We Built It Blog by Larry Jacob

“It ain’t over till its over.” So said the late Yogi Berra, Hall of Fame baseball player, famous philosopher, and king of the malaprops. Of course, he was speaking in a different context, a pennant race in 1973. But, it was true then, and it is true now. Trump supporters, take heart. The official voting may be over, but the postelection drama is just beginning.

When I went to bed on Election Night in the US, or more precisely, in the wee hours of ED+1, Trump was in a good position. He was narrowly ahead in various undecided states with a couple of clear paths to 270. When I woke up later that morning in Soviet Russia circa 1930 things had changed dramatically. Biden had surged ahead in MI and WI, had closed the gap dramatically in other states, such as G, NC and PA, and appeared to be on the clear path to victory. Trump seemed to be all but done.

How had this happened? What had caused such a dramatic shift in just a few hours? If you’re shocked, frustrated and confused over this dramatic turn of events you’re not alone. You have plenty of company, including yours truly. Voting anomalies, to be sure.

As I write this Biden is leading in electoral votes 264 – 214 with six states undecided – AZ, N, PA, G, AK, and NC. Biden is leading in the first two, Trump in the others. We can eliminate AK from this discussion as it only has three electoral votes and Trump is way ahead and clearly will win it. The others are too close to call (including AZ, which some news outlets called last night, perhaps, prematurely).

The situation is very fluid, but the salient points are as follows:

1. The Trump campaign is protesting the results in those states, alleging “rampant corruption.” That may be a bit strong, but, in my mind, there have certainly been voting irregularities.
2. There are reports the Trump campaign has or shortly will file lawsuits in PA, AZ and GA.
3. These irregularities seem to be centered around mail-in ballots. In many states they were being used for the first time due to many voters’ fears of voting in person due to COVID. Many states were simply overwhelmed by the sheer volume as was the USPS.
4. There have been allegations of irregularities in other states as well. For instance, Trump was leading in WI all evening. Somehow in the middle of the night a batch of more than 100,000 ballots was “discovered.” They just happened to be virtually all for Biden. They flipped the state.
5. There have been alleged irregularities regarding mail-in ballots in PA and N. These ballots are supposed to be scrutinized to ascertain that the voter is eligible and registered, the signature is valid, the timestamp is timely and the form is filled out properly and completely.
6. The Trump campaign has raised doubts about these verifications, particularly in cases in which their observers were locked out. One GOP poll watcher reported he was not allowed within “100 feet” of the ballots. Obviously, there was no way to “watch” from that distance. Since I was a child I have heard jokes about dead people voting and others voting more than once, but this year with this system it is no joke.
7. The PA Supreme Court arbitrarily changed the rules on the eve of ED. It decided to legalize all ballots as long as they were postmarked by midnight on ED. It is not clear that they had the authority to extend the filing deadline in this manner. Normally, that is the purview of the state legislature.
8. There have been various instances of the USPS “losing” ballots. For example, hundreds of thousands of ballots have been found on the floor and in garbage pails. How many have not been found?

CONCLUSION

Trump supporters should not get their hopes up, even if the transgressions may seem to be obvious and egregious. The lawsuits and recounts are a longshot, a “Hail Mary.” It will be very difficult to prove corruption, fraud or even irregularities. The courts may even decline to hear the lawsuits. Moreover, historically, recounts, though fairly commonplace have rarely changed the outcome of an election. Trump supporters will fight on, but the reality is it is a sad day for America and the American way of life.

Both candidates still have a path to 270. However, Biden only needs to win one of the remaining states to win the election. Trump has to run the table. You do the math. It appears that, for better or worse, Biden will end up as the 46th president of the US.

Already, the protesters/rioters and the “spin doctors” are out in full force.

1. Regarding PA, lawyer Rudy Giuliani has asserted that “not a single Republican has been able to look at any of these mail-in ballots.” He said, somewhat facetiously, “we don’t know if these ballots are valid or not. [For all we know,] they could be from Mars or the DNC.” The clear implication is that there has been cheating.
2. PA Governor Tom Wolfe (D) took umbrage at this charge. He replied that attempts to “subvert the democratic process are simply disgraceful.”
3. Dem supporters are chanting “count every ballot.” The implication of this is clear.
4. GOPers have a slightly different chant, “count every legal ballot.”

Some final thoughts and observations:

1. As a group, the pollsters and pundits “blew it” badly. They were so far off it was downright embarrassing. As a group, their credibility is at a low ebb. Most of them had predicted a Biden landslide. Few, if any, thought Trump would win, and he almost did (maybe not almost). On election eve they had Trump losing by several points in many states he actually won, such as FL, Ohio, and NC. One poll had Biden winning Wisconsin by 17 points. They had Lindsay Graham, Mitch McConnell and Joni Ernst losing or in tough battles. They all won handily. You may recall that most polls were way off in 2016 as well. On November 4 the headline of the NY Post proclaimed “Polls, Pundits, Press – Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.” The much ballyhooed “Blue Wave” never materialized. Predictions from some, such as the Des Moines Register, were on point, but as a group, they need to reassess their methodology if they want to re-establish their credibility.
2. Dems and the mainstream media will criticize Trump for not conceding graciously, but the fact of the matter is the Biden campaign would have done exactly the same thing had they lost. Heck, they still have not conceded the 2016 election. Furthermore, last week the bitter has-been, Hillary Clinton, advised Biden “never to concede.”
3. In my view, many Biden voters, due to apathy and/or ignorance, do not have the foggiest conception of what they voted for, such as higher taxes, healthcare for all, the elimination of fossil fuels and fracking, the Green New Deal, the elimination of the border wall, hostile relations with Israel, and various “free” stuff.
4. They will soon develop “buyer’s remorse.” “Free” stuff is not free. Someone, somehow, somewhere has to pay for it. Dems’ claims that it will fall exclusively on the wealthy is simply not true. There are not enough of them and the cost will be too high. Everyone will pay to some degree. When the time comes don’t complain. As the expression goes, “you get the government you deserve.”

Those famous words became the hallmark of one of the most famous characters in cinema history. James Bond was a likeable, charismatic, suave, elegant, brave, at times foolhardy, superspy with the moniker 007 and a “license to kill.” He was famous for carousing, chasing beautiful women, and, oh yes, saving England from vicious villains. Fans knew he always drank vodka martinis “shaken, not stirred.” The American Film Institute recognized the Bond character as the third greatest hero in cinema history. Can you guess numbers 1 and 2? See below.

The Bond franchise is one of the most famous, successful and enduring in cinema history. The first film was Dr. No in 1962 and the franchise is still active today. Seven actors have played James Bond in over 30 movies. Connery was the first and, to me, the best. How many of them can you name? (If you get all seven you are a true Bond savant, and I tip my cap to you.) See answer below.

Thomas Sean Connery was born on August 25, 1930 in Fountainbridge, Edinburgh, Scotland. He came from very humble beginnings. His father was a factory worker and a lorry (truck) driver. His mother was a cleaning lady. Connery said he was known by his middle name as a child. When he became an actor he kept his middle name and dropped his first name. Thomas Sean Connery was thought to be too long to fit on a theatre marquee.

Prior to becoming an actor Connery worked at a succession of jobs. He took any work he could get, among them milkman, cement mixer, steel-bender, lorry driver, lifeguard, laborer, artist’s model and coffin polisher. As a youth he was undersized, but by the age of 18 he had grown to his full height of 6′ 2″. Along the way he acquired a new nickname, “Big Tam” and took up body building. In addition, he served in the Royal Navy.

In the 1950s he began helping out backstage in the theatre in order to supplement his income. In 1953 he entered a bodybuilding competition in London. One of his competitors advised him of an audition for a production of South Pacific. Connery was hired as one of the Seabees chorus boys. He remained with the troupe and eventually worked his way up to a featured speaking role.

As often happens in the entertainment business Connery’s big break, his selection as James Bond, was a combination of talent and fortune. Ian Fleming, the author of the series of Bond books, was not in favor of casting Connery in the role. According to Fleming, Connery was “not what I envisioned [as Bond].” He considered Connery to be “unrefined” and “an overgrown stuntman.” Without Fleming’s blessing Connery’s chances of landing the role were remote. However, both Dana Broccoli, producer Albert Broccoli’s wife, and Blanche Blackwell, Ian Fleming’s girlfriend, convinced the two men that Connery was the right man. Blackwell opined that Connery has the “requisite sexual charisma.” We all know how persuasive wives and girlfriends can be. So, Connery got the role, and the rest was history.

Dr. No (1962) was a huge success, and the studio eagerly produced a succession of sequels, which were also wildly successful. Fleming soon forgot about any reservations he had had about Connery and became a strong advocate. With each sequel the plots became more outrageous, the locales more exotic, the stunts more elaborate, and the women more sexy and beautiful Every aspiring actress wanted to be cast as a “Bond girl.” It was almost a rite of passage. The public couldn’t get enough of Bond and Connery. Soon the movies bore little resemblance to Fleming’s books, but nobody really cared.

In 1971, after having starred in six Bond films Connery was ready for a change. Despite critically-acclaimed performances in Marnie and The Hill he lamented that he wasn’t being taken seriously as an actor. He complained that the image of him the press had fostered did not do justice to his acting ability. So, at the age of 41 he walked away from the role of a lifetime.

The conventional wisdom of the Hollywood experts was that he had made a grave error. They thought no one would want to hire a “balding, middle-aged actor with a funny accent.” However, Connery got the last laugh. He was not a one-hit wonder as an actor. He went on to appear in many “hit” films, such Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the Untouchables, and The Hunt for Red October.

CONCLUSION

Connery’s personal life did not measure up to his acting career. It left a lot to be desired. His first marriage was marred by accusations of physical abuse, and it didn’t last long. Connery did not deny the charges. In fact, he defended his boorish behavior. In a 1965 interview he told Playboy that he did not see “anything particularly wrong” in striking a woman. To him, “an open-handed slap is justified.”

Connery was the recipient of numerous awards. For example, as an actor he won one Academy Award for his role in the Untouchables and three Golden Globes, among others. In 1989 People Magazine voted him the “Sexiest Man Alive; in 1999 People proclaimed him to be “The Greatest Man of the Century; in 2004 the Sunday Herald proclaimed him to be the “Greatest Living Scot;” and in 2000 Queen Elizabeth II proclaimed him to be a British knight.

Connery passed away on October 31 at the age of 90. According to his son he died “peacefully” in his sleep after having been “unwell for some time.” Among the mourners was Barbara Broccoli, Albert’s and Dana’s daughter, who was said to be “devastated” by the news. She told reporters that Connery’s “gritty, and witty portrayal of the sexy and charismatic secret agent” was primarily responsible for the success of the Bond franchise.

Quiz answers: (1) Atticus Finch and Indiana Jones. (2) Sean Connery, David Niven, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig

As I write this, Election Day is a mere three days away. Most observers agree that this election will be a pivotal one for America.

According to a recent Gallup Poll voters are feeling more enthusiastic and, at the same time, more fearful than in previous elections. As I write this, already some 87 million voters have already cast their ballots in early voting. 87 million! The lines have been long, but people have been determined to vote. At this pace, the 2020 election may turn out to have one of the highest turnouts ever.

A recent Gallup poll reported that 77% of voters agree that the stakes are higher in this election; 69% are more enthusiastic about their candidate; and 64% are afraid of what will transpire if the other candidate wins. A Fox News poll reported that 86% of Americans are anticipating “unrest” following the election regardless of who wins. Based upon the rioting, lawlessness and violence we have already witnessed this year I would say those concerns are justified, particularly with the potential for controversial results in many states.

In my view, as I have discussed in previous blogs, there are substantial differences between the philosophies of the GOP and the Dems as well as between the two candidates, themselves. Therefore, depending on which Party wins, it is very likely that the country will move in radically different directions politically, economically and socially for many years to come. The voters realize that the stakes could not be higher, hence the high turnout and levels of enthusiasm.

I have questioned the validity of the polls in previous blogs. I have outlined their many flaws. The focus of this blog will be on the differences between what the pollsters are telling us and what we see with our own eyes at the campaign rallies.

According to the recently-released polls President Trump is gaining on Biden, but Biden is maintaining a small lead in the national polls as well as in most of the battleground states. These polls have been fairly consistent. Depending on the particular poll Biden’s lead in these states is between 3% and 7%. So, in essence, the polls are telling us that Biden will win, perhaps by a comfortable margin.

But, not so fast. The eyes are telling a different story. President Trump has been drawing huge, enthusiastic crowds to his rallies. This is obvious whenever the cameras pan into a wide view. In addition, he has been holding as many as three in a given day. He has 14 scheduled in seven states in the next three days.

On the other hand, Biden has held far fewer rallies. Some days he does not even leave his basement bunker. When he does appear his crowds appear smaller, less enthusiastic, and more desultory. Until the last few days, his strategy seems to have been to avoid a mistake and “run out the clock.”

This discrepancy between the polls and the eye test is not new. It appears to be a characteristic of Mr. Trump’s campaigns. It is reminiscent of the 2016 election. Back then, the polls showed that Clinton had a comfortable lead, and she appeared to be a “shoo-in.” Yet, Mr. Trump won. This year the pattern seems to be repeating itself. Many observers are concerned that the same thing may happen again this year. For example, Dem supporters, such as filmmaker, Michael Moore and political analyst, James Carville have been urging the Biden campaign not to be complacent. They have been expressing concern that the poll numbers may be wrong. They were fooled in 2016, and they don’t want to be fooled again.

I believe that one of the major keys to this election will be the “shy” Trump voters. These are voters who plan on voting for Mr. Trump but won’t admit it, even to their friends, due to concerns of retribution, retaliation and/or ridicule. Some even fear it would impact their businesses or their jobs.

As I see it, the questions regarding the “shy” Trump voters are:

1. Do they even exist, or are they a figment of imagination?
2. How many are there?
3. In which states are they located?
4. What is the demographic makeup?
5. Will they turn out to vote?

CONCLUSION

No one really knows the answers to these questions, although opinions abound. In my view, they hold the key to the whole election, and hence the country’s future.

My opinion is that:

1. They do exist. I know this for a fact because I know many of them personally.
2. I don’t know the number, but I suspect there are enough of them to “move the needle,” especially in the battleground states.
3. They are located in every state, but, as one might expect, their influence will be most profound in the battleground states.
4. The demographic makeup is difficult to assess, but based on news reports I feel strongly that it includes a significant number of Blacks and Latinos.
5. I feel they are strongly motivated and a significant amount of them will vote.

As I have said many times, the likelihood is that we will not know the winner on Election Night, because many states will have close races, and disputed results. In addition, the loser, whomever it may be, may not concede until he has exhausted all available legal remedies. Don’t be surprised if the issue is ultimately decided by the House or the Supreme Court months after the election.

There is a possibility that we may not have identified the winner by Inauguration Day. In that case, what does the Constitution say we do? Who knows? I, for one, do not want to find out. If nothing else, this election could be a boon for the lawyers.

Tuesday night the Los Angeles Dodgers beat the Tampa Bay Rays 3 – 1 to win the 2020 World Series four games to two. This is the franchise’s seventh world championship. and the first since 1988. Can you name the years of the other five? See the answer below.

This was the baseball season that almost wasn’t. Due to the COVID-19 virus the season was delayed to the point where many thought it would never get off the ground. Then, it was feared that so many players would test positive for the virus that, at some point, the season would have to be cancelled. As it was, several games had to be postponed and made up as doubleheaders.

Finally, Major League Baseball managed to complete a 60-game season. For those of you who do not follow baseball 60 games is a really short season. The normal season is 162 games. A 60-game season is not long enough for the best teams to establish themselves. It takes at least twice as many games for that.

Many fans and observers considered 2020 to be a flawed season. Some even maintained that the eventual championship would be tarnished. They advocated that it should/would be designated with an asterisk. The fear was that an inferior team would have a “hot” start and qualify for the expanded playoffs, which included 16 teams instead of the usual 12 and an extra (wild card) round. Those same people feared that the wild card round of best two of three games, would enable an inferior team to defeat a better team, and perhaps reach the WS and win it. (Simply put, conventional wisdom holds that any team can beat any other team in a three-game series. In my view, the nature of baseball is such that a “fair” test would be seven games.)

As it turned out those fears were groundless. The best team in each league made it to the WS. The Dodgers blew away the competition and went 43 – 17. The Rays were close behind at 40 -20. For the most part, the Series was entertaining and the games were tense. Ultimately, the best, deepest and most versatile team on paper and according to the regular season records (the Dodgers), won.

CONCLUSION

Baseball, indeed any sport, loves controversy. Controversial plays and game decisions mean that fans will long remember and discuss what happened. This WS had it in spades in Game 6. Briefly, the Rays were winning the game 1-0 and their pitcher was virtually unhittable. Nevertheless, the Rays manager replaced him in the sixth inning after one batter hit a single. The move was consistent with his normal strategy and the analytics on which many teams operate nowadays, but most observers howled that it ignored the “eye test.” A pitcher that unhittable should have stayed in the game.

Sure enough, the Dodgers scored three runs off the relievers and won the game and the WS. In my opinion, the ill-advised move should take nothing away from the Dodgers who still had to score off the relievers.

In a seven game series the breaks often do not even out. In their long history the Dodgers have lost many WS in disappointing fashion, especially when they were in Brooklyn. After each defeat, the fans’ plaintive refrain was “wait until next year.” Well this year “next year” finally came. The Dodgers got some breaks and, like all good teams, took full advantage. Good for them, and good for their fans.

Full disclosure: I am a longtime Dodgers fan. Those who know me know that I “bleed Dodger Blue.”

Quiz answer: 1955, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1981.

I think we could all use a break from the intense and divisive politics of the 2020 Presidential Election. Many of you are probably tired of reading about it, and, for now, I am tired of writing about it.

So, below please find an uplifting story about a Holocaust survivor. In my opinion, she achieved the ultimate revenge on the Nazis. She lived a long and productive life, enjoyed many children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren, and along the way chronicled her experiences for posterity.

Much of the below information was provided by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, which does a superb job of keeping alive the heroism of ordinary Jews amid the horror of the Holocaust. Many of you are aware that I have blogged about other heroes before. Below please find the latest example.

Esther was born in Cheim, Poland in 1933. The US HMM characterized her family as “middle class,” in contrast to most Jewish families of that time in Poland, so perhaps, her father was a professional or a successful merchant.

As most of you know, soon after the Germans conquered Poland they commenced an aggressive campaign to round up and isolate Jews and other “undesirables” and ship them off to concentration camps. There were many such camps throughout Central Europe, and Sobibor was one of the worst.

Sobibor was located near the village of Sobibor in German-occupied Poland. It was part of a sinister program called Operation Reinhard. Briefly, OR was a codename for a top secret Nazi plan to exterminate Polish Jews in Nazi-controlled Poland. It represented a new and more sinister stage of lethality. It called for the establishment of extermination camps. Its primary purpose was not just to work Jews to death over months or years in concentration camps but to exterminate them within hours of arrival.

Sobibor was such a camp. The few prisoners who escaped such a fate were only those few whom the Nazis determined could help them administer the camp. Even those few fortunate ones normally only lasted a few months before they, too, were gassed. According to Wikipedia it is estimated that approximately 2 million Jews were exterminated under OR, some 250,000 of those at Sobibor.

This was the camp to which nine year old Esther was sent in December, 1942. Fortuitously, she was assigned to work in the “sorting shed” where she was tasked with the gruesome job of sorting the possessions of the murdered Jews. In addition, she worked as a seamstress. Probably, this useful skill saved her life.

The camp is primarily known for a daring prisoner escape, which occurred on October 14, 1943. Esther was one of the planners of this escape. The leaders were Leon Feldhendler and Aleksandr Pechersky.

According to Wikipedia the audacious (or perhaps, foolhardy) escape plan entailed two phases. Phase One called for the prisoners to “discretely” assassinate all of the SS officers in the camp. In Phase Two all 600 prisoners were to assemble in the courtyard for rollcall as usual and simply walk out the front gate. Admittedly, it is hard for me to see how this would have been successful, but nevertheless it appears that was the plan.

Later, Esther recalled some details of what transpired.

1. They picked a day when the camp commandant was absent.
2. She dressed as warmly as she could. She put on “two sweaters, a coat, a kerchief and boots”
3. She took “no luggage. You didn’t know where you were going or if you’ll make it.”
4. Things fell apart when 12 of the SS officers escaped assassination. At that point the prisoners had to improvise, make a break for it. Many of them tried to escape by climbing over fences topped off with barbed wire and running through mine fields.
5. She used a stepladder to climb over the barbed wire fence.
6. She was shot in the leg, though not seriously.
7. She survived the minefield by hopscotching on the dead bodies of those who had already set off a mine.
8. After making it to the woods she managed to hide for nine months in a barn owned by a friend of her father’s. She scraped out a living space underneath some hard-packed straw. Remember, she was nine!
9. She hooked up with Irving Raab whom she had known from Chelm. Raab had originally fled to Russia but had come back to avoid the advancing Soviet Army, which, as we know, Jews were wise to avoid.
10. The two married in 1946 and eventually moved to the US.
11. Roughly 300 of the 600 prisoners made it, although most of them were quickly killed or recaptured. According to Wikipedia only 38 of them actually survived the war.

Following the escape the camp ceased operations. The Nazis demolished it and planted it over with trees. For many decades after the war the camp was neglected and virtually forgotten. Accounts of the Holocaust largely ignored it, which, given its sordid history, was very surprising and unfortunate. Things changed after it was portrayed in a US TV miniseries entitled Holocaust in 1978 and then in a British TV movie Escape from Sobibor in 1987.

CONCLUSION

The Raabs settled in the US where they established a poultry company and raised a family. Esther often retold her experiences in an effort to keep the story of the Holocaust alive. This was essential because, as we know, as time passes survivors die and memories fade. Jews don’t want the world to forget lest there be a recurrence someday.

Esther died on April 13, 2015 at her home in New Jersey. At her funeral she was eulogized by her rabbi and longtime friend, Yisroel Rapoport as “a woman of valor… courage… modesty and wisdom.” He added “she fulfilled her vows to tell the world about the atrocities … of the Holocaust.”

Esther was survived by one son, eight grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. As I said, the best revenge against the Nazis is to survive, live a long productive life, and leave the legacy of a big family. Esther did that.

Rest in peace, Esther. Your life story of bravery and determination to survive is a huge credit both to you and the Jewish people, and you will be sorely missed.

Who won the debate? More importantly, will either candidate gain in the polls as a result of it? Normally, these debates are inconclusive. Most everyone concludes their favored candidate won. More importantly, the result rarely moves the needle in the polls significantly. This is especially true this year for two reasons. (1) Most analysts are of the opinion that there are very few undecideds left; and (2) roughly one-third of the voters have already cast their ballots through either early or mail-in voting.

To buttress my point, consider the following significantly different post-debate analyses, which should not surprise anyone who has been following politics. A post-debate CNN poll disclosed that Biden won the debate 53% – 39%. The NY Times published a story by Matthew Dowd that neither candidate hurt nor helped himself decisively, which helped Biden as the frontrunner. On the other hand, on Fox News almost all the commentators opined that Trump won.

In my opinion, Kristen Welker did a credible job as moderator. She made sure both candidates adhered to the debate guidelines; she allowed reasonably brief follow-up comments while sticking to a tight schedule; and she did not exhibit any overt bias. I gave Biden points for avoiding any major gaffes, non-sequiturs or faux pas. I gave Trump points for his calm, reasonable tone, for letting Biden talk, and for avoiding the excessive interruptions that turn off a lot of people.

That said, enough of the opinions. Let’s look at some facts. Opinions are unverifiable. I have mine; you have yours. Whose is correct? It depends. Facts, however, are verifiable. They are pesky little things that don’t go away and cannot be legitimately discredited.

1. Biden outright lied and/or contradicted several previous statements he had made. These are not opinions. They are facts that have been verified by emails, videotapes, and other witnesses. See below.
2. For example, emails have surfaced that clearly establish the “pay to play” schemes of the Biden Family with respect to the Chinese government and oligarchs from Ukraine, Russia and other countries. Joe said he “didn’t take one penny” from them, but the FBI and various news outlets are in possession of various emails that refer to Hunter and his cohorts setting aside “10 for the Big Man.’ ” It is clear that “10” means $10 million, and “The Big Man” is Joe.
3. In addition to the emails Joe’s role in these schemes has been corroborated by Wall Street Journal reporter Kimberly Strassel and by Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter’s who provided firsthand accounts of these nefarious dealings. This is potentially very damaging to Joe’s credibility as most of America was unaware of the scope of this corruption before the debate. How deeply is Joe in the pocket of the Chinese and these oligarchs? What kind of quid pro quo has he agreed to? Has he put their interests ahead of America’s? We don’t know yet. Hopefully, we will find out before the election.
4. Furthermore, most of us have seen the tape of Joe, as VP, bragging about threatening to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine unless its President fired the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter, which he did.
5. Joe stated that the matter has been investigated fully by various US investigative entities, which have concluded that “nothing was wrong.” This is another lie. Moreover, he stated “five former heads of the CIA” had come to the same conclusion. Another lie. Naturally, he didn’t provide their names. In actuality, the Department of Justice, Congress, the FBI, and perhaps some enterprising investigating reporters are actively investigating it, and the matter is far from settled. Sooner or later Joe and his supporters will have to answer questions about this entire affair. Perhaps, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.
6. With respect to COVID Biden continued to repeat the same lies. He repeated his criticism that Mr. Trump delayed taking decisive action to protect Americans. In point of fact, Mr. Trump acted quickly and decisively in January to ban travel from China and Europe to the US. Furthermore, he established a task force headed up by Mike Pence to deal with the pandemic. As some may have forgotten, in January the Dems were focused on trying to impeach the President, and they were not paying attention to the far bigger threat of COVID. In addition, there was much disinformation regarding COVID that emanated from China and the WHO. Nobody, not even our medical personnel, had reliable information regarding the disease, its origins and how to treat it. There are various tweets and videotape accounts of Biden and other Dems criticizing Mr. Trump’s early actions as “xenophobic, racist, and fear mongering.” They are a matter of record for all to see. Now, Biden is second-guessing with the benefit of hindsight.
7. Joe lied about the effects of his much-ballyhooed tax plan. He has stated he would “repeal the Trump tax cuts,” and that it would only impact those families with income in excess of $400,000. Another lie. The fact of the matter is that the Trump tax cuts include many tax credits and deductions that benefit middle class and working class families. Again Biden’s comments and tax plan are a matter of record and easily verifiable.
8. Biden accused Mr. Trump of building cages to imprison undocumented children. Another lie. Photo evidence shows the cages were built in 2014 under, you guessed it, the Obama-Biden Administration.
9. There were strong philosophical differences with respect to healthcare. Biden advocated a “public option,” whereas Mr. Trump favored private enterprise. It should be noted that “public option” is code for socialized medicine, which has had problems in countries in which it has been tried. Biden said under Obamacare no one lost their health coverage. Another lie. In point of fact, some 4.7 million people did. Another pesky little fact. Remember Obama asserting that “if you like your doctor you can keep him; if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it?” That also proved to be false.
10. All of the above is damaging to Biden, but, in my opinion, the most damaging moment came when under pressure from Mr. Trump Biden admitted he wants to ban fossil fuels (oil and gas) and end fracking. Prior to that moment, Biden had given inconsistent statements on the matter depending on his audience. But, his admission of the obvious before a national television audience severely damaged his prospects in several states, including PA, OH, TX and MI. He virtually told residents of those states that he would take away their livelihood and destroy their states’ economies. I don’t see how he can win any of those states now.
11. As all candidates do, Biden kept making promises of what he would do as president. For the most part, they sounded good, but like all liberal dogma they were too expensive and wouldn’t work. Mr. Trump repeatedly and effectively asked, rhetorically, why didn’t he do all these things in the previous 47 years when he was VP and Senator?

CONCLUSION

I think the foregoing illustrates how Mr. Trump won the debate. Certainly, residents of the states in which oil, gas and fracking is important must sit up, take notice, and, perhaps, reassess their voting preference.

There were many other issues I could have mentioned, but I think I have bored you enough already. I tried to limit my comments to issues that are supported by facts, not opinion, because we all have opinions,, and we all are adamantly convinced that ours are correct and other guy’s are not.

Everyone agrees that this is a very important election, and the consequences will be far-reaching. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to vote.

To me, one of the most perplexing aspects of this election is why people, other than far-left and true-believer Dems, are planning to vote for Joe Biden. What is their motivation? Despite all his faults, gaffes and lackluster campaigning, he is still leading in all the polls both nationally and in most of the battleground states. So, the question I keep asking myself is, why?

Normally, one votes for the candidate whose political, economic and social view of the world is in accord with theirs or who is a member of the same political party. They vote for the candidate who has or is expected to improve their lives. Some people vote for a candidate simply because they like him, and for others the key factor is the candidate’s gender, religion or color. Those attributes should not matter, but there is no denying that for some, they do. Finally, some don’t vote for a candidate; they vote against the other candidate.

Ironically, many of those who are voting for Biden are doing so against their own self-interest, in many cases, without even being aware of it. That is sad and unfortunate. Below please find some of the reasons as I see it:

1. They despise President Trump so much they are blind to everything else. They have bought into the false narrative that anything Mr. Trump says or does is wrong – period. They would rather hurt themselves and/or the country than see him win re-election. They would rather vote for a candidate with a Socialist agenda who would raise their taxes, eliminate their jobs, and take away their first and second amendments than for a man they hate. (Hence the term, “Trump derangement syndrome”.) More on this later. According to most polls almost half of the electorate falls into this category. I have discussed this TDS at great length in previous blogs, and there is no need to repeat it here.
2. They get their news from “fake news” sources, such as twitter, Facebook, CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times or the Washington Post. Unfortunately, many Biden supporters fall into this category. I have discussed the election with some of them. They’re not bad people, just misinformed. For example, they believe that Mr. Trump is a Russian spy, that he colluded with Russia to “steal” the 2016 election, that he committed impeachable acts, and that he is a racist, a white supremacist, and a misogynist despite the lack of a shred of credible evidence. In fact, I maintain that there is plenty of evidence in Biden’s past that indicates he is the racist, based on certain comments and his past associations with known racists and segregationists.
3. They are unaware of or have an incorrect view of the collusion, influence peddling, kickbacks, quid pro quo and other crimes committed by Biden’s son, Hunter, and Joe’s role in them. They are unaware of or don’t believe that Facebook, twitter and google have been conspiring to bury that story to protect the Biden family. Despite the best efforts of the Dems and their allies in the media to dismiss this story as “Russian disinformation,” it is gaining traction. Multiple investigations have been launched; the FBI and DOJ have both rejected the Russian disinformation claim; and President Trump is likely to raise the issue in tomorrow night’s debate. Biden better have a good explanation, or it could damage his campaign.
4. They are unaware of or don’t care that he plans to “pack” the Supreme Court, end the Senate filibuster, and push for statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Those actions would assure the Dems of permanent control of the SC and Congress and make it very unlikely that a GOP candidate could ever win the presidency.
5. Most puzzling of all, they are willing or maybe are not aware that they would be voting against their and their family’s own wellbeing. Biden has made it clear he plans to eliminate the “Trump tax cuts.” He claims it will only affect those with incomes in excess of $400,000, but that statement is most definitely false. He is omitting the fact that this action would also eliminate various tax deductions and credits that benefit the middle class and small business owners, raise medical insurance costs for everyone, and eliminate millions of jobs. Goodbye recovery. Hello Venezuela. Either he is too stupid to realize that or he thinks the voters are.
6. Many voters in PA, MI, OH and other states are unaware that he plans to eliminate fracking. He has waffled on this issue depending on the audience, but the Dem platform and website is quite clear on this issue. It is part of the Green New Deal, which Biden has endorsed whether he knows it or not. Why would anyone whose livelihood is dependent on fracking, or the fossil fuel industries even think about voting for him? I don’t know, but based on the polls there must be many who are.

CONCLUSION

There is strong evidence that Biden is and will be controlled by the radical left wing of the Dem Party. Most of his advisors and staff are Sanders-AOC supporters. He has received millions in donations from them.

As I said, I have discussed all of the above in previous blogs if you care to delve into the details. Anyone planning to vote for Biden should know he has adopted the radical left’s platform because he knows he cannot win without their support. He is trying to hide this from the voters by staying in his basement and answering as few questions as possible. The media is covering for him. You should notice that the few times in which he appears in public they ask him softball questions or none at all.

Moderate Dems who are supporting Biden are voting for a memory. The moderate Joe from the 1980s and 1990s is gone. He has been replaced by an empty shell who is out of touch and cognitively challenged. If he were to be elected it is very unlikely that he would be able to complete his term. Say hello to President Harris, the most liberal Senator, who would present a whole different set of issues and problems.

Beware; be informed. Your livelihood and the country’s wellbeing depends on it.

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

“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!

CONCLUSION

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.

SO, DON’T FORGET TO VOTE!

“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.

CONCLUSION

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.