dailysignal--2020-10-09--A Look Back at Trump’s Health Care Reforms

This article is an excerpt from the “ 2020 Mandate for Leadership : A Clear Vision for the Next Administration.
” It looks back at policy decisions made by the Trump administration over the past four years .
You can purchase your copy of “ Mandate 2020 ” here .
The 2016 election produced a president and congressional majority committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare .
Those efforts faltered during the summer of 2017 .
In December of that year , Congress did enact a tax reform bill that eliminated the tax penalty on the uninsured .
That change , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were priced out of the individual health insurance market by Obamacare would no longer face IRS penalties .
Aside from this measure of relief , however , Congress chose to leave Obamacare largely intact .
Some in both political parties favored doubling down on the law , seeking tens of billions in additional federal “ bailout ” payments to insurers that sell through health care exchanges .
These payments would have taken the form of richer premium subsidies and a new federally financed “ reinsurance ” program .
Conservatives blocked this expansion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by demonstrating that through regulatory relief , states could lower health care premiums , protect the poor and sick , and stabilize private markets–all without spending a single new federal taxpayer dime .
Faced with congressional stalemate , the Trump administration used its regulatory authority to provide relief to individuals and small businesses burdened by Obamacare ’ s high costs and limited choices .
It also invited states to apply for waivers from some of the law ’ s more onerous requirements and attacked rising health care costs through a series of proposals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price transparency .
In August 2018 , the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finalized regulations on short-term , limited-duration plans .
These policies had been exempt from federal Obamacare regulations that prevent medical underwriting , require modified community rating , and force insurers to cover treatment of medical conditions that an applicant acquired before being insured .
As a result , premiums for short-term , limited-duration plans average less than one-third of those for Obamacare policies .
Despite claims by the left that this is “ junk insurance , ” research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is comparable in scope to other individual and employer plans and have the potential to offer coverage that is better than Obamacare .
Weeks before leaving office , the Obama administration put into effect a rule that limited these plans to 90 days and stripped consumers of the right to renew their coverage .
The Trump administration rule restored the prior 364-day standard and allowed the coverage to be renewable up to 36 months .
It also permitted the sale of separate contracts that would allow consumers to renew the plans without being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed a bill to repeal that rule , but as this volume is being written , the Senate has not considered this legislation .
The Trump administration also took steps to make coverage more affordable for small businesses .
Since the enactment of Obamacare , fewer and fewer small firms have sponsored insurance for their workers .
As with individual health coverage , Obamacare regulations have made small-group policies for companies with fewer than 50 employees less affordable .
The Trump administration published a new rule on association health plans , which allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage .
The rule allows groups to form within a state or multi-state metropolitan area ( for example , through chambers of commerce ) and companies like restaurants that are in the same trade or business to form national associations .
These plans are treated as large businesses for federal regulatory purposes .
Obamacare rules are less stringent for large firms than they are for small ones .
In the early months of implementation in late 2018 , these associations achieved double-digit premium savings for their members while providing generous coverage .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in March 2019 , putting the future of association health plans in doubt .
The Trump administration has made a potentially revolutionary change in employment-based coverage with its final rule on health reimbursement arrangements .
The rule allows employers to establish accounts that their workers can use to purchase individual health insurance policies .
These health reimbursement arrangement accounts offer a number of advantages over traditional employment-based health insurance arrangements for both companies and workers .
• Businesses no longer need to shop for group coverage , thus avoiding administrative costs and broker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confined to the policies their employers select and can instead choose plans that offer coverage that is best for them ; • By bringing more people into the individual market , health reimbursement arrangements can help to stabilize and bring premium relief to those markets ; and • Because workers will own their insurance policies , their coverage will be portable , moving with them from job to job .
The Trump administration moved to allow states to make innovative reforms as well .
Section 1332 of the Obamacare statute permits states to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s restrictions .
The administration approved waiver requests from several states that allowed them to divert money that otherwise would have been spent on premium subsidies into risk-mitigation arrangements designed to finance care for those who are in greatest medical need .
States that obtained these waivers reduced premiums for individual coverage at no cost to the federal government .
In 2019 , these reforms resulted in the first-ever national decline in average premiums for Obamacare benchmark plans .
This decline was driven by the seven waiver states , where premiums fell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Premiums rose by a median of 3.1 % in the 44 states and the District of Columbia that did not obtain waivers , and an additional five states are seeking waivers in 2020 .
Premiums are estimated to fall by 5.9 % to 19.8 % in these states .
[ viii ] The Trump administration also approved numerous Medicaid waiver requests from states that included allowing them to place work requirements on able-bodied , childless recipients .
Obamacare fundamentally changed the Medicaid program by allowing states to add non-disabled , non-aged adults to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favored these “ expansion adults ” over such traditional populations as the elderly , people with disabilities , children , and pregnant women .
Whereas federal matching rates for those populations vary from 50 % to 77 % , depending on a state ’ s per capita income , the federal government picks up over 90 % of the costs associated with able-bodied adults .
That creates a perverse financial incentive for states to prioritize enrolling them over more vulnerable populations .
As of April 2019 , the administration had approved waivers that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adults ” to work , seek a job , or pursue education and training to equip themselves for the labor force .
Shortly thereafter , a federal judge invalidated waivers in two of these nine states .
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the best and worst of our health care system .
The private sector—especially hospitals and pharmaceutical companies—continued to provide Americans the best medical care in human history , even as hospitals accommodated a surge of critically ill patients .
Millions of patients benefited from telemedicine , which gave them the ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or others to the coronavirus .
Pharmaceutical companies were moving rapidly toward the development of a COVID-19 vaccine , building on decades of research and innovation that have produced treatments for diseases that once were death sentences .
Actions by the Trump administration contributed to these private sector successes .
It allowed Medicare to pay for telemedicine visits , encouraged vaccine development by allowing clinical trials to move more quickly and by contracting to buy millions of doses of vaccines that won the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ’ s approval , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow more tests to come to market .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Many actions by federal public health agencies were , however , counterproductive .
Those actions produced an inadequate and distorted understanding of the pandemic , particularly during its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Control and Prevention , for example , developed a defective test for the pathogen .
The Food and Drug Administration compounded this error by refusing to allow more accurate alternative tests to come to market .
Although the Food and Drug Administration eventually reversed this decision , policymakers lacked the ability to detect the virus just as the pandemic was gaining force .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s antiquated system of data collection and dissemination also blinded policymakers to how quickly the virus was spreading .
The agency ignored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordering it to develop a modernized data system that could gather and publish critical data on a near-real-time basis .
This failure continues to deprive policymakers and front-line health care professions of the information they need to combat COVID-19 .
In addition to a lack of information , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provided policymakers with bad information .
Lacking actual real-time data , they turned to internal models to guide public policy .
These models proved highly sensitive to assumptions about the pathogen ’ s transmissibility and lethality and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overrun by an influx of COVID-19 patients .
In its communications with the public , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also presented a distorted view of the risks posed by the pandemic .
While the risk of infection is more or less evenly distributed , the risk of serious illness and death are strongly related to age .
According to the agency , while people over 65 account for less than 16 % of COVID-19 cases , they account for 80 % of deaths linked to the pathogen .
Nearly half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nursing home residents .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nevertheless supported widespread lockdowns of indefinite duration , treating people of all ages and life circumstances as though they were at equal risk of serious illness , while failing to protect the most vulnerable .
These failures of government agencies and successes of private actors ( hospitals , doctors and nurses , pharmaceutical companies ) illustrate the folly of enlarging the government ’ s role in health care .
Real health care reform will curtail the power of government over medical care @ @ @ @ @ @

This article is an excerpt from the “2020 Mandate for Leadership: A Clear Vision for the Next Administration.” It looks back at policy decisions made by the Trump administration over the past four years. You can purchase your copy of “Mandate 2020” here.
The 2016 election produced a president and congressional majority committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare. Those efforts faltered during the summer of 2017.
In December of that year, Congress did enact a tax reform bill that eliminated the tax penalty on the uninsured. That change, effective January 2019, meant that Americans who were priced out of the individual health insurance market by Obamacare would no longer face IRS penalties. Aside from this measure of relief, however, Congress chose to leave Obamacare largely intact.
Some in both political parties favored doubling down on the law, seeking tens of billions in additional federal “bailout” payments to insurers that sell through health care exchanges. These payments would have taken the form of richer premium subsidies and a new federally financed “reinsurance” program.
Conservatives blocked this expansion of the federal role in health care by demonstrating that through regulatory relief, states could lower health care premiums, protect the poor and sick, and stabilize private markets—all without spending a single new federal taxpayer dime.
Faced with congressional stalemate, the Trump administration used its regulatory authority to provide relief to individuals and small businesses burdened by Obamacare’s high costs and limited choices. It also invited states to apply for waivers from some of the law’s more onerous requirements and attacked rising health care costs through a series of proposals to increase choice, competition, and price transparency.
In August 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finalized regulations on short-term, limited-duration plans. These policies had been exempt from federal Obamacare regulations that prevent medical underwriting, require modified community rating, and force insurers to cover treatment of medical conditions that an applicant acquired before being insured.
As a result, premiums for short-term, limited-duration plans average less than one-third of those for Obamacare policies. Despite claims by the left that this is “junk insurance,” research shows that these plans offer coverage that is comparable in scope to other individual and employer plans and have the potential to offer coverage that is better than Obamacare.
Weeks before leaving office, the Obama administration put into effect a rule that limited these plans to 90 days and stripped consumers of the right to renew their coverage. The Trump administration rule restored the prior 364-day standard and allowed the coverage to be renewable up to 36 months. It also permitted the sale of separate contracts that would allow consumers to renew the plans without being medically underwritten.
A Democrat-led House later passed a bill to repeal that rule, but as this volume is being written, the Senate has not considered this legislation.
The Trump administration also took steps to make coverage more affordable for small businesses. Since the enactment of Obamacare, fewer and fewer small firms have sponsored insurance for their workers. As with individual health coverage, Obamacare regulations have made small-group policies for companies with fewer than 50 employees less affordable.
The Trump administration published a new rule on association health plans, which allow small firms to band together to purchase coverage. The rule allows groups to form within a state or multi-state metropolitan area (for example, through chambers of commerce) and companies like restaurants that are in the same trade or business to form national associations. These plans are treated as large businesses for federal regulatory purposes.
Obamacare rules are less stringent for large firms than they are for small ones. In the early months of implementation in late 2018, these associations achieved double-digit premium savings for their members while providing generous coverage. A federal judge enjoined enforcement of the regulation in March 2019, putting the future of association health plans in doubt.
The Trump administration has made a potentially revolutionary change in employment-based coverage with its final rule on health reimbursement arrangements. The rule allows employers to establish accounts that their workers can use to purchase individual health insurance policies.
These health reimbursement arrangement accounts offer a number of advantages over traditional employment-based health insurance arrangements for both companies and workers.
Businesses no longer need to shop for group coverage, thus avoiding administrative costs and broker fees.
Workers are no longer confined to the policies their employers select and can instead choose plans that offer coverage that is best for them.
By bringing more people into the individual market, health reimbursement arrangements can help to stabilize and bring premium relief to those markets.
Because workers will own their insurance policies, their coverage will be portable, moving with them from job to job.
The Trump administration moved to allow states to make innovative reforms as well. Section 1332 of the Obamacare statute permits states to obtain waivers from some of the law’s restrictions.
The administration approved waiver requests from several states that allowed them to divert money that otherwise would have been spent on premium subsidies into risk-mitigation arrangements designed to finance care for those who are in greatest medical need. States that obtained these waivers reduced premiums for individual coverage at no cost to the federal government.
In 2019, these reforms resulted in the first-ever national decline in average premiums for Obamacare benchmark plans. This decline was driven by the seven waiver states, where premiums fell by a median of 7.5%.
Premiums rose by a median of 3.1% in the 44 states and the District of Columbia that did not obtain waivers, and an additional five states are seeking waivers in 2020. Premiums are estimated to fall by 5.9% to 19.8% in these states.
The Trump administration also approved numerous Medicaid waiver requests from states that included allowing them to place work requirements on able-bodied, childless recipients.
Obamacare fundamentally changed the Medicaid program by allowing states to add non-disabled, non-aged adults to their Medicaid rolls. The law also favored these “expansion adults” over such traditional populations as the elderly, people with disabilities, children, and pregnant women.
Whereas federal matching rates for those populations vary from 50% to 77%, depending on a state’s per capita income, the federal government picks up over 90% of the costs associated with able-bodied adults. That creates a perverse financial incentive for states to prioritize enrolling them over more vulnerable populations.
As of April 2019, the administration had approved waivers that allowed nine states to require “expansion adults” to work, seek a job, or pursue education and training to equip themselves for the labor force. Shortly thereafter, a federal judge invalidated waivers in two of these nine states.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the best and worst of our health care system. The private sector—especially hospitals and pharmaceutical companies—continued to provide Americans the best medical care in human history, even as hospitals accommodated a surge of critically ill patients.
Millions of patients benefited from telemedicine, which gave them the ability to see their doctors remotely without exposing themselves or others to the coronavirus.
Pharmaceutical companies were moving rapidly toward the development of a COVID-19 vaccine, building on decades of research and innovation that have produced treatments for diseases that once were death sentences.
Actions by the Trump administration contributed to these private sector successes. They allowed Medicare to pay for telemedicine visits, encouraged vaccine development by allowing clinical trials to move more quickly and by contracting to buy millions of doses of vaccines that won the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval, and made use of emergency powers to allow more tests to come to market.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Many actions by federal public health agencies were, however, counterproductive. Those actions produced an inadequate and distorted understanding of the pandemic, particularly during its earliest stages.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, developed a defective test for the pathogen. The Food and Drug Administration compounded this error by refusing to allow more accurate alternative tests to come to market.
Although the Food and Drug Administration eventually reversed this decision, policymakers lacked the ability to detect the virus just as the pandemic was gaining force.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s antiquated system of data collection and dissemination also blinded policymakers to how quickly the virus was spreading. The agency ignored four legislative enactments dating back to 2006 ordering it to develop a modernized data system that could gather and publish critical data on a near-real-time basis.
This failure continues to deprive policymakers and front-line health care professions of the information they need to combat COVID-19.
In addition to a lack of information, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provided policymakers with bad information.
Lacking actual real-time data, it turned to internal models to guide public policy. These models proved highly sensitive to assumptions about the pathogen’s transmissibility and lethality and offered wildly erroneous forecasts of hospitals being overrun by an influx of COVID-19 patients.
In its communications with the public, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also presented a distorted view of the risks posed by the pandemic. While the risk of infection is more or less evenly distributed, the risk of serious illness and death are strongly related to age.
According to the agency, while people over 65 account for less than 16% of COVID-19 cases, they account for 80% of deaths linked to the pathogen. Nearly half of all COVID-19-related deaths have occurred to nursing home residents.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nevertheless supported widespread lockdowns of indefinite duration, treating people of all ages and life circumstances as though they were at equal risk of serious illness, while failing to protect the most vulnerable.
These failures of government agencies and successes of private actors (hospitals, doctors and nurses, pharmaceutical companies) illustrate the folly of enlarging the government’s role in health care.
Real health care reform will curtail the power of government over medical care and empower patients and doctors.


dailysignal--2020-10-14--How the Michigan Supreme Court Whacked Whitmer for COVID-19 Overreach

During the past several months , COVID-19 policies have stretched the limitations in the constitutions of Michigan and other states , as well as those of the U.S. Constitution .
In two cases that were fast-tracked to the state ’ s highest court , the Michigan Supreme Court ruled against Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Learn more here .
Whitmer and several other governors across the country have used executive orders extensively , instead of working with their legislatures or county health departments on solutions .
That distorts the separation of powers in our constitutions , both state and federal .
The orders have devastated innumerable businesses by keeping them closed longer than necessary .
Here in Michigan , Whitmer , a Democrat , has issued 192 executive orders , many of which were struck down recently by the state Supreme Court .
The governor got spanked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1976 law , the Emergency Management Act .
She extended the state of emergency without the Legislature ’ s permission .
Lawmakers must renew their consent every 28 days .
They did that once , through April 30 .
Whitmer has been in violation of the law ever since .
The court ’ s unanimous ruling was not widely reported .
It went unmentioned by the governor as she criticized the “ narrow majority of Republican justices ” in a second ruling , which , by a 4-3 decision , struck down as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expansive authority without a time limit .
A recent Heritage Foundation analysis of the ruling described some of the orders the governor made under the emergency management laws .
The court ruled that Whitmer unlawfully used her power to “ reorder social life and to limit , if not altogether displace , the livelihoods of residents across the state and throughout wide-ranging industries.
” Instead of being chastened by the judicial branch or embarrassed by her unconstitutional actions since May 1 , Whitmer doubled down : Then she vowed to accomplish her purposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services could be legally expanded .
County health departments have also stepped in with mask-wearing and other regulations .
Those are appropriate and lawful means , unlike the governor ’ s use of a perpetual state of emergency to shutter businesses without the Legislature ’ s approval .
The judiciary ’ s job , beyond ruling on civil or criminal cases , is to rein in rogue legislatures and other lawbreakers .
Despite the COVID-19 virus making collecting signatures more difficult , Unlock Michigan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lockdown orders , turned in 500,000 signatures on Oct. 2 for its ballot proposal to repeal the 1945 law .
The Supreme Court ruling rendered the ballot proposal moot .
The spin from Democrats , echoed by many in the news media , has been that we need to maintain mask-wearing indoors and social distancing everywhere .
However , most people don ’ t have a problem with that .
Not mentioned are the numerous orders restricting businesses .
Gyms reopened Sept. 9 , while other businesses remained closed .
Movie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and stadiums reopened on Oct. 9 .
How will all this affect the Nov. 3 elections in this battleground state ?
Whitmer is not on the ballot for another two years , but her policies are .
Conservatives are more fired up than liberals about all this , so it will be interesting to see what effect it will have .
In this major battleground state , former Gov .
John Engler , a Republican , was dubbed “ King John ” by his critics for what they viewed as his heavy-handed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Queen Gretchen ” and worse .
Government works best with a diversity of opinions working toward the same goal ; in this case , safety from a deadly virus , but without crippling businesses , and without the collateral damage of clinical depression and even suicides .
( A June survey by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 31 % of Americans had anxiety or depression symptoms and 11 % had seriously considered suicide . )
Of the coronavirus crisis , state Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey , a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the time for bipartisan action to transition from government operating in fear of the virus to government managing life in the presence of the virus.
” Other states would do well to follow Shirkey ’ s advice .

During the past several months, COVID-19 policies have stretched the limitations in the constitutions of Michigan and other states, as well as those of the U.S. Constitution.
In two cases that were fast-tracked to the state’s highest court, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Whitmer and several other governors across the country have used executive orders extensively, instead of working with their legislatures or county health departments on solutions.
That distorts the separation of powers in our constitutions, both state and federal. The orders have devastated innumerable businesses by keeping them closed longer than necessary.
Here in Michigan, Whitmer, a Democrat, has issued 192 executive orders, many of which were struck down recently by the state Supreme Court.
The governor got spanked unanimously by the court for flouting a 1976 law, the Emergency Management Act. She extended the state of emergency without the Legislature’s permission. Lawmakers must renew their consent every 28 days. They did that once, through April 30. Whitmer has been in violation of the law ever since.
The court’s unanimous ruling was not widely reported. It went unmentioned by the governor as she criticized the “narrow majority of Republican justices” in a second ruling, which, by a 4-3 decision, struck down as unconstitutional a 1945 law that gave governors expansive authority without a time limit.
A recent Heritage Foundation analysis of the ruling described some of the orders the governor made under the emergency management laws.
The court ruled that Whitmer unlawfully used her power to “reorder social life and to limit, if not altogether displace, the livelihoods of residents across the state and throughout wide-ranging industries.”
Instead of being chastened by the judicial branch or embarrassed by her unconstitutional actions since May 1, Whitmer doubled down:
Today’s Supreme Court ruling, handed down by a narrow majority of Republican justices, is deeply disappointing, and I vehemently disagree with the court’s interpretation of the Michigan Constitution.
Then she vowed to accomplish her purposes by other means. Some existing regulations by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services could be legally expanded. County health departments have also stepped in with mask-wearing and other regulations.
Those are appropriate and lawful means, unlike the governor’s use of a perpetual state of emergency to shutter businesses without the Legislature’s approval.
The judiciary’s job, beyond ruling on civil or criminal cases, is to rein in rogue legislatures and other lawbreakers.
Despite the COVID-19 virus making collecting signatures more difficult, Unlock Michigan, a coalition of residents concerned about Whitmer’s lockdown orders, turned in 500,000 signatures on Oct. 2 for its ballot proposal to repeal the 1945 law. The Supreme Court ruling rendered the ballot proposal moot.
The spin from Democrats, echoed by many in the news media, has been that we need to maintain mask-wearing indoors and social distancing everywhere. However, most people don’t have a problem with that.
Not mentioned are the numerous orders restricting businesses. Gyms reopened Sept. 9, while other businesses remained closed. Movie theaters, bowling alleys, performance venues, and stadiums reopened on Oct. 9.
How will all this affect the Nov. 3 elections in this battleground state? Whitmer is not on the ballot for another two years, but her policies are. Conservatives are more fired up than liberals about all this, so it will be interesting to see what effect it will have.
In this major battleground state, former Gov. John Engler, a Republican, was dubbed “King John” by his critics for what they viewed as his heavy-handed leadership. Whitmer has been labeled “Queen Gretchen” and worse.
Government works best with a diversity of opinions working toward the same goal; in this case, safety from a deadly virus, but without crippling businesses, and without the collateral damage of clinical depression and even suicides. (A June survey by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 31% of Americans had anxiety or depression symptoms and 11% had seriously considered suicide.)
Of the coronavirus crisis, state Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, a Republican, said it well: “Now is the time for bipartisan action to transition from government operating in fear of the virus to government managing life in the presence of the virus.”
Other states would do well to follow Shirkey’s advice.


dailysignal--2020-10-15--Twitter, Facebook Suppress New York Post Report on Hunter Biden

Twitter on Wednesday afternoon began blocking tweets from being posted that contained links to the New York Post ’ s report on alleged emails that purportedly show Hunter Biden offered to introduce then-Vice President Joe Biden to an executive of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma .
“ We can ’ t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful , ” Twitter told users who attempted to post a tweet containing a link to the Post ’ s story .
A Twitter spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of the Post ’ s report because of the lack of authoritative reporting on the origins of the materials cited by the outlet .
“ In line with our Hacked Materials Policy , as well as our approach to blocking URLs , we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter , ” the spokesperson said .
There ’ s no evidence at the moment the Post relied on hacked materials for its report .
According to the Post , the email was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data recovered from a laptop computer ” that was dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop in April 2019 .
The owner of the repair shop said the customer never came back to pay for the service and retrieve the computer , the Post reported .
The Post uploaded an invoice signed by the customer that states that equipment left with the repair shop “ after 90 days of notification of completed service will be treated as abandoned.
” The repair shop owner later alerted the FBI to the existence of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went unclaimed , both of which were seized by federal authorities in December , according to a federal subpoena obtained by the Post .
Before the laptop was seized , however , the shop owner reportedly made a copy of its hard drive and turned it over to a lawyer for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani , who in turn provided a copy of the hard drive ’ s contents to the Post .
The Daily Caller News Foundation has not confirmed the authenticity of the emails reported by the Post , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Wednesday denying that Biden met with the Burisma executive in 2015 as alleged in the Post ’ s report .
Link to New York Post story blocked by Twitter .
( Screenshot : Andrew Kerr ) Also on Wednesday afternoon , Twitter began blocking any tweet from being posted that contained links to one of the two documents the Post uploaded to document sharing platform Scribd .
One of the documents depicts an alleged email sent by Hunter Biden in April 2014 to his former business partner Devon Archer , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pozharsky , an advisor to Burisma ’ s board of directors , sent to Hunter Biden and Archer in May 2014 .
Link to New York Post Scribd document titled , “ Email from Vadim Pozharskyi to Devon Archer and Hunter Biden ” blocked by Twitter .
( Screenshot : Andrew Kerr ) Link to New York Post Scribd document titled , “ Email from Robert Biden to Devon Archer ” blocked by Twitter .
( Screenshot : Andrew Kerr ) Facebook spokesman Andy Stone , a former staffer for the Democratic House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barbara Boxer , announced earlier Wednesday it would reduce the distribution of the Post ’ s report despite the lack of any fact-checks against the story .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of this original content , please contact [ email protected ]

Twitter on Wednesday afternoon began blocking tweets from being posted that contained links to the New York Post’s report on alleged emails that purportedly show Hunter Biden offered to introduce then-Vice President Joe Biden to an executive of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.
“We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful,” Twitter told users who attempted to post a tweet containing a link to the Post’s story.
A Twitter spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the platform took action to limit the spread of the Post’s report because of the lack of authoritative reporting on the origins of the materials cited by the outlet.
“In line with our Hacked Materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter,” the spokesperson said.
There’s no evidence at the moment the Post relied on hacked materials for its report.
According to the Post, the email was part of a “massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer” that was dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop in April 2019. The owner of the repair shop said the customer never came back to pay for the service and retrieve the computer, the Post reported.
The Post uploaded an invoice signed by the customer that states that equipment left with the repair shop “after 90 days of notification of completed service will be treated as abandoned.”
The repair shop owner later alerted the FBI to the existence of the laptop and its hard drive after it went unclaimed, both of which were seized by federal authorities in December, according to a federal subpoena obtained by the Post.
Before the laptop was seized, however, the shop owner reportedly made a copy of its hard drive and turned it over to a lawyer for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who in turn provided a copy of the hard drive’s contents to the Post.
The Daily Caller News Foundation has not confirmed the authenticity of the emails reported by the Post, and the Biden campaign issued a statement on Wednesday denying that Biden met with the Burisma executive in 2015 as alleged in the Post’s report.
Link to New York Post story blocked by Twitter. (Screenshot: Andrew Kerr)
Also on Wednesday afternoon, Twitter began blocking any tweet from being posted that contained links to one of the two documents the Post uploaded to document sharing platform Scribd.
One of the documents depicts an alleged email sent by Hunter Biden in April 2014 to his former business partner Devon Archer, and the other is an alleged email that Vadym Pozharsky, an advisor to Burisma’s board of directors, sent to Hunter Biden and Archer in May 2014.
Link to New York Post Scribd document titled, “Email from Vadim Pozharskyi to Devon Archer and Hunter Biden” blocked by Twitter. (Screenshot: Andrew Kerr)
Link to New York Post Scribd document titled, “Email from Robert Biden to Devon Archer” blocked by Twitter. (Screenshot:Andrew Kerr)
Facebook spokesman Andy Stone, a former staffer for the Democratic House Majority PAC and former California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, announced earlier Wednesday it would reduce the distribution of the Post’s report despite the lack of any fact-checks against the story.
While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform. — Andy Stone (@andymstone) October 14, 2020
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-10-15--Twitter Reverses Censorship of House GOP Committee Webpage, Says It Was Blocked ‘in Error’

Twitter said it erroneously blocked a link to the official government website for House Judiciary Committee Republicans that republished a censored New York Post story about Hunter Biden .
“ The link referenced was blocked in error .
That decision has been reversed and the link is now unblocked , ” a Twitter spokesman , who insisted on anonymity as a condition for releasing a statement , told the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Twitter previously blocked users from sharing a link to a New York Post story alleging to have files from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Delaware , former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s home state .
The computer ’ s hard drive included graphic pictures of Hunter Biden and emails showing him peddling political access to foreign entities using his father ’ s status as vice president , according to the Post .
Twitter cited its policy against sharing hacked material in censoring the Post ’ s article , though there ’ s no public evidence at this point that shows the emails had been hacked .
Twitter also locked the accounts of users who tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany ’ s personal account .
The Republican congressmen responded to Twitter ’ s censorship of the Post by reposting the article on their committee website .
But Twitter blocked that page as well .
Users who tried to tweet the link receive a notification instead : “ We can ’ t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful.
” Republicans responded to Twitter ’ s censorship of the committee page by moving the post to Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey previously said Wednesday that his company ’ s lack of explanation for censoring the Post was “ unacceptable , ” but stopped short of apologizing for the censorship itself .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , email [ email protected ]

Twitter said it erroneously blocked a link to the official government website for House Judiciary Committee Republicans that republished a censored New York Post story about Hunter Biden.
“The link referenced was blocked in error. That decision has been reversed and the link is now unblocked,” a Twitter spokesman, who insisted on anonymity as a condition for releasing a statement, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Twitter previously blocked users from sharing a link to a New York Post story alleging to have files from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a computer repair shop in Delaware, former Vice President Joe Biden’s home state.
The computer’s hard drive included graphic pictures of Hunter Biden and emails showing him peddling political access to foreign entities using his father’s status as vice president, according to the Post.
Twitter cited its policy against sharing hacked material in censoring the Post’s article, though there’s no public evidence at this point that shows the emails had been hacked. Twitter also locked the accounts of users who tweeted the Post’s link, including White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany’s personal account.
The Republican congressmen responded to Twitter’s censorship of the Post by reposting the article on their committee website. But Twitter blocked that page as well.
(Screenshot: Twitter)
Users who tried to tweet the link receive a notification instead: “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful.”
Republicans responded to Twitter’s censorship of the committee page by moving the post to Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan’s website.
Twitter censored our last link! So, we put the article on @Jim_Jordan‘s website.
Nice try, @jack. But, we won’t stop.
Click, share, and RT!https://t.co/DwJTdvqbUB — House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) October 15, 2020
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey previously said Wednesday that his company’s lack of explanation for censoring the Post was “unacceptable,” but stopped short of apologizing for the censorship itself.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-10-16--Nearly 1 in 4 College Students Say They’ll ‘Likely’ Protest if Trump Wins Election, Survey Says

Around 40 % of college students said they will likely or certainly protest if President Donald Trump wins the election , according to an Axios poll released Friday .
Exactly 22 % of students surveyed said they are likely to protest and 17 % said they will protest should Trump win the 2020 election , the College Reaction/Axios survey found .
More students , 30 % , said they would not protest if Trump won and 31 % said they are not likely to protest a Trump victory .
“ The dissatisfaction with the status quo is also reflected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protest Trump reelection with 40 % of college students saying they will likely or certainly participate in protests , ” the survey said .
Only 1 % said they are “ absolutely certain ” to protest if Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden wins the election , according to the survey .
Almost three quarters , 70 % , said they “ absolutely will not ” protest if Biden wins the 2020 election .
The survey also found that 2 % said they are likely to protest while 27 % said they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When asked , “ If someone you know does not vote even though they can , will you address , confront , or otherwise convey disappointment towards them ?
” more than half , 61 % , said that they would or probably would , according to the survey .
Almost a quarter , 24 % , said they probably will not confront nonvoting acquaintances and 16 % said “ definitely not ” for the same question , according to the survey .
“ We found that young people are bummed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 75 % believe race relations , America ’ s standing in the world , and safety have plunged since 2016 , ” Cyrus Beschloss , founder of College Reaction , told the Daily Caller News Foundation .
“ Most students support Joe Biden , so a Trump win would naturally sting most .
But what we learned is that it would also spark swift demonstrations , rather than empty rants .
Civic engagement is cool now , ” Beschloss continued .
The survey was conducted via email Oct. 6–7 and has a margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % .
The poll was done “ from a representative sample of 872 college students , ” according to the survey methodology .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities for this original content , email [ email protected ] .

Around 40% of college students said they will likely or certainly protest if President Donald Trump wins the election, according to an Axios poll released Friday.
Exactly 22% of students surveyed said they are likely to protest and 17% said they will protest should Trump win the 2020 election, the College Reaction/Axios survey found. More students, 30%, said they would not protest if Trump won and 31% said they are not likely to protest a Trump victory.
“The dissatisfaction with the status quo is also reflected by the number of students who are willing to protest Trump reelection with 40% of college students saying they will likely or certainly participate in protests,” the survey said.
Only 1% said they are “absolutely certain” to protest if Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden wins the election, according to the survey. Almost three quarters, 70%, said they “absolutely will not” protest if Biden wins the 2020 election.
? 40% of college students would likely protest Trump win https://t.co/bwCpzIquul — Jim VandeHei (@JimVandeHei) October 16, 2020
The survey also found that 2% said they are likely to protest while 27% said they are unlikely to protest should Biden win.
When asked, “If someone you know does not vote even though they can, will you address, confront, or otherwise convey disappointment towards them?” more than half, 61%, said that they would or probably would, according to the survey.
Almost a quarter, 24%, said they probably will not confront nonvoting acquaintances and 16% said “definitely not” for the same question, according to the survey.
“We found that young people are bummed by the state of the nation. More than 75% believe race relations, America’s standing in the world, and safety have plunged since 2016,” Cyrus Beschloss, founder of College Reaction, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Most students support Joe Biden, so a Trump win would naturally sting most. But what we learned is that it would also spark swift demonstrations, rather than empty rants. Civic engagement is cool now,” Beschloss continued.
The survey was conducted via email Oct. 6-7 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3%. The poll was done “from a representative sample of 872 college students,” according to the survey methodology.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-10-16--Twitter’s Censorship of the New York Post Is Un-American

Less than three weeks from a presidential election , perhaps the most vital platform for political news and debate , Twitter , has locked down the accounts of a presidential candidate ’ s press secretary and of his official campaign , among others , at the behest of activists pretending to be journalists .
This is unsurprising to anyone who has been paying attention .
The press has spent four years pressuring social media outlets to censor speech and limit access with scaremongering over the alleged nefarious influence of foreign accounts , “ fake news , ” and hate speech—all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shutting down open discourse .
Well , at least until such time that people lose their agency and free will .
Of course , as far as we know , the New York Post piece on Hunter Biden ‘ s shady foreign dealings , in which we learn that Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden may have met with a Burisma executive at the behest of his son , was written using the same journalistic ethics and standards that have been in place for decades .
Even Twitter ’ s ostensible justification—crafted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —for banning the Post story make zero sense .
Twitter says it “ prohibits the use of our service to distribute content obtained without authorization .
We don ’ t want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials.
” If the press were asked to follow these evolving standards , there would be no useful journalism on Twitter .
Certainly , the vast majority of “ Russian collusion ” rumormongering that was pumped out by The Washington Post , CNN , and The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it relied heavily on faulty sourcing and foreign disinformation .
As would all the uncorroborated rape allegations that were made against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and amplified by virtually every major media organization .
Indeed , if journalists were forbidden from distributing “ content obtained without authorization , ” the majority of the biggest news stories of the past century would be off limits .
President Donald Trump ’ s tax return story .
The Pentagon Papers .
Watergate .
The Iran-Contra scandal .
All the revelations of Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to procure information that the powerful hide .
Twitter claims it doesn ’ t want to incentivize hacking by allowing its platform to be used to distribute possibly “ illegally obtained materials.
” Yet , when a Daily Caller reporter offered evidence that Hunter Biden ’ s laptop was obtained by a repair shop legally , Twitter suspended his account as well .
The very notion that the establishment media wouldn ’ t run with hacked emails from Trump , if they pointed to possible misconduct , strains credulity .
Just a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media was sharing a recording “ obtained without authorization ” of the first lady complaining about Christmas decorating—a story that had almost no news value .
By the way , as of yet , no one has really disputed the veracity of the Post ’ s reporting .
Hunter Biden has not claimed that those aren ’ t his pictures or his emails .
Joe Biden hasn ’ t claimed that he didn ’ t meet Burisma execs who were using his son .
Politico reports that “ Biden ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former VP had some kind of informal interaction ” with the Burisma executive .
One assumes that , if the vice president met with a shady oil executive who put his incompetent son on its board , it would not be on the official docket .
In a healthy media environment , journalists wouldn ’ t be dismissing the story ; they would be trying to verify it in the same way they try to verify dirt on the president .
Instead , the Biden campaign uses the Twitter ban as proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Twitter ’ s response to the actual article itself makes clear that these purported allegations are false and are not true , ” says one creative Biden campaign spokesperson .
Even that fact check—which relies on Twitter ’ s “ partners ” at The Washington Post—is simply a lie .
Twitter maintains , for instance , that , “ then-Vice President Biden played no role in pressuring Ukraine officials into firing the prosecutor , who also was not investigating the energy firm.
” Biden is on video bragging about pressuring the Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prosecutor was investigating Burisma is still opaque—which is why it ’ s a good idea to let outlets hash it out .
If we relied solely on the establishment press , notorious Bush-era fabulist Dan Rather would still have his old job at CBS .
Of course , it is because the story has news value that it ’ s being censored .
The mounting evidence that Hunter Biden leveraged his name , and perhaps more , to make millions is pretty clear .
I still don ’ t support removing liability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and practical reasons .
At this point , the only way to change things is to build your own outlets and platforms .
Yet , marketplace decisions by powerful , cronyistic companies can also be fundamentally authoritarian , and it ’ s completely reasonable to object to them .

Less than three weeks from a presidential election, perhaps the most vital platform for political news and debate, Twitter, has locked down the accounts of a presidential candidate’s press secretary and of his official campaign, among others, at the behest of activists pretending to be journalists.
This is unsurprising to anyone who has been paying attention. The press has spent four years pressuring social media outlets to censor speech and limit access with scaremongering over the alleged nefarious influence of foreign accounts, “fake news,” and hate speech—all of which are preferable to authoritarian technocrats shutting down open discourse. Well, at least until such time that people lose their agency and free will.
Of course, as far as we know, the New York Post piece on Hunter Biden‘s shady foreign dealings, in which we learn that Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden may have met with a Burisma executive at the behest of his son, was written using the same journalistic ethics and standards that have been in place for decades.
Even Twitter’s ostensible justification—crafted in conjunction with its media “partners”—for banning the Post story make zero sense. Twitter says it “prohibits the use of our service to distribute content obtained without authorization. We don’t want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials.”
If the press were asked to follow these evolving standards, there would be no useful journalism on Twitter.
Certainly, the vast majority of “Russian collusion” rumormongering that was pumped out by The Washington Post, CNN, and The New York Times would be censored, as it relied heavily on faulty sourcing and foreign disinformation. As would all the uncorroborated rape allegations that were made against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and amplified by virtually every major media organization.
Indeed, if journalists were forbidden from distributing “content obtained without authorization,” the majority of the biggest news stories of the past century would be off limits. President Donald Trump’s tax return story. The Pentagon Papers. Watergate. The Iran-Contra scandal. All the revelations of Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning. The most vital charge of journalism is to procure information that the powerful hide.
Twitter claims it doesn’t want to incentivize hacking by allowing its platform to be used to distribute possibly “illegally obtained materials.” Yet, when a Daily Caller reporter offered evidence that Hunter Biden’s laptop was obtained by a repair shop legally, Twitter suspended his account as well.
The very notion that the establishment media wouldn’t run with hacked emails from Trump, if they pointed to possible misconduct, strains credulity.
Just a few weeks ago, nearly every reporter on social media was sharing a recording “obtained without authorization” of the first lady complaining about Christmas decorating—a story that had almost no news value.
By the way, as of yet, no one has really disputed the veracity of the Post’s reporting. Hunter Biden has not claimed that those aren’t his pictures or his emails. Joe Biden hasn’t claimed that he didn’t meet Burisma execs who were using his son.
Politico reports that “Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction” with the Burisma executive. One assumes that, if the vice president met with a shady oil executive who put his incompetent son on its board, it would not be on the official docket.
In a healthy media environment, journalists wouldn’t be dismissing the story; they would be trying to verify it in the same way they try to verify dirt on the president.
Instead, the Biden campaign uses the Twitter ban as proof of the inauthenticity of the story. “Twitter’s response to the actual article itself makes clear that these purported allegations are false and are not true,” says one creative Biden campaign spokesperson.
Even that fact check—which relies on Twitter’s “partners” at The Washington Post—is simply a lie.
Twitter maintains, for instance, that, “then-Vice President Biden played no role in pressuring Ukraine officials into firing the prosecutor, who also was not investigating the energy firm.”
Biden is on video bragging about pressuring the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin. Whether the prosecutor was investigating Burisma is still opaque—which is why it’s a good idea to let outlets hash it out. If we relied solely on the establishment press, notorious Bush-era fabulist Dan Rather would still have his old job at CBS.
Of course, it is because the story has news value that it’s being censored. The mounting evidence that Hunter Biden leveraged his name, and perhaps more, to make millions is pretty clear.
I still don’t support removing liability protections for Big Tech for both ideological and practical reasons. At this point, the only way to change things is to build your own outlets and platforms. Yet, marketplace decisions by powerful, cronyistic companies can also be fundamentally authoritarian, and it’s completely reasonable to object to them.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-10-16--Ending California’s Lockdown on Churches Is Compatible With Science and Good Health

Forty million California residents have been living under Gov .
Gavin Newsom ’ s statewide lockdown order since March 19 .
This lockdown order—which was the first in the nation—was based on Newsom ’ s assessment of the health risks of COVID-19 .
In Los Angeles County , 10 million residents are in lockdown , which was implemented at the county level by a series of health orders issued by the county health officer , Dr. Muntu Davis .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
One aspect of this lockdown has been an effective , ongoing ban on indoor services at all churches .
One church is now defying the ban : Grace Community Church in Sun Valley , a suburb of Los Angeles .
The church ’ s leader , Pastor John MacArthur , agreed to voluntarily comply with the March lockdown restrictions because of the original dire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in California .
It became clear after four months that these predictions were wrong , and that the virus was not nearly as dangerous as originally feared .
However , the restrictions continued to drag on indefinitely and were undermining the ability of the church to function properly .
On July 24 , the Grace Community Church board decided to reopen the church , as explained in a detailed statement , titled “ Christ , Not Caesar , Is Head of the Church : A Biblical Case for the Church ’ s Duty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the health order was illegitimate , over-broad , and unconstitutional , because it indefinitely prevented the congregation from assembling and exercising its religion and sincerely held religious beliefs .
The church has relied upon the guaranteed religious freedom protections of the U.S. and California constitutions , and is now represented by a Thomas More Society legal team .
In response to the church ’ s indoor services on July 26 , the Los Angeles County counsel , Mary Wickham , and five senior county council attorneys , acting on behalf of Davis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barondess LLP , issue a cease and desist letter on July 29 .
The letter warned MacArthur that violating state and county health orders is “ a crime punishable by a fine of up to $ 1,000 and imprisonment of up to 90 days.
” The letter was reinforced by a 97-page complaint for “ violation of emergency health orders.
” I have challenged the public health validity of the cease and desist letter and the complaint by documenting the inaccuracy of the following claim : This unsubstantiated claim is contradicted by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congregation has had no reported illness or death due to COVID-19 .
Furthermore , this congregation is experiencing the substantial spiritual , mental , and physical health benefits of regular indoor church attendance .
Key evidence of the health benefits of regular church attendance is described in a letter I sent on Sept. 18 to Davis .
Davis has refused to respond to my letter in spite of my numerous attempts made directly to him and to other county health officials , Miller Barondess , and the county council .
Davis needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemiologic evidence that regular church attendance is consistently associated with reduced death rates and many other health benefits , as described in my 2008 article in Preventive Medicine and a 1997 article in the American Journal of Public Health .
For instance , a representative sample of U.S. adults adhering to four simple health practices , one of which is weekly church attendance , had a total age-adjusted death rate that was only one-half of the death rate among the entire sample .
Among a representative sample of Californian adults , frequent church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was only 64 % of the death rate of infrequent attenders .
Even after adjusting for other health-related factors , there was still a significant mortality reduction among regular attenders .
In addition , frequent attenders were more likely to stop smoking , increase exercise , increase social contacts , and stay married .
There is much more evidence that supports the benefits of church attendance .
Thus , there is very strong evidence that the health benefits of indoor worship services far exceed the alleged health risks of COVID-19 for this congregation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illness or death associated with COVID-19 .
Rather than supporting an unconstitutional and oppressive legal complaint against the church based on invalid health claims , Davis needs to modify the current county health order to allow indoor worship services at this church .
This church and its low-risk congregation can be carefully monitored for COVID-19 risk , and can serve as a model for reopening churches , as part of a rapidly growing effort to reopen low-risk parts of American society .
This reopening strategy is described in the Great Barrington Declaration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists , which states : Rather than condemning the Great Barrington Declaration and ignoring thousands of public health scientists , including me , Davis must objectively and promptly act in response to the overall health evidence that justifies reopening low-risk churches , like Grace Community Church .

Forty million California residents have been living under Gov. Gavin Newsom’s statewide lockdown order since March 19. This lockdown order—which was the first in the nation—was based on Newsom’s assessment of the health risks of COVID-19.
In Los Angeles County, 10 million residents are in lockdown, which was implemented at the county level by a series of health orders issued by the county health officer, Dr. Muntu Davis.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
One aspect of this lockdown has been an effective, ongoing ban on indoor services at all churches. One church is now defying the ban: Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, a suburb of Los Angeles.
The church’s leader, Pastor John MacArthur, agreed to voluntarily comply with the March lockdown restrictions because of the original dire predictions of massive COVID-19 cases and deaths in California.
It became clear after four months that these predictions were wrong, and that the virus was not nearly as dangerous as originally feared. However, the restrictions continued to drag on indefinitely and were undermining the ability of the church to function properly.
On July 24, the Grace Community Church board decided to reopen the church, as explained in a detailed statement, titled “Christ, Not Caesar, Is Head of the Church: A Biblical Case for the Church’s Duty to Remain Open.”
The church determined that the health order was illegitimate, over-broad, and unconstitutional, because it indefinitely prevented the congregation from assembling and exercising its religion and sincerely held religious beliefs.
The church has relied upon the guaranteed religious freedom protections of the U.S. and California constitutions, and is now represented by a Thomas More Society legal team.
In response to the church’s indoor services on July 26, the Los Angeles County counsel, Mary Wickham, and five senior county council attorneys, acting on behalf of Davis, had a law firm, Miller Barondess LLP, issue a cease and desist letter on July 29.
The letter warned MacArthur that violating state and county health orders is “a crime punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment of up to 90 days.”
The letter was reinforced by a 97-page complaint for “violation of emergency health orders.”
I have challenged the public health validity of the cease and desist letter and the complaint by documenting the inaccuracy of the following claim:
By holding indoor services for hundreds of persons during this pandemic, you are placing the health and safety of not only the persons attending the service, but also the community at large at risk.
This unsubstantiated claim is contradicted by the fact that this health-conscious, low-risk church congregation has had no reported illness or death due to COVID-19.
Furthermore, this congregation is experiencing the substantial spiritual, mental, and physical health benefits of regular indoor church attendance. Key evidence of the health benefits of regular church attendance is described in a letter I sent on Sept. 18 to Davis.
Davis has refused to respond to my letter in spite of my numerous attempts made directly to him and to other county health officials, Miller Barondess, and the county council.
Davis needs to examine and acknowledge the decades of peer-reviewed epidemiologic evidence that regular church attendance is consistently associated with reduced death rates and many other health benefits, as described in my 2008 article in Preventive Medicine and a 1997 article in the American Journal of Public Health.
For instance, a representative sample of U.S. adults adhering to four simple health practices, one of which is weekly church attendance, had a total age-adjusted death rate that was only one-half of the death rate among the entire sample.
Among a representative sample of Californian adults, frequent church attenders had a total death rate that was only 64% of the death rate of infrequent attenders. Even after adjusting for other health-related factors, there was still a significant mortality reduction among regular attenders.
In addition, frequent attenders were more likely to stop smoking, increase exercise, increase social contacts, and stay married. There is much more evidence that supports the benefits of church attendance.
Thus, there is very strong evidence that the health benefits of indoor worship services far exceed the alleged health risks of COVID-19 for this congregation, which has thus far experienced no illness or death associated with COVID-19.
Rather than supporting an unconstitutional and oppressive legal complaint against the church based on invalid health claims, Davis needs to modify the current county health order to allow indoor worship services at this church.
This church and its low-risk congregation can be carefully monitored for COVID-19 risk, and can serve as a model for reopening churches, as part of a rapidly growing effort to reopen low-risk parts of American society.
This reopening strategy is described in the Great Barrington Declaration, now signed by over 10,000 public health scientists, which states:
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call focused protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health … The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.
Rather than condemning the Great Barrington Declaration and ignoring thousands of public health scientists, including me, Davis must objectively and promptly act in response to the overall health evidence that justifies reopening low-risk churches, like Grace Community Church.


dailysignal--2020-10-16--Why the Left’s ‘Cure’ for Health Care Woes Is Far Worse Than the Malady

Health care in America is too bureaucratic , costly , and complex .
Self-styled “ progressive ” politicians claim they have a “ remedy ” for that ; namely , the creation of a new government-run health plan—sometimes called “ single payer ” or “ Medicare for All ” —replacing all private and employment-based coverage , as well as most major federal health programs , including Medicare , Medicaid , and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program .
Some politicians are now trying to shift the narrative away from single payer with the so-called public option .
A critique of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the underlying policies of the public option strategy create the government infrastructure needed to move toward a single-payer system .
Armed with regulatory and statutory control , the government option would undermine and drive out private competition , and coerce provider and patient participation , while shifting costs to taxpayers , private plans , and providers .
In the end , the efforts behind the public option would lead to single payer on the installment plan .
If progressives were to enact their massive demolition project , they claim that American health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a new era of universal coverage and care for all 331 million Americans , higher-quality care , superior medical outcomes , and lower costs for individuals and families and the nation at large .
In “ No Choice , No Exit , ” our compendium of articles and essays on government-controlled health care , and both leading single-payer and public option proposals , we focus like a laser on the facts .
We examine major House and Senate legislative proposals and provide a detailed analysis of how they would amend or repeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal law that governs health care financing and delivery .
In “ No Choice , No Exit , ” our Heritage Foundation colleagues detail the direct financial costs and consequences for American families in higher taxes and heavier health care spending .
With the adoption of a government-run system , congressional progressives say that individuals and families will pay less for health care than they do today .
To believe that requires a powerful ideological faith .
That ’ s because the leading House and Senate bills have no tax or financing provisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues estimate that progressives ’ national insurance program would require a tax of 21.1 % of earnings , and that nearly two-thirds of America ’ s households would pay even more than they do today .
Likewise , progressives promise that Americans will enjoy access to higher-quality medical care .
Quality , however , depends on getting the right diagnosis and the right treatment at the right time .
In “ No Choice , No Exit , ” our British and Canadian colleagues describe how “ single-payer ” health care systems deliver care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waiting lists and the delays and denials of care .
The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened that care delivery .
For example , in 2019 , Britain had 4.4 million people on National Health Service waiting lists .
By the end of 2020 , The Guardian reported , England ’ s waiting lists could reach almost 10 million .
In “ No Choice , No Exit , ” we show that both House and Senate bills erect a powerful , centralized bureaucracy that will make innumerable decisions over the delivery of care among doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If today ’ s Medicare program—governed by tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations and guidelines and related paperwork—is no model of administrative simplicity , the proposed national health insurance apparatus will create an unprecedented level of bureaucratic micromanagement .
We also show that , for all practical purposes , for most Americans , there would be no exit from the system , because the House and Senate bills severely restrict the right of patients to go outside of the system to spend their own money to get the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need .
Not even the doctors who treat us will be free to practice medicine in the way they deem best .
The promises of streamlined medicine under a single-payer system are based on the facile belief that government ’ s involvement may make it more efficient .
That ’ s belied not only by common sense , but also by the tens of billions of dollars spent each year on complying with government regulations .
But this is more than just a money issue .
More and more , our doctors ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patient and toward their computers .
A confluence of entrenched billing practices and health care laws and regulations—many of them aimed at “ reform ” —have increasingly demanded the doctors ’ time , which has the twofold effect of diminishing the quality of patient care and driving down the morale of physicians—if not driving them out of the profession entirely .
There ’ s no reason to think that the government will behave any differently if given complete control over medicine , but likely will continue doing what it has done—preventing doctors from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 2020 presidential and congressional elections , the health care debate will intensify .
Americans must learn to ignore politicians ’ promises , and instead scrutinize politicians ’ actions , particularly the legislative language of the House and Senate bills they sponsor or co-sponsor .
They will often find that the gap between rhetoric and reality is as wide as the Grand Canyon , and the tough trade-offs initially hidden from plain sight become painfully obvious upon closer examination .
You can not competently communicate health policy with campaign bumper stickers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ care freedom by paying attention to the details .

Health care in America is too bureaucratic, costly, and complex.
Self-styled “progressive” politicians claim they have a “remedy” for that; namely, the creation of a new government-run health plan—sometimes called “single payer” or “Medicare for All”—replacing all private and employment-based coverage, as well as most major federal health programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
Some politicians are now trying to shift the narrative away from single payer with the so-called public option.
Don’t be fooled.
A critique of the leading public option proposals shows that the underlying policies of the public option strategy create the government infrastructure needed to move toward a single-payer system.
Armed with regulatory and statutory control, the government option would undermine and drive out private competition, and coerce provider and patient participation, while shifting costs to taxpayers, private plans, and providers.
In the end, the efforts behind the public option would lead to single payer on the installment plan.
If progressives were to enact their massive demolition project, they claim that American health care will be superior. It will usher in a new era of universal coverage and care for all 331 million Americans, higher-quality care, superior medical outcomes, and lower costs for individuals and families and the nation at large.
Don’t believe it.
In “No Choice, No Exit,” our compendium of articles and essays on government-controlled health care, and both leading single-payer and public option proposals, we focus like a laser on the facts.
We examine major House and Senate legislative proposals and provide a detailed analysis of how they would amend or repeal specific provisions of the vast body of federal law that governs health care financing and delivery.
In “No Choice, No Exit,” our Heritage Foundation colleagues detail the direct financial costs and consequences for American families in higher taxes and heavier health care spending.
With the adoption of a government-run system, congressional progressives say that individuals and families will pay less for health care than they do today.
To believe that requires a powerful ideological faith. That’s because the leading House and Senate bills have no tax or financing provisions.
Forget these progressive promises. Our colleagues estimate that progressives’ national insurance program would require a tax of 21.1% of earnings, and that nearly two-thirds of America’s households would pay even more than they do today.
That Heritage analysis confirms other, independent findings.
Likewise, progressives promise that Americans will enjoy access to higher-quality medical care. Quality, however, depends on getting the right diagnosis and the right treatment at the right time.
In “No Choice, No Exit,” our British and Canadian colleagues describe how “single-payer” health care systems deliver care in actual practice, including the long waiting lists and the delays and denials of care.
The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened that care delivery. For example, in 2019, Britain had 4.4 million people on National Health Service waiting lists. By the end of 2020, The Guardian reported, England’s waiting lists could reach almost 10 million.
In “No Choice, No Exit,” we show that both House and Senate bills erect a powerful, centralized bureaucracy that will make innumerable decisions over the delivery of care among doctors, hospitals, and other medical professionals.
If today’s Medicare program—governed by tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations and guidelines and related paperwork—is no model of administrative simplicity, the proposed national health insurance apparatus will create an unprecedented level of bureaucratic micromanagement.
We also show that, for all practical purposes, for most Americans, there would be no exit from the system, because the House and Senate bills severely restrict the right of patients to go outside of the system to spend their own money to get the kind of medical care that they want and need.
Not even the doctors who treat us will be free to practice medicine in the way they deem best. The promises of streamlined medicine under a single-payer system are based on the facile belief that government’s involvement may make it more efficient. That’s belied not only by common sense, but also by the tens of billions of dollars spent each year on complying with government regulations.
But this is more than just a money issue. More and more, our doctors’ attention is being drawn away from the patient and toward their computers.
A confluence of entrenched billing practices and health care laws and regulations—many of them aimed at “reform”—have increasingly demanded the doctors’ time, which has the twofold effect of diminishing the quality of patient care and driving down the morale of physicians—if not driving them out of the profession entirely.
There’s no reason to think that the government will behave any differently if given complete control over medicine, but likely will continue doing what it has done—preventing doctors from being doctors.
Regardless of the outcome of the 2020 presidential and congressional elections, the health care debate will intensify.
Americans must learn to ignore politicians’ promises, and instead scrutinize politicians’ actions, particularly the legislative language of the House and Senate bills they sponsor or co-sponsor.
They will often find that the gap between rhetoric and reality is as wide as the Grand Canyon, and the tough trade-offs initially hidden from plain sight become painfully obvious upon closer examination.
You cannot competently communicate health policy with campaign bumper stickers. Americans will only preserve their personal health care freedom by paying attention to the details.


dailysignal--2020-10-16--10 Counties With Most COVID-19 Deaths Account for 22% of Fatalities but 11% of Population

As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstrated throughout the pandemic , the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been heavily concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within those states .
Heritage ’ s interactive graphic allows individuals to see more detail on these concentrations of COVID-19 among the counties with the most deaths as well as those with the fewest .
For instance , the graphic allows users to select data from the five counties with the most coronavirus-related deaths all the way up to the 50 counties with the most such deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data from counties with zero deaths to counties with 10 deaths or fewer .
As of Oct. 12 , the 10 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths account for 22.3 % of all related deaths in the U.S. but only 11.2 % of the population .
The 30 counties with the most coronavirus deaths account for 37.4 % of the related deaths in the U.S. and only 19.6 % of the U.S. population .
Three of the five counties of New York City , one of the hardest-hit areas in the early stages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three of the five U.S. counties with the most coronavirus deaths .
New York City still has a disproportionate effect on the perceived COVID-19 experience in the U.S .
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , New York City has a coronavirus death rate of 284 per 100,000 ; the rest of the state has a rate of 81 per 100,000 .
The average COVID-19 death rate for the entirety of the U.S. is roughly 65 per 100,000 .
( For more on how New York City skews COVID-19 data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Backgrounder . )
This evidence suggests that as new locations in the U.S. experienced surges in COVID-19 cases throughout this pandemic , death rates remained lower .
Ultimately , several items could be at play , including a different , younger population being infected in many locations , such as Florida , during a surge in the disease .
Additionally , better treatment and lessons learned from coping with the pandemic could be part of the lower death rates , including lessons learned in limiting exposure in vulnerable populations , such as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlook has improved over the past month .
As of Sept. 4 , the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation ’ s model projected that the U.S. would have 400,000 deaths from COVID-19 by Jan. 1 , 2021 .
But as of now , the model has lowered its worst-case scenario to 338,735 deaths by Jan. 1 , with its current projection 7 % lower at 316,935 deaths .
Even so , to reach that new number by Jan. 1 , the average daily death rate from COVID-19 would have to be roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death rates for the U.S. have not been that high since May 20 .
The worst day prior to May 20 saw an average of roughly 2,200 deaths , a figure that falls to 1,659 if New York City is excluded .
The worst day since May 20 was a seven-day average of 1,215 on Aug. 1 .
Now that COVID-19 testing has increased dramatically and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders , it is even more critical to study the trends in deaths along with cases .
To make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation now has two interactive COVID-19 trackers .
One tracks trends in cases , the other tracks trends in deaths .
The trackers describe whether the trend of cases—or deaths—is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days .
They also provide a visual depiction of new cases—or deaths—during this time period .
These tools help put the concentrated nature of the pandemic in perspective with county-level data .
They show just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether a county—or state—is doing well .
Readers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracker and check back frequently for updates , as well as to explore the other visual tools on Heritage ’ s COVID-19 resources page .

As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstrated throughout the pandemic, the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been heavily concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within those states.
Heritage’s interactive graphic allows individuals to see more detail on these concentrations of COVID-19 among the counties with the most deaths as well as those with the fewest.
For instance, the graphic allows users to select data from the five counties with the most coronavirus-related deaths all the way up to the 50 counties with the most such deaths. It also allows visitors to select data from counties with zero deaths to counties with 10 deaths or fewer.
As of Oct. 12, the 10 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths account for 22.3% of all related deaths in the U.S. but only 11.2% of the population. The 30 counties with the most coronavirus deaths account for 37.4% of the related deaths in the U.S. and only 19.6% of the U.S. population.
Three of the five counties of New York City, one of the hardest-hit areas in the early stages of the pandemic, still account for three of the five U.S. counties with the most coronavirus deaths. New York City still has a disproportionate effect on the perceived COVID-19 experience in the U.S.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New York City has a coronavirus death rate of 284 per 100,000; the rest of the state has a rate of 81 per 100,000. The average COVID-19 death rate for the entirety of the U.S. is roughly 65 per 100,000. (For more on how New York City skews COVID-19 data in the U.S., see this Heritage Backgrounder.)
This evidence suggests that as new locations in the U.S. experienced surges in COVID-19 cases throughout this pandemic, death rates remained lower.
Ultimately, several items could be at play, including a different, younger population being infected in many locations, such as Florida, during a surge in the disease. Additionally, better treatment and lessons learned from coping with the pandemic could be part of the lower death rates, including lessons learned in limiting exposure in vulnerable populations, such as the elderly.
Although still tragic, the outlook has improved over the past month.
As of Sept. 4, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation’s model projected that the U.S. would have 400,000 deaths from COVID-19 by Jan. 1, 2021. But as of now, the model has lowered its worst-case scenario to 338,735 deaths by Jan. 1, with its current projection 7% lower at 316,935 deaths.
Even so, to reach that new number by Jan. 1, the average daily death rate from COVID-19 would have to be roughly 1,300. The seven- and 14-day average death rates for the U.S. have not been that high since May 20.
The worst day prior to May 20 saw an average of roughly 2,200 deaths, a figure that falls to 1,659 if New York City is excluded. The worst day since May 20 was a seven-day average of 1,215 on Aug. 1.
Now that COVID-19 testing has increased dramatically and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders, it is even more critical to study the trends in deaths along with cases.
To make studying these trends easier, The Heritage Foundation now has two interactive COVID-19 trackers. One tracks trends in cases, the other tracks trends in deaths.
The trackers describe whether the trend of cases—or deaths—is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days. They also provide a visual depiction of new cases—or deaths—during this time period.
These tools help put the concentrated nature of the pandemic in perspective with county-level data. They show just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether a county—or state—is doing well.
Readers are invited to explore the information in the tracker and check back frequently for updates, as well as to explore the other visual tools on Heritage’s COVID-19 resources page.


dailysignal--2020-10-16--Nearly 1 in 4 College Students Say They’ll ‘Likely’ Protest If Trump Wins Election, Survey Says

Around 40 % of college students said they will likely or certainly protest if President Donald Trump wins the election , according to an Axios poll released Friday .
Exactly 22 % of students surveyed said they are likely to protest and 17 % said they will protest should Trump win the 2020 election , the College Reaction/Axios survey found .
More students , 30 % , said they would not protest if Trump won and 31 % said they are not likely to protest a Trump victory .
“ The dissatisfaction with the status quo is also reflected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protest Trump reelection with 40 % of college students saying they will likely or certainly participate in protests , ” the survey said .
Only 1 % said they are “ absolutely certain ” to protest if Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden wins the election , according to the survey .
Almost three quarters , 70 % , said they “ absolutely will not ” protest if Biden wins the 2020 election .
The survey also found that 2 % said they are likely to protest while 27 % said they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When asked , “ If someone you know does not vote even though they can , will you address , confront , or otherwise convey disappointment towards them ?
” more than half , 61 % , said that they would or probably would , according to the survey .
Almost a quarter , 24 % , said they probably will not confront nonvoting acquaintances and 16 % said “ definitely not ” for the same question , according to the survey .
“ We found that young people are bummed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 75 % believe race relations , America ’ s standing in the world , and safety have plunged since 2016 , ” Cyrus Beschloss , founder of College Reaction , told the Daily Caller News Foundation .
“ Most students support Joe Biden , so a Trump win would naturally sting most .
But what we learned is that it would also spark swift demonstrations , rather than empty rants .
Civic engagement is cool now , ” Beschloss continued .
The survey was conducted via email Oct. 6-7 and has a margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % .
The poll was done “ from a representative sample of 872 college students , ” according to the survey methodology .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities for this original content , email [ email protected ] .


dailysignal--2020-10-19--Pompeo Calls Twitter’s Censorship of Hunter Biden  Story ‘Dangerous’

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Twitter ’ s reported decision to censor the New York Post ’ s story about Hunter Biden ’ s alleged hard drive “ dangerous ” and politically motivated in a Washington Examiner interview Monday .
“ It is dangerous when a powerful force like the communications tool which is Twitter adopts a non-viewpoint-neutral view of the world , ” Pompeo told the Examiner .
“ They have to make a choice , either it ’ s going to be viewpoint neutral or they ’ re going to make a different decision , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that decision can ’ t be based on whether it is supportive of this administration or attempting to undermine America.
” President Donald Trump ’ s personal lawyer , former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani , reportedly sent a copy of former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s son ’ s alleged hard drive to the Post after it was left at a Delaware computer repair store , the Post reported .
Twitter censored the report , locked the Post ’ s account , and refused to re-open it unless the outlet deleted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Fox Business .
The tech giant said the Post relied on “ hacked ” information to write the story , Fox reported .
The Post wrote that Hunter Biden took a job with a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma for $ 50,000 a month and reported unconfirmed email exchanges in which a foreign energy executive suggested Joe Biden had met with the man who employed his son .
Joe Biden previously has stated that he “ had never spoken ” to his “ son about his overseas business dealings , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also reportedly contained images of Hunter Biden engaged in lewd behavior with one picture appearing to show him asleep with a crack pipe dangling from his mouth , according to the Post .
Both the Biden campaign and Pompeo did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation at the time of publishing .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities for this original content , email [ @ @ @ @

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Twitter’s reported decision to censor the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s alleged hard drive “dangerous” and politically motivated in a Washington Examiner interview Monday.
“It is dangerous when a powerful force like the communications tool which is Twitter adopts a non-viewpoint-neutral view of the world,” Pompeo told the Examiner.
“They have to make a choice, either it’s going to be viewpoint neutral or they’re going to make a different decision,” the secretary of state continued. “And that decision can’t be based on whether it is supportive of this administration or attempting to undermine America.”
President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, reportedly sent a copy of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son’s alleged hard drive to the Post after it was left at a Delaware computer repair store, the Post reported.
Twitter censored the report, locked the Post’s account, and refused to re-open it unless the outlet deleted uploads containing the hard drive story, according to Fox Business. The tech giant said the Post relied on “hacked” information to write the story, Fox reported.
The Post wrote that Hunter Biden took a job with a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma for $50,000 a month and reported unconfirmed email exchanges in which a foreign energy executive suggested Joe Biden had met with the man who employed his son.
Joe Biden previously has stated that he “had never spoken” to his “son about his overseas business dealings,” the Post reported.
The hard drive also reportedly contained images of Hunter Biden engaged in lewd behavior with one picture appearing to show him asleep with a crack pipe dangling from his mouth, according to the Post.
Both the Biden campaign and Pompeo did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation at the time of publishing.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.