thebulwark--2020-07-17--Get Ready for the 2020 Election Recount

Get Ready for the 2020 Election Recount

If you thought the 36-day national agony over “ hanging chads ” in the 2000 presidential election was bad , imagine what President Trump might do if the 2020 election is too close to call on Election Night .
He ’ s already preparing the script for a remake of the 2000 election with his own authoritarian twist .
By now , it ’ s easy to ignore Trump ’ s angry , conspiracy-laced tweets about a rigged election .
We shouldn ’ t , though , because it very well could be a preview of what ’ s to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a tweet from last Friday : He ’ s right about one thing .
Election results are likely to be delayed this year .
Coronavirus concerns have prompted states to expand mail-in voting options , and millions of Americans have taken up the offer .
Those ballots take much longer to count than in-person votes .
When the 2000 election became “ too close to call , ” everything came down to a trio of Florida counties where lawyers wrangled over butterfly ballots , miscounts , undervotes , overvotes , hanging chad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dimpled chad , and pregnant chad , too .
This time , President Trump is already questioning ballots three months before a single vote is cast .
So , go on and get your anti-anxiety meds ready because the stage is set for a democratic crisis far worse than what we lived through in 2000 .
This time around , Trump has every lever of the federal government at his disposal .
Smear merchants and bots will drive social media discussion , not James Baker and Warren Christopher in the courtrooms .
Forget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a bunch of GOP staffers on a floor of a drab bureaucratic building in Miami .
This time around , the Proud Boys and Antifa will be warring in the streets .
Do you feel the walls closing in yet ?
Good .
All the better to prepare .
The 2020 stage is a tinderbox compared to 2000 .
As of today , over 138,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 .
The commander-in-chief Republican candidate is egging on his base in speeches and tweets depicting his opponents as radical left mobsters hell-bent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have swarmed state capitols to protest pandemic lockdowns .
Mass protests and violence have broken out in cities across America in the wake of the killing of George Floyd .
To top it all off , President Trump deployed soldiers to gas peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square .
And for what ?
A freaking photo op .
Even if one took Trump ’ s thuggery out of the question , the 2020 election would look different from normal elections , given the widespread use of mail-in ballots .
In 2016 , nearly a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast by mail .
This year , some observers have estimated that as much as half of the electorate will vote by mail in November .
Certainly the rate of voting by mail shot up during the primaries .
Despite Trump ’ s criticisms of vote-by-mail efforts , Democrats are pushing them to great success .
In Florida , a state where Trump only beat Clinton by just 112,911 votes—49 to 48 percent—to notch 29 electoral votes , Democrats currently have a 400,000-voter advantage over Republicans when it comes to vote-by-mail enrollment ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Don ’ t look now , but the president is already questioning the results from Pennsylvania , another state where the number of mail-in ballots skyrocketed and Trump won by a slim 44,292 vote margin ( 48 to 47 percent ) in 2016 .
During the Keystone State ’ s primary , Democratic Governor Tom Wolf expanded vote-by-mail options to allow no-excuse absentee voting .
As a result , 1.5 million people voted by mail last month .
That ’ s 17 times the number of voters ( about 84,000 ) who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , along with the Republican National Committee and four Republican members of Congress representing western Pennsylvania districts , filed a lawsuit arguing that ballots dropped off at collection sites , rather than sent through the post office or delivered by hand to county elections offices , should be disqualified .
The lawsuit stated that the Pennsylvania system gives “ fraudsters an easy opportunity to engage in ballot harvesting , manipulate or destroy ballots , manufacture duplicitous votes , and sow chaos.
” The primary lesson of the 2000 presidential contest is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Night .
Say what you want about Al Gore ’ s pathetic scattershot search for more votes after the news networks blew their calls on Election Night .
Bush could have rested on his laurels as the declared winner .
He secured his victory because his team didn ’ t stop their campaign after the ballots were cast .
The Bush campaign ’ s three-pronged efforts to mount a full-fledged political , legal , and persuasion offensive is why he became president .
The final Supreme Court decision was only the climax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight for the presidency , it ’ s safe to predict that Trump would act far more aggressively than either Bush or Gore ever dreamed .
One of the more memorable aspects of the 2000 recount was the “ Brooks Brothers riot ” where the Bush campaign flew GOP staffers to protest the recount proceedings in Miami-Dade County , Florida .
At issue was whether there would be a new standard for counting “ undervotes , ” and local officials sought to take discussions to an upper floor of the building , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to observe .
At that point , the Republicans erupted and followed them up .
Crammed into the smaller space , unable to see what was happening , they got angry .
They yelled that Democrats were stealing the election .
They banged doors .
They roughed up a Democratic staffer in possession of a sample ballot .
And it worked .
Hours later , the officials surrendered .
Canvassing board chairman Lawrence King Jr. , a circuit court judge , said that when the board agreed to count votes , “ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different situation .
.
.
than we were this morning when we made that decision .
.
.
.
A radically different situation.
” Whether one agrees with the recount or not , it ’ s stunning to consider that a mild protest was all it took for protesters to shut it down in Miami .
Rory Cooper , a GOP staffer who participated in the so-called “ riot , ” said to watch out for “ flashpoints ” where lawyers and protesters can descend , as they did in Miami-Dade .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ acts on each side to show who is winning and losing , ” he told me .
Like everything with Trump , though , it would be far more jarring .
He predicted “ mini earthquakes every day , rather than the ongoing rumble of a recount.
” But could things actually turn violent this time ?
For answers on that , I spoke to Rachel Brown , the founder and director of Over Zero , a non-profit dedicated to preventing identity-based violence and other forms of group-based harm , who studies how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of violence .
She said that with the type of rhetoric we see around this election , we need to be proactive about preventing violence—both pre-election and post-election .
When it comes to post-election violence , she said , “ there will be a results waiting period and it will be important to see how politicians handle themselves and how this period is discussed in the media.
” “ Do they question the results in broad , big terms or specific complaints that can be remedied ?
” Brown said .
“ There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedural challenges , and it ’ s important that those issues are addressed through proper legal channels quickly .
For this to work , there has to be lots of communication about what has happened and how it gets resolved.
” “ Media needs to be educated on state-by-state procedures and have the knowledge about how to manage expectations and help people be patient through such a new process , ” Brown cautioned .
“ Be aware of any preemptive declarations the election is illegitimate , preemptive declarations of victory , and any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if peaceful protesters are met with force.
” And the propensity for violence can rise , she added , when “ voters feel like the stakes are zero sum.
” Uh-oh .
That sounds exactly like President Trump and his supporters .
If you are feeling masochistic , imagine how Trump will act if he ’ s in a position to question the results on Election Night , whether he be trying to close a tight gap or disqualify votes and maintain a lead .
Governor George Bush would have never tweeted : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to steal the election from me and then Democrats invented a HOAX about uncounted ballots .
I WON .
SHUT DOWN THE FRAUD.
” But , President Trump sure would .
And just think of what else he could do .
If he was ahead would he find a way , through mass revolt and state intervention to stop counting the mailed-in ballots he told us were “ rigged ” all along ?
Might an allied Republican governor confiscate them and plunge them into “ circular files ” never to be seen ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ convince Republican state legislators to preemptively certify him the winner , even in defiance of a Democratic governor , to notch Electoral College votes ?
Would President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active duty military to help them do it ?
Given the possible scenarios , a contentious Supreme Court ruling may be the least of our worries .
The 2020 election is our country ’ s last , best hope to stop President Trump .
Still , there are no guarantees if he contests the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump need to make it a blowout .
This election can ’ t be too close to call .

If you thought the 36-day national agony over “hanging chads” in the 2000 presidential election was bad, imagine what President Trump might do if the 2020 election is too close to call on Election Night. He’s already preparing the script for a remake of the 2000 election with his own authoritarian twist.
By now, it’s easy to ignore Trump’s angry, conspiracy-laced tweets about a rigged election. We shouldn’t, though, because it very well could be a preview of what’s to come. For example, here’s a tweet from last Friday:
Mail-In Ballot fraud found in many elections. People are just now seeing how bad, dishonest and slow it is. Election results could be delayed for months. No more big election night answers? 1% not even counted in 2016. Ridiculous! Just a formula for RIGGING an Election…. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2020
He’s right about one thing. Election results are likely to be delayed this year. Coronavirus concerns have prompted states to expand mail-in voting options, and millions of Americans have taken up the offer. Those ballots take much longer to count than in-person votes. When the 2000 election became “too close to call,” everything came down to a trio of Florida counties where lawyers wrangled over butterfly ballots, miscounts, undervotes, overvotes, hanging chad, swinging chad, tri chad, dimpled chad, and pregnant chad, too. This time, President Trump is already questioning ballots three months before a single vote is cast.
So, go on and get your anti-anxiety meds ready because the stage is set for a democratic crisis far worse than what we lived through in 2000. This time around, Trump has every lever of the federal government at his disposal. Smear merchants and bots will drive social media discussion, not James Baker and Warren Christopher in the courtrooms. Forget the so-called “Brooks Brothers riot” by a bunch of GOP staffers on a floor of a drab bureaucratic building in Miami. This time around, the Proud Boys and Antifa will be warring in the streets. Do you feel the walls closing in yet?
Good. All the better to prepare.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The 2020 stage is a tinderbox compared to 2000. As of today, over 138,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. The commander-in-chief Republican candidate is egging on his base in speeches and tweets depicting his opponents as radical left mobsters hell-bent on destroying the country. Pro-gun activists have swarmed state capitols to protest pandemic lockdowns. Mass protests and violence have broken out in cities across America in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. To top it all off, President Trump deployed soldiers to gas peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square. And for what? A freaking photo op.
Even if one took Trump’s thuggery out of the question, the 2020 election would look different from normal elections, given the widespread use of mail-in ballots. In 2016, nearly a quarter of America’s votes were cast by mail. This year, some observers have estimated that as much as half of the electorate will vote by mail in November. Certainly the rate of voting by mail shot up during the primaries.
Despite Trump’s criticisms of vote-by-mail efforts, Democrats are pushing them to great success.
In Florida, a state where Trump only beat Clinton by just 112,911 votes—49 to 48 percent—to notch 29 electoral votes, Democrats currently have a 400,000-voter advantage over Republicans when it comes to vote-by-mail enrollment ahead of the state’s August primary.
Don’t look now, but the president is already questioning the results from Pennsylvania, another state where the number of mail-in ballots skyrocketed and Trump won by a slim 44,292 vote margin (48 to 47 percent) in 2016.
During the Keystone State’s primary, Democratic Governor Tom Wolf expanded vote-by-mail options to allow no-excuse absentee voting. As a result, 1.5 million people voted by mail last month. That’s 17 times the number of voters (about 84,000) who voted absentee in 2016.
The Trump campaign, along with the Republican National Committee and four Republican members of Congress representing western Pennsylvania districts, filed a lawsuit arguing that ballots dropped off at collection sites, rather than sent through the post office or delivered by hand to county elections offices, should be disqualified. The lawsuit stated that the Pennsylvania system gives “fraudsters an easy opportunity to engage in ballot harvesting, manipulate or destroy ballots, manufacture duplicitous votes, and sow chaos.”
The primary lesson of the 2000 presidential contest is that campaigns don’t necessarily end on Election Night.
Say what you want about Al Gore’s pathetic scattershot search for more votes after the news networks blew their calls on Election Night. Bush could have rested on his laurels as the declared winner. He secured his victory because his team didn’t stop their campaign after the ballots were cast. The Bush campaign’s three-pronged efforts to mount a full-fledged political, legal, and persuasion offensive is why he became president. The final Supreme Court decision was only the climax.
If put in a similar position to fight for the presidency, it’s safe to predict that Trump would act far more aggressively than either Bush or Gore ever dreamed.
One of the more memorable aspects of the 2000 recount was the “Brooks Brothers riot” where the Bush campaign flew GOP staffers to protest the recount proceedings in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At issue was whether there would be a new standard for counting “undervotes,” and local officials sought to take discussions to an upper floor of the building, where the protesters would not be able to observe. At that point, the Republicans erupted and followed them up. Crammed into the smaller space, unable to see what was happening, they got angry. They yelled that Democrats were stealing the election. They banged doors. They roughed up a Democratic staffer in possession of a sample ballot.
And it worked. Hours later, the officials surrendered. Canvassing board chairman Lawrence King Jr., a circuit court judge, said that when the board agreed to count votes, “It became evidently clear that we were in a different situation . . . than we were this morning when we made that decision. . . . A radically different situation.”
Whether one agrees with the recount or not, it’s stunning to consider that a mild protest was all it took for protesters to shut it down in Miami.
Rory Cooper, a GOP staffer who participated in the so-called “riot,” said to watch out for “flashpoints” where lawyers and protesters can descend, as they did in Miami-Dade. “There are going to be performative acts on each side to show who is winning and losing,” he told me. Like everything with Trump, though, it would be far more jarring. He predicted “mini earthquakes every day, rather than the ongoing rumble of a recount.”
But could things actually turn violent this time?
For answers on that, I spoke to Rachel Brown, the founder and director of Over Zero, a non-profit dedicated to preventing identity-based violence and other forms of group-based harm, who studies how communication can increase or decrease the chances of violence. She said that with the type of rhetoric we see around this election, we need to be proactive about preventing violence—both pre-election and post-election. When it comes to post-election violence, she said, “there will be a results waiting period and it will be important to see how politicians handle themselves and how this period is discussed in the media.”
“Do they question the results in broad, big terms or specific complaints that can be remedied?” Brown said. “There will be real grievances if there are procedural challenges, and it’s important that those issues are addressed through proper legal channels quickly. For this to work, there has to be lots of communication about what has happened and how it gets resolved.”
“Media needs to be educated on state-by-state procedures and have the knowledge about how to manage expectations and help people be patient through such a new process,” Brown cautioned. “Be aware of any preemptive declarations the election is illegitimate, preemptive declarations of victory, and any excessive use of state force—for example, if peaceful protesters are met with force.” And the propensity for violence can rise, she added, when “voters feel like the stakes are zero sum.”
Uh-oh. That sounds exactly like President Trump and his supporters.
If you are feeling masochistic, imagine how Trump will act if he’s in a position to question the results on Election Night, whether he be trying to close a tight gap or disqualify votes and maintain a lead. Governor George Bush would have never tweeted: “The lyin’ fake news tried to steal the election from me and then Democrats invented a HOAX about uncounted ballots. I WON. SHUT DOWN THE FRAUD.” But, President Trump sure would.
And just think of what else he could do.
If he was ahead would he find a way, through mass revolt and state intervention to stop counting the mailed-in ballots he told us were “rigged” all along? Might an allied Republican governor confiscate them and plunge them into “circular files” never to be seen? If Trump is down, could he convince Republican state legislators to preemptively certify him the winner, even in defiance of a Democratic governor, to notch Electoral College votes? Would President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active duty military to help them do it?
Given the possible scenarios, a contentious Supreme Court ruling may be the least of our worries.
The 2020 election is our country’s last, best hope to stop President Trump. Still, there are no guarantees if he contests the outcome. Those who wish to defeat Trump need to make it a blowout. This election can’t be too close to call.


Calculating Climate Costs

False Alarm How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions , Hurts the Poor , and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjørn Lomborg Basic , 305 pp.
, $ 30 Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg is best known for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist , a tour de force in which he systematically debunked the claims of the environmental movement on virtually all of its issues across the board , ranging from overpopulation and pollution to insecticides , deforestation , mass extinction , chemical carcinogens , nuclear power , global warming , and genetically modified crops .
This performance was followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book ( and 2010 documentary ) in which he showed that , overall , global warming would be good for humanity ( far more people die of excess cold that excess heat ) .
Both these books greatly enraged the environmental movement worldwide , particularly because Lomborg , a Scandinavian social democrat , is fundamentally a man of the left .
In his new book , False Alarm , Lomborg affects a softer tone .
He embraces the central environmentalist position—that global warming will cause great harm—in order to gain a hearing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than the disease .
At times , Lomborg concedes too much to the green tribal line , as when he briefly employs the toxic term “ climate change deniers.
” For the first seventy or so pages of the book , Lomborg offers a soft tour of alarmist claims that climate change is causing catastrophes including flooding , heat waves , droughts , extreme weather , forest fires , wars , and so forth .
He shows conclusively that these claims are all without foundation—or even are the reverse of the truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the need to conclude each section with a statement like “ just to be clear , global warming will in total have a negative impact on our planet and well-being , so overall , there will be more bad than good impacts to describe.
” The effect is something like that of a generally sound Soviet biology textbook whose authors nevertheless out of politically correct prudence sprinkle among the pages occasional praise of Stalin and Lysenko .
But Lomborg is clearly playing along for a reason , which is—without saying it explicitly—to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that economists and policy analysts call statistical murder : “ lives lost that could have been saved had public policy been focused on implementing the most effective regulations first.
” Basically , what this concept amounts to is that by choosing to spend life-saving money less efficiently than you could , you are killing people .
So , for example , imagine a highway department with $ 300 million to spend on repairs .
And instead of spending it on a hundred $ 3 million repairs that are each expected to save one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend it all on one politically promoted boondoggle that is expected to save one life .
The net effect of its action is to have killed 99 people .
What Lomborg does—and here is where the book really shines—is go through all the dangers global warming activists cite , for example the spread of malaria as warming expands the range of tropical mosquitoes , or flooding due to sea-level rise , and show that they can be countered thousands of times more efficiently by direct solutions ( insecticide-coated nets in the former case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than by imposing draconian restrictions on fossil-fuel use in order to attempt to reduce warming .
Lomborg provides many cost-effectiveness calculations , but perhaps the two most important are his calculations regarding the Paris Agreement and carbon neutrality by 2050 program .
The Paris Agreement , “ the most expensive pact in human history , is likely to incur costs of some $ 1- $ 2 trillion per year by 2030 , ” he writes—roughly equal to the combined military spending of the entire world .
And what would we get in return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduction in temperature by the end of the century of about 0.05°F , ” Lomborg writes .
“ What this tells us is that even in an optimistic scenario , the Paris Agreement isn ’ t going to come anywhere close to solving global warming .
It will have a minuscule impact on the temperature by 2100.
” Then there is the much more aggressive carbon neutrality by 2050 program .
More than sixty countries ( and , domestically , a handful of states with Democratic legislatures and governors ) have pledged to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions of zero .
If adopted globally , such a scheme might , according to Lomborg , achieve a few degrees temperature reduction by the end of the century , but at a cost exceeding the total current government budgets of every country on Earth—not once , but every year—and leave the world as a whole much poorer than it could have been without such drastic intervention .
As Lomborg notes , “ All this is far easier said than done .
It is going to be very expensive .
And , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be broken.
” Lomborg points out , rightly , that policies that drive up fuel and electricity prices are highly regressive , impacting the poor much more harshly than the rich : This is all right on target , so it comes as shock when , after explaining all this , Lomborg comes out supporting emission taxes on carbon dioxide , a fashionable proposal that would use concern over emissions as a cover for transferring the tax burden from the rich to the poor .
Here ’ s how Lomborg arrives at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the estimate that we will likely see a global average temperature increase of 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit ( 4 degrees Celsius ) by 2100 .
This was the figure set forth by the International Panel on Climate Change in 2007 as the likeliest outcome for a scenario in which the world economy continues to grow rapidly and remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels , and no major policy to mitigate climate change is put in place .
But consider what it would take to reach that temperature increase .
Greenhouse warming does not rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ linearly as carbon dioxide atmospheric concentrations multiply ( i.e.
, logarithmically ) .
Thus , for example , global temperatures have increased about 1 degree F since 1940 , in association with a rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from 300 to 400 parts per million .
To get an additional 1 degree F would require multiplying current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by another factor of 4/3 to 533 ppm .
To get a 2 degree F rise , atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would have to rise by ( 4/3 ) 2 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could happen by the end of the century .
But to get the 7 degree F rise that Lomborg accepts would require multiplying current 400 ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by ( 4/3 ) 7 to reach 3,000 ppm , which is wildly unrealistic .
A 1 degree F temperature rise is not a big deal—and , as Lomborg rightly notes , not necessarily bad .
It ’ s the equivalent average climate impact of someone in the northern hemisphere moving about 40 miles south .
A 7 degree F temperature rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparable to moving from San Francisco to Santa Barbara .
This is something that might be worth avoiding if the cost were not too great .
So Lomborg looks for a “ sweet spot ” that would minimize the sum of the economic cost of various levels of emission taxation and the losses he believes the temperature rise associated with each of them would be , over the next 500 years .
For this , he draws heavily on a model developed by the economist William Nordhaus .
Lomborg ’ s summary result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the first place , no one has any idea of what the economy is going to be doing 50 years from now , let alone 500 years .
So , with all due respect to William Nordhaus and his model , this entire calculation is simply nonsense on stilts .
But if we were to grant any degree of legitimacy to it , the first thing we would note would be that the difference in total ( climate impact + tax ) costs between the “ no policy ” scenario and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6.75 degree F temperature rise and a carbon tax equal to $ 2.40/gallon of gasoline ) are well within any reasonable estimate of the likely margin of error .
It is difficult to believe that all this is nothing more than a rationalization for jumping on the carbon tax bus , albeit for the laudable purpose of attempting to restore the sanity of its currently crazed passengers .
Remember : Taxes are not about weather .
Taxes are about money .
In addition to moderate carbon taxes , Lomborg ’ s other recommendations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures to counter the effects of warming ; more R & D in low-emission energy sources , particularly nuclear power and geoengineering ; and increasing global prosperity .
Lomborg is on very solid ground in calling for direct measures to counter the potential harmful effects associated with warming , and has the facts and figures to prove it .
For example , Holland , which is largely below sea level , has not lost a single life to floods since 1953 .
This was accomplished not by stopping global warming—it didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building “ an extensive system of dams and storm-surge barriers .
.
.
costing about $ 11 billion in total.
” The same logic holds true for all warming-related issues ; if you have an insect-infestation problem , you can do a lot more about it with insecticide than with fuel taxes .
As for more R & D to advance technology in general , and nuclear energy in particular , I ’ m all for it .
But Lomborg is wrong in his assessment that the problem blocking the implementation of nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old-fashioned as they may be , the pressurized water reactors introduced by Hyman Rickover in the 1950s still work just fine .
The problem has been hyperregulation , which has increased the average time it takes to build a nuclear power plant in the United States from about three years in the 1970s to sixteen today .
It is this regulatory sabotage , driven by the anti-nuclear agitation of self-described environmentalists , that has made nuclear power non-cost-effective .
Unless this problem is addressed , developing thorium reactors , or breeder reactors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no good .
Lomborg approaches geoengineering gingerly , which is just as well , because he doesn ’ t really understand it .
Some of the ideas he has picked up from popular discussions of the subject—like polluting the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide to cause cooling , or building machines to capture carbon dioxide from the air ( it would be hundreds of times easier to capture it from smokestacks ) —are nonsensical .
He mentions planting lots of trees .
That ’ s a good idea , as it would not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduction and increased local transpiration cooling ) but freshen the air too .
However he doesn ’ t mention another effective way to counter carbon dioxide emissions : putting them to work by fertilizing the currently nearly sterile open oceans .
The majority of the world ’ s oceans , covering perhaps 60 percent of the planet ’ s surface , lack trace elements like iron necessary for phytoplankton growth—and so are estimated to contain less than 10 percent of the total ocean life .
A modest program of fertilization could transform these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge phytoplankton blooms taking up carbon dioxide while restoring the world ’ s fisheries .
Lomborg ’ s last point , however , is his strongest .
The best way to deal with global warming is to increase global prosperity .
Whether the climate is warmer or colder , prosperous people can deal much better with whatever befalls them .
And their lives are materially much better when nothing much is happening as well .
The choice we face , Lomborg writes , is between a human future driven by fear and one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is exactly right .

False Alarm
How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions,
Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet
by Bjørn Lomborg
Basic, 305 pp., $30
Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg is best known for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist, a tour de force in which he systematically debunked the claims of the environmental movement on virtually all of its issues across the board, ranging from overpopulation and pollution to insecticides, deforestation, mass extinction, chemical carcinogens, nuclear power, global warming, and genetically modified crops. This performance was followed by Cool It, a smaller 2007 book (and 2010 documentary) in which he showed that, overall, global warming would be good for humanity (far more people die of excess cold that excess heat). Both these books greatly enraged the environmental movement worldwide, particularly because Lomborg, a Scandinavian social democrat, is fundamentally a man of the left.
In his new book, False Alarm, Lomborg affects a softer tone. He embraces the central environmentalist position—that global warming will cause great harm—in order to gain a hearing for his case that the prescribed cures are worse than the disease.
At times, Lomborg concedes too much to the green tribal line, as when he briefly employs the toxic term “climate change deniers.” For the first seventy or so pages of the book, Lomborg offers a soft tour of alarmist claims that climate change is causing catastrophes including flooding, heat waves, droughts, extreme weather, forest fires, wars, and so forth. He shows conclusively that these claims are all without foundation—or even are the reverse of the truth; see the graph below—but still feels the need to conclude each section with a statement like “just to be clear, global warming will in total have a negative impact on our planet and well-being, so overall, there will be more bad than good impacts to describe.” The effect is something like that of a generally sound Soviet biology textbook whose authors nevertheless out of politically correct prudence sprinkle among the pages occasional praise of Stalin and Lysenko.
But Lomborg is clearly playing along for a reason, which is—without saying it explicitly—to try to educate his readers about a concept that economists and policy analysts call statistical murder: “lives lost that could have been saved had public policy been focused on implementing the most effective regulations first.” Basically, what this concept amounts to is that by choosing to spend life-saving money less efficiently than you could, you are killing people.
So, for example, imagine a highway department with $300 million to spend on repairs. And instead of spending it on a hundred $3 million repairs that are each expected to save one life apiece, the department chooses to spend it all on one politically promoted boondoggle that is expected to save one life. The net effect of its action is to have killed 99 people. What Lomborg does—and here is where the book really shines—is go through all the dangers global warming activists cite, for example the spread of malaria as warming expands the range of tropical mosquitoes, or flooding due to sea-level rise, and show that they can be countered thousands of times more efficiently by direct solutions (insecticide-coated nets in the former case, dikes in the latter case) than by imposing draconian restrictions on fossil-fuel use in order to attempt to reduce warming.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Lomborg provides many cost-effectiveness calculations, but perhaps the two most important are his calculations regarding the Paris Agreement and carbon neutrality by 2050 program. The Paris Agreement, “the most expensive pact in human history, is likely to incur costs of some $1-$2 trillion per year by 2030,” he writes—roughly equal to the combined military spending of the entire world. And what would we get in return for this vast expense? “A reduction in temperature by the end of the century of about 0.05°F,” Lomborg writes. “What this tells us is that even in an optimistic scenario, the Paris Agreement isn’t going to come anywhere close to solving global warming. It will have a minuscule impact on the temperature by 2100.”
Then there is the much more aggressive carbon neutrality by 2050 program. More than sixty countries (and, domestically, a handful of states with Democratic legislatures and governors) have pledged to meet the goal of having net carbon emissions of zero. If adopted globally, such a scheme might, according to Lomborg, achieve a few degrees temperature reduction by the end of the century, but at a cost exceeding the total current government budgets of every country on Earth—not once, but every year—and leave the world as a whole much poorer than it could have been without such drastic intervention. As Lomborg notes, “All this is far easier said than done. It is going to be very expensive. And, in every case, the promise is likely to be broken.”
Lomborg points out, rightly, that policies that drive up fuel and electricity prices are highly regressive, impacting the poor much more harshly than the rich:
The truth is that climate policies hurt the poor everywhere, even in countries like the United States, because higher energy prices have a disproportionate negative impact on the poor. . . . This is one of the reasons why rich elites have no problem saying we should increase gas prices to $20 a gallon—they can easily afford it.
Conversely, lower energy prices are life savers:
High energy prices literally kill people, as one 2019 study shows. Researchers looked at the natural experiment that happened around 2010, when fracking delivered a dramatic reduction in costs of natural gas. The massive increase in availability of natural gas drove down the price to heat homes. Cold homes are one of the leading causes of death in winter: there is a strong connection between low indoor temperature and increased risk of strokes, heart attacks, and respiratory diseases. So reducing the price of heat saves lives. The study estimates that these new lower energy prices save about eleven thousand Americans from dying in winter every year. If climate policy is to work, it will drive up the price of energy to reduce consumption. So a climate policy reversing the price reduction due to fracking will drive energy prices back up. People will be less able to heat their homes, and the consequent death rate will go back up.
This is all right on target, so it comes as shock when, after explaining all this, Lomborg comes out supporting emission taxes on carbon dioxide, a fashionable proposal that would use concern over emissions as a cover for transferring the tax burden from the rich to the poor.
Here’s how Lomborg arrives at this conclusion.
First, he accepts the estimate that we will likely see a global average temperature increase of 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) by 2100. This was the figure set forth by the International Panel on Climate Change in 2007 as the likeliest outcome for a scenario in which the world economy continues to grow rapidly and remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and no major policy to mitigate climate change is put in place.
But consider what it would take to reach that temperature increase. Greenhouse warming does not rise linearly with emission rates, but rises linearly as carbon dioxide atmospheric concentrations multiply (i.e., logarithmically). Thus, for example, global temperatures have increased about 1 degree F since 1940, in association with a rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from 300 to 400 parts per million. To get an additional 1 degree F would require multiplying current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by another factor of 4/3 to 533 ppm. To get a 2 degree F rise, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would have to rise by (4/3)2 to 711 ppm. It’s possible that could happen by the end of the century. But to get the 7 degree F rise that Lomborg accepts would require multiplying current 400 ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by (4/3)7 to reach 3,000 ppm, which is wildly unrealistic.
A 1 degree F temperature rise is not a big deal—and, as Lomborg rightly notes, not necessarily bad. It’s the equivalent average climate impact of someone in the northern hemisphere moving about 40 miles south. A 7 degree F temperature rise would have much more noticeable consequences, comparable to moving from San Francisco to Santa Barbara. This is something that might be worth avoiding if the cost were not too great. So Lomborg looks for a “sweet spot” that would minimize the sum of the economic cost of various levels of emission taxation and the losses he believes the temperature rise associated with each of them would be, over the next 500 years. For this, he draws heavily on a model developed by the economist William Nordhaus. Lomborg’s summary result is given in the following graphic.
In the first place, no one has any idea of what the economy is going to be doing 50 years from now, let alone 500 years. So, with all due respect to William Nordhaus and his model, this entire calculation is simply nonsense on stilts. But if we were to grant any degree of legitimacy to it, the first thing we would note would be that the difference in total (climate impact + tax) costs between the “no policy” scenario and his “optimal” scenario (involving a 6.75 degree F temperature rise and a carbon tax equal to $2.40/gallon of gasoline) are well within any reasonable estimate of the likely margin of error.
It is difficult to believe that all this is nothing more than a rationalization for jumping on the carbon tax bus, albeit for the laudable purpose of attempting to restore the sanity of its currently crazed passengers.
Remember: Taxes are not about weather. Taxes are about money.
In addition to moderate carbon taxes, Lomborg’s other recommendations for dealing with climate change include direct measures to counter the effects of warming; more R&D in low-emission energy sources, particularly nuclear power and geoengineering; and increasing global prosperity.
Lomborg is on very solid ground in calling for direct measures to counter the potential harmful effects associated with warming, and has the facts and figures to prove it. For example, Holland, which is largely below sea level, has not lost a single life to floods since 1953. This was accomplished not by stopping global warming—it didn’t, despite all its gas taxes—but by building “an extensive system of dams and storm-surge barriers . . . costing about $11 billion in total.” The same logic holds true for all warming-related issues; if you have an insect-infestation problem, you can do a lot more about it with insecticide than with fuel taxes.
As for more R&D to advance technology in general, and nuclear energy in particular, I’m all for it. But Lomborg is wrong in his assessment that the problem blocking the implementation of nuclear energy has been technical stagnation. As old-fashioned as they may be, the pressurized water reactors introduced by Hyman Rickover in the 1950s still work just fine. The problem has been hyperregulation, which has increased the average time it takes to build a nuclear power plant in the United States from about three years in the 1970s to sixteen today. It is this regulatory sabotage, driven by the anti-nuclear agitation of self-described environmentalists, that has made nuclear power non-cost-effective. Unless this problem is addressed, developing thorium reactors, or breeder reactors, or any other advanced designs will do no good.
Lomborg approaches geoengineering gingerly, which is just as well, because he doesn’t really understand it. Some of the ideas he has picked up from popular discussions of the subject—like polluting the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide to cause cooling, or building machines to capture carbon dioxide from the air (it would be hundreds of times easier to capture it from smokestacks)—are nonsensical. He mentions planting lots of trees. That’s a good idea, as it would not only reduce warming (through both carbon dioxide reduction and increased local transpiration cooling) but freshen the air too. However he doesn’t mention another effective way to counter carbon dioxide emissions: putting them to work by fertilizing the currently nearly sterile open oceans. The majority of the world’s oceans, covering perhaps 60 percent of the planet’s surface, lack trace elements like iron necessary for phytoplankton growth—and so are estimated to contain less than 10 percent of the total ocean life. A modest program of fertilization could transform these so-called “ocean deserts,” producing huge phytoplankton blooms taking up carbon dioxide while restoring the world’s fisheries.
Lomborg’s last point, however, is his strongest. The best way to deal with global warming is to increase global prosperity. Whether the climate is warmer or colder, prosperous people can deal much better with whatever befalls them. And their lives are materially much better when nothing much is happening as well.
Lomborg concludes:
We definitely need to address global warming. . . . But if we truly want to make the world a better place, we have to be very careful that our preoccupation with climate change doesn’t distract us from other crucial problems. We can improve the human condition far more by opening the world to free trade, ending tuberculosis, and ensuring access to nutrition, contraception, health, education, and technology. . . . Overspending on bad climate policies doesn’t just waste money. It means underspending on effective climate policies and underspending on the opportunities we have to improve life for billions of people, now and into the future. That’s not just inefficient, its morally wrong.
The choice we face, Lomborg writes, is between a human future driven by fear and one driven by ingenuity. On that, he is exactly right.


thebulwark--2020-07-17--America First Means America Alone

America First Means America Alone

On Wednesday , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that individuals associated with a major gas pipeline being built underwater from Russia to Germany , Nord Stream 2 , could be subject to sanctions .
This move is intended to be punitive toward Russia , but it could have serious repercussions on the U.S. relationship with Germany .
Nord Stream 2 has been the subject of an ongoing dispute between the United States and Germany for past several years .
The United States wants to contain Russia , and the pipeline helps Russia financially ; the production of energy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Russian state-owned energy company Gazprom is leading the new pipeline project , as it led the Nord Stream 1 underwater pipeline project a decade ago .
The more gas that Europe imports from Russia , the more dominant Russia becomes in European energy markets , and the more dependent Europe becomes on Russia .
In these two ways—by making Germany , and Europe more generally , more dependent on Russia and by further enriching Russia—the Nord Stream 2 project is threatening to U.S. interests in Europe and to international security .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia ’ s interference in the 2016 U.S. elections , Congress passed and President Trump signed—apparently reluctantly—legislation that would permit sanctions on people who in various ways aid the Nord Stream project .
The sanctions were never actually implemented , but , with Pompeo ’ s announcement , that is likely to change .
Meanwhile , for its part , Germany is incredibly fuel-thirsty .
Germany relies on imports for more than half of its energy consumption , and since the country is trying to walk away from its highly polluting coal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( The United States has been making a similar shift for several years . )
With almost no gas reserve , 94 percent of German natural gas consumption comes from imports .
This creates complications , as the three countries with the largest natural gas reserves are Russia , Iran , and Qatar .
Russia and Iran are targets of U.S. sanctions , and Qatar , although not sanctioned by the United States , is a state sponsor of terrorism ( although the Department of State has not designated it as such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective of stymieing the Nord Stream 2 project is the right one , it is being executed incompetently .
For starters , the sanctions news is coming on top of the politically charged Trump administration plan to withdraw troops from Germany .
Apparently , when it comes to this close U.S. ally , the administration is all sticks and no carrots .
What has brought the United States to this point ?
To begin with , for the first year and a half of the administration , there was no ambassador to Germany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years were spent by having Richard Grenell in that position .
Early into his tenure , Grenell gave an interview to the alt-right website , Breitbart , openly talking about his desire to empower far-right parties against incumbents , which , of course , didn ’ t play well with Angela Merkel ’ s government .
The Trump administration ’ s unilateralism has not helped , either .
The administration has not given an inch on many of its European allies ’ requests : policy towards Iran , the withdrawal from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Investment Partnership that the Trump administration abandoned , or the imposition of tariffs on European , including German , imports .
This maximalist approach has left no room for compromise or goodwill .
Add to all that the president ’ s public hostility against allies and NATO .
Moreover , Germany has a legitimate need for natural gas imports .
There is a simple solution , however .
The United States is a net energy exporter , thanks to the invention of fracking , and possesses the world ’ s fourth-largest natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a provider of natural gas to Europe ( including Germany ) .
There has been a significant increase in the U.S. export of liquid natural gas to Europe over the past year , but as of now none of this export will arrive in Germany until 2022 .
If the United States wants less Russian gas in Germany , it should invest more in exporting its own and spend more to make it happen sooner , even if it means at a subsidized price , so it would phase out Russian imports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideal , but it is an investment in national and international security .
The Trump administration can not continue with its sledgehammer approach to alliance management—mistreating allies , threatening them with punishments , never give a hearing to their requests—and keep on expecting full loyalty .
The president ’ s America First slogan was his claim that Americans need to put our interest ahead of the interests of others ( as though we were not already doing that ) .
Then why are they upset when the Germans do the same ?
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in the early months of the administration , America First does mean America alone .

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that individuals associated with a major gas pipeline being built underwater from Russia to Germany, Nord Stream 2, could be subject to sanctions. This move is intended to be punitive toward Russia, but it could have serious repercussions on the U.S. relationship with Germany.
Nord Stream 2 has been the subject of an ongoing dispute between the United States and Germany for past several years. The United States wants to contain Russia, and the pipeline helps Russia financially; the production of energy is Russia’s largest source of revenue. The Russian state-owned energy company Gazprom is leading the new pipeline project, as it led the Nord Stream 1 underwater pipeline project a decade ago. The more gas that Europe imports from Russia, the more dominant Russia becomes in European energy markets, and the more dependent Europe becomes on Russia. In these two ways—by making Germany, and Europe more generally, more dependent on Russia and by further enriching Russia—the Nord Stream 2 project is threatening to U.S. interests in Europe and to international security.
In 2017, in the wake of Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, Congress passed and President Trump signed—apparently reluctantly—legislation that would permit sanctions on people who in various ways aid the Nord Stream project. The sanctions were never actually implemented, but, with Pompeo’s announcement, that is likely to change.
Meanwhile, for its part, Germany is incredibly fuel-thirsty. Germany relies on imports for more than half of its energy consumption, and since the country is trying to walk away from its highly polluting coal, natural gas is a the major alternative. (The United States has been making a similar shift for several years.) With almost no gas reserve, 94 percent of German natural gas consumption comes from imports. This creates complications, as the three countries with the largest natural gas reserves are Russia, Iran, and Qatar. Russia and Iran are targets of U.S. sanctions, and Qatar, although not sanctioned by the United States, is a state sponsor of terrorism (although the Department of State has not designated it as such).
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Although the Trump administration policy objective of stymieing the Nord Stream 2 project is the right one, it is being executed incompetently.
For starters, the sanctions news is coming on top of the politically charged Trump administration plan to withdraw troops from Germany. Apparently, when it comes to this close U.S. ally, the administration is all sticks and no carrots.
What has brought the United States to this point? To begin with, for the first year and a half of the administration, there was no ambassador to Germany. Things got worse when the next two years were spent by having Richard Grenell in that position. Early into his tenure, Grenell gave an interview to the alt-right website, Breitbart, openly talking about his desire to empower far-right parties against incumbents, which, of course, didn’t play well with Angela Merkel’s government.
The Trump administration’s unilateralism has not helped, either. The administration has not given an inch on many of its European allies’ requests: policy towards Iran, the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that the Trump administration abandoned, or the imposition of tariffs on European, including German, imports. This maximalist approach has left no room for compromise or goodwill. Add to all that the president’s public hostility against allies and NATO.
Moreover, Germany has a legitimate need for natural gas imports. There is a simple solution, however. The United States is a net energy exporter, thanks to the invention of fracking, and possesses the world’s fourth-largest natural gas reserve. It could replace Russia as a provider of natural gas to Europe (including Germany). There has been a significant increase in the U.S. export of liquid natural gas to Europe over the past year, but as of now none of this export will arrive in Germany until 2022. If the United States wants less Russian gas in Germany, it should invest more in exporting its own and spend more to make it happen sooner, even if it means at a subsidized price, so it would phase out Russian imports faster. This might not be economically ideal, but it is an investment in national and international security.
The Trump administration cannot continue with its sledgehammer approach to alliance management—mistreating allies, threatening them with punishments, never give a hearing to their requests—and keep on expecting full loyalty. The president’s America First slogan was his claim that Americans need to put our interest ahead of the interests of others (as though we were not already doing that). Then why are they upset when the Germans do the same? Despite what H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn said in the early months of the administration, America First does mean America alone.


John Lewis, 1940-2020

You wake to the news that John Lewis has died , at age 80 .
You read Katharine Q. Seelye ’ s fine obituary in the New York Times to refresh your memory of his life .
And you ’ re overwhelmed .
All you can think is : What a life !
What a man !
But you do think a few other things , perhaps obvious things , because the lessons of Lewis ’ s life , like many important lessons , are in some ways obvious .
You think what an amazing saga the American civil rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most notable efforts and significant achievements in our history .
You think how amazing it is that , two-thirds of the way through the 20th century , the civil rights movement was needed in the first place , and that it faced such opposition .
But you also think how remarkable a movement it was , how resolute and principled .
And you think of the stature and dignity and courage of its leaders .
Especially the courage .
You think , as Churchill put it , that You think of that moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bridge ( soon , surely , to be renamed the John Lewis bridge ) , on Bloody Sunday , March 7 , 1965 .
You think of John Lewis leading 600 people demanding the voting rights they had been denied across the bridge into a mob of state troopers in riot gear .
You think of the demonstrators ’ silent refusal to turn back .
You think of the beatings Lewis and others suffered there , and elsewhere .
And you know that five months later , President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of so much else in John Lewis ’ s life .
You think of his lifelong commitment , after he had already done so much , to the fight for justice as he saw it .
You think of his steadfast determination and personal dignity in conducting that fight .
You think of a life at once so consequential and so admirable .
And you think : Can Americans , today and tomorrow , live up to his example ?

You wake to the news that John Lewis has died, at age 80. You read Katharine Q. Seelye’s fine obituary in the New York Times to refresh your memory of his life. And you’re overwhelmed.
All you can think is: What a life! What a man!
But you do think a few other things, perhaps obvious things, because the lessons of Lewis’s life, like many important lessons, are in some ways obvious.
You think what an amazing saga the American civil rights movement was, surely one of the most notable efforts and significant achievements in our history.
You think how amazing it is that, two-thirds of the way through the 20th century, the civil rights movement was needed in the first place, and that it faced such opposition. But you also think how remarkable a movement it was, how resolute and principled. And you think of the stature and dignity and courage of its leaders.
Especially the courage. You think, as Churchill put it, that
Men must be judged in the testing moments of their lives. Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities, because, as has been said, it is the quality which guarantees all others.
You think of that moment 55 years ago at the Edmund Pettus Bridge (soon, surely, to be renamed the John Lewis bridge), on Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965. You think of John Lewis leading 600 people demanding the voting rights they had been denied across the bridge into a mob of state troopers in riot gear. You think of the demonstrators’ silent refusal to turn back. You think of the beatings Lewis and others suffered there, and elsewhere. And you know that five months later, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law.
You think of so much else in John Lewis’s life. You think of his lifelong commitment, after he had already done so much, to the fight for justice as he saw it. You think of his steadfast determination and personal dignity in conducting that fight.
You think of a life at once so consequential and so admirable.
And you think: Can Americans, today and tomorrow, live up to his example?


thebulwark--2020-07-19--Closed America: The Decline of Christian Refugees

The number of Christian refugees from countries where Christians are persecuted has fallen 90 % since 2015 .
World Relief and Open Doors USA released a report last Friday called Closed Doors : Persecuted Christians and the U.S .
Refugee Resettlement and Asylum Processes detailing how the massive reduction in refugees coming to America has also dramatically affected the number of Christian refugees admitted .
With a historically low cap of 18,000 refugees for FY2020 and only 7,600 refugees admitted so far this year and most refugee resettlement currently halted , the plight of persecuted Christians hoping to enter the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the report , “ fewer than 950 Christians have been resettled from these 50 countries [ where Christians face the most severe persecution in the world ] , down from more than 18,000 in 2015.
” This trend is one with personal significance for me .
As I grew up in evangelical churches , I always thought it was clear that we cared about persecuted Christians around the world .
As an evangelical pastor for many years , I have been a part of presentations and prayer times for persecuted Christians .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were a mainstay of missions conferences and denominational meetings .
The call to remember our brothers and sisters in the faith who suffered under brutal regimes and other religions and ideologies that saw Christianity as a threat was a constant .
One major component of caring for persecuted Christians from all over the world was the Refugee Resettlement Program .
For decades , churches have participated in welcoming those from every religion ( not just Christians ) — or no faith at all — who have fled persecution from all over the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , there was a thriving network of churches , parachurch ministries , and non-profits across America that worked hard to welcome and help settle the eighty to ninety thousand refugees a year that came here .
As I traveled and worked with churches welcoming refugees , immigrants , and asylum seekers the past few years , I saw incredible vitality , diversity , and cooperation in their communities .
Sadly , much of that welcoming ministry has halted because refugees have been kept from coming .
The World Relief and Open Doors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 90 percent reduction in the admission of persecuted Christians through the refugee program is jarring .
While the United States is not the church and we are under no obligation to give priority to Christian refugees , to see our nation close the door on so many desperate people causes me to wonder about the soul of our country .
A hardening of heart toward the vulnerable seems to be taking further hold of us .
Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-46 that nations would be judged by how they treat the hungry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are sojourners .
Are they cared for and welcomed ?
Or , are they rejected , ignored , and cast out ?
With only 5,000 refugee slots now allotted for those facing religious persecution , it isn ’ t just persecuted Christian refugees who have seen a marked decrease in admissions .
The numbers are even worse for refugees adhering to other religions .
Griffin Paul Jackson writes in Christianity Today , “ Compared to 2015 , U.S. resettlement of Baha ’ i from Iran , Muslims from Burma , and Yezidi from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 95 percent , and 92 percent , respectively.
” And , while Covid-19 is being used as a justification for halting refugee resettlement , that excuse isn ’ t really valid at this point .
Refugees are vetted for years before arriving in the United States .
It is now easy to test them for Covid-19 , quarantine them , and release them after a time period has elapsed guaranteeing that they are not bringing the virus into the country .
That is what we have historically done for immigrants arriving during times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease .
It can be done again .
Of course , these massive reductions reflect overall restrictions to immigration and refugee policies promoted in recent years .
In addition to refugee reductions , we are now seeing the dismantling of the asylum system , a projected massive reduction in international students , a new ICE rule requiring international students to leave the country if their university doesn ’ t hold in person classes because of Covid-19 which the Trump Administration rescinded last Tuesday afternoon under pressure from advocates and universities , and young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen to them as DACA remains in jeopardy .
America seems to have shut its doors .
I recognize that there are varied views on who should come here , how many , with what kinds of skills , and for what purpose .
Much of this can be debated and worked through .
But , part of that debate requires a recognition and awareness of what is happening and how we are changing as a nation .
A profound transformation is underway that intends to shift us from a nation that had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become welcoming to the tired , poor , huddled masses , to a nation whose doors are essentially closed to all but the chosen that we perceive to be of direct benefit to us .
I believe that this is a lamentable shift .
As I lament our closing of the door to refugees and the way we deal with vulnerable immigrants , there is a passage in the Bible from the book of Zechariah in chapter seven that comes to mind .
The Jewish people were allowed to return to Israel from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an edict of Cyrus the Great .
While in exile , they developed several religious festivals to mark time and to pray for a return to national greatness .
Upon their return they began to rebuild and they inquired of the prophet Zechariah if they needed to keep observing the festivals .
Zechariah says that God really wanted them to do justice , show kindness and mercy , and to not oppress the widow , the fatherless , the sojourner , or the poor or to plan evil in their hearts .
Sadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t great … 11 But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears that they might not hear .
12 They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets .
Therefore great anger came from the Lord of hosts .
13 “ As I called , and they would not hear , so they called , and I would not hear , ” says the Lord of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them with a whirlwind among all the nations that they had not known .
Thus the land they left was desolate , so that no one went to and fro , and the pleasant land was made desolate.
” How we treat the vulnerable really matters .
When individuals turn their backs on the needy around them , the result is a hardened heart and broken relationships .
When a nation turns its back on the vulnerable begging for help , that same hardening affects the national consciousness .
Look , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not a prophet , pundit , or politician .
I am lamenting the positions that we have taken in recent years to reject persecuted Christian refugees , refugees of other backgrounds , and the growing hardness of heart that is manifesting in all of our dealings with each other .
That hardness , left unchecked , invites the whirlwind of destruction upon our common bonds that will eventually leave us desolate as a nation .
So , I ’ m lamenting that too .

The number of Christian refugees from countries where Christians are persecuted has fallen 90% since 2015. World Relief and Open Doors USA released a report last Friday called Closed Doors: Persecuted Christians and the U.S. Refugee Resettlement and Asylum Processes detailing how the massive reduction in refugees coming to America has also dramatically affected the number of Christian refugees admitted.
With a historically low cap of 18,000 refugees for FY2020 and only 7,600 refugees admitted so far this year and most refugee resettlement currently halted, the plight of persecuted Christians hoping to enter the U.S. has become especially dire. According to the report, “fewer than 950 Christians have been resettled from these 50 countries [where Christians face the most severe persecution in the world], down from more than 18,000 in 2015.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
This trend is one with personal significance for me. As I grew up in evangelical churches, I always thought it was clear that we cared about persecuted Christians around the world. As an evangelical pastor for many years, I have been a part of presentations and prayer times for persecuted Christians. Reports from countries where Christians were persecuted were a mainstay of missions conferences and denominational meetings. The call to remember our brothers and sisters in the faith who suffered under brutal regimes and other religions and ideologies that saw Christianity as a threat was a constant.
One major component of caring for persecuted Christians from all over the world was the Refugee Resettlement Program. For decades, churches have participated in welcoming those from every religion (not just Christians) — or no faith at all — who have fled persecution from all over the world. Up until just a few years ago, there was a thriving network of churches, parachurch ministries, and non-profits across America that worked hard to welcome and help settle the eighty to ninety thousand refugees a year that came here.
As I traveled and worked with churches welcoming refugees, immigrants, and asylum seekers the past few years, I saw incredible vitality, diversity, and cooperation in their communities. Sadly, much of that welcoming ministry has halted because refugees have been kept from coming.
The World Relief and Open Doors report chronicles this shift.
Seeing a 90 percent reduction in the admission of persecuted Christians through the refugee program is jarring. While the United States is not the church and we are under no obligation to give priority to Christian refugees, to see our nation close the door on so many desperate people causes me to wonder about the soul of our country.
A hardening of heart toward the vulnerable seems to be taking further hold of us. Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-46 that nations would be judged by how they treat the hungry, poor, imprisoned, and those who are sojourners. Are they cared for and welcomed? Or, are they rejected, ignored, and cast out?
With only 5,000 refugee slots now allotted for those facing religious persecution, it isn’t just persecuted Christian refugees who have seen a marked decrease in admissions. The numbers are even worse for refugees adhering to other religions. Griffin Paul Jackson writes in Christianity Today, “Compared to 2015, U.S. resettlement of Baha’i from Iran, Muslims from Burma, and Yezidi from Iraq has decreased by 98 percent, 95 percent, and 92 percent, respectively.”
And, while Covid-19 is being used as a justification for halting refugee resettlement, that excuse isn’t really valid at this point. Refugees are vetted for years before arriving in the United States. It is now easy to test them for Covid-19, quarantine them, and release them after a time period has elapsed guaranteeing that they are not bringing the virus into the country. That is what we have historically done for immigrants arriving during times of concern over the spread of infectious disease. It can be done again.
Of course, these massive reductions reflect overall restrictions to immigration and refugee policies promoted in recent years. In addition to refugee reductions, we are now seeing the dismantling of the asylum system, a projected massive reduction in international students, a new ICE rule requiring international students to leave the country if their university doesn’t hold in person classes because of Covid-19 which the Trump Administration rescinded last Tuesday afternoon under pressure from advocates and universities, and young immigrant Dreamers continuing to wonder what will happen to them as DACA remains in jeopardy. America seems to have shut its doors.
I recognize that there are varied views on who should come here, how many, with what kinds of skills, and for what purpose. Much of this can be debated and worked through. But, part of that debate requires a recognition and awareness of what is happening and how we are changing as a nation. A profound transformation is underway that intends to shift us from a nation that had worked through past obstacles and barriers to become welcoming to the tired, poor, huddled masses, to a nation whose doors are essentially closed to all but the chosen that we perceive to be of direct benefit to us. I believe that this is a lamentable shift.
As I lament our closing of the door to refugees and the way we deal with vulnerable immigrants, there is a passage in the Bible from the book of Zechariah in chapter seven that comes to mind. The Jewish people were allowed to return to Israel from exile in Babylon after 538 BC by an edict of Cyrus the Great. While in exile, they developed several religious festivals to mark time and to pray for a return to national greatness. Upon their return they began to rebuild and they inquired of the prophet Zechariah if they needed to keep observing the festivals. Zechariah says that God really wanted them to do justice, show kindness and mercy, and to not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor or to plan evil in their hearts.
Sadly, the response of the people wasn’t great …
11 But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears that they might not hear. 12 They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great anger came from the Lord of hosts. 13 “As I called, and they would not hear, so they called, and I would not hear,” says the Lord of hosts, 14 “and I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations that they had not known. Thus the land they left was desolate, so that no one went to and fro, and the pleasant land was made desolate.”
How we treat the vulnerable really matters. When individuals turn their backs on the needy around them, the result is a hardened heart and broken relationships. When a nation turns its back on the vulnerable begging for help, that same hardening affects the national consciousness.
Look, I’m just a pastor. I’m not a prophet, pundit, or politician. I am lamenting the positions that we have taken in recent years to reject persecuted Christian refugees, refugees of other backgrounds, and the growing hardness of heart that is manifesting in all of our dealings with each other. That hardness, left unchecked, invites the whirlwind of destruction upon our common bonds that will eventually leave us desolate as a nation. So, I’m lamenting that too.


Courting Lawlessness

For those of us who criticized President Obama ’ s “ pen-and-phone ” style of unrestrained administrative lawmaking , the Supreme Court ’ s latest decision reinforcing the basic restraints on the administrative state contained a bitter irony : The Court ’ s decision involved not one of the Obama administration ’ s actions , but one of the Trump administration ’ s .
The challenge now is to grapple with how to apply that decision in a way that promotes the steady rule of law despite both presidents ’ disregard for it .
In last month ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the University of California , the Supreme Court reiterated that administrative agencies can not make or unmake substantive regulatory policies without first satisfying the basic requirements of administrative law , including the duty of giving a reasoned explanation for administration ’ s action .
In this case , the substantive regulatory policy in question was the Trump administration ’ s unwinding of the Obama administration ’ s DACA policy .
( That is , “ Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals , ” part of President Obama ’ s program of broad nonenforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) The Obama administration created its DACA policy in 2012 ; two years later , the administration expanded DACA and added the “ DAPA ” policy for immigrant parents .
A coalition of states led by Texas then sought judicial review—and won .
A federal trial judge issued an injunction blocking the DACA expansion and DAPA because of their evident violation of basic rules of administrative procedure ; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judge ’ s injunction .
The Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case was pending ; the remaining eight justices deadlocked 4-4 , which left the Fifth Circuit ’ s decision standing without a majority opinion .
At the end of 2016 , when President Trump won the presidency , there was little doubt that Obama ’ s immigration policy would be rolled back ; the only questions were how and how quickly .
The answers turned out to be “ summarily , ” and “ quickly ” : In early 2017 the Department of Homeland Security announced it was repealing DAPA ; a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Attorney General , DHS repealed DACA too .
There was a both a clear symmetry and a rough justice to it all—the Obama administration created DAPA and DACA with little more than the wave of a pen , and the Trump administration undid them the same way .
Unfortunately , following the road map of a lawless administrative action leads one into rather risky territory .
And that is what the Trump administration discovered last month , when the Supreme Court declared that the administrative process undoing DACA was unlawful because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrative action .
The Court ’ s decision emphasized that both the Trump administration ’ s action at issue and the underlying Obama administration policy were not merely questions of enforcement discretion , which would have made them unreviewable by the courts and beyond the reach of the Administrative Procedure Act .
Rather , the Court explained , “ the DACA program is more than a non-enforcement policy , ” and thus “ its rescission is subject to review under the APA.
” This echoed the older federal court decisions against the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be substantive administrative policies that needed to go through the proper administrative process , with the requisite explanations and justifications from the agencies .
While last month ’ s case was directed at the Trump administration action , the rule that the Court announced applies much more broadly : When an administration announces a new substantive administrative policy that creates or changes previously created rights or obligations , the new policy has to satisfy the basic procedural and substantive requirements set by federal statutes .
This basic rule of law binds the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bind a Biden administration or any future administration .
The Administrative Procedure Act is law just like any other federal statute is law , and the president is obligated to faithfully execute it .
But again , there is a palpable sense of unfairness in seeing the Supreme Court strike down Trump ’ s rollback of DACA , after the then-deadlocked eight-justice Court failed to produce a five-justice majority opinion declaring this rule against the Obama administration ’ s DACA and DAPA in the first place .
And this sense of unfairness may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong and , counterproductive lesson from the loss that the Court handed to it last month .
In President Trump ’ s new interview with Fox News Sunday ’ s Chris Wallace , the president mentioned the Court ’ s decision and explained that he sees it not as a restraint on unilateral administrative action , but an encouragement for it .
Specifically , when Wallace mentioned the Trump administration ’ s failure to reform Obamacare , President Trump announced that major administrative actions—on Obamacare , immigration , and evidently other issues—would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Excuse me .
You heard me yesterday .
We ’ re signing a health care plan within two weeks , a full and complete health care plan that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do .
So we ’ re going to solve—we ’ re going to sign an immigration plan , a health care plan , and various other plans .
And nobody will have done what I ’ m doing in the next four weeks .
The Supreme Court gave the president of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had , by approving , by doing what they did—their decision on DACA .
And DACA ’ s going to be taken care of also .
But we ’ re getting rid of it because we ’ re going to replace it with something much better .
What we got rid of already , which was most of Obamacare , the individual mandate .
And that I ’ ve already won on .
And we won also on the Supreme Court .
But the decision by the Supreme Court on DACA allows me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care , on other things that we ’ ve never done before .
And you ’ re going to find it to be a very exciting two weeks .
[ Emphases added . ]
This was a puzzling assertion : The Court ’ s DACA decision gave the president no powers ; rather , the Court ’ s decision was the very opposite .
But later on Sunday , Axios reported that the Trump administration believed that the real lesson of the DACA litigation was President Trump needs to take more unilateral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the courts will not strike them down .
According to Axios , the inspiration for this approach may have been a recent article by law professor John Yoo , an influential and thoughtful scholar of presidential power ( and , as it happens , my friend and colleague at the American Enterprise Institute ) .
In the article , Yoo criticizes the Court ’ s DACA decision as a misguided impairment of any president ’ s power to not enforce a policy that that president deems unlawful .
Yoo , tracing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , warns that the Roberts Court has opened a door for presidents to “ violate the law ” in making new policies in the first place : A president could announce a new policy that violates federal laws and ignores the requisite processes , but his successor would have to go through that same requisite process before repealing the unlawful policy .
Indeed , Yoo warns , even if that president “ knew that his scheme lacked legal authority , he could get away with it for the length of his presidency ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written eloquently on the fact that DACA and DAPA themselves raised grave questions of President Obama ’ s failure to “ take care that the laws be faithfully executed , ” and so his new essay rightly frames this approach to presidential lawmaking as plainly unlawful .
But President Trump seems to take Yoo ’ s article less as a warning against lawless presidential actions , and more as a road map for the remainder of his first ( and perhaps only ) presidential term .
Yet the Court ’ s own decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Yoo warns against .
For while it is true that the Court ’ s new decision involved an administration ’ s attempt to repeal a substantive policy , the rule that the Court announced applies equally to administrative actions that both repeal and create substantive policies .
That evenhanded applicability makes sense : Federal law applies the same procedural rules to administrative actions creating new policies and administrative actions reforming or repealing old ones , and the Court ’ s new decision framed its ruling in the same symmetrical terms .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attempts to roll back old policies .
So what would happen if President Trump were to take the Court ’ s DACA decision as a green light for knowingly lawless actions in the weeks ahead ?
Most likely , federal courts will block those new policies from taking effect in the first place , and when they do so they will cite cases like DHS v. Regents .
That would be the right outcome , for reasons of what Alexander Hamilton once called “ the steady administration of the laws .
@

For those of us who criticized President Obama’s “pen-and-phone” style of unrestrained administrative lawmaking, the Supreme Court’s latest decision reinforcing the basic restraints on the administrative state contained a bitter irony: The Court’s decision involved not one of the Obama administration’s actions, but one of the Trump administration’s. The challenge now is to grapple with how to apply that decision in a way that promotes the steady rule of law despite both presidents’ disregard for it.
In last month’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court reiterated that administrative agencies cannot make or unmake substantive regulatory policies without first satisfying the basic requirements of administrative law, including the duty of giving a reasoned explanation for an administration’s action. In this case, the substantive regulatory policy in question was the Trump administration’s unwinding of the Obama administration’s DACA policy. (That is, “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” part of President Obama’s program of broad nonenforcement of America’s immigration laws.)
The Obama administration created its DACA policy in 2012; two years later, the administration expanded DACA and added the “DAPA” policy for immigrant parents. A coalition of states led by Texas then sought judicial review—and won. A federal trial judge issued an injunction blocking the DACA expansion and DAPA because of their evident violation of basic rules of administrative procedure; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judge’s injunction. The Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court, but Justice Scalia died in 2016 while the case was pending; the remaining eight justices deadlocked 4-4, which left the Fifth Circuit’s decision standing without a majority opinion.
At the end of 2016, when President Trump won the presidency, there was little doubt that Obama’s immigration policy would be rolled back; the only questions were how and how quickly. The answers turned out to be “summarily,” and “quickly”: In early 2017 the Department of Homeland Security announced it was repealing DAPA; a few months later, at the behest of the Attorney General, DHS repealed DACA too.
There was a both a clear symmetry and a rough justice to it all—the Obama administration created DAPA and DACA with little more than the wave of a pen, and the Trump administration undid them the same way. Unfortunately, following the road map of a lawless administrative action leads one into rather risky territory. And that is what the Trump administration discovered last month, when the Supreme Court declared that the administrative process undoing DACA was unlawful because it failed to satisfy basic rules for administrative action.
The Court’s decision emphasized that both the Trump administration’s action at issue and the underlying Obama administration policy were not merely questions of enforcement discretion, which would have made them unreviewable by the courts and beyond the reach of the Administrative Procedure Act. Rather, the Court explained, “the DACA program is more than a non-enforcement policy,” and thus “its rescission is subject to review under the APA.” This echoed the older federal court decisions against the Obama administration, which saw DACA and DAPA to be substantive administrative policies that needed to go through the proper administrative process, with the requisite explanations and justifications from the agencies.
While last month’s case was directed at the Trump administration action, the rule that the Court announced applies much more broadly: When an administration announces a new substantive administrative policy that creates or changes previously created rights or obligations, the new policy has to satisfy the basic procedural and substantive requirements set by federal statutes. This basic rule of law binds the Trump administration, just as it would bind a Biden administration or any future administration. The Administrative Procedure Act is law just like any other federal statute is law, and the president is obligated to faithfully execute it.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But again, there is a palpable sense of unfairness in seeing the Supreme Court strike down Trump’s rollback of DACA, after the then-deadlocked eight-justice Court failed to produce a five-justice majority opinion declaring this rule against the Obama administration’s DACA and DAPA in the first place. And this sense of unfairness may be leading the Trump administration to draw wrong and, counterproductive lesson from the loss that the Court handed to it last month.
In President Trump’s new interview with Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace, the president mentioned the Court’s decision and explained that he sees it not as a restraint on unilateral administrative action, but an encouragement for it. Specifically, when Wallace mentioned the Trump administration’s failure to reform Obamacare, President Trump announced that major administrative actions—on Obamacare, immigration, and evidently other issues—would be coming very soon, and without precedent:
Excuse me. You heard me yesterday. We’re signing a health care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health care plan that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do. So we’re going to solve—we’re going to sign an immigration plan, a health care plan, and various other plans. And nobody will have done what I’m doing in the next four weeks. The Supreme Court gave the president of the United States powers that nobody thought the president had, by approving, by doing what they did—their decision on DACA. And DACA’s going to be taken care of also. But we’re getting rid of it because we’re going to replace it with something much better. What we got rid of already, which was most of Obamacare, the individual mandate. And that I’ve already won on. And we won also on the Supreme Court. But the decision by the Supreme Court on DACA allows me to do things on immigration, on health care, on other things that we’ve never done before. And you’re going to find it to be a very exciting two weeks. [Emphases added.]
This was a puzzling assertion: The Court’s DACA decision gave the president no powers; rather, the Court’s decision was the very opposite. But later on Sunday, Axios reported that the Trump administration believed that the real lesson of the DACA litigation was President Trump needs to take more unilateral actions more quickly, in the hopes that the courts will not strike them down.
According to Axios, the inspiration for this approach may have been a recent article by law professor John Yoo, an influential and thoughtful scholar of presidential power (and, as it happens, my friend and colleague at the American Enterprise Institute). In the article, Yoo criticizes the Court’s DACA decision as a misguided impairment of any president’s power to not enforce a policy that that president deems unlawful. Yoo, tracing the DACA dispute back to its pen-and-phone origins, warns that the Roberts Court has opened a door for presidents to “violate the law” in making new policies in the first place: A president could announce a new policy that violates federal laws and ignores the requisite processes, but his successor would have to go through that same requisite process before repealing the unlawful policy. Indeed, Yoo warns, even if that president “knew that his scheme lacked legal authority, he could get away with it for the length of his presidency” (emphasis added).
Yoo has written eloquently on the fact that DACA and DAPA themselves raised grave questions of President Obama’s failure to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and so his new essay rightly frames this approach to presidential lawmaking as plainly unlawful. But President Trump seems to take Yoo’s article less as a warning against lawless presidential actions, and more as a road map for the remainder of his first (and perhaps only) presidential term.
Yet the Court’s own decision can be read to avoid the problems that Yoo warns against. For while it is true that the Court’s new decision involved an administration’s attempt to repeal a substantive policy, the rule that the Court announced applies equally to administrative actions that both repeal and create substantive policies. That evenhanded applicability makes sense: Federal law applies the same procedural rules to administrative actions creating new policies and administrative actions reforming or repealing old ones, and the Court’s new decision framed its ruling in the same symmetrical terms. It was not limited just to an administration’s attempts to roll back old policies.
So what would happen if President Trump were to take the Court’s DACA decision as a green light for knowingly lawless actions in the weeks ahead? Most likely, federal courts will block those new policies from taking effect in the first place, and when they do so they will cite cases like DHS v. Regents. That would be the right outcome, for reasons of what Alexander Hamilton once called “the steady administration of the laws.”