The Coronavirus Forty Weeks Later - Year End Reflections, Part II (Where Do We Go From Here?)

The Electoral College has voted.  In one month Joe Biden will be installed as the 46th President of the United States.  Rightly or wrongly, numerous courts demonstrated that they had little inclination to hear cases alleging voter fraud.  I was not surprised that the Supreme Court declined to hear the Texas case alleging voter fraud in several swing states, nor that the Trump appointees also voted not to hear the case.  It was a conservative decision - deferring to each state's officials to determine the legitimacy of their vote.  Then there is also the reluctance to get involved in political matters.  I'm old school.  I want to see Trump at Biden's inauguration, demonstrating once again a peaceful transition of power in the greatest country on earth.  

In one poll, 61% said they trusted the results of the election.  95% of Democrats agreed compared to only 24% of Republicans, and 67% of Independents.  Clearly not a healthy sign that so few believe the election results were legitimate.  Here was the 12/12/20 headline in the New York Times:  "JUSTICES DENY BID BY TEXAS TO SUBVERT VOTE."  Actually, Texas was using the court system to challenge the vote.  But the Times had no interest in allowing any possible validity to simply questioning the vote.  For the Times, it could be only be subversion.

In their editorial of the same day, the Times wrote:  "Questioning the integrity of an election is a matter of the utmost seriousness."  Then this:  "This new policy of election denialism, by contrast, is the latest manifestation of the Republican Party's increasingly anti-democratic tendencies."  As reluctant as I am to use the term "hypocrites" - what a bunch of hypocrites.  After the 2016 election, the Times editorial told us that the country was at the "precipice."  Losing candidate Hillary Clinton said this:  "I believe he knows he's an illegitimate president."  And:  "This wasn't on the level."  So many on the Left refused to accept Trump as a legitimate president - not just immediately following his election, but for the entire four years of his term.  So please, spare me the sanctimony.

For three years we heard non-stop about "Russian collusion."  Given the Hunter Biden investigation, and given the soon to be President's obvious lack of oversight over his son's involvement with China, I am sure that the Times and the rest of the mainstream media will be reporting daily about "Chinese collusion."  Just as I am sure that we will have a "special prosecutor" assigned to look into the Biden family's ties to China.  Right?  

Much has been made of Biden's recent call for "unity."  Would that be a "unity" that was never offered to Trump?  And just how serious is that call for unity?  Here is Biden's former campaign manager and soon to be deputy chief of staff, Jen O'Malley Dillon:  "I'm not saying they're (Republicans) not a bunch of fuckers.  Mitch McConnell is terrible."  Very unifying.  Then we have Representative Bill Pascrell, Dem-NJ, who wants Pelosi to bar the 126 Republican representatives who supported the Texas lawsuit challenging the vote, from being seated in the House.  Pascrell is relying on the 14th Amendment, a Civil War Amendment, barring the seating of anyone who engaged in rebellion against the United States.  For Pascrell, the filing of a lawsuit is the equivalent of engaging in rebellion.  Again, very "unifying."  

Expecting "unity" is unrealistic.  The two parties are simply too far apart on too many issues.  That will continue to be the case if the Democrats keep moving further to the Left and away from Classic Liberalism.  The best that might be hoped for is a return to a "loyal opposition."  Again, not something we saw in the last four years.   

In a lengthy article on 12/13/20 on the CNN website, we saw yet another manifestation of the lack of unity offered to Trump.  It was a further example of the one-sided reporting by another mainstream media outlet.  "Trump will leave office in January with a historically bad record on the economy..."  And:  "Trump will exit the White House with fewer Americans employed than when he started."  Later in the article, CNN did get around to mentioning the pandemic, but that was mostly Trump's fault also.  Of course, 50 different state governors controlled the extent to which their states shut down, resulting in significant unemployment.  But why say that when it is so much easier to blame Trump.  And, what of Trump's tremendous economic success before the pandemic started?  That, my friends, was simply a continuation of Obama's success.  Really nothing to do with Trump.  Unbelievable.  Over the years in the blog I have referred to this phenomenon as "media bias."  Trump has called it "fake news."  No difference.   

You want unity?  Then maybe give credit to Trump for the successes he has had.  Recall that when the President had tremendous success in brokering the initial Middle East peace deals, Speaker Pelosi said this:  "Good for him for having a distraction on a day when the numbers of people who are affected and the number of people who are dying from this virus only increases."  A distraction?  Trump has helped to remake the geopolitical reality of a very troubling area of the world - for the better.  The question is, will the Biden Administration seek to build upon that success, or to destroy it?

It is not a positive sign that former Secretary of State John Kerry will have a role in the new administration as Biden's climate envoy.  Kerry was one of the biggest fools to ever sit at the head of the State Department.  Kerry pushed the Iran nuclear deal.  Kerry insisted that peace with the Palestinians was the only path towards a broader peace between Israel and the Arab world.  In a word, Kerry was an "appeaser."  He believed he could buy peace with Iran by letting them have a ten year plan to getting a nuclear bomb.  Here is Kerry on the Middle East:  "There will be no advance and separate peace with the Arab world (and Israel) without the Palestinian process and Palestinian peace.  Everybody needs to understand that.  That is a hard reality."  Thankfully, Trump was smarter than Kerry, and understood that appeasement is never the path to peace.  Trump understood that Kerry's "hard reality" was a fool's vision.  

In other news, a recent poll showed 73% of the people would support a national stay at home order.  I am not convinced that a president has the authority to issue such an order.  78% of Democrats would support such an order, with only 25% of Republicans agreeing.  Independents were split at 48% in favor and 48% opposed.  

And Fox News reported that the top five destinations where Americans are moving to are Austin, Phoenix, Nashville, Tampa and Jacksonville.  No surprise that Texas and Florida have three of the top five destinations.  Texas, for example, has a zero state income tax rate and a zero capital gains tax rate.  The property tax is only 1.69% and the sales tax is 6.25%.  Meanwhile, some in California seem to be intent on hastening the exodus of wealthy people and businesses.  One proposal would raise the top state income tax rate to 16.8%.  Another proposal would create a new "wealth tax" to be applied to anyone residing in the state for 60 days in a calendar year; and would continue to tax those same individuals for a decade thereafter, even if they no longer lived in the state.  Fox reported that the top three cities from which people are leaving are Hartford, New York City and San Francisco.  California now has more people leaving than moving in.

Here are the latest numbers.  For the last two weeks the number of new unemployment claims has continued to rise, with the week ending 12/5 having 862,000 claims and the following week having 885,000 claims.  Clearly, with new lock downs being ordered in various states the numbers are rising.  As of earlier today the US had 18,259,684 coronavirus cases and 324,844 deaths.  California has had over 1.8 million cases and 22,670 deaths.  Texas has had over 1.6 million cases and over 26,000 deaths.  Florida has had over 1.2 million cases and over 20,000 deaths.  Los Angeles County has had over 620,000 cases and 8,877 deaths.  New York City had over 385,000 cases and 24,677 deaths.

With the success of "Operation Warp Speed" we have two vaccines already approved, and others being developed.  I am confident in saying that after January 20, 2021, CNN will report that we have Biden to thank for the vaccines.

The Coronavirus Thirty-Eight Weeks Later - Year End Reflections, Part I

 What a year.  A once in a century pandemic, causing sickness and death, with a tremendous impact on people's livelihoods.  As the coronavirus has been in the title of each post since March, allow me to start with some numbers.  As of yesterday, worldwide it was reported that there were 66,832,925 cases and 1,533,741 deaths.  In the US we have 14,981,761 cases and 287,825 deaths.  I was looking at my 10/11/20 post, which reported 7,986,078 cases and 219,675 deaths.  In the last two months, while we have had an 87% increase in the number of cases, we had a much lower increase, 31%, in the number of deaths.  That is a positive sign, as is the development and production of multiple vaccines. 

Another big news story this year was, of course, the presidential election.  While Trump continues to fight the apparent outcome, it seems that Biden will be sworn in on 1/20/21.  While the leadership of the Senate remains to be determined by the two Georgia run-off elections in January, the Democrats have kept the House.  However, the latest numbers reported by the AP are 222 seats for the Democrats and 211 seats for the Republicans, with two seats not yet called.  Recall that before last month's election, the Democrats held 232 House seats to 197 for the Republicans.  

However, two Democratic losers are contesting their losses (by 6 votes and 12 votes), with one loss having been certified by the local election board.  The loser will be asking the House to decide the winner, as the House gets to certify the winners.  Imagine if a Democratic House were to overturn the election result certified by the state, after their vicious attacks on Trump for challenging his own apparent defeat.  We now have 28 Republican women in the House and 8 in the Senate.  I expect those numbers to increase in future elections.  Of the 12 House seats that Republicans were able to flip this year, 9 were won by women, 2 by Latino men and 1 by a black man.  

The third big story of the year was the killing of George Floyd, and others, at the hands of the police.  For some, no killing by the police is ever justified.  As a result, we have had a push to defund the police, with certain cities across the country cutting their own police department's budget.  In Los Angeles, the second largest city in the country, we may have a back door approach to cutting the police force.  Mayor Eric Garcetti has said that a projected budget shortfall of $675 million may lead to a lay-off of 1000 sworn officers and 700 non-officers.  Los Angeles, with half the population of New York City, has almost 10,000 officers compared to New York's nearly 35,000.  By New York's standards, Los Angeles is already severely understaffed, even absent any lay-offs.

As a result of the killing of George Floyd and others, we have seen "peaceful" protests throughout the country.  At least, the mainstream media insisted that the protests were peaceful, or mostly peaceful.  But never violent.  No matter how many businesses were looted or burned or destroyed, the protests were never violent.  As I have said multiple times, the Left is very good at the use of words in order to promote their agenda.  As the mainstream media is all in for the Democrats, it will be interesting to see if there is ever a negative word said about Biden or Harris.  

Shortly after Thanksgiving, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to ban outdoor dining.  Joining with the majority was Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, who told us:  "It's a bit magical thinking on everyone's part to think that at any restaurant anywhere the server keeps a six foot distance from the table where he or she is taking an order...so the servers are not protected from us...so it is a most dangerous situation for them."  Most dangerous.  Except, hours after her vote to ban outside dining, she went to her favorite restaurant for a little outdoor dining.  One could argue that the shutdown order did not take effect until midnight, and she was having dinner earlier.  In light of her statement, however, claiming that such dining put the servers at much risk, why would she do that?

We need to ask that question of California Governor Gavin Newsom, who ate indoors without social distancing or masks, at the high end French Laundry restaurant.  We need to ask San Francisco Mayor London Breed who also ate there.  We need to ask D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser about her trip to Delaware to help celebrate Biden's victory, because, of course, the celebration was "essential."  We need to ask Austin Mayor Steve Adler about his trip to Cabo San Lucas in Mexico.  And Denver Mayor Michael Hancock about his trip to Mississippi for Thanksgiving.  And San Joe Mayor Sam Liccardo who celebrated Thanksgiving with 7 or 8 relatives from 5 different households.  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was going to have Thanksgiving dinner with his mother and two daughters, until the public reaction persuaded him to reconsider.  

These politicians, promoting various lock downs, do share membership in a certain political party.  I wonder which.  Sheila Kuehl's only comment, when asked about her outdoor dining, was that it was a "non-story."  Nice for her.  Some restaurants have pushed back, refusing to close their outdoor dining.  They risk fines, loss of their liquor license, and loss of their business license.  In my own neighborhood, I have seen some of the comments on "Next Door" that made me think some of those people likely reported a nearby restaurant which refused to stop outdoor dining.  A doctor friend suggested to me that outdoor dining, contrary to Supervisor Kuehl's comments, is generally low risk.  However, if that risk is too great to tolerate, he asked why any part of the restaurant would be allowed to remain open.  The cooks are indoors.  The staff that bags up the orders and prepares the bill are indoors.  How likely is it that all these employees are able to stay six feet apart from one another?

Personally, I think it was outrageous to ban outdoor dining.  Many restaurants were barely holding on, aided by their ability to set up tables outside.  Over the years, I have gotten to know some of the owners and many of the employees at my neighborhood restaurants.  They need to work.  They need to buy food, pay bills and pay the rent or mortgage.  We allow people to assess the risk of getting behind the wheel of a car, even though over 30,000 people a year die in car accidents and many more are injured.  And we allow it even though many times people cause death and injury to others.  One restaurant owner in Sherman Oaks, an area of Los Angeles City that is in the San Fernando Valley, was quite disturbed that, after investing in her outdoor dining she had to close - while just a few yards from her outdoor dining area a television production company had set up a large number of tables for people on the set to be able to sit outdoors and dine.     

Meanwhile, the California Restaurant Association was successful in getting a Judge to order LA County to provide the scientific evidence supporting the ban on outdoor dining.  Even if the Judge overturns the County's ban on outdoor dining, there is another issue.  California's Governor ordered a new lock down effective at 11:59 p.m. tonight for all of Southern California, not just LA County.  That order is not in issue in the current case.  That order mandates the closing of multiple types of businesses, and will be in effect through 12/20/20, although it may be extended.  The order also bans all public and private gatherings, and "non-essential" travel.  Both the LA County and Riverside County Sheriffs have said they will not enforce the Governor's order.  The Riverside County Sheriff was not happy with the "dictatorial attitude" of the Governor, especially given the Governor's own violation of the rules.  The Sheriff said his office would not be "blackmailed, bullied or used as muscle" against the people of his county.  The LA County Sheriff said certain businesses had "bent over backwards to modify their entire operation to conform to these current health orders, and then they have the rug yanked from under them (with new health orders) - that's a disservice.  I don't want to make their lives any more miserable."  The Sheriff said his department would only target "super spreader" events.     

There have been some interesting letters to the editor in a couple recent editions of the New York Times.  Usually, the letters are pretty much the same - Democrats are good, Republicans are bad.  In the 12/4/20 edition, were a number of letters discussing why so many Americans voted for Trump.  Which is not something easily understood by the Left.  Of course, one letter writer said that "white identity politics" was an important factor in the Trump vote.  But some actually criticized the Democrats for their weak messaging.  And one, speaking of friends who were Trump supporters, said this:  "The friends of whom I speak are good honest people with strong values.  They love their families and country.  We must remember this if we are to overcome the division among us."

The 12/6/20 edition of the New York Times had more letters discussing whether or not there is any benefit to reaching out to Trump voters.  Said one letter writer:  "I no longer believe that it's my job - or even possible - to reach any meeting of the minds with such people (Trump supporters).  I believe we simply have to oppose and defeat them so we can be true to who we are, trying to make life better for everyone."  Said another:  "Mutual understanding requires common ground.  It has become increasingly clear that there is none."  Either that hypothesis is absurd, or we are done as a country.

Here's another, more insightful, letter writer:  "I'm grateful, in this polarized era, to remember that there is more to people than their politics."  But for many on the Left (and I assume for some on the Right) it does not work like that.  Rather, a vote for Trump allows those on the Left to make innumerable assumptions, negative assumptions, about one's character.  I know that all too well.  But then again, it is easier to assume the worst than to engage in an honest discussion.      

The Coronavirus Thirty-Six Weeks Later - It Happened Again

On various occasions, I have discussed in the blog how I have been mistreated and "unfriended" for real (I'm not on Facebook) because I am a conservative and/or because I voted for Trump.  But this latest episode beats all the others.  Last week I called one of the two guys I am (was) still friendly with from my college days.  As I got his voicemail I left a message that I was calling to catch up.  We live on opposite coasts, so we would email, text and talk periodically, and upon trips back east we would get together.  Instead of a return phone call I received a text, telling me that he was bummed by my continued support of Trump and the Republicans because Trump is trying to overturn the election results.  Therefore, he simply did not feel good about talking to me.  Maybe sometime in the future that would change. 

I did send a reply by email (no, I did not tell him to f... off as 3 friends suggested, not my style) advising that in my one post-election blog post I never said Trump should litigate the issue of the election.  In fact, I said that on election night, days before any media outlet called the election, I had accepted that Biden had won.  This requires some further commentary.  One thing that I have noticed over the years is that people will read into my posts whatever their preexisting worldview tells them.  As the saying goes, people will see what they want to see.  On multiple occasions I have been accused of saying things that I never did. 

 Another thing.  It is quite clear that I (along with all Trump voters) am personally responsible for everything that Trump says or does.  This last point is important because every conservative I know has criticized the way Trump speaks.  But we overlooked that because of the policy differences between Trump/Republicans and Democrats.  I suppose that I could argue that any friend who voted for Obama is an anti-Semite, given Obama's attitude towards Israel.  After all, if every Trump utterance and policy is held against me, then why shouldn't I hold every one of Obama's words and deeds against those who voted for him. 

Here's another point.  Regardless of whatever evidence there may be of election fraud, some commentators have noted that state and federal judges have changed the deadlines for mail-in ballot submissions.  But the US Constitution is clear as to who gets to make election laws - "The Time, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof," although Congress may change those state rules "except as to the Place of chusing Senators."  Trump choosing to challenge some of these lower court decisions is lawful.  It may not be wise, it may not produce the result he desires, but it is lawful.  And Biden has not technically won until each state's electors have voted, and those results have been certified by Congress.  

A couple more points.  I discussed in the last post how many Biden supporters seemed to be "sore winners."  Being unfriended post-election is yet another example of a sore winner.  Besides, these types of efforts to overturn apparent election results are rarely successful.  But let's say the Supreme Court did rule that lower court judges acted unconstitutionally in extending the voting deadlines in various key states.  Do the Democrats not care about the Constitution any more?  Also in the last post I discussed how Biden's call for unity needed to be heard more by Democrats than Republicans.  And my former friend's text is another example of the accuracy of that observation.  

In a November 12, 2017 post ("More Stories From My Youth"), I discussed my college buddies.  "While we shared similar views in college, I have undoubtedly moved further to the right than they have.  While some believe it is impossible to be friends with those who hold opposing views, I am not of that mind."  I was partly wrong.  Conservatives and liberals, classic liberals, can be friends.  Leftists refuse to be friends with anyone but other leftists.  My now ex-friend, like so many in the Democratic Party, went from being a liberal to a leftist, and could not tolerate opposing viewpoints - nor anyone who held such viewpoints. 

In that 11/12/17 post I continued:  "These two honorable men, of fine moral character, are men that I am proud to call 'friend.'"  My ex-friend and I spent much time together in college.  We both became attorneys.  We are both family men.  He and his family have stayed with us, and my family has stayed with them.  I believe he is religious, as am I.  When I say the prayer for those in need of healing, I have included him all the time for years, as he developed a number of health issues several years ago.  But now, I am a piece of garbage, just another deplorable.  But, he told me, maybe some day he will feel better about talking to me.  What self-righteous arrogance.  In my reply email I told him "good-bye."  I explained:  "I can't be friends with someone who can only be friends with me when he feels like it."  As if I should wait to see if he thinks I am good enough to talk to again.   

Also in the category of "sore winners" is the New York Times.  In their 11/22/20 Sunday magazine is a 10 page article on Trump's "potential criminal liability."  It is the cover story.  And the inside table of contents about it tells us that the article discusses:  "Financial Crimes, Election-Law Violations, Obstruction of Justice, Public Corruption and Partisan Coercion."  Having attacked Trump for over 5 years and having pushed his impeachment, it is still not enough.  As I said in the last post, there are those who want to see him and Jared and Ivanka "go to prison, rot in hell or worse."  Never have I wished that an ex-President go to prison.  When Ford pardoned Nixon I thought it was the right thing to do.  And yes, I cringed when people at Trump rallies, egged on by Trump, yelled "lock her up" about Clinton.  It is not the job of a presidential candidate to seek the imprisonment of an opponent.  It is up to our justice system to make decisions on criminal culpability.  I just cannot help but think that if we lived in a more repressive society, with more severe sanctions than our current "cancel culture," that this ex-friend would report me to the authorities for violating acceptable norms.  

So, another lost "friend."  This one of 50 years duration.  I've said it before, the intolerance of such people - the unfriending of me and others - says far more about their characters than that of ours, of those of us who have been unfriended.    

The Coronavirus Thirty-Five Weeks Later - Post Election Analysis

As I went to sleep on election night, even though the election had not yet been called by any media outlet, it seemed likely to me that Joe Biden had won.  I was definitely bummed the next day.  But upon awakening Thursday, I felt it was a new day.  Yes, my guy lost.  But being a natural optimist, and appreciating all that I have, I was not going to dwell on the defeat.  However, it appeared that there were many "sore winners" among those celebrating the Biden/Harris victory.

Actress Janelle Monae, from the movie "Hidden Figures," was one of many who could not be a gracious winner.  Monae:  "Fuck Donald Tromp (sic) and every American citizen, celebrity, white woman, black man, ETC who supported him burnnnnnnn."  There is so much hatred and racism in that one sentence, that I will let her comment speak for itself.  Michelle Obama was not much better:  "...let's remember that tens of millions of people voted for the status quo, even when it meant supporting lies, hate, chaos, and division."  Michelle Obama could not conceive of any positive reason to vote for Trump.  So allow me.  

In just a single term, Trump was one of the most consequential presidents in my lifetime.  With tax reform and deregulation, he was able to turn the economy around.  We had the lowest unemployment rate in decades, until the pandemic hit.  He allowed energy companies to increase production, making the US energy independent.  Trump nominated 3 conservatives to the Supreme Court, and "about 30% of the federal appellate bench" with conservative judges.  (Stat from the 11/1/20 Wall Street Journal.)  He was far better for blacks and other racial minorities than was his predecessor.  Trump signed prison reform legislation, created opportunity zones and supported school choice, allowing poor minorities to get the advantages other have.  

He was certainly the best president in dealing with the Middle East.  He backed out of the flawed Iran nuclear deal.  He moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital city - Jerusalem.  He recognized Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights.  And he stopped the flow of cash to Palestinians until such time as they stop funding terrorists who kill Jews.  And Trump understood that appeasement of the Palestinians is not the road to peace.  In helping to cement peace deals between Israel and the U.A.E. and Bahrain and now Sudan, Trump has enhanced the stability of a region sorely in need of stability.  While some critics say these are not peace deals as Israel was never at war with those countries, such criticism is not well stated.  So call it normalization of relations.  The significance is the same.  And now, some Sunni Arab leaders even openly criticize the Palestinian leadership for their intransigence.  Trump understood that there was a wider Arab world that wanted to move on, that did not constantly want to make their own interests subservient to the interests of an entrenched and intransigent Palestinian leadership.

Unfortunately, the Biden/Harris Administration is intent on taking us back to the failed Middle East policies of the Obama Administration.  Obama not only believed in appeasement, but he naturally aligned himself with radical Muslims.  Here is Kamala Harris, telling us that the Biden Administration will restore "humanitarian" aid to the Palestinians and Gaza.  The fact that such aid will be used to kill Jews is of no consequence to the Democrats.  She said the US would reopen the US consulate in so-called East Jerusalem, which means the US will treat the Palestinians as having a country with East Jerusalem as its capital.  They will also reopen the PLO mission in Washington, D.C.  The appeasement of the Palestinians under Obama did not bring the region one step closer to peace.  Trump's approach has - significantly.  

Trump may have lost the White House, but the Republicans won the election.  Prior to the election, the Democrats held 232 seats in the House of Representatives, and Republicans held 197 seats.  While the Democrats will maintain control of the House, and with 13 seats still not called, the Republicans have so far increased their numbers to 203 seats, with Democrats having 219.  218 is needed for control of the House.  Republicans lead in the Senate by 50-48, with the Democrats having picked up one seat.  The two seats from Georgia are still undecided and there will be a runoff election for each seat in early January.  If the Republicans pick up one of those they will maintain control of the Senate.  At the state level, Republicans held on to their majorities everywhere they already had them, and picked up the New Hampshire House and the New Hampshire Senate.  Republicans will continue to hold the advantage in the governorships, having picked up one new seat in Montana.  The final tally is 27 governor seats for Republicans and 23 for Democrats.  Overall, Republicans will control 23 state governments (governor, House and Senate) with Democrats having full control in 15 states.  12 states will have divided government.  

Clearly, all the pollsters predicting a big blue wave got it wrong.  By ignoring what has come to be called the "shy Trump voter," they grossly underestimated the turnout for Trump.  And this writer grossly overestimated the number of Californians who would vote for Trump.  I did not think that Biden would win in California by the same 3+ million votes that Hillary got in 2016.  I was way off.  Biden won here by 5 million votes - 10.7 million to 5.7 million.  My surprise at all the pro-Trump demonstrations throughout very liberal Southern California led me to miscalculate the extent of Trump's support.  While Trump supporters were clearly more animated and enthusiastic than Biden supporters, that did not translate into greater numbers for Trump. 

Here is one thing I feel confident in predicting.  After barely asking Biden a single tough question during the entire campaign, the mainstream media can be counted on to eliminate their "fact checking," a constant practice during the Trump years.  As Biden and the Dems never lie, there will be no need to fact check them.  But the mainstream media does have influence.  You may recall they told us that Trump was going to start wars with Iran and North Korea and everybody else.  In speaking with a young person post-election day, he told me that he and his friends were very happy that Biden won.  I asked what his biggest concern was with Trump.  It was that Trump was going to get us into war(s), even a nuclear war.  It did not matter that Trump ran in 2016 on a policy of avoiding foreign wars and bringing troops home.  It did not matter that Trump was the first president in decades to not get the US involved in any new war or military conflict.  He only knew what the mainstream media told him.  

Speaking of which, the mainstream media, and their allies in the Democratic Party, have told us for 4 years that Trump is a dictator, that he is like Hitler or even worse than Hitler.  That told us that he is immoral, evil, vile, unethical and on and on.  Given that, just how surprising would it be if Democratic officials tried to tilt the election to Biden?  I am not saying there was voter fraud, and certainly not to the extent sufficient to overturn a Biden victory.  But the mainstream media told us that in the era of Trump they could not remain neutral.  The Dems talked impeachment from the day Trump was inaugurated in January, 2017, and even before.  When that failed, they talked up the 25th Amendment.  If you believe a Hitler occupies the White House, then it would be rather easy to justify cheating to get him out.  In fact, it would be the moral thing to do. 

In left-wing California, again, where Biden won by 5 million votes, there was a well-financed measure on the ballot that would have reversed a state constitutional provision that prohibited state and local governments from giving preferential treatment based on race, national origin, ethnicity or sex.  Essentially, the measure would have restored affirmative action.  Yet, Prop 16 failed to pass, with 57% (9,300,733) voting "no" and only 43% (6,987,533) voting "yes."  (Some votes are still outstanding, but the outcome will not change.)  While the "woke" Americans tell us that to say society is or should be "color blind" is actually racist, even left-wing Californians seem to believe that people should be judged on their abilities and not on the color of their skin.

Recently, I was part of a group text in which someone sent a meme, with a picture of a bottle of wine.  The label read "Trump Whines" and underneath was "Made From Sour Grapes."  The hypocrisy is simply stunning.  After Hillary's defeat in 2016, she continued to call Trump an "illegitimate" president.  As did Rep. John Lewis.  As did other Democrats.  As did many in the mainstream media.  But now President-elect Joe Biden has called for unity, and has asked that the harsh rhetoric be put aside.  It is an appropriate request - as applied to his fellow Democrats.  But after 5 years of being abused - no, not just Trump, but all of us who voted for him in 2016 - now they say we need to be nice?  We have been called every nasty and insulting name imaginable.  Many of us have been unfriended, not just on social media, but in real life, by Democrats who look down on us, who think we are all deplorables.  Back on August 1, 2018 I wrote a post called "Trump Won.  Time For The Left To Get Over It."  But they hadn't gotten over it, as an Op-Ed writer for the LA Times was still calling Trump an "illegitimate" president.  The Democrats never got over it to this day.  Some want to see Trump, Jared and Ivanka go to prison, rot in hell or worse.  Some are keeping lists of those who worked for Trump; to what end I do not know.  

So, sure, I can drop the harsh rhetoric.  It is not my style anyway.  But I don't think the burden is on my fellow Republicans.  The Democrats have a long way to go to prove that they accept Trump supporters as fellow Americans.  And they need to stop thinking that they are better human beings than are Republicans - because their words and actions often reflect that they are worse.      

The Coronavirus Thirty-three Weeks Later - This is Biden's America

The recent debate between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden actually gave us some fairly good insight into Biden's view of the world.  Combined with the views of others in his party we get a pretty good insight into what to expect should the Democrats win.  

Mark Kelley is the Democratic candidate for the US Senate in Arizona.  A staffer of his referred to Chicago police officers as "worthless fucking pigs."  In Biden's America we can expect a huge push to defund the police.  Here is the Mayor of Flemington, New Jersey:  "This is day one of the new SCOTUS term - the religious zealots want to enact the Christian version of Sharia law.  If you voted for the orange monster with COVID, go fuck yourself.  If you plan on voting for him again, unfriend me and go fuck yourself again."  Aside from the utter contempt for the primary religion in this country, this quote is a good indicator of just how "unifying" we can expect the Democrats to be.  

At the debate, Trump said:  "I have to say we're learning to live with with it.  We have no choice.  We can't lock ourselves up in a basement like Joe does."  Biden's retort:  "He says 'We're learning to live with it.'  People are learning to die with it."  In case you are wondering whether Biden would shut the country down, during the 2009 Swine flu he said he would advise his family not to fly, or ride on subways, or be in classrooms or other confined spaces.  (See the second post, "The Vice President of the United States," written in May, 2009 and posted November 26,2009.)  The CDC estimated that from 4/12/09 to 4/10/10 there were 60.8 million cases and 12,469 deaths.  Any death is sad, but if Biden would basically shut the country down with less than 12,500 deaths, imagine what he will do with 250,000 deaths.

Although I do have a question.  If Biden could do such a better job with the coronavirus than Trump, then why during his second term as Vice President did we still have from 24 million to 34 million cases of flu per year, with between 23,000 and 51,000 deaths.  Why wasn't Biden pushing mask wearing and social distancing?  Why was Biden letting Americans to learn to die from the flu?

Biden at the debate:  "All you teachers out there, not that many of you are going to die, so don't worry about it.  Come on!"  At what point do we close schools and society down?  With one death?  10?  100?  1000?  During Biden's last two years as VP, 35,485 people died in auto accidents in 2015, with another 37,806 dying in 2016.  And 64,795 dying from unintentional poisoning.  Where was our Vice President?  It is not an answer to say coronavirus deaths are preventable.  I can prevent all auto accident deaths tomorrow by banning the use of motor vehicles.  The Democrats ignore the fact that we have 50 governors who shut down, or not, their states at different times and to different extents.  They also ignore the desire of people to work in order to support themselves and their families.

Biden also told us:  "I would transition from the oil industry, yes."  I have to imagine that Biden simply has no idea that thousands of products, not simply gasoline, rely on oil/petroleum.  Products such as ink, pens, tires, umbrellas, linoleum, rubber and even crayons, among other things.  Biden will put the US back in the Iran nuclear deal.  That will put an end to the Sunni Arabs willing to openly make peace with Israel, which increases stability in the dangerous Middle East.  And it will further the policy of appeasement towards the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.

We can also expect increasing anti-Semitism under a Biden Administration.  Why?  Because the Democrats are blind to the anti-Semitism within their own party.  My fellow Jews can only see the threat of anti-Semitism from the Right.  75%, in a recent poll, said that there is a "very serious" or "moderate" threat of anti-Semitism from the Right.  53% saw the threat from Radical Islam.  But only 32% saw the threat from the far Left.  But when we isolate the Republican Jews, 71% see the threat from the Left.  

On Sunday, 10/26/20, there was a Jews for Trump caravan in New York City.  Anti-Trump protesters shouted obscenities at them, threw things at them, used pepper spray against them, and took US flags and Trump banners off their cars.  Typical was the giving of the middle finger, yelling "get the fuck out," and "fuck you."  And:  "New York hates you," and "we don't want you here."  I have no doubt that if the police were not there, we would have had some dead Jews.  Any doubt in anyone's mind who those anti-Trump "protesters" will vote for?  

We also know that anti-Semitism has been increasing on college campuses across the country.  But on 12/11/19 President Trump signed an "Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism."  "It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI.  Let's be honest - the main perpetrators of anti-Semitism on college campuses are Democrats and Leftists.  And they hate Israel.  

Perhaps the most astonishing, the most unimaginable, is the desire of some Democrats to cede US sovereignty to the UN.  This group of Congress members, all Democrats and led by "the squad," has asked the UN to investigate United States officials, specifically those at the Department of Homeland Security.  After detailing their concerns, their letter to the UN advises that "these allegations illustrate a clear pattern of alleged human rights violations by DHS."  Sure, let's have countries such as Russia and China and Venezuela judge Americans.  The letter:  "When considered in the context of the United States' long and shameful history of forcibly sterilizing incarcerated women and the numerous human rights abuses already leveled against DHS, the necessity of an independent investigation is clear."  Next will be subjecting US troops to international tribunals - perhaps all those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

I could fill up this entire post with nothing but horrible things said by Democratic elected officials and commentators about how evil Republicans and the Republican Party are.  But here is the premier mainstream paper in the entire country, the New York Times, describing the G.O.P.:  "a hollowed-out shell devoid of ideas, values and integrity, committed solely to preserving its own power even at the expense of democratic norms, institutions and ideas."  See the last post for the party intent on permanently insuring their "right" to govern.  As for the rest, the Times' ad hominem mudslinging tells us just how low that paper has sunk, more than it says anything about Republicans.

Many people fear there will be violence after the election.  If Biden wins, there will likely be no violence.  It is not what conservatives and Republicans do.  But if Trump wins, expect more of what we've seen over the summer.  Here is Daniel Henninger's Op-Ed in the 10/29/20 Wall Street Journal:  "The concurrent protests in so many cities (following the death of George Floyd) and the individuals who spoke on their behalf revealed a darker side to the Democrats - a party whose most visible supporters see the United States as a failed nation, a country of irredeemable inequities and people with reflexively racist instincts."

You know, I actually agree with something Joe Biden said at the debate.  If he wins, "we're about to go into a dark winter, a dark winter."

  

  

    

The Coronavirus Thirty-one Weeks Later - The Mainstream Media Is All In For Biden

The Sunday edition of the New York Times has a separate opinion section, called "Sunday Review."  The weekday Op-Ed section covers two pages.  This past Sunday the Review was 10 pages, all dedicated to one topic - Donald Trump.  The first page above the fold has this:  "Lies, Anger, Corruption, Incompetence, Chaos, Decay."  Below the fold:  "End Our National Crisis.  The Case Against Donald Trump.  By The Editorial Board."  Each page has one or more issues discussing Trump's alleged failures.  In case you were wondering if the Times gave up any of those 10 pages for any pro-Trump voices, for a little balance...you're kidding, right?

Page 7 for example is titled "His Incompetent Statesmanship."  The sub-headline tells us "For all the sound and fury, Trump's foreign policy has few accomplishments."  The best (by which I mean most outrageous) line in the piece is this:  "The troubles of the world are not all Mr. Trump's doing."  Wow!  That is some concession.  So, maybe the Times blames the President for only 95% of the world's troubles?  The Times is particularly unimpressed with the President's efforts in the Middle East, calling it "...a bag of gifts for the Israeli right, effectively undermining America's potential as a mediator with the Palestinians."  There is simply no other way to put it - the editorial writers at the Times are sick!

Let's review.  Obama/Biden accomplished nothing, notwithstanding their appeasement of the Arab and Muslim world.  Obama/Biden asked Israel to forego developing settlements for 9 months, with the hope of forging peace talks.  Israel complied.  But Abbas and the Palestinians refused to negotiate during that time.  However, Obama/Biden rewarded them anyway, as lame ducks in December, 2016, and sold out Israel at the UN by refusing to veto a Security Council resolution that established a Palestinian state on the 1967 (which were the 1949) borders.  In other words, Obama/Biden punished our strong ally Israel, and rewarded the terrorist led Palestinian Authority, even though they refused to negotiate.  Very impressive.

And Trump?  Moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the Israeli capital of Jerusalem, as every recent president promised to do but never did.  Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights.  Trump stopped funding the PA with US taxpayer money until such time as they stop paying their people to kill Jews.  And, for the first time in over a quarter of a century, Trump brought about new peace deals in the Middle East, between Israel and the UAE and Israel and Bahrain.  But the Times editorial board was clearly not impressed by two Arab countries recognizing Israel and establishing normal relations, as they made no mention of it.  Apparently, peace is no good.  And not starting new wars is no good either.  See below.   

Of course, the Times criticized President Trump in his dealings with North Korea.  The President may not have been more successful than other presidents with North Korea, but he was no less successful either.  He tried though.  Ironically, the Times complains that, after promising to bring troops home from overseas, we still have troops in various locations.  This, of course, is criticism for the sake of criticism.  It is highly unlikely that the Times would like to see all US troops from everywhere around the globe come home.  And, no mention was made that Trump is the first president in a long time to not get the US involved in any new military conflict.  Because war is good? 

Needless to say, the Times was quite upset with Trump pulling the US out of various international agreements.  No, the editorial writers did not mention the new and better trade deal Trump negotiated with Mexico and Canada, replacing NAFTA.  They did complain that Trump backed out of the Obama/Biden Iran nuclear deal.  Yes, the NY Times favored giving Iran, the leading state sponsor of terror, 150 billion dollars.  Obama/Biden favored international organizations.  Obama/Biden put the US back in the UN Rights Council, after Bush took the US out.  Trump took us out again, but no fear, Biden promises to put us back in.  Why is that a problem?  Let's see - the 3 newest members of the Council are China, Russia and Cuba, all stellar paragons of protecting human rights.  And the anti-Semitic Council condemned Israel 85 times between 2006 and 2019 (as reported in the 10/19/20 Wall Street Journal) - which is more times than they condemned the 17 top leading human rights offenders, such as Iran, China, Russia, North Korea and 13 others combined.  

A brief comment on race.  Under the headline "Black Lives at Risk," the Times writes:  "One of the most consequential events of the Trump era has been the roughly eight minutes that a police officer knelt on George Floyd's neck, suffocating him."  What has Trump got to do with the officer kneeling on George Floyd's neck?  I'm willing to bet that the Times never said that "One of the most consequential events of the Obama/Biden era was the fatal shooting of 17 year old Trayvon Martin."  Or, "the fatal shooting of 18 year old Michael Brown."  Are not those two deaths part of the Obama/Biden era?  

Speaking of race, I believe it is fair to say that Biden's record on race is, at best, problematic.  Biden opposed busing in order to accomplish school integration, calling it "the most racist concept you can come up with."  He referred to Obama as "the first sort of mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean."  In 1975, the Biden Amendment to a $36 billion education bill, stipulated that none of the money was to be used "to assign teachers or students to schools...for reasons of race."  It was, according to the NAACP "an anti-black amendment."  Edward Brooke, the Senate's only black member at the time, called it "the greatest symbolic defeat for civil rights since 1964."  

Let us not forget that Biden referred to Strom Thurmond as "one of my closest friends."  Thurmond opposed the major civil rights legislation of 1964.  Biden:  "poor kids are just as bright, just as talented, as white kids."  Biden, to a group of black and Hispanic journalists:  "...unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things."  And, further cementing his belief that blacks are unable to think for themselves, Biden told Charlamagne tha G-d, and his largely black audience, that "if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."  

At the Trump-Biden debate, Trump was given an easy, albeit obnoxious, question by Chris Wallace, asking him to denounce white supremacy.  In my opinion, Trump flubbed his answer.  He should have said:  "You know what, Chris, I've condemned white supremacists numerous times.  I've condemned the neo-Nazis.  I've condemned the Ku Klux Klan.  But I'm challenging you to ask Joe Biden if he will condemn all the racist, segregationist Senators he calls friends.  Will he condemn himself for his past stance on school integration?  Ask him about his obvious racist comments about Obama, and blacks not being able to think for themselves.  What about it, Chris?"

Incredibly, Biden recently told a reporter that the public did not deserve to know whether he would agree to expand the Supreme Court if he won - a scheme that is referred to as "packing the Court."  (An aside.  As the left is wont to do, the Democrats now define "court packing" to mean President Trump nominating someone to fill an actual vacancy, not expand the size of the Court.  Let's be clear, the phrase "court packing" never meant filling a vacancy.  And it definitely never meant trying to fill the Court with Justices who a president hopes will align with his own view of the world.)  

Anyway, at Biden's recent town hall with George Stephanopoulos (are we sure it's not Snuffleupagus?), Biden said that his position on packing the Court "depends on how this (the Barrett nomination) turns out, if there's actually real, live debate on the floor (of the Senate)."  Otherwise?  "I'm open to considering what happens from that point on."  Clearly, Biden is susceptible to pressure from his party to pack the Court.  The Democrats have made it very clear - if they take the White House and the Senate, and keep the House, the rules of the game will change.  They will pack the Court.  They will pack the Senate with 2 or 4 new Democratic Senators by adding Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico as states, hoping to guarantee Democratic control of the Senate for the foreseeable future.  If they cannot eliminate the electoral college directly, they will make an end run around it.  The structure of our government will change, and it will change for one reason only - to cement the Democrats' lock on the reigns of the federal government.  Remind me again - who is it that acts as a dictator?      

      

  

The Coronavirus Thirty Weeks Later - By The Numbers

3. The number of weeks since my last post. In between we had the Jewish High Holidays and I had an extremely busy couple of work weeks.

300. The approximate number of businesses, out of 700, now closed in Portland as a result of rioting, looting and burning. That is just one city. But the left-wing Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman of the New York Times was minimizing the widespread damage across the country. "Trump and the Attack of the Invisible Anarchists" was the title of his piece. These "mostly peaceful" demonstrations across the country (as described by Krugman) resulted in between one and two billion dollars worth of damage. Imagine if the protests were not "peaceful."

661,000 and 837,000 and 840,000. The first number being the number of jobs added in September, with the unemployment rate falling to 7.9%. However, the second and third numbers are the new unemployment claims for the last two periods.

500 million infected, 50 million dead. No, those are not the numbers from the current coronavirus. Those numbers are the worldwide estimated totals for the 1918-19 flu pandemic, as reported by the CDC. That virus was a type of H1N1 flu. The estimated number of deaths in the US was 675,000. With the current coronavirus, there are 37,704,412 cases worldwide, and 1,080,600 deaths. The US currently has had 7,986,078 cases, 5,124,331 people who recovered, and 219,675 deaths. Again, we do not know if millions more got infected with minimal or no symptoms, and therefore never got reported.  In a UK study, 86% of those who tested positive for the virus had none of the core symptoms of "fever, cough, loss of taste and smell." 

4,800. The number of scientists and health care providers who have signed onto "The Great Barrington Declaration," which recommends that people go about their normal lives, while still protecting those more vulnerable. (As reported in the 10/7/20 Wall Street Journal.) The Journal reports that the Declaration discusses "collateral damage," which "include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health - leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice." Also, the Declaration states that the "vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young." If Biden wins the election, he has stated his readiness to shut down the country if the scientists recommend that. I do not believe a president has that authority, as the general police powers reside with the governors and the states. But just imagine the damage to an already weakened economy, if Biden won and got his way. 

61%. The percentage of people in a recent survey who agreed that the United States is "nearing a second civil war." 41% strongly agreed. And a majority - 52% - said they are stocking up on food and supplies. (Survey by Engagious, Sports and Leisure Research Group, and ROKK Solutions.) Part of the title in one of my 8/30/20 two posts was "...the Impending Civil War." I had no idea that so many people agreed.

6 to 3. With all the talk about Amy Coney Barrett being another conservative vote on the Supreme Court, the left is certain that the Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, assuming an abortion challenge reaches the Court. I don't see it. I could see possibly 3 votes to overturn Roe - Alito, Thomas and maybe Kavanaugh. Obviously, Kagen, Sotomayor and Breyer would not vote to overturn Roe. And I don't believe Roberts, Gorsuch or Barrett would vote to do so. They appear to be Justices who would adhere to precedent. But the talk will continue, if for no other reason than to keep the pressure on those 3 Justices.

20,000. The number of students polled on 55 college campuses regarding "free speech." 60% of students feared expressing an opinion because of the potential reaction from professors or other students. Tolerance for speakers with views opposing their own not surprisingly came from Republican and Independent students. 71% of "strong Republicans" supported Biden coming to their campus compared to only 49% of "strong Democrats" supporting Trump coming. Female students were reported to be less tolerant of speakers than male students. And students identifying as "extremely liberal" were more than twice as likely as students who were "extremely conservative," in agreeing that it is "always" or "sometimes" acceptable to use violence to shut down speakers (13% to 6%). (Poll taken by FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, along with Real Clear Education and College Pulse.)

Top 5. However, if you have children or grandchildren who will be attending college soon, these are the top 5 schools ranked on free speech: 1. The University of Chicago, 2. Kansas State University, 3. Texas A&M, 4. UCLA and 5. Arizona State.

$750.  The headline in the New York Times expose on Trump's taxes, making it sound as if that's all that Trump paid in taxes.  Much further down in the article we find that Trump paid the Alternative Minimum Tax - totaling $24.3 million in 7 years between 2000 and 2017.  In 2015 Trump paid $641,931.  In 2016 he paid $1 million and in 2017 he paid $4.2 million.  However, we are told that most of those payments were "washed away" when he eventually filed and "rolled forward" to cover potential future taxes.  Meanwhile, the government had that money.  And, of course, the left showed no concern for the fact that somebody illegally obtained and/or released the President's tax information.  

14.  When in 2016 President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, the Washington Post then wrote that there was nothing unusual about a president making a SCOTUS nomination in an election year.  The Post:  "14 presidents have appointed 21 justices during presidential election years."  Most importantly, the Post wrote that "a half dozen presidents filled Supreme Court seats even though their successors had been elected."  So, even lame-duck presidents have gotten their appointments.  

And finally, millions.  In a 10/10/20 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Paul Matzko told us that talk radio "is turning millions of Americans into conservatives."  He asserts that talk radio "has the potential to dominate the construction of a person's worldview in a way that other media simply cannot..."  It is entirely unclear why that would be the case.  One needs to go looking for talk radio.  But, just living in this society is likely to bombard you with the left-wing viewpoint from childhood through adulthood - in TV shows, movies, academia, social media and the mainstream media.  Although, I certainly hope that Matzko's assertion is correct. 

The Coronavirus Twenty-Seven Weeks Later - The Furor Over Replacing Justice Ginsburg, and More Reactions to the Mideast Peace Deals

Little time was spared in the war of words - and threats even - with regards to replacing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Before I get there, let me just say that before she became a Justice she was a fierce advocate for equality of the sexes. She was so motivated that she took on cases representing men as well as women when she saw any unfair discrimination within the law. Needless to say, I did not agree with her often on her Supreme Court decisions. But as I have said previously in the blog, it is important to give credit where credit is due.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised a floor vote on any nominee put forth by President Trump. He was immediately attacked as being a hypocrite, after not allowing a floor vote on Obama's pick of Merrick Garland in an election year. So, as I like to do, let's dispense with the nonsense early on. Yes, a good argument can be made that McConnell is being a hypocrite. But I've said it before, when a party is in power they say one thing, and when out of power they say another thing. In 1992, then Senator Biden said there would be no hearings on any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court in an election year. Fast forward to 2016 when he was Vice President and Obama nominated Garland in an election year: "I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires." So, Biden is a hypocrite too. Although, I do not think calling either McConnell or Biden a "hypocrite" gives us any great understanding of the system. It is power politics, pure and simple.

Think Democrats don't play the game? Just look at the picks of the last 4 presidents. Bill Clinton got Ginsburg approved with a vote of 96-3, and Stephen Breyer with a vote of 87-9. Overwhelming support by both parties. Even when times were more heated, Obama got Sonia Sotomayor approved by a 68-31 vote - over 2/3 of the Senators voted for her. And Elena Kagan got nearly 2/3 with a vote of 63-37. How did the two most recent Republican Presidents fare with their nominees? Bush nominee John Roberts won a large percentage of votes, 78-22. It was a closer vote for Samuel Alito, 58-42. And Trump's picks? Neil Gorsuch was confirmed with a tight 54-45 vote, and Brett Kavanaugh squeaked in with the barest of margins by 50-48. A quick glance reveals that Republicans are far more likely to vote based on the previously accepted perspective - as long as the nominee is well qualified, the sitting president gets to have his nominee approved. However, as the Democrats have increasingly looked to the Courts for results they could not get through legislation or votes, the confirmation process turned into a political battleground. Besides, the Democrats controlled the Courts for decades, and were unwillingly to cede what they saw as their right to Republicans.

Here is Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, who also recently ran for president, in 2016 regarding the Garland nomination: "The Constitution is clear. The Senate must consider the president's nominee and then choose to vote yes or no. We must do our job, hold hearings and vote." The Senate must. Unless, the Republican Trump is president, then "They (the Republicans) set this precedent, and they can't mess around and use raw political power right in the middle of an election." Oh no? There is no such limitation in the Constitution. The president nominates, and the Senate votes. That's it. Everything else is, in fact, politics. "Raw political power?" Would that be when Obama and Pelosi and Reid pushed through the ACA (Obamacare) on a straight party line vote, with no interest in Republican input.

Here's Democratic Senator Ed Markey: "McConnell set the precedent (referring to Garland not getting a floor vote). No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress (they assume they will take back the Senate in November), we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court." Again, let's dispense with the nonsense. Even before Ginsburg died, the Democrats were talking about abolishing the filibuster, packing the Court (increasing the size of the Court from 9 Justices to 11 or 13) and adding Washington, D.C. as a state, in order to gain 2 more Democratic seats in the Senate. To borrow an old cliche, the Democrats are intent on gaining power by hook or by crook. If they don't win under the current system, that means the system is bad/corrupt and must be changed.

Here is commentator and author Reza Aslan: "If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down." And: "Over our dead bodies, literally." Here is writer Laura Bassett: "If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots." No surprise. The Democrats are incensed that Trump gets 3 SCOTUS nominees in a single term. Like children who throw temper tantrums, their tantrums are riots. Here is a political science professor in Canada: "Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS." It does not matter that the Constitution gives Trump the absolute right to name a nominee. If they don't get what they want - change the rules, riot and burn it down. As Republicans do not talk like this, tell me again who the fascists are. For some time now the Democrats have believed that governing is their right; and we saw that in the way they never accepted the results of the 2016 election, and spent 3 years trying to remove Trump through impeachment.

Republican Governor Phil Scott of Vermont opined that "we must also follow precedent, as well as her (Ginsburg's) dying wishes." According to Ginsburg's granddaughter, the Justice told her at the end that "my most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." While I understand that the New England Republicans tend to be more liberal, Scott is completely wrong. We should honor Ginsburg's dying wish? Where is it written that a Justice should have any say in who their successor might be. Furthermore, if the quote is accurate, Ginsburg did not request waiting until after the election, but rather until a "new president" is installed. That would mean if Trump wins in November, no replacement until January, 2025. Just speaking for myself, I would hope that my most fervent dying wish would be for the well-being of my family.

We know that the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media did not want to give any credit to Trump for the two recent Mideast peace deals. And, of course, as the Palestinians were not involved, blame Israel somehow. Here was the online headline from "Today": "Israeli jets attack targets in Gaza after Middle East peace deal signing." Disgusting! What happened was the Palestinians, rejecting the idea yet again of any peace with Israel, launched rockets from Gaza into Israel, as a way to show their displeasure with the deals. Only after being attacked did Israel retaliate. But for those who just glance at headlines, the point was made - Israel is bad. Here is the headline of the New York Times editorial of 9/16/20: "Trump's Middle East Deal is Good, But Not That Good." Of course not. Why wouldn't the normalization of relations between Israel and 2 Gulf Arab States be a very good thing - for peace and stability in the region. Just not to the New York Times.

The Times editorial told us: "The Abraham Accords (as the deal was called) offered no movement on this front (the two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians) save the hope that an Israel at peace with the greater Arab world will eventually be more amenable to a just peace with its immediate neighbors." Here's another perspective: Maybe after the 84 year old Mahmoud Abbas is gone (Abbas having been elected to a 4 year term starting in January, 2005, yet is still PA President over 15 years later with no intervening elections), and when a new generation comes to power, the Palestinians will see that the world has moved on without them, and if they want to share in the peace and prosperity of all their neighbors that they will "be more amenable to a just peace." But the Times always prefers to blame Israel - no matter the number of times the Palestinians have rejected peace offers.

The Palestinian Ministry of Religion issued instructions to the mosques within their territory, expecting the Imams to say this: "There is nothing that harms Palestine and its holy sites more than making an alliance with the Jews, being connected to them, and relying on them." And Nancy Pelosi completely dismissed the deals as nothing other than a "distraction" for Trump: "Good for him for having a distraction on a day when the numbers of people who are affected and the number of people who are dying from this virus only increases." Then maybe, Madame Speaker, your House should have focused on the virus early on this year, instead of a purely political impeachment.

I would like to end on this note. It is well known that when they were alive, Antonin Scalia (the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, who often issued blistering dissents) was good friends with Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the most liberal member of the Court). Here is Ginsburg, explaining and quoting Scalia: "I attack ideas. I don't attack people. Some very good people have some very bad ideas." And Ginsburg, explaining her own affection for Scalia said: "How blessed I was to have a working colleague and dear friend of such captivating brilliance, high spirits and quick wit." Her comments made me think of those who stopped being friends with me because of my politics. At least I can say that I never stopped being friends with someone because of their politics.

The Coronavirus One Half Year Later - Another Mideast Peace Deal, A Return of Quotas, BLM "Protesters," The Coronavirus and Other News

The latest peace deal between Israel and another Arab country is with Bahrain, a small island country in the Persian Gulf which is allied with Saudi Arabia. On its face, Israel's deal with the UAE seems more significant, with the UAE having a population of 9.8 million people (Israel has 8.6 million), and Bahrain having only just under 1.7 million people. However, given that the Saudis would have had to okay this deal with Bahrain, it is likely of greater significance. The Saudis are now allowing Israeli flights over their airspace to these two Gulf countries. Once again, notwithstanding the involvement of Trump and Kushner, the mainstream media was reluctant to give any credit to the President. Also approving of the deal was Egypt. Iran, Turkey and the Palestinians continue to object to any peace with Israel.

Joe Biden was good for a few laughs when he claimed Trump's foreign policy was a danger to Israel. He really did. Biden: "Trump's put Israel in danger by tearing up the Iran nuclear deal and replaced it with nothing." Excuse me? That was Obama/Biden that shipped $150 billion to Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terror. And all the recent explosions in Iran? Might it be the Trump Administration and Israel working together to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, something that Obama/Biden was enabling? Biden: "He's allowed Israel's foes to take residence in Syria, a dangerous power vacuum has formed." It was Biden's boss who drew a red line for Syria, and when they crossed it Obama did nothing. True, Trump withdrew troops from Syria, which I opposed; but he is not enabling Iran's reach throughout the Middle East as Obama did.

Biden: "He's undermined the stability of self-determination for the Palestinians, undercutting hope for a viable two-state solution any chance that he gets." Typical left-wing analysis. The ones undercutting any hope for self-determination for the Palestinians are the Palestinians. That would include Hamas and Abbas. As the New York Times reported on a comment by one Arab government official: "...they did signal a deepening impatience with what they saw as a dysfunctional and intransigent Palestinian leadership." On the other hand, President Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, their capital city since their founding in 1948. Other countries have followed Trump's lead. Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights. He stopped sending US dollars to the Palestinians while they continue to reward those who kill Jews. And he helped broker the peace deals with the UAE and Bahrain, bringing greater stability to the region, and an acknowledgement by Arab countries that Israel is there to stay. Finally, he did not sell Israel out at the UN like Obama/Biden, when they refused to veto a Security Council resolution giving the Palestinians a state based on the so-called 1967 borders. And Biden wonders why the Palestinians will not negotiate when, under that resolution, Israel has nothing left to offer in return. Biden as President would be for Israel yet another example (as was his boss) of "with friends like these who needs enemies."

Quotas anyone? At Cornell University, dozens of faculty, staff, students and alumni signed off on a letter seeking faculty racial quotas. "...every 'colorblind' event, mechanism and process at the university - from new faculty orientations to selection of endowed positions - perpetuates racial disparities and reinforces an unjust status quo." (As reported by Fox.) As this blog recently pointed out, the idea of a "colorblind" society is now deemed to be racist. The letter seeks to ensure blacks make up 7% of the faculty by 2025 and 10% by 2030. The writers also seek to have people of color make up 20% of the faculty by 2025 and 25% by 2030. Some of us know the history - and the danger - of any quota system. During the first half of the last century quotas were often used to limit the number of Jewish students who were admitted to major universities. In Canada, they were used at McGill University through the 1960's. They were also used at the University of Montreal and the University of Toronto.

In the US, some of the Ivy League schools were notorious for their use of quotas to deny admission to Jews and others. In 1935, this was from the Dean at Yale: "Never admit more than 5 Jews, take only 2 Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all." (As reported on Wikipedia.) While Yale gradually increased the number of Jews who could be admitted (up to 10%) they kept that 10% limit up to the 1960's. Elsewhere on our esteemed university campuses, a proposal at the University of Michigan, Dearborn, was for the establishment of two separate cafes - a POC (people of color) cafe and a non-POC cafe. The idea was for POC to have "a space for students from marginalized racial/ethnic/cultural communities to gather and to relate with one another and to discuss their experience as students on campus and as people of color in the world." The University claimed that both cafes would be open to everyone. Right. Here's an idea. For all those minorities who hate this country and just want to live with their "own kind," let's give them a piece of the US to have their own country. All the rest of us (minority or not) who think these ideas are nonsense and dangerous get to stay in the USA. At Stanford University they has sessions on ending "racial terror." And students were told: "white supremacy so permeates our institutions, policies, practices, and ways of knowing that it is nearly impossible to think outside it."

In Rochester, NY, BLM protesters trashed a restaurant while people were dining. They threw chairs and smashed plates and glasses. One "protester" pushed all the food and plates off of a table while people were sitting and eating. Meanwhile, the crowd was shouting "Black Lives Matter." One protester yelled: "If you don't give us our shit, we'll shut shit down." Said another: "We tired of it. Black lives do matter, okay? We tired of these police killing people...we gonna put matters into our own hands if justice don't come. I'm being honest with you. We got a 100,000 deep, ready. Y'all need to know that." In Pittsburgh, BLM protesters marched and yelled things like "fuck the white people that built the system." And "fuck the police." One "protester" gave the middle finger to an older white couple just sitting outside at a restaurant. Then, one of these "protesters" picked up the man's drink and took a sip, while wearing a shirt that said "Nazi Lives Don't Matter." Rather ironic for people who were acting as fascists.

In yet another "breaking news" story about Trump, Carl Woodward reported that Trump knew the coronavirus was easily spread and was dangerous. In his defense, Trump said he did not want to cause a national panic. I spent 4 paragraphs in the last post discussing what anonymous sources claim Trump said about fallen soldiers. As I expect a minimum of one anti-Trump "breaking news" story each week until the election, do not expect me to comment each time when I have other things I wish to discuss. However, I will briefly remind everyone that people were panicking. Recall the empty store shelves. Trump, acknowledging the danger, shut down air travel from China on January 31, 2020, which Biden called "hysterical xenophobia and fear-mongering." And on January 30, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (former adviser to Obama and current adviser to Biden) opined "take a very big breath, slow down, and stop panicking and being hysterical." And the virus will "go down as spring comes up." And on February 20, Emanuel said "warm weather is going to come and, just like the flu, the coronavirus is going to go down." And on February 24, Nancy Pelosi was suggesting that tourists "come to Chinatown" in San Francisco. And in March, Biden had indoor rallies. Okay, I'm done with that.

Speaking of the coronavirus, the US has 6,705,405 cases and 198,464 deaths. New York City, with a population of over 8.5 million people, has 237,558 cases and 23,743 deaths. Across the country in Los Angeles County (with an estimated population of just over 10 million people) there are 253,176 cases and 6,197 deaths. When looking at the rate of cases per 100,000 population, California comes in at a distant 23rd (when also counting Washington, D.C.). In absolute numbers, California is number one with over 735,000 cases. When looking at the death rate per 100,000 population, California comes in at 25 (again, including D.C.). The latest week's unemployment numbers show 884,000 new claims.

You may recall that when Harry Reid was Senate Majority Leader during the Obama Administration, he eliminated the Senate filibuster rule with regards to Senate approval of all federal court judges, except for the Supreme Court. When Mitch McConnell became Majority Leader he returned the favor and got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. The filibuster rule is not in the Constitution. Rather, it is a Senate rule requiring 60 affirmative votes to allow a mesure to be voted on for passage. Voting to end the filibuster simply means a Senator is agreeable to a floor vote, not that they will vote to pass the bill in question. Now, multiple left-wing/Democratic groups have banded together in order to strategize on how best to get support for ending the filibuster. Why? Because they believe the Democrats will take back control of the Senate in November. Here's the retired Reid: "If @President Biden wants to get things done, he can't play around with the filibuster." The result would be that a Democrat controlled Senate would no longer need bipartisan support to bring a bill to a floor vote. Think about it. If the Democrats keep control of the House and take the Senate, then with Biden in the White House there is no left-wing agenda item they will not be able to pass. Want to make Washington, D.C. a state, and add two more Democratic Senators? Done. Not happy with the make-up of the Supreme Court? Expand the Court to add 3 or 5 new justices. Whether you are for or against the filibuster one thing is certain - the already hyper-partisan Congress would be even more so, as the need for bipartisanship would be gone.

This past Friday was the nineteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America by Islamic terrorists. You might think that the NEW YORK Times, based in a city where nearly 3000 people lost their lives that day, might have a word or two in their Friday edition commemorating those lost. You would be wrong. That is a story that simply does not fit with their agenda. Islamic terrorists? No such thing. Besides, that's discriminatory. But, as we live in the era of many Democrats wanting to defund the police, it is a good reminder to us all that the people who rushed into those smoldering Towers were police and firefighters - heading into the danger in order to save lives while others ran the other way to save their own lives. Yesterday, 2 Los Angeles County Sheriffs were shot in cold blood while simply sitting in their patrol vehicle. They were rushed to the hospital and operated on, but both remain in critical condition, fighting for their lives. Incredibly, protesters showed up at the hospital in order to wish that these deputies die. These words could be heard: "Death to the police." "Kill the police." "I want to deliver a message to the family of the (inaudible) - I hope they fucking die." And: "Y'all gonna die one by one. This ain't gonna stop." Last night I prayed for the complete and speedy recovery of these deputies, and I will continue to do so. As for those pieces of garbage who showed up at the hospital wishing all police dead...well, you know what I am thinking.

The Coronavirus Twenty-Five Weeks Later - Did Trump Really Say That? And Other News

In a now well publicized article in The Atlantic, the latest allegations against President Trump are quite disturbing. But, are they true? The anonymous allegations are that, while on a trip to the American cemetery at Aisne-Marne in France in 2018, Trump said that the cemetery was filled with "losers" and "suckers." Clearly, if true, it is a despicable comment if made by any American, let alone a President. But does it pass the smell test? While Trump has had disagreements with individual members of the military, he has been very supportive of the military and troops overall. And the timing, coming 2 years after the fact, and only 2 months before the election, with Trump gaining in the polls, is very suspicious. The rebuttal would be that the sources, while anonymous, are said to be very credible.

What about the "credible" members of the Obama Administration who were willing to recommend violence and even a military coup within two months of Trump taking office. (See the 3/12/17 post, "The Deposing of an American President.") What about Comey, Strzok and Page, presumably all "credible" government officials until they weren't, once the truth came out about them. (Recall the Strzok-Page email exchange discussing the need to make sure Trump would not win in 2016, and what they would do about it if he did.) Recall Rep. Adam Schiff telling us that he had incontrovertible evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. Except, he never told us what that was - and nor did Mueller. I am certainly well aware of where we are as a country. Democrats do not believe a word Trump, or other Republicans, say - and the reverse is true for Republicans.

But I look at the context. I recall how the Democrats have never accepted the 2016 election results; and how determined they are to make sure that Trump does not win a second term. I know the hatred that people have for Trump, as I have eperienced that hatred myself. I consider that people who were there, such as Sarah Sanders and Hogan Gidley, did say on the record that it never happened - that Trump never said that about our fallen soldiers. And John Bolton, who has no love for this President, said "I didn't hear that." Bolton: "I'm not saying he didn't say them ("losers" and "suckers") later in the day or another time, but I was there for that discussion." So, at the pertinent time Bolton was there and never heard it. Obviously, no one is with the President 24/7, such that they could tell us every word uttered by any president. So, do I believe Trump said those terrible things about our fallen soldiers? No I do not. But, should our analysis end here?

We still need to ask, assuming for the sake of argument that Trump indeed said those awful words, then what? In other words, what influence, if any, should it have on our voting even if believed? My answer is - it should have no effect. As the expression goes, "actions speak louder than words." Trump has done his best to bolster the military. He makes the hard phone calls that presidents have to make to families of fallen soldiers. He visits our troops - on location overseas and in the hospitals. But the real issue is: so what? So what if he said those words in terms of his job performance. Yes, it would be despicable. Yes, I would think less of him as a person. But as they say about Richard Nixon, a man accused of frequent anti-Semitic remarks, yet who suppled the necessary war materiel to Israel to help them survive the surprise attack by the Arabs during the 1973 Yom Kippur war - his actions spoke far louder than his words.

What won't Democratic elected officials say about Trump? Here is yet another example, from San Francisco Mayor London Breed: "We have a terrorist, we have a dictator who is running this country..." Just another ad hominem attack. Those descriptions of Trump are absurd. And what won't Democrats and their allies do to help defeat Trump? Fox reports that unions with millions of members are threatening to walk off their jobs - just in time, again, to destabilize the country before the election, and hurt Trump's chances. The unions' statement is nothing other than Democratic talking points: "We echo the call to local and federal government to divest from the police, to redistribute the stolen wealth of the billionaire class, and to invest in what our people need to live in peace, dignity, and abundance: universal health care and housing, public jobs programs and cash assistance, and safe working conditions." Apparently they do not want safe neighborhoods with the police being defunded. Free health care, free housing, government jobs for all and best of all - cash money.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden had his second press conference just recently, after one month of staying in his house. Did the reporters grill Biden the way they do Trump? Here's one reporter's question to Biden, the reporter being from none other than the aforementioned The Atlantic: "When you hear these remarks - 'suckers,' 'losers,' recoiling from amputees, what does it tell you about President Trump's soul and the life he leads?" There you have it. No reason to challenge Biden on anything - not his policies, his condescending racist statements about blacks, and nothing about how he might work with the far left wing of his party. No. Instead, let's give Biden an apportunity to dump on Trump, to attack Trump's soul. Just another reason to question The Atlantic's claims about what Trump said.

What about the polls? They say Trump is trailing, but gaining. But this might be the most important poll - Bret Stephens reports that, according to Bloomberg, "nearly 12% of Republicans and 11% of independents say they're unlikely to give telephone pollsters their true opinion on how they'll vote in November because they think 'it's dangerous to express an opinion outside of the current liberal viewpoint.'" Don't I know it. Ironic that they call Trump "fascist" when conservatives know that to express an opinion contrary to the left-wing orthodoxy is to risk losing family and friends who are offended, and also risk one's livelihood and safety. The latest incident of a personal nature occurred just the other day. While getting an afternoon iced coffee, I ran into someone who I used to call "friend." He says he is a "moderate," but hates Trump. He was trying to dissuade me from supporting Trump in the blog, and from voting for him. As this man is Jewish, I pointed out that Trump brokered a peace deal between Israel and the U.A.E., which is also good for America as it brings greater stability to an area that has seen much US involvement. I was told (more or less, I cannot be sure of the exact quote as I was rather startled because he was screaming at me): "Who cares about Israel? If you love Israel so much why don't you move there? I'm done with you!" And he stormed off. It should be no surprise the harm that left-wing fanatics are willing to do to businesses and people they don't know, when someone I have known for well over twenty years is willing to be so hostile to me.

We have gone from what was once thought to be a noble goal - a color-blind society (that concept is now considered racist) - to a focus on race all the time in every place. But somebody has to stand up for us, so I will ask again - what about the Jews? The context is Joe Biden going to Kenosha and speaking with Jacob Blake, Sr., the father of the man who was shot in the back, resulting in rioting and looting. According to the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America), the senior Blake had quite a few anti-Semitic comments on his Facebook page. Here are a few. "A Jew can't tell me shit period." "The same pink toe Jewish people that control the interest rate control the media they control Minds and money." "The Jewish media picks and chooses who is a terrorist and is not." And "I'm with Farrakhan 100(%)." I understand that the meeting with Blake Sr. could be justified on a human basis - father to father. But, just imagine if Trump happened to meet with a father of a victim of Antifa/BLM violence - and if that father was a white supremacist. We would never hear the end of it.

The professional football season is about to begin. The NFL has plans to deal with "racial justice." In the two end zones on every field you will see either "It Takes All Of Us," or "End Racism." Players and staff will also be allowed to their helmets or caps emblazened with those expressions, or with "Stop Hate" or "Black Lives Matter." Personally, I'm for the "Stop Hate," as maybe all those who "unfriended" me in real life would learn a little tolerance for others. During each game, the NFL plans on telling a story of a victim of racial injustice or police brutality. I am curious as to whether they will discuss the Michael Brown "murder," as Kamala Harris made up during her campaign for president. (See the very last post - "The Coronavirus Twenty-Four Weeks Later, Part II - A Few Words On The Candidates.")

If you want another reason to vote for Trump, here is one. Trump has put an end to the teaching of "critical race theory" across all government agencies. That's where they deal with things like "white privilege," and teaching that "virtually all white people contibute to racism." And saying that America is the "land of opportunity" is considered racist. As Trump directed, this so-called diversity training is really "training government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda." He called it a "sickness." I think that fairly accurately portrays a system that encourages people to focus only on race, and making one race (blacks) think poorly of another (whites). So much for the "content of one's character." Yep, that class is, indeed sick.

The Coronavirus Twenty-Four Weeks Later, Part II - A Few Words On The Candidates

President Trump got his turn as the Republicans had their convention this past week. I confess. Again, I did not watch most of this convention either. I did catch Nikki Haley's speech and thought that she would be a welcome candidate in 2024. I also saw Melania Trump's speech - good, but a little long. I did not see more than a few minutes of the President's speech, but I did read it. Here are a few highlights. "...We understand that America is not a land cloaked in darkness. America is the torch that enlightens the entire world." And: "What united generations past was an unshakeable confidence in America's destiny and an unbreakable faith in the American people." Of course, you would never know from the mainstream media that Trump's speech was in any way uplifting.

I have complained over the years about left-wing pundits and Democrats, and so-called Black leaders, who have delivered in their speeches an awful message to children. Essentially telling children that the system is rigged against them, that they'll never succeed. To discourage young children from trying to achieve their goals is evil. Therefore, my favorite line from Trump's speech was this: "I want every child in America to know that you are part of the most exciting and incredible adventure in human history. No matter where your family comes from, no matter your background in America, anyone can rise with hard work, devotion, and drive. You can reach any goal and achieve every ambition." So much better than Joe Biden's "knee on the neck."

In August of 2019, Kamala Harris reflected her party's desire to make sure that Blacks always feel victimized, when she said this: "Michael Brown's murder forever changed Ferguson and America. His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement." Elizabeth Warren said something similar. The problem, of course, is that Michael Brown was not murdered. Who said so? Obama's Department of Justice, which concluded there was no criminal wrongdoing in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

But Biden also had no problem in fanning the flames. Here he is on 8/9/20: "It's been six years since Michael Brown's life was taken in Ferguson - reigniting a movement. We must continue the work of tackling systemic racism and reforming policing." Except, the reigniting of a movement was based on a lie. The "hands up don't shoot" lie that suggested that Brown was murdered. Neither the state nor the Feds concluded that he was murdered. Does not matter. Just keep it going. I hope that, rather than the usual 5% of Blacks that vote Republican, that Trump is able to get 25% or more. That Blacks appreciate what Trump has done for their community - in terms of low unemployment, school choice, criminal justice reform and aid to the historically Black Colleges and Universities. And police reform? I have no problem with that - if it does not endanger the lives of the men and women who put on a uniform every day.

I'd like to end this short post with another line from President Trump's speech at the RNC. "In the left's backward view, they do not see America as the most free, just and exceptional nation on Earth. Instead, they see a wicked nation that must be punished for its sins." The focus in our schools should not be on the New York Times' "1619 Project," claiming that the country was born out of slavery. School age children should be taught that people came here for religious freedom. That the American Revolution was fought for political freedom. That the country has always strived to make that "more perfect union." That does not mean we do not teach about slavery - just let's not forget that America's deadliest war, the Civil War, brought an end to slavery. I find it ironic that the mainstream media always wants to paint Republicans and Trump as "dark," while the glass half-empty Democrats are seen as the bright light.

The Coronavirus Twenty-Four Weeks Later - Media Bias, a Few Words on the Blog and the Impending Civil War

First, as the attacks on me/the blog continue, I have a few comments. A recent criticism alleges my failure to ever condemn Trump. Twice in the last post I criticized Trump. But, I was told, not harshly enough. I was very harsh on Trump when he decided to remove troops from Syria, leaving the Kurds vulnerable. But that's not the point. I have a conservative viewpoint, and I see no reason to pile on, when the mainstream media is non-stop anti-Trump. I have said that if someone wants anti-Trump news and Op-Eds they can get 5 to 10 such pieces a day just from the New York Times alone. One day last week I decided to check to see if my claim about the Times was, indeed, correct. On 8/24/20 I went online to the Times to check out their Op-Eds. Sure enough, seven out of the eleven most recent pieces were anti-Trump. The rest were not pro-Trump, but rather discussed other issues. Here are just a couple: "Trump's Campaign of Chaos," and "Trump's Reality TV Show Would Like You to Forget About Reality for a While." The 7 anti-Trump opinion pieces do not include the so-called "hard news" pieces which are also often anti-Trump.

Howard Kurtz of Fox pointed out that CNN and MSNBC carried nearly every minute of the Democratic convention (about 520 out of about 580 minutes). But for the Republican convention, they kept breaking in with "fact-checking, criticism and punditry." About one hour into the Republican convention, the New York Times told us: "GOP Pushes Falsehoods and Fear at Convention." While one CNN newscaster was standing in front of an image of Kenosha burning, the chyron (the headline at the bottom of the screen) told us "FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS AFTER POLICE SHOOTING." The irony was inescapable. As one comment said: "...Irresponsible clowns. It's not even funny. Months of enabling violence and destruction by ignoring and downplaying it, thereby eliminating any pressure on politicians to take action."

Meanwhile, at MSNBC, Rachel Maddow could not accept South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem's attack on Democrat run cities. Noem: "From Seattle and Portland to Washington and New York, Democrat run cities across this country are being overrun by violent mobs." Maddow claimed that was "very wrong," and turned to Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan for her take. You know, Seattle, with the "peaceful" CHOP/CHAZ. Too bad Maddow did not also have the Mayor of Portland, where they tried to burn down a police station with people locked inside, and where there have been violent "protests" for over 90 days.

Recall in the last post I mentioned the 8/21/20 front page headline in the New York Times: "BIDEN VOWS TO GUIDE THE U.S. OUT OF 'DARKNESS.'" That was the Times telling us that Trump's America is dark. Following Trump's speech, the Times' headline across the top of the front page was: "ACCEPTING BID, TRUMP PAINTS BIDEN AS UNSAFE." The subheadline was "Falsely Warning of Support for 'Anarchists' as He Shows His Grip on the G.O.P." In another story on the front page above the fold is this: "President is Unchastened by Time in Office, Even Impeachment." But the subheadline to the Biden speech was: "Accepting Nomination, He Rebukes Trump and Pledges to 'Draw on the Best of Us." Some of the language is subtle, but the bias is there. Trump "falsely" warns. Biden "rebukes," as a teacher does. And, Trump paints Biden as unsafe - as if Biden and the Dems have not constantly told us that Trump is a danger to democracy.

Here's Don Lemon of CNN, reflecting what Democrats have believed about Republicans since Hillary's "basket of deplorables." "They like what he (Trump) presents. They like the lies, one would have to. If you don't like the lies, then you're not a supporter. They like the shiny objects. They like the racism. They like the misogyny. They like all of it because if they didn't, they wouldn't support him." The Democrats who think (and I use the word loosely) like Lemon cannot conceive of any legitimate reason for preferring Trump over Biden. This helps to explain why they are perfectly at ease with shutting down opposing views - because such views cannot posibly be legitimate. If you think Lemon is alone, here is Elie Mystal writing for The Nation: "Most White Republican voters don't need permission for white supremacy. They're racist themselves and think being racist is just commonsense...The irreducible core of his base is white people who think being openly racist and violent toward Black people is an inalienable right that has been taken from them by 'cancel culture.'" And, talking about the black speakers at the RNC, Mystal said this: "What anger I have for this particular crop of Black tokens comes from the fact that so many of them volunteered..." To recap, whites who vote for Trump are evil, whites who vote for Biden (who once described the segregationist Strom Thurmond as one of his closest friends) are good. Any black who supports Trump is a token and worse I'm sure, because, as Biden told Black people: "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black." This type of "thinking," this group-think, is rampant throughout the Democratic party and mainstream media and Hollywood and academia.

Here is some of the biggest bias not even recognized by many people (Democrats). What do you know about Brandon Stanley, Daniel Shaver or James Scott? Nothing, right? Because they are three White people who were shot and killed by police. Therefore, you did not read about them day after day after day in the mainstream media. (Before anyone starts to send me a nasty email, I continue to condemn the killing of George Floyd, and, absent some unknown exculpatory evidence on behalf of the police, I am also disturbed by the shooting of Jacob Blake.) But, according to the article by John McWhorter in the 7/14/16 Time magazine, Shaver had complied with police orders and was shot anyway. Scott was told to drop his gun, which he did, but did not raise his hands. And Stanley was trying to evade a warrant. No rioting, no looting, no burning down of businesses after they were killed. An opposing viewpoint might be - maybe there should have been. No. I am at a loss to understand why business owners should lose everything because of possible misconduct by the police. That's like saying "I'm angry at Smith so I'm going to take it out on Jones." McWhorter: "...all three were killed by police under circumstances that would almost surely have elicited indignant protests nationwide if they were black."

Here is some more information the mainstream media would not want you to know. From 1/1/17 to 8/6/20, a total of 3,545 people were shot and killed by police in the US, according to Statista. I think we can all agree that we would like to see less than 1000 people a year shot and killed by police. The statistic alone, however, does not tell us whether or not any police reforms might reduce those numbers, and to what extent. Of that total, Statista reports that 40.6% of those killed were white, 21.9% were black, 15.7% were hispanic, 3.8% were "other," and 17.9% were "unknown." Brookings reported that in 2019 in the US, 60.1% of the people were white, 12.1% were black (other sites say 13.4%), 18.5% were hispanic and 6% were Asian. But we know that blacks commit crimes at a significantly higher rate than their percentage of the population might predict. As previously reported in this blog, from 1980 to 2008, blacks accounted for 52.5% of the hoicides in the US, well in excess of their percentage of the population. (According to the US Department of Justice.) The point, which apparently needs repeating, the more crimes you commit the greater the liklihood of having interactions with the police. (Please do not email me to tell me perfectly innocent people have been shot and killed by police. I know. It's awful.)

I have watched the news and have seen that many of the "protesters" are white. That does not make it any better when we see businesses being looted or torched. Here are some more disturbing statistics (from Fox): Homicides are up 24% from the beginning of the year to early August in the 50 largest cities in the US. Murders in New York City are up 35% compared to the same period last year. Shootings are up 87% in New York City. In the City of Chicago alone, 2,700 people have been shot so far this year. As of early August, the largest cities have had a total of 3,600 homicides. The Mayors of New York, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Washington are all Democrats. Cities that have seen major lawlessness. This year, and breaking with the usual alliance between Democrats and unions, many police unions have announced their support for Donald Trump. If the politicians do not support the police, the police will be fearful of doing their jobs. When that happens, anarchy reigns. And when anarchy reigns, many citizens - armed citizens - are going to take action. (Again, no need for nasty emails. I am not voting for vigilantism. But, let's be real, if the "authorities" will not act, people will do what they need to do to protect themselves, their homes and their businesses.)

In Washington, DC, "protesters" approached people dining at a restaurant outdoors. They demanded that the white diners show solidarity with Black Lives Matter by raising their fists. The "protesters" shouted at them "White Silence is Violence." One couple refused to raise a fist. The "protesters" screamed and swore at them, and called the man a "pasty piece of shit." One woman, a supporter of BLM, who said she had marched with them, did not raise her fist. "I felt I was under attack, and being coerced - which felt wrong." To her credit, the DC Mayor said "What I saw in those videos was highly inappropriate." She asserted that DC residents won't be "bullied out of living their everyday lives." But how would people not feel bullied? How many of us would raise our fists out of fear of being assaulted or worse? This is all reminiscent of a Democratic talking point from 2018 by Maxine Waters (Rep.-CA): "If you see anybody from that (Trump) cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." What an excellent idea, because a mob can always be counted on to do the right thing.

Meanwhile, Rand Paul, a sitting United States Senator, could not safely cross the street from the White House to his hotel after leaving the last night of the RNC. Paul said he feared that he and his wife would have been severely beaten, if not killed, but for the police officers protecting them from the mob on the street. The irony is that Paul, as a libertarian, supports many of the police reforms that these "protesters" are supposedly seeking. In a bill called the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act, Paul seeks an end to the no-knock policy of allowing police to enter homes without some notice or warning. And, in Kenosha, a 17 year old is charged with the murder of two people after carrying a rifle in the streets during the riots there. The charge seems excessive, and appears to have been made without a complete investigation. But I think the message is clear - perceived vigilantes will be dealt with harshly, "protesters" not so much.

To further illustrate the utter contempt and hatred that the left carries for those who disagree, we have actress Bette Midler. After hearing the speech by First Lady Melania Trump, Middler Tweeted this: "Oh, G-d. She still can't speak English. A UGE bore. She can speak several words in a few languages. Get that illegal alien off the stage." What class. Contrast that with the words of Julia Jackson, the mother of Jacao Blake, shortly after he was shot in Kenosha: "My family and I are very hurt. And quite frankly disgusted...please don't burn up property and cause havoc and tear your own homes down in my son's name...As I was riding through here, through the city, I noticed a lot of damage. It doesn't reflect my son or my family. If Jacob knew what was going on as far as that goes, the violence and the destruction, he would be very unpleased." We would all do well to take a step back and honor this Mother's words.

(Note: The following is a shameless plug on behalf of a friend and reader. Evan Sayet is a well known speaker, author and comedian within conservative circles. He has a new book out called "The Woke Supremacy - An Anti-Socialist Manifesto." It is on sale at Amazon for $9.99. I have already ordered my own copy. I receive no fees or kickbacks or any other remuneration for this plug. Evan previously authored "The KinderGarden of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks And Why He's Convinced That Ignorance Is Bliss." Should you buy one or both of Evan's books I hope that you find them informative.)