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.