http://donpolson.blogspot.com/ Bringing you the very best information, analysis and opinion from around the web. NOTE: For videos that don't start--go to article link to view. FAVORITE SITES FOR INFO: https://pjmedia.com , www.powerlineblog.com , https://rumble.com/c/Bongino , instapundit.com https://justthenews.com , https://Bonginoreport.com
This weekend marks 100 days out from Election Day. As I reflect on the last four years and think ahead to the next few months, I’m reminded of an instance that occurred roughly 100 days into President Trump’s administration. I was chaperoning my daughter’s class trip to Washington, DC.
While millions of Americans were excited about the new administration, you couldn’t exactly count my daughter’s classmates among them.
Their attitudes towards the new president were largely negative, and even when given a chance opportunity to meet with a senior member of the administration, their reaction was blasé, at best.
This initial tepidness to President Trump seemed to speak to the concerns of some who were frankly unsure if the billionaire businessman could shake up the status quo in Washington and deliver on his America-First agenda.
Flash forward a few years and I was chaperoning the same trip for my son’s class but this time, the students’ reaction was completely different.
A couple years and countless Promises-Made, Promises-Kept later, this time they couldn’t get their hands on the MAGA hats at the gift shop fast enough and couldn’t wait to show off just how proud they and the people of Michigan were of their president. The change in attitude was surely a reflection of the conversations taking place at their own dinner tables and the impact this president had had on their own families’ lives.
This is just one snapshot of many that shows the record-breaking enthusiasm President Trump enjoys because of the record-breaking achievements he has secured for the American people. As Election Day approaches, it’s because of this enthusiasm that President Trump will carry the day once again.
Americans of all political stripes are excited to get out and vote for this president for the simple reason that his policies have made their lives better.
They know his tax cuts, combined with regulatory relief and energy independence, created the best jobs market our country have ever seen. More importantly, they know these pro-growth policies will do so again as we continue to recover from the coronavirus and rebuild our economy.
We’ve watched President Trump put our enemies on notice and stand up for America on the world stage. We’ve seen him negotiate free and fairer trade deals that will foster economic prosperity for our farmers and manufacturers in the years and decades ahead.
In the face of the worst public health crisis the world has witnessed in a century, Americans recognize President Trump’s bold and unprecedented response to the coronavirus has saved countless lives.
His marshaling a ‘whole-of-America’ approach is why the United States leads the world in testing, our case fatality rate is down 75 percent since mid-April, and why we are on our way to producing an effective vaccine against the virus.
As elected Democrats in cities across the country cave to the left-wing mob and let their communities devolve into anarchy and chaos, President Trump is standing up for law and order and the American people stand with him. Recent polling found Americans overwhelming oppose defunding the police – instead, they want someone who will defend the police.
For these reasons and more it’s why with 100 days to go, President Trump’s enthusiasm advantage over Joe Biden is real and wide.
It’s little wonder Joe Biden is failing to motivate voters, even among his own party.
It turns out raising taxes on 82 percent of Americans or eliminating entire sectors of our energy industry, along with millions of reliable, good-paying jobs, isn’t a great rallying cry for your campaign.
Moreover, a candidate who can’t be bothered to field a few questions from friendly reporters can’t be trusted to lead our country.
In 100 days our country will be confronted with the “time for choosing” Ronald Reagan spoke of, and there’s no doubt the stakes are high.
Never before has one side of the political debate called the basic creed of our country – free speech, free markets, commitment to the rule of law – so much into question as the modern-day Democratic Party is doing.
With their unity manifestos, it’s clear Joe Biden is controlled by Bernie Sanders and the rest of the radical left singing the siren song of socialism as the alternative to freedom and the vision of our Founders.
We know President Trump is focused on the issues that matter like ending the coronavirus pandemic and restoring our economy back to record levels he built once before.
And because President Trump has shown up and fought for the American people every single day for the past four years, I can say with confidence that in 100 days the American people are going to show up for him and vote to reelect him to a second term.
“School’s out for the summer. School’s out forever.” - Alice Cooper
In Europe, 22 countries have allowed students to return to the classroom without any spike in Covid. Did you know that? If the answer is no, then you have once again been victimized by a dishonest American press which ignores facts that go against the anti-Trump narrative.
Many believe the kids are a key to the November election. If schools cannot reopen, the psychological signal will be the pandemic has defeated the Trump administration. Already, Nancy Pelosi is calling the contagion the “Trump virus.”
In 2016, women voted for Hillary Clinton 54 to 42 percent. Today, the school issue is obviously very important to mothers and grandmothers because they tend to be closer to the urchin action on the ground. Most women want their kids back in school safely.
But some, not all, Trump opponents do not want in person classes to begin and they use a speculative argument that it might not be safe. Many teachers unions, fiercely pro-democrat, are opposed to classroom education this fall citing “danger” from the vicious contagion that might devastate the schools.
The national press, also pro-democrat, generally agrees. And if one child contracts Covid in school, you will definitely come to know his or her name.
The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta is pro in-person schooling but there may be some political pressure there, as the Trump administration is asking the medical establishment to help get the students back. So let’s go to another authoritative group that also believes kids should return to class: Harvard University medical researchers.
This is “science” for Joe Biden and his fans.
To support anything Trump at Harvard is to jeopardize your position at the nations oldest and most prestigious university. Harvard has caved into political correctness and the “woke” movement that is crippling freedom of speech and robust debate, which can lead to problem-solving breakthroughs. Simply put: the PC left rules Harvard.
Therefore, when issuing perhaps the most authoritative study on Covid’s impact on schools, the researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health were sure to include some Trump bashing to cover their rear assets. Boring but necessary for their academic survival.
There are two key provisions in the study. Here’s the first: “School closures may be among the least effective of (halting the spread of Covid). A study of county rates of Covid across the United States from earlier this year found ‘no evidence that school closures influenced the growth rate’ in Covid infections, and two international studies similarly found large reductions in Covid spread from social distancing policies in general, but no significant effect from school closures on their own.”
Someone alert CNN.
Never mind. The anti-Trump movement will never acknowledge the study. Corruption at its most vivid.
But by reading this column as well as the entire study which is available online, the conclusion reached by the Harvard people is clearly stated: “Reopening schools should not be an us versus them argument. It’s not a Democrat vs. Republican argument. It’s about our children and about the evidence. We should be following the science that says in-person schooling for our kids is too valuable to give up and that the risks of school-based transmission appear to be low.”
So there you go, Alice Cooper. With some exceptions in Covid danger zones, American schools should reopen with distancing and as many other protections as possible. Children need structure and the nation must regain some normalcy.
Attorney General Bill Barr faced sharply partisan questioning by the House Judiciary Committee about the Trump administration’s response to riots around the country today, including one bizarre attempt by Rep. Primila Jayapal (D-WA) to chide Barr for not sending in federal law enforcement after armed protesters legally entered the Michigan state capitol building back in April as part of a anti-lockdown protest.
There were plenty of capitol police officers on hand during that protest, but no arrests were made because no laws were broken. Despite that, Jayapal seems to believe that the lawful exercise of the right to keep and bear arms should result in a federal show of force.
“When white men with swastikas storm a government building with guns, there is no need for the president to ‘activate’ you, because they’re getting the president’s personal agenda done,” U.S. Rep. Primila Jayapal (D-Washington) said during confrontational questioning of Barr, who was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee.
“But when black people and people of color protest police brutality, systemic racism and the president’s very own lack of response to those critical issues, then you forcibly remove them with armed federal officers (and) pepper bombs because they are considered terrorists by the president.”
“Are you aware that these protesters called for the governor to be lynched, shot and beheaded?”
Jayapal wasn’t the only member of Congress to bring up the Michigan protest. According to DeadlineDetroit.com, Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin also suggested that Barr should have deployed federal law enforcement to Michigan in the wake of the protest that only lasted a few hours.
“You didn’t send a secret paramilitary police force on horseback to unleash tear gas and pepper spray, billy clubs and rubber bullets against these protesters storming the state capitol of Michigan,” Raskin said. “No, you embraced their cause by joining litigation against the governors of Michigan and Virginia. Now, of course your side lost your motions for emergency injunctions, but you got to spread Trump’s message that it was time to call off the stay-at-home orders, the masking and social distancing.”
Pure political theater, and a complete rewriting of recent history. Nobody “stormed the state capitol of Michigan.” People were lawfully protesting, and yes, a couple dozen of them were legally carrying firearms. After a few hours, the reopen protest ended, the protesters went home without breaking so much as a lightbulb or scuffing the floor. There was no riot, and in questioning the lack of a federal response to a one-off peaceful protest, both Jayapal and Raskin have raised far more questions about their own beliefs regarding federal law enforcement as an appropriate response to protests than any questions they might have raised about Barr’s actions.
Comparing the 60+ nights of riots in Portland to a 3-hour protest in Lansing is deeply unserious, but then again, Democrats in general were deeply unserious in their questioning of the Attorney General. Intent on portraying the deployment of a few dozen federal law enforcement officials to protect the federal courthouse as an act of outright fascism, House Democrats ended up beclowning themselves in front of the cameras. By suggesting that a boisterous, yet legal and peaceable assembly deserved tear gas and rubber bullets, on the other hand, demonstrates that these Democrats don’t really have much of a problem with the heavy hand of authoritarianism at all.. as long as they’re the authority.
CBS News decided to test the system upon which the government will entrust the sanctity of the ballot this November. And the U.S. Postal Service flubbed it.
This is not about gaming the system, or voter fraud, or stuffing the mail with fake ballots from illegal aliens. This is about the competency of the USPS to deliver official ballots sent through the mail on time, and to the right people. They proved that the 100 million or more Americans who plan to mail in their ballots should not expect their vote to be counted unless they mail it weeks prior to the election deadlines in each state.
And even then there’s no guarantee it will be processed and counted.
The parameters of the test were simple and straightforward. CBS mailed 100 ballots to locations across Philadelphia in an experiment to see how long it took the ballots to arrive. A post office box was set up to receive the returned ballots.
A few days later, another 100 ballots were mailed to another 100 locations in the city. The results should frighten Democrats who claim they are all about “every vote being counted.”
A week after initial ballots were sent, most ballots appeared to be missing from the P.O. box.
“I don’t see anything back there for you,” a postal worker told Dokoupil when he received the mail. “That’s all I have back there right now.”
After asking for a manager and explaining the situation to them, the votes were found.
“They had them somewhere else,” the postal worker said.
Ho-hum, well, no one is perfect. That’s the point, isn’t it?
The mysterious problems at the local post office also included missorted mail.
“We got a birthday card from Mike to Ronnie,” Dokoupil said, as he read a postcard mistakenly placed in “CBS This Morning’s” P.O. box. “Have a sweet b-day. Get it? There’s a bee on top.”
The postcard, along with another piece of missorted mail, was then sent to the correct recipient.
In the end, the tally of late, misdirected, and missorted mail should concern anyone interested in the integrity of our elections.
Out of the initial batch mailed a week earlier, 97 out of 100 votes had arrived. Three simulated persons, or 3% of voters, were effectively disenfranchised by mail by giving their ballots a week to arrive. In a close election, 3% could be pivotal.
Four days after mailing the second batch of mock ballots, 21% of the votes hadn’t arrived.
According to Postal Service recommendations, “voters should mail their return ballots at least one week prior to the due date.”
However, nearly half of all states still allow voters to request ballots less than a week before the election.
Democrats who are pushing this notion that a mail-in election won’t be any different from an in-person election should listen to the voters who are far more grounded in reality.
“I’m scared that it might get lost in the mail,” potential voter Kim Tucker said. “I just want to make sure that my vote is submitted, like, I see that it’s submitted, that it actually counts.”
The November election is shaping up to be the mother of all clusterfarks. At every level — federal, state, and local — election officials are sounding the alarm. The system was not built to handle 120 million mailed ballots. Processing and protecting those ballots is beyond the abilities of almost every state.
The concern is not only over the integrity of the ballot. The avalanche of legal challenges to the results will almost certainly run for years and may even delay state and local legislatures from sitting.
Democrats will bring all of this on themselves. It’s a shame that the rest of us are going to suffer for their stupidity.
Up until a few weeks ago, late June or early July, media constantly polled Americans’ attitudes toward the ongoing street protests over the death of George Floyd.
Those polls consistently found that Americans generally supported the protests. But if you Google “poll Americans reactions to city violence” you’ll see something interesting.
The media appears to have stopped polling about the protests/riots. Here’s a snapshot. Look at the dates — nothing recent.
Google search for stories on ongoing riots and polls about them. July 24, 2020.
Slightly different wording, “poll americans opinion city protests,” yields similar results.
Note those last two stories. The media was polling what Americans thought should be done about the riots, and while comparing the results of one poll versus another can be dicey — different sample sizes, methodologies, and so forth — a majority of Americans wanted the violence stopped. They favored deploying the military to do it, in keeping with the Constitution’s call to “insure domestic tranquility,” and the number who wanted that to happen was likely increasing.
The NYT even published Sen. Tom Cotton’s op-ed suggesting the military option, which had majority support at the time, only to face a revolt in its newsroom that led to a bloodbath on its editorial staff. That op-ed ran on June 3. The NYT lost touch with reality on this issue soon thereafter.
Sometime in late June or early July the polling on the riots and what to do about them appears to have stopped. Or, at least, the reporting on the polling stopped. Insert the thinking emoji here. Why would media stop polling on an ongoing issue that is affecting the entire national mood and discourse, the function of some of our largest cities, how we see and depict our history, and, by the way, the upcoming presidential election?
What if the media didn’t stop polling about this? They just stopped reporting on their polls.
Now, why would they do that? Insert that thinking emoji again.
I did find one recent poll reported in The Hill, and it has bad news for those who want to defund the police. Most Americans oppose that, as they consistently have from the start of all this. That poll hasn’t exactly been trumpeted by anyone. It doesn’t ask the broad question of what Americans think about the violence, or what should be done about it.
In the beginning of all this recent unpleasantness, Americans were horrified at the video of George Floyd’s death and broadly supported reforms so that no one else would suffer a similar fate at the hands of police. Several helpful suggestions came forth, from banning chokeholds to curbing or doing away with unions that protect bad police officers.
So do those things, fix the problem, and move on. Right?
Apparently none of those reasonable suggestions, or any other reasonable suggestions, were enough to stop rioters, though Americans still broadly support them, according to Gallup.
As we all know, the peaceful protests gave way quickly to violence as antifa and others opportunistically hijacked the issue. Since then, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, and other cities have suffered ongoing violence. Just look at the Seattle PD blotter from Wednesday night. This is not by any definition a protest. It’s a crime spree. (h/t Hot Air)
At about 9:00 p.m. a group of about 150 people gathered at Cal Anderson park. The group roamed about the Capital Hill neighborhood, doing massive amounts of property damage, looting, shooting fireworks, and committing arson.
Individuals from the group broke the windows of a business in the 1400 block of East Olive Way and then started a fire inside. Seattle Fire was called to extinguish the fire.
The group then went to the 1500 Block of 11 Avenue, breaking more businesses’ windows along the way. Individuals then broke into a business, took merchandise, and put it in middle of the street where they lit it on fire.
The group went to Broadway and Madison, where individuals used baseball bats and pipes to break windows at a store. They threw fireworks into the store and then began looting.
The group headed to the area of Summit and Madison where they damaged property at two banks.
After leaving the banks, the group returned to Cal Anderson Park and then dispersed.
No arrests were made. No officers were injured.
Take a good, hard look at that. It’s coming to a city near you if it’s not addressed soon.
Never let it be said that I am unwilling to compromise. It is safe to say that no agreement seems imminent in the great mask and shutdown debate of 2020, if one can call millions of people screaming “Screw you!” at each other a “debate.” It all becomes so ridiculous at times that I find myself wishing the masks were also sound barriers.
We have been hearing for most of plague time that the masks are almost supernatural life-savers. The most common — and therefore irritating — social media virtue-signal is a repeated exhortation to “Wear a mask.” This is especially de rigueur among elected Democratic officials who have virtually nothing else to offer society.
OK, mask people, if they are so wonderful at keeping the COVID monster at bay, I have one question: why can’t we reopen all the businesses and just have everyone wear masks?
I have to be up front here and admit that I took this idea from my dear friend and colleague, RedState Editor-at-Large, Kira Davis:
As soon as I saw that I began to rethink my position. I haven’t been adamantly anti-mask, I just don’t think that they’re as magical as the cultish pro-mask types think they are.
I have, however, been very opposed to the shutdowns because I think — and there is a lot of evidence to back me up — they were avoidable and have done nothing but ruin people’s lives. I also think that mask mandates, after everyone has been more or less forced to stay at home again because so many places are closed, are nothing more than petty, tyrannical power moves by the dictator class that this plague has spawned.
A lot of the things that many of us (YES, I’M GUILTY) complain about right now will be quickly forgotten once this coronavirus nightmare has subsided (it’s never going to go away completely). Destroyed livelihoods are not, sadly. Yelp recently reported that 55% of the businesses listed on its site that have closed have done so for good.
In Tuesday’s Morning Briefing I featured a heartbreaking story about venerable neighborhood mom-and-pop businesses in New York that have been ruined forever.
If a mandated face covering is the irritation I have to put up with on the off chance that we can still salvage some businesses and lives, then I have zero problem doing that right now. There will always be plenty of government overreach battles to fight and hills to die on. I can let this one go for a while.
I Won’t Miss The Ugly People
Let’s face it, humanity has been catching a real break having a lot faces kept partially hidden from public view. There is an old saying about Washington, D.C., being “Hollywood for ugly people” and, hoo-doggie is that true. Being spared the smirking visages of Chuckie Schumer and Granny Boxwine is something I wouldn’t mind lasting a little longer.
But seriously, if masks work as well as — ahem — experts and their scold warriors say they do, let’s all wear them while we’re out in public supporting our recently re-opened locally owned business. It’s a small price to pay.
Especially when compared to the delivery fees and driver tips I’ve been hemorrhaging since March.
Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here to receive the newsletter.
MARTIAL LAW! THE RESISTANCE GOES FULL FEVER SWAMP. You might view President Trump's deployment of Department of Homeland Security officers to protect the federal courthouse in Portland from rioting mobs as an exercise in federal law enforcement around an important federal facility. After all, the Mark O. Hatfield courthouse has been under steady attack from rioters setting fires, breaking down barriers, shooting fireworks, throwing debris, and more for 50-plus nights.
The need for federal protection in a small, well-defined area of Portland is particularly urgent because local authorities have essentially sided with the rioters against the federal government, demanding that federal law enforcement leave the area while also making no effort to protect it.
So you might see DHS involvement as necessary. But many in the Resistance -- those most adamantly opposed to the president in politics and media -- see something different. In their view, Portland is a dress rehearsal for President Trump to declare martial law and cancel or nullify this November's election. Yes, really.
"If a line is not drawn in the sand right now, America may be staring down the barrel of martial law in the middle of a presidential election," Washington State Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden told the Senate Intelligence Committee this week. "My hometown of Portland has been invaded by militarized federal law enforcement."
The martial law speculation is spreading through some media outlets. On MSNBC's "Morning Joe on Tuesday," commentator John Heilemann said: "I don't want to be overly alarmist about this, but I think this is the time to be alarmist, knowing where Donald Trump stands right now politically, understanding where we are headed in this election, I think we are looking at potentially a trial run for a kind of, a genuine attempt to, through intimidation, and potentially through force, to try to steal this election."
"This is what would happen if you were an authoritarian president who was preparing to resist a loss in the election," Heilemann continued on Thursday. "You would be saying the things Donald Trump is saying, and you would be gradually rolling out federal police power into the states against the wishes of the mayors and governors in question. This is how it would happen. This is how the movie would play out. And anybody who's not looking at this with a state of alarm and concern and worried about, is this president going to employ, formally, martial law, at some point...Is there anybody, having watched Donald Trump for the last three and a half years, who doesn't think Donald Trump would try to employ martial law if he thought that he was the only way he could stay in power?"
Some foresee a huge battle inside the government when the president tries to declare martial law. "There are significant forces, including the military, the National Guard, the FBI, that would probably oppose any outright effort by Trump to declare something like martial law and cancel the election outcome," wrote Tufts University professor and Washington Post contributor Daniel Drezner this week. "But the fact that I had to even write that last sentence scares the bejeezus out of me."
What's going on? "The Left has gone Full Pizzagate," tweeted Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, referring to the crazy 2016 conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of the basement of a Washington, DC pizza restaurant. Back then, the bizarre theorizing was the work of Alex Jones and his ilk. Now, the martial law talk is coming from the heart of Democratic politics and media. Don't expect it to let up anytime soon.
An Ivy League epidemiology professor is claiming that hydroxychloroquine — the drug that has been at the center of a politicized medical debate for the last several months — is "the key to defeating COVID-19," and that medical officials should be widely prescribing it to save the lives of thousands of coronavirus patients.
Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at Yale as well as the director of that school's Molecular Cancer Epidemiology Laboratory, argues in a Newsweek op-ed this week that "the data fully support" the wide use of hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment of COVID-19.
"When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective," Risch argues in the column.
Hydroxychloroquine has been the subject of a bitter and protracted political argument for the past several months, after President Trump in mid-March said the drug was showing promising effects in treating COVID-19. Media outlets and commentators shortly thereafter began touting numerous stories of the drug's alleged fatal dangers as well as its reported ineffectiveness in treating the disease.
Risch, at Newsweek, argues that multiple studies over the past several months have demonstrated that the drug is a safe and efficacious treatment method for COVID-19.
Among the successful treatment experiments, he writes, are "an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk."
Risch says the drug is most effective "when given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control."
Though according to Risch the benefits of the drug are clear, he nevertheless concedes that the subject "has become highly politicized."
"For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum," he said. "Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed."
He also argues that "the drug has not been used properly in many studies," and that delays in administering the drug have reduced its effectiveness.
"In the future," Risch says in the column, "I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence."
"But for now," he adds, "reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points."