In my view, the last night of the RNC was quite a production.  Once again, there was a wide variety of speakers  representing people from very diverse backgrounds.  Yes, there were the usual professional politicians, like Rudy Giuliani and Ben Carson.  But, in addition, there were a plethora of regular, everyday Americans, each of whom had a compelling story to tell.  As on previous days, a few of them were former Dems, aka “walkaways.”  The penultimate event was a speech by the “big dog,” President Trump.  This was followed by the grand finale, a spectacular fireworks show produced by the first family of pyrotechnics, the Gruccis.

In my opinion, President Trump gave a rousing speech in which he outlined the various accomplishments in his first term and his goals for the second term.  In a sports parlance he “knocked it out of the park.”  More on that later.

For me, the following speakers stood out:

  1. Alex Alvarez, a Cuban refugee.  Alvarez, whose family fled Cuba soon after Castro seized power, told how the Dems’ promises are eerily similar to those of Fidel Castro in the late 1950’s and early 1960s.  They sounded good (who wouldn’t like the promise of free stuff) but, ultimately, they didn’t work.  One can readily see the results in present-day Cuba, and he fears that could be the US’s future under the Dem platform.
  2. Alice Johnson, who had been incarcerated in federal prison for cocaine trafficking.  Mr. Trump had previously commuted her sentence, and subsequently, he pardoned her.
  3. Ann Dorn, the widow of retired St. Louis policeman and security guard, David Dorn. Dorn had been responding to a report of a break-in at a friend’s store when he was brutally attacked by the looters.  Callously, he was left to bleed to death while the looters completed their theft and fled.  His murder received very little attention by the mainstream media, because it did not fit their narrative of police brutality.
  4. Carl and Marsha Mueller.  Their daughter, Kayla, a humanitarian worker in the Middle East, was captured by ISIS terrorists.  She was repeatedly tortured and raped by her captors for 18 months.  The Obama-Biden administration was unable or unwilling to make a deal to free her.  After 18 months she was murdered.

In my view, Mr. Trump’s speech struck the proper tone.

  1. He summarized the accomplishments of his first term, including, among other things, a tax cut, eliminating many burdensome anti-business regulations, re-patriating jobs from overseas, reducing unemployment of all categories of persons to record low levels, prison reform, rebuilding the military, building hundreds of miles of border wall, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving our embassy there, and defeating ISIS.
  2. He outlined his goals for the second term, including, among other things, rebuilding the economy, finishing the border wall, and re-establishing law and order in the cities.
  3. He contrasted his record with that of Joe Biden and the Obama-Biden Administration, reminding us he accomplished more in just 3 1/2 years than Biden has in nearly 50 years.
  4.  He attacked Biden and the Dems for failing to condemn, or even criticize, the aforementioned street violence in the cities.  He characterized Biden as a socialist, anti-middle class, and being soft on law and order and crime.  (Note: Biden has since criticized the rioting but tepidly and only because of the polling on the issue.)
  5. In general, Mr. Trump’s speech and the RNC as a whole, struck a tone of optimism and patriotism in stark contrast to the DNC, which was all about gloom and doom and racism.


Following the conclusion of the RNC there were some significant developments that bear mentioning:

  1.  Biden announced he intends to venture out of his man-cave after Labor Day to campaign in person.  I doubt this was planned.  Probably, his handlers realize that the tide has turned, and he cannot win if he continues to hide.  As I reported in a previous blog this type of strategy has been successful before, but it hasn’t even been attempted in some 100 years.
  2. A Cloud Research study reported that Republicans and independents are twice as likely to hide their true opinions when queried by pollsters.  This lends credence to the belief of many observers that the polls are underreporting Mr. Trump’s true level of support.
  3. Even so, the polls have reported that the race has tightened considerably.  Biden’s lead in most of the swing states is now within the margin of error.
  4. According to the latest Hill/Harris Poll President Trump’s support among AA and Hispanic voters has increased sharply to 24% and 30%, respectively.  This is more than double the usual amount of support.  If true, this is devastating news for the Biden campaign.  However, in the interest of full disclosure I should advise that a poll reported Mr. Trump’s support among “persons of color” had actually declined slightly.
  5. It has been widely reported that the Biden campaign did not receive a post-convention “bump.”  Early indications are that the Trump campaign received a 5% post-convention “bump,” which is roughly the historical average.
  6. The New York Times has reported that the DNC outdrew the RNC 21.6 million to 19.4 million, and Biden’s speech was watched by 24.6 million compared to 23.8 for President Trump.  You can interpret those statistics however you want.
  7. Pessimism is creeping into the Dem camp.  For example, both Michael Moore and Bill Maher, strong progressives and anti-Trumpers, expressed grave concern over the “enthusiasm gap” between Trump and Biden supporters.
  8. Probably, the worst development for the Dems, however, occurred immediately after the end of the RNC.   Various media outlets recorded mobs of Black Lives Matter supporters physically attacking innocent people who were merely trying to walk home or to their hotels.   Among the people being attacked were Senator Rand Paul and his wife, Brandon Straka, founder of the #Walkaway campaign, and his companion (both gay men) and Vernon Jones, a Black news commentator.  This was way beyond the usual name-calling.  They were in obvious life-threatening situations.
  9. The Pauls were only saved by two policemen who happened by.  This was very bad optics, particularly given that the victims were a US Senator, a gay couple and a black man.  Perhaps, the rioters have finally gone too far.  This incident may turn into the “Joseph Welch moment” that I have been talking about and hoping for.
  10. Despite the foregoing, it is not even Labor Day yet.  It may seem as though the race has been going on forever, but we are just now coming to the stretch run.  A lot can still happen to affect the race.


A few days ago, I published a blog comparing the DNC and RNC (Day 1).  Briefly, my assessment of the DNC was that it featured socialism, pessimism, gloom and doom, chaos, lawlessness, and divisiveness.  Moreover, many of the speakers found it necessary to lecture the voters on how racist the president and his supporters were.  In my view, the principal theme was America is bad; we must tear it down and rebuild it as a progressive/socialist “utopia.”  Ask yourself, if the US is so bad why are millions of people so desperate to come here?

One might wonder, logically, how the Dem’s vision of America would be achieved, and who would pay for it?  Well, those pesky little details were not addressed adequately and honestly, although I think it’s obvious that we, the people, would be paying for it in the form of tax increases.  After all, the money would have to come from somewhere, and there simply are not enough rich people to cover the entire amount.  To paraphrase House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s infamous and inane comment regarding the Affordable Care Act, “you will have to elect us to find out.”

On the other hand, I characterized the RNC as featuring capitalism, optimism, hope and promise, law and order, unity and a celebration of America’s virtues.  After three days of the RNC I would like to “double-down” on my initial assessment.  The RNC has been featuring what is positive about America, the “good” in its citizens rather than the “bad,” and, of course, patriotism.  In my view, that is a winning message.

The speakers have come from very diverse backgrounds, not just GOP officeholders, Trump staff members, and Trump family members, but also ordinary citizens.  The latter group has included individuals who have overcome serious obstacles in their lives, often with the assistance of President Trump.  These “feel good” stories have been most inspiring.  The speakers included a wide cross-section of Americana, for example, men, women, youngsters, African Americans, Hispanics, immigrants  (legal), military personnel, independents and even a Democrat or two.

Most of the speakers have been nothing short of compelling.  To me, the best ones were:

  1.  Jim Jordan, Congressman.
  2. Nicholas Sandman, former Covington High School student.
  3. Herschel Walker, former NFL Hall-of-Famer and longtime friend of the Trump family.
  4. Andrew Pollack, father of a murdered Parkland High School student.
  5. Kristi Noem, Governor of South Dakota.
  6. Pam Bondi, former attorney general of Florida
  7. Tim Scott, Senator from South Carolina
  8. Melania Trump, First Lady
  9. Lara Trump, president’s daughter-in-law
  10. The group of five legal immigrants that took the Oath of Citizenship live.

They were all memorable and compelling in their own way.  In my opinion, their stories went a long way to discredit the Dems’ assertion that president Trump is a racist, a misogynist, and, generally, not a nice, caring person.  If you didn’t see them I urge you to find them on U-Tube, and see for yourself.

Historically, following the convention the Party is the beneficiary of a “bounce” in the polls.  The size and duration have varied, but there almost always has been one.  This time, as reported by Reuters and Politico, the Dems did not receive one.  According to the latest CNBC poll Biden’s lead nationally and in the six crucial swing states surveyed – AZ, FL, NC, MI, PA, and WI –  has even narrowed slightly.   He is tied in NC and slightly ahead in the others.

Most pollsters will tell you that in polling momentum is critical.  Therefore, these results do not auger well for Biden even though he is still leading.  This pattern is eerily similar to that of 2016.  The same poll disclosed that Mr. Trump’s approval rating has improved slightly from 46% to 48%.

Concurrently, most voters’ concerns over the CV, though still high, have been diminishing.  This is likely a result of the fact that cases, hospitalizations and fatalities have all been on the decline.  Also, there seems to be real progress on various therapeutic treatments and even a vaccine.  The same poll disclosed that 66% of likely voters expressed “serious” concerns about the CV compared to 69% previously.  Furthermore, the latest Pugh Research poll found that the CV is not the top campaign issues.  The top issues are the economy and law and order.  The CV has slid to 3rd or 4th.  Again, these trends auger well for Mr. Trump.


The RNC has one day to go – the Grand Finale.  The featured speaker is the “big dog,” President Trump.  I think we can anticipate a very positive result.  I expect the audience to be well “north” of 40 million, and the post-convention bounce to be sizeable.

Furthermore, I would not be surprised if the next polls report a slight lead for Mr. Trump.  Regardless, I expect the election to be very contentious, acrimonious and very close.  We may not even know the winner until well after Election Day.  As Mr. Trump is fond of saying, “we’ll see what happens.”


The GOP national convention opened last night, and the contrast with the Dems’ convention was stark.  It was capitalism vs. socialism, optimism vs. pessimism, hope and promise vs. gloom and doom, law and order vs. chaos and lawlessness, unity vs. divisiveness, and celebrating America as the greatest country despite its flaws vs America is “systemically racist” and needs to be torn down and rebuilt.  I’ll give you one guess as to which was which.

Below please find some random thoughts and impressions:

  1. The GOP’s production was superior to that of the Dems’.  I realize this is a subjective comment, but it just seemed to flow better, and the speakers were more interesting.  Hiding in a bunker is simply not a good optic.  More on the speakers below.
  2. Mr. Trump made a point to address and emphasize the two areas that most of us perceive to be where he is most vulnerable – his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and his personality.  Rather than address these issues himself, which might have appeared to be self-serving, he used surrogates.
  3. A few of the speakers, such as Jim Jordan, Nikki Haley, and Tim Scott, reminded us that in January when the CV first appeared most of the country and virtually all of the media was focused on President Trump’s ill-advised and “trumped-up” impeachment.  This proved to be the ultimate distraction.  Nevertheless, Jordan reminded us that Mr. Trump took immediate and decisive action.  Most significantly, in mid-January he instituted travel bans with respect to travelers from China and Europe and formed a task force of medical experts headed up by Vice President Pence to deal with the virus.  In addition, we were shown recorded testimonials of several governors, such as Dems Andrew Cuomo (NY), Gavin Newsome (CA), and Phil Murphy (NJ), praising Mr. Trump for his prompt assistance and support.  In contrast, we heard quotes uttered in late January- early February from Nancy Pelosi assuring us that “everything is fine, come to Chinatown [in San Francisco to celebrate the Chinese New Year],” NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio advising us to “live your life,” and Joe Biden criticizing Mr. Trump’s early actions as “xenophobic” and “fear mongering.”  Now, the Dems conveniently forget this and would have you believe that Trump’s responses were slow and ineffective.  Hopefully, this reminder will end the oft-repeated false narrative that Mr. Trump did not act quickly to combat the CV.
  4. Incidentally, Cuomo should refrain from any further criticism of Mr. Trump’s handling of the virus.  NYS has suffered some 32,000 COVID fatalities, which is the most of any state by far and exceeds the totals of the US’s three largest   states – FL, CA and TX – COMBINED.  As I have blogged previously approximately 15,000 of those fatalities occurred in nursing homes after Cuomo required these facilities to accept healthy elderly patients who then caught the CV from infected residents.
  5. I liked when Scott, in describing his humble beginnings, said his family went “from cotton to Congress in one lifetime.”
  6. With respect to Mr. Trump’s abrasive personality we were presented with testimonials from various ordinary citizens who spoke glowingly of their interactions with him.  Collectively, in my opinion, they were able to “humanize” Mr. Trump, show a softer side, and, in general, successfully debunk this false narrative.  These included Andrew Pollack, whose daughter had been one of the students murdered at Parkland High School, Maximo Alvarez, a Cuban refugee, various COVID careworkers,  the McCloskeys, and, most significantly, Herschel Walker, former NFL great.  Walker described his 37 year friendship with Mr. Trump and his family, including a family trip to Disney World.  Walker’s speech was one of the highlights of the evening.
  7. In its assessment of Day 1 CNN, a frequent critic of Mr. Trump’s, acknowledged that Messrs. Scott, Jordan, Pollack and Haley had been very effective speakers.  The network was critical of other speakers, such as Charlie Kirk and Kimberly Guilfoyle.
  8. I liked Donald Trump Jr’s speech.  I especially liked his characterization of Joe Biden as the “Loch Ness monster” of the swamp.
  9. In case you missed former President Obama’s speech during the DNC he compared Biden’s ideology as virtually indistinguishable from that of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist.  Huh?  I agree.  I think his leftward drift has been fairly obvious, but the Biden campaign has been trying to characterize him as a moderate.  Obama’s comment destroys that false narrative.  In a vain attempt to shore up the support of the “Bernie Bros” Obama may have put a sizeable dent in Biden’s support of moderates and independents.


My expectation is that the next few days will bring more of the same.  In particular, I am looking forward to Melania Trump’s speech from the Rose Garden.  In my opinion, she has been unfairly maligned by Mr. Trump’s critics, especially certain members of the media, and this will be an opportunity for all of us to get to know her better.

I mentioned how well received and effective some of the speeches were.  Don’t be surprised to see excerpts from some of them pop up as campaign ads over the next two plus months, especially Walker’s and Obama’s.

In addition, I am very interested in the tv ratings for the convention.  The ratings for the Dems were rather underwhelming.  C-Span Live reported 76,000 views for the Dems compared to 425,000 for the GOP.  Early returns disclosed that approximately 22 million persons tuned into Biden’s speech.  This paled in comparison to Mr. Trump’s State of the Union speech and 2016 acceptance speech, which drew some 40 million each.  I expect that his acceptance speech later this week will draw at least that much.  I think these numbers are very significant.  They are consistent with the suspected “enthusiasm gap” between Messrs. Trump and Biden and are indicative of the hidden support for Mr. Trump that is not being captured by the polls, I expect this to be a decisive factor on Election day.


If you’re a Biden supporter you may give a big sigh of relief.  Last night, the former VP got through his acceptance speech without incident.  No gaffes; no brain freezes; and no non-sequiturs.  To be sure, expectations were low, but I believe, at least, he met or even exceeded them.

With respect to style I think he did all right.  With respect to content, not so well, as I will explain below.

My main takeaways from the DNC in general and Biden’s speech in particular are as follows:

  1.  Most of the focus was on criticizing President Trump.  Attacking the opposition is a time-honored tactic, but at some point you have to offer solutions.  It’s not enough just to blame President Trump for everything and to accuse him of being a racist and a misogynist.  First of all, it’s not true.  But, more importantly, discerning voters want to hear what the Dems would do to solve all the problems that they say President Trump caused or exacerbated.  For example, it’s not enough to say he mishandled the CV.  What would they have done differently back in January and throughout the summer?   Second-guessing is easy and not acceptable.  Moreover, it’s not enough to rant about the economy.  Voters want to know what the Dems would do to fix it.
  2. Let’s not forget that Biden has been in government for nearly 50 years.  Many of these problems that he is complaining about have existed for most or all of that time.  In all that time, what has he done to resolve them?  Nothing that I can see.
  3. I don’t recall any condemnation or even criticism of the rioting in our cities, all of which are Dem-controlled.  They ignored this as if it didn’t exist.  But, it does.  We see it on our tv screens every night, at least those of us who watch the “real” news.  People’s livelihoods are being destroyed.  People are dying.  People are frightened.  People want to know what our elected officials plan to do about it.
  4. I don’t recall any substantive discussion by either Biden or any of the other speakers of many other issues that voters care about, such as healthcare, restricting gun ownership, confiscating guns, the Green New Deal, tax increases on the middle class, reparations, the economy, China, crime, defunding the police, Hunter Biden, and many others.  I have discussed these and other issues at length in previous blogs.  The Dems ignored them because their positions regarding these issues are not in synch with the majority of voters.   Most of them are viewed by the mainstream as radical, socialist and not practical.  They are hoping the voters will focus their attention elsewhere.
  5. They are pushing really hard for mail-in  voting.  This has been very controversial.  As I have discussed in a previous blog there are many flaws in the concept, and they should be analyzed thoroughly before we rush into it, and in a presidential election, no less.  Rather than debate the matter rationally, their attitude is that anyone who opposes it is a racist.
  6. On the plus side, I liked Biden’s story about his conversation with George Floyd’s daughter.  It was very poignant.


Now what?  Now that the convention is over will Biden return to his basement man-cave, or will he commence campaigning in public?  If he does venture out, will he take questions (and not just from friendly reporters)?  Will he honor his commitment to debate President Trump. or will he look for an excuse to cancel? And, what about Harris?  Will she expose herself to hostile reporters or will she continue to limit herself to friendly venues and audiences?

It will be interesting to see what strategy they employ.  I think their prospective strategy will depend on the following factors, which are somewhat intertwined:

  1. The size of the post-convention “bump” in the polls.   According to The Hill the latest Real Clear Politics poll reports that Biden is leading nationally by seven points.  In addition, he is ahead in most of the battleground states, although the margins have narrowed from those of a few months ago.
  2. How will President Trump and the GOP perform next week.
  3. What will be the size of the GOP post-convention “bump?”
  4. Historically, post-convention “bumps” have averaged around 5%, but this is an abnormal year.

I am anticipating a close election.  Don’t be surprised if something unpredictable and/or significant happens in the next few months to affect the outcome one way or another.



Yesterday, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris made their first public policy speech.  As most of you know, you only get one chance to make a first impression.  Therefore, one would have expected their initial policy announcement to be comprehensive, well-constructed, and significant.  One would have anticipated a statement dealing with the economy, racial inequality, healthcare or some other similarly weighty issue that Americans really care about.  Instead what we got was an inane and gratuitous mask mandate.

What, you say?  Isn’t it safer to wear a mask at all times?  How can it hurt?  Please see my response below.

  1.  Yes.  We should wear a mask whenever we are inside or in close proximity to other people.  Six feet of separation has become the standard.  In point of fact, in my experience, we are already complying with that with few exceptions.  If one wants to enter any public place there are signs reminding one of the requirement.  If you don’t comply, you don’t get in.  In that context the Biden-Harris dictatorial mandate is gratuitous and unnecessary.
  2. Many people will view this as unnecessary, non-beneficial, and yet another infringement on our liberties, which have already taken multiple “hits” since “9/11.”  America is a republic, not an autocracy.  If Mr. Trump had promulgated such a policy he would have been castigated as a “dictator.”
  3. I have not seen any science that supports wearing a mask when, for example, you are alone in your backyard.
  4. Are we supposed to wear a mask when swimming in the ocean, when eating outside at a restaurant, or when we’re alone with no one in the vicinity?  Incidentally, have you ever attempted to eat or drink through a mask?  Or kiss your wife?
  5. How will this be enforced?  Are we going to ask police who have been instructed to standby and ignore looters and criminals to fine or arrest non-mask wearers?  Are we going to be encouraged to inform on our friends and neighbors?  Did I go to sleep last night in the US and wake up this morning in Soviet Russia circa 1930?
  6. I’m sure that the governors are just thrilled to have been put on the spot to enforce this.
  7. I’m not a lawyer, but I doubt that this is even constitutional?  Perhaps, a president could issue an Executive Order, but Biden is not the president.  Thank God!


I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point.  Obviously, this was a clumsy, hasty, contrived attempt to “win the day” with the media.  It was not well thought out.  All the various ramifications were not considered.  I hope that this will not be a typical example of their policies, but I fear it might be. They didn’t even take any questions from the media to explain the finer points of the policy.  That was probably a wise decision, since any questions would likely have exposed their mandate to the ridicule it deserved.

In normal times, this policy would be mockingly portrayed on Saturday Night Live.  Alas, don’t hold your breath for that.  Remember Harris is “untouchable, immune from criticism.”

Perhaps, Harris should join Biden in his basement, and the two of them should stay there permanently.


First, let’s discuss the positives regarding Kamala Harris.  She is the third woman, and first one of color, to be selected to run on a national ticket.  (Can you name the others?  See answers below.)  That is a milestone of which all Americans should be proud.  If the Biden-Harris ticket were to win, in my opinion, that, combined with having elected an African American president twice, should put to bed once and for all the false narrative that Americans are racist and misogynistic.  It probably won’t as Dems find it useful to trot out those accusations when it suits them, but it should.

Kamala Devi Harris was born on October 20, 1964 in Oakland, CA.  Her background is quite interesting.  Many people don’t realize that technically, she is not African American.  Her mother, is a scientist who had emigrated from India; her father is a university professor of economics who had emigrated from Jamaica.  She is not a “rags to riches” story as some have portrayed.  She had what I would consider to be a middle class upbringing in the Berkeley, CA area.  She is a graduate of Howard University and the UC Hastings College of the Law.  Before being elected to the US Senate in 2016 she served as district attorney in Alameda County and the City of San Francisco as well as Attorney General of the State of California.

Historically, the VP nominee has had little impact on the presidential election, itself.  Generally, voters focus on the candidate for president, and rightly so.  Most VP nominees have been plucked from obscurity to “balance” the ticket in some way, either ideologically or geographically.  After the election, most of them are soon forgotten.  Only four vice presidents have subsequently won election for president in their own right,  How many can you name?  See below.

That said, I believe that given concerns among many voters about Joe Biden’s health, stamina and cognitive abilities, 2020 may be an exception.  To me, the current situation is reminiscent of the 1944 election.  Although most voters were not aware of it FDR was in ill health and unlikely to complete the term,  Therefore, it was likely that Harry Truman would ascend to the presidency at some point.  I view the current situation as being similar.   Although voters should focus primarily on Trump and Biden, Harris’ qualifications merit close scrutiny as well.

I see three major issues.  (1) What kind of VP would she make; (2) will she help, hurt or have an negligible effect on Biden’s candidacy; and (3) what are her qualifications to be president if, as many suspect, Biden does not complete his term?

My comments with respect to Harris’ are as follows:

  1.  I view her as the “teflon candidate.”  Criticize her at your risk.  Don’t be surprised if any criticism of her or her policies is characterized by the Dems and/or the liberal media as either “racist” or “misogynistic.”
  2. I am not sure what, if any, power base she brings to the ticket.  California is a solidly blue state already, and I can’t identify what other states she might deliver for the ticket.
  3. When she was CA AG she was accused of protecting her campaign contributors to the detriment of the citizens of CA.  For instance, she has long been accused of acting in the best interests of the Silicon Valley tech moguls, like twitter, Facebook, among others.  This could become a significant issue as these companies have virtual monopolies relative to the dissemination of information, to the detriment of our right to free speech.  Moreover, she declined to investigate Planned Parenthood, another of her significant backers, regarding the alleged sale of body parts of aborted fetuses.
  4. Her policies are strongly liberal, if not radically left.  She has fully embraced the policies espoused by the Sanders-AOC wing of the Party.  For example, she supports the Green New Deal, reparations, Black Lives Matter, defunding the police, free healthcare for everyone, including undocumented persons, slashing military spending, socialized medicine, and open borders.  She is against fracking, private healthcare insurance and charter schools.
  5. I can’t think of any significant bill she sponsored during her tenure in the Senate.
  6. She has characterized ICE as a “domestic terrorist” organization; yet, she has not condemned or even spoken out against the rioters, looters and criminals who have been destroying our cities.
  7. Many voters see her as inauthentic.  She seems to change her positions whenever it is expedient to do so.  Even the NY Times has pointed this out.  As an example, during one debate she famously skewered Biden for his claiming that Robert Byrd, a known KKK member and sympathizer and virulent segregationist, was a “mentor” and for his kind words with respect to other notorious “segregation senators,” such as Strom Thurmond and James Eastland.  Furthermore, she sharply criticized him for giving a eulogy at Byrd’s funeral.  In addition she criticized his stance on busing and crime.  Now, when it suits her, she’s willing to put aside the foregoing and be his running mate.  My favorite of her “flip-flops,” however, is with respect to allowing teenagers to vote.  Recently, she has spoken out in favor of giving teenagers as young as 16 the right to vote, but not long ago in an interview on that issue she denigrated 16 year-olds as “stupid.”
  8. She’s been twisting the facts about the pandemic, blaming President Trump, for the 160,000 plus pandemic-related deaths of American citizens.  Anyone who has been paying attention knows there is plenty of blame to go around including state governors, medical professionals and especially China.
  9.  She has characterized President Trump as “soft” on terrorism, which is simply an outright lie and laughable.
  10. In the primaries she did not demonstrate strong popularity even among Dem voters.  She consistently polled in the single digits and had to drop out even before the first primary.
  11. Even among blacks her poll numbers were not that great, possibly due to her record as California AG.


I don’t think Harris is qualified to be president from the standpoint of either experience or ideology.  She has no experience running anything, a state, a business, or anything else.  Moreover, as I demonstrated above she is considerably to the “left” of the mainstream.  She and her supporters will try to hide this and portray her as a “moderate.”  After she was selected the NY Times characterized her as a “pragmatic moderate.”  Huh?  I don’t even know what that is, but clearly she is not any kind of moderate, nor is Biden by the way.  Forget labels.  Just look at the policies they support.

Answers to quiz questions:

  1.  Geraldine Ferraro (1984) & Sarah Palin (2008)
  2.  John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George H. W. Bush


There are now fewer than 90 days until Election Day.  Fewer than 90 days until what I and many others believe will be the most significant and historic presidential election in American history, a genuine watershed election.  Exaggeration?  Hyperbole?  If you think so, read on, and I will try to demonstrate why I believe that to be true.

Historically, most presidential elections have offered two candidates with small, subtle differences in political philosophy.  Perhaps, one is a little more liberal, and the other a little more conservative, but by Election Day both candidates will have softened the sharp edges of their respective platforms and gravitated toward the “middle,” because that is where most of the voters are.  To be sure, there have occasionally been exceptions to this rule, e. g. Goldwater in 1964 and McGovern in 1972, but they were too far out of the mainstream and consequently were trounced decisively.  The lesson has been clear; if you want to win, soften the sharp edges of your policies and appeal to the majority in the middle.

That is not the case this year.  This year we are being offered a clear choice.  Simply put, we, the voters, have to decide between capitalism as we have known it and lived it for nearly 250 years up to and including the present and socialism as advocated by the Dems prospectively.  Those of you who have been following the news with an open mind realize this.  If not, read on.

First of all, there are two points to get out of the way.

  1.  About half the country despises President Trump, personally,  He is often arrogant, crude, rude and embarrassing.  I get it.  But, I say that is secondary to the other issues that are facing us.  He is running for President of the United States, not high school senior class president.  We are not looking to “hang out” with him; he’s not looking to be your friend.  Personal traits and popularity are secondary to policies and results.  As I have detailed in many previous blogs, he has delivered results, in spades.  So, why should the other stuff matter?  Hint, it shouldn’t.
  2. The charming, folksy “Uncle Joe” many of us remember from the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s is gone, long gone.  That Biden, who, despite his flaws (for example, occasionally a little “handsy” with women, a minor gaffe or unintelligible comment), many of us viewed as akin to an eccentric, but likeable, uncle, no longer exists.  I don’t want to be mean-spirited, but it has been replaced by a shell of a man with cognitive deficiencies.   Don’t take my word for it.  See for yourself.  Watch his news conferences (the ones that are unedited by friendly media outlets).  Even though they are scripted and carefully monitored by his handlers they are replete with gaffes, blunders, inaccuracies, and vague, wandering comments.  His handlers are cognizant of his condition.  Why else do you think they continue to restrict him to his basement?  Why do you think he restricts his few and infrequent appearances to interviews with friendly journalists who only ask him “softball” questions?

Let’s put personality aside and focus on the politics.

  1. The Biden of 2020 is “malleable Joe,” who is under the influence of the “Bernie Bros”, AOC and other denizens of the far left.  He figures he needs their support to win, and, consequently, he will say and do anything they want to curry favor.
  2. He has embraced the Bernie/AOC platform hook, line and sinker.  This is the same platform that, a few short months ago, primary voters rejected as too radical.  I have described this platform, in detail, in previous blogs.  Some of the highlights (or lowlights) include open borders, free medical for all, even illegals, free education and voting rights for illegals, a tax increase that will surely include the middle class, restricting free speech, confiscating guns, defunding the police, and the centerpiece of it all – the Green New Deal.  If you value the first and second amendments and the right to protect yourself and your family why would ever vote for Biden?
  3. Just to be clear the GND would eliminate fracking and decimate the oil, gas, coal, auto and other blue collar industries.  If you work in those industries, why in the world would you ever vote for Biden?  A vote for Biden would be a vote to destroy your and your family’s livelihood.
  4. Biden’s wife and some of his supporters have claimed he is a “moderate.”  That is a total mischaracterization and fabrication.  There is no basis in fact for that statement.  Forget labels.  Would you consider anyone who endorses the above policies a “moderate?”  I don’t think so.  Recently, Biden, himself, stated he would be the “most progressive president ever.”  I say, take him at his word.
  5. Incredibly, Biden has refused to condemn or even criticize the rioters who have been destroying our cities and our historical and religious monuments.  They are not “protesters” as some Dems and many of those in the media have characterized them.  They are not “demonstrators.”  Protestors and demonstrators are peaceful.  They don’t destroy property.  They don’t attack innocent bystanders with clubs and lasers.  They don’t murder people.  These are lawless criminals pure and simple.  They have hijacked the Black Lives Matter movement.  And, Biden just sits there.  The old Biden, the moderate Biden, the Biden we remember, would have spoken out forcefully.  If you value our historical figures and our first amendment right to worship freely why would you ever vote for Biden?
  6. Biden and his supporters portray him as a strong supporter of the Black and Hispanic communities.  But, in his 50 or so years in the Senate and as VP can you name one positive accomplishment of his that helped Blacks, Hispanics, and other disadvantaged persons?  Just one.  You can’t, can you.
  7. On the other hand, Donald Trump has accomplished a great deal for those groups in just 3 1/2 years, to wit: (1) the lowest unemployment ever (pre-Covid) for Blacks, Hispanics, teenagers, and women, (2) prison reform, (3) aid to Black colleges, and (4) restricting legal and illegal immigration, among others.  He has done more in 3 1/2 years than Biden has done in 50!  And he is supposedly the racist?!
  8. Who said “If you [black people] don’t vote for me you ain’t black?”  Who insulted blacks by characterizing them as homogeneous while Hispanics are diverse?  Who stated he didn’t want his children growing up in a “racial jungle?”  I’ll give you a hint – Biden, Biden and Biden.


Yes, the old “Uncle Joe” we knew and liked is gone.  It is a fantasy being perpetuated by a desperate Party that will do anything to defeat Mr. Trump.  They will even nominate and support a person they know is cognitively impaired and completely under the influence of the radical left.  They are doing their best to hide this and hoping that moderate and independent voters are too distracted and too apathetic to notice.  I believe that we are too smart for that.  Don’t be deceived,

Do you want a cognitively-impaired person like Biden in control of the “nuclear football?”  What a nightmare.  To repeat, because it so important, based on Biden’s own words, a vote for him is a vote for socialism and against the first amendment, the second amendment, energy independence, and jobs in the oil, gas, coal, auto, and many other industries.   The choice is yours.  Don’t blow it!  You will have to answer to your children and grandchildren.

Biden has been a US Senator and VP for nearly 50 years.  He has had a nice, long run.  So let’s put an end to this fantasy of “Uncle Joe,”  It’s time to say good-by.


A couple of weeks ago we lost a genuine civil rights pioneer.  He was in the forefront of the movement for some 65 years beginning in 1955.  Furthermore, his life was truly a “rags to riches” story that is possible only in America.

John Robert Lewis was born on February 21, 1940 on a farm outside of Troy, AL, the third of ten children.  His parents were sharecroppers.  It is hard to believe that a man of such accomplishments arose from such humble beginnings, but he did.  As I said, “only in America.”

As a youngster, Lewis wanted to be a preacher.  Supposedly, he would practice his sermons on the farm’s chickens.  In the rural segregated South, at first, he had very little interaction with white people and was not aware of the racism that was a way of life.  As get got older, however, and began to accompany his family into the nearby town, that changed in a hurry.  Then, he thought “Jim Crow” was the way of life everywhere until, at the age of 11, he and his family traveled to Buffalo, NY to visit relatives.  It was a real eye-opener.  He couldn’t help but contrast the stark differences of the integrated North with the segregated South.

Lewis’ life began to change in 1955 when he heard a speech by Martin Luther King on the radio.  Thereafter, he began to follow King’s career, particularly the Montgomery, AL bus boycott that year.  A few years later he actually met King and even Rosa Parks.

At the same time, he was pursuing his goal of becoming a minister.  He began to give public sermons.  Moreover, he attended the American Baptist Theological Seminary in Nashville, and was ordained as a Baptist minister.  In addition, he graduated from Fisk University with a Bachelor’s degree in religion and philosophy.

During his student days he remained immersed in the civil rights movement in Nashville.  Following the precepts of non-violence practiced by Dr. King he organized and participated in sit-ins at segregated lunch counters, bus boycotts and a variety of other protests.  Although these were successful and Lewis was an advocate of non-violence he was arrested many times.

In 1961 Lewis was one of the original 13 “freedom riders.”  The Supreme Court had mandated the integration of interstate bus travel, but the ruling was not being enforced in many areas of the South.  The 13 whites and blacks determined to ride from Washington, D. C. to New Orleans in an integrated fashion to force the issue.  As you can surmise, they were attacked and beaten by unruly mobs and arrested.  For example, in Birmingham the crowd beat them with chains, baseball bats, lead pipes and stones, and then the police arrested them and transported them across the state line to Tennessee.  The “riders” were not dissuaded.  They went to Montgomery where they were assaulted again.  This time, Lewis was beaten unconscious and left for dead on the floor of the Montgomery bus station.  As he told a CNN interviewer years later, “I thought I was going to die.”  Incredibly, 48 years later Lewis received a nationally-televised apology from the Klansman who had beaten him so severely.

Lewis was one of the founders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (“SNCC”), and in 1963 he became the chairman of the group.  SNCC was noted for its non-violent approach to the advancement of civil rights.  For example, it established Freedom Schools and organized voting registration campaigns throughout the South.

On March 9, 1965 Lewis was one of the organizers and leaders of the famous march from Selma, AL to Montgomery, which included some 600 persons.  This was actually the first of three such marches. Despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 voter registration of blacks was severely lagging.   For example, in Dallas County blacks comprised some 50% of the population but only 2% of the registered voters.  The purpose of the march was to highlight this disparity.

As the marchers walked over the Edmund Pettus bridge, peacefully, they were nevertheless viciously attacked by police.  Lewis was among those who were severely beaten on national tv.  The incident became known as “Bloody Sunday.”  The naked violence of this attack shocked and disgusted much of the tv audience.  Much of the public in the North had not really appreciated the gravity of the situation in the South, and this incident brought it home to them very graphically.  Many of the marchers, including Lewis and King, were arrested.  From his jail cell King wrote a letter to the NY Times in which he stated, facetiously, “there are more Negroes in jail with me than there are on the voting rolls [in Selma].”  Many people maintain that that incident was a turning point in the civil rights movement.

In 2014, the incident was portrayed in the movie, Selma in which Lewis was played by Stephan James.  The movie, which was very well done, exposed a whole new generation to the violence of the times and the early struggle for equal rights.

In 1986 Lewis was elected to the US House of Representatives representing the district that encompasses much of Atlanta.  He was very popular.  He was re-elected 16 times, all but once with more than 70% of the vote.  During his tenure he continued to aggressively champion liberal causes.

In 2008 he supported Barack Obama for the presidency.   When Obama was elected Lewis was asked if this represented “the fulfillment of MLK’s dream.”  He replied: “No.  It’s just a down payment.”  In 2016 he supported Clinton over Trump.  He unfairly compared Mr. Trump to George Wallace and declined to attend his inauguration.  This year his endorsement of Joe Biden is generally credited with Biden’s winning the Democratic presidential nomination.


In my opinion, in stark contrast to the many pseudo advocates of civil rights who are currently polluting the airwaves and newspapers and are nothing more than “race baiters,” Lewis was a legitimate hero of the civil rights movement.  He was there at the very beginning in 1955.  He organized and attended many of the rallies, marches and sit-ins.  He was beaten and arrested numerous times.  He advocated non-violence.  He paid his dues in blood.  As a Congressman he remained a strong advocate for civil rights and other liberal causes.

Lewis was the recipient of countless awards  and honors, too many to list here.  The most prestigious was the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  He was also an accomplished author.

Lewis passed away on July 17 of pancreatic cancer at the age of 80.  Rest in peace John.  Even though you are no longer with us your legacy will live forever.