To Mask or Not to Mask: The Science According to Multiple Laboratory Reports

Take a look for yourselves: mask or no mask, what kind works, is there any damage in NOT wearing a mask.

Facts matter. We’ve seen and heard (and published) the “opinions” on this subject from very reputable people on both sides of the argument. We at TruthNewsNetwork don’t promote nor endorse either school of thought. We thought it best to provide you with scientific laboratory testing results so you can make your own decision.



Is it Too Late for a Trump 2020 Victory?

Donald Trump is trying to break through a 2020 wall.

By January 2019, after over three years of failed efforts to impeach him, sue him, indict him, and destroy him, the left had failed. The economy was booming. Trump’s tweets were mostly bragging about his accomplishments. And the left was dumbfounded that both impeachment and Mueller had only made Trump stronger.

Then came an unexpected trifecta catastrophe — plague, a quarantine-induced recession, and a leftist cultural revolution in the streets. Suddenly, the left saw all of that as a gift that might succeed where its own self-constructed melodramas had failed.

By late May, Trump’s polls had dived.

His enemies declared this time he was really, actually, truly finished. Never-Trumpers hit the media to boast they were finally redeemed.

The discredited pollsters of 2016 reemerged, this time even convincing once-burned, never-again Las Vegas bookies that Trump was toast. Leftists, depressed over the progressive implosion in the Democratic primaries, now rebranded Joe Biden as a useful 80-year-old bard of knowledge filled with Americanism. He could carry them to victory before being pushed aside.

Biden was put on ice, a virtual prisoner of the Democratic establishment, who gave him teleprompted messages and pre-canned interviews to stumble through on Skype. “Keep silent, keep hidden,” was the motto of Biden’s keepers.

Trump railed. He fumed. As a furious Achilles, he tweeted about the unfairness of it all — how he had defeated concocted attacks, but suddenly a virus from his nemesis China had unleashed sheer madness, with him as its target.

To get back on track, Trump almost alone became the defender of tradition under assault, security, and safety. He deplored the statue toppling, the madness of cancel culture, the racial obsessions of the Black Lives Matter/Antifa cultural revolution. He praised America’s goodness and reminded the country it was good without having to be perfect. And still, the left hobbled him.

In truth, the media, the universities, and the left by weaponizing the COVID-19 plague, lockdown and riot had found a winning strategy. The mere threat of being called a “racist” in such a Reign of Terror climate could win over unlikely allies and appeasers. Corporate America, the retired and serving four-star officer class, local and state government federal gov’t wannabees, and many terrified Republican politicians and pundits (hoping to be dismembered last by leftist wolves) began pledging their allegiance to the left or staying mum.

In Hollywood, directors promised to begin choosing their casts by race, or as the outward racialist director Jordan Peele recently put it, “I don’t see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie. Not that I don’t like white dudes. But I’ve seen that movie before.” According to this logic, I suppose a Latino NFL coach one day could say something similar, “I don’t see myself casting a black dude as the lead on my team. Not that I don’t like black dudes. But I’ve seen that team before.” Uh-Oh: Cancel Culture!

Suddenly, American CEOs shined the sneakers of rappers, on video no less. There were to be “black” and “white” national anthems played at NFL games. “Diversity training” would be rebooted as segregated white reeducation sessions in full Maoist style. In New York, all protests were dangerous to public health, except those of Black Lives Matter, as if the virus was political in its targeting.

The more Trump was bleeding out from a thousand such nicks, the more his enemies thirsted for the kill, and the more his political supporters hedged their bets.

What then was Trump to do?

Trump already is starting to do the first superbly: stand up for America prior to May 25 (when George Floyd was killed), and tell Americans that in this 244th year of their existence, they will not cowardly renounce their heroes like Washington and Lincoln. Thomas Jefferson was not Jefferson Davis.

They will not topple statues, like frenzied Taliban, in the dead of night. They will not reduce their rich history and traditions to ‘racism’. And they will not embrace McCarthyism and destroy lives and careers.

But they will protect the Bill of Rights. They will honor dead Americans who gave this current lucky generation the freest, the most secure, and the most prosperous nation in history.

He might also remind the country that the United States is the beacon of freedom and anti-racism. Try naturalizing as a black citizen in China or South Korea. Try to become a white Christian citizen of Pakistan. Try living as a Catholic Latino in Saudi Arabia. Try opening a private roadside bar-restaurant in Cuba or Venezuela. Try founding a Jewish or Buddhist temple or evangelical church in Iran or Turkey. Try dealing with the police in Somalia or Sudan. Try rallying against illegal immigration, radical Islam, the European Union, or wind and solar power in Germany.

Trump cannot just talk about his pre-virus administration. He can of course remind Americans that he knows how to resume the booming economy as the virus weakens. He is right to remind us that he did close the border and is now making good progress on the wall. Given China’s culpability, he is justified in reminding the country that his lone voice was heard in warning of the multiple dangers coming from the Chinese Communist Party. He did deregulate and expand our energy resources. All that by 2021 will help restore prosperity.

But that is now, unfortunately, ancient history for a terrified public assuming a fetal position in the face of a public health threat. The swing voters, independents, and purple-staters are framing their 2020 choice in the stark terms of who will “make it all go away.” They want a magical end to the virus, the quarantines, the violence, the hate, and the division. And at this point, they want near-divine interventions to do all that and more.

But in November, less than four months from now, rightly or wrongly, they will see their choices both rationally and emotionally.

About half of swing voters, however, remain defiant. They want no more apologies; in lieu of just another defense of America, they want a plan to go forward and make it even more prosperous and secure. To win these swing-state voters, Trump needs to offer a blueprint for 2020 that builds upon his proven 2016 economic restoration.

But he must address the causes of the current turmoil in terms of solutions to many of the root causes of the current chaos.

First, Trump, the builder, can outline a rebuilding, a Renaissance effort, to reconfigure infrastructure, especially in light of the failed high-density, mass transit, high-rise progressive model that proved a feeding trough for COVID-19 —and will again when the next Chinese virus arrives.

A far better option is to diversify the nation’s demographics and to reboot smaller cities and towns, along with reconnecting to rural living. America’s small towns are underpopulated, while big cities of plague, protests, and panic are overpopulated, overpriced, and over-popularized. We could start by ensuring rural spaces high-speed internet, a repair of our crumbling interstate freeway system, and completion of the long-planned highways, reservoirs, bridges and transmission lines that were canceled over the last 50 years in the elite green-era madness of “small is beautiful.”

The crisis of the inner city is not just the erosion of the black family, high crime, fatherless children, dismal schools, cynically concentrated abortion clinics, racism, and tribalism, but the old nemesis of segregation. Black families should have the alternative of moving out of Chicago or Baltimore into smaller towns and the countryside, where race far more easily becomes incidental, not essential, to one’s identity and personality.

Second, he needs to create a task force to deal with the next epidemic—and we can be sure that there will be one, given China’s realization of how easily it went from global goat responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands to a murderous totalitarian bully who might do it again unless concessions are made.

Such a plan would entail a national board of medical experts including front-line doctors who do not work for the government; a national stockpile of protective equipment and medicines; a graduated plan of quarantine, with red/yellow/green phases known to the public in advance; and national standards that define viral levels of seriousness, define cases of infection, and evaluate ALL possible treatments.

Of course, people need liquidity now. And the mega-deficits for the present have put-off depression— at least for now. But the public is terrified of the national debt that is now nearing $30 trillion. It is serviceable only by continual zero-interest rates that themselves warp the economy. Trump could dust off the recommendations of the now old Simpson-Bowles commission, update them, and remind Americans that a restored economy, not a depression, will soon be the time to control spending and avoid financial Armageddon.

Fourth, in some sense, higher education fueled this entire clamor against all that is good about America — the attacks on its founders, its history, icons, music, and culture. The quarantine pulled away the curtain of campus overcharging and showed the public that tele-teaching does not require a huge overhead of counselors, facilitators, and busybodies. The ways universities treat guest lecturers, use star-chamber proceedings against their own students, and stifle free speech explain much of the present street violence and cancel culture. Constitutional protections were under consistent assault for a half-century by a narcissistic and exempt class of professors and administrators who fed venom to an indebted and now angry generation of lower-middle-class youth, who lack all the material opportunities of those who radicalized them.

Large university endowments over a specified size should have their interest and stock income taxed. The federal government should no longer guarantee student loans, but shift their bonding to vocational schools, where training is quicker and will lead to sustainable wage jobs. The argument for a well-rounded liberal education for half the country’s youth was the university’s selling point, but when it junked that idea and replaced it with indoctrination, so went any obligation of the government and people to subsidize their own extinction. Teaching credentials and the school of education should have no monopoly on K-12 education; master’s degrees in academic subjects should also certify teachers. Federal aid to higher education should be based on guaranteed campus adherence to the Bill of Rights.

Fifth, the ghost of Joe Biden: Trump need not be cruel but remind the country that Joe Biden is not really a candidate. He is a placeholder with little substance. Trump must remind America he is not running any more against even the facsimile of Biden, but rather against an entire socialist cultural revolution — a pirate ship with Joe Biden as its carven wooden figurehead.

Trump needs to emphasize not just the effectiveness of his administration but its effects on real people. He needs to stop using “I” and substitute with “we.”

  • A record low percent black unemployment rate? That translated into job seekers having leverage over employers and with it dignity and value.
  • Gas prices falling due to expanded oil production? That means the minimum wage worker can afford her commute.
  • Returning industry? That means more clout, honor, and a good living for an unemployed middle-aged worker in Ohio and Michigan, and less fuel for the Chinese Communist Party.

Tweeting cannot be about the past, but only the present and future. Trolls, washed-up celebrities, know-nothing pampered athletes, and hack leftists don’t deserve mention in the campaign’s final 100 days.

Ignore them all and focus on Restoration, 2021 — and how the president has a detailed plan to focus on all classes and races while reminding us of what we owe the dead and all that they have given us.


Bullet Points Saturday, July 18, 2020

Grab that cup of coffee and let’s get right to your perusal of our headline bullet points. Read the sentence or two of a quick synopsis of each story. If you want details, simply click on the blue button and it will take you right to an article with complete details. Otherwise, go on to the next bullet point. Get everything you want in detail plus just headlines of important stories. That’s taking advantage of ALL your Saturday time doing what you want while keeping you in the know!

Bullet Points

  • For three months a doctor at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City did his best to get a local pastor through COVID-19. Everything he tried simply did not work. His patient was going to die. So the doctor prayed…and it worked! For complete details click on this link:
  • Is there such a thing as systemic racism in the U.S.? Democrat Party Leaders in Congress either believe it’s real or they want to throw $350 billion taxpayer dollars at it in a new stimulus bill they are proposing. For complete details click on this link:
  • Many Americans think it is really odd that worldwide — specifically in 22 countries in Europe that started school for kids of all ages 90 days ago — that NONE of the kids in Europe have tested positive for COVID-19 that in just the last 72 hours, kids in Florida, Mississippi and California have suddenly started testing positive. These reports in the wake of multiple test results in the U.S. from every state are suddenly being confirmed to be FALSE. For complet details, click on this link:
  • Life across the nation in nursing homes has been upside down since the federal government’s March 13 guidelines that literally locked senior citizens down. Think about that: children, grandchildren and others cannot get together with family face to face. For more details click on this link:
  • Friday was pretty scary for many business and homes alike across the country on Friday. The internet saw mass outages. Rumors went crazy with millions believing cyberattacks by either Russians or Chinese were at fault. Thankfully, normal service was restored but still questions are abundant. For complete details click on this link:
  • What’s the biggest political secret today? Who is going to be Joe Biden’s running mate. Not much is being spoken about the VP pick by the Biden campaign. But, obviously someone is feeding the Vice President with policy speech material. Who could it be? Many feel that with what is happening regarding policies, the only candidate that could be passing along the specific policies is Senator Elizabeth Warren. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Think the coronavirus pandemic is under control in China? Guess again. The China Communist Party Friday locked down a city of 3.5 million people in the most serious lockdown in history. For complete details click on this link:
  • Riots, looting, terrorizing people in Portland nightly for the past month resulted in Federal officers being sent there to protect federal property. Oregon’s Governor Brown (a Democrat) stated Friday she’s concerned of reports that federal officers there are arresting anarchists and in doing so or violating their constitutional rights. For complete details click on this link:
  • Jack Dorsey and Twitter had a really tough day this past Wednesday. Famous people from the entertainment industry and politics — including former President Obama — discovered their twitter accounts had been pirated and were being used in a bitcoin scheme. Where did the cyber attack initiate? For complete details click on this link:
  • Supreme Court Justice Ruth Badger Ginsburg announced that she’s being treated for liver cancer. She was in the hospital on Thursday but released. Apparently she’s receiving chemo treatments. For complete details click on this link:

Definition of Systemic Racism in Sociology

We are inundated today with discussions about racism, white privilege, systemic and institutional racism, racist white elites and so much more. Much of this talk is scary, impossible to understand, full of allegations, and always delivered from perspectives of anger, retribution, and hatred. Of course, cries for reparations are escalating so rapidly and loudly it’s impossible to get facts sufficient to understand what this is all about.

We will hear after this story today on TNN Live  at 9:00 AM Central a conversation with Dr. Walter Williams and Ben Shapiro explaining what and why these cries are getting close to unbearable. Dr. Williams is an African American economist who for decades has studied, absorbed personally and professionally all of these things and knows the ins and outs as an educated and professional. He brings clarity to our anxiousness to grasp exactly what is going on in this growing social and racial contest that few understand.

What follows is an explanation of exactly what is being taught regarding White Supremacy, all kinds of racism, but specifically Systemic Racism. 

Buckle-up! It will put you back on your heels. But this is all happening all across the U.S. and Europe today. And if it has not arrived in your town, your kid’s school, your church or your company yet, it will soon. But we ALL need to understand exactly what makes this uneasiness so that as, when, and while we face this, we can make educated decisions.

Systemic Racism

Systemic racism is both a theoretical concept and a reality. As a theory, it is premised on the research-supported claim that the United States was founded as a racist society, that racism is thus embedded in all social institutions, structures, and social relations within our society. Rooted in a racist foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors that give an unjust amount of resources, rights, and power to white people while denying them to people of color.

Definition of Systemic Racism 

Developed by sociologist Joe Feagin, systemic racism is a popular way of explaining, within the social sciences and humanities, the significance of race and racism both historically and in today’s world. Feagin describes the concept and the realities attached to it in his well-researched and readable book, “Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations.” In it, Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism since the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites. Feagin illustrates that the legal recognition of racialized slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people and unjustly denied to people of color.

The theory of systemic racism accounts for individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. The development of this theory was influenced by other scholars of race, including Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, Frantz Fanon, and Patricia Hill Collins, among others.

Feagin defines systemic racism in the introduction to “Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations:”

“Systemic racism includes the complex array of antiblack practices, the unjustly gained political-economic power of whites, the continuing economic and other resource inequalities along racial lines, and the white racist ideologies and attitudes created to maintain and rationalize white privilege and power. Systemic here means that the core racist realities are manifested in each of society’s major parts […] each major part of U.S. society—the economy, politics, education, religion, the family—reflects the fundamental reality of systemic racism.”

While Feagin developed the theory based on the history and reality of anti-black racism in the U.S., it is usefully applied to understanding how racism functions generally, both within the U.S. and around the world.

Elaborating on the definition quoted above, Feagin uses historical data in his book to illustrate that systemic racism is primarily composed of seven major elements, which we will review here.

The Impoverishment of People of Color and Enrichment of White People 

Feagin explains that the undeserved impoverishment of people of color (POC), which is the basis of the undeserved enrichment of white people, is one of the core aspects of systemic racism. In the U.S. this includes the role that black slavery played in creating an unjust wealth for white people, their businesses, and their families. It also includes the way white people exploited labor throughout the European colonies prior to the founding of the United States. These historical practices created a social system that had racist economic inequality built into its foundation and was followed through the years in numerous ways, like the practice of “redlining” that prevented POC from buying homes that would allow their family wealth to grow while protecting and stewarding the family wealth of white people. Undeserved impoverishment also results from POC being forced into unfavorable mortgage rates, being channeled by unequal opportunities for education into low-wage jobs, and being paid less than white people for doing the same jobs.

There is no more telling proof of the undeserved impoverishment of POC and the undeserved enrichment of white people than the massive difference in the average wealth of white versus black and Latino families.

Vested Group Interests Among White People 

Within a racist society, white people enjoy many privileges denied to POC. Among these is the way that vested group interests among powerful whites and “ordinary whites” allow white people to benefit from a white racial identity without even identifying it as such. This manifests in support among white people for political candidates who are white, and for laws and political and economic policies that work to reproduce a social system that is racist and has racist outcomes. For example, white people as a majority have historically opposed or eliminated diversity-increasing programs within education and jobs, and ethnic studies courses that better represent the racial history and reality of the U.S. In cases like these, white people in power and ordinary white people have suggested that programs like these are “hostile” or examples of “reverse racism.” In fact, the way white people wield political power in the protection of their interests and at the expense of others, without ever claiming to do so, maintains and reproduces a racist society.

Alienating Racist Relations Between White People and POC 

In the U.S., white people hold most positions of power. A look at the membership of Congress, the leadership of colleges and universities, and the top management of corporations makes this clear. In this context, in which white people hold political, economic, cultural, and social power, the racist views and assumptions that course through U.S. society shape the way those in power interact with POC. This leads to a serious and well-documented problem of routine discrimination in all areas of life, and the frequent dehumanization and marginalization of POC, including hate crimes, which serves to alienate them from society and hurt their overall life chances. Examples include discrimination against POC and preferential treatment of white students among university professors, more frequent and severe punishment of black students in K-12 schools, and racist police practices, among many others.

Ultimately, alienating racist relations makes it difficult for people of different races to recognize their commonalities, and to achieve solidarity in fighting broader patterns of inequality that affect the vast majority of people in society, regardless of their race.

The Costs and Burdens of Racism Are Borne by POC 

In his book, Feagin points out with historical documentation that the costs and burdens of racism are disproportionately borne by people of color and by black people especially. Having to bear these unjust costs and burdens is a core aspect of systemic racism. These include shorter life spans, limited income and wealth potential, impacted family structure as a result of mass incarceration of blacks and Latinos, limited access to educational resources and political participation, state-sanctioned killing by police, and the psychological, emotional, and community tolls of living with less, and being seen as “less than.” POC are also expected by white people to bear the burden of explaining, proving, and fixing racism, though it is, in fact, white people who are primarily responsible for perpetrating and perpetuating it.

The Racial Power of White Elites 

While all white people and even many POC play a part in perpetuating systemic racism, it is important to recognize the powerful role played by white elites in maintaining this system. White elites, often unconsciously, work to perpetuate systemic racism via politics, law, educational institutions, the economy, and racist representations and the underrepresentation of people of color in mass media. This is also known as white supremacy. For this reason, it is important that the public hold white elites accountable for combatting racism and fostering equality. It is equally important that those who hold positions of power within society reflect the racial diversity of the U.S.

The Power of Racist Ideas, Assumptions, and World Views 

Racist ideology—the collection of ideas, assumptions, and worldviews—is a key component of systemic racism and plays a key role in its reproduction. Racist ideology often asserts that whites are superior to people of color for biological or cultural reasons, and manifests in stereotypes, prejudices, and popular myths and beliefs. These typically include positive images of whiteness in contrast to negative images associated with people of color, such as civility versus brutishness, chaste and pure versus hyper-sexualized, and intelligent and driven versus stupid and lazy.

Sociologists recognize that ideology informs our actions and interactions with others, so it follows that racist ideology fosters racism throughout all aspects of society. This happens regardless of whether the person acting in racist ways is aware of doing so.

Resistance to Racism 

Finally, Feagin recognizes that resistance to racism is an important feature of systemic racism. Racism has never been passively accepted by those who suffer it, and so systemic racism is always accompanied by acts of resistance that might manifest as protest, political campaigns, legal battles, resisting white authority figures, and speaking back against racist stereotypes, beliefs, and language. The white backlash that typically follows resistance, like countering “black lives matter” with “all lives matter” or “blue lives matter,” does the work of limiting the effects of resistance and maintaining a racist system.

Systemic Racism Is All Around Us and Within Us 

Feagin’s theory and all of the research he and many other social scientists have conducted over 100 years illustrate that racism is in fact built into the foundation of U.S. society and that it has over time come to infuse all aspects of it. It is present in our laws, our politics, our economy; in our social institutions; and in how we think and act, whether consciously or subconsciously. It’s all around us and inside of us, and for this reason, resistance to racism must also be everywhere if we are to combat it.


Trump is Toast! Polls Say He’s Gonna Lose “Biggly!”

Three months from Election Day 2020, America is still running the risk of being blind and deaf when it comes to several critical aspects of our presidential election process.

In reporting about the 2020 presidential contest, at least some of those stories likely quote nationwide polls.

Yes, there are some reports on the statewide contests between the Democrats and President Trump. But the lion’s share focus on the national picture.

That’s what we saw earlier in this election cycle, with the major headlines coming out of the ABC News/Washington Post poll showing President Trump trailing five different Democratic candidates nationally. Publicizing polls like that may sound innocent enough, but here’s the problem: that’s not how we play this game.

Hopefully, most Americans have figured out that both the primary elections to choose a presidential nominee and the general election to select the president are state-by-state contests.

Yet most stories about the Democratic primary race focus on Joe Biden’s enduring lead in national polls and not on how the Democrats did in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

It’s as if we’re intentionally blinding ourselves to the most pertinent facts every time anyone talks about nationwide polls.

The simple solution to all of this undue focus on national polls is to simply focus more on the state-by-state polls, right? That’s what The New York Times did earlier with a special focus on the polls in six battleground states.

That makes sense in theory, but presents a new problem: statewide polls are much less reliable than nationwide surveys. Americans found that out on Election Night in 2016, when polls predicting victories for Hillary Clinton in the critical swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all turned out to be wrong.

If you’re looking for a definitive reason why those crucial swing state polls were wrong, good luck. In the almost four years since the 2016 election, we’ve heard several explanations that either don’t hold up to scrutiny or cannot be objectively proven.

Perhaps the best example of that is the early explanation promoted by some pollsters who said that the 2016 swing state polls were wrong because most of them did not accurately weight them based on the respondents’ level of education.

But here’s the problem with that theory: the few statewide polls that were weighted for education levels also got the actual election results wrong. In some cases, The New York Times reported they were even more off the mark than the non-education weighted polls.

The other prevailing explanations are hard to fix or even prove. One theory is that a large majority of undecided voters decided to vote for Trump at the last minute. Another is that Trump was and is supported by disaffected Americans who are very unlikely to respond to pollsters at all.

Either way, voters and pundits alike are still flying pretty blind when it comes to statewide polls in this general election system that’s determined by statewide results.

So, on the one hand, American voters are blinded to more essential facts because of the dominating focus on national polls in presidential elections. On the other hand, doing the right thing by switching that focus to statewide polling would subject voters to data that’s more likely to be incorrect. It’s the blind leading the blind.

But other than that, everything’s fine.

There’s a multi-faceted silver lining to all of this if we’re all willing to admit the truth about this polling conundrum.

First, voters could do with more focus on what candidates are saying about the issues rather than the “horserace” aspect of our elections.

Many of the very same journalists who have been guilty of making the bulk of election “reporting” merely a series of repeating poll results have started to at least realize this is a problem for the health of our democracy and their profession.

Second, candidates who become more sensitive to the likely inaccuracy of statewide polling should become more likely to visit more of those states more often.

One of the great lessons of Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 bid was the fact that her decision not to make more frequent visits to key Rustbelt states came back to burn her.

It wasn’t that the Clinton campaign didn’t think visiting battleground states was important; it’s just that it clearly didn’t think Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan were battleground states at all.

With all we now know about the lack of reliability of state polls, the lesson major campaigns should now learn is that almost every state is a potential battleground.

That’s why Clinton’s defeat should have led to a much better informed political class that chose to abandon conspiracy theory explanations for the 2016 results, rely less on polls, and focus on how to better listen to and connect with more voters.

When Richard Nixon made a big point of visiting all 50 states in the 1960 election, his eventual loss in that contest taught political pundits that the better way to win the White House was to game the system and only focus on battleground states. But that’s led to a disconnect between politicians and many voters ever since.

The reality that every statewide poll is likely to be inaccurate and the additional reality that we don’t even know why should do a lot to wipe out that disconnect. At the very least, it should open everyone’s ears to a few more voices a lot more often.

So here’s where we are today: two national polls show Joe Biden holds a double-digit lead over President Trump. Real Clear Politics shows Biden’s lead at 8%. Based on the results of those polls, President Trump should go ahead and schedule the moving vans to pickup Melania’s goodies from the White House November 7th. (That gives her a few days to pack after the Biden victory) And everyone knows that the only reason she hung in there with the President was so she could bask in the soft lights and glowing media who could not get enough of her during these four years.

Uh-oh! Before you throw yourself into the middle of all that, remember this: election morning in 2016, of the 53 national polls which Real Clear Politics covered, 52 of them in their final poll guaranteed America that Hillary was a slam dunk winner by as many as 13 points in one poll. Imagine the shock and horror as the late-night results came in.

By the way, the only national poll that picked Trump to win was the poll from the University of Southern California!

I’m certain that the decision-makers at these polling companies are carefully considering their polling methods and the content of their polls. They certainly cannot bear to think something similar to that in 2016 could possibly happen again. For Trump to win in November would require a second polling atomic disaster!

Do you know what else we might consider? Those polling companies and their employees each have political preferences. Do you think it’s possible they let their biases impact the “reported” results of those 2016 polls? What else could have happened? The only other possible explanation was a HUGE number of those polled simply lied in those telephone interviews. That could NEVER happen, right? What American would even consider being dishonest in a telephone poll response?

It boils down to this for me: Most of these national polls that we see every day are taken from a sample of about 1000 Americans. Some are not even of “probable voters,” but are of “registered voters.” Conventional polling wisdom is that to accurately reflect a true representation of the political leanings of those surveyed, a sample must be weighted based on the actual voting split during the last presidential election. That would be the 2016 election.

Is it prudent for these “experts” to base their political reputations on what is supposed to be the voting appetite of about 130 million voters from a sample of only 1000 people?

I don’t call doing so prudent. If the most recent POTUS election is even slightly representative of November’s polling results, the numbers and samples that are used to create these polls are little more than a crap-shoot.

That doesn’t sound like a smart business model to me. My assumption is the polling companies really don’t care! Even if they miss with their projections the final results, millions of Americans (and thousands of polling company “experts”) can spend the next four years “repairing” their sampling models.

That’s really not a bad idea! Accuracy in polling: that’s really not a critical job. No matter what the November election results are, there will be plenty of 2022 campaign officials who are “dialing for campaign dollars” who need polls to show that their candidates are leading in their races.

Gotta have a great story to get an excellent campaign donation. And pollsters are surely outstanding sales folks. After all, they sold a campaign or two on the fact they can magically predict election outcomes.

The New York Times Gives In to the Mob. All the Adults are Gone!

Saying that “Twitter has become its ultimate editor,” New York Times columnist and editor Bari Weiss resigned yesterday with a scathing letter to the paper.

Weiss, one of the few centrist voices at The Times, said she faced bullying at the paper for her views, and that the free exchange of ideas on the opinion pages was now dead. The search for truth has been replaced by “orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”

In the letter addressed to publisher A.G. Sulzberger, Weiss bemoans how the Times has strayed from the ideals laid out by Adolph Ochs in 1896, that the paper should publish “all shades of opinion.”

In part, here is Weiss’ resignation letter:

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election — lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society — have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it.

What’s Going On?

Weiss was an unusual fit at the New York Times. It is a rare occurrence when a young writer at that paper still maintains a sense of providing its readers looks into both sides of political policies — not just that of the Millennials who gorge daily on Twitter and Snap Chat. Weiss honored the institution of Journalism. She is not a patsy and never hesitated to pen her thoughts on any applicable subject.

But she also allowed for considerable room for readers to hold an OPPOSITE opinion. After all, Journalism is supposed to be a free marketplace of ideas.

The marketplace of The Times is anything but open to multiple ideas on ANY subject.

“Bari Weiss’s letter was tame,” a New York Times insider said. She could have named names. She could have said, “There are dozens of other instances of bullying and harassment. Because there are.”

What took Weiss so long? Prominent writers at the Times never accepted her as a colleague. Instead, her colleagues on the opinion page sniped and leaked against her on Twitter from the first. Was it “tall poppy syndrome” – resentment of a young writer who, in an era when legacy media seem to be in perpetual crisis, landed a plum job at the Times? Or, as Weiss implies in her resignation letter, was it something nastier than mere jealousy – an ethical and legal failure that my source calls a ‘hostile workplace culture’?

The resignation letter she released on Tuesday alleges that Weiss, a liberal centrist who also happens to be a prominent Jewish supporter of Israel, has been called a “racist and Nazi” in her place of work and on Slack social media channels on which senior Times management are regular presences. She also says that the Times’s publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, and ‘other Times leaders have “stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage.” Her letter is restrained, but still, what sources call “the actual horror of her daily life at her job” again comes across.

“It’s astounding, but it’s also instructive,” one source says. “This is what happens when management doesn’t lift a finger to defend you.”

As Weiss herself says, her verifiable claims could amount to a costly compensation case for the Times: “unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge.” The Times’s management may also have breached Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964), by failing to protect Weiss from “discrimination based on certain specified characteristics” including “race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.”

Weiss’s online enemies are already assuming that she jumped before she was pushed. That alone would confirm the impression of ethical collapse at the Times. The radical left is running the paper, and no dissent is tolerated – not even from a US senator. But the truth is that she left in disgust.

‘This was obviously her decision. It was just, “What am I doing here anymore? The place has gone mad.”’

It won’t stop with Weiss. Colleagues on the opinion pages and in the newsroom have ratcheted up their disdain for moderates and conservatives. Who’s next?

It’s harder to get rid of a weekly columnist than an editor like Weiss. It’s a much bigger stink if a columnist leaves. But the fish stinks from the head, and the owners have no guts.


In her resignation letter, Weiss blathered what must have been devouring her insides for months. She made clear what the internal issues are at the formerly top newspaper not just in the U.S. but in the World. Today, it is far from that. Why is that?

The Times editors and publisher have stepped to the side in silent approval of a pronounced swing to the far left — not just far-left politics, but far-left social and moral mindsets that heretofore been subjects of columns like those from Weiss. Today, they are nothing more than ho-hum tweets from pimple-faced teens opining about their barrage of tweets that embarrassed, humiliated (or both) subjects of their attacks.

With Weiss gone, The Times has relented to be little more than an extension of Twitter. Maybe the paper should change its prominent building signage in Manhattan. Based on what Americans see today, an applicable sign on their building would say: “Twitter-East.”

The Adults Have Left the “Twitter-East” Building!

A Writer from The ATLANTIC Claims Christians Feel President Trump Has Failed Them

An editorial published last week in The Atlantic began with this:

“White, conservative Christians who set aside the tenets of their faith to support Donald Trump are now left with little to show for it. The closest thing social conservatives and evangelical supporters of President Donald Trump had to be a conversation stopper, when pressed about their support for a president who is so manifestly corrupt, cruel, mendacious, and psychologically unwell, was a simple phrase: “But Gorsuch.”

The editorial struck me as odd, especially when it began with these assumptions and insults. It’s as if the writer has a perch in the Heavens that provides him a clear vision of everything Donald Trump thinks, feels, says, and pierces the reality of his mental status. I’m certain God could do that. I doubt a “contributor” named Peter Wehner at The Atlantic can.

This thought also struck me: “Who is this writer? How can the assumption of the thoughts of every social conservative be known to this editorialist? Did God author Wehner’s column? I seriously doubt so.

But what I know for certain is that true Christians — you know, those that pray daily, believe God’s Word is infallible, Jesus is the Son of God, He died for our sins, rose from death, and points His followers to make right decisions on everything in their lives — are NOT single-issue voters. And to insinuate so reveals far more about the columnist than of the targets of his story.

I proudly number among that last category. Even with the political things in D.C. that don’t exactly fit my picture of political perfection, I don’t park my brain and its biological discernment ability on the church pew when I leave the service. It goes everywhere with me. I assume (and am certain) the same is true of other Christians.

Wehner certainly didn’t speak to very many of the 60+ million Trump voters before penning this missive. If he had, he would have heard a vastly different synopsis of Donald Trump’s considerable accomplishments for not just Christians, but for ALL Americans. That list is far too long to include here. But you certainly can find a laundry list of his accomplishments as President that will take more than a few minutes to read and a day or so to digest. But Peter Wehner didn’t do that, or worse, did do such a look-see and then ignored his findings. Why would any reputable journalist dismiss such critical information? The answer is wrapped in one word from the previous sentence: “reputable.”

It is far too common to believe that most print editorialists have inside information (which Wehner claims to possess) that provides the truth of Trump’s ineptitude that justifies their inclusion in his editorial. But facts, understanding facts, and making educated and realistic conclusions from facts are not necessary must-have elements in most print or broadcast reports today. Wehner simply confirms his membership in a class of journalists void of any concern for the accuracy of their claims against this or any other President’s abilities.

What’s sad is this writer, like many others, presumes to own an unfettered right to foist onto Americans his personal fodder disguised as truth.  In reality, his claims are nothing more than leftist anti-Trump drivel. His doing so DOES enhance the animus held by many liberal minions against this President. Wehner justifies the absence in his piece of the opinions of the Christians he purports to “know.” That is an example of classic Leftist journalism today: bait and switch.

Wehner chose to use as support for his premise a recent Supreme Court case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. That case decided in mid-June in which the majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, protected gay and transgender individuals from workplace discrimination, handing the LGBTQ movement a historic victory.

Wehner maintained that Gorsuch’s doing so was “a crushing blow for the religious right, and it must have dawned on more than a few of Trump’s evangelical supporters that if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, the outcome of the case would have been the same; the only difference is that the margin probably would have been 7-2.”

How callous, how brazen, and how demeaning of Christians! Wehner, throughout his piece, used broad and sweeping assumptions about “Trump’s evangelical supporters” and what they feel about any Trump purported failures. Why was that case’s outcome so earth-shattering for Christians? I’ll assume here and say Wehner certainly did not ask any evangelical Trump supporter — certainly not me or anyone I know — how big a blow it was to their dream for this President to appoint a justice that ruled differently on this or any other issue which rebuffed the President’s wishes.

What other justification could any writer possess for their total denigration of the political appetites of 60+ million voters?

The truth is that NOT Wehner, NO other columnist at ANY newspaper, No broadcast journalist, No blogger or podcaster could possibly know the minds and hearts of ANY American without spending a massive amount of time conversing with not just one or two “social conservatives,” but with a few million of them. In this case, that didn’t happen.

Wehner did quote a conservative blogger named Rod Dreher — although Wehner never spoke to Dreher — claiming Dreher stated, “True, they (Supreme Court) have blocked some bad things over the years. That’s not nothing. But I think we’ve always known that judges are the real deal here.” Dreher continued, “Every institution — the media, academia, corporations, and others — are aginst us on gay and transgender rights, and GOP lawmakers are gutless. The only hope we had was that federal judges would protect the status quo. Now that’s gone.”

“If” Dreher really did say that, what he said was nothing more than a conservative American who, through a single SCOTUS decision, was disappointed to NOT receive his desired outcome. No doubt, many conservatives were too disappointed in that decision. Pardon me for assuming once again, but it is my opinion that few if any American feel it is possible for a majority of the justices to vote in support of conservative causes in every case that comes before them. Wehner apparently feels that because of what Dreher stated after the decision bashed the hopes of every Christian for this President to produce everything attempted in this presidency.

Wehner must think that all Christians are single-issue voters. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Without exhaustively recounting Trump’s wins for Americans, consider just a few:

  • Massive tax cuts for individuals and corporations;
  • The rollback of dozens of onerous regulations on energy companies and major corporations that incentivized previously vapid expansions, hirings of millions of new workers, and bringing manufacturers back to the U.S., something that his predecessor said was “gone forever” and would never return;
  • Undeniably massive new employment, plunging unemployment with the largest number of African Americans working than ever, and the highest labor participation rate in history;
  • Median household income is today the highest ever;
  • Regarding that Christian “single-issue” that Wehner claims is all that matters, Trump gave the biggest blow to Planned Parenthood in the last 30 years;
  • His tariff threats forced Mexico to stem the flow of illegals through the U.S. southern border;
  • He ordered the strike that killed Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who had personally ordered the killing of hundreds of Americans;
  • He continues to appoint a record number of conservative judges to federal courts across the nation: 200 of those he nominated have been confirmed and are at work today.

We can stop there, but there are hundreds of others. It’s easy to conclude from facts without any assumptions that this President has done much more for Americans than just appointing two conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

Do you think Wehner really believes that Christians don’t care about all of this? Or does he truly think that millions of those who put Trump in the White House are turning away because a Supreme Court ruling on a case didn’t go their way? Accepting that requires a belief that Christian conservatives are too simple, single-minded, and blind to the issues that matter to EVERY American. And all those wins by this Administration dwarf those from his predecessor’s eight-year reign at the top.

The only thing proven in Wehner’s column is that Leftist members of the Media really are blind to the realities of the issues important to Christians. Abortion and LGBTQ issues are certainly important to them, but a call by the Court that goes the wrong way is certainly not an end-all. Trump’s accomplishments in total are monumental when compared to the accomplishments of the last three presidents combined.

After my response to Mr. Wehner, one question popped into my mind? Does he, or does any other writer, maintain that they represent the political hopes of Christian Americans? I think he really does. That alone explains the conclusions he reached sufficient to pen this column. He produced “fruit from a poison tree.” In this case, the tree from which originated the fruit he described was the tree of bias, partisan elitism, and Leftist ideology. That tree is certainly not embraced by any Christian I know. It’s certain that Wehner, if honest, would agree.

You will be shocked to learn that Peter Wehner is a Vice President and Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “Ethics.”

Ethics is defined as “the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions.” After digesting Wehner’s assault on President Trump, Wehner destroys what that institution stands for. But that’s common for Leftist members of the Media. Truth is valuable only when it feeds specific political narratives. In this case, Wehner failed.

Feel Free to Download Peter Wehner’s article from The Atlantic. (Click on the link below)


Do All Black Lives Matter?

‘I understand black lives matter. But that’s not my movement, right now. My movement is to let them know that was my son. Horace Lorenzo Anderson was my son.’ And his son is dead.

In a gripping, gut-wrenching, heartrending, half-hour interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, Horace Lorenzo Anderson, Sr. tearfully plead with social justice warriors and anyone watching that his son’s black life mattered, too.

Horace Jr. was just 19 years old when he was shot and killed at Seattle’s Capitol Hill Ongoing Protest (CHOP), the police-free, six-block city encampment created with the blessing of Democratic officials. Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan cheerfully dubbed the anarchist takeover a ‘summer of love,’ apparently unaware that the first Summer of Love, in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district in 1967, ended in rampant criminality, drug addiction, sex abuse and the other varieties of misery which have marred the City by the Bay ever since.

I know, I’m an old white guy and therefore anything I would say on this subject certainly means my skin color means I’m ineligible to do so, plus it means I’m racist. Hey, give me a break. I’m WOKE! I understand what “Black Lives Matter” means and stands for according to conventional and current social demands. While I know what I have to say puts me squarely in the bullseye of the Cancel Culture police, if I get “canceled,” it will have nothing to do with the applicability or correctness of the content of what I say. Just because someone alleges something I say – something ANYBODY says – is wrong, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. And before anyone jumps to “cancel” me, my life of 67 years speaks anything other than racism. So, I suggest you listen for a moment or two or just cancel out of what I have to say right now. Because if you’re going to stick to the WOKE rule that “no white person can possibly understand racism,” you will not receive anything I have to say anyway. That, of course, has nothing to do with the merits of what I say. It speaks rather to your unwillingness to consider something that may force you to rethink an absolute or two you’ve embraced. And maybe you’ve embraced something incorrectly or for the wrong reasons.

At least, give me a shot. There’s no harm in listening, is there?

The Black Lives Matter movement has apparently abandoned the substance of its purposeful founding and should quickly rethink the operational process that is today underway nationwide. If that doesn’t happen soon, what credibility the movement had will be flushed down the toilet as little more than hypocritical radicalism that has for generations seen so many initially worthy causes fade away because their actions decry their claims of purpose for existence. Why? Instead of stepping up and responding in the face of REAL horrors that many in the African American community face daily, BLM has allowed itself to morph into little more than another radical social cause that looks and acts nothing like its claimed purpose and nothing that its name alleges it is.

Few question that African Americans have suffered unfair treatment in the criminal justice system. There is far too much in-your-face evidence to discount it. And because of the generations of politicians simply looking-away, far too many Americans reject its pervasiveness. And that’s sad. Black Lives Matter (at least formerly) had the perfect opportunity to be the voice for black Americans who socially suffer at the hands of not just a few racist law officers, but at the hands of racism that many who are perpetrators don’t even know they’re the culprits! Last year, 9 African Americans were shot and killed by white cops – that in a nation of 330 million people. Say what you will, but that number doesn’t justify the $130 million “seed” given to BLM by George Soros. Think of what even a small chunk of that $130 million could change in the lives of a large number of African American children.

What might have been for Horace Jr. had he never crossed the perimeter of CHOP? What if he had managed to escape his revolutionary captors who blocked paramedics from coming to his rescue as he bled to death in their new urban utopia?

What might have been for eight-year-old Secoriea Turner had she survived Atlanta’s Fourth of July? During a press conference, her heartbroken father, his voice hoarse, pleaded, “They say, ‘black lives matter.’ You killed your own. You killed your own this time just because of a barrier. They killed my baby.”

Atlanta’s Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, flanked by Turner, grim-faced police officers, and families grieving the weekend orgy of violence, was to the point: “The reality is this: These aren’t police officers shooting people on the streets of Atlanta. These are members of the community shooting each other – and, in this case, it is the worst possible outcome.”

In Chicago, another father bore painful witness to the worst possible outcome: his baby being killed over the Fourth of July over some probable trivial dispute. Seven-year-old Natalia Wallace was shot at a weekend party in her grandmother’s backyard. Nathan Wallace told reporters, “To see my daughter on the table with a gunshot wound to the forehead, that will change somebody’s life.”

Tyrone Muhammad, a Chicago activist and founder of the fledgling group “Ex-Cons for Community and Social Change,” works to change lives before the bullets fly. Muhammad knows both sides of the violence equation. He spent over two decades in prison for murder. He went in a hard-eyed gangster and came out determined to keep other young men from making the same disastrous trek from the South Side to steel bars. Here’s is what he said about all of the uproar with no action when it comes to senseless killings of Chicago babies:

Muhammad is unsteady about the politics and goals of Black Lives Matter as an organization. “Black Lives Matter is a political group that has so many political leanings that it clearly uses black death as a hustle. Black death is a hustle for a lot of these outside groups.”

A hustle, Tyrone Muhammad believes, that ignores the root of the problem driving what he calls a “swarm of civil war” engulfing America’s inner cities: fatherless homes, broken families, official corruption and complacent communities:

“It’s black men’s fault to allow black boys and black men to victimize their own communities and murder their children. We have to take personal responsibility.” He adds. “It should be commended whenever black men say, ‘It’s our responsibility to reduce violence.'”

Chicago’s mayor, Lori Lightfoot was swept into office last year by a citizenry desperate for change. The new big-city mayor is clearly rattled by the extreme violence wracking her city. After another weekend of bloodshed, Lightfoot declared, “Thoughts and prayers are simply not enough at this point. Sorrow itself is not enough.”

But for Mr. Anderson, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Wallace, and for the countless parents and families like them, prayers and sorrow are all they have for their black children whose lives dearly mattered.

“I’m kissing a picture,” Horace Sr. says through tears.

If the leaders of BLM truly want to impact the lives of black Americans, it should revise and broaden its mission. Americans have watched this year as BLM has flexed its muscles showing the world its potential to truly impact the preservation of the lives of young African Americans in the U.S., not just from a handful of racist policemen, but from senseless deaths at the hands of anyone, but primarily other blacks.

How callous are the leaders of BLM to ignore the cries of Horace Lorenzo Anderson, Sr. as he wept profoundly on Sean Hannity’s show? Did the life of Horace, Jr. not matter? What about eight-year-old Secoriea Turner who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time in Atlanta and caught a bullet in her forehead that instantly snuffed-out her life? Where was BLM in either of those cases? Painting its name on a street somewhere?

America’s social justice elites are quick to throw anyone under the bus for even questioning BLM’s motives in ignoring such African American killings at the hands of other blacks. Let’s be adults here: when it comes to the senseless slaughter of African Americans at the hands of ANYONE, enough is enough. $130 million for an organization that names itself Black Lives Matter should probably find a way to tackle the problem its “Name” says it tackles: deaths of blacks…PERIOD because black lives DIDN’T matter! Anything short of that is little more than another ethnic not-for-profit that exists to make noise, create havoc, which is content to light fires with no desire or efforts to put out the fires for the cause of meaningful change.

If Black Lives really matter, do something – whatever you can with whatever resources you can muster – to show a nation your group name is more than a call-sign used to spark fear among millions of Americans who simply don’t understand the BLM movement. Presently, Black Lives Matter looks exactly like dozens of other social groups from U.S. history that do little more than scorch the ground with little or no change.

I hope BLM does not hope that its acceptance will be based upon fear. Fear seldom accomplishes positive changes. America doesn’t need another one of those. There are far too many already in place to count. We need some group of people to activate whatever is necessary to assure every black American that truly, “Black Lives really DO Matter.”


Bullet Points Saturday, July 11, 2020

Did you miss much in the news this past week? There were so many things going on I bet you missed one or two, or three! Never fear — TruthNewsNetwork is vigilant 24/7 just to make sure you get all the stuff you should. Here’s how our Bullet Points work: read a line or two of each. When you see one that makes you hungry for details, click on the little blue arrow to go straight to a complete story. We make it easy for you!

Bullet Points

  • Texas was one of the last southern states to deal with sudden spikes in COVID-19 cases and deaths. With the release from lockdown, apparently the virus decided it was time to get the party started. COVID-19 cases and even deaths are reach dramatic new record heights. Gov. Abbot says if things don’t change, Texans may see another lockdown. For more details, click on this link:
  • Texas does not have an exclusive on sudden COVID-19 new infections or deaths. Arizona’s have spiked quickly. In fact, COVID-19 related deaths have climbing rapidly at a pace that is overwhelming Phoenix medical examiners. In fact, the governor stated several coroners are contemplating using refrigerator trucks to handle the overflow of deaths. For more details, click on this link:
  • Apparently COVID-19 is flooding the prison population in California. San Quentin reports one-third of its prisoners have tested positive. To try and stem the tide of infections, California announced the release of 8000 prisoners during the summer. For more details, click on this link:
  • Believe it or not a Minnesota woman hospitalized with COVID-19 gave birth to a healthy baby girl while unconscious and on a ventilator. Her husband is now fighting to keep her alive. To live she desperately needs an ECMO machine that assumes the jobs of the lungs and hearts from outside the body. For more details, click on this link:
  • Speculation has been abundant for months that President Trump was going to commute the sentence of his longtime friend Roger Stone who was convicted during the Russian Collusion investigation. Late Friday, that’s exactly what he did. For more details, click on this link:
  • Apparently the mystery of how far Epstein and Ghislane went in their organized twists between famous people and young girls has been at least partially solved. Apparently, they took pictures of their famous guests having sex with young girls. For more details, click on this link:
  • The top writer for Tucker Carlson of FOX News has resigned. Apparently, the writer was caught posting racist and sexist remarks on social media. For more details, click on this link:
  • Wouldn’t it stop some of the concerns about political ads on social media being hijacked for the political purposes by foreign countries if social media platforms simply stopped selling political ad space? Apparently, Facebook is seriously considering doing just that. For more details, click on this link:
  • I once knew a girl name Fay that was a man-killer! She was gorgeous, flirty, and intrigued all the guys she was around. No one could ever figure what was going on in her head and what she was ever going to do and where. That’s just like Tropical Storm Fay that Friday hit the Jersey coast and is headed right for the Big Apple. For more details, click on this link:

The Trump “Shock” Poll

In Thursday’s “TNN Live” show from 9:00 – 11:00 AM Central (M-F), we shared the results of this poll. So many people followed up with questions and also requests for the poll I just decided to put it out in a story alone.

I’ve pasted it here for you all to see. But at the end of the poll, you’ll find a .pdf that you can download or copy for yourself and save it. Heck, you probably are gonna want to share it with people you know — especially the Trump supporters who find themselves in a little slump right now (like most of us) because the Democrat Party Media hacks continue to prop up Sleep Joe who, according to them, is wiping the ground with President Trump.

Me, I just feel Joe is little more than Bernie who starred in a movie shot at his house over a weekend. Nobody noticed during the entire weekend that Bernie was actually dead! Sound a bit like what we’re seeing every time we are forced to visit Sleepy Joe in his basement bunker?

The Trump “Shock Poll”

According to the poll conducted by the Washington based thinktank the Democracy Institute, President Trump is neck and neck with his rival Joe Biden on 47 percent. However, Mr. Trump would win in the electoral college system by 309 to 229 delegates because he is on course to win the crucial swing states including Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin where he outpolls Vice President Biden by 48 percent to 44 percent.

The findings come as the US President went to the iconic Mount Rushmore to make a speech attacking “the angry mobs” who want to erase America’s history.
He told the crowd of supporters: “There is new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance. If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished. Not gonna happen to us.”

According to the poll, the concerns over the effects of the protests appear to be boosting Mr. Trump’s chances even though his campaign is believed to be flagging.
Given a choice between which phrases identified their views 71 percent chose “all lives matter” while 29 percent picked “black lives matter”.

Meanwhile, with statues of presidents and other historic figures being attacked and pulled down across the US, 74 percent said they disapproved of the actions while 77 percent disagreed with the assertion supported by many Democrat politicians that Mount Rushmore with the faces of four US Presidents carved on it “is racist”.

The poll showed that 59 percent approved of the President’s handling of the riots and protests but 40 percent want him to be tougher while 60 percent think Mr Biden has not been critical enough.
In addition, 67 percent prefer President Trump’s law and order message compared to 29 percent who want black community relations improved with the police.

Hopes that a black running mate for Vice President Biden will help seal the campaign for him have also been questioned in the poll with 79 percent saying it would make no difference.
And of greater concern for the Democrats is that Mr. Trump is still polling strongly with ethnic minority voters – 35 percent for black voters and 34 percent for Hispanics.

Worse still is Mr. Biden’s mental health after some stumbling performances and public concerns that he may be suffering from the early stages of dementia have also had an impact.
According to the poll 55 percent believe he is suffering from cognitive problems and 44 percent say that it means they are less likely to vote for him while 58 percent think aged 77 he is too old to be President.

Patrick Basham, the director of the Democracy Institute, said: “Between now and Election Day, the factor that will most influence the final outcome will be the debates between President Trump and his Democratic opponent. Should Biden regain some of his past skill at coasting through such encounters with moderate, platitudinous comments delivered with a smile, a little humor, and an Everyman demeanor, he will retain a good chance of enjoying a very competitive election.

“But, should Biden have even one ‘senior moment’ during which he forgets what he’s saying, or where he is, or the question posed to him, his chances of beating Trump will be somewhere between slim and none.”
The poll also appears to confirm that President Trump is benefiting from “silent support” which means it is not showing up in a lot of polls and has made Biden the odds on favorite to win.
While 77 percent of Trump voters are “enthusiastic” compared to 43 percent of Biden voters, 66 percent of Trump voters would not admit how they are voting to a friend or relative compared to just one-third of Biden backers.
But the US President comes out as top for strong leader 67 percent while Biden is seen as a consensus builder 55 percent and more likable 60 percent.

Democracy Institute/ Sunday Express poll

Trump’s National Job Approval

  • Approve = 47%
  • Disapprove = 52% Enthusiasm Gap?Q. “Are you strongly or very enthusiastic about your choice of candidate?”
  • Trump voters = 77%
  • Biden voters = 43%Q “Is your vote for Trump/Biden a positive vote for your candidate or a negative vote against his opponent?
  • Trump voters: positive vote = 81%; negative vote = 19%
  • Biden voters: positive vote = 29%; negative vote = 71% Q “Could your vote change before Election Day?”
  • Trump voters: Yes = 4%
  • Biden voters: Yes = 12%”Shy” Trump Vote?
    Questions to Undecided Voters
    Q “Does a relative or a friend plan to vote for Trump?”
  • Yes = 66%
  • No = 34%
    Q. “Will President Trump be reelected?”
  • Yes = 52%
  • No = 48%
    Question to All Voters
    Q. “Are you comfortable with your relatives, friends, and coworkers knowing how you vote?”
  • Trump voters: Yes = 29%
  • Biden voters: Yes = 82% National Popular Vote
  • Trump = 47%
  • Biden = 47%
  • Undecided = 6%
  • White voters: Trump = 52%
  • Black: Trump 16% Biden = 81%
  • Hispanic: Trump 34% Biden = 51%

Here’s the link to Download the Trump Shock Poll: