practice of the federal government to behave like a protection racket.
The basic political problem created by the net-zero policies advocated by Biden is simple: the destruction of a substantial part of the economic value of the energy-producing and -using capital stock, and therefore an unavoidable impoverishment for millions of people. The Biden answer to this reality is that we can subsidize and otherwise mandate the creation of millions of replacement “green jobs,” a hallucination that only ideologues can believe. Sharp increases in energy costs mean a smaller economy and less employment, a reality that no amount of central planning can overcome. It is no accident that electricity prices in California are the highest in the lower forty-eight states. So much for the argument that wind and solar costs now are competitive, a preposterous assertion that shunts aside the costs of their inherent unreliability and the massive subsidies and guaranteed market shares bestowed upon them.
“Climate policy”---a forced reduction in GHG emissions---inexorably means, again, a substantial increase in the cost of energy, a reality that no amount of propaganda about the “competitiveness” of wind and solar power, batteries, carbon capture, and other unconventional technologies can change. That is the basic reason that such policies cannot be enacted democratically. Instead they must be forced upon the body politic by bureaucracies acting both alone and in concert with leftist environmental pressure groups, judges, and the international climate nomenklatura, all justifying their policy diktats on the basis of “existential threat” assertions utterly unsupported by the evidence. Such are the implications of reentering the Paris agreement: a further erosion of the rule of law, of U.S. sovereignty, and of the protection of property rights. It is deeply unwise and destructive.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets.]


wnd--2020-11-21--The beatings will continue until morale improves

Besides the election , the biggest news this week appears to be the growing number of ( mostly ) liberal politicians and bureaucrats who are issuing ridiculous rules for holiday gatherings .
California was the first to issue these draconian guidelines for holiday get-togethers , and numerous states have followed .
A few examples : • [ Gov . ]
Inslee Cancels Thanksgiving in 4-Week Shutdown : Indoor Gatherings `` just too dangerous '' • Oregon official calls out Gov .
Brown 's COVID-19 restriction before Thanksgiving , which includes limiting the number of people in social gatherings to no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thanksgiving Dinner Virtually or Outside During Coronavirus Pandemic • Joe Biden Has Wild Demands for Thanksgiving Gatherings , Says You Best Listen to Him TRENDING : Flashback : Just last year Dem senators warned of voting machines switching votes • Joe Biden Warns Americans About Thanksgiving : 'Limit It to a Maximum – Maximum – They Suggest 5 People , Maximum 10 People' • Anthony Fauci Declares That Christmas May Be Canceled Because He Needs to Control What You Do You have to read these guidelines to believe them , otherwise you 'll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They 're ridiculously detailed .
C'mon – does anyone think these rules are enforceable ?
Who 's going to monitor whether household bathrooms are `` sanitized '' after every use , or report whether someone is playing a trumpet ?
But of course , the rules are for thee , not for me .
Under the guise of their phony sanctimony , the tyrants imposing these restrictions have no problems breaking them : • Hypocritical California lawmakers attend conference in Maui while common folks suffer through lockdowns • 7 Democrats Who Violated Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Ferocious blowback forces Pelosi to cancel dinner party for Dems ; 'Hypocritical ' as government officials across U.S. have restricted indoor dining To find out what politicians believe , do n't listen to what they say , watch what they do .
It 's clear politicians do n't believe their own fear porn .
What these politicians and bureaucrats are saying is this : In the interests of national health ( and bureaucratic power ) , the holidays must be canceled .
I question the timing of these new lockdowns .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus should hit just in time for the holidays , when it would have the most devastating psychological impact .
`` The more people suffer , the more a politician must get credit for doing everything to fight the virus , '' observes journalist Daniel Greenfield .
Family gatherings are too dangerous , but riots are just fine ?
It 's almost like they 're trying to force us not to celebrate faith and gratitude .
Go figure .
In fact , liberals have a long and honorable history of hating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in power the perfect opportunity to make sure no one has a good time , much less takes the opportunity to thank God for His bounty .
Thanksgiving is even now being called Turkey Day , lest anyone get the holiday mixed up with gratitude .
A press release a few years ago from the Denver Bible Church listed 10 quasi-tongue-in-cheek reasons why liberals hate the holidays .
In descending order : 10 .
Thanksgiving is mass murder for turkeys .
9 .
Too many SUVs traveling to grandma 's house .
8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 .
Millions of Christmas trees are cut down .
6 .
The Pilgrims were thanking God , not the Indians .
5 .
Christmas lights waste electricity .
4 .
The letters C-h-r-i-s-t are still seen in public .
3 .
Winter lull in global-warming hype .
2 .
Day care centers are closed .
1 .
Christmas celebrates a birth , not an abortion .
`` And finally , '' concludes the press release , `` in their long war against God , liberals suggest that the only good Christian is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one who rejects the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ . ''
`` Leftists always deny there is a war on Christmas and mock those who claim there is , '' wrote Dennis Prager .
`` There is a mind-blowing chutzpah or lack of self-awareness when people do something and yet deny that they are actually doing it .
But the evidence is overwhelming .
… Suffice it to say that it takes a breathtaking level of narcissism for a non-Christian to be offended by mentions of Christmas and a breathtaking level of meanness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fellow Americans of the public mention of their holiday . ''
Why the insistence on lockdowns right now ?
In the case of California , William Sullivan in the American Thinker offers some speculation : `` Newsom 's latest effort to visit misery upon the people of his state is not about public safety .
And while it is about power and control at some level , I suspect there 's something else involved here , and that 's boatloads and boatloads of taxpayer money .
If the lockdowns can be framed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the financial strife and misery can be extended for long enough , then Newsom 's having crippled his own state 's economy and oppressing its citizens might pay dividends when he and a coalition of similar blue states later go to Washington , hat in hand , to lobby an incoming Biden administration and Congress for that trillion-dollar bailout he asked for over the summer – which might go a long way toward financing California 's bloated pensions and otherwise compensating for its fiscally reckless governance over these past few decades . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose .
The beatings will continue until morale improves .
Fortunately people are planning massive civil disobedience .
Many law enforcement agencies have indicated they have no interest in enforcing these regulations .
The incomparable Candace Owens tweeted , `` At this moment , our governments are telling us when to open our businesses , when to see our family , and when and how we are allowed to BREATHE .
This is NOT America .
This is not FREEDOM .
This is NOT about safety or a virus .
This is about @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Besides the election, the biggest news this week appears to be the growing number of (mostly) liberal politicians and bureaucrats who are issuing ridiculous rules for holiday gatherings. California was the first to issue these draconian guidelines for holiday get-togethers, and numerous states have followed. A few examples:
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
You have to read these guidelines to believe them, otherwise you'll accuse me of making them up. They're ridiculously detailed. C'mon – does anyone think these rules are enforceable? Who's going to monitor whether household bathrooms are "sanitized" after every use, or report whether someone is playing a trumpet?
But of course, the rules are for thee, not for me. Under the guise of their phony sanctimony, the tyrants imposing these restrictions have no problems breaking them:
To find out what politicians believe, don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. It's clear politicians don't believe their own fear porn.
What these politicians and bureaucrats are saying is this: In the interests of national health (and bureaucratic power), the holidays must be canceled. I question the timing of these new lockdowns. How convenient that the "second wave" of the coronavirus should hit just in time for the holidays, when it would have the most devastating psychological impact. "The more people suffer, the more a politician must get credit for doing everything to fight the virus," observes journalist Daniel Greenfield.
Family gatherings are too dangerous, but riots are just fine? It's almost like they're trying to force us not to celebrate faith and gratitude. Go figure.
In fact, liberals have a long and honorable history of hating the holidays, and COVID gives those in power the perfect opportunity to make sure no one has a good time, much less takes the opportunity to thank God for His bounty. Thanksgiving is even now being called Turkey Day, lest anyone get the holiday mixed up with gratitude.
A press release a few years ago from the Denver Bible Church listed 10 quasi-tongue-in-cheek reasons why liberals hate the holidays. In descending order:
10. Thanksgiving is mass murder for turkeys.
9. Too many SUVs traveling to grandma's house.
8. College bowl games encourage competition.
7. Millions of Christmas trees are cut down.
6. The Pilgrims were thanking God, not the Indians.
5. Christmas lights waste electricity.
4. The letters C-h-r-i-s-t are still seen in public.
3. Winter lull in global-warming hype.
2. Day care centers are closed.
1. Christmas celebrates a birth, not an abortion.
"And finally," concludes the press release, "in their long war against God, liberals suggest that the only good Christian is a bad Christian, that is, one who rejects the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ."
"Leftists always deny there is a war on Christmas and mock those who claim there is," wrote Dennis Prager. "There is a mind-blowing chutzpah or lack of self-awareness when people do something and yet deny that they are actually doing it. But the evidence is overwhelming. … Suffice it to say that it takes a breathtaking level of narcissism for a non-Christian to be offended by mentions of Christmas and a breathtaking level of meanness to seek to deprive the vast majority of fellow Americans of the public mention of their holiday."
Why the insistence on lockdowns right now? In the case of California, William Sullivan in the American Thinker offers some speculation: "Newsom's latest effort to visit misery upon the people of his state is not about public safety. And while it is about power and control at some level, I suspect there's something else involved here, and that's boatloads and boatloads of taxpayer money. If the lockdowns can be framed as necessary for public health, and the financial strife and misery can be extended for long enough, then Newsom's having crippled his own state's economy and oppressing its citizens might pay dividends when he and a coalition of similar blue states later go to Washington, hat in hand, to lobby an incoming Biden administration and Congress for that trillion-dollar bailout he asked for over the summer – which might go a long way toward financing California's bloated pensions and otherwise compensating for its fiscally reckless governance over these past few decades."
Get it? Newsom wins, you lose. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Fortunately people are planning massive civil disobedience. Many law enforcement agencies have indicated they have no interest in enforcing these regulations.
The incomparable Candace Owens tweeted, "At this moment, our governments are telling us when to open our businesses, when to see our family, and when and how we are allowed to BREATHE. This is NOT America. This is not FREEDOM. This is NOT about safety or a virus. This is about implementing SOCIALISM. Wake up."
Happy Turkey Day, everyone.


wnd--2020-11-21--Democrats in Congress, for 40th time, obstruct stimulus bill plans

House Democrats blocked a Republican-led move to reconsider a coronavirus relief bill Thursday , the 40th time the majority party has blocked a package of GOP stimulus bills from passing the chamber .
Republicans urged the House to vote down procedural rules on an unrelated piece of legislation to allow for debate on Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Chabot ’ s proposed bill to reopen the Paycheck Protection Program , but the effort failed .
The failure also means that Americans will likely have to wait longer for some type of government relief .
Congress has not passed a stimulus since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree on an additional stimulus package even though temporary unemployment benefits passed to mitigate the economic effects imposed by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic expired in July .
TRENDING : Flashback : Just last year Dem senators warned of voting machines switching votes Republicans are also pushing for signatures on a discharge petition , filed by Washington State Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler , which would force consideration of Chabot ’ s bill .
The petition has been cosigned by 185 Republicans needs 218 votes to pass .
In September , 23 moderate Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi and Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer urging them to “ continue bipartisan negotiations ” in order to “ deliver meaningful relief for the American people , ” but their message was ultimately unsuccessful .
Though it seemed at times like Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin , who has negotiated on behalf of President Donald Trump and Republicans , were close to reaching a deal , no compromise has been reached .
While Pelosi has argued for a stimulus exceeding $ 2 trillion , congressional Republicans have supported plans that provide closer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejected multiple Republican proposals and a $ 1.5 trillion bipartisan deal reached by the House Problem Solvers Caucus .
Though Trump has called for a large stimulus plan , any Democrat-led plan that passes the House would likely fail in the Republican-controlled Senate .
Editor ’ s note : This story has been updated to reflect that the vote on House floor Thursday did not relate to the discharge petition , which is still open to signatures from members of the House of Representatives .
This story originally was published by the Daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact [ email protected ]

By Andrew Trunsky
Daily Caller News Foundation
House Democrats blocked a Republican-led move to reconsider a coronavirus relief bill Thursday, the 40th time the majority party has blocked a package of GOP stimulus bills from passing the chamber.
Republicans urged the House to vote down procedural rules on an unrelated piece of legislation to allow for debate on Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Chabot’s proposed bill to reopen the Paycheck Protection Program, but the effort failed.
The failure also means that Americans will likely have to wait longer for some type of government relief. Congress has not passed a stimulus since March, and has been unable to agree on an additional stimulus package even though temporary unemployment benefits passed to mitigate the economic effects imposed by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic expired in July.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Republicans are also pushing for signatures on a discharge petition, filed by Washington State Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, which would force consideration of Chabot’s bill. The petition has been cosigned by 185 Republicans needs 218 votes to pass.
I’m heading into the Capitol to officially file my discharge petition. It’s time to put an end to the political gamesmanship we’ve been seeing here in D.C. Southwest Washington businesses cannot wait any longer. pic.twitter.com/cJxLKTkDGS — Jaime Herrera Beutler (@HerreraBeutler) September 25, 2020
In September, 23 moderate Democrats wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer urging them to “continue bipartisan negotiations” in order to “deliver meaningful relief for the American people,” but their message was ultimately unsuccessful.
Should Democrats in Congress be obstructing stimulus bill plans? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 9% (3 Votes) 91% (32 Votes)
Though it seemed at times like Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who has negotiated on behalf of President Donald Trump and Republicans, were close to reaching a deal, no compromise has been reached.
While Pelosi has argued for a stimulus exceeding $2 trillion, congressional Republicans have supported plans that provide closer to $1 trillion. Pelosi has also rejected multiple Republican proposals and a $1.5 trillion bipartisan deal reached by the House Problem Solvers Caucus.
Though Trump has called for a large stimulus plan, any Democrat-led plan that passes the House would likely fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that the vote on House floor Thursday did not relate to the discharge petition, which is still open to signatures from members of the House of Representatives.
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-11-21--The most confusing chapter in Hebrews

The most confusing chapter in Hebrews

Daniel Joseph is president and founder of Corner Fringe Ministries .
Having pastored for over 10 years , his passion @ @ @ @ @ HOPE of the world and seeking to AWAKEN a lost and dying Church , bringing @ @ @ @ @ real repentance through the powerful and inspirational preaching of the Word .

Daniel Joseph is president and founder of Corner Fringe Ministries. Having pastored for over 10 years, his passion is preaching Yeshua/Jesus as the HOPE of the world and seeking to AWAKEN a lost and dying Church, bringing it to a place of real repentance through the powerful and inspirational preaching of the Word.


wnd--2020-11-21--Is Trump exiting Afghanistan – to attack Iran?

With the Pentagon 's announcement that U.S. forces in Afghanistan will be cut in half – to 2,500 – by Inauguration Day , after 19 years , it appears the end to America 's longest war may be in sight .
The Pentagon also announced a reduction of U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 2,500 by mid-January .
In 2003 , we invaded and occupied Iraq to remove a perceived threat from Saddam Hussein and to disarm that nation of weapons of mass destruction we discovered it did not have .
No WMD were ever found , and the war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroy them has been called the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history .
These two wars , Iraq and Afghanistan , cost us some 7,000 dead , 50,000 wounded and trillions of dollars .
And as they preoccupied us for two decades , China rose to become a strategic , military and economic superpower to rival the United States .
Iraq and Afghanistan were the longest wars in U.S. history , and the most costly of the Mideast wars we have fought there , but there were others .
TRENDING : Flashback : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting machines switching votes In 2011 , we attacked Col. Moammar Gadhafi 's army in the early days of Libya 's civil war .
We intervened on the side of the rebels in Syria 's civil war .
We assisted Saudi airstrikes in Yemen after Houthi rebels arose up in 2015 to dump over a Saudi-backed regime .
Over two decades , Arabs and Muslims have died in the hundreds of thousands from these wars .
But what have any of these wars availed the USA ?
Libya is split between a Turkish-backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebels under Gen. Khalifa Hifter in Benghazi and the east of the country .
The Syrian regime of Bashar Assad has largely won its civil war , thanks to timely and decisive intervention by Russia , Iran and Hezbollah , which came to the regime 's rescue when it was on its last legs .
Today , Iran-backed militias in Iraq with ties to Tehran have far greater influence in Baghdad than Iran did before the Americans arrived in 2003 .
And the Americans are now going home .
In Afghanistan and Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is impossible to believe a President Joe Biden would emulate President Barack Obama and surge 100,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan in some new crisis to stave off a Taliban victory .
Thus , what we are looking at is not only the end of America 's war in Afghanistan but the possible , if not probable , eventual victory of the Taliban .
If the Afghan army and security forces could not put away the Taliban with 100,000 Americans fighting at their side in 2011 , they are unlikely to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone .
The outcome of this war could well be a reenactment in Kabul of what happened in Saigon in 1975 , two years after the Americans ended their role in the Vietnam War .
Yet , as Trump is halving U.S. forces in Afghanistan , The New York Times is reporting an Oval Office meeting with his national security inner circle to discuss a strike on Iran 's nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz .
According to the Times , Trump had to be persuaded not to order the attack by Vice President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pompeo , Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley .
Why Trump would order an attack on Natanz seems on its face inexplicable .
The facility is under regular U.N. inspection and has never enriched uranium to the 90 % level needed for a bomb .
Even today it is enriching uranium only to 4.5 % .
U.N. inspectors have regular access to the facility .
While the small stockpile of low-enriched uranium Iran has produced is in violation of the nuclear deal , Trump walked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And Tehran could return to compliance easily by halting production and shipping its small stockpile out of the country .
As America exits from the seemingly endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , what strategic U.S. interest is imperiled by Iran 's enrichment of low-grade uranium to justify a new war with a nation larger , more populous and more powerful than any of those with which we have been involved in the last 20 years ?
As Trump is mulling over an attack on Iran , the Israelis are carrying out strikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it .
Thus , if the election of 2020 turns out the way most now expect , with Biden taking the oath on Jan. 20 , the new president could be faced in his first days with a crisis with Iran and the prospect of a collapse of the Afghan regime in Kabul in his first year in office .

With the Pentagon's announcement that U.S. forces in Afghanistan will be cut in half – to 2,500 – by Inauguration Day, after 19 years, it appears the end to America's longest war may be in sight.
The Pentagon also announced a reduction of U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 2,500 by mid-January. In 2003, we invaded and occupied Iraq to remove a perceived threat from Saddam Hussein and to disarm that nation of weapons of mass destruction we discovered it did not have.
No WMD were ever found, and the war George W. Bush launched to find and destroy them has been called the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history.
These two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, cost us some 7,000 dead, 50,000 wounded and trillions of dollars. And as they preoccupied us for two decades, China rose to become a strategic, military and economic superpower to rival the United States.
Iraq and Afghanistan were the longest wars in U.S. history, and the most costly of the Mideast wars we have fought there, but there were others.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In 2011, we attacked Col. Moammar Gadhafi's army in the early days of Libya's civil war. We intervened on the side of the rebels in Syria's civil war. We assisted Saudi airstrikes in Yemen after Houthi rebels arose up in 2015 to dump over a Saudi-backed regime.
Over two decades, Arabs and Muslims have died in the hundreds of thousands from these wars. But what have any of these wars availed the USA?
Libya is split between a Turkish-backed government in Tripoli and Russian- and Egyptian-backed rebels under Gen. Khalifa Hifter in Benghazi and the east of the country.
The Syrian regime of Bashar Assad has largely won its civil war, thanks to timely and decisive intervention by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, which came to the regime's rescue when it was on its last legs.
Today, Iran-backed militias in Iraq with ties to Tehran have far greater influence in Baghdad than Iran did before the Americans arrived in 2003.
And the Americans are now going home.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, Trump is terminating the U.S. presence. It is impossible to believe a President Joe Biden would emulate President Barack Obama and surge 100,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan in some new crisis to stave off a Taliban victory.
Thus, what we are looking at is not only the end of America's war in Afghanistan but the possible, if not probable, eventual victory of the Taliban.
If the Afghan army and security forces could not put away the Taliban with 100,000 Americans fighting at their side in 2011, they are unlikely to do so when all of the Americans are gone.
The outcome of this war could well be a reenactment in Kabul of what happened in Saigon in 1975, two years after the Americans ended their role in the Vietnam War.
Yet, as Trump is halving U.S. forces in Afghanistan, The New York Times is reporting an Oval Office meeting with his national security inner circle to discuss a strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz.
According to the Times, Trump had to be persuaded not to order the attack by Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley.
Why Trump would order an attack on Natanz seems on its face inexplicable. The facility is under regular U.N. inspection and has never enriched uranium to the 90% level needed for a bomb.
Even today it is enriching uranium only to 4.5%.
U.N. inspectors have regular access to the facility. While the small stockpile of low-enriched uranium Iran has produced is in violation of the nuclear deal, Trump walked away from that deal in 2018.
And Tehran could return to compliance easily by halting production and shipping its small stockpile out of the country.
As America exits from the seemingly endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, what strategic U.S. interest is imperiled by Iran's enrichment of low-grade uranium to justify a new war with a nation larger, more populous and more powerful than any of those with which we have been involved in the last 20 years?
As Trump is mulling over an attack on Iran, the Israelis are carrying out strikes in Syria on Iranian-backed militias and boasting about it.
Thus, if the election of 2020 turns out the way most now expect, with Biden taking the oath on Jan. 20, the new president could be faced in his first days with a crisis with Iran and the prospect of a collapse of the Afghan regime in Kabul in his first year in office.


wnd--2020-11-21--John Kerry: Biden presidency opens door to globalist 'Great Reset'

A Joe Biden presidency would help propel the World Economic Forum 's globalist `` Great Reset '' plan to use the coronavirus pandemic to transform the world 's economy , according to former Secretary of State John Kerry and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen .
`` The notion of a reset is more important than ever before , '' Kerry said in a World Economic Forum panel .
`` I personally believe ... we 're at the dawn of an extremely exciting time . ''
Kerry said Biden is ready to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Breitbart News reported Breitbart editor James Delingpole describes the `` Great Reset '' as a plan in which unelected global bureaucrats abolish money , private property and democracy to creat a `` New World Order . ''
TRENDING : Flashback : Just last year Dem senators warned of voting machines switching votes Kerry said rejoining the Paris agreement , which critics say would kill more than 1 million American jobs , is `` not enough . ''
`` I know Joe Biden believes this .
It 's not enough just to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
It 's not enough for us to do just the minimum of what it requires , '' Kerry said .
`` The Biden administration will focus on every sector of the American economy , '' he said .
`` There will be a 2035 goal to achieve net neutrality with respect to power and production . ''
In June , Klaus Schwab , founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum , presented the plan , writing that the COVID-19 lockdowns `` may be gradually easing , but anxiety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prospects is only intensifying . ''
He warned a `` sharp economic downturn has already begun , and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s . ''
`` To achieve a better outcome , the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies , from education to social contracts and working conditions , '' Klaus said .
`` Every country , from the United States to China , must participate , and every industry , from oil and gas to tech , must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need a 'Great Reset ' of capitalism . ''
The United States , however , has acheived the `` V-shaped recovery '' in Gross Domestic Product promised by President Trump , with a record 33.1 % GDP increase in the third quarter , at an annualized rate , after a 32.8 % dive in the second .
Von der Leyen said the European Commission looks forward to the U.S. rejoining the Paris agreement , calling Biden a `` friend in the White House . ''
She anticipates working with Washington to write `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the digital society . ''
`` So , covering everything from data to infrastructure , but also talking about security and democracy , technology to fair taxation — all of these are topics are on the table with digital change , '' she said .
`` So ladies and gentlemen , the need for global cooperation and this acceleration of change will both be drivers of the Great Reset .
And I see this as an unprecedented opportunity . ''
Von der Leyen said the most pressing issue is COVID-19 , followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted Biden already has adopted the `` Build Back Better '' slogan that the World Economic Forum uses for the `` Great Reset . ''

A Joe Biden presidency would help propel the World Economic Forum's globalist "Great Reset" plan to use the coronavirus pandemic to transform the world's economy, according to former Secretary of State John Kerry and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
"The notion of a reset is more important than ever before," Kerry said in a World Economic Forum panel. "I personally believe ... we're at the dawn of an extremely exciting time."
Kerry said Biden is ready to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, which would help drive the "Great Reset," Breitbart News reported
Breitbart editor James Delingpole describes the "Great Reset" as a plan in which unelected global bureaucrats abolish money, private property and democracy to creat a "New World Order."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Kerry said rejoining the Paris agreement, which critics say would kill more than 1 million American jobs, is "not enough."
"I know Joe Biden believes this. It's not enough just to rejoin [the agreement] for the United States. It's not enough for us to do just the minimum of what it requires," Kerry said.
"The Biden administration will focus on every sector of the American economy," he said. "There will be a 2035 goal to achieve net neutrality with respect to power and production."
In June, Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, presented the plan, writing that the COVID-19 lockdowns "may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world's social and economic prospects is only intensifying." He warned a "sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s."
Will a Biden presidency open the door to a globalist 'Great Reset'? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 92% (453 Votes) 8% (39 Votes)
"To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions," Klaus said.
"Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a 'Great Reset' of capitalism."
The United States, however, has acheived the "V-shaped recovery" in Gross Domestic Product promised by President Trump, with a record 33.1% GDP increase in the third quarter, at an annualized rate, after a 32.8% dive in the second.
'Friend in the White House'
Von der Leyen said the European Commission looks forward to the U.S. rejoining the Paris agreement, calling Biden a "friend in the White House."
She anticipates working with Washington to write "a new rulebook for the digital economy and the digital society."
"So, covering everything from data to infrastructure, but also talking about security and democracy, technology to fair taxation — all of these are topics are on the table with digital change," she said. "So ladies and gentlemen, the need for global cooperation and this acceleration of change will both be drivers of the Great Reset. And I see this as an unprecedented opportunity."
Von der Leyen said the most pressing issue is COVID-19, followed by climate change and technology.
Breitbart noted Biden already has adopted the "Build Back Better" slogan that the World Economic Forum uses for the "Great Reset."


wnd--2020-11-21--Virtual house calls get health care 'to more people, at a lower cost'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Health . ]
As the deadly COVID-19 pandemic once again surges across America , many shortcomings of our health care system remain in sharp relief , as well as clear opportunities for improvement .
One of these opportunities is expanding the use of telemedicine to deliver better care to more people , at a lower cost , in the safety of their own home .
As a heart surgeon who specializes in repairing heart valves , I understand the need for hands-on medical care as much as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pandemic , when my hospital had to suspend all but the most urgent clinical visits , my team and I were surprised to learn how well we could evaluate and advise patients via telemedicine .
Evaluating medical imaging and offering face-to-face consultations with patients using the web proved highly effective , as well as preferrable .
It reduced the need for most patients and family members , many of whom live across the New York tri-state area and around the country , to come to the hospital for consultation prior to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with us via video from the comfort of their own homes – reducing anxiety , travel and unnecessary exposure risk .
Since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( CMS ) approved delivery of more than 80 new services via telemedicine earlier this year , more than 11.3 million of the program ’ s beneficiaries have accessed such care from the safety of their own homes , and that number grows daily .
Unfortunately , our authority to help patients remotely is only temporary , granted for the duration of this public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve learned , though , many of my colleagues across the country are urging federal and state authorities to make this authority permanent .
By permanently expanding medically appropriate telehealth options , we can dramatically improve our health care system .
One analysis found that telehealth programs in the Veterans Administration reduced hospitalizations by as much as 40 percent , saving $ 6,500 for every enrollee .
Telehealth can also help reduce unnecessary emergency room trips for patients with chronic conditions , improving long-term preventive care while lowering costs .
In addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we seek is nationwide reciprocity in medical licensing .
Currently , an amalgam of state-by-state licensing requirements prevents most specialists and other medical experts from providing diagnostic services , even second opinions , outside of their own state .
This is not only inefficient but unfair , because it denies Americans in rural and other under-served areas equal access to a full range of medical expertise and care , and increases costs for everyone .
During the COVID-19 pandemic , CMS and many states have temporarily removed such barriers to care by recognizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regardless of which state licensed them .
This temporary , live-saving reciprocity should be made permanent .
If this pandemic has taught us anything , it ’ s that a piecemeal or parochial approach to public health undermines everyone ’ s safety .
By contrast , if we were to pair reciprocal licensing with permanent telehealth authority , providers everywhere could better collaborate to optimize health care for all Americans , including those who need to visit hospitals for hands-on treatment , or just need a second opinion to make a more informed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sense , by leveraging our collective expertise and the power of modern technology , telemedicine can revive a lapsed yet beloved tradition in American medicine – the house call – to deliver much of the care that many patients need , virtually .
Implemented at scale , this commonsense approach will improve efficiency , enhance safety , lower costs and , most importantly , improve our patients ’ health .
Ultimately , all Americans deserve access to quality , affordable medical care , no matter where they live – and not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us provide that .
The time for reform is now .
David H. Adams , MD , is the Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Professor and System Chairman of the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai , and the Cardiac Surgeon-in-Chief of the Mount Sinai Health System .
He is also President of the Mitral Foundation , and a past President of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Health . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Health.]
By David H. Adams, MD
Real Clear Health
As the deadly COVID-19 pandemic once again surges across America, many shortcomings of our health care system remain in sharp relief, as well as clear opportunities for improvement. One of these opportunities is expanding the use of telemedicine to deliver better care to more people, at a lower cost, in the safety of their own home.
As a heart surgeon who specializes in repairing heart valves, I understand the need for hands-on medical care as much as anyone. But in the early days of the pandemic, when my hospital had to suspend all but the most urgent clinical visits, my team and I were surprised to learn how well we could evaluate and advise patients via telemedicine.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Evaluating medical imaging and offering face-to-face consultations with patients using the web proved highly effective, as well as preferrable. It reduced the need for most patients and family members, many of whom live across the New York tri-state area and around the country, to come to the hospital for consultation prior to surgery. Telemedicine enabled them to meet with us via video from the comfort of their own homes – reducing anxiety, travel and unnecessary exposure risk.
Since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved delivery of more than 80 new services via telemedicine earlier this year, more than 11.3 million of the program’s beneficiaries have accessed such care from the safety of their own homes, and that number grows daily.
Unfortunately, our authority to help patients remotely is only temporary, granted for the duration of this public health emergency. Based on what we’ve learned, though, many of my colleagues across the country are urging federal and state authorities to make this authority permanent. By permanently expanding medically appropriate telehealth options, we can dramatically improve our health care system.
One analysis found that telehealth programs in the Veterans Administration reduced hospitalizations by as much as 40 percent, saving $6,500 for every enrollee. Telehealth can also help reduce unnecessary emergency room trips for patients with chronic conditions, improving long-term preventive care while lowering costs.
Are 'virtual house calls' the answer to rising health-care costs? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 67% (14 Votes) 33% (7 Votes)
In addition to permanent telemedicine authority, another reform we seek is nationwide reciprocity in medical licensing. Currently, an amalgam of state-by-state licensing requirements prevents most specialists and other medical experts from providing diagnostic services, even second opinions, outside of their own state.
This is not only inefficient but unfair, because it denies Americans in rural and other under-served areas equal access to a full range of medical expertise and care, and increases costs for everyone. During the COVID-19 pandemic, CMS and many states have temporarily removed such barriers to care by recognizing the credentials of certified health professionals, regardless of which state licensed them. This temporary, live-saving reciprocity should be made permanent.
If this pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that a piecemeal or parochial approach to public health undermines everyone’s safety. By contrast, if we were to pair reciprocal licensing with permanent telehealth authority, providers everywhere could better collaborate to optimize health care for all Americans, including those who need to visit hospitals for hands-on treatment, or just need a second opinion to make a more informed decision about their own care.
In a sense, by leveraging our collective expertise and the power of modern technology, telemedicine can revive a lapsed yet beloved tradition in American medicine – the house call – to deliver much of the care that many patients need, virtually. Implemented at scale, this commonsense approach will improve efficiency, enhance safety, lower costs and, most importantly, improve our patients’ health.
Ultimately, all Americans deserve access to quality, affordable medical care, no matter where they live – and not just during a pandemic. Telemedicine can help us provide that. The time for reform is now.
David H. Adams, MD, is the Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Professor and System Chairman of the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and the Cardiac Surgeon-in-Chief of the Mount Sinai Health System. He is also President of the Mitral Foundation, and a past President of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Health.]