dailysignal--2020-11-12--Questions About His Son and China Could Follow Biden to White House

Legal questions surrounding the Biden family ’ s business deals with a Chinese energy conglomerate almost certainly will follow Joe Biden into the White House should the former vice president ultimately win the disputed election , good government groups predict .
“ These issues are not going to go away with a Biden presidency , ” Tom Fitton , president of Judicial Watch , told The Daily Signal .
The FBI reportedly opened an ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden , the former vice president ’ s son , and unnamed business associates for possible money laundering in connection with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese conglomerate .
What looks like a weaker Republican majority in the Senate may not bode well for oversight , and Fitton said he wouldn ’ t be optimistic about accountability .
But , he added , even the Justice Department under a Biden administration doesn ’ t mean zero accountability .
“ If an investigation starts , it ’ s not easy to shut it down , ” Fitton said .
“ Joe Biden would face significant political pressure if he tried to shut down the investigation .
It wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation already commenced , it likely would go forward aggressively under a second Trump administration .
The Daily Signal interviewed Fitton and others for this report before Election Day .
Major media outlets called the Nov. 3 election for Biden , but President Donald Trump has alleged fraud in key states and his reelection campaign has taken legal action .
CEFC China Energy , which has links to the Chinese Communist Party , paid Hunter Biden at least $ 5 million in 2017 , according to a Senate report .
This was after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president under President Barack Obama .
However , in December 2013 , when his father was vice president , Hunter Biden notably accompanied him on Air Force Two to China and met with another business associate not related to CEFC .
That trip doesn ’ t appear to be the subject of the FBI ’ s current probe .
“ Joe Biden would be 100 % compromised as commander in chief to our greatest enemy , ” said M.A .
Taylor , director of “ Riding the Dragon , ” a documentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The film outlines the financial relationship between the Biden family and the Chinese government that grew during Joe Biden ’ s vice presidency from 2009 through 2016 .
“ I don ’ t see a lot of accountability from Congress , censors in social media , or the press blackout , ” Taylor told The Daily Signal , referring to social media ’ s suppression of stories by the New York Post about the content of files found on Hunter Biden ’ s laptop computer .
“ He would be the least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Taylor said .
“ The media is compromised .
Nobody trusts Big Tech anymore .
Nobody trusts the press anymore.
” If Biden governs in a way that is favorable to China , it could have long-term consequences , Taylor added : Hunter Biden , 50 , has a law degree from Yale .
In May 2017 , he formed the company SinoHawk with his uncle James Biden and partner Tony Bobulinski to do business with CEFC , the Chinese conglomerate .
The plan was for SinoHawk to invest $ 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects in the United States and around the world .
Although the SinoHawk-CEFC joint venture stopped in August 2017 , Hunter and James Biden reportedly kept working with the conglomerate .
In September , two Senate committees—Finance and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs—issued a joint oversight report that found CEFC had wired Hunter Biden at least $ 5 million beginning Aug. 7 , 2017 .
The Senate report flagged some of the wire payments for possible criminal financial activity : Bobulinski , in a statement Oct. 22 to reporters and in a recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Channel , said Joe Biden was “ the big guy ” in an email that apportioned stakes for partners in the joint venture .
The email said it would mean 20 % equity for Hunter Biden and 10 % for “ the big guy.
” The Biden campaign has said that Joe Biden never held equity in his son ’ s companies .
But the campaign frequently gave sketchy explanations about the authenticity of the emails .
One document shows James Biden ’ s share increased from 10 % to 20 % , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way to mask Joe Biden ’ s continuing 10 % share .
Possibly a larger issue has to do with millions of dollars from Chinese donors to the University of Pennsylvania ’ s Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement , said Tom Anderson , director of the government integrity project at the National Legal and Policy Center .
The center filed a complaint about the donations with the U.S. Department of Education in May .
“ We don ’ t have enough information yet to say if he is compromised , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referring to Joe Biden .
The Biden Center received $ 70 million from Chinese donors since 2017 , with $ 22 million of it from anonymous donors , according to the National Legal and Policy Center ’ s complaint .
The complaint asks the Education Department to force the University of Pennsylvania to disclose more information about the donors .
Anderson noted that many staffers for the center likely will join the new Biden administration .
“ It ’ s an incubation for corruption , ” Anderson said .
“ Staffers at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could feel beholden to these donors .
That ’ s how guys get compromised .
”

Editor’s note, March 30, 2022: Sixteen months before The Washington Post’s report today on Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China, The Daily Signal published this article on the overseas business affairs of President Joe Biden’s son.
Legal questions surrounding the Biden family’s business deals with a Chinese energy conglomerate almost certainly will follow Joe Biden into the White House should the former vice president ultimately win the disputed election, good government groups predict.
“These issues are not going to go away with a Biden presidency,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told The Daily Signal.
The FBI reportedly opened an ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, and unnamed business associates for possible money laundering in connection with a joint venture with CEFC China Energy, the Chinese conglomerate.
What looks like a weaker Republican majority in the Senate may not bode well for oversight, and Fitton said he wouldn’t be optimistic about accountability.
But, he added, even the Justice Department under a Biden administration doesn’t mean zero accountability.
“If an investigation starts, it’s not easy to shut it down,” Fitton said. “Joe Biden would face significant political pressure if he tried to shut down the investigation. It wouldn’t be easy.”
With the FBI investigation already commenced, it likely would go forward aggressively under a second Trump administration.
The Daily Signal interviewed Fitton and others for this report before Election Day. Major media outlets called the Nov. 3 election for Biden, but President Donald Trump has alleged fraud in key states and his reelection campaign has taken legal action.
CEFC China Energy, which has links to the Chinese Communist Party, paid Hunter Biden at least $5 million in 2017, according to a Senate report.
This was after his father completed a second term as vice president under President Barack Obama.
However, in December 2013, when his father was vice president, Hunter Biden notably accompanied him on Air Force Two to China and met with another business associate not related to CEFC. That trip doesn’t appear to be the subject of the FBI’s current probe.
>>> Commentary: Hunter Biden Emails, Texts Raise Questions That Need Answers
“Joe Biden would be 100% compromised as commander in chief to our greatest enemy,” said M.A. Taylor, director of “Riding the Dragon,” a documentary film narrated by investigative journalist Peter Schweizer.
The film outlines the financial relationship between the Biden family and the Chinese government that grew during Joe Biden’s vice presidency from 2009 through 2016.
“I don’t see a lot of accountability from Congress, censors in social media, or the press blackout,” Taylor told The Daily Signal, referring to social media’s suppression of stories by the New York Post about the content of files found on Hunter Biden’s laptop computer.
“He would be the least vetted president we’ve ever seen,” Taylor said. “The media is compromised. Nobody trusts Big Tech anymore. Nobody trusts the press anymore.”
If Biden governs in a way that is favorable to China, it could have long-term consequences, Taylor added:
Fortunately, the government never stays in one party’s hands for very long; but in two years, this could do long-term damage to the United States. Just because you punish a president, China [still] could expand its influence and build more islands in the South China Sea. So the damage could be permanent, even down the road.
Hunter Biden, 50, has a law degree from Yale. In May 2017, he formed the company SinoHawk with his uncle James Biden and partner Tony Bobulinski to do business with CEFC, the Chinese conglomerate. The plan was for SinoHawk to invest $10 million from CEFC in energy and infrastructure projects in the United States and around the world.
Although the SinoHawk-CEFC joint venture stopped in August 2017, Hunter and James Biden reportedly kept working with the conglomerate.
In September, two Senate committees—Finance and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs—issued a joint oversight report that found CEFC had wired Hunter Biden at least $5 million beginning Aug. 7, 2017. The Senate report flagged some of the wire payments for possible criminal financial activity:
On Aug. 4, 2017, CEFC Infrastructure Investment (US) LLC, a subsidiary of Ye Jianming’s CEFC China Energy Company that listed Gongwen Dong as its director, sent Hunter Biden’s law firm, Owasco, a payment for $100,000. This transaction was identified for potential criminal financial activity. One of the investment entities of CEFC Infrastructure Investment is reportedly Shanghai Huaxin Group, a Chinese state-owned enterprise ‘engaged in petroleum products.’ That company is owned by CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd., which is controlled by Shanghai Guosheng Group, another state-owned enterprise. According to reporting, CEFC Shanghai was a CEFC subsidiary linked to the aforementioned corruption allegations involving the head of the China Development Bank.
Bobulinski, in a statement Oct. 22 to reporters and in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson of Fox News Channel, said Joe Biden was “the big guy” in an email that apportioned stakes for partners in the joint venture. The email said it would mean 20% equity for Hunter Biden and 10% for “the big guy.”
The Biden campaign has said that Joe Biden never held equity in his son’s companies. But the campaign frequently gave sketchy explanations about the authenticity of the emails.
One document shows James Biden’s share increased from 10% to 20%, which Bobulinski told Carlson he concluded was a way to mask Joe Biden’s continuing 10% share.
Possibly a larger issue has to do with millions of dollars from Chinese donors to the University of Pennsylvania’s Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, said Tom Anderson, director of the government integrity project at the National Legal and Policy Center.
The center filed a complaint about the donations with the U.S. Department of Education in May.
“We don’t have enough information yet to say if he is compromised,” Anderson told The Daily Signal, referring to Joe Biden.
The Biden Center received $70 million from Chinese donors since 2017, with $22 million of it from anonymous donors, according to the National Legal and Policy Center’s complaint. The complaint asks the Education Department to force the University of Pennsylvania to disclose more information about the donors.
Anderson noted that many staffers for the center likely will join the new Biden administration.
“It’s an incubation for corruption,” Anderson said. “Staffers at the Biden Center are future administration officials and could feel beholden to these donors. That’s how guys get compromised.”


dailysignal--2020-11-12--When ‘Unity’ Means ‘Shut the Hell Up’

When ‘Unity’ Means ‘Shut the Hell Up’

On Saturday evening , presidential front-runner Joe Biden—who doesn ’ t actually become president-elect until vote counts are certified—gave a preliminary victory address .
In that address , he spoke of his mandate to govern : a mandate , he said , that extended to marshalling the “ forces of decency … fairness … science … hope.
” Which is a pretty vague mandate , as it turns out .
But there was another overarching mandate Biden expressed : a mandate to come together , to unify as Americans .
“ To make progress , we must stop treating our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ We are not enemies .
We are Americans.
” All of that is nice .
Who wouldn ’ t like a country in which we could enjoy cultural events together without being lectured about the alleged evils of the country , in which we could attend family events without being castigated as bigots , in which we could disagree and still enjoy one another ?
Who wouldn ’ t like an America in which our neighbors no longer see us as cancel-culture targets , in which we no longer have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over supposed systemic injustices , in which our social interactions are not limited by our voter registration ?
Americans are right to have some rather serious trust issues with calls for unity in our polarized time .
After all , former President Barack Obama pledged American reunification right up until he began treating tea partyers as unspeakable threats and political opponents as crypto-racists .
Everything was hopey and changey right up until the time … it wasn ’ t .
So , in order to earn our trust , Biden would have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the temperature .
And he has steadfastly refused to do so .
He hasn ’ t called out Black Lives Matter for the suggestion that America is systemically racist ; he has cheered it on .
He hasn ’ t condemned Antifa ; he has deemed it a philosophy rather than a dangerous movement .
And he certainly hasn ’ t said a word about the continuing attacks on Trump supporters .
We will wait in vain for Biden to chide former first lady Michelle Obama for declaring that 70 million Americans “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it meant supporting lies , hate , chaos , and division.
” Our bones will likely bleach before Biden tells Hillary Clinton that Trump supporters aren ’ t deplorables .
No , “ unity ” in the Biden formulation isn ’ t a recognition of what we have in common ; it ’ s a demand that we silence ourselves in order to mirror Biden ’ s priorities .
Unity , you see , can be achieved one of two ways : through recognition of the other , through a determination to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do ; or through ideological domination .
It ’ s rather obvious which pathway Democrats will choose .
After all , social ostracization is one of their most powerful tools .
Why disarm now ?
Americans can only come together when we share a common philosophy , history , and culture .
Democrats have spent years attempting to tear away those commonalities in favor of coalitional interest-group politics .
They ’ ve declared American philosophy racist from inception ; they ’ ve declared American history a litany of brutalities ; they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want unity—the unity of absolute victory .
Ironically , it ’ s that very desire—the desire for monolithic control—that will be their undoing .
Unless Biden is serious about unity—unless he ’ s willing to cross the aisle and recognize the humanity of those with whom he disagrees , and to call out those on his own side who won ’ t—Biden ’ s term is likely to be contentious , polarizing , and ultimately unsuccessful .

On Saturday evening, presidential front-runner Joe Biden—who doesn’t actually become president-elect until vote counts are certified—gave a preliminary victory address.
In that address, he spoke of his mandate to govern: a mandate, he said, that extended to marshalling the “forces of decency … fairness … science … hope.” Which is a pretty vague mandate, as it turns out.
But there was another overarching mandate Biden expressed: a mandate to come together, to unify as Americans. “To make progress, we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy,” Biden said. “We are not enemies. We are Americans.”
All of that is nice. Who wouldn’t like a country in which we could enjoy cultural events together without being lectured about the alleged evils of the country, in which we could attend family events without being castigated as bigots, in which we could disagree and still enjoy one another?
Who wouldn’t like an America in which our neighbors no longer see us as cancel-culture targets, in which we no longer have to fear our compatriots rioting and looting over supposed systemic injustices, in which our social interactions are not limited by our voter registration?
But.
Americans are right to have some rather serious trust issues with calls for unity in our polarized time. After all, former President Barack Obama pledged American reunification right up until he began treating tea partyers as unspeakable threats and political opponents as crypto-racists. Everything was hopey and changey right up until the time … it wasn’t.
So, in order to earn our trust, Biden would have to call his own side out for raising the temperature. And he has steadfastly refused to do so.
He hasn’t called out Black Lives Matter for the suggestion that America is systemically racist; he has cheered it on. He hasn’t condemned Antifa; he has deemed it a philosophy rather than a dangerous movement. And he certainly hasn’t said a word about the continuing attacks on Trump supporters.
We will wait in vain for Biden to chide former first lady Michelle Obama for declaring that 70 million Americans “voted for the status quo, even when it meant supporting lies, hate, chaos, and division.” Our bones will likely bleach before Biden tells Hillary Clinton that Trump supporters aren’t deplorables.
No, “unity” in the Biden formulation isn’t a recognition of what we have in common; it’s a demand that we silence ourselves in order to mirror Biden’s priorities.
Unity, you see, can be achieved one of two ways: through recognition of the other, through a determination to understand those who think differently than we do; or through ideological domination. It’s rather obvious which pathway Democrats will choose. After all, social ostracization is one of their most powerful tools. Why disarm now?
Americans can only come together when we share a common philosophy, history, and culture. Democrats have spent years attempting to tear away those commonalities in favor of coalitional interest-group politics.
They’ve declared American philosophy racist from inception; they’ve declared American history a litany of brutalities; they’ve declared American culture bigotry embodied. Now they want unity—the unity of absolute victory.
Ironically, it’s that very desire—the desire for monolithic control—that will be their undoing.
Unless Biden is serious about unity—unless he’s willing to cross the aisle and recognize the humanity of those with whom he disagrees, and to call out those on his own side who won’t—Biden’s term is likely to be contentious, polarizing, and ultimately unsuccessful.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-11-12--Media Should Not Have ‘Called’ This Election

Joe Biden has made it clear that he will do his best to “ unify ” the country following an election in which more than 71 million Americans—nearly half the electorate—voted for Donald Trump .
It is an admirable goal .
But any chance of that happening depends on the American people having confidence that the election outcome resulted from a fair and honest process .
Though never perfect , our electoral system has generally instilled confidence for the past 231 years , which is why it has worked so well .
Under the contentious circumstances of this election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declare a victor before the official process had run its course has diminished the confidence of Trump voters in the announced result .
Even if the declaration of a Biden victory is found to be accurate , the call was premature , and it will make the effort to unify our nation far more difficult .
Like millions of voters from both sides of the political aisle , I ’ m sensitive to the need for a definitive election outcome , untainted by irregularities or allegations of fraud .
Even with razor-thin margins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we should be able to arrive at a final result that both sides can accept .
Trump is contesting the reported results in those states where the race is close , and the conduct of election officials and the processes used appear suspicious .
He is clearly within his rights to contest the results ; his supporters generally want him to do so .
Allowing the legal process to run its course is the only way to foster the unity Biden seeks .
Unity is much less likely , however , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the matter is resolved .
In 2012 , many Republicans felt disappointed when Mitt Romney lost to President Barack Obama .
Very few felt cheated .
That will not be the case in 2020 if the current president ’ s supporters believe that the media preempted the official process so as to disparage or prevent a full investigation of the president ’ s claims .
The New York Times exacerbated this problem when it announced in an odd Election Day tweet , later withdrawn , that “ the role of declaring the winner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falls to the news media.
” Of course , it does not .
That responsibility falls on Congress .
But that tweet told the president ’ s supporters all they needed to know about the media ’ s intent .
Voters who supported Trump have good reason to distrust the media .
For months , traditional news outlets have been telling us that he would lose his bid for reelection in a landslide and that a “ blue wave ” would sweep the nation , turning control of Capitol Hill completely over to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but ostensibly fair-minded “ straight news ” professionals—treated Biden ’ s decisive victory as a foregone conclusion , actively discouraging their readers and viewers from even considering the possibility of a second Trump term .
The pollsters had “ fixed ” the flaws that plagued their results in 2016 , we were told .
The election returns proved otherwise .
Yet , these same outlets are now asking us to trust them as they declare that their favored candidate won the election .
The media bias against Republicans in general and Trump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The multiyear Russian collusion debacle exposed the lengths to which some media outlets were willing to go to tarnish his reputation—and the stunning failure on the part of reporters , pundits , “ expert ” commentators , elected officials , and media executives to acknowledge their bias and their errors—let alone apologize for their roles in spreading roundly debunked disinformation—casts the motivations of those outlets in a harsh light .
How can the president ’ s supporters trust people who misled them for years and then refused to acknowledge fault when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the electorate now wondering if voting even matters , the media ’ s rush to judgment has done a grave disservice to the goal of unifying our nation .
If America is to have any hope of healing the wounds inflicted by years of intense and divisive partisanship , then the media would be well advised to leave it to the proper authorities to declare the outcome of this election—and stop attempting to foist a premature judgment on unwilling voters .

Joe Biden has made it clear that he will do his best to “unify” the country following an election in which more than 71 million Americans—nearly half the electorate—voted for Donald Trump.
It is an admirable goal. But any chance of that happening depends on the American people having confidence that the election outcome resulted from a fair and honest process. Though never perfect, our electoral system has generally instilled confidence for the past 231 years, which is why it has worked so well.
Under the contentious circumstances of this election, the traditional media’s decision to declare a victor before the official process had run its course has diminished the confidence of Trump voters in the announced result. Even if the declaration of a Biden victory is found to be accurate, the call was premature, and it will make the effort to unify our nation far more difficult.
Like millions of voters from both sides of the political aisle, I’m sensitive to the need for a definitive election outcome, untainted by irregularities or allegations of fraud. Even with razor-thin margins separating the two candidates in key states, we should be able to arrive at a final result that both sides can accept.
Trump is contesting the reported results in those states where the race is close, and the conduct of election officials and the processes used appear suspicious. He is clearly within his rights to contest the results; his supporters generally want him to do so. Allowing the legal process to run its course is the only way to foster the unity Biden seeks.
Unity is much less likely, however, when the media simply declares a winner before the matter is resolved. In 2012, many Republicans felt disappointed when Mitt Romney lost to President Barack Obama. Very few felt cheated.
That will not be the case in 2020 if the current president’s supporters believe that the media preempted the official process so as to disparage or prevent a full investigation of the president’s claims.
The New York Times exacerbated this problem when it announced in an odd Election Day tweet, later withdrawn, that “the role of declaring the winner of a presidential election in the U.S. falls to the news media.”
Of course, it does not. That responsibility falls on Congress. But that tweet told the president’s supporters all they needed to know about the media’s intent.
Voters who supported Trump have good reason to distrust the media. For months, traditional news outlets have been telling us that he would lose his bid for reelection in a landslide and that a “blue wave” would sweep the nation, turning control of Capitol Hill completely over to the Democrats.
Reporters—not just pundits, but ostensibly fair-minded “straight news” professionals—treated Biden’s decisive victory as a foregone conclusion, actively discouraging their readers and viewers from even considering the possibility of a second Trump term. The pollsters had “fixed” the flaws that plagued their results in 2016, we were told.
The election returns proved otherwise. Yet, these same outlets are now asking us to trust them as they declare that their favored candidate won the election.
The media bias against Republicans in general and Trump in particular is certainly not of recent vintage. The multiyear Russian collusion debacle exposed the lengths to which some media outlets were willing to go to tarnish his reputation—and the stunning failure on the part of reporters, pundits, “expert” commentators, elected officials, and media executives to acknowledge their bias and their errors—let alone apologize for their roles in spreading roundly debunked disinformation—casts the motivations of those outlets in a harsh light.
How can the president’s supporters trust people who misled them for years and then refused to acknowledge fault when the truth was exposed?
With nearly half the electorate now wondering if voting even matters, the media’s rush to judgment has done a grave disservice to the goal of unifying our nation.
If America is to have any hope of healing the wounds inflicted by years of intense and divisive partisanship, then the media would be well advised to leave it to the proper authorities to declare the outcome of this election—and stop attempting to foist a premature judgment on unwilling voters.
Originally published by RealClearPolitics


dailysignal--2020-11-12--Will Trump Ride Off Into the Sunset?

Will Trump Ride Off Into the Sunset?

I once wrote that whenever Donald Trump exits office , he will likely leave as a “ tragic hero.
” Over two millennia ago , the Athenian tragedian Sophocles first described the archetype in his portraits of an angry and old but still fearsome Ajax , and heroic but stubborn and self-fixated Antigone .
In the iconic John Ford Western “ The Searchers ” and in a host of other films from “ Shane ” to “ High Noon , ” we have seen stories of these sorts .
The legalistic but impotent town council , the idealistic but outgunned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperation turns to unconventional deliverance .
They suddenly need a John Wayne as a scary Ethan Edwards , or a mysterious gunslinger like Shane .
But to call in such Manichean outsiders is to admit that the status quo of a sober establishment has failed .
The outsider deliverers are suspiciously seen as self-absorbed .
Their methods bother an endangered , polite society , even as they begin to bring it results .
We know such checkered iconoclasts from our own war stories of Gens .
William Tecumseh Sherman , George S. Patton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shredded pretensions .
They reminded Americans that war is hell , and that the only thing worse than fighting so brutally against dangerous enemies is losing .
And all three—only after the conflicts ended—were eventually deemed eccentric enough to be expendable .
As we learn from the second half of Sophocles ’ tragedies and the last 30 minutes of classic Westerns , the nearer the tragic hero comes to ensuring results , the more his benefactors can begin to second-guess his bothersome methods .
They start harping about his uncivilized mannerisms and recalcitrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the luxury of regretting their initial invitation to enlist his aid .
The denouement is as tragic as it is predictable .
A wounded Shane will ride off into the sunset in the snowy Grand Tetons , assured that the danger is past but knowing there is no place in a now-calm range for his six-gun that brought others justice and peace .
In “ The Searchers , ” Ethan Edwards rescues his kidnapped niece but walks away unnoticed as others self-congratulate for her deliverance .
Gary Cooper in “ High Noon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it feared .
But he will become so disgusted with the town ’ s ingratitude that he will throw down his badge in the dirt before leaving .
We remember Sherman for supposedly burning a swath through Georgia , breaking the will of the planation class and freeing thousands of slaves .
Foul-mouthed Patton , with his ivory-handled pistols , is often recalled more as a madman who believed in reincarnation than as a genius who saved thousands of GIs .
A cigar-chomping LeMay , more than anyone , destroyed Imperial Japanese industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ended up caricatured as a nut in the film “ Dr .
Strangelove.
” So too , perhaps , Donald Trump .
Quietly , many Americans knew that unchecked illegal immigration was undermining the melting pot and eroding the idea of legal immigration .
Some feared it was a matter of when , rather than if , communist China would rule the world .
Many people were tired of “ endless ” wars in the Middle East , even as America kept getting sucked into them .
Republicans knew that an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution , but Republican presidents nonetheless often nominated future liberal justices .
Conservatives hammered away at the principle that late-term abortion was wrong but feared that taking on Planned Parenthood was suicidal .
Republicans rightly suspected that they were being typecast as a party of aristocratic golfers but were scared of the changes needed to appeal to the working classes , both black and white .
They found the old Reagan Democrats , Ross Perot voters , blue dogs , and tea partiers occasionally useful but felt that addressing their grievances would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the peasants sought outside deliverance and so it came—orange skin , dyed hair , Queens accent and all .
The more Trump beat back Robert Mueller ‘ s dream team , impeachment efforts , and the terrible year 2020 , the more his beneficiaries worried about his tweets , his bluster , and his self-absorption .
The more the economy boomed , and the more Trump recalibrated foreign policy and changed the status quo with China and the Middle East , the more the public could afford to listen to charges of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wake of the most contested election in memory , and Trump may be officially declared the loser—even after he won his struggle to stop America ’ s leftward drift .
Often , Hollywood epics and even some Sophoclean tragedies have a sequel .
And perhaps Trump will too , even if he is forced to ride off into the 2021 sunset—at least for now .
( C ) 2020 Tribune Content Agency , LLC .

I once wrote that whenever Donald Trump exits office, he will likely leave as a “tragic hero.” Over two millennia ago, the Athenian tragedian Sophocles first described the archetype in his portraits of an angry and old but still fearsome Ajax, and heroic but stubborn and self-fixated Antigone.
In the iconic John Ford Western “The Searchers” and in a host of other films from “Shane” to “High Noon,” we have seen stories of these sorts.
The legalistic but impotent town council, the idealistic but outgunned sodbusters, or the incompetent posse in desperation turns to unconventional deliverance. They suddenly need a John Wayne as a scary Ethan Edwards, or a mysterious gunslinger like Shane.
But to call in such Manichean outsiders is to admit that the status quo of a sober establishment has failed.
The outsider deliverers are suspiciously seen as self-absorbed. Their methods bother an endangered, polite society, even as they begin to bring it results.
We know such checkered iconoclasts from our own war stories of Gens. William Tecumseh Sherman, George S. Patton, and Curtis LeMay. All three shredded pretensions. They reminded Americans that war is hell, and that the only thing worse than fighting so brutally against dangerous enemies is losing. And all three—only after the conflicts ended—were eventually deemed eccentric enough to be expendable.
As we learn from the second half of Sophocles’ tragedies and the last 30 minutes of classic Westerns, the nearer the tragic hero comes to ensuring results, the more his benefactors can begin to second-guess his bothersome methods.
They start harping about his uncivilized mannerisms and recalcitrant stubbornness, but only because they now have the luxury of regretting their initial invitation to enlist his aid.
The denouement is as tragic as it is predictable.
A wounded Shane will ride off into the sunset in the snowy Grand Tetons, assured that the danger is past but knowing there is no place in a now-calm range for his six-gun that brought others justice and peace.
In “The Searchers,” Ethan Edwards rescues his kidnapped niece but walks away unnoticed as others self-congratulate for her deliverance.
Gary Cooper in “High Noon” will rid Hadleyville of the outlaws it feared. But he will become so disgusted with the town’s ingratitude that he will throw down his badge in the dirt before leaving.
We remember Sherman for supposedly burning a swath through Georgia, breaking the will of the planation class and freeing thousands of slaves.
Foul-mouthed Patton, with his ivory-handled pistols, is often recalled more as a madman who believed in reincarnation than as a genius who saved thousands of GIs.
A cigar-chomping LeMay, more than anyone, destroyed Imperial Japanese industry and created an effective Cold War deterrent. He ended up caricatured as a nut in the film “Dr. Strangelove.”
So too, perhaps, Donald Trump. Quietly, many Americans knew that unchecked illegal immigration was undermining the melting pot and eroding the idea of legal immigration.
Some feared it was a matter of when, rather than if, communist China would rule the world. Many people were tired of “endless” wars in the Middle East, even as America kept getting sucked into them.
Republicans knew that an originalist court was necessary to save the Constitution, but Republican presidents nonetheless often nominated future liberal justices.
Conservatives hammered away at the principle that late-term abortion was wrong but feared that taking on Planned Parenthood was suicidal.
Republicans rightly suspected that they were being typecast as a party of aristocratic golfers but were scared of the changes needed to appeal to the working classes, both black and white. They found the old Reagan Democrats, Ross Perot voters, blue dogs, and tea partiers occasionally useful but felt that addressing their grievances would be worse than losing.
So in 2016 the peasants sought outside deliverance and so it came—orange skin, dyed hair, Queens accent and all.
The more Trump beat back Robert Mueller‘s dream team, impeachment efforts, and the terrible year 2020, the more his beneficiaries worried about his tweets, his bluster, and his self-absorption.
The more the economy boomed, and the more Trump recalibrated foreign policy and changed the status quo with China and the Middle East, the more the public could afford to listen to charges of Trump excess.
So here we are in the wake of the most contested election in memory, and Trump may be officially declared the loser—even after he won his struggle to stop America’s leftward drift.
Often, Hollywood epics and even some Sophoclean tragedies have a sequel. And perhaps Trump will too, even if he is forced to ride off into the 2021 sunset—at least for now.
(C)2020 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


dailysignal--2020-11-13--Here’s Who Progressives Want to See in Biden’s Cabinet

Two leading progressive groups released a list comprised of left-wing politicians , activists , and union leaders Wednesday who they would like to see in former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s future cabinet .
Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement created a list outlining the groups ’ top three picks for several cabinet positions like secretary of state and attorney general and included Democratic Sens .
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont .
The groups dubbed Biden ’ s potential cabinet the “ climate cabinet ” and stated that members should have no ties to fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate crisis ” with urgency .
“ Joe Biden must command the federal government with fierce urgency and bold creativity , ” the progressive groups said in a statement .
“ Our next president must establish new executive offices , with expansive power to respond to crises faster than Mitch McConnell.
” The list recommended that Biden nominates Warren and Sanders to secretary of the treasury and secretary of labor respectively .
It also recommended Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison gets appointed to lead the Department of Justice and Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and urban development .
Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry and Association of Flight Attendants President Sara Nelson were recommended as secondary picks for labor secretary and transportation secretary .
Also included are professors Kevin De León , of the University of California , Los Angeles , and Manuel Pastor , of the University of Southern California , and activists Mustafa Santiago Ali , of the National Wildlife Federation , and Abdul El Sayed , of Southpaw Michigan .
“ President-elect Biden must embrace this historic moment by keeping the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help him usher in the most progressive Democratic administration in generations , ” Justice Democrats Executive Director Alexandra Rojas said in a statement , according to The Hill .
“ Progressives make up close to half the party in Congress and deserve representation in the next administration , ” she continued .
The two groups also said Biden must establish a new agency , the Office of Climate Mobilization .
The new executive office would “ hold every federal department accountable ” when it comes to their impact on the climate .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked him to lead the Department of Labor , he would accept .
However , Sanders and Warren have reportedly been ruled out of serving in Biden ’ s cabinet because their ideas are too extreme , according to Politico .
The report that some progressives have been ruled out of serving in a Biden administration comes as moderate Democrats continue to blame left-wing Democrats for shocking down-ballot election losses .
Depending on the result of January ’ s runoff elections , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , , could also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far left .
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 ] .

Two leading progressive groups released a list comprised of left-wing politicians, activists, and union leaders Wednesday who they would like to see in former Vice President Joe Biden’s future Cabinet.
Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement created a list outlining the groups’ top three picks for several Cabinet positions like secretary of state and attorney general and included Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
The groups dubbed Biden’s potential Cabinet the “climate cabinet” and stated that members should have no ties to fossil fuel companies and should fight the “climate crisis” with urgency.
“Joe Biden must command the federal government with fierce urgency and bold creativity,” the progressive groups said in a statement. “Our next president must establish new executive offices, with expansive power to respond to crises faster than Mitch McConnell.”
“This is Biden’s FDR moment,” the groups added.
The list recommended that Biden nominates Warren and Sanders to secretary of the treasury and secretary of labor, respectively. It also recommended Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison gets appointed to lead the Department of Justice and Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib nominated to be secretary of housing and urban development.
Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry and Association of Flight Attendants President Sara Nelson were recommended as secondary picks for labor secretary and transportation secretary.
Also included are professors Kevin De León, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Manuel Pastor, of the University of Southern California, and activists Mustafa Santiago Ali, of the National Wildlife Federation, and Abdul El Sayed, of Southpaw Michigan.
“President-elect Biden must embrace this historic moment by keeping the party united and appointing progressive leaders who will help him usher in the most progressive Democratic administration in generations,” Justice Democrats Executive Director Alexandra Rojas said in a statement, according to The Hill.
“Progressives make up close to half the party in Congress and deserve representation in the next administration,” she continued.
The two groups also said Biden must establish a new agency, the Office of Climate Mobilization. The new executive office would “hold every federal department accountable” when it comes to their impact on the climate.
Meanwhile, Sanders said Wednesday that if Biden asked him to lead the Department of Labor, he would accept. However, Sanders and Warren have reportedly been ruled out of serving in Biden’s Cabinet because their ideas are too extreme, according to Politico.
The report that some progressives have been ruled out of serving in a Biden administration comes as moderate Democrats continue to blame left-wing Democrats for shocking down-ballot election losses.
Depending on the result of January’s runoff elections, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., could also thwart Cabinet picks deemed to be too far left.
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--2020-11-13--Media Didn’t Earn a Vote of Confidence With 2020 Coverage

Wednesday was Veterans Day , but in 2020 we all know who really deserves our thanks for preserving the American way of life—the press .
“ The media never fully learned how to cover Trump .
But they still might have saved democracy , ” read a headline in The Washington Post earlier this week .
The column was authored by Margaret Sullivan , who is ostensibly a Post media critic , though any media criticism she offers lately seems to involve trolling her peers for not being tougher on President Donald Trump .
“ We constantly sought to normalize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimate news , ” she wrote .
In this parallel universe , the media still managed to save democracy despite a supposed reticence to criticize Trump .
Back in the real world , Joe Biden may have eked out a victory , but if this was a referendum on the media ’ s performance—it lost .
Bigly .
Despite confident pundit predictions and skewed polls , it was a very close election .
And before all the votes are counted , the gatekeepers of the Fourth Estate remain anxious to claim victory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask whether a Trump defeat was worth encouraging Michael Avenatti to run for president , smearing Brett Kavanaugh as a teenage gang rapist , allowing anonymously sourced bilge to define journalistic norms , and descending into a labyrinth of discredited Russia conspiracies .
It might be a generation before the media is trusted again , if ever .
It was all too obvious there would soon come a time when the national press corps would regret squandering their remaining professional credibility to go to war with Trump .
It didn ’ t take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The media is very unhappy that Trump hasn ’ t conceded the election to Biden and is instead vigorously pursuing claims of voter fraud , however unlikely it is for the results to be overturned .
The time when the media functioned as a trusted intermediary to tell us who won elections has passed .
Criticizing Trump for his loose talk about voter fraud is to be expected , but major media figures are now making veiled threats directed at his supporters—and that ’ s something altogether different .
“ I truly sympathize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not easy—but at a certain point one has to think not only about what ’ s best for the nation ( peaceful transfer of power ) but how any future employers might see your character defined during adversity , ” CNN ’ s Jake Tapper tweeted earlier this week .
Tapper would later insist that he wasn ’ t advocating blacklisting , but given CNN ’ s consistently hostile tone toward the president , why would any Trump supporter take Tapper ’ s sympathy at face value ?
Did he earn this moral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publishing “ Down and Dirty : The Plot to Steal the Presidency ” barely a month after George W. Bush was inaugurated ?
Did CNN run its snarky chyrons when Hillary Clinton repeatedly claimed Trump ’ s election was illegitimate ?
Did anyone in the legacy media question Stacey Abrams ’ continued insistence she won Georgia ’ s gubernatorial election in 2018 ?
As for the media ’ s sudden concern about a “ peaceful transfer of power , ” part of the current angst over conceding the election is that Trump supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their guy was never extended that courtesy .
Here again , the media , specifically Tapper ’ s network , played a role in that process .
Before Trump ’ s inauguration on Jan. 20 , 2017 , CNN reported on the existence of a briefing given to President-elect Trump and President Barack Obama about a “ dossier ” detailing accusations that Trump had questionable dealings with Russia .
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper apparently leaked news of the briefing to Tapper in early January , who ran with the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dossier , many of which were farcical .
( Erik Wemple , the Post ’ s other media critic , has written a damning multi-part series on the mishandling of the dossier by the media generally , and CNN specifically . )
Nonetheless , if the goal was to get Trump , it couldn ’ t have worked out better—CNN ’ s story triggered years of dubious Russia reporting across the entire media landscape .
Certainly Trump ’ s own behavior in office did him no favors , but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have turned out if accusing Trump of stealing the 2016 election by colluding with Russia hadn ’ t been the dominant story of his first two years in office .
There was from the start a different set of journalistic rules when it came to Trump .
It ’ s hard to even understand , for example , how The New York Times made a high-level editorial decision to grossly misrepresent the identity of an unknown Department of Homeland Security underling as a “ senior White House official ” when writing his “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump will prove to be a consequential president—if for no other reason than post-2020 it will be impossible to pretend major media outlets aren ’ t willing to put their thumbs on the scale .
Earlier this week , MSNBC fired contributor Jon Meacham after it was revealed he drafted Biden ’ s victory speech and then went on air afterward to effusively praise his own handiwork .
Meacham is the former editor-in-chief of Newsweek and a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer , so he can ’ t possibly claim to be ignorant of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Meacham ’ s credentials thought he could get away with this , it makes you wonder what kind of partisan favor-trading major media figures are routinely engaged in .
Perhaps there is some mitigating explanation for Meacham , but to paraphrase Tapper , I truly sympathize with those in the media dealing with winning .
But at a certain point one has to think not only about what ’ s best for the nation , but how any future employers might see your character defined during a news cycle of uninspiring Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect Meacham to be back on television in a few months .
After all , the media has to save democracy , and another presidential election is only four short years away .

Wednesday was Veterans Day, but in 2020 we all know who really deserves our thanks for preserving the American way of life—the press. “The media never fully learned how to cover Trump. But they still might have saved democracy,” read a headline in The Washington Post earlier this week.
The column was authored by Margaret Sullivan, who is ostensibly a Post media critic, though any media criticism she offers lately seems to involve trolling her peers for not being tougher on President Donald Trump.
“We constantly sought to normalize him, treating his deranged tweets like legitimate news,” she wrote. In this parallel universe, the media still managed to save democracy despite a supposed reticence to criticize Trump.
Back in the real world, Joe Biden may have eked out a victory, but if this was a referendum on the media’s performance—it lost. Bigly.
Despite confident pundit predictions and skewed polls, it was a very close election. And before all the votes are counted, the gatekeepers of the Fourth Estate remain anxious to claim victory.
But they haven’t stopped to ask whether a Trump defeat was worth encouraging Michael Avenatti to run for president, smearing Brett Kavanaugh as a teenage gang rapist, allowing anonymously sourced bilge to define journalistic norms, and descending into a labyrinth of discredited Russia conspiracies.
It might be a generation before the media is trusted again, if ever.
It was all too obvious there would soon come a time when the national press corps would regret squandering their remaining professional credibility to go to war with Trump. It didn’t take long for that time to come.
The media is very unhappy that Trump hasn’t conceded the election to Biden and is instead vigorously pursuing claims of voter fraud, however unlikely it is for the results to be overturned.
The time when the media functioned as a trusted intermediary to tell us who won elections has passed.
Criticizing Trump for his loose talk about voter fraud is to be expected, but major media figures are now making veiled threats directed at his supporters—and that’s something altogether different.
“I truly sympathize with those dealing with losing—it’s not easy—but at a certain point one has to think not only about what’s best for the nation (peaceful transfer of power) but how any future employers might see your character defined during adversity,” CNN’s Jake Tapper tweeted earlier this week.
Tapper would later insist that he wasn’t advocating blacklisting, but given CNN’s consistently hostile tone toward the president, why would any Trump supporter take Tapper’s sympathy at face value? Did he earn this moral authority to call out sore losers by publishing “Down and Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency” barely a month after George W. Bush was inaugurated?
Did CNN run its snarky chyrons when Hillary Clinton repeatedly claimed Trump’s election was illegitimate? Did anyone in the legacy media question Stacey Abrams’ continued insistence she won Georgia’s gubernatorial election in 2018?
As for the media’s sudden concern about a “peaceful transfer of power,” part of the current angst over conceding the election is that Trump supporters feel, with good reason, that their guy was never extended that courtesy.
Here again, the media, specifically Tapper’s network, played a role in that process. Before Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017, CNN reported on the existence of a briefing given to President-elect Trump and President Barack Obama about a “dossier” detailing accusations that Trump had questionable dealings with Russia.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper apparently leaked news of the briefing to Tapper in early January, who ran with the story without bothering to verify the claims in the dossier, many of which were farcical. (Erik Wemple, the Post’s other media critic, has written a damning multi-part series on the mishandling of the dossier by the media generally, and CNN specifically.)
Nonetheless, if the goal was to get Trump, it couldn’t have worked out better—CNN’s story triggered years of dubious Russia reporting across the entire media landscape.
Certainly Trump’s own behavior in office did him no favors, but it’s worth asking how the 2020 election would have turned out if accusing Trump of stealing the 2016 election by colluding with Russia hadn’t been the dominant story of his first two years in office.
There was from the start a different set of journalistic rules when it came to Trump. It’s hard to even understand, for example, how The New York Times made a high-level editorial decision to grossly misrepresent the identity of an unknown Department of Homeland Security underling as a “senior White House official” when writing his “Anonymous” screed.
One-term or not, Trump will prove to be a consequential president—if for no other reason than post-2020 it will be impossible to pretend major media outlets aren’t willing to put their thumbs on the scale.
Earlier this week, MSNBC fired contributor Jon Meacham after it was revealed he drafted Biden’s victory speech and then went on air afterward to effusively praise his own handiwork. Meacham is the former editor-in-chief of Newsweek and a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, so he can’t possibly claim to be ignorant of the ethical considerations.
If a journalist of Meacham’s credentials thought he could get away with this, it makes you wonder what kind of partisan favor-trading major media figures are routinely engaged in.
Perhaps there is some mitigating explanation for Meacham, but to paraphrase Tapper, I truly sympathize with those in the media dealing with winning. But at a certain point one has to think not only about what’s best for the nation, but how any future employers might see your character defined during a news cycle of uninspiring Biden triumphalism.
All that is to say expect Meacham to be back on television in a few months. After all, the media has to save democracy, and another presidential election is only four short years away.
Originally published by RealClearPolitics


dailysignal--2020-11-13--Not Just Talk: How Congress Can Reduce Health Care Premiums and Improve Access to Care

If there ’ s one thing Americans agree on , it ’ s the need for change in our health care system .
The pandemic has further exposed the need for reform to lower health care costs and make it easier to see the doctor of your choice .
Leaders on the left try to claim that only big-government solutions driven from Washington can achieve that goal .
But their centerpiece law , the ironically-named Affordable Care Act , has led to the opposite .
According to Heritage Foundation research , costs went up and choices went down—while barriers went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their choice .
Moreover , this week , the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments about whether to overturn the law , reminding us that it ’ s been on contested ground since its partisan enactment 10 years ago .
Even Democrats want to move on from the law , embracing even more big government through so-called public options or government-run health proposals like “ Medicare for All.
” Lawmakers who care about delivering on what Americans say they want have a better alternative than the left ’ s flawed ideas .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage options , and improves the health care system for patients while protecting those with preexisting conditions .
A broad spectrum of conservative leaders recently released more details for the Health Care Choices 2020 proposal to improve health care for all Americans , along with independent scoring to further back up their ideas .
The Center for Health and Economy used its independent model to analyze the proposal , in a study commissioned by The Heritage Foundation .
The study finds that the reforms within the Health Care Choices Proposal would : —Lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage .
Silver plans would see the largest impact , as premiums would decrease up to 24 % beginning in 2022 relative to the baseline .
—Increase the number of insured , with nearly 4 million more people purchasing insurance by 2030 .
And , more people will enroll in private coverage instead of public insurance over the same period .
—Improve access to medical providers , leading to an 8 % increase in the provider access index by 2030 .
—Save taxpayers money , about $ 36 billion from 2022 to 2030 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieve these results by addressing the 10 most pressing health care needs of Americans .
For example the plan : 1 .
Protects you if you get sick , have a preexisting condition , or need financial help with better options , including plans that cover the doctors you need to get and stay healthy .
2 .
Saves you money on health care and drugs with price transparency for easy comparison shopping , more choices for health coverage—including picking your personal primary care doctor directly independent of your coverage and allowing you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost care .
3 .
Eliminates your risk of surprise medical bills with price and coverage transparency and truth in advertising .
4 .
Lets you keep your health coverage and doctors when you change or lose your job by giving you more control over your health care dollars and employer benefits .
5 .
Modernizes your health care and coverage with personalized medicine , including telehealth and plans that help you stay healthy and take care of you when you are sick .
This plan achieves this goal by moving power and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and toward an innovative , patient-centered approach that gives you more control and better choices at lower costs , all while protecting the most vulnerable .
The last four years saw steps in this direction , thanks in part to actions by this administration .
For example , we ’ ve seen regulatory relief open new options for coverage , make it easier for people to take their coverage and doctors from job to job , slash red tape so patients and doctors can visit via telehealth tools , make it easier for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ill seniors , and even moderate premium increases .
Yet many problems remain .
Premiums in the individual market have doubled in the last few years , for example .
And despite the left ’ s narrative to the contrary , Obamacare ’ s mandates make it hard for sick people to see the specialists they need .
The sick in America face too many hurdles to getting the care they need .
To fix those problems , Congress will need to act .
The Health Care Choices Proposal gives it the roadmap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American can get the health care they want from the doctors they trust .

If there’s one thing Americans agree on, it’s the need for change in our health care system. The pandemic has further exposed the need for reform to lower health care costs and make it easier to see the doctor of your choice.
Leaders on the left try to claim that only big-government solutions driven from Washington can achieve that goal. But their centerpiece law, the ironically-named Affordable Care Act, has led to the opposite.
According to Heritage Foundation research, costs went up and choices went down—while barriers went up between patients and the doctor of their choice.
Moreover, this week, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments about whether to overturn the law, reminding us that it’s been on contested ground since its partisan enactment 10 years ago.
Even Democrats want to move on from the law, embracing even more big government through so-called public options or government-run health proposals like “Medicare for All.”
Lawmakers who care about delivering on what Americans say they want have a better alternative than the left’s flawed ideas. That alternative lowers health care costs, expands coverage options, and improves the health care system for patients while protecting those with preexisting conditions.
A broad spectrum of conservative leaders recently released more details for the Health Care Choices 2020 proposal to improve health care for all Americans, along with independent scoring to further back up their ideas.
The Center for Health and Economy used its independent model to analyze the proposal, in a study commissioned by The Heritage Foundation. The study finds that the reforms within the Health Care Choices Proposal would:
—Lower premiums for private individual market health insurance coverage. Silver plans would see the largest impact, as premiums would decrease up to 24% beginning in 2022 relative to the baseline.
—Increase the number of insured, with nearly 4 million more people purchasing insurance by 2030. And, more people will enroll in private coverage instead of public insurance over the same period.
—Improve access to medical providers, leading to an 8% increase in the provider access index by 2030.
—Save taxpayers money, about $36 billion from 2022 to 2030.
The Health Care Choices Proposal would achieve these results by addressing the 10 most pressing health care needs of Americans. For example the plan:
1. Protects you if you get sick, have a preexisting condition, or need financial help with better options, including plans that cover the doctors you need to get and stay healthy.
2. Saves you money on health care and drugs with price transparency for easy comparison shopping, more choices for health coverage—including picking your personal primary care doctor directly independent of your coverage and allowing you to benefit financially when you choose lower cost care.
3. Eliminates your risk of surprise medical bills with price and coverage transparency and truth in advertising.
4. Lets you keep your health coverage and doctors when you change or lose your job by giving you more control over your health care dollars and employer benefits.
5. Modernizes your health care and coverage with personalized medicine, including telehealth and plans that help you stay healthy and take care of you when you are sick.
This plan achieves this goal by moving power and control away from Washington and insurance companies and toward an innovative, patient-centered approach that gives you more control and better choices at lower costs, all while protecting the most vulnerable.
The last four years saw steps in this direction, thanks in part to actions by this administration.
For example, we’ve seen regulatory relief open new options for coverage, make it easier for people to take their coverage and doctors from job to job, slash red tape so patients and doctors can visit via telehealth tools, make it easier for private innovators to offer benefits for chronically ill seniors, and even moderate premium increases.
Yet many problems remain. Premiums in the individual market have doubled in the last few years, for example. And despite the left’s narrative to the contrary, Obamacare’s mandates make it hard for sick people to see the specialists they need. The sick in America face too many hurdles to getting the care they need.
To fix those problems, Congress will need to act. The Health Care Choices Proposal gives it the roadmap to make the improvements needed so every American can get the health care they want from the doctors they trust.
Originally published by The Washington Times


dailysignal--2020-11-13--10 Counties With 21% of COVID-19 Deaths Have Just 11% of the 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 .
In recent months , the number of new cases has been more geographically dispersed , but COVID-19 fatalities remain highly concentrated .
> > > 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
For instance , near the start of the pandemic , from March 1 to April 15 , half of all the new cases were in just 22 counties ( with just a 12 % share of the population ) .
Fifteen of those counties were in either New York or New Jersey , and all but 4 were in the Northeast corridor .
However , from Oct. 1 to Nov. 12 , half of the new cases spread among 182 counties , in 42 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 49.4 % of the U.S. population , roughly equal to the share of new cases .
Although 18 of these counties are in New York and New Jersey ( including many in the New York City area ) , states outside the Northeast contributed significantly to the rise in new cases .
For instance , 13 of these counties are in Wisconsin , 12 are in Texas , 10 are in California ( including Los Angeles ) , nine are in Illinois , and four are in North Dakota .
New COVID-19 deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more geographically dispersed : 50 % of those fatalities are spread among 234 counties .
From the beginning of the pandemic , total COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. remain heavily concentrated in a small number of states and counties .
Given these figures , there are no new “ hot spots ” comparable to those during the earliest stages of the pandemic .
Heritage ’ s interactive 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ users to select data from counties with zero deaths to counties with 10 deaths or fewer .
As of Nov. 12 , the 10 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths account for 20.7 % 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 34.9 % of the related deaths in the U.S. and only 19.6 % of the U.S. population .
The counties of New York City , one of the hardest-hit areas in the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the five counties with the most deaths in the U.S. 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 , while 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation 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 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation ’ s model projected that the U.S. would have 400,000 deaths from COVID-19 by Jan. 1 .
But as of now , the model projects roughly 350,000 deaths in its worst-case scenario and 328,000 for its current projection .
The institute is now projecting 400,000 deaths by Feb 1 .
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-day and 14-day average death rates for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 20 .
However , as cases and deaths increase in the colder months , the U.S. now faces elevated reported deaths .
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 , but as of Nov. 12 , the seven-day average is now 1,146 .
Considering Nov. 12 ’ s death count of 1,893 , this rate could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past 30 days , the ratio of deaths to cases is roughly 1 % .
If we compare 30 days of cases lagged by 14 days , this ratio rises to 1.5 % , still substantially lower than early days of the pandemic .
Now that COVID-19 testing has increased dramatically , and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders , it ’ s even more critical to study the trends in deaths along with cases .
To make studying these trends easier , The Heritage Foundation now has two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
Those 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to explore the other visual tools on The Heritage Foundation ’ 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.
In recent months, the number of new cases has been more geographically dispersed, but COVID-19 fatalities remain highly concentrated.
>>> 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.
For instance, near the start of the pandemic, from March 1 to April 15, half of all the new cases were in just 22 counties (with just a 12% share of the population). Fifteen of those counties were in either New York or New Jersey, and all but 4 were in the Northeast corridor.
However, from Oct. 1 to Nov. 12, half of the new cases spread among 182 counties, in 42 states. Moreover, these counties contain 49.4% of the U.S. population, roughly equal to the share of new cases.
Although 18 of these counties are in New York and New Jersey (including many in the New York City area), states outside the Northeast contributed significantly to the rise in new cases. For instance, 13 of these counties are in Wisconsin, 12 are in Texas, 10 are in California (including Los Angeles), nine are in Illinois, and four are in North Dakota.
New COVID-19 deaths from Oct. 1 to Nov. 12 are even more geographically dispersed: 50% of those fatalities are spread among 234 counties.
From the beginning of the pandemic, total COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. remain heavily concentrated in a small number of states and counties. Given these figures, there are no new “hot spots” comparable to those during the earliest stages of the pandemic.
Heritage’s interactive 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 users to select data from counties with zero deaths to counties with 10 deaths or fewer.
As of Nov. 12, the 10 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths account for 20.7% 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 34.9% of the related deaths in the U.S. and only 19.6% of the U.S. population.
The counties of New York City, one of the hardest-hit areas in the early stages of the pandemic, remain three of the five counties with the most deaths in the U.S. 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, while 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 Foundation 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.
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. But as of now, the model projects roughly 350,000 deaths in its worst-case scenario and 328,000 for its current projection. The institute is now projecting 400,000 deaths by Feb 1.
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-day and 14-day average death rates for the U.S. have not been that high since May 20. However, as cases and deaths increase in the colder months, the U.S. now faces elevated reported deaths.
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, but as of Nov. 12, the seven-day average is now 1,146.
Considering Nov. 12’s death count of 1,893, this rate could climb further. Though crude, over the past 30 days, the ratio of deaths to cases is roughly 1%. If we compare 30 days of cases lagged by 14 days, this ratio rises to 1.5%, still substantially lower than early days of the pandemic.
Now that COVID-19 testing has increased dramatically, and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders, it’s 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.
Those 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 The Heritage Foundation’s COVID-19 resources page.