Who is the most corrupt family in America? Until a few days ago, a majority of you would probably have answered unhesitatingly, “the Clintons.” Good guess, but in the last few days we have learned that the answer is “the Bidens.” Before dismissing this as a partisan opinion, please withhold final judgment until you have read the rest of this blog.

For some time there have been whispers about Joe’s son, Hunter’s illicit business dealings with shadowy oligarchs from Ukraine, Russia and China, which have netted him billions of dollars in exchange for contributing little or no expertise and experience. Furthermore, most of us have heard Joe’s account in which he bragged he threatened to withhold billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine unless it fired the investigator who was investigating Hunter’s ties to Burisma. It was only after they fired the investigator that he released the aid money.

The Biden family has consistently denied any wrongdoing, and the compliant media has declined to press them on it. During the presidential debate and the recent town hall Q & A Biden was not asked one question about Hunter’s dealings by either the moderator or any of the questioners. Hunter, himself, is a shadowy figure, a ne’er -do-well without any significant accomplishments in his life except being VP Joe Biden’s son. Moreover, he has been involved in hard drugs and pornography.. He has been living his life on Joe’s coattails. As the old expression goes, “he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.”

But, a few days ago the NY Post published a story that blew the lid off the veil of secrecy surrounding Hunter, Joe and the rest of the Bidens. Probably, if you don’t read the Post or watch Fox News you are not aware of this story as it has received scant attention in the general media. That, in and of itself, is a major story. Anyway, you can read the entire story on the Post’s website, but briefly, the essence of it is as follows:

  1. The intrepid Post reporter who broke the story was Miranda Devine. Kudos to her for having the fortitude to do so.
  2. The Post had obtained copies of Hunter Biden’s emails that described his business dealings with Burisma and mysterious oligarchs in Ukraine, Russia and China.
  3. The laptop containing the emails had been dropped off at a computer repair ship in Delaware several months ago, and it had never been picked up. In the course of repairing the device the shop’s owner became aware of the sizeable amount of emails and the nature of the emails it contained, particularly dealings with foreign powers and a multitude of explicit pornographic pictures.
  4. At first, he sent a copy of the emails to the FBI. After several months of non-follow-up from the FBI and no reporting from the media he took action on his own. He sent copies of them to Rudy Giuliani and Giuliani’s attorney.
  5. Giuliani and his attorney spent weeks authenticating the emails as did the Post.
  6. Meanwhile, the shop owner was able to verify that the laptop did, in fact, belong to Hunter when Hunter’s attorney called him up “demanding his client’s laptop back.”
  7. According to Giuliani there is no doubt that the emails are Hunter’s as they contain information of which only Hunter would be aware.
  8. The emails describe Hunter’s business dealings with the Ukrainian and Chinese oligarchs in great detail. For example, Hunter acted as an intermediary between a Chinese group called CEC and his father and other White House officials. He was able to get the Chinese into the WH surreptitiously through a private entrance to meet with Joe and the others. There is no official record of the meeting, but Giuliani’s reliable source is the actual doorkeeper who let them in.
  9. Subsequently, the Bidens went into business with CEC and made millions of dollars. Hunter got his no-show job, and Joe was an “active participant.”
  10. According to the Post, Fox and other sources the proceeds of this venture were to be split among the five participants, including Hunter, and Hunter wrote how he was “saving 10% for the ‘Big Guy.’ ” Who is “the Big Guy?” The evidence strongly suggests and Fox has confirmed it is Joe Biden.
  11. Another source of this story is author Peter Schweitzer who claims to have gotten access to some 26,000 of Hunter’s partner’s emails. According to Schweitzer they implicate Hunter as a “fixer” who enabled CEC to secure access to Joe and other influential WH officials. It should be noted that two of Hunter’s partners have been convicted of various crimes and imprisoned, yet Hunter was not even charged. I don’t think this indicates Hunter’s innocence so much as his connections and influence.
  12. Biden, his lawyer, and members of his campaign have denied any wrongdoing, and Joe has dismissed it as a “smear campaign.” But, I and others maintain the evidence conclusively proves otherwise.
  13. This should be a huge story, and you can be sure that if it involved Mr. Trump it would be. Yet it has barely been covered by most of the media.


This entire sordid affair is nothing less than a gross betrayal of the American people. It begs the question, what does China “have” on Joe? Is there a quid pro quo of which we are not yet aware? If we had a legitimate independent media it would have been recognized as arguably the most despicable and scandalous betrayal of America and the American people in history. Investigations would have commenced. Bureaucrats would have been forced to resign. Elected officials would have been impeached. The perpetrators would be facing prison.

How can Biden possibly be trusted to conduct a foreign policy, as President, that is in the bests interests of America? These revelations explain why he has been so soft in his criticism of China. In light of these revelations, is he even fit to serve as president? It would take a team of lawyers to identify the plethora of laws that the Bidens have broken. This situation is significantly worse than the fake Russian scandal involving Trump, which fostered a Special Counsel investigation and months of wall-to-wall media coverage.

And yet, as bad as this is, it is not the worst aspect of the matter. The worst part is that Facebook and Twitter unilaterally and arbitrarily cancelled the Facebook and Twitter accounts of the Post and others who retweeted the story. What about freedom of speech?

Every American should be horrified by this blatant censorship, yet, outside of President Trump, a few Republican Congressmen and Fox, I have heard barely a peep. I feel like last night I went to sleep in America and woke up this morning in Soviet Russia circa 1930.

This brazen censorship has highlighted the power that social media outlets, such as Facebook, Google and Twitter possess. According to reporter Josh Hammer these entities control some 90% of the US “search market.” That is tantamount to an oligarchical control over the nation’s public opinion outlets.

Congress may finally be waking up to this situation and recognizing it as the existential threat to our democracy it appears to be. The tech companies think they are above the law, but this time they may have gone too far. At the present time, these companies enjoy an exemption from antitrust laws under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. However, concerned Congressional leaders have subpoenaed the CEOs of these entities to appear for questioning. The body is threatening to repeal Section 230. We’ll see what happens but we should all be aware of this current threat to our freedom of speech.

As far as Biden is concerned, in light of this scandal how can we possibly trust him as president? How can we rely on him to act in the best interests of America instead of his own and those who “own” him? If any of you are still planning to vote for Biden I think you need to reevaluate your choice.

Are the Polls Accurate

“Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” So said the late comedian, Chico Marx in the 1933 comedy classic, Duck Soup. This line has been quoted (and misquoted) often in the intervening years. In any event, I think it accurately describes what is occurring in the 2020 presidential election campaign.

On the one hand, we have the polls, which have been consistently reporting Biden leading both in the overall vote and in most of the battleground states. If we believe these polls Biden will be elected by a landslide.

On the other hand, night after night we see massive turnouts for Mr. Trump’s rallies and the tremendous enthusiasm these crowds are generating. By contrast, Biden’s crowds are significantly smaller and less enthusiastic. The media has been trying to disguise this fact, but we can see it on tv with our own eyes.

This inconsistency causes one to doubt the validity of the polls. We saw the same thing in 2016, and we all know how that election turned out. I am not an expert on the science of polling, but various pundits have put forth theories as to why the polls seem at odds with what we are actually seeing. Some of them are the following:

  1. The sampling, itself, is flawed in that pollsters interview proportionally a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans.
  2. Some Trump supporters are reluctant to admit it to a pollster.
  3. It is difficult to quantify the impact of this higher level of enthusiasm among Trump supporters. Many pollsters believe enthusiastic supporters are more likely to actually vote, but the effect of that likelihood is subjective.
  4. According to various reports, the GOP is ahead of the Dems in registering new voters, and new voters are generally more motivated to vote.

Meanwhile, Biden continues to commit gaffes. In just the last few days:

  1. He referred to Mr. Trump as having won Ohio “two times,” as if he (Trump) were running for the third time.
  2. He couldn’t recall Mitt Romney’s name, referring to him as “that Mormon.”
  3. He confused former Senators Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy. One would be hard-pressed to find two Senators more unalike than them.
  4. In answering a reporter’s question he referred to voters as having “poor memory,” a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black!


All the various polls I have been monitoring are consistently predicting Biden as the winner. For example, the Guardian has him leading 52% – 42% nationally. Moreover, according to the same poll he is leading in six of the eight battleground states (FL, PA, MI, NC, AZ and WI) by between 2% and 8%. Trump has a 2% lead in Ohio, and Iowa is dead even. The other polls are reporting similar results. So, Biden will win in a landslide, right?

Not so fast. These polls are eerily similar to those of 2016. We all remember how that turned out. For the reasons cited above I expect a very close election, at least in electoral votes.

Also, it is noteworthy that a recent Gallup Poll disclosed that 56% of voters think they are better off today than they were four years ago. That is one of the highest percentages ever recorded, and it is all the more remarkable when you consider that we are in the midst of a pandemic.

It’s a timeworn cliche, but the only poll that counts is the one on Election Day.



“The voters don’t deserve to know.” So said Joe Biden in response to a question from a member of the media in Nevada regarding Supreme Court “packing.” Biden, Harris and other Dems have refused to clarify their stance on the issue. They have said they will let us know after the election. Huh? We should trust them? Do they think the voters are idiots? Of course, we all know that their refusal to clarify their position is tantamount to an admission that they will “pack” the court, but voters want to hear the answer nonetheless.

In a related issue Biden has refused to disclose his list of candidates he would consider for the SC should he win the election. Mr. Trump has already disclosed his list of candidates. Most likely Biden is afraid that the names on the list will anger either his moderate supporters or his far left supporters (or maybe both). In any case, the voters deserve to know.

The Dems and their allies in the media have been disseminating a lot of misleading and inaccurate information about the SC and the issue of nominating and approving justices in an election year. Hopefully, the following will clarify matters:

  1. Originally, the SC had six members. The number has varied throughout history, but most of the time there have been nine, like now.
  2. The Constitution provides for Congress to determine the number of justices.
  3. The Constitution explicitly gives the President the power to nominate SC justices. It does not say “except in an election year.” That is an absurd notion. A president is elected for four years, not three. He can even nominate a justice after losing the election.
  4. He can nominate a justice when the Senate is not in session. That is called a “recess appointment.” It has been done a few times, most recently by President Eisenhower in the 1950s. In that event, the nominee serves as a justice for the time being and must be approved by the Senate before the end of the next calendar year.
  5. In the present situation, the Dems would have you believe that President Trump is doing something unique and underhanded, if not illegal. In point of fact, President Trump is not the first President who has had an opportunity to nominate a replacement justice during an election year. There have been twenty-nine such occasions. Would you like to guess in how many of those instances the president has nominated a justice? Twenty-nine. That’s right, every time. So, the criticism of Trump in this regard is just another misdirection.
  6. The same Party controlled the Senate and the Presidency, like now, in nineteen of those cases.
  7. Ten of those nominations were put forth before the election. The Senate approved nine of those. The only rejection was of Abe Fortas whose nomination was derailed by ethical issues, not because it was an election year.
  8. Recently, Biden made the inane statement that Judge Barrett’s nomination was an example of “packing” the court. This was the opposite of what he has said in the past when adding a justice suited the Dems. Another flipflop. Once again, Biden is forgetting that we actually have an invention called videotape, which can record and play back his past comments.
  9. Perhaps, Biden should refamiliarize himself with the Constitution. We have already seen that he is unfamiliar with the wording of the Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance.


Now, we have seen another example of why Biden’s handlers want to limit his appearances, want to limit any questioning to puff questions from friendly members of the media, and want to keep him hidden away in his basement. Almost every time he is out in public he says something that makes you scratch your head. Over the next few days we can expect Dem spokesmen to try to “walk back” his comments, but the damage is done. This entire issue over the SC will not go away, nor should it.

Why is “packing” the SC so dangerous? The Founding Fathers took great care to establish a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. Simply put, Congress passes the laws; the president enforces them; and the SC interprets them. Each of the three branches of government has the ability to “check” the others. “Packing” the SC with far left justices would enable it to, in effect, become an unelected legislature, to “legislate from the bench,” i.e. create de facto laws. Voters who have the power to vote out members of Congress they don’t approve of would be unable to replace rogue justices who serve for life. The carefully crafted system of checks and balances would be severely impaired, if not destroyed.

Our system of government is like a three-legged stool in perfect balance. If one leg were to be broken the entire stool would collapse. We cannot and should not allow that to happen. That is why “packing” the court is so dangerous.

At the present time, voters are distracted by COVID, the economy and other issues. They need to focus on this issue as well. This issue is equally important, if not more so. Some day, COVID will be a distant memory, but the effects of a “packed” SC could last forever.


The one and only vice presidential debate was held on Wednesday, October 7 between Vice President Mike Pence and Dem candidate Kamala Harris. Historically, vice presidential debates have been largely inconsequential. People have voted based upon the presidential candidates, not the VPs Normally, the notoriety of the VP candidates is transitory, and it fades from memory soon after the election, especially if they lose.

For example, how many of the last five LOSING VP candidates can you name? See answers below. (Naming the winners would have probably been too easy for most of you, so I wanted to challenge you. Full disclosure: I didn’t remember them all either, which proves my point.)

That said, in my opinion this year will be an exception. If Joe Biden were to win the election he would be 79 on Inauguration Day, which would be nine years older than the next oldest president, which, ironically, is Donald Trump. The median age of US Presidents on ID is 55. It is a young man’s job. Because of Biden’s age and his perceived compromised acuity and cognition among many voters there is doubt among them that he will be able to complete the first term should he win. Therefore, the qualifications and policies of Kamala Harris are taking on greater significance than normally would be the case.

To no great surprise, my research has indicated that, in general, Trump supporters thought Pence had won, and Biden supporters thought Harris had won. To be sure, there were some exceptions, but we all have our personal biases, so that is normal. A post-debate ABC poll reported an even split. Therefore, I am not sure how may minds were changed either way.

Below please find my analysis of the debate. As those of you who have been reading my blogs could guess, I think Pence won handily. I will demonstrate why below.

  1. The moderator, Susan Page, failed to ask certain questions that needed to be answered with respect to (a) rioting in the cities, (b) Harris’ support for the fund to bail out those jailed for rioting, (c) defunding the police, (d) immigration, (e) Biden’s record of sexual harassment, (f) his ties to Robert Byrd and various segregationist senators, and, perhaps most significantly, (g) his list of possible nominees for SC vacancies. I realize time was limited, but these are important topics that, coincidentally, reflect poorly on Biden-Harris. Consequently, some have questioned her objectivity.
  2. As always, both candidates wanted to defend their respective running mates against attacks by the other side and avoid committing memorable gaffes like the ones I mentioned in my previous blog.
  3. Harris’ primary goal was to beat up on President Trump’s record, particularly with respect to issues on which he was perceived to be vulnerable, such as his handling of the pandemic, the post-COVID economy, and that old standby, racism.
  4. Her secondary goal was to avoid having to answer questions on certain topics, such as the Green New Deal, taxes, fracking and “packing” the Supreme Court. These are examples of issues she and Biden have either refused to discuss of have flip-flopped their position depending on their audience. They are forced to do this because they have to portray themselves as moderate to the general populace while, at the same time, avoid offending the radical left Sanders supporters whose support they need to win. They have been aided and abetted in this “shell” game by a biased media, which refuses to ask them tough questions.
  5. Harris was unwilling or unable to provide answers on (1) “packing” the Supreme Court, (2) reasons for the Dems stalling the latest COVID relief bill, and (3) accepting the results of the election. Regarding “packing “the Court it is obvious that Biden’s and Harris’ refusal to deny it is tantamount to an admission that they will seek to do so. Pelosi and Schumer had pointed out that “everything is on the table.” We should take them at their word. Regarding the COVID relief bill Pelosi has admitted she wants to “bail out” states like CA , IL and NY that have been overly profligate in their spending. Their financial plight has nothing to do with expenses related to COVID. Regarding accepting the election results, in reality, both Parties want to keep their options open, because, clearly, there is a substantial risk of election irregularities, if not outright fraud. Criticizing Trump for this and not Biden is grossly misleading. Also, Hillary Clinton and other prominent Dems have continually advised Biden to “never concede” the election results.
  6. Pence’s goals were to expose Harris’ inexperience on national and international issues and get her to answer questions on the above topics.
  7. Pence exposed Harris on the following: (a) Biden’s plan for dealing with the CV was so similar to what Trump has done and plans to do that he said it “resembles plagiarism, a concept with which [Biden] is familiar;” (b) the debunking of the Russia alleged collusion investigation, and best of all (c) Harris’ criticism of the developing vaccinations to the point that many Americans may mistrust it and be reluctant to take it. He said that was unconscionable and could cost many Americans their lives. Question to ponder: If Biden were to win and a vaccination were to become available would the Dems promote it and take it or continue to denigrate it?
  8. Harris told several boldfaced lies. Some of the more egregious ones that I recall were the following:

a. She claimed Biden’s plan to eliminate the so-called “Trump Tax Cuts” would only raise taxes for Americans earning over $400,000. Pence pointed out that Biden’s plan would raise taxes on all working and middle class Americans by $2,000 or more as the “Trump Tax Cuts” had reduced other taxes besides income taxes.

b. She denied that Biden would eliminate fracking. The reality is he has flip-flopped on that issue depending upon his audience at the time, but the radical left wing of the Dem Party wants it eliminated, and the Dems’ own website calls for it to be eliminated.

c. She would not answer any questions about packing the SC, statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, or ending the Senate filibuster rule. Pence correctly asserted that a refusal to answer was, in essence, an admission that they intend to push through all those changes once they obtain the power to do so. Each of these actions would result in solidifying Dem control of the Senate and/or the SC, and hence the entire government, perhaps, for a long time.

d. She denied support for the Green New Deal, whereas their own website expresses support for it. If you’re not familiar with the GND I urge you to read my previous blogs on it and see for yourself how it would fundamentally change our way of life as well as bankrupt the country.

e. She cited Trump’s comments after the Charlottesville riots as evidence he is a racist and a white supremist. In point of fact, she took his comments out of context. Trump has condemned White Supremacy, the KKK and David Duke many times. I have seen the tapes. Biden is the one who has made racist comments in the past.

f. She said that Abe Lincoln had not nominated anyone to the SC prior to the 1864 election. She failed to point out that the Senate was not in session, and that as soon as it returned he did so.


As I said above, I believe most of those who watched the debate will feel that their person won. That’s only normal. The post-debate ABC poll bears this out. The result of the poll was virtually an even split. In my opinion, Pence was the clear winner, primarily for the reasons cited above.

As a general analysis I would add that Harris did not seem to be prepared for the intensity of the moment. She did not have a good answer for various questions. She either dodged them or lied. Perhaps, that was because neither she nor Biden has been subjected to and toughened by the close media scrutiny and criticism that Trump and Pence have. Pence had the best sound bite when on two occasions he admonished Harris for twisting the facts saying “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Like Biden, Harris flip-flopped on several issues.

One final point. The classic question before every election is “are you better off today than you were four years ago?” According to a recent Gallup Poll 56% of Americans say “yes,” and only 32% say “no.” Normally, that would augur well for the incumbent. But, this has been a crazy year.

The poll results do make some sense to me. They appear to confirm what many of us think, namely that a majority of voters like Mr. Trump’s accomplishments but not the man, personally. How those conflicting views will play out in the election is anybody’s guess.

Quiz answers: 2000 – Joe Lieberman; 2004 – John Edwards; 2008 – Sarah Palin; 2012 – Paul Ryan; 2016 – Tim Keane.


Okay, President Trump has developed a case of COVID. As I write this he seems to be doing well, as well as can be expected given his age and obesity. He is getting the best of care by a team of a dozen or more doctors and healthcare workers. He is being treated with a cocktail of the most effective therapeutics of which we are aware, and the virus was caught early.

The White House has announced he will be discharged from Walter Reed today. By the time you read this he will likely be back there. Of course, he will continue to receive his medications and be monitored closely. Regardless of political affiliation most people have been wishing him a speedy and full recovery. Of course, there have been some exceptions. Some commentators on the “fake news” networks have been gloating and actually saying they hope he dies, but we need not waste time and space discussing those morons.

Has he treated the CV in a cavalier manner by not wearing a mask when prudence dictated he should have? Yes. Did it contribute to his catching the CV? Probably. Was it ill-advised for members of his family not to wear a mask during the debate, particularly since they were shown on national tv? Yes. Has the mask issue become a big distraction from other important campaign issues? Yes. Was the whole mask issue an example of his arrogance and disdain for his safety and others around him, including those who attended his rallies? Many people think so. I wouldn’t go that far, but it certainly is bad optics, and it has handed the Dems a campaign issue. Should it be a reason not to vote for him in the election? NO!

The basic fundamentals and issues have not changed. The mask issue should not cancel out all the good Mr. Trump has accomplished. I have detailed his accomplishments in previous blogs, but perhaps, a refresher is called for at this time. So, below please find a partial list of his most significant accomplishments:

  1. He has brokered peace deals between Israel and various Arab Middle East countries, the first time in a long time anyone has been able to do so, as well as between Serbia and Kosovo. Few thought this was possible. These efforts have earned him two Nobel Peace Prize nominations. TWO.
  2. He has decimated, if not totally destroyed, ISIS. Do you remember the many beheadings and terror attacks we were forced to watch on tv during the Obama-Biden Administration? Do you remember the Caliphate virtually taking over the Middle East? Not any more.
  3. Under his watch America has increased oil and gas production through fracking and other means enabling us to achieve energy independence. We are no longer under the economic thumb of OPEC.
  4. He brought thousands of jobs back to America, which few thought was possible, and he built the best economy in our lifetimes with record low unemployment for Blacks, Hispanics, women and teenagers before the CV pandemic forced him to shut it down.
  5. He is fulfilling his promise to build a wall across our southern border to reduce illegal immigration and enhance our security from terrorism, drugs and crime.
  6. He has dealt firmly with our enemies, including Iran, North Korea, Russia and, most of all, China, causing them to respect the US once again.
  7. He has enhanced our military preparedness, brought troops home, and been a strong advocate for veterans and veteran benefits.
  8. He has been a strong advocate for and defender of the police, ICE, and first responders.
  9. He has nominated three Supreme Court justices, two of which have already been approved, and the third likely will be, and appointed hundreds of lower level federal judges, all of which share the philosophy of interpreting the Constitution as written.
  10. In addition to providing jobs he has helped Blacks by championing a prison reform bill and providing aid to historically Black colleges.
  11. He has been a strong supporter of Israel and moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, a largely symbolic but nevertheless significant gesture.


The foregoing is but the highlights of his accomplishments. Many of them have been targeted specifically toward helping minorities and the disadvantaged.

He has accomplished more in four years than almost any other president in history, all while battling a hostile media and a non-cooperative House. Certainly, he has accomplished more that Biden has in 47 years.

Your vote should not be based solely on his not wearing a mask and catching the CV. It should not be influenced by the havoc caused by a virus over which he had no control. It should be based on his overall record. Has he made your life better or worse these past four years.

This election is too important for voters to be swayed by this one issue. It is truly a choice between Capitalism and Socialism. Yes, COVID is scary and life-threatening, but at some point we will find a cure, and it will be a distant memory. On the other hand, voting for the GND and Socialism will have long-lasting ramifications for the country politically, economically and socially.

The moderate Biden of the eighties and nineties is long gone. The current Biden is totally under the control of a cadre of Socialists. If you doubt me, Google The Green New Deal and read my previous blogs in which I describe it. Harris, one of its staunchest advocates, is a Socialist in disguise who could not even draw double digits from Dem voters in the primaries.

Ignore the “white noise” being spewed by the pundits and the pseudo “experts” on the “fake news” channels. Vote for Capitalism. Your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will thank you.


Joe Biden has been calling President Trump a racist and a liar, repeatedly. Even though there has not been a shred of evidence to support those assertions the mainstream media has repeated them so often that, after a while, they have developed the ring of truth. Many voters have been picking it up and repeating it as gospel.

I do not recall any racist comments or actions on Mr. Trump’s part. On the other hand, he sponsored a crime bill, which freed many imprisoned AAs; he has provided financial aid to many historically Black colleges; he has hired many Blacks; and he is enjoying the support of many prominent Blacks, such as Herschel Walker, Tim Scott, Herman Cain, and Dr. Ben Carson.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of Biden’s racism going back to the beginning of his career some 47 years ago. Moreover, he has continually changed his positions on various issues to the point where voters do not know where he stands on them. I’m not sure he even knows. He is either lying or forgetting what he has said previously.

After the debate I decided I had had enough of this character assassination. I decided to conduct a little research to ascertain for myself to what degree, if any, those charges were accurate. I followed the advice of the late sportscaster, Warner Wolf, and went “to the tape.” With just a small amount of research I uncovered many examples, but in the interest of brevity I will only cite a few to make my point. I know all politicians stretch the truth somewhat, but Biden has gone far beyond a mere stretching of the truth.

  1. After the debate The NY Times, no friend of Trump’s, published a fact- check of some of Biden’s comments. You may recall that Biden made a big point of how the Obama-Biden Administration had left Trump a “booming” economy, for which he (Biden) was responsible and which, he said, Trump turned into the worst recession since the Great Depression. According to the NYT that is false. In fact, Trump inherited a stagnant economy, which he turned into a booming economy (until the shutdown caused by COVID).
  2. In assessing Trump and Biden, again with respect to the economy, Robert Johnson, CEO and founder of BET, commented as follows: “I would rather choose the devil I know [Trump] than the devil I don’t know [Biden].” He added that he has not heard anything “coherent” from Biden regarding the economy or “spurring growth.” He stopped short of an actual endorsement of Trump, but I think it’s obvious which candidate he prefers. Incidentally, many of us have not heard anything coherent from Biden on the economy or anything else.
  3. I found many recordings over the last four years in which Mr. Trump condemned and disavowed White Supremacists, the KKK and David Duke. Conversely, I found many examples of racism and anti-Black comments and actions on Biden’s part. For instance: (1) He makes no secret that Robert Byrd, the former head of the KKK, was his “mentor.” He even delivered a eulogy at Byrd’s funeral; he collaborated on legislation with various segregationist Senators, such James Eastland, John Stennis and Strom Thurmond; (3) he sponsored the 1994 Crime Bill, which led to the increased incarceration of Blacks; (4) he characterized Blacks as “predators” and commented how he didn’t want his children growing up in a “racial jungle; (5) he denigrated Blacks saying that “if you don’t vote for me you aint Black;” (6) his treatment of Anita Hill (a Black woman) during the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearings was despicable; and (7) in his 47 years in government I don’t think he can cite one example of legislation he has sponsored to alleviate the suffering of minorities with respect to poverty and crime. During the Dem debates Harris came very close to calling him a racist for his stance on busing. Mr. Trump correctly pointed out that he has done more for minorities in 47 months than Biden has in 47 years.
  4. Biden refused to state whether or not he was in favor of statehood status for Puerto Rico, Washington, DC, and/or other US territories, “packing” the Supreme Court, eliminating the Electoral College, or ending the Senate filibuster even when pressed repeatedly by Chris Wallace. It should be obvious, therefore, that he would support those or at least not stand in the way of his radical allies who do so. These would virtually guarantee a permanent Dem majority in the Senate, which, in turn, would make it very possible for them to maintain permanent control of the government. Remember, Pelosi, Schumer and other radical Dems have warned that “everything is on the table,” so I wouldn’t scoff at that notion.
  5. Biden vehemently denies that he is for the Green New Deal, free healthcare for all including illegals, free housing, free education and against fracking. Each of these radical policies and many more are on his website. If you doubt me, check it out for yourself. I have discussed these in previous blogs. They are impracticable, unworkable and would bankrupt America.
  6. Biden denies he supports the Bernie Sanders Manifesto. Again, check his website.
  7. He denies he will seek to raise taxes, but he won’t or can’t explain how the country will pay for all his programs. He claims he will only raise taxes on the “rich,” but he’s lying. There are not nearly enough rich people to pay for everything. So, if Biden were to win be prepared to pay higher taxes. I am not aware of any candidate who has won a presidential election while promising to raise taxes. (If you are aware of one, please tell me.) Stunningly, Biden may do just that thanks to a complicit media.


Biden is trying to have it both ways. He is walking a fine line to appear moderate to mainstream voters while, at the same time, kowtowing to the radical left wing in order to maintain their support. He knows he needs their unwavering support to win. Consequently, he flip flops depending on his audience. The favorable media will not call him out for it, so he may get away with it.

On the plus side, there have been signs that Mr. Trump’s support has been growing among Blacks and Hispanics. For example, in the last five presidential elections GOP candidates have garnered 8 – 9% of AA votes. The latest Hill-HarrisX poll disclosed Mr. Trump is favored by 24% of AAs and 32% of Hispanics. The turnout will be crucial. According to the latest NBC Marist Poll he is leading among Hispanics in Florida, a key swing state, by 50 – 46%.

I believe Biden is controlled by the radical elements in the Party. Therefore, if he wins he will support the radical policies rather than the moderate ones. The moderate Biden of the eighties and nineties is long gone.

The Dems are trying to buy the election with the promise of free stuff. Many voters are being fooled, but smart ones are not. They know nothing is really free. Someway, somehow, someone has to pay for the goodies. That someone will be you and me.


And the winner is….. see below. The first, and maybe the last, 2020 presidential debate is in the books. Who won; who lost?

First, my general impressions:

  1. I didn’t care for the free-flowing format. It encouraged too much interrupting and talking over one another and not enough clear, substantive discussion of the issues. At times, I felt like I was watching a rerun of a Jerry Springer show.
  2. Biden had a low bar to clear with respect to demonstrating his cognition, and he did so. He had a few stumbles but no major gaffes.
  3. Trump was the more aggressive debater. I felt that some aggression was a plus, but, at times, perhaps it was too much. Once he even clashed with Wallace. No doubt, his supporters would approve, but I’m not sure about the undecideds.
  4. Both frequently interrupted and talked over the other. I don’t blame Chris Wallace. He tried valiantly to control the process but often to no avail. He did the best he could, but the format had been agreed to by both campaigns beforehand.
  5. Biden was the more disrespectful, personally. He called Trump a “racist,” “stupid,” a “clown” and a “liar.” At least once that I recall he told Trump to “shut up.” Probably, he was following his advisors’ advice to be tough and aggressive, but I don’t think disrespecting the president like that was the way to go.
  6. Biden dodged the questions about packing the Supreme Court, banning fracking and corruption regarding payments to Hunter Biden.
  7. Biden outright lied when he said the Hunter matter had been resolved with no corruption found.
  8. Trump’s response to the question regarding his taxes was weak. That issue will likely not go away.
  9. Trump had a strong defense for Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination. He could have buttressed it, however, by pointing out that historically there have been some 29 previous instances in which presidents of both parties have put forth election-year SC nominations.
  10. If you’re looking for a sound bite that will resonate, Trump’s comment that he “accomplished more in 47 months that [Biden] did in 47 years” would be it. It may not be quite up there with Reagan’s “there you again” or his promise “not to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” but it was effective.
  11. Biden was caught between a “rock and a hard place” on a few other topics. For example, he disavowed the Sanders-Biden Manifesto which as a blatant contradiction; he failed to express support for the Green New Deal, which he had championed in the past; he had a weak answer on law and disorder in the streets; he had no effective retort to Trump’s claim of multiple endorsements by police unions; and he dodged the question about Antifa, characterizing it as “just an idea.” All those will likely anger his supporters on the “left.”
  12. Both candidates made errors of fact or gave disingenuous answers as politicians often do. It would have been illuminating to have instant factchecking.


Who won? Was there even a clear-cut winner? I think it is all in the eye of the beholder. Biden supporters will breathe a big sigh of relief that he got through the debate without a major gaffe. As I said, he had a low bar, and he cleared it. Moreover, the mainstream media and twitter crowd will likely declare him the victor.

Trump supporters will point to the various instances where Biden either could not answer a question or gave a disingenuous answer. Also, some of Biden’s answers may have alienated his base, especially the ones on Antifa, the Green New Deal and the Supreme Court.

I suspect that undecided voters, and, yes, there still are a few, probably did not see enough to sway them either way. There were no knockout blows. Now, it’s time for the “spin doctors” to do their thing. It’s always humorous to see them tell us what the candidates “really” meant. It will be interesting to see how, or if, the debate results translate to the polls. They don’t always. The post-debate polls should be out soon, maybe even today.

In summary, I think the debate , though entertaining, did not accomplish what debates are supposed to do – namely, give viewers a definitive sense of the candidates views on the issues and help them decide for whom to vote.

I hope the other debates, if there are any, will resolve matters further.


Presidential debates have become a regular feature of presidential campaigns. Whereas they are not required by law they have become something candidates have been unable to avoid. All they can do is attempt to influence the ground rules in their favor. Seemingly minor factors, such as the temperature in the debate room, can turn out out to be significant.

In my opinion, determining the winner and loser of a debate is extremely subjective. People tend to favor their candidate of choice.

Most voters will soon forget the substance of who said what. However, one way to “win” a debate is for the candidate to utter a memorable quip or zinger or for is opponent to commit a gaffe that people remember. With that in mind I compiled a list of what are generally considered the most memorable quotes, quips and gaffes from presidential election debates.

But, first a few quiz questions to test your knowledge:

  1. The first televised debate between presidential candidates was (a) Lincoln – Douglas, (b) Truman – Dewey, (c) Eisenhower- Stevenson, (d) Kennedy – Nixon.
  2. Each of the following will serve as a moderator for one of this year’s debates, EXCEPT (a) Steve Scully, (b) Anderson Cooper, (c) Chris Wallace, (d) Kristen Welker.
  3. The first debate will be held on (a) Sep 28, (b) Sep 29, (c) Oct 6, (d) Oct 13.
  4. The first debate will be in (a) Cleveland, (b) Chicago, (c) Washington, DC, (d) NY.
  5. How many presidential debates are scheduled? (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4.
  6. Debates between VP candidates have been held regularly since (a) 1960, (b) 1972, (c) 1980, (d) 1984.

Memorable quotes, quips and gaffes

Who said it:

7. “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under [my] administration.” (a) Ford, (b) Nixon, (c) Carter, (d) McGovern.

8. “There you go again.” (a) Trump, (b) G. W Bush, (c) Reagan, (d) Bill Clinton

9. “Where’s the beef?” (a) Mondale, (b) Carter, (c) Gore, (d) Reagan

10. “…. They brought us whole binders full of women.” ( a) Johnson, (b) Kennedy, (c) Romney, (d) Kerry

11. “Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. You’re no Jack Kennedy.” (a) Johnson, (b) Bentsen, (c) Carter, (d) Humphrey

12. “You’re likeable enough…” (a) Ford, (b) Kennedy, (c) Obama, (d) Trump

13. “I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” (a) Nixon, (b) Goldwater, (c) Hillary Clinton, (d) Reagan

Answers: (1) d; (2) b; (3) b; (4) a; (5) c; (6) d; (7) a; (8) c; (9) a; (10) c; (11) b; 12. c; 13. d.


In most cases, I believe the ultimate impact of the debates on the ensuing election has been questionable. That has especially been true with respect to the VP debates. In fact, many voters do not even watch it.

However, I think this year will be an exception. Many voters are keen to see how Biden will hold up due to questions that have been raised about his mental acuity and stamina. Others are anxious to see President Trump’s response to criticism of his administration’s handling of the COVID pandemic. Both sides will want to see the candidates’ positions on the issue of mail-in voting.

Furthermore, the VP debate will be more significant than normally since many voters suspect Harris would exert unusually strong influence and control over a President Biden. For example, in recent conversations with the media both Biden and Harris have referred to a “Harris-Biden ticket.” One such reference could be passed off as an error. However, each candidate has committed that “slip” at least once, which leads some to wonder.

In addition, there is serious doubt that Biden would even be able to complete the term of office, should he win. So, to me, this year the debates will be more significant that normally.


As the 2020 election enters the home stretch I have a few observations.

  1. Biden’s campaign strategy of confining himself to his basement is beginning to backfire. In my opinion, at first, it made sense as he was able to avoid non-scripted speeches and random questions that would have exposed his cognitive weaknesses. Also, COVID concerns gave him a plausible excuse. As long as he was maintaining a comfortable lead in the polls there was no reason to campaign actively. As I wrote in a previous blog, so-called “porch politicking” had been successful for other presidential candidates in the past, such as James A. Garfield and Calvin Coolidge, but that was 100 or more years ago, and the country is very different now.
  2. As the race has tightened Biden has been forced to engage in real campaigning, and it has not gone well for him. His speeches have been lackluster; he has been drawing sparse, unenthusiastic crowds; and he still has not demonstrated an ability to answer unscripted questions. On the other hand, President Trump’s crowds have been sizeable and very enthusiastic, and he routinely answers difficult and hostile questions. One cannot help but notice the contrast.
  3. As I have discussed in previous blogs the Dems are on the wrong side of most issues, such as law and order and the economy. Most of them have refused to condemn the rioters, and many of them have openly expressed support for them. Pre-COVID, Mr. Trump built the best economy the country has ever had, and most people have confidence he can do it again.
  4. They have been having some success with portraying Mr. Trump as a “racist.” Many Trump-haters and far left Dems agree with that characterization. However, they have been levelling this accusation for four years now. During all that time they have been unable to support this accusation with hard proof and examples, and voters are beginning to recognize it for what it is – baseless, and a desperate argument one makes when he doesn’t have facts or logic on his side.
  5. The Dems have had the most success in portraying Mr. Trump’s response to the CV as slow and inadequate. According to the latest Hill-HarrisX poll, which was conducted from 9/18 – 9/21, only 45% of Americans approve of his performance with respect to COVID. Why is his approval rating so low? I’m not sure, but, perhaps, the volume of false and exaggerated criticism from his various critics has taken its toll. In any event, perhaps a review of the COVID timeline would help clarify matters. Perhaps, it will help expose Biden and other critics for the second-guessers and disingenuous liars they are.

a. January 9, 2020 – The World Health Organization (WHO) disclosed the appearance of a “mysterious” virus originating in Wuhan Province, China. This was the first inkling Americans had of its existence. Very little was known about the CV, including its origin, virulence, degree of contagion, and how to treat it.

b. January 21 – The CDC confirmed the first US case.

c. January 31 – WHO declared a global health emergency.

d. February 2 – President Trump issued a travel ban with respect to travel from China. A couple of days later he expanded the ban to include several European countries. You may recall he was vilified in the media and elsewhere. Even most of his advisors thought it was unnecessary. As it turned out, this action saved many lives, according to some estimates as many as 1 million or more.

e. What were the Dems doing at this time? They were focused on impeaching Mr. Trump. Many people, including me, denigrated it as a “fool’s errand” and a distraction. How right we were!

f. Joe Biden ridiculed the travel bans, calling Mr. Trump a “racist and “xenophobic.” Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo and Bill De Blasio, among others, were “pooh poohing” any dangers and urging people to come to their cities to enjoy and to celebrate the Chinese New Year.

g. As the year went on and the CV pandemic got worse Mr. Trump provided strong support to various state governors as needed including masks, ventilators, testing equipment and even hospital ships to handle any overflow of CV patients. Many states were ill prepared to fight the pandemic. Even the Federal government had inadequate medical supplies, but that was the fault of the Obama-Biden administration, not Mr. Trump. Many governors have been effusive in their praise for his assistance. Others have played the “blame game.”

h. He has cajoled private businesses into providing the above mentioned needed equipment.

i. Most importantly, he has gotten various drug manufacturers to fast-track the development of a vaccine, a few of which are now in final trials. A safe, viable vaccine might be ready as early as the end of the year. Many medical experts have praised this quick turnaround.

j. Yes, some 200,000 Americans have died, and that is tragic. But, it is now apparent that were it not for Trump’s quick decisive actions many more would have.

k. Through their use of revisionist history Biden and the Dems have managed to convince the public that Trump is culpable, but it was they who were late to address it. I would like to know what they would have done differently at the time. None of them has told us yet.


I give points to the Dems for the political effectiveness of their “blame Trump for COVID” campaign. However, as I have demonstrated, it is a false narrative. In my view, it is doing the country a grave disservice.

As I said, Biden and company have not explained what they would have done differently. Moreover, it’s not as though they made recommendations at the time that were ignored. Remember, for the first several months there was much contradictory and false information being disseminated from the medical experts, from WHO and, most of all, from China. In reality, no one understood the CV, its virulence and level of contagion and how to treat it. The real villain in this debacle is China, not Trump, but Biden is in China’s pocket, and, therefore, will not criticize it.

Hopefully, the public will wake up to the real facts regarding Trump’s response to COVID. Perhaps, they will come to light during the debates.


As most of you know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing has left a vacancy on the Supreme Court to be filled. As I predicted in my last blog a fierce battle has ensued over the timing of nominating her replacement. In all likelihood, this will be as contentious as the election, itself, and, in the long run, may turn out to be even more significant. Why, you may ask? Because, the nominee could be on the court and ruling on matters for decades.

Predictably, President Trump and his supporters want the vacancy filled as soon as possible and by a right-of-center candidate. Based upon multiple media reports Mr. Trump plans to disclose his choice by the end of the week. He has committed to naming a woman. He has stated that there are five under consideration. The two most likely candidates seem to be Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa. Both are strong candidates and both seem to check the required right-of-center boxes. Barrett has more experience on the Appeals Court and is better known, but Lagoa has the added benefits of being Hispanic and from a key battleground state, Florida. The Dems and their supporters are strongly opposed not only to both of them but also to the very idea of any nomination.

It is important to understand one thing right at the outset. The Constitution states clearly and emphatically that the President is authorized to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court with the “advice and consent of the Senate.” It does not say “except during an election year.” So, legally, the Dems do not have a leg to stand on. Their sole avenue of recourse is to prevent the Senate from confirming a nominee.

That could happen as the GOP only has a three person majority. Furthermore, two Senators, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins have already expressed a reluctance to proceed before the election, and a few others are reportedly wavering.

Don’t be deceived by the media reports criticizing President Trump for taking this action. His plan is not without precedent. My research has disclosed that since 1900 there have been several instances in which a president, both Dem and GOP, has nominated and the Senate has confirmed a SC Justice in an election year. You may hear someone mention the “Thurmond Rule” as justification to prevent a nomination during an election year. This “rule” is named for former senator Strom Thurmond who basically made it up to justify blocking LBJ’s nomination of Abe Fortas back in the 1960s. However, it is not an actual “rule,” and it has no legal standing.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are being very disingenuous about this entire issue. Predictably, the GOPers are defending Mr. Trump’s proposed action, while the Dems are condemning it. As always, most of the media is supporting the Dems. In my opinion, their arguments are specious.

The bottom line is it is all about power. The Party that has it will want to forge ahead with the nomination; the Party on the short end will oppose it. The prospect of having an additional “friendly” SC Justice on the Court for life is too valuable a commodity to ignore.

If one does a little research one will find instances in the past where each of them has argued for the other side of the issue. For instance, as recently as 2016 former President Obama, VP Joe Biden, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other leading Dems were pushing for the confirmation of Merrick Garland as a replacement for Antonin Scalia even though it was an election year, and Mitch McConnell and leading Republicans were opposing it. Even Ginsburg spoke out in favor of Garland’s candidacy. Now, supposedly she told her granddaughter she was opposed to an election year nomination. I understand their motivation. I don’t consider it hypocritical. In politics, it’s all about power. If you have it, use it while you can.


One reason why it is imperative to fill the SC vacancy as soon as possible is the strong possibility that the Court will be called upon to resolve presidential election disputes in one or more states (as in 2000), particularly with respect to mail-in ballots. In that event having only eight members could result in a 4-4 tie. That would throw the dispute back to the appeals courts and degrade the validity of the election results further in the eyes of many voters. That would be devastating as the key to the continued viability of the Republic is that the voters have confidence that elections are free and fair.

In summary, expect a lot of posturing and threatening from the Dems between now and the election. Already Chuck and Nancy have threatened that if the Republicans proceed “nothing [will be] off the table.” What does that mean? Your guess is as good as mine, but in the past they have signaled they may seek to “pack” the Senate by pushing for statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, impeach Mr. Trump again, and/or seek to “pack” the court when they reacquire power. (The first one is farfetched; the latter two have already been tried and failed.)

As I said, I expect this issue to add to the divisiveness, violence, contentiousness, and mistrust we are already experiencing.

My advice to Dems. Grow up. Quit your griping. In the words of former President Obama, “elections have consequences.” If you don’t like what’s happening, try winning more of them.