Over 11000 Scientists Sign Petition Against COVID 19 Lockdowns

More than 11,000 scientists and medical practitioners have signed a petition against lockdown measures put in place to curb the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, saying that they are causing “irreparable damage.”

At least 7,000 medical practitioners and 4,000 medical and public health scientists joined more than 100,000 members of the general public in signing the petition, which was created on Oct. 4 and co-authored by Harvard professor of medicine Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Oxford professor Dr. Sunetra Gupta, and Stanford Medical School professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

“As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection,” reads the petition, which is titled the Great Barrington Declaration after the Massachusetts town it was signed in.

The petition calls for an end to current lockdown policies, saying that they are producing “devastating effects” on short and long-term public health.

Some of these devastating effects, the doctors wrote, including lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health. They argue that this will, in the future, lead to greater excess mortality, with the working class and younger generation “carrying the heaviest burden.”

“Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice,” the petition continues. “Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

They instead insist on an approach that instead focuses on protecting the most vulnerable, while working towards achieving so-called “herd immunity,” which they describe as “Focused Protection.”

“The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk,” the doctors state.

“Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal,” the petition adds.

Hygiene measures including staying at home when unwell and frequent hand washing can help achieve the goal of herd immunity, the petition says. Young “low-risk” adults meanwhile return to the office rather than working from home, it adds.

“Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport, and other cultural activities should resume,” the doctors advise. “People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”

The Epoch Times contacted Gupta, Kulldorff, and Bhattacharya for comment, but didn’t immediately hear back.

In August, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that the United States does not need another lockdown to contain COVID-19, provided that Americans embrace “five or six fundamental public health measures.”

Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, told Politico’s “Pulse Check” podcast on Aug. 5 that he thinks “we can get through this without having to revert back to a shutdown,” but only if everyone follows such basics as wearing masks, social distancing, and thorough hygiene.

In its guidance on preventing COVID-19 infection, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists six measures to stay healthy and stem the spread of the potentially deadly bug: hand-washing, avoiding close contact with other people, covering the nose and mouth when around others, always covering the mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing and then immediately washing or sanitizing one’s hands for at least 20 seconds, daily cleaning and disinfecting frequently touched surfaces, and monitoring one’s health daily.

Here’s a .pdf version of this letter if you want to download:    


COVID-19’s Expiration Date Exposes the Facts of the Pandemic!

Note: Today, on TNN Live, we will dive into the facts of Wednesday’s vice presidential debate. We’ll break down the lies and misrepresentations, questions that were avoided or answered incompletely or incorrectly, and put in perspective what these candidates really mean in this race. Please join us live by clicking on the link directly below at 9:00 AM Central. Immediately after starting the show, we will launch into debate details. Please join the show and express YOUR thoughts. Call anytime during the show toll-free at 1-866-37-TRUTH. That’s 1-866-378-7884. Here’s the link you can click to join: 

Let’s get down to business!

The Realities of COVID-19

“Listen to Science!”

How many times in the last six months have you heard that screamed? It seems that every Democrat and every person in America who dislikes President Trump utters that continually. Let’s be honest: Science is NOT exact! That may shock you to hear that, but it is a fact. If we KNEW everything about everything — which is the premise that MUST be used to justify saying “Listen to the Science” — we wouldn’t have any questions about anything! But we still do. There are very few absolutes in our lives. And I can honestly say, COVID-19 and everything about it is FAR from being absolute! Any doctor, epidemiologist, infectious disease expert, or anyone else who claims to know absolutely how COVID-19 is transmitted, how it can be stopped, what will keep it from spreading, how fast is its incubation process, who is susceptible, where it originated, and the efficacy of masks of any kind to stop its transmission, that person is lying!

But here’s the problem: many of the so-called “experts” have very few facts about those things listed above. But what they each plenty of are “opinions.” Let me shock you by saying this: Opinions are not necessarily facts!” And calling something, a “fact” does NOT necessarily mean it is.

Want an illustration? How about Dr. Anthony Fauci. He was presented to the Word in February as THE expert on Earth — there are no OTHER experts than he — on all things having to do with viruses and all other infectious diseases. Fauci was immediately tagged as the go-to guy for the Trump Administration for all-things COVID-19.

Yet, from the very beginning, Dr. Fauci missed numerous “facts” he gave to us. The nation and our people made serious decisions only to discover later the facts he gave to us were not facts at all but were little more than his opinion.

There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion. There is also nothing wrong with an expert not knowing the details of something in Science that is brand new. What IS wrong with many experts is their propensity to force their opinions on others couched as facts. And in the case of COVID-19, experts of every ilk, not just Dr. Fauci, have foisted their opinions on the populace instigating major life decisions that not only in many cases have not helped people, but have hurt people and sometimes fatally.

For example, pause a moment and look at our story published July 20, 2020, “To Mask or Not to Mask”  (here the link)  https://truthnewsnet.org/to-mask-or-not-to-mask-the-science-according-to-multiple-laboratory-reports/. You will read multiple reports from some of the greatest and most sophisticated laboratories on Earth who have tested every type of mask known to man over a period of a decade or so. Their purpose: to discover “scientifically,” which, if any, will prevent the COVID-19 virus particle from piercing the mask material either coming from the outside or being breathed out by the wearer. In these tests, the universal finding is not a single mask in manufacturing today is effective at stopping COVID-19! That’s as scientific as one can be in consideration of mask efficacy, yet there are now government rules in some states that mandate the wearing of masks at all times when in public.

What’s the problem with forcing Americans to wear masks? One would think that wearing a mask is no big burden on folks. At least by wearing a mask, one will not scare little ladies to death shopping with you at the same time and seeing you maskless: “He’s going to kill every other person and me in the store by breathing out COVID-19 wearing no mask!”

I don’t have a problem with that. It’s a small price to pay to help someone escape unnecessary fear. But there is a HUGE problem with this, according to the studies you just read: though it is not “absolute” that masks don’t work, creating a false sense of safety for those who believe masks are the answer will often lead them to eliminate or reduce OTHER measures given to us to help prevent spreading. “False hope” is often worse than “No hope” at all.

COVID’s Expiration Date

There’s no expiration date for the virus: at least not one that’s known. Yet many government “experts” and political leaders act like there is not only a date, but they KNOW the date of expiration.

Take Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. On March 7, 2020, Cuomo issued an Emergency Declaration for the entire state of New York with the provisions and requirements detailed. The expiration date for his Emergency Declaration is November 3, 2020!

Numerous other states which have issued emergency provisions have also aimed their expiration date to be some time in November.

Is COVID-19 political? Does it know when the election is being held? Why would any politician conclude that their state’s emergency and subsequent needs for its citizens would expire on any certain date?

I don’t subscribe to this or any other conspiracy theory. But it is happening, and happening so often gives pause. But, forget about the expiration date. How many other egregious political acts happened during this pandemic for which the governors and mayors of American states and cities have NO constitutional power to initiate? Monday of this week, the Michigan Supreme Court hammered Michigan Governor Whitmer for overreach in COVID-19 restrictions on Michigan’s citizens. The Court ruled that her actions were not constitutionally allowed.

It seems to many people that the political weaponization of COVID-19 has been and is a purposeful act by governments to see just how willing Americans are to allow governments to snatch decision-making that heretofore was exclusively made by individuals and not the government. That might explain Cuomo’s artificial COVID-19 “expiration date.”

Are We Alone in all This?

Not in any way! Don’t forget, approximately 200 other countries on Earth are experiencing COVID battles of their own. Yes, many have different circumstances and problems, but all face the same virus. And ALL must make the same decisions as those which confront the American populace today: how far are we willing to allow our government to reach into our lives by restricting our constitutional rights?

Take Australia as an example. COVID-19 cases pummel the nation. And the Australian government has actually clamped down on the nation’s citizens more forcefully than in the U.S. Aussies are today facing many critical questions that MUST be answered regarding what to do and how to do it when their experts cannot agree on but just a few details of how to handle COVID-19 safely. Does that sound familiar?

On Wednesday, a 65-year-old Aussie news anchor on Sky News took the airwaves and made his thoughts crystal clear on the subject. His words and thoughts parallel those of millions of Americans today (this is about 10 minutes long, but it is critical to watch):


This is NOT a story to tell anyone what we must do. It’s to alert Americans that people in other western countries face the same intrusions by their governments as are we. Those intrusions are impacting those citizens just as they are Americans.

So what do we do? Ignore the politics! Very few politicians can even claim to be medical “experts.” And none that I know of ARE experts on COVID-19. Sadly, most of the experts in medicine that are called-on to teach us about COVID-19 are NOT experts.

That’s where this travesty MUST stop! Americans MUST ignore the constant bickering between these experts. We all must embrace this one simple “fact” of medicine: most decisions about our healthcare are simple, fundamental, and attainable by Americans — ALL Americans!

What are those things? I’m not going to suggest that I know those things. But I suggest you pause today. Gather your family members around you and talk. In almost every case, if you and your family members can find a way to totally dispel the fear of COVID-19 that our media and many government officials have foisted on us, you and your family members can plot an equitable, feasible, and successful path for you to beat COVID-19.

None of this suggests in any way that COVID is NOT a killer. It is. But a COVID-19 infection is NOT a death sentence for more than 99% of all those infected.

Concentrate on the positive “what-ifs” rather than the “Oh-no’s!” Because in almost every case, if you are infected, you will make it through.

“Don’t let the fear of COVID-19 control your life.”

Where Does the Greatest Threat to the U.S. Originate?

As we watch night after night, week after week, month after month the violence play out on the streets of cities like Seattle, Portland, Chicago, New York, Washington D.C., Louisiville, and Atlanta, we wonder who is lighting these fires of violence and terror. This all happens while Democrats tell us all that these are mostly “peaceful” demonstrations and not violent.

How could any sensible person call what we watch even now police in Portland struggle to keep their city safe? Thugs have turned the once-breathtaking Oregon city into a war zone of destruction. Those on the Left thumb their noses at the notion that any of what we watch is violence. Even former First Lady Michelle Obama this week derided Conservatives who call this violence, looting and rioting! She and her husband both maintain these are all “peaceful” people expressing their First Amendment right to demonstrate.

Tell that to the hundreds of police and innocent Americans who have been brutally injured, beaten, blinded by lasers, and those who have lost tens of millions of dollars in assets. The Obamas gloss over the terror that has devastated their own city of Chicago while hundreds are slaughtered by fellow Chicagoans month after month.

No matter what one wants to call it, it’s TERROR and MAYHEM at the hands of incorrigible anarchists been on the destruction of our Democracy. Michelle termed it “peaceful demonstrations to restore racial fairness.”

Who Is Responsible?

The primary terrorist threat inside the United States stems from violent extremists, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in its first-ever “Homeland Threat Assessment.”

DHS officials said part of the primary threat are “domestic violent extremists, or people operating primarily within the U.S. without direction or inspiration from foreign terrorist groups or other foreign powers, and homegrown violent extremists, or a person of any citizenship who has lived and/or operated primarily in the United States and who advocates, is engaged in or is preparing to engage in ideologically-motivated terrorist activities.”

Among the former category, racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically white supremacist extremists, “will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland,” the report states. No specific white supremacist groups were identified. These extremists have demonstrated over time the intent to target both racial and religious minorities, lawmakers, and people they think promote multi-culturalism and globalization at the expense of their identity, according to DHS officials. White supremacist extremists were responsible for more terrorist attacks, nearly 40, posing a greater threat to life inside the United States from 2018 to 2019 than any other group, DHS said.

Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf said in the report’s introduction that he is “particularly concerned about white supremacist violent extremists who have been exceptionally lethal in their abhorrent targeted attacks in recent years. I am proud of our work to prevent terrorizing tactics by domestic terrorists and violent extremists who seek to force ideological change in the United States through violence, death, and destruction,” he added.

Kyle Shideler, director and senior analyst for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy said that he disagrees with the approach used by DHS officials in determining the biggest threat inside the country. “I disagree fundamentally with an approach that says that deaths in a given range of years represent the best way to determine which threat is the largest, particularly over a short time frame. Fortunately, lethal terror attacks in the United States remain (statistically) rare. That means figures are highly susceptible to being distorted by any single mass-casualty incident, as appears to be the case in this assessment,” he said.

“As you can see the three categories DHS includes in their chart reflect nearly the same number of attempts. Without specific case studies, we have no way of determining why white supremacist attacks had higher lethality than other violent extremists in these cases. It may be simply a matter of dumb luck that one attack killed more than another and not be reflective of either intent or capability.”

Terrorism databases have historically attributed, in some cases, non-terrorist violence such as domestic violence to white supremacists, he added, but with no case studies included in the report, it’s not clear if that was the case with the DHS report. Shideler, whose center last month published a report on white supremacist attitudes, also said the “descriptor” (characteristic or identifier) of white supremacists is reasonable, but no other groups were clearly identified, such as jihadists or black supremacists.

“The descriptor of ‘racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists’ is almost completely opaque. We can only presume from the context that this refers to black separatist or black supremacist extremists such as those acting in support of Black Lives Matter,” Shideler wrote. “It is also somewhat disconcerting that the DHS report attributes their motives to ‘social injustice,’ which seems wholly inappropriate. Can it be any wonder that white supremacists are identified as the highest-ranking threat when it appears to be the only threat that is permitted to be identified by name?”

Besides white supremacy, another motivating force behind domestic terrorism is anti-government and anti-authority sentiment, according to the DHS report. The violent extremists, sometimes influenced by anarchist ideology, have been linked to multiple plots and attacks, including attacks against law enforcement and government buildings. The ideology is exploited by hostile nation-states, which seek to promote it through disinformation campaigns.

These extremists have targeted otherwise peaceful protests and hijacked them for violent means, taking advantage of the large crowds to attack government officials, facilities, and counter-protesters, DHS officials said. In the case of ongoing rioting in Portland, federal officers suffered over 300 injuries.

Members of the far-left, anarcho-communist group Antifa, as well as people who are part of the Black Lives Matter movement, have been involved in the unrest in Oregon’s largest city. Other examples include rioting in the Brooklyn borough of New York City and Kenosha, Wisconsin.

These increasingly pervasive incidents highlight the threat of anarchist violence that has accelerated in our cities in recent months,” the report states. “If you are only looking at deaths, and you are not looking at property damage, insurance claims, and all the other societal factors, and only looking at deaths, then yes, white supremacist extremists sort of lead that category,” Wolf told CBS. “But as we have witnessed over the last several months, the movements and the civil unrest we have seen here inside the U.S., while maybe not lethal, certainly have lasting implications to the homeland and do serve as a threat to the homeland.”

Foreign threats identified by the report include China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

The assessment was developed at the direction of former acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan. In a strategic framework announcement in September 2019, McAleenan said the department, with the help of the FBI, would produce an annual product “that evaluates the strategic threat environment within the Homeland related to terrorism and targeted violence and anticipates future or emerging threats.”


“Violent Extremists.”

Black Lives Matter, Antifa, White Supremacists, Boogaloos and others have NO exclusives on terrorism in the Nation. But those are a good place to start to quell this anti-American thugism that rips at the fabric of America.

Americans want better. Americans expect better. It’s time for our law enforcement at every level — local, state and federal — to take off the gloves and remove the muzzles and begin enforcing the Rule of Law consistently and firmly.

Why hasn’t it stopped? Why do these terror groups continue their anarchy? There’s no accountability for their illegalities sufficient to entice them to stop!

As an American, each of us has the right to let authorities know that “Enough is Enough.” We want to take back our nation.

An election is NOT the only critical element of snatching the U.S. from the jaws of totalitarianism. The Rule of Law MUST be restored and implemented as a “permanent fixture” for all to embrace and to which they must abide.

Without laws, we are NOT a nation. Nations are structured by laws.

So which are we: a republic or a “banana” republic ruled by supremacists, anarchists, neo nazis, or a nation of patriots who are willing to do as generations of fellow Americans historically have done: fight to preserve the greatest country on Earth?

“Freedom isn’t free,” and it MUST be maintained by hard work to keep what we and our ancestors built.

I’m in.

Trump Hollering About Voter Fraud is Simply Fulfilling American History

Seldom does a day go by now without some sordid tale of November 3rd mail-in or absentee ballots being found in a dumpster, in a ditch, or piled up beside the mass mail receptacle for a large apartment complex. We also hear horror stories — like the one from New York during a primary election this cycle — of mailed ballots being rejected by the tens of thousands for various reasons: voter signatures not matching, parts of the ballot completed incorrectly or left blank, and even some postmarked after election day or not postmarked at all.

These do not even consider the raunchy cases of mass ballot-harvesting that have already been proven, the ballots completed and turned in by the dead or by other than those whose ballots are presented. And then there are the mass coordinated ballot thefts, like the one just discovered in Harris County, Texas (Houston) that could include as many as 700,000 fraudulent ballots before finalization.

Despite what Democrats tell us, voter fraud is real, is historical, and is widespread. And voter fraud has existed throughout our nation’s history.

Voter Fraud is Real?

Donald Trump was making modern political history even before his COVID-inspired stay at Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. By suggesting voter results could be fraudulent — and therefore invalid — the incumbent President was bombarding the historical election framework that, for more than 200 years, has eased the transition from one administration to another in the United States. There is no doubt Mr. Trump’s cries of voter fraud have been epic in number, constant, and LOUD!

Democrats and others on the Left have been just as insistent (and just as loud) in response to the President. They in unity proclaim that “there is no proof of any voter fraud! Even President Obama said that voter fraud in the American election system is impossible!” Yet, more than 300 voter fraud cases during the Obama eight-years have been investigated, documented, and prosecutions of the guilty took place.

So much for that Obama Administration “scandal-free” claim that Obama quietly stopped proclaiming in the past few months. I wonder why?

There has been nothing like Trump’s 2020 incessant shouts of voter fraud in living memory — other than Trump’s allegations of voter fraud after his 2016 win. But the United States certainly does have a history of messy politics — electoral fraud was as American as apple pie throughout the 19th and into the early 20th century. Since then it has been much less corrupt than it was before the 1920s. Ballot stuffing, repeat voting, Election Day violence, and the intimidation of entire populations were all familiar measures used in the bad old days, especially when racial issues were in dispute.

Take the election of 1876. The outgoing Republican president, Ulysses S. Grant, was surrounded by dirty politicians and bribe-takers. White Southerners were on fire with resentment for a decade over the fact that their ex-slaves that were freed by the Civil War results were allowed to vote. Some of them had even become politicians! Federal army forces stationed in the South protected these racially mixed groups against white terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan.

The Republican presidential candidate of 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes was a Union hero of the Civil War and was the governor of Ohio. His Democratic opponent Samuel Tilden had been a pro-Union Democrat in the 1860s and was now governor of New York. Both candidates had a reputation for honesty and for favoring good-government reforms. Nevertheless, they got caught up in what has been remembered ever since as the Corrupt Bargain of ’77.

Shortly after the election, the Electoral College declared that Tilden was just one vote short of the 185 he needed for victory. Hayes had only 165. Tilden also had a clear majority of the popular vote. However, in three Southern states — Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana — both parties claimed victory and both asserted their right to the crucial 20 Electoral College votes that had not yet been included in the totals.

A commission made up of congressmen, senators, and Supreme Court justices tried to break the deadlock. It had one more Republican member than Democrat, which enabled it (voting on straight party lines) to give all the contested votes to Hayes. That made him the winner by just one: 185 to 184. Not until March 1, 1877, was the result finally announced, five months after Election Day. Are we looking at what might happen in 2020?

Behind the scenes, Republicans were looking for a way to lower the blow to the Democrats. Their answer was to promise an end to Reconstruction, the political movement that had struggled to transform race relations in the South over the previous and post-Civil War years. In exchange for getting their candidate into the White House, the Republicans promised to withdraw all remaining troops from the South. Hayes was sworn in on March 4. Within a month he ordered the military evacuation of the South.

The white Southern Democrats might have lost the White House but they amped-up their power at home, restoring white-only rule, intimidating black voters, and legislating in favor of racial segregation. They called themselves “the Redeemers,” and claimed to be rescuing their states from barbarism, while actually creating a society built on exclusion, intimidation, and lynching. For a few years, black lives had mattered, but now they were sacrificed to the needs of party politics. Not until the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, nearly a century later, did it become possible once more for African Americans to vote and to run for electoral office in the South.

President Hayes enjoyed just one term as president, during which running water and the first telephone was installed in the White House. His wife, Lucy, was a non-drinker, and the couple served no alcohol at official functions. One disappointed visitor to a presidential reception wrote later: “The water flowed like champagne.”

A group of northern Democrats, still sore at being cheated, created the “Potter committee,” named after its chairman Clarkson Nott Potter, to investigate election corruption in 1876. Telegrams were to the 1870s what emails are to the 2020s and the committee read hundreds of them, sent by party operatives during the 1876 campaign, usually in code. Unfortunately, the decoded telegrams disclosed widespread bribery of election officials — mostly by the Democrats — making it difficult for them to claim that they occupied the moral high ground.

Elections in the 1870s were very different from those of today. The turnout in 1876 was a whopping 80 percent and it was preceded by months of campaign parades, big public dinners, and speeches that often lasted well over an hour. Candidates had to speak with enough power, without microphones, that audiences in their thousands could hear them.

When it was time to vote, the ritual was as public as the campaigning. Voters who identified with a particular party would step forward holding brightly-colored tickets, showing their party affiliation, and place them in the ballot box in front of hundreds of onlookers. In those days, men who had bribed voters could be certain that they were getting value for money. Not until the 1890s would the secret ballot come along, dismaying many of those who witnessed earlier elections. The drama diminished in addition to the massive number of types of voter fraud.

Our Representative Republic depends on an honest count of the votes. Losers should certainly leave gracefully, while winners must promise that they will observe the rules when their terms end. Fraudulent elections, by contrast, endanger the nation itself, and, as the events of 1876 show, they can have horrible consequences that last decades into the future.


I’d certainly like to be grandiose and generous to President Trump and say that his chief concern in 2020 voter fraud is solely to assure our children and grandchildren that America’s historically ethical election system is pure and without scourge. Therefore it will continue into the future.

But I think President Trump wants to be “President” Trump for four more years!

That’s just my opinion. But, after all, shouldn’t election results be based solely on the final count of every vote cast in any election? Isn’t it appropriate for any American — not just President Trump — to demand that our government assure us all that every legal vote will be cast and that every vote cast will be legal?

Hey: there is no way for me to know the content of President Trump’s heart. Nancy Pelosi nor Chuck Schumer can possibly know its content either. But, in this case, the reason for the President’s howls about voter fraud seems to more and more each day be cries against real illegalities that are revealed regularly!

I hate to rub mud in the eys of any Trump-haters, but isn’t he as President supposed to make certain that all three branches of government are busy making certain the Peoples’ business is carried out within the exact parameters written in the U.S. Constitution?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Even if a portion (or even in entirety) Mr. Trump is howling about voter fraud is to protect his serving a second term in office, isn’t he supposed to go after any voter fraud anyway?

And, God knows, there’s a bunch of it going on!

Some Democrat Party Leaders: Second-Thoughts on Mail-In Voting

Who would have thought it? It’s happening! There are finally some leaders in the Democrat Party who are questioning the wisdom of this massive push for Mail-In Voting. For reasonable thinkers, there has NEVER been any question that the process of mailing ballots to voters, voters filling them out in total and accurately, and then returning them in the proper format and method would be a nightmare experience. Yet these sycophantic Trump-haters, to tip the scales of partisanship in their favor, discarded reason and opted to ignore planning and preparation and said, “Let’s just force it down the throats of Americans!”  After initially singing the praises of voting by mail in the Nov. 3 elections, some Democratic Party leaders are reluctantly backing away from the idea as enthusiasm for that method of voting fades.

  • Pennsylvania’s Democratic Lt. Gov. John Fetterman blames Republicans for the declining interest in voting by mail, accusing them of exaggerating problems associated with sending ballots through the mail.
  • President Trump has been incredibly vocal in his criticism of voting by mail, asserting that it’s not secure and that ballots often get misdirected or fail to be delivered.
  • Some observers are concerned about whether a government agency, the U.S. Postal Service, long-criticized for its lack of efficiency, can handle an unprecedented onslaught of mail-in-ballots.
  • Also, experts say voting-by-mail is fraught with problems. That method of voting gives wrongdoers more significant opportunities for fraud compared to in-person balloting.

The bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, found in 2005 that “absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud” and that “vote-buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.”

Reports of widespread problems with voting by mail may be forcing Democrats to change their tune.


In the 2020 primaries, more than 550,000 mail-in and absentee ballots were disqualified, much more than four years ago. The problem is especially severe in some swing states. More than 23,000 mailed ballots were rejected in the presidential primaries in Wisconsin — more than Donald Trump’s margin of victory in that state in 2016. Deep-blue districts have had the same problem: New York City alone threw out more than 84,000 ballots this primary season. Now party officials, mostly Democrats, are reportedly worried that too many people will vote on Election Day and overwhelm the systems in place, leading to unsafe crowding in the pandemic era and long lines.

“I’m getting people saying, ‘Screw it. I don’t want to vote by mail anymore. I want to do it in person.’ That’s what [Republicans] want,” Pennsylvania’s Lt. Governor Fetterman told The Intercept. “It’s truly diabolical. And I choose that word very deliberately. It’s diabolical. They know that you’ve got to bring everything: your ballot, the envelope, everything. If you don’t, you can’t vote. And most people don’t know that you can demand a provisional ballot. And if you do, that’s going to blow up the lines and create chaos.”

Quentin James, founder and president of the Collective PAC, told The New York Times that the GOP is trying to suppress voter turnout. “I’m concerned with Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s attempt to limit votes,” said James. “They’re afraid of the almost 5 million African-Americans who didn’t vote in 2016 coming out and voting.” His group reportedly intends to spend $7 million in large cities in battleground states to get out the black vote, focusing on in-person voting.

Interest in voting by mail has been sliding in recent months.

A Pew Research poll in springtime found “broad bipartisan support for voting by mail with almost 3 out of 4 Americans favoring universal access to absentee ballots,” according to NPR.

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released September 18 found that among registered voters, 35 percent say they will vote by mail or absentee, down from 50 percent in May. Broken down by party affiliation, that’s 50 percent of Democrats, 25 percent of Republicans, and 32 percent of independents. These figures are lower than in May when 11 percent more Democrats said they would vote by mail or absentee. In May, the figures were 17 percent higher among Republicans, and 32 percent higher among Independents. In the poll, half of the voters specifically said they would vote in person on election day. The partisan breakdown is that 56 percent of Republicans said they would vote in person on Election Day, compared to 38 percent of Democrats and 3 percent from the “other” category. A Citizen Data poll from earlier the same month generated similar findings. Among all likely voters, 35 percent plan to vote by mail. Of those planning to vote in person, 34 percent plan to vote early in person, and 60 percent plan to vote in person on election day. The poll indicates Democrats are twice as likely to vote by mail as Republicans in the forthcoming election. Of Democrats, 61 percent intend to vote by mail, compared to 30 percent of Republicans.

Why the Rush for Mail-in Balloting?

We can only give suggested possibilities for answers to that question. But, at this point in the 2020 election process, the number of options is getting slimmer daily. Let’s “assume” a few of those possibilities:

  1. As given originally for the push for all mail-in voting, the motivation might be truthfully to protect voters and poll workers from the infection of COVID-19.
  2. The fear of COVID-19 will undoubtedly keep many from voting at all — many of those potential voters are elderly and will NOT risk COVID-infections in voting.
  3. Democrat Party voter registrations have dropped significantly, causing party leaders to push hard to find new voters quickly and “enhance” those voters’ abilities to vote, and not just to vote, but vote Democrats because “Democrats care more for average Americans than do Republicans.” That’s somewhat a “quid pro quo.”
  4. Last but certainly not least: As was discovered by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, mail-in voting gives those who wish to “fix” elections far more opportunities to do so in mail-in voting than in-person or electronic voting.


Numbers one, two, and three, and four above, the first two seem to be the most benign suggestions for the sudden support of Democrats and the race to push mail-in for 2020. But it is becoming more evident daily that is NOT the purpose of Democrat Party leadership. Why? The single purpose for adjusting the way American voters cast their ballots should be based on only ONE thing: the guarantee voters every legal vote will count and NO vote cast illegally in any way will be counted.

That’s NOT the reason for these mail-in demands from Democrats.

How can I say that? Think about it: Democrat Party leaders and Democrats in Congress know that blowing up the current voting systems and replacing them with manual mail-in voting to achieve an honest objective is a massive undertaking. Any voting process for national elections must accommodate up to 200 million potential voters in any election! How could that be accomplished in less than one year?!

Number Four above is most likely the reason for this Mail-in voting demand.

Yes, that is opinion. But as soon as an expressed opinion is proven to be accurate, it automatically ceases to be a “conspiracy theory” or an “opinion.” To what does it morph? A Fact!

I’m not crazy about any U.S. leaders using (without any legal authority) a national system such as election voting itself as a partisan tool to alter the results of an election. Further, I am certain THIS election and what is at stake is considered by Democrats to be their last chance to intervene in this process to salvage their utopian dreams of some type of united government to serve globally instead of to serve America.

Their view that they can do this frightens me almost as much as the thought that they just might pull it off!

Saturday Bullet Points: October 3, 2020

Another week and another Saturday! What did you miss this past week because you’ve been so busy? We’ll help you catch up with our “Bullet Points.”

Here’s how it works: Read the first sentence or two of a bullet point. If, after reading each brief synopsis and you want more information, simply click on the link that will take you instantly to a full story. If you don’t want more details after viewing the quick summary, simply move on to the next “Bullet Point.”

We’re watching all the essential news when you’re busy working or taking care of the kids and your family business. And we’ll make sure you can capitalize on the important stuff without wasting an entire weekend. Let’s get started!

Bullet Points

  • Most Americans have found themselves simply worn out by all the important information and subsequent details of handling this new “COVID-19 World.” What’s right; what’s wrong? What should you do; what should you NOT do? Mask or no mask? You don’t want to get it wrong, but, at the same time, you don’t want to waste your time and the times of others in your life by piling on needless responsibilities. Amid all this uncertainty, one state this week just decided to do away with any requirement for folks in the state to wear masks. Their doing so comes to many as a breath of fresh air — no pun intended. Is it the right or wrong decision to do away with the mask mandate? For complete details, click on this link:
  • By now, all know that President Trump and the First Lady both tested positive for COVID-19. Of course, the Mainstream Media have been having a fun time at the President’s expense. Most Democrats in government have been kind and respectful — especially former Vice President Biden. Why politicize someone’s physical infirmity, right? But MSNBC’s Joy Reid went low — REALLY low in discussing the President’s COVID diagnosis. For complete details, click on this link:
  • In this caustic political environment in which we find ourselves, it’s probably a natural emotion for many to lash out at the President, saying, “Mr. President, you probably deserve COVID-19 for the way you’ve thumbed your nose at the experts who have cautioned about the lack of social distancing and mask mandates at your rallies. You’re getting what you deserve.” But, thankfully, not all in leadership in the country have gone down the road. Even former Vice President Biden tweeted some very positive remarks and suggestions to all Americans about how we should handle this time and this specific situation. For complete details, click on this link:
  • No matter what the polls have to say about the presidential race, most people sense that President Trump is quickly closing the gap with Mr. Biden in one of the key swing states that both candidates know it is imperative to win to have a shot at the White House: Florida. Why is that? Conventional wisdom has been that Democrats always carry Florida. However, Candidate Trump beat Hillary in Florida in 2016, surprising most everyone. The reason is that Hispanics in South Florida, many of whom either personally or in their families, immigrated from Cuba to Florida. Those hold vivid memories of the horrors of the Castro Socialism in Cuba. They certainly do not want to see Socialism in the U.S. For complete details, click on this link:
  • In Tuesday night’s debate, the subject of the taxes paid by President Trump was put front and center by Joe Biden. Biden accused the President of only paying $750 in the first two years of his presidency in federal taxes. That was reported in the New York Times just days before the debate. The trouble is, the President paid FAR more than that. He paid several million dollars in advance and had refunds coming. So what’s up with all that? For complete details, click on this link:
  • We all know that COVID-19 has been terrible on businesses of all kinds nationwide. Some of America’s largest cities have been hit the hardest. Take New York City, for example. If you know Manhattan, you know how many quaint restaurants and bars are historical landmarks for people from all around the world. Because of COVID, financial experts in New York say that as much as 50% of such businesses might NOT make it back from COVID. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Hollywood Entertainment Mogul Harvey Weinstein has been outed by numerous actresses and other female entertainers for having a salacious sexual appetite for young women. And Weinstein has whet that appetite through the years by virtually blackmailing aspiring young Hollywood women into having sex with him for the exchange of opportunities in Hollywood that he can give to them. And now, new charges have been levied at Weinstein that, if proven, could send him to prison for the rest of his life. For complete details, click on this link:
  • We haven’t heard much from down south in the past year or so. It seems that those massive immigrant troupes from Central America finally figured out that the U.S. is NOT going to open its southern border to any who want to come here — unless they immigrate legally. That lasted for a good while. However, there is currently a caravan of about 2000 Hondurans headed toward the U.S. southern border with plans for nothing less than access for a permanent live in the United States. For complete details, click on this link:
  • COVID-19 has certainly changed the way Americans think. In fact, for those who live in large cities, the idea of moving to some rural community with vast outdoor living opportunities have become so appealing that the wealthy in a place like Manhattan are racing to gobble up expensive real estate in more “suburban” areas such as eastern Long Island. And one place in Colorado is being flooded, not with just people from large cities, but RICH people from large cities who don’t care about the prices charged for exclusive real estate in those areas. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Who thinks that there can possibly be a “new” type of dementia that might be worse than Alzheimer’s? There may be one. Scientists have discovered a new “novel” dementia gene that is quite different than that of Alzheimer’s that might be scary, but it might help us find a breakthrough in treating Alzheimer’s itself! For complete details, click on this link:



Let’s Hope We Actually Get an Accepted Election Result

Tuesday night’s debate between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden was a hopeless mess — a national embarrassment. For 90 minutes, two cantankerous old men ignored the rules, shouted over each other and ruined the event. Trump insulted Biden’s intelligence and his children. Biden told Trump to “shut up” and called him “a clown.”

The debate may prove useful in one sense, however — as a foretaste of the democratic meltdown that is coming America’s way after the election on November 3. Again, the rules of the contest will probably not be accepted, each side will certainly accuse the other of cheating and the whole occasion will probably turn into a disastrous farce.

If you think that’s unrealistic and, just listen to what our would-be leadership has been saying. A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton offered an extraordinary piece of advice to her successor. “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,” she said. “I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win — if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.” She was referring not just to the election, but what could come after. Her scenario: election night is inconclusive, as postal votes flood in, and with them a debate about their legitimacy. It’s a debate she wants the Democrats to win. ‘We’ve got to have a massive legal operation,’ she said, “I know the Biden campaign is working on that.”

For his part, Donald Trump is also gearing up for this fight. “We have to be very careful with the ballots,” he said. “That’s a whole big scam.” A couple of weeks ago, he went even further, questioning not just the election’s legitimacy, but whether there would be a peaceful transfer of power afterwards. He reiterated that point in the debate, saying of the election: “This is going to be a fraud like you’ve never seen. This is not going to end well.”

Welcome to America in our “Election Soap Opera.” This brutal year has seen a pandemic lock us down, unrest ravage our streets, culture wars that seem intractable — and now the chilling possibility of an Election Day that leads to more chaos.

The big problem centers on the 80 million Americans who are expected to vote by mail this year — more than twice as many as last time — amid fears that polling stations could become coronavirus hotspots. Yet because such a deluge of postmarked ballots is unprecedented and thus untested, concerns have been raised as to how accurate the count will be.

Trump himself has warned of mail-in voting fraud. He’s pointed as evidence to New York’s primary elections on June 23, which featured an unusually high number of postmarked ballots due to the state’s status as a COVID epicenter. The results there were disquieting: weeks passed without winners being declared, and thousands of votes were believed to have been wrongly discarded.

What happened in New York has raised questions about the government’s ability to count mail-in votes accurately and speedily. Throw in a confusing patchwork of state-level rules, along with recent cuts to the U.S. postal service, and you can almost hear the challenges issuing forth, the candidates digging in their heels.

What happens if the election results are contested? The answer is that Americans will turn to one of their most cherished pastimes: not guns (not yet anyway) but lawsuits. Biden has said that his campaign has “put together 600 lawyers” and a team of volunteers, who will go “into every single state to try to figure out whether chicanery is likely to take place.” The GOP has thousands of volunteer attorneys, and the chief counsel at the Republican National Committee has pledged to “spend whatever it takes to make sure the election is conducted orderly and that we push back on the Democrats’ litigation.” Already more than 300 lawsuits have been filed, most of them related to pandemic voting rules and mail-in ballots.

This has left America for the first time in a long time confronting an awful question: what happens if days, weeks, months elapse after Election Day without a clear winner? What happens if both candidates go to court and refuse to concede?

Tune in to American politics these days and you’ll inevitably hear the election described as “the most important of our lives.” Children running for middle-school student council claim as much; the phrase has become almost ludicrously devalued. And while American elections are indeed significant, they have yet to prove existential: Democrats survived eight years under George W. Bush; Republicans endured eight years under Barack Obama. Yet this year the partisans are even more distressed than usual. Bernie Sanders, speaking at the Democratic National Convention, pronounced the 2020 election to be “the most important in the modern history of this country.” Activist Charlie Kirk at the Republican convention said it was “the most critical since 1860,” the year before our civil war.

For both sides, much is at stake. Democrats view the contest as a referendum on Donald Trump, with a second term seen as a green light to bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, heteronormativity, cisgendered fundamentalism and all the rest of it. They also worry about what they see as an attack on American institutions and Trump’s dispatch of the norms of federal governance. Republicans, meanwhile, watch riots tearing through city streets, statues and monuments being defaced, cancel culture weaponized against those who disagree, and accuse Democrats of complicity. They worry their very heritage is under threat. That is why Trump made a point this summer of speaking at Mount Rushmore and recently created a “1776 Commission” to promote patriotic curriculum in education.

This is not, in other words, the kind of climate in which you want to start hearing about voting irregularities. Many Americans already believe the worst of their political opponents, and from there it isn’t such a long jump to wondering whether they might try to steal the election. Such worries are being compounded by conspiracy theories that have made their way around the internet and the airwaves. Dark and menacing, they posit stories of pedophile groups, networks of Russian infiltrators — the sorts of dark forces which would have no problem skewing a few ballots.

Into these troubled waters has now crashed another cultural cannonball: a Supreme Court nomination by Donald Trump and the Senate confirmation battle over Amy Coney Barrett. The death in September of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court’s most left-wing justice, allowed Trump to appoint her replacement in what may be the twilight months of his presidency. Barrett, a Catholic who has expressed skepticism over Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that effectively legalized abortion across America faces strong Democrat opposition. Pro-life conservatives are thrilled. Their aim has long been to get as many right-leaning justices on the bench as possible so as to eventually overturn Roe.

Supreme Court nominations were once benign affairs (Ginsburg was confirmed by a Senate vote of 96-3); today gifting nuclear weapons to Isis is generally more peaceable. The reason is that A-word, “abortion,” which remains much more controversial in America than in most other first-world countries. Yet there’s something else at stake this time too.

The last time a presidential election turned seriously to the courts was in 2000, when a paper-thin margin between George W. Bush and Al Gore in Florida led to weeks of recounts. Images of 80-year-olds in Palm Beach staring at ballots through trifocals did not inspire confidence. The lawsuits flew, and the issue made its way to — of course — the Supreme Court.

The resulting decision, Bush vs Gore, is still one of the most controversial in the high court’s history. It ordered a stop to the recounts, effectively pronouncing Bush the winner. It was decided by a 5-4 margin, along the so-called partisan lines within the Court. And it’s here that we come full circle.

Right now, thanks to Ginsburg’s vacancy, the Supreme Court has only eight justices. If Trump is prevented from appointing Barrett, and if the election results are challenged all the way up, the justices could split evenly on who the effective president-elect is. That would kick the decision back down to the lower courts, but multiple lawsuits could result in multiple rulings, a debacle that might create enough confusion for both candidates to claim victory. Suddenly the republic itself would be over a barrel. The only hope would be some kind of grand compromise between the two parties, and given our gargantuan partisan climate, that would be no guarantee.

This is a worst-case scenario, but the fact that we’re considering it at all is reason enough to start chasing stuff to stifle headaches! And given how often nightmares have come true this year, the apprehension is very real. Lately we’ve seemed to suffer just about every nightmare imaginable: horrendous wildfires, a bad hurricane season, the New York Yankees’ return to form. Back in the summer, it was reported that murder hornets had been spotted in the United States: “Murder  hornets.” Insects from Japan so named because they slaughter entire hives of lesser bees by decapitating them with their mandibles. They’ve been known to kill the occasional human too.

What’s next? Meteor storms? The Mississippi River turning to blood? Maybe the current disasters will start running together, with murder-hornet hurricanes attacking the East Coast and coronavirus-infected wildfires torching mail-in ballots out west. Amid all this catastrophe, the election seems doomed.

On a positive ending-note: there are dark clouds over this election but nowhere near as many as in 1860. Our politics is unsettled, but not as much as, say, during the 1910s. The United States has descended into madness before, only to bounce back, and there’s no reason to think we won’t do so again. Let’s just make it out of this wretched year first. Let’s pray that every registered citizen will vote legally, AND let’s pray that NO legal vote will be thrown-out.

Would that be a request for the “Election Fairy?”

The Real Truth about Trump Taxes AND the Bidens Have Paid in Recent Years

Are you like most other Americans tired of hearing the incessant demeaning of Americans who have made money and subsequently are wealthy? Democrats consistently rant and rave about “the top one percent” of Americans being evil because they are wealthy. Have you ever heard Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden, or any other prominent Democrats “self-demean?” Those who I just mentioned are each filthy- rich by the standards they set themselves in their attack against those who are wealthy maintaining their mantra: “They don’t pay enough! Middle-Class Americans pick up more than their fair share just to subsidize the government for the taxes the rich don’t pay because of loopholes!”

Have you heard that once or twice? There are so many ironies in that talking point that we cannot waste your time detailing them. Have you ever heard any of them include themselves in those allegations of others being “greedy and un-American for not paying more?” Certainly not! Their unspoken justification for that massive wealth is, “I’m in the U.S. Congress and a leader in Washington D.C. That entitles me to take advantage of the IRS tax code (that they wrote!) to cut my taxes as low as possible. But it’s not fair for anyone who is NOT a leader in Washington to do the same thing — using tax deductions to minimize their federal tax bills.”

Who’s In Dems Perpetual “Tax-Cheat” Bullseye?

President Donald Trump!

While the Joe Biden campaign was quick to leap on a New York Times story that President Donald Trump paid a small amount in personal income taxes in recent years, there’s far more to the story than any in the Mainstream Media care to share with Americans.

President Donald Trump is disputing a New York Times report that he paid just $750 in federal income taxes the year he ran for president and in his first year in the White House. Trump, who has fiercely guarded his tax filings and is the only president in modern times not to make them public, paid no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years, The Times reported Sunday. More recently, the president’s financial disclosures indicated he earned at least $434.9 million in 2018, but the tax filings reported a $47.4 million loss.

The report, which the Times said comes from tax return data it obtained extending over two decades, comes at a pivotal moment ahead of the first presidential debate Tuesday and weeks before a divisive election against Democrat Joe Biden.

Speaking at a news conference Sunday at the White House, Trump dismissed the report as “fake news” and said he has paid taxes, though he gave no specifics. He also vowed that information about his taxes “will all be revealed,” but he offered no timeline for the disclosure and made similar promises during the 2016 campaign.

The president has fielded court challenges against those seeking access to his returns, including the U.S. House, which is suing for access to Trump’s tax returns as part of congressional oversight.

During his first two years as president, Trump received $73 million from foreign operations, which in addition to his golf properties in Scotland and Ireland included $3 million from the Philippines, $2.3 million from India and $1 million from Turkey, The Times reported. The president in 2017 paid $145,400 in taxes in India and $156,824 in the Philippines, compared to just $750 in U.S. income taxes, according to The Times.

Trump has taken tax deductions on personal expenses such as housing, aircraft and $70,000 in haircare. Losses in the property businesses solely owned and managed by Trump appear to have offset income from his stake in the television show “The Apprentice” and other entities with multiple owners.

During the first two years of his presidency, Trump relied on business tax credits to reduce his tax obligations, according to the report. The Times said $9.7 million worth of business investment credits that were submitted after Trump requested an extension to file his taxes allowed him to reduce his income and pay just $750 each in 2016 and 2017.

A lawyer for the Trump Organization, Alan Garten, told The Times that “most, if not all, of the facts appear to be inaccurate.” He said in a statement to the news organization that the president “has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government, including paying millions in personal taxes since announcing his candidacy in 2015.” The New York Times said it declined Garten’s request for the tax filings in order to protect its sources.

Due to the nature of Trump’s business being primarily in real estate development, tax law does provide for significant tax credits, deductions, and depreciation to encourage entrepreneurs to take risks.

Trump’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., also addressed the Times story in an appearance on “Fox & Friends” on Monday, pointing to the development of the Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C., as an example for which his father received tax credits. “My father’s paid tens of millions of taxes,” Trump Jr., said. “If he does things in certain years where you get depreciation, where you get  the write-off, where you get historical tax credits like we did when we took on the risk of building the Old Post Office in D.C.” The Old Post Office Building, originally constructed in the 1890s not far from the White House, reopened as a newly renovated Trump hotel in October 2016.

“That was literally a government contract,” Trump Jr. recounted. “We bid against every hotel company in the world. Historical tax credits that you use to offset tax payments for taking the risk to build that. That was done under the Obama administration. It literally took an act of Congress to get it done.”

The president’s son further suggested that while his father’s federal income tax due may be low any given year, he still had to pay property taxes and payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) among others. Trump Jr. also pointed out that his father put “thousands and thousands of people to work on an annual basis” through his various business ventures. Those people pay taxes too.

How About Sleepy Joe and Wife Jill and THEIR Income Tax Issues?

Joe and his wife Jill Biden funneled millions in income through a pair of S corporations they set up in Delaware as a way to circumnavigate paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, according to an August opinion article in The Wall Street Journal.

Of the nearly $13.3 million the couple took in primarily through speaking fees and book royalties during the 2017 and 2018 tax years, they claimed just $750,000 in income. The other 94 percent of the money passed through the corporations as direct distribution to the Bidens, preventing it from being subject to the up to 15.3 percent combined Social Security and Medicare tax rate, according to CNBC.

The Internal Revenue Service requires S corps to pay “reasonable compensation” to employee shareholders before making non-wage distributions to them. The nature of the business dictates what should be characterized as income and what can be a distribution to an employee shareholder as money generated from the business. “But to the extent that gross receipts are generated by the shareholder’s personal services, then payments to the shareholder-employee should be classified as wages that are subject to employment taxes [Social Security and Medicare],” IRS guidance reads.