Big Tech Must be Stopped

On Wednesday, four big tech CEOs — Apple’s Tim Cook, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai, and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg — will come face to face with Congress, in a hearing held by Antitrust Subcommittee Chair David Cicilline. The hearing is one result of a yearlong investigation by Cicilline’s subcommittee into whether these four companies regulate more of the U.S. economy than our public officials do.

For some, this hearing seemed like a series of technical questions about market power, and for others, a mere congressional spectacle. But the stakes are high. This hearing was part of the only major investigation into corporate power by any Congress in recent memory. Its results may determine whether Congress over the next few years develops the confidence to break up and regulate these giants, will in many ways determine whether America remains a self-governing democracy.

Until recently, the harms of these giants were hidden from the public because they offer free or low-cost services to consumers. But low prices mask a deep threat to our society, starting with a surveillance architecture that has concentrated ad revenue and threatens free expression itself. Two-thirds of American counties have no daily newspaper, largely because Google and Facebook have diverted revenue from the free press to themselves. In addition, these companies propagate misinformation, harm mental health, and promote racial discrimination, with virtually no accountability. Even a giant ad boycott by a host of corporations opposed to Facebook’s hate speech policies drew a response fit for a monopolist: “My guess is that all these advertisers will be back on the platform soon enough,” said Zuckerberg. That’s power.

Amazon, meanwhile, has built powers that rival, or exceed, those of the government. In 2004, Jeff Bezos privately told Amazon executives that he wanted to “draw a moat” around the company’s customers. The analogy was clear: Amazon would control access to those customers, becoming the only bridge for hundreds and thousands of other companies to reach those consumers.

And 16 years later, it’s clear that Bezos fulfilled his goal to transform his company into the bridge through which American e-commerce flows, reaping profits from the tolls the Seattle-based monster imposes on the steady stream of goods. As of 2020, there are more than 118 million Prime subscribers domestically, versus 129 million total households in America. Bezos was so successful in digging his moat that it now surrounds virtually the entire nation, and the rules it sets for that commerce affects much of the rest of the consumer economy. As Harvard Law professor Rebecca Tushnet has noted, “Amazon, with its size, now substitutes for government in a lot of what it does.”

The harms here are real. America has lost over a hundred thousand local, independent retail businesses, a drop of 40 percent from 2000 to 2015, largely due to Amazon. And this is not good for consumers; Amazon allows thousands of counterfeit and unsafe products on its marketplace because it doesn’t have the same liability for products that normal retailers do. Because of its surveillance over its Marketplace, Amazon copies the design of successful products, which destroys the incentive to innovate.

In other words, these four corporations command bridges over which our news, entertainment, goods, and services now flow, serving as the digital infrastructure of swaths of the American economy. These dominant platforms, whose market capitalization surpasses the gross domestic product of many large nations, function as the quasi-governmental gatekeepers of America’s commerce and communications. In fact, Mark Zuckerberg once made this point explicitly: “In a lot of ways, Facebook is more like a government than a traditional company.”

Monopolies are Un-American

Technology corporations like to say they are the arbiters of the future, but to understand why this hearing mattered, it’s important to revisit a long-lost history of American battles against monopoly power. Most Americans, including our leaders, do not know that monopolies, in particular companies that draw a moat between the people and the marketplace, have always, until the past few decades, been seen as deeply un-American.

Because Americans and their leaders understood the importance of access to the marketplace, they naturally recognized that democracy requires eliminating concentrations of power. Congress broke up railroads, banks, aerospace companies, and prevented automobile and telephone giants from invading into adjacent markets. Congress used to regulate our markets, and in doing so, Congress governed.

Citizens Became Consumers

So what happened? How is it that four corporations can now command such heights? In the 1970s, American elites adopted a new philosophy of governance. Americans were no longer citizens but consumers, and monopolies could serve consumers well. And let the expert economists make decisions about markets, not the commoner rabble.

By 1998, this philosophy was so entrenched in our governing elites that Larry Summers linked American global leadership and power not to ideals of freedom, but to corporate dominance, noting that “whether it is AIG in insurance, McDonald’s in fast food, Walmart in retailing, Microsoft in software, Harvard University in education, CNN in television news—the leading enterprises are American.” Similarly, Senator Dianne Feinstein, in 2010, upon voting against a measure to break up large banks, said to a colleague, “This is still America, right?” We had forgotten so much about who we are that American leaders did not recognize in their own tradition the importance of public control over markets.

Buried in this confused anti-American ideology favorable to monopoly, the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations did not use merger laws, and Congress did not regulate data or online commerce, so Silicon Valley grew to gargantuan proportions. In other words, Jeff Bezos and his fellow CEOs aren’t powerful sovereign-like entities because they are brilliant as their boosters would say, or evil, as some of their opponents would offer. They are governing us because we the people have refused to do so through our public institutions. These men have merely stepped into the breach, filling up the void.

There are many complicated technical questions about how to get rid of Amazon’s moat, or that of the other three tech behemoths. But the political problem is simpler. To restore democracy, or rule by the many, in the commercial sphere, means to reassert the role of elected representatives. As Chair Cicilline and the members of the Antitrust Subcommittee demand answers from the CEOs of these tech giants, they are beginning to fill the gap that our last several generations of leaders have left.

If they fill it well, they will be reasserting a tradition that is 400 years old, and yet, surprisingly modern.

What Can We Rely On Will Happen?

It’s plain and simple that if somehow these and other tech giants are not reigned in when it comes to their almost unilateral control of so much of the lives of Americans, they will NOT just tread water: these companies did not become MASSIVE companies by just sitting around counting their pennies. They have continued to grow. And their growth results directly from innovation, creativity, finding and using new opportunities that all are simply puzzle pieces that are put in place at the right time to maximize companies’ financial growth, dominance, and control of more and more of our lives.

Have we as citizens allowed these giants to grow too big, become too dominant, while our elected officials have in large been rocked to sleep by diversion and, God forbid, huge dollars in campaign contributions that have bought their silence? What were the anti-trust laws crafted for? What’s different about the circumstances that led to the breakup of AT&T and today’s monopolies by these tech giants? Why haven’t our guard dogs in Washington looked-in with suspicion of the tactics being used so blatantly to take control of more and more of the American economy in multiple aspects?

Don’t believe for one minute that that House Committee hearing in D.C. on Thursday is a precursor to anything substantive from Congress to slow the swallowing of more American rights and opportunities. Be honest: if Congress really had your welfare in mind, none of this would have ever happened!

I remember a period not so long ago in which dozens of members of Congress from both parties united and examined big companies’ operations frequently to guarantee Americans that the monopolization of sectors of our economy were not being snatched away by anyone. CEO’s of America’s companies no longer fear Big Brother looking over their shoulders to make certain Americans were not taken advantage of. They have been lulled into a state of apathy.

No one can fault these are any other companies from seizing opportunities to grow, expand, and gobble up market shares for their stockholders. Remember this sage statement made long ago: “It’s always easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.” And Big Tech operates today in everything they do. Seldom are they chastised for their actions. Why? Somebody — a lot of somebodies — make lots of money when this happens.

Money is NOT everything. But money DOES MAKE everything else seem a little better! And the more, the merrier.

Finally this: Americans must understand that if Big Tech is not stopped, Big Tech will NOT stop!


If not Kamala, then Who?

Kamala Harris is Joe Biden’s pick for vice president.

Has he lost his mind? Wait, maybe don’t answer that. Still, the Biden campaign’s decision is utterly bewildering.

As Politico carefully reported on Tuesday, “Biden called Harris ‘a worthy opponent and a worthy running mate,’ referring to the pair’s rivalry during the earlier stages of the Democratic primary.”

Perhaps the former vice president goes by a different definition of “worthy” than the ones in Merriam-Webster: “having worth or value; honorable, meritorious; having sufficient worth or importance.”

He remembers who Kamala Harris is, right? Again, don’t answer that.

Biden’s notes on Harris, blown up and scrutinized by the Associated Press last week, included the phrase “do not hold grudges.” That could either be about Harris’s knifing of Biden over his stance on busing during the presidential debates — or to the deep grudge Harris herself must have held against Biden to make that jab in the first place. Maybe political campaigns call for short memories. (Only if “politically necessary”)

Harris’s VP potential has been talked up since she skyrocketed out of the primary last December — a full two months before Iowa. Here’s what one political writer wrote back then:

“Who will Kamala’s supporters now move to support? A bigger question is who cares? It’s true that Kamala Harris had more support in her home state of California than others — but her last poll there had her at half Biden’s support and under a third of Warren’s or Sanders’s. Plus, are we to believe that California Democrats won’t rally behind whoever the nominee is? The African American credentials she so frequently brandished couldn’t convince most black voters to plump for her over old white men like Bernie and Biden. If you picked her as VP, who would she be bringing with her?

‘”In fact, the failures of her campaign should serve as red flags for anyone advising a Democratic candidate on who to choose as a running mate. The way she oscillated between policy positions on topics healthcare during 2019 means she wouldn’t bring credibility on those issues to a ticket. The baggage of her prosecutorial career that she couldn’t shirk? That’s not going anywhere.

“Harris leaned heavily on identitarianism, yet couldn’t make inroads with the identity groups she belongs to. It goes to show that the two leading contenders presently — white men in their late seventies — are politically incorrect and don’t think voters should make up their minds based on identity politics. Many assumed on paper that Harris would be a real contender because she’s a woman of color and a senator. It turns out not many primary voters are picking their candidate of choice on that basis — they want someone they can trust, who seems authentic. As VP, would Kamala tick either box? Or would she be diluting the nominee’s prospects?”

Eight months is a thousand years in politics — but what exactly has changed since the assessment to move the needle in Harris’s favor? If anything, the anti-police, pro-criminal justice reform sentiment among Sanders and Warren supporters makes Officer Kamala a less appealing option.

After South Carolina, all the other moderate Democrats vacated the race because it seemed like Uncle Joe had the black vote locked down. But thanks to Charlamagne Tha God and Kanye West, among other things, Biden’s support among the black community looks less assured in July than it did in late February.

Biden’s VP pick is arguably the most consequential one ever — and countless pundits have blathered on about how laser-focused his team would be on “not upsetting the ticket.” You’d be hard-pressed not to see Kamala Harris as the 77-year-old’s latest blunder. At least we can stop using “veepstakes” taken from the national vocabulary for another three years.

But who could Biden pick if not Harris? There are many others that purportedly still in the race. And Joe has stated several times he wants to choose an African-American female as his running mate. (Doesn’t that sound a bit racist to you? I mean, choosing someone based on skin color IS racist by Uncle Joe’s definition!) That being said, the other African American women that seem to be in the race do not bring very much to the table as far as voter support — unless you’re confident in the current national polls that indicate Joe has the presidency already wrapped up. And I don’t think many are.

So what should Joe do? What CAN Joe do?


VP Biden has painted himself into a corner! He’s facing something of a conundrum. If he chooses one from the remaining black women on his “list,” that choice will undoubtedly alienate a bunch of middle-of-the-road southern Democrats and some moderate Republicans. “Aw, that’s nothing more than pure racism!” Yep, you might be right. But facts are just facts. In politics, every candidate with half a brain wakes up every morning and sticks a licked finger in the air to determine which way the winds of politics are blowing each day. The morning after Joe selects his running mate — ANY running mate and not just one who is African American — he will have hacked-off millions of would-be Joe voters no matter who he chooses at this point. Why? He painted himself into that corner by assuring voters he would pick a “woman of color.”

That certainly limits his options.

But, you know what? Joe has pretty much messed up quite a few things in his almost “Invisible Man” campaign. For months he never came out of the basement. And when he finally began to roll out his campaign agenda, much of it would have been easier to simply pass around Donald Trump’s accomplishments from the last four years with a banner at the top of each page that says, “Me To!” and sign his name. Nothing he’s discussing that is sensical is original to Joe! Most of it is at least a piece of President Trump’s agenda and accomplishments.

“What are you saying, Dan?”

Honestly, at this point, I feel strongly that Joe is toast. To those who scream daily, “Watch who he picks to run with him. They’re going to after the Democrat Convention and formal announcement of the Democrat ticket; they’re going to quietly announce that Joe has stepped to the side because of failing health.”

That might be true. Few see any way for Biden to make it four full years, let alone eight. And Democrats are scrambling every day to perfect a plan for the REAL replacement for Biden that can possibly beat Mr. Trump. Think about it: can you see any scenario in which Democrat Party leadership would allow Biden to enter three debates? Policy ideas and promises make NO difference to voters picking between the two. On-stage presentation and response to each candidate’s opponent’s handling of debate content and performance will determine who will be our next president.

Uncle Joe is NOT the person I’d want to put up on a stage — three DIFFERENT stages — to paint the perfect picture of what Democrats will make America be under a Biden presidency.

But think about this: in that scenario, we will all be able to see exactly what four more years with Donald Trump as president will allow him to accomplish for us, even with Adam Schiff and Company chasing him all four years with articles of impeachment!

I wonder how many days after November 3rd will it take for the “We Defeated COVID-19” announcement to sound?


Armageddon Came to Congress: The American People Lost

Tuesday, July 28th, was the most reprehensible day in history for the United States House of Representatives. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) gaveled-in his committee to hear the testimony of Attorney General William Barr regarding a host of topics about the attorney general’s recent actions.  They pertain to legal cases from the past several years, the Department of Justice responses to the recent protest-turned-riots in Portland and elsewhere, and for the AG to answer questions about many other things that have stuck in the craws of every Democrat on that committee.

Just to put this hearing in context for you, House Democrats have filed articles of impeachment against Attorney General Barr. So you can only imagine the atmosphere in that hearing room.

Rep. Jarrold Nadler (D-NY)

Chairman Nadler was an hour late because of a car wreck in which he was involved on the way. He wasted no time to share his angst for the negative start to his day by taking it out on any Republican within earshot — including the Attorney General. Here’s a brief synopsis of how this hearing evolved into the nastiest House Judiciary Committee hearing in my memory:

  • Democrats sought to paint Barr, making his first appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, as a Trump loyalist who has tried to shield the president and his allies from scrutiny, all while seeking to help Trump project the image of a law-and-order president ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
  • “The job of the attorney general is to defend the best interests of the people and serve as the people’s lawyer, but during your time as attorney general you have consistently undermined democracy, undermined the Constitution and undermined the health, safety, and well-being of the American people,” said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). “All to personally benefit Donald Trump.”
  • “You are supposed to represent the people of the United States of America, not violate people’s First Amendment rights, you are supposed to uphold democracy and secure equal justice under the law, not violently dismantle certain protesters based on the president’s agenda,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in one of the more fiery moments of the hearing.
  • The hearing frequently devolved into shouting matches between Democratic lawmakers and Barr as well as between committee members. Democrats also said they were worried about what Barr might do before the presidential election.
  • A focus for Democrats throughout the hearing was the administration’s decision to send federal police to Portland.

The back-and-forth exchanges also showed how much pent up frustration there was among Democrats ahead of the hearing. Tuesday’s appearance was Barr’s first before the panel, and Democrats have long said they have wanted to hear from Barr, stemming back to his handling of the release of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

During one tense exchange, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) repeatedly admonished Barr for interrupting her questioning. “We’ve waited a long time for you to come here. The time is mine,” Dean said. “You waited to talk to me like this? You didn’t need to wait so long,” Barr responded.

That is just a small sample of the insults hurled incessantly at the attorney general by Democrats throughout the nearly five-hour “get-together.” I call it that because it was far from a hearing. To explain what I mean in saying that is just to give you one sentence uttered in a brief pause by Attorney General Barr: “I thought this was to be a hearing. If it’s a hearing, shouldn’t the witness who’s appearing be allowed to respond?”

For approximately five hours, Mr. Barr was accused, berated, insulted, demeaned, interrupted, and called a liar. The only time he was allowed to complete any thoughts put into spoken words was during his opening statement!

“There Have Been ONLY Peaceful Protestors in Portland”

Attorney General Barr

Almost to a person Democrats in that hearing demanded that there were NO Antifa or other anarchists present in Portland, NO violence at all perpetrated by any during the protests other than that alleged by Democrats during the hearing perpetrated by federal officers against those “peaceful” protestors. Chairman Nadler himself on Monday was caught on camera, responding to a reporter who asked the congressman about the Antifa-inspired riots in Oregon. Nadler responded to the question saying, “There have been no riots in Portland. That’s a myth circulating only in Washington.”

In his opening remarks, Barr stated some of the Portland demonstrators have been overly violent, and protests have damaged federal property. “What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called a protest; it is, by any objective measure, an assault on the government of the United States,” he said.

“Rioters have barricaded the front door of the courthouse, pried plywood off the windows with crowbars, and thrown commercial-grade fireworks into the building in an apparent attempt to burn it down with federal personnel inside. The rioters have started fires outside the building, and then systematically attacked federal law enforcement officers who attempt to put them out — for example, by pelting the officers with rocks, frozen water bottles, cans of food, and balloons filled with fecal matter.

“Remarkably, the response from many in the media and local elected offices to this organized assault has been to blame the federal government. To state what should be obvious … such acts are, in fact federal crimes under statutes enacted by this Congress.”

Barr said an attorney general has a “unique obligation” to ensure that the standard of justice is applied to everyone equally and that he’s sought to uphold this obligation without interference from Trump.

“The president has not attempted to interfere in these decisions,” he said. “On the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right. That is precisely what I have done.”

Other “Matters”

Barr also did not commit to withholding the results of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origin of the FBI’s Russia investigation until after the 2020 presidential election. He stated that any report released ahead of the election “will be in my judgment, not the one that is covered” by a Justice Department policy against investigations that may disrupt an election.

“We’re not going to interfere,” he said. “In fact, I’ve made it very clear that I’m not going to tolerate it.”

Further discussing November’s elections, Barr said there was no reason to believe the election would be “rigged” but did back Trump’s skepticism of mail-in voting, saying “there’s a high risk” for voter fraud if the practice is widely adopted.

Barr dismissed the allegations lobbed at him throughout the roughly five-hour hearing, arguing that he has worked to “restore the rule of law” after the DOJ “strayed” from its mission before his tenure.

Republicans also leaned into a fierce defense of Barr, joining him in blasting Democrats for failing to denounce rioters who have violently clashed with federal agents in recent weeks.

“What makes me concerned for the country is, for the first time in my memory, that the leaders of one of our great two political parties, the Democratic Party, are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attacks on federal courts,” Barr said.

“Why can’t we just come out and say violence against federal courts has to stop? Could we hear something like that?” the attorney general added.

Jim Jordan (R-OH) set the tone for Republicans at the beginning of the hearing by showing a selectively edited 10-minute video highlighting moments of violence at protests around the country. It was preceded by images of Democrats, including former President Obama and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, describing protests as peaceful.

The GOP members repeatedly argued that an aggressive law enforcement response was necessary to quell violent protests.

“We’re seeming just to contort ourselves to get to some way to show that you have nefarious motives,” said Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.).


I have never heard such nastiness from any group of adults: insults, badgering, interruptions, allegations, defamation. Democrats showed in this hearing just how vile members of Congress can be when they want to destroy a former attorney general who is attorney general for the second time. William Barr, throughout his entire career, has been revered by Republicans and Democrats alike as one of the greatest strict adherents to the Constitution and the Rule of Law that has ever born the attorney general title.

What could make this group so venomous to Barr today?

You know the answer to that: he serves for President Donald Trump. That’s his only sin.

“That shouldn’t cause them to attack so viciously this or any attorney general!” Your saying that would be a truthful conclusion IF this Democrat Party wasn’t focused entirely on one objective: Destroy Donald Trump and destroy all that work with and for him. No price is too high to pay to run them all out of Washington, D.C.!

The fact that their objective as it has played out is so obviously one fueled by more than just anger should make every American ask, “What’s going on in all this? What is their purpose?”

The answer is simple: Attorney General William Barr, the Department of Justice, Federal Attorney John Durham, and revealed in the hearing today by A.G. Barr an added federal attorney, Stephen Cox of Texas, are together about to wrap up several massive criminal cases of illegal activities on the part of members of the Obama Administration.

Democrats are scared to death. They desperately want all of this to remain unresolved until after the swearing of Joe Biden as President to replace President Trump. If they can keep the findings of these investigations quiet and Biden wins and be sworn in as President, the massive wrongdoing much of which has already been revealed can simply be swept under the Obama “corruption rug,” which will be handed down to Biden.

In closing, let me say the hearing today was so vile and unprecedented, I wanted to save just a few audio tidbits. If you join us at 9:00 Central this morning at TNN Live, in our first segment, I will play snippets of testimony from just a few of the participants to show you how nasty these House Democrats are today. How do you listen? Just click on the blue horizontal banner at the top of this story at 9:00 AM Central, and it will take you right to the broadcast. The segment only lasts a few minutes so you can hear those and then move on to your day unless you want to stay with us.

If we don’t see you at 9:00, we’ll look forward to getting back together tomorrow at Truth News Network.

“Nothing Changes If Nothing Changes”

I heard that line for the first time at a Men’s Conference in New Mexico in March. Steve Smotherman — who pastors the largest church of any brand in New Mexico — stated that in a presentation to attendees. I thought it through. Until then I had never considered it, but it certainly IS true.

The purpose of the statement is obvious: men and women alike are always wanting things to change and get better — for themselves, family members, and others around them. But it makes perfect sense to believe that no change of any kind will happen to anyone without something that is causing present circumstances that create the undesired results changes. It just makes sense.

Know what? The same holds true in American politics.

American politics is just getting old. Donald Trump and Barack Obama were both elected to instigate changes in the country, specifically the things originated during the Bush and Clinton dynasties. But after eight years of Obama, very little had changed at all. He did make some minor changes, most of which have been eliminated by Donald Trump. Frustrated from the lack of change, voters ran to a more radical alternative in 2016 — Donald Trump.

Now, everyone knows for certain voters are about to kick Donald Trump to the curb in November because they want MORE change than he has offered. At least that what polls are saying. Polls are always right, right? If that DOES happen, voters are NOT going to get a real agent of change to replace Mr. Trump. They are going to get another old guy — one that was at the top of the Obama eight-years of same old same old: Joe Biden. Biden is little more than a 77-year-old former vice president. And his political history shows very little if any accomplishments which give Americans any promise of anything new happening during his presidency. All the issues in foreign policy and domestic matters that opened the door to Obama and Trump have NOT been solved — well, most are still around. Yes, before the “Corona-demic” of 2020, the economy had zoomed and held steady for several years. But where it will head and when is still up for grabs.

We’re still in Afghanistan and Putin still dominates Russia and every state around it. Xi Jinping still controls every aspect of the lives of 2 billion Chinese Communists while North Korea and Iran are still hunting nuclear bombs — if they don’t already have them — ready to aim at Washington.

The Democrats are little more than a tired group of old folks picking out songs to sing in the dining rooms of their rest homes. Forget Biden — consider the oldest ever Speaker (80-year-old Nancy Pelosi), and an even older House majority leader (Steny Hoyer, 81) and the third, eighty-year-old majority whip (James Clyburn, 80). House Republicans are MUCH younger — except for leadership. The Senate boasts the leadership of 78-year-old Mitch McConnell. Then there’s President Trump, age 74, who is just a baby compared to the others.

What hammers D.C. leadership in both Democrat and Republican parties more than age is the lack of political substance in both parties. There’s been very little “new stuff” offered to the nation by either. Obama thought he would light a match under the do-nothing Democrats. But he too brought symbolism at best with NO substance. He recycled a few things: Romney’s healthcare plan from Massachusetts and a few of Bush’s foreign policies.

Both of their second terms were void of anything substantive except for one thing: they each made the balance of their lives VERY financially rewarding. And that was not from just the lifetime salaries given to ex-presidents.  Trump may have been old by the numbers, but he was sharper and more ready to go with his past accomplishments than any of the others. And even though his first couple of years saw amazing economic achievements for the nation, there’s this thing called “Congress” that roadblocked most of his legislative desires after a quick start.

If Biden takes over, it will be just another oldster in the White House. If Trump succeeds in winning four more years, he will face the exact same roadblocks he’s faced since November of 2016, except MORE roadblocks and much more aggressive targeting of him and his administration at every turn. Democrats and Democrat Party leadership hate him for two reasons: he beat Hillary in 2016 which destroyed their imagined Socialist Utopia planned by Hillary Clinton. Then, he made dramatic economic plans that succeeded — at least until COVID-19 swooped-in to give them some 2020 hope.

There’s an eerie comparison between Trump’s populist victory and Brexit in Britain, both in 2016 and both against conservative parties. Britain’s David Cameron was in power in the U.K. in 2016. He was NOT in favor of Brexit and stood firmly against it. Britain had turned to populism just as the U.S. had that resulted in Trump’s victory. Cameron was ousted in favor of Brexit backers. Cameron’s replacement — Theresa May — was also against Brexit, and now she’s gone!

In the U.S., Trump and American populists had to not only tackle Hillary Clinton Democrats but had to overcome a massive mountain of opposition from RINO’s from the Republican Party — “Republican in Name Only.” That group was galvanized by the Bushes, Romney, and a boatload of establishment Republicans who had built a ship in D.C. that was purposed to not do anything that would “rock the boat.” Their idea was “every party will lose sooner or later. The smart way to govern is to simply do the minimum for YOUR party in legislative accomplishments to keep voters happy. That way when the other party eventually wins (which always happens), you will not have done too much to them so as to enrage them so much so that you and your party lose ALL your power.”

At this late stage of Trump’s first administration, it’s odd that traditional members of the Republican Party in Congress have not en masse embraced his populism. It’s obvious, however, that grassroots Americans HAVE done so. Those are the ones in large from southern and midwestern states along with voters from blue states that jumped aboard the Trump Train because of his promises to bring jobs back, which he did. Middle-Class Americans have basked in the success of lower taxes, virtually zero unemployment, skyrocketing income from new and recycled manufacturing operations, and the re-establishment of factories that fled with jobs and money under Obama. But Republican “politi-Hacks” continue to just sit with crossed-arms waiting for the next change. And they really don’t care about any short-term effects of a looming Trump loss in November. They are comfortable at just sitting this next presidency out, waiting for their turn to make waves once more.

They, of course, assume that if Trump loses, a Biden administration that will surely be managed by Democrats who share the same “boat-rocking” philosophy as theirs, will do nothing major. They’ll just calmly sit by and do very little in the way of changes. But they are really missing it!

What’s going to happen in November?

“Nothing Changes if Nothing Changes”

Democrats believe — including Democrat Party leadership in the House and Senate — that American voters are so enraged about what they see as a failure on the part of President Trump to address the “serious” challenges facing Americans that they’ll throw him out. What are the challenges per these Democrats? Racism, White Privilege, Elitism, economic inequality, unfair immigration policies, and a host of other leftist causes. Of course, they have given no thought to any of the impressive achievements during this administration, achievements like massive tax cuts on individuals and businesses, the overturn of dozens of onerous regulations that under Obama when implemented crushed the American economy, closing the southern border and forcing Americans to abide by the Rule of Law. We could go on and on. But under this party’s leadership, none of that matters. All that matters is what drives the ship named “U.S.S. Democrat.” THEY drive the ship. And THEY decide who gets to board. Donald Trump just screwed all that up!

Here’s what both RINOS and establishment Democrats are missing: the 63 million Americans who elected Donald Trump in 2016 almost all agree with the Trump Agenda and accomplishments. And, it appears, there are a plethora of others who have signed on to that same belief.

“Wait a minute: don’t you read the polls?” Yep, as I’m sure you do too. I read all of the polls that YOU read, plus a few more. I see where some polls show Biden ahead of Mr. Trump by double-digits with only one that I can find that shows Trump leading: and that’s by just one point. I remember election morning 2016 when only one poll that day showed Trump had any chance to win while 40+ national polls showed Hillary winning in dramatic fashion.

There’s another poll that I read. It’s the one that shows that 66% of Americans are afraid to share their political opinions when asked by anyone. Who are they? They’re certainly not the mainstream Democrats who take pride in not only answering questions asked about their political beliefs, but enjoy getting in the faces of whoever asks the question. No, most if not all of this 66% are conservatives along with some establishment Republicans and probably even some Democrats who don’t want another four years as they had under Obama and Biden.

Believe it or not, most Americans really enjoyed the pre-COVID American economy under Trump. Biden with Obama showed us all NOTHING remotely similar to what we’ve basked in under Trump.

Yeah, he’s just an old guy. But the old guy got it done well during the last four years. Just imagine what more can get done if Democrats will leave him alone in the next four years. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a Congress that would do just what they committed in their oaths to do: make laws and make sure everything is OK with Americans?


“white” Folks Ain’t Woke — Until Now

Just when we get to the point where we in America think we have things all together and we understand everything, we don’t. Just when we think we’ve reached a point where everyone knows how to address people of every race, ethnicity, religion, economic status, we don’t. But God knows we certainly know what it is to be Woke! You are not going to believe this, but the “real” journalists in our media have just turned the corner on exactly how to prove one is Woke: it’s how you spell two critical words in the English language.

What you are about to read will probably turn your face red — if not red then white, and your temperature will skyrocket. But here’s a critical promise you MUST make before continuing to read: don’t stop reading until you get all the way to the end! If you will not commit to that, simply click off this story and go to CNN or MSDNC online! It’s a story written by a reporter named Jarvis Dupont. We’ll tell you about Mr. Dupont at the completion of his offering to us all today. (Don’t forget: you MUST read all the way through)

Jarvis Dupont

The Associated Press — without question the oldest and formerly most reputable national newsprint disseminator — recently posted an announcement on their website detailing their decision to capitalize the “B” in Black when used in the context of race and culture.”These changes align with the long-standing capitalization of other racial and ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Asian American, and Native American,” writes AP’s Vice President for Standards, John Daniszewski in a blog post on the AP website.

The following day a further announcement was made explaining why they had taken the decision to continue to use a lowercase “w” in “white” when used in the same context.

Predictably, this has upset a lot of white people (or as I like to call them “racists”) who obviously cannot understand that when it comes to race, they really need to stay in their lane and get used to not “capitalizing” (haha!) from the labor of Black and Minority Ethnic people.

“There was clear desire and reason to capitalize Black,” explains Daniszewski in a second blog post. “Most notably, people who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world. There is, at this time, less support for capitalizing white. White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color.”

What John Daniszewski is saying here is that white people come from a wide range of cultures and social backgrounds, whereas Black people are one homogenous group with the same outlook and experiences and only one distinct identity: Black. Every Black person I know enjoys rap music and supports Black Lives Matter. I am fairly sure of this. When it comes to white people, their likes and dislikes are all over the place. You just can’t pin them down to anything specific. It’s like trying to nail ants to a wall. Horrible mess.

“We agree that white people’s skin color plays into systemic inequalities and injustices, and we want our journalism to robustly explore those problems,” Daniszewski continues.

From this, we can deduce that although white people come from many different cultures and backgrounds and experience no meaningful shared experience regarding their skin color…they DO share a propensity towards slave-ownership, white privilege and racism due to their, well, skin color. This makes perfect sense. white people benefit universally from Black slavery, they each have a duty to accept and dismantle their white privilege, they need to recognize the injustices that their lack of melanin have brought against Black people and strive to make amends. Only last week I made my grandfather go to his nearest KFC and apologize to any Black people he came across (apparently they can’t get enough of fried chicken which is another shared experience of theirs) for the death of George Floyd. He’s 83 and suffers from dementia, so he ended up telling a black Labrador that he killed George Foreman. The Labrador didn’t seem to pay him much heed but I still feel this was a valuable step towards making reparations.

So with all this in mind, I fully support the non-capitalization of the word ‘white’ when used in conversations surrounding race issues. white people need bringing down a fair few pegs, and this would be a damn good start. In fact, I think it would benefit us greatly if we took this a bit further and have outlined a few suggestions for a less white-oriented society:

  • Petition paint companies to not capitalize the word “white” on any of their products;
  • Create a typeface that automatically makes the “w” smaller when used before the letters “h”, “i,” “t,” and “e;”
  • Get rid of the “w” altogether so that the term “hite people” contains fewer letters than “Black people;”
  • Force editors to print the word “Black” in gold lettering on all magazine and newspaper articles, and have the word “white” handwritten in cheap crayon;
  • Completely remove the word “white” as a descriptive term, so that when we are discussing matters of race, the conversation becomes centered on “people,” and “Black people.”
  • Capitalize every letter in “Black” on everything everywhere to address the inequality and oppression BLACK people deal with every day.

I feel confident that we will begin to make huge strides towards true racial equality once we learn to treat people differently according to our preconceived notions regarding their skin color, and I would like to thank the Associated Press for taking that first brave step.


No doubt at some point during the Jarvis Dupont story you felt some disgust, probably some anger, and certainly screamed at your computer screen. You probably thought something like this: “How can this guy — and how can the Associated Press relent to the ‘Woke-Mongers’ and bow to the Black Lives Matter and do something so trivial which is nothing more than symbolic at best with NO substance?”

Jarvis Dupont

I’ll answer your question and give you some context this way: Jarvis Dupont is a fictional character who is either “a” person or “some” people who via Twitter have in large part headed this Social Justice Culture that pretty much totally controls the United States! Supposedly, Jarvis, fake-pictured to the left, is a transgender woman who exclusively uses Twitter to spread the LGTBQI, Woke, BLM, message using racial, ethnic, and bigotted language.

The Associated Press decision to, in all reports, keep the word “white” lower-case while capitalizing “Black” is true. USA Today and its network of 260 media outlets announced the plan to do the same last week. NBC News, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times are expected to follow suit quickly.

I could rant and rave about every part of this: the use of a fake transgender Twitter character, lighting ANOTHER fire of racial anger spelling “Black” and “white” in all reporting to disparage all white people, certainly pours gasoline on an already raging inferno.

Isn’t this what the U.S. needed in the shadows of the vilest racial violence and political upheaval of the last 50 years? It’s as if some political terrorist leader sitting at a table with henchman having a beer and laughing said, “What else can we do to create news to perpetuate the already existing hatred, anger, and divisiveness so this chaos will continue and even get worse? Hey, let’s think of something we can get Jarvis to dump on Twitter that will take this to an even higher level!”

Maybe that terrorist leader is Jarvis Dupont! Maybe, it’s George Soros or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Vladimir Putin. Heck, it might even be Hillary. But whoever it is and whatever their plan is it has certainly succeeded so far. The fires of hatred and anger burn brightly in many of our major cities. Sadly, it appears that REAL violence might break out quickly in deadly fashion.


Bullet Points Saturday July 25, 2020

  • We have all watched the protests-turned-demonstrations-turned riots in Portland for 56 days. Building have been torn apart, many looted and burned, police and some protestors have been assaulted. The Portland mayor has placed the total blame for these travesties on the U.S. government federal police who were sent to protect federal property. Nothing wrong was done except for the actions of these agents, according to the mayor. But the arrests of 18 people in Portland by the U.S. Department of Justice were made on Friday. For more details click on this link:
  • South Texas has dodged hurricanes for quite some time. But Hurricane Hanna is bearing down on the Texas coast. It is expected, sometime Saturday she will first come ashore near Corpus Christi. For more details click on this link:
  • Americans have been anxiously waiting for Congress to pass another COVID-19 stimulus package. The House passed their version of a bill, but the Senate as of Friday have been unable to reach agreement on a version that would then open negotiations with the House. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that it may take weeks. For more details click on this link:
  • “Quid Pro Quo” says Chinese President Xi Jinping, speaking to President Trump. The Chinese were ordered to close their consulate in Houston. So, President Xi Jinping ordered the U.S. to close a consulate in exchange. For more details click on this link:
  • The state of Florida continues to struggle with COVID-19 infections and deaths. Hospitals are being stretched to their limits. The Department of Defense is planning on intervening with mobile hospitals at various sites. For more details click on this link:
  • The chaos in the nation and the constant uproar of  the unknown has begun to take a real toll on millions of Americans. “Health Anxiety” is the new mental and emotional condition with which many find themselves struggling. How bad is it? For more details click on this link:
  • During the 2012 presidential campaign Americans were introduced to the concept of “Death Panels.” These were purported to be groups of people who would determine which ill Americans were worthy to received medical care fo serious and sometimes terminal diseases and which were not. Those panels have never materialized — until now. Apparently such a panel is set in Starr County Texas to do just that for critically ill COVID-19 patients. For more details click on this link:
  • Quarantines are back in force. The mayor of Washington D.C. announced a fourteen-day mandatory quarantine for any travelers to D.C. that come from COVID-19 “hot spots.” For more details click on this link:
  • Dr. Deborah Birx has warned that 11 major U.S. cities need to take stiff actions to fight COVID-19 to stop aggressive spreading in their cities. For more details click on this link:
  • The combination of COVID-19, racial and political unrest, protests and riots that are plaguing many major cities’ downtown areas are forcing city-center residents to flee downtown and head to the suburbs. June home sales skyrocketed to levels not seen in years. For more details click on this link:


Yep, “COVID-idiocy” is now a word. I made it up. Why? We need to create a new COVID-19 group in which we can relegate the ever-growing number of idiotic plans and ideas pulled from the air by private “experts” to assist Americans in the fight against our current pandemic — you know, the medical pandemic “thing” that, according to the CDC guidelines, ceased even to be a “pandemic” six weeks ago. That doesn’t matter at all! We still need to spoon-feed Americans with a daily dose of stupidity to guarantee American leaders are always the smartest people who breathe!

We had the mask: “to wear” and then “not to wear;” “to medicate with Hydroxychloroquine,” then it was “don’t dare take it cause you’ll die!” Then we could take it “only in a doctor’s direct care,” then “don’t take it cause you’ll die!” “Everybody stay inside,” then,” then “go back to work, but only in small numbers.” Then, once again, we hear the cries of “stay at home, don’t work. If you do, you’re going to die!”

Everyone responsible for the creation of these lines of “COVID-idiocy” needs to be marked so that everyone will know they are the manufacturing of caustic, hateful, demeaning, and fearful “musts” that have together torn apart the hearts and minds of good and honest Americans.

But there’s more.

As New York City schools grapple with how to handle a virus that has an under 1 percent infection rate in children, parenting boards frequented by the educated, monied-but-not-so-monied-as-to-send-their-kids-to-private-school set, are forming “pods.” A ‘pod’ will be a small group of children, usually no more than five, who will meet at each other’s homes instead of traditional schooling in September. You, and four other families in your same tax bracket, will hire a teacher to educate the five children in the pod. Parenting boards are overwhelmed with requests for these tutors. The families will agree to only interact with each other: an absurd and impossible promise that will surely be broken.

We’re in a time where there is a ‘right’ opinion on everything, and every other idea is stupid and likely racist. The right advice right now is that it would be just crazy to open schools in New York City in the fall. This is even though every other country is opening schools, and New York’s governor is on a prolonged victory tour on late-night television for his celebrated handling of the COVID crisis…which resulted in the death of 32,000 New Yorkers.

If you’re a parent who is pushing to open schools, well, you don’t care about the lives of teachers. Those sending their kids to private schools that plan to open must love their kids less than the podders. Pods have become the only acceptable way to educate your children this fall.

The idea that moving a group of children from house to house, and bringing in a commuting educator who is theoretically isolating herself from others in the name of teaching the group, is somehow seen as safer than just sending the kids to a traditional classroom, is a testament to how much science and reason have ceased to matter. It’s the latest in our COVID security theater, which now includes having a temperature check when entering certain restaurants or buildings. However, someone can be COVID-positive and asymptomatic, or ya’know, take Tylenol.

It would be one thing if parents revolted and asked for $25,199, the amount spent per student in New York City’s mainly failing school system, to be returned to them to educate their kids as they wish. But school choice is stupid, and racist and only those terrible Republicans want that. These parents are doing something very different than icky school choice. They’re choosing, you see, to keep their white, affluent kids safe and educated when their local schools won’t do it. As for the people who don’t have the money to hire a tutor, and need to be at their own jobs while their kids are either on some wacky part-time school schedule or fully remote, that’s their problem.

The one-two punch of pods, while not demanding the money be returned, will go so far to keep down poor kids across the city. It’s almost as though that is the intention. Anyone sane still left in New York City must demand funding to be returned to parents to use how they see fit for their child’s education. Don’t let the rich podders get to ignore the choices they are making that will further exacerbate inequality in education. Make them face it.

Anything other than that is pure “COVID-Idiocy.”

What Other COVID-idiocy Can we Expect?

Every TV Show Is Going To Have A Coronavirus Episode

Or at least all of the medical drama’s will. I’m not sure how they’ll work a coronavirus episode into The Simpsons or whatever, but I’m sure they’ll try, and I’m equally sure that it will be terrible.

It’s weird how we want to consume media about the things that scare us, but we totally do. The popularity of the 2011 drama Contagion has increased by about 9000% since the pandemic started. Do people think that they’ll find some secret code to surviving the virus in a movie about a similar outbreak? Or does watching Matt Damon go through what we’re going through while also being hot just make us feel better? Maybe we enjoy the superiority of seeing Meredith Grey get a slight cough and wave it off as nothing while we sit at home eating popcorn and saying, “Oooo girl, you got no idea.”

Will We Ever Wear Pants Again?

Global disasters always affect fashion. After World War I, skirts and haircuts got shorter. During World War II, pants became more widely accepted as casual wear for women. During the pandemic, very few people are choosing to get out of their pajamas.

With each global disaster, humanity has said “Heck No!”, fewer layers, more comfort. After working from home for possibly many months putting on real pants might as well be climbing into an Iron Maiden. A suit? Don’t even joke about that.

Not only are clothes going to get even more comfortable but now that we’re all used to seeing facemasks in public you might start seeing them in daily life outside of the hospital and airport. Yes, the Mortal Kombat Ninja look is going to be walking the runway at Paris fashion week next year.

Get Ready For Running To Become Stupidly Popular

While most of us are trapped inside feasting on those fancy Pepperidge Farm cookies that were all that was left in the snack aisle, apparently some people are using this pandemic to get swole. One of the few ways you can safely leave your home during a pandemic is to go for a run outside.

Once you start running, your brain produces some pretty great chemicals that tell you running is good for your body. After you’re done feeling like you’re going to die, you feel pretty great after a long run, and the hardest part of running is having the time and energy to get started.

The end of the pandemic will be the start of everyone running a 5K. Everyone you know will suddenly not shut up about running. I mean, I figured the apocalypse would involve a lot of running, but I hoped it would be from something rad like a big dinosaur.

Our Butts Will Never Be The Same

Bidets have been in America for a while. You probably know a few people who have one and at least one unfortunate soul who’s chosen to take on the personality of Bidet Guy. You know, Bidet Guy, the guy who will not stop talking about how clean his rear-end is. If there isn’t one in your current group of friends, there’s about to be.

The toilet paper shortage is causing more than just the obvious issues. Cities are concerned that people flushing non-toilet paper items like paper towels could royally overload sewer systems. Bidets are the most obvious problem to the lack of TP issue, and Amazon is still selling out of them like crazy. Once the hoards lust for butt paper is satisfied, and we have a stable toilet paper supply line again, lots of people are still going to have bidets. We’re going to discover that they’re not as scary and European and as we initially thought and why uninstall one when the next toilet paper shortage could happen eventually. Guess what? We’re all Bidet Guys now.

There’s Going To Be A Divorce Boom

Everyone has been talking about the potential for a quarantine baby boom, and I’m sure that’s a distinct possibility. Still, when people got out of quarantine in China, the first thing they wanted to do was get divorced. Allegedly there were so many people going immediately from quarantine to their divorce lawyer that there was actually a shortage of appointments. That’s right. We had a toilet paper shortage; China has a divorce shortage.

It’s tough being locked inside with anyone for months, even someone you have loved and cherished since you were nineteen years old, who may have for example had a job that required frequent travel and routine sixty to eighty-hour workweeks, and now he’s home all the time, and you’ve suddenly realized that he doesn’t know how to open a door. It’s like every door he encounters, he rams his entire body into and then at the last possible seconds remembers to turn the and nob and somehow at the same time as he full-body slams the door he burst into the room, every single time he opens a door! It’s like living with Kramer from Seinfeld.

Anyway, that’s just a totally random example. What I’m trying to say is if there is something insignificant about your quarantine partner that annoys you get ready for it to be amped up by a hundred after a month inside. Once that’s over, maybe you’ll be prepared to split up over it.


If we don’t get back to normal life — you know, getting up at 6:00, drinking a cup of coffee after showering and dressing for work, skimming the overnight news, jumping in the car and headed to the office or packing the kids’ lunches and hauling them to school — we’ll ALL be making shrink appointments! Don’t get me wrong: I love being with my wife of 45 years. But, 24 hours a day? That’s burning way to much time from the “Tolerance Clock.”

There’s plenty of COVID-idiocy to go around as we watch the Democrat big-city mayors and state governors face turn green and spew COVID-idiocy insults toward Washington D.C. But I’ll bet you one thing: you haven’t yet seen the craziness that will shock us all the longer we live in this semblance of sanity at the hands of COVID-19 and the lack of REAL information. It’s getting ugly now, but, in New York City, imagine how the parents and kids in the “pod-schools” are going to feel being cooped-up for another nine months. There might be some killings — both by parents AND kids before it’s over.

OMG…if we don’t have a 2020 World Series or NFL football, there’ll be dads running down the streets taking potshots at total strangers! Yep. And there’s plenty of COVID-idiocy to go around to all 330 million of us. We’ll probably use most of it!


Somewhat Shocked to see Trump in a Facemask

I actually have a call-in to a Republican member of Congress who’s an attorney to get an answer to this question: “Are the government mandates (from ANY government) Constitutional?” There’s no science to support any justification for the mandates. Why do I say that? It’s the truth! There are countless opinions of some of the finest epidemiologists, immunologists, and infectious disease specialists who are actually split down the middle on the answer to that question. But what resolves the “science” question about mask efficacy of wearing masks for the purpose of stopping COVID-19 infection-spreading are numerous controlled laboratory tests over a period of years — a decade or so — that clearly state that NO mask of any kind stops viruses. And that includes N95 masks. Each of these tests conducted on thousands of individuals using every conceivable type of mask in addition to proving the inadequacy for any of these masks to stop the virus from impacting the “wearer” or persons around them show that often wearing masks for too long will negatively impact the person doing so.

I don’t have the “constitutionality” answer yet, but I will. But for the purpose of our conversation today, let’s assume that the answer will be, “No, a mask mandate does NOT pass constitutional muster.” So what about the “now” if the response follows science and confirms we shouldn’t wear masks.

Let’s dive in!

President Trump

Next time Donald Trump poses for a photocall in one of those ridiculous, unnecessary and completely off-brand face masks, maybe he should remember the history of his good friends the Chinese.

In the 17th century, China’s Ming dynasty was overthrown by the Manchu invaders of the Qing dynasty. The Manchus imposed their will on the conquered Han majority by forcing them to adopt their hairstyle. Where the Han had traditionally worn their hair long and tied in a bun, they now had to wear it Manchu-style, shaved at the front and sides with the top grown long and plaited into a queue. The sentence for failing to have the correct new haircut was death by beheading.

Does this scenario sound vaguely familiar? Sure all those U.S. states now enforcing the wearing of face masks may claim they’re acting in the interests of public health and safety — and sure it’s not a capital crime — yet. But really, all those corona-fascist state governors imposing this unnatural and unfamiliar dress code are doing it for the same reason the conquering Manchus did it to the Han: to show the lowlifes — that’s you and me — who’s boss.

I can understand why Democrats and other liberal-lefties are unable to see the problem here: why should they when they so adore regulation and the firm hand of Big Government? What does puzzle me greatly, though, is why the entire conservative movement isn’t united in outrage at this blatant exercise in judicial overreach.

This ought to be THE civil liberties issue of our era: an intrusive, economically damaging regulation, irrationally imposed on Americans for the flimsiest of reasons. Yet instead of fighting it tooth and nail, far, far too many Americans are just shrugging their shoulders and saying: “Well if it saves a few lives, why should I mind having to wear a bit of cloth over my face when I go to the mall?”

Well, the reason you should mind is that the number of lives it may end up saving is likely even smaller than our personal number of brain cells.

Even at the very height of the pandemic about two months ago, cloth masks (as opposed to the professional medical variety) would have been next to useless in preventing viral transmission: as a number of studies and medical experts have noted, the mesh is too large to stop a virus and anyway, they’re often incorrectly worn.

But now that the virus has begun to retreat — as viruses tend to do in the summer months — and the number of deaths has tumbled almost to nothing, the rationale for imposing masks is more nonsensical still. It’s like surrendering your arms to an enemy you’ve just beaten in battle: again, something liberals might find appealing, but which all conservatives ought to find incomprehensible.

Granted, the mainstream media continues aggressively to promote the narrative that the crisis is far from over — and will continue to get worse until we find the Holy Grail vaccine. But conservatives really ought to know by now that what the MSM tells you about coronavirus should be taken with a massive pinch of salt. The MSM reports a “surge” in infections as something shocking when it fact it’s just the inevitable result of more widespread testing; it cherry-picks localized “spikes” in death rates to signify impending catastrophe when a) the national trend remains downward and b) increases which may look large in percentage terms are actually tiny in terms of numbers. Furthermore, as Senator Ron Paul (R-KY) recently noted, the figures are deeply suspect anyway. One twenty-something listed as having died of COVID in Florida turned out, on closer examination, to have been killed in a motorcycle crash. In South Carolina, the state health agency admitted that the recent “spike” in deaths was simply the result of delayed reporting.

This is what makes it so especially disappointing seeing Trump wearing one of those masks. He ought to be taking a stand on this issue: signaling to the world that whatever Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates and the World Health Organization may say to scare us into cowering under our beds until Big Pharma can come up with an expensive vaccine, he Donald Trump remains on the side of the Ordinary Joe who refuses to wear one of those stupid muzzles unless there is compelling evidence that they’re going to make the slightest difference. And to blow the mask mandate out of the water is that hundreds and thousands of reports are showing-up that people who never even were tested are being reported: “confirmed COVID-19 infected!”

So who do we believe?

Currently, there is no such compelling evidence. We red meat conservatives love and respect our old folk at least as much as liberals do. (Probably more, actually, let’s be honest). But we refuse to be degraded by leftist elitists with emotionally blackmailing arguments about how, by not wearing masks, we’re putting these people at risk. If that were really the case, we’d all wear those masks, no problem. But it’s not the case: those masks are being imposed on us for the most cynical of political reasons which have nothing to do with public health. Shame on those of our brethren too ill-informed — or simply too hard-headed — to realize this.

So what do we do?

For this conversation, let’s put away any thoughts of wearing masks that can actually negatively impact the Pulse-OX levels in a person’s blood. That IS happening and can be very dangerous. Be that as it is, consider the scenario where we keep a mask in our cars, at our desks at work, or in our pocket or purse when we’re out and about. When we are going to be exposed to or in a group of people, or we go to the grocery store or a restaurant, we just pop the mask on. Certainly, we’re not going to be in that environment for an extended period of time, so the Pulse-OX issue will not become an issue. When we leave the populated area, we take it off.

What will that accomplish?

There are millions of Americans that have listened to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Deborah Birx, local and even nationally acclaimed physicians that have amazing credibility all on television, social media, and speaking in groups telling Americans, “We must wear those masks because we are each COVID-19 dispensaries.” These normally astute, educated behemoths in Healthcare in saying this is simply expressing a personal opinion. And they shouldn’t be doing so! Why? Because NOTHING in science supports their allegations. And, yes, they are nothing more than allegations!

Don’t let this seem like an accusation or insult to your doctor. It’s not. It’s coming from science and is NOT diminishing in any way the veracity or credibility of any doctor. If it’s not true, why would they continue to say this again and again?

It’s simple. In my business, for thirty years we have dealt daily with doctors of all specialties, all degrees of practice, (sole practice, medical clinic, researchers, hospitalists, specialists, etc.) of every age, origin, ethnicity, and with various stages of medical education. They’re all different, BUT, they’re all the same in one way: they are experts at EVERYTHING, especially their trade: MEDICINE!

No, they’re not all narcissists and know-it-alls. But most are. To that end, they seldom accept even a remote possibility of being wrong, of not having critical information that they have personally researched or learned scientifically, but they seldom let their lack of specific knowledge of anything pertinent to anything in medicine stop their pontificating to all who listen what is little more than an opinion.

That’s a fact!

Ironically, all of the pushback I hear regarding the mask issue is about the purported rejection of science by those who reject mask-wearing. Logically thinking, however, doctors are certainly the folks who SHOULD know the science, SHOULD study all the controlled laboratory research on mask use that has happened exhaustively over the last ten to twenty years. I cannot answer for certain why they do not. But, obviously, if they demand all to wear masks using as justification for saying so that masks stop COVID-19 (or any virus at all), they are ignoring the science of the matter themselves.


So what should we do? I will NOT give you advice on the subject! But I HAVE read and heard hundreds of “experts” tell us that we must wear masks. I have also heard hundreds of “experts” tell us that we should NOT wear masks. And they all claim they’re referring to the “science” of the matter, but they never volunteer the “science” that supports that theory.

What should we do?

I’ll answer by telling you what I do: I’m one who keeps a mask handy. And when I’m going into a grocery store, restaurant, or some other public place expecting to face other people, I wear the mask. “If the science doesn’t support a need to do so, why do you do it at all?”

Good question. And there’s a good answer:

If I can keep one person — one 70-85-year-old person — from feeling a panic attack coming on when they see me at Kroger without a mask walking down an aisle toward them, I’ll voluntarily pay the price.

Does that make sense to you?

I’m all-in on that. But: there’s more.

What is tearing at my mind every day about this issue is this one thing: there obviously are people who really know the answers to this issue that refuse to share it with all Americans. Why does that bother me? Their doing so can only be for one purpose: to use fear for some political purpose. That can be the only REAL answer that makes sense.

I’ll close by saying this: Steve Rasmussen — a famous and very accurate national pollster — today reported about a poll just taken by his firm of 1000 Americans from every possible background and political affiliation. The poll asked this question: “How do you feel today about the state of our nation — economically, socially, etc. — but WITHOUT factoring into your feeling of well-being the state of politics?”

When tossing their feelings about the political state of our nation, 75% of those polled said everything’s OK!

My final thought for you is this: whether you know beyond any reasonable certainty that masks work or don’t work, consider wearing one for others. Fear is a horrible state in which to live at any time in our lives. But to be forced to live there regarding a medical condition with which many people have died makes life unnecessarily caustic and difficult. No one deserves to live there, especially not those the most vulnerable in the U.S. today.

So I’ll carry my mask around with me. And I’ll pull it out and harness up.

I just had this thought: what if the answer comes back from that constitutional expert that tells me these politicians DO have the right to force us to wear masks? Easy answer: I’ll already be doing so!

Think about it.

Biden Campaign Back in the “Sexist Doghouse”

Joe Biden’s gaffes are well-known as are his flirtatious public actions with girls and women of all ages. He’s seen often hugging females that make them obviously uncomfortable. There are numerous pictures that show the women referenced are even repulsed by his hugs and kisses sometimes from behind. These supposed antics are humorous to some, but they certainly are poignant in this world in which we live today. Why is that? Sexism has been (and still is) front and center in the United States. Public sexist antics are no longer acceptable in any setting by anyone — especially not when they include an old U.S. Senator who is running for the third time to be President after serving two terms as Vice President.

Detractors will say, “None of that is new! It’s just Republicans trying to find ammunition to use against Mr. Biden and to protect President Trump.” I’m not a Republican and I’m not looking for ammunition to use against Trump. He provides everyone in the media with plenty of ammunition without having to look for it — it’s in our faces almost daily!

He doesn’t fly solo in his organization as the “only” sexist. The latest Biden Campaign sexual guffaw comes from a Joe Biden Campaign staffer.

Biden’s Sexist Staffer

   Kamau M. Marshall

Joe Biden’s head of strategic communications, Kamau M. Marshall, has repeatedly posted sexist messages on social media over the past decade, beginning with a Christmas Eve 2011 tweet in which he expressed his affection for “power women” – as long as she “know[s] her place” and he can “where [sic] the pants.”

The social media posts are the latest example of a top Biden staffer undercutting the former vice president’s public messaging. On Friday, it was reported that a supervising videographer on the campaign, Sara Pearl, openly called for defunding the police and tweeted a meme mocking officers as worse than “pigs” – even as Biden says he only wants some money redirected from police departments.

Within minutes of publication, Marshall deleted many of the tweets you’ll see here, but folks (like us) retained screenshots. The Biden team has declined to offer any comment on the posts by either Marshall and Pearl, and Marshall did not respond to an emailed request for comment prior to this story’s publication.

Unlike Pearl’s messages, Marshall’s posts are from a senior campaign official – and appear to be part of a long-running pattern.

♦In early 2012, Marshall inquired: “Are all women crazy???? Lol no offense ijs [I’m just saying].”

♦Later that year, he opined, “Nice guys finish last because they make sure their girl comes first.”

♦In August 2013, Marshall observed, “It’s unattractive when a girl doesn’t act classy & does not know how to control her feelings.”

♦In 2012, he wrote: “@kimberlyjaneece I disagree-I try not to look at __or impress__Personally speaking-I enjoy the challenge & I only look & talk to CLASSY Women.”

♦After actor Bill Cosby was arraigned on sexual assault charges, Marshall wrote on Dec. 31, 2015, that “It’s not a coincidence that Cosby can be arraigned on allegations, yet countless police officers who gun down black bodies aren’t indicted.”

♦Minutes later, Marshall apparently quoted someone saying that the Cosby arraignment was “about a strategic agenda that is pervasive and unrelenting.”

♦Marshall has also advised “sour, angry women” to “Keep your distance…Don’t take it out on the next man.”

♦”Whoever my future Girl Friend/Wife is…it will be a partnership/mutual…I kinda like Powerful Women,” he added. “They turn me on…lol.”

♦Marshall wrote in 2011: “As long as my woman looks good & turns me on..she pretty much can have whatever she wants from me.”

Marshall was hired by the campaign in April 2019, according to his LinkedIn profile, and previously worked in Democratic congressional politics. In an interview last year with PR Week, Marshall remarked, “In all honesty, I don’t have a regrettable career moment. It hasn’t been perfect, but it hasn’t been bad either. If anything, I would say I had some great teachable moments where I’ve learned and gotten better. Also, I’m still getting better with time.”

The Biden campaign didn’t respond for comment on Tuesday concerning Marshall’s posts. The Biden campaign also still hasn’t responded to the story last week about videographer Sara Pearl.

Biden Staffer Sara Pearl

♦Pearl tweeted a meme in June that urged people to stop calling the police “pigs” – but only because unlike the police, pigs are “highly intelligent and empathetic animals who would never racially profile you.” Pearl also retweeted a user’s comment that while “pigs are sweet, intelligent and compassionate,” police officers are “monsters” who “don’t deserve to be called pigs.”

♦On June 1, Pearl tweeted simply, “#DefundPolice.” Days later, she said Buffalo’s police department should be “defunded immediately.”

The lack of response from the Biden team surprised conservatives.

“Joe Biden can’t stand up to his supporters or staff who are calling to Defund the Police. Scary!” wrote Richard Grenell, Trump’s former acting director of national intelligence, after this article was first published.

“The Biden campaign didn’t respond to when given the chance,” Grenell added. “Why wouldn’t the Biden campaign immediately say ‘of course we don’t support this!’??!”

Pearl is one of several Biden staffers to openly advocate for defunding the nation’s police departments – a position Biden says he opposes. Matthew Foldi with the Congressional Leadership Fund, a PAC backing House GOP candidates, flagged Pearl’s tweets last week, as well as several additional posts “liked” and reposted on Twitter by other Biden staffers.

For example, Hannah Bristol, a Biden youth vote staffer, has retweeted and “liked” several posts calling for the defunding of D.C. police. Molly Doris-Pierce, Biden’s disability director, has “liked” similar messages.

In response to criticism from the Trump campaign, Democratic National Committee communications director Xochitl Hinojosa asserted on “Bill Hemmer Reports” last Thursday that Biden “does not support defunding the police.”

The Biden campaign has said the same thing.

However, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said in a recent interview that some funding should “absolutely” be redirected from police budgets.

In June, Biden attended a high-roller fundraiser headlined by musician John Legend, who has openly promised that he’ll try to push the former vice president toward totally defunding law enforcement and adopting other far-left positions.

Last Wednesday, Trump received the endorsement of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), which praised his “steadfast and very public support” for law enforcement. NAPO did not endorse a candidate in the 2016 election but endorsed former President Barack Obama and then-Vice President Biden in both the 2008 and 2012 elections.

When asked how the National Association of Police Organizations’ endorsement of Trump would impact Biden’s campaign, Hinojosa said, “I think right now, Joe Biden is making sure that he is someone who is talking directly to Americans about how to keep them safe and making sure we are rebuilding this trust.”


“President Joe Biden?”

For too long, Republicans and the media refused to take Joe Biden seriously as a presidential candidate. It’s hard to blame them. The former vice president may poll well, but his previous stints at the White House were disastrous. His 2020 campaign has been a string of awkward public gaffes and senior moments — the old boy just isn’t all there. Even his staff seem embarrassed by their candidate. America may be the United States of Amnesia, as Gore Vidal called it, but surely it isn’t about to elect Dementia.

Or so we thought. Biden’s clear and present mental degeneration, the elusiveness of his own mind, makes him a strangely competent candidate. It’s hard to oppose, let alone revile, a man who often seems to have no idea what he is saying. Biden elicits a combination of sympathy and apathy, yet he keeps surging ahead in the polls. Unless Donald Trump stages a most extraordinary comeback, or the polls are wildly wrong, Joe Biden will become America’s commander-in-chief on January 20, 2021. Who knows, folks. Remember 2016. Are you confident that Donald Trump can pull-off another Hillary shellacking?

What would a Biden presidency look like? You better sit down.

Team Biden talks a lot about change and “transforming” America. In reality, his presidency is most likely to mean a restoration of the era of Barack Obama — a reversion to the status quo ante Trump. For millions of Americans, the promise of Biden is a return to normality and relative calm — after four exhausting years of constant conflict following the 2016 election: anything for an easy life.

But would a Biden administration make life easier for most Americans? Many moderate Democrats and independents are drawn to Biden’s campaign because they perceive him to be an old-fashioned, middle-of-the-road Democrat. He recently talked about people being “woked” rather than “woke,” which suggests a pleasing lack of familiarity with militant 21st-century identity politics. The worry, however, is that Biden’s mental state — and the fact that he may well not even complete his first term — make him a Trojan horse candidate for a radical left that could never hope to win at the ballot box. But it’s hard to tell.

For now, Biden’s curious vagueness is useful. He means different things to different Democrats. That could all change as Election Day approaches and his candidacy comes into sharper focus. As of this morning, he still had not chosen his vice-presidential candidate — a decision which, more than any of his policy “task forces,” will indicate which direction his administration might take.

If Biden’s leadership follows Obama’s “hope and change” path, that would mean at least four years of disappointment — no change, even less hope. Most of the so-called achievements of the Obama presidency have already dissolved. Team Biden has been smart enough to realize that the old center does not hold. He has worked hard to occupy some of Trump’s political territory. Biden has made firm noises about China, for instance, even if his record in office suggests he has an alarming willingness to do Beijing’s bidding. He’s also promising to protect and create American jobs by tightening “Buy American” laws.

Still, it seems highly unlikely that Biden’s trade policy, or his State Department, would be anywhere near as aggressive as Trump’s in tackling the aspects of globalization that most concern voters. There are already troubling signs that a Biden administration would be stocked with and surrounded by precisely the sort of corporate and foreign lobbyists that have so corrupted Washington. For instance, it recently emerged that the parent company of the Chinese social media company TikTok – the same company Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has suggested should be banned in America — has hired key Democratic operatives ahead of November. Wonder why?

After eight years as Obama’s vice president, Biden pictures himself a man of the world. No doubt his presidency would be far more internationalist in its outlook than Trump’s. That’s good news for the climate change lobby, the foreign-policy establishment and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union. It may not be so welcome in the Heartland of America, though. It’s worth remembering that Joe Biden, reaching across the political aisle as he often has, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq war. He also favored US intervention in Afghanistan and Kosovo. As something of a hothead even in his twilight years, he would be quick to rattle America’s saber at any enemy, real or imaginary, that came to his mind.

All political careers end in failure, said Enoch Powell, who was only 65 at the time. Biden will be 77 on Election Day. His geriatric run for the presidency might prove that saying wrong. Then again, his might be the first presidency in recent decades to begin in disappointment. The last three one-term presidents were replaced by dynamic leaders with bold, reforming agendas: Hoover lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt; Carter to Reagan; George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton. The leap from President Trump to President Biden would be far less exciting for certain. Trump offered America a different way ahead. Biden offers nothing new. After the constant uproar of the Trump presidency, Biden will not be a relief. His election will be the democratic equivalent of a giant shrug.

Can this Joe Biden pull it off? In his four-plus decades in Washington, he has made several runs for the White House. Unfortunately for Uncle Joe, each has been railroaded by verbal missteps: his own. Stealing speeches from other politicos didn’t help him in any of his doing so. I guess he never thought about history and media files that record pretty much everything important today. And today we have YouTube!

Will this Joe Biden pull it off? One thing is certain: if there IS a Joe Biden presidency, it most certainly will NOT be filled with sweeping legislative, foreign policy, or military accomplishments. It is more likely that in a Biden Administration, little would be done initially, and conventional wisdom is that whoever enters his Administration as VP has a really good shot at changing the administration’s name very early in its infancy.

Americans should be more concerned about that than former Vice President Joe Biden screwing things up too bad. He would almost certainly be content with just stepping aside, knowing that he finally made it to the White House – as something other than a Senator or Vice President.

You know: a presidential legacy. God help us if THAT should happen!