Dr. Larry on GOP

Notes on the 2020 Republican Convention
Donald and Melania Trump
The Donald Trump ShowBy Larry Fedewa, Ph.D.
(Washington DC, August 30, 2020) The 2020 political conventions have drawn to a close with the dramatic (and late night) end of the Republican Convention. And what a show each party presented.
Last week we discussed the Democrats’ effort based on two criteria, technical and content. We’ll do the same for the Republicans.
TechnicalThe Republican National Committee (RNC) broke new ground technically with this production. The bulk of the time for thefirst 3½sessions was a series of testimonies by a vast variety of people, mostly non-politicians, who told their personal stories. All were interesting, many were gripping – like the widow of the retired police chief in St. Louis who was killed by the rioters, or the young Congressional candidate, who rose from his wheel chair to salute the flag, or the young ex-Planned Parenthood staffer who was appalled by what she saw in a live abortion – and the list goes on.
From a technical point of view, the variety of settings for each presentation, the musical interludes, and, most of all, the pacing of the program was exceptional. The only way so many speeches could have been packed into the time allowed depended on strict discipline of timing, variety of material, insertions of video clips to dramatize the speaker’s prose, and of the settings – all of which were exceptional. This discipline included even time limits on usually long-winded politicians – one of the more impressive features of the program.

The program ended with a brief but spectacular fireworks display and a closing few songs featuring tenor, Christopher Macchio, although the lateness of the hour may have made this segment harder to appreciate.
In all, the technical framework of the convention set a new standard for this type of program, using many of the techniques of documentaries for live presentations. Actually, it is hard to imagine anything but a state-of-the-art production for a man whose show topped TV ratings for years.
ContentLike last week’s content, the content of either party tends to be controversial, appreciated by the advocates, scorned by the opposition. So, it is with this convention. As a sympathizer with the Republicans, my views are colored by my own preferences.

That having been said, I was very impressed by the messages of this convention. Among the most impressive features were the number and variety of the presenters. Most were ordinary Americans, whose stories varied in content, tone, accent, and perspective. All, of course, came to the same conclusion – they were voting Republican. The interesting part was the individual starting points. Especially interesting were the Black endorsements, some from Democrats. Also impressive were the young men and women who are the future of the party, led by Nikki Haley, Rand Paul, and Tim Scott, among several others. The last half of the last evening was devoted to Donald J. Trump, sitting 45th President of the United States of America. The earlier testimonials were a mixture of endorsements of the President, criticisms of the Biden/Harris ticket, and explanations of generic preference for either the Republican party or specific issues, especially reasons for Black support for Trump over Biden. This last segment was devoted to endorsements of Trump by a variety of people, ranging from ordinary Americans to politicians. Finally, the President himself gave his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination for the presidency.  

The speech was an indictment of the Democrats’ prospective policies, Mr. Biden himself, based on his half century record of public service, recap of Mr. Trump’s own record of the past three+ years, and his plans for the future. His agenda is mostly well known, although he supplied surprising details of some of the planned initiatives. His tone was somewhat subdued compared to some other speeches, but he covered a wide range of subjects. As expected, his speech was very long.

While we on the subject of Mr. Trump, there are some observations I would like to share. I recently had occasion to watch some of his 2015-16 debates. There is no question that he was a brutal, bullying candidate. Never have I seen such behavior before in a formal setting like a presidential debate. It was prompted, I believe, by his disdain for all politicians, especially in national office, although he also criticized Dr. Ben Carson as being “low-energy”. Looking back, I think that it was this behavior which gained him a bad reputation among many otherwise open-minded people. I believe he is still paying for that period, even though it did not stop him from winning both the nomination and the election.
I believe that Donald J. Trump has experienced some significant changes since he became President. One of the most significant changes has been his attitude towards politicians. He quickly realized that he needed their support in order to get done some of his most important priorities. He has succeeded in converting most of his most offended victims (but not the Bushes) as well as virtually all the Republicans in Congress from enemies into fervent advocates. Prime examples are Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. He even persuaded Dr. Carson to join his cabinet.
Since taking office, he has turned into a great advocate of the Republican Party, campaigning religiously for Republican candidates throughout the country. He has accepted the mantle of head of the Party and pursued it with his characteristic vigor.

Another area of his life has also seen change in my opinion. That is his private life, particularly his personal conduct and his religious practice. Like many other presidents, (not all) he has “grown into the job”.  His life is now lived in a glass house – everything he does or says is noted and publicized. He cannot afford to be seen in any questionable behavior. He has become a straight arrow, although he has not miraculously turned into a gentle St.Francis by any means. he is still tough, fearless, and sometimes crude. But his horizons have been expanded.

He also has, I believe, become more aware that he depends on a force beyond his or anyone’s control. Never known to be particularly religious, he is now seen praying in church and in public, seen as a strong advocate of religious freedom, and generally deserving of the strong support he received from the evangelical community. Some would say he is masquerading. I believe he is sincere, influence perhaps by Melania. Sincere or not, it is hard to contest his behavior.

The case for a Trump electoral victory was strengthened by the 2020 Republican convention, with its message of hope, prosperity and equality. We will see how long it lasts.   


What about the Israeli/UAE treaty?
Sheikh Zayed Mosque in Middle East United Arab Emirates. Abu DhabiBy Mariia Savoskula
Could it signal a new era in the Middle East?
By Larry Fedewa, Ph.D.
(Washington DC, August 16, 2020) President Trump last Thursday announced the first Middle Eastern treaty in 26 years between Israel and an Arab country. Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) will establish full diplomatic relations between the two countries. The heart of the agreement is the UAE recognition of Israeli sovereignty in exchange for Israel’s postponing its intention to annex the Israeli settlements on the West Bank. The treaty is being hailed as a major step toward peace in the Middle East.
Most of us do not know enough about the situation to understand the importance of this step. So, let’s take a quick look.

From President Trump’s first trip abroad which was to Saudi Arabia in 2017 and ever since, one of his first priorities in foreign policy has been to promote peace in the Middle East, which has cost the United States so much blood and treasure in the past several years. The underlying motivation for USA involvement since the 1920’s has been protection of America’s oil supply, the greatest source of which has been the Middle East, specifically (since the fall of Iran in 1978) Saudi Arabia.

One of the greatest imperatives, therefore, has been to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. Luckily, the development of new technology for the venerable practice of fracking has made that goal achievable, and the encouragement of the new Administration has assisted the industry to realize America’s independence from importing foreign oil – a major milestone in Middle Eastern policy.

The full effect of this abundance, however, has been delayed by the lack of available refinery capacity, due to very onerous restrictions imposed by previous Congresses aimed at protecting the environment. Nevertheless, the USA now occupies a much stronger position than previously in its Middle Eastern negotiations.

The other major factor in Middle Eastern policy since 1948 has been the US relationship with Israel, particularly, the hostility with which Israel has been viewed by its Arab neighbors. Egypt, the largest Arab neighbor of Israel, made peace with Israel in 1978. That treaty was brokered by President Jimmy Carter after President Richard Nixon saved the Israelis from defeat in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. However, there have been few additional breakthroughs since then as the Palestinians grew more and more influential after being adopted by Iran.

This treaty has followed a succession of moves by the Trump Administration over the past three years, after President Obama had alienated the Sunni Muslim neighbors of Israel by his extraordinary treatment of Iran, the leader now of the Shia Muslim countries in the age old feud between the two branches of Islam. The open enmity of the Iranian leadership toward all the allies of the United States, especially against its Sunni neighbors, has been growing as Iran has committed more and more resources to its terrorist activities.

Understandably, the Obama pact has therefore become ever more odious to our Sunni allies. So, in order to show them good faith, Trump repudiated that agreement (which was never ratified by the US Senate).
Next, he moved the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, implementing a promise made by several of his predecessors but never executed. He then formed the Sunni-Israeli Coalition which unofficially coordinates the anti-Iran activities of its members – Israel, BahrainSaudi ArabiaUnited Arab Emirates and Oman.
The establishment of this group is an astonishing development, given the fierce anti-Israeli posture of Arabs in the past. It also engages the leader of the Sunni opposition, Saudi Arabia, with Israel in a way which was inconceivable only a few years ago.

Now comes the treaty with the UAE. Because of its strategic position at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and the beginning of the Gulf of Oman as well as its vast oil reserves, the UAE is very influential as a trend-setter among the Sunni countries. It also has a very vulnerable coastline across the narrowest stretch of Persian Gulf water between its shores and coast of Iran.
Another consideration can be imputed to the government in that its economy – and its citizens – tend to be aggressive, prosperous and progressive. The increased familiarity with Israel is bound to be reflected in an increased exposure to the United States which bodes well for one of the historically most active trading centers in the Gulf, if not in the entire Arab world. This aspect of the new treaty is highlighted by the invitation to the principals to come to the White House for the official signing of the treaty in the next three weeks.
In summary, this treaty joins similar treaties between Israel and two other Arab countries, Egypt and Jordan (1984), and is a significant step towards the President’s goal of creating a more peaceful Middle East, where the USA’s interests can be trade and commerce instead of war and violence. However, this development and the trend of the Sunni nations to band together with the United States does have a military implication.

For one thing, it puts Iraq, a traditional enemy of Iran, but one where Iranian influence has been rapidly increasing, right in the cross hairs of the territorial distance between Iran’s eastern border with Iran, and its western border with Saudi Arabia. In spite of all the sacrifices Americans made to win freedom for the Iraqi people, the ascendancy of Iran’s influence there makes its future posture toward the USA highly problematical.

Be that as it may, UAE’s joining the American side of this rivalry must be comforting to them. And this, of course, is due to the Trump revival of America’s military capabilities. Seeking protection from a country which could not defeat a ragtag force of Afghan rebels in 19 years would not be attractive without it. Only a double-edged initiative of diplomacy and might will win new friends.
Finally, there is China. The UAE is one of China’s major suppliers of energy. Accordingly, China has been taking a notable interest in the UAE — and all of the Gulf states. It is not beyond imagination that China has had its eye on major influence, if not control, of the Persian Gulf, with its friend Iran on one bank and the UAE on the other. China’s avowed goal of world domination would be well served if their permission, if not assistance, would be required for commerce to continue in the world’s most active energy industry depots. In that particular race, the treaty means

America 1, China 0.

Well done, Mr. President, and congratulations also to your young phenomenon, Jared Kushner (who represented the President on these negotiations).
 © 2020 Richfield Press. All rights reserved.


Are you a COVID-19 denier Donelson? Or worse, a proponent of an entire DIFFERENT set of facts? Alternate facts, perhaps? Worse yet: Do you contend that Petender Donald “Dahmer” Trump has done and CONTINUES TO DO an OUT-STANDING job as the Un-Precedent of the United States? From Scott Mudd Twitter. My response:

I am not a denier and if you listened to my podcast or read my timeline, you would know that not be true. Here is what I got right over the past several week. I have never stated Covid was a hoax.

1. I stated that the final IFR would be under 1% and we are looking at IFR at .2 to .6, I am on the side of scientific consensus as studies around the world supports this.

2. I have stated that this virus is more lethal than what we have seen with the flu over past five decades. I will add to point two that IFR is similar to 1957 and 1968 Pandemic which we didn’t shut down the economy.

3. I stated this virus hit the elderly harder and not so much the children and young adults. Again Scientific consensus.

4. I stated on the air that we may hit 200,000 death in March and noted this was one tenth of what was predicted. Even the CDC admits there is incentive to inflate the data. On a per capita basis similar to 1957 and 1968.

5. No evidence saved lives lockdown save lives. Many of the states with the hardest lockdown had significant highest death rates and infection rates. (New York) I could go on. https://spiked-online.com/2020/04/22/there-is-no-empirical-evidence-for-these-lockdowns/… This is one of many study. Empirical evidences speaks for itself

I could go on but if your best argument is call anyone who disagree with you a denier, then you don’t have an argument. The lockdown has devastating impact that exceeds the virus itself and will be felt for years, fact you totally ignore.

I will be happy to allow you on the Donelson Files and voice your opinion and we can have a reasonable discussion using facts. 6 PM EST Tuesday and Wednesday. call in 646-929-0130.

Future of Education by Dr. Larry

Who is served by higher education?
 Fundamentally, higher education, like all socialization, serves both the greater society and the individual: society by increasing its cadre of specialized experts in maintaining and advancing society’s technology and life experience; the individual by further defining and securing his/her role in society.
Humankind are all herd animals. We are born with the need to belong to a group of our fellow humans. Sociologists describe those groups as family, clan and tribe, depending on the size and intimacy of the group. “Family” is composed of those we are closest to and is the smallest of the groups. “Clan” denotes a larger, less intimate group, such as our cultural or religious or political associations. “Tribe” is the largest and least intimate of our associations, but equally important to the individual’s well-being, including nation, language, and history.
All humans are also curious. Our search for new knowledge and understanding never ceases, although the range and perspective of inquiry varies considerably from individual to individual, often from time to time for the same person over a lifetime.
Within this framework, higher (and all) education primarily serves the tribe by expanding the individual’s scope and perspective of inquiry or curiosity. Life itself is constantly providing the same service, but in a random and unpredictable fashion. Education is supposed to provide perspective and order to the individual’s ability to interpret these experiences in a meaningful context.
What are the criteria for evaluating whether or not higher education is providing a valuable experience?
The criteria are easy to identify, if difficult to evaluate. They are: Does higher education fulfill its obligation to society? And to the individual?
a.    Society
Higher education’s obligations to the greater society are twofold: cultural and technological. The knowledge and skills pertaining to an expansion of the individual’s understanding of his/her culture include the history, language and ideals of the society in which one lives. The second criterion is the same obligation in the realm of the society’s technology base, in the broader sense of “technology”, namely the “techniques” by which the society copes with the various challenges of its existence: food, heat, light, communication, transportation, lodging, water, to name a few of the obvious. The technology requirement presumes specialization in some aspect of these social needs.
b.   Individual
Higher education’s obligation to enhance the individual’s well-being and success in his/her society include more personal knowledge and skills. Included here are topics such as religion, a practical understanding of how society is organized and functions, how government works, problem-solving skills such as logic, research, factual versus false data, appreciation of the arts, including painting, architectural, music, and the like.
 These are areas frequently of controversy. How to deal with dissent, to weave one’s own way though the thicket of varying opinions, false claims and disputed facts represents a valuable but illusive skill which should be part of every college experience.
We have now set the stage for a discussion of the future of higher education:
Higher education exists to serve society and the individual by expanding his/her knowledge and skills of
·       Society’s culture and technology
·       Individual’s personal well-being
In this manner, higher education seeks to expand the individual’s success in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
I have always been intrigued by the concept of “Individual Educational Plans” (IEP), defined as “a written plan/program [which]… specifies the student’s academic goals and the method to obtain these goals.” Originally signed by President Reagan in 1986 and enhanced periodically since, the IED is required for all handicapped children.
What if IEP’s were specified for ALL children?
The practical implementation of such an idea was beyond our capabilities until the introduction into education of the digital age. Unfortunately, computers were confined to two areas of education, teaching content (a problematic application) and administration. It has not been used extensively for the application which it would be most fruitfully applied, namely, implementation of complex scheduling. Elsewhere I have designed the way in which computers could be used to implement IED’s for ALL children. Needless to say, I was ahead of my time (where I spent most of my later years in education!).
However, I believe such a plan could now be implemented for higher education with today’s technology. After all, we were able to execute a form of this pedagogy in the 1970’s before computers were even introduced, as I explain the accompanying essay (see “The Fiddler and Me” attached).
The system would draw heavily from several sources: the Oxford University tutorial method of instruction, computer-based scheduling (which I helped introduce in my post-Crown Center career with Control Data Corporation) and doctoral degree programs, as well as the credit-for-experience, Portfolio Plan, which I pioneered in Kansas City’s Crown Center campus (details in accompanying essay). A very significant addition would be the computer-based courseware now available as well as the internet with its nearly unlimited research resources.
Briefly, the system would look like this:
1.     Each student would be assigned an individual carrel (as in graduate student libraries), equipped with desktop computer, software, headphones and webcam. (Fits nicely with social distancing.)
2.    Academic Plan – the first exercise would be a class which introduced the students to the system with the following components:
Development of his/her IEP based on each student’s individual interests and guided by a personal academic advisor. “What do you know now? (Portfolio optional) What don’t you know now that you would like to know? How will you acquire that expertise? How will we measure what you have learned? (Thesis required.)” Content could be achieved at the student’s discretion by seminar, tutorial or digitally. Benchmark endorsements from faculty required.
3.    A basic curriculum, to be attended by all students, addressing the commonly accepted cultural competences required by society, and graded on a Pass/Fail basis, with the requirement of an in-depth essay on a topic of the student’s choice.
4.   During each noon break a lecture would be given in the dining room by a professor on his/her chosen topic (attendance optional) addressing some aspect of culture or technology.
5.    Live instruction would take place in seminars attended by students whose interests were common to all, scheduled by computer as sorted by the common interests of the designated students. Individual tutorials, noon lectures and online course ware also provided as stipulated in the academic plan (IEP).
6.   Graduation – a thesis fulfilling the pre-arranged metrics for successful achievement would be published and presented in an oral defense to a panel of experts. Upon acceptance, the student would be graduated with the appropriate degree.
Many details are left undeveloped here because of space limitations. However, I hope this vision will be achieved somewhere down the road as higher education continues to evolve.

Dr. Larry our choices

Survival or Depression: A False Choice
We have to ignore the alarmists and get back to work
By Dr, Larry Fedewa
(Washington DC, July 13, 2020) One of the ongoing controversies in recent days is the dispute over which should be the nation’s top priority: economic recovery or pandemic precautions? Both positions are framed in the same terms: no recovery will be successful if everybody is afraid of catching the virus; likewise, drastic prevention measures, if continued, will bring on the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. The answer is that both positions are essentially correct.
We cannot afford either of these alternatives. Common sense tells us that we must resume full economic recovery as soon as possible, but we ignore the frightful prospect of an unchecked pandemic at our own peril. Each consideration has its own imperative: we must resume economic activity at its fullest capacity as soon as possible and take all reasonable precautions at the same time.
So, the key question is: what are reasonable measures for protecting ourselves as a society?
The first answer to this question is what we should not do. We should not trust the public health officials’ solution to this problem. They speak from a very limited perspective, namely, the optimal methods for avoiding the disease altogether. Obviously, the surest way to avoid the disease is to cease all human contact entirely — “shelter in place”.  There are several economic activities which can be executed alone, thanks to the internet and the telephone, such as, writing, meeting, accounting, record-keeping, reporting, selling (some items), etc. The surge of some sectors of the economy, such as mail-orders and delivery services, show the enhanced value of such activities.
Starting from avoiding all human contact as the best protection for individuals — which even public health experts realize is not doable for most people — the next step is simulating “personal quarantine”.  Thus “social distancing” and masks. This practice is marginally practical, meaning it can be done successfully by people engaged in some economic activities, such as counseling and lecturing.
Most economic activities, however, require closer contact. Therein lies the problem. Since most manufacturing and service industries are not compatible with “social distancing”, and since the nation cannot survive economically without these major sources of income, and, further, since the pandemic is not going away any time soon – in view of all these factors, another solution has to be forthcoming.
What is that solution? It seems clear that the solution is to carry on our economic life, using as many precautions as are feasible but not to the extent of continuing to suspend any significant activities which do not lend themselves to such precautions. For example, the practice of taking the temperature of all entrants to a building and requiring masks to be worn while inside – as being practiced in more and more venues already – can be adopted by far more businesses. Perhaps even on a mass scale such as ball games. Yes, it increases the cost of doing business, but that is better than no business at all. Imagination and creativity will be needed to cope with these issues. But those are characteristic attributes of Americans.
The new question needs to be “How?” not “If”.
And how do we regain the confidence of the American public? How do we answer the inevitable charge that we are putting money ahead of saving lives?
The first thing we do is to stop measuring the success or failure of our efforts to contain the virus by the number of cases identified. This number is bound to increase as more and more people are tested every day. The proper metric is the death rate due to the virus. Even with the sloppy counting being used, the rate of COVID-19 deaths is actually going down. For example, the percent of deaths to cases reported for July 11 was 1.3%. (Source: Johns Hopkins CSSE) Longer term reports are equally encouraging.
What accounts for this statistic? In general, there are several reasons for this progress:
1) therapeutics are increasingly effective – both human competence, which has improved with experience, and new medicines which have been developed specifically to treat this COVID-19 illness. Treatment can be expected only to improve with more of both human and pharmaceutical development. Also, vaccines are due to start becoming available by the end of 2020.
2) Hospitals are getting more efficient in their protocols and procedures. The metric for the early preparatory efforts by the Administration was the fear of overcrowding the hospital capacity of the United States. While this is still a possibility on a local level, the occupancy is currently under control.
3) As younger people start to constitute a larger percentage of the total test population, mortality rates are expected to continue to decline because the virus appears to be less lethal for youths. In fact, many youngsters who have been infected never suffer any symptoms at all. Their primary danger as a group seems to be their unwitting role as carriers of the disease to older contacts.
In general, America is learning to live with COVID-19 and to survive. It is now time to begin to flourish as we were before we were so rudely interrupted.

What is at Stake

What is at stake

View these data and ask yourself, who do you want to run the government over the next four year?  One can judge leadership in crisis and ideas over overcoming obstacles  While much of the pressure is being put on Florida, Arizona and Texas to pause or stop the reopening, the reality is that you are safer in a Republican state than Democrat state and more likely to be employed.

In states with Democratic governors, 93,000 have died of Covid and only 32,000 have died in GOP states (week ending June 26th), and on a per capita basis, 415 death per million have died in Democrat govern states versus 200 death per million in states run by Republican governors.   So, you are twice as likely as to die in states with Democratic states.  I will point out that these data’s are skewed toward Democrats since two of the bigger nominally blue states, Maryland and Massachusetts have Republican governors who followed the lead of their Democratic governors in ordering a lockdown and two nominally red states, Kansas and Montana have Democratic governors and they have followed the lead of their follow Republican governors in opening up.


(I included Democrat data that includes DC and excludes DC versus Republican states below is the raw numbers of death)

Dem/DC 91,557
Dem 91,011
Rep 31,917

(Below is data that is based on deaths per million)

Death per capita
Dem average/DC 415
Dem average 401
Rep average 200.7

On the economic side, again Republican governors are ahead of their Democratic counterpart as Republican states had less unemployment and lower percentages of civilian labor receiving unemployment claims.   According to May data saw Republican states unemployment was 11.4 percent compared to Democrats governors with 14.3 percent unemployment. The percentage of the civilian labor force receiving unemployment claims was 8.9 percent in Republican states versus 11.9 percent in Democratic states run by governor.  (data based on June 20th data)

May unemployment Claims % of civilian population
Dem average/DC 14.1 12.2
Dem average 14.3 11.9
Rep average 11.4 8.9

While Trump and GOP are taking the heat for the COVID virus spread, a major reason for much of the spread of the virus has been Democratic governors mismanagement beginning with Andrew Cuomo reign that resulted in over 31,000 deaths including seniors and their caretakers when he thought it was a great idea that one should put infected patients back into nursing home.   While Florida and Texas are taking the heat for their reopening, what is missing from the rapid rise in cases were the massive protest throughout the country and much of the increases occurred after the protest supported by Democrat. Much of the media have blamed the reopening and ignore the massive protest for the spread but then we are seeing an infection explosion among the young, the one group least likely to die. The overall death has been declining for the past several weeks and are 90 percent lower than the peak, news that should be treated as good.  For the Democrats, they want to stop the economy from growing and aid in the election of Joe Biden and take over the Senate and they understand that if the economy continues to grow, there is a chance they could yet lose this election.  The real fact is that Democrats have mishandled this virus on a state level, and they have been responsible for the lion share of deaths recorded.  Democrat governors slowing down the opening in their states have added to the economic woes of their voters, but they do not care.

The economic lockdown has proven to be a disaster as a strong economy was derailed and millions found their business shuttered and millions more unemployed. The biggest losers were business run by Blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants as a higher percentage of their businesses deemed non-essential.  State governments have granted themselves extraordinary powers and states run by many Democratic governors have abused that power beginning declaring what is and what is not essential businesses. Many people have seen their dreams crushed and the unemployment numbers have exceeded what it should have been.  From mandating masks, shutting down businesses, declaring war on church gathering while allowing the “right kind of protest” to happen, Government have dictated what free speech is allowed and whether Churches would even be open.  Abuse of rights have occurred, and Democrats have led the way.  We are getting a taste of what will happen if Democrats control all aspect of government.  Considering that the socialist left of the Democrat Party has already declared war on the gun industry and fossil fuels industry, many businesses will be under siege as the federal government will expand their power.

The narrative is that Trump and the GOP have failed to stem the virus, but the reality is that government response was completely the wrong response and there is no learning of past lessons.   If Trump made a mistake, it was actually to shut the economy down.  While in early March, there was a reasonable fear that this virus was more serious and Models claiming that 2 million would die and this set up a panic that led to Trump shutting down the economy.

The reality is that the virus was far less than lethal than imagine and that the biggest threat was to those with co-morbidity and in nursing homes.  This has given us the ability to target our response and keeping the economy open but we have done the complete opposite.   Trump and GOP effort to reopen the economy is not only the correct response, but the only recourse.

As for Joe Biden, he has demonstrated at his best mediocrity.  For fifty years, he has wrong on almost every major foreign policy from opposing the successful Reagan foreign policy that ended the Cold War while being part of the worst foreign policy team as Obama’s Vice President.  He even opposed the one decision that Obama made that almost every American agreed with, the killing of Bin Laden.  He was caught on tape bribing Ukrainian officials to stop an investigation into a company that his son was making millions of dollars nor this was all.  His son also profited from dealing with China while his father was negotiating with the Chinese governments.  Biden over the years have used his power to benefit his family members and has shown himself as a creature of the Swamp.  About Biden’s own capacity to lie to benefit his career, Kevin Williamson wrote, “ For some reason, the evidence shows, in the early 2000s, Joe Biden began to remark in public that his wife had died at the hands of someone who “allegedly . . . drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch.” That Curtis Dunn “was an errant driver who stopped to drink.” That drunk-driver story spread into news accounts. The Dunn family, who had strong sympathy for Biden, was shocked by the sullying of their now-dead father. They wrote the senator and asked him to stop and reminded him of the exonerating investigation. When that did not happen, they went public. Per a 2010 Biden profile in The Atlantic: For many years, he described the driver of the truck that struck and killed his first wife and their daughter in December 1972 as drunk, which he apparently was not. The tale could hardly be more tragic; why add in a baseless charge? The family of the truck driver has labored to correct the record, but Biden made the reference to drunkenness as recently as 2007, needlessly resurrecting a false and painful accusation…This is profoundly disturbing. But by our current standards, hair-sniffing rates condemnation, while the false accusation of an innocent dead man, and the embellishment of a personal tragedy — could the Biden tragedy be more tragic? — are forgotten and/or ignored.”   Biden own personal tragedy turn into a campaign story that included lies about a man who could not defend himself.  This is not a man who will bring back integrity to the White House but allow the White House to be use for profiteering by his family while others run the administration behind the scene.

I began this essay with detailing how Republicans have been more successful in saving lives and jobs but that is not the story voters are hearing. Kristi Noem’s accomplishment have been ignored and Andrew Cuomo incompetence is paraded as brilliance.  Democrats are the socialist party of American and made it clear that they will transfer America away from a Democratic capitalist society and allow anarchy triumph over the rule of law.  Cites are seeing crime wave happening while Democrats call for defunding the police, the last line of defense in many urban cities.  The lawlessness of the Obama era will return and a foreign policy of appeasement as United States surrender sovereignty to transnational organization and simply allow China to become the dominant power in the world.  We are witnessing a battle of civilization or if we even remained a civilized state.  Many within the right or in the political middle may view Donald Trump as the imperfect vassal to defend Western Civilization but he is what we have left in 2020 to defend Civilization. Decline of a civilization is a choice and electing Joe Biden is making that choice.

From Doctor Larry

he original poem was written in 1960 and proved remarkably prescient of the .events to follow in the eventful 1960;s. It was the basis for this poem which was written in 2012, at the height if the Obama era, and has proven predictive of events up to the current civil unrest. It expresses, I think, the challenges we face today when our very freedom is stake.
The hallmark of America’s genius since July 4, 1776 has been our ability to conceive and follow as our guiding star, our God-given right “to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” A major component of this ideal is “equal justice under the law”, which has seen a long, slow, and costly struggle, including a war which cost more American casualties than all the other wars combined. And we have come a long way since 1776. But not far enough.
Some of our fellow Americans have become impatient — and rightfully so — with the fact that this goal has not yet been achieved. Unfortunately, in their impatience, they have attacked the wrong target. Equality before the law does not require the suspension of the law or even of enforcement of the law. It means better laws, better standards and practices of the police, better judges, and better judgement on the part of each of us.
Racism in the sense of preference for our own kind may be an unfortunate characteristic of the human condition, but it must never be allowed to cloud our judgement of right and wrong. On the contrary, we must fight against it, as in the parable of the Good Samaritan. We can strive continuously and sincerely to expand our sense of “our own kind” to include all Americans, and the Christian ideal of “all humankind”.
The history of the past three centuries has proven America more successful than any other civilization ever “so conceived and so dedicated”. We cannot, we must not, give up now! Those who threaten our way of life must be overcome at all costs! We have to endure our shortcomings as we seek to eliminate them. Our individual freedom is a requirement to achieve these lofty goals, but they will never be achieved by mob rule.
As Americans we must be true to our heritage. It is our only hope for the advancement of human rights. America is still the shining city on the hill and a beacon of light to the world, but only if we continue to protect it.

data updated

Updated data.  First data GOP and Democrats economic data.May unemployment and percentage of civilian labor force along death per capita.  the second data is death per capita Democrats state with DC and without and GOP.  final data is 8 populous states four GOP, four Democrats states,

May unemployment Claims % of civilian population
Dem average/DC 14.1 12.2
Dem average 14.3 11.9
Rep average 11.4 8.9
Death per capita
Dem average/DC 415
Dem average 401
Rep average 200.7
May unemployment Claims % of civilian population Death per capital
Florida 14.5 10.1 Florida 155
Texas 13 9.4 Texas 79
Ohio 13.7 8.2 Ohio 238
Georgia 9.7 15.2 Georgia 254
GOP Avg 12.7 10.7 GOP Avg 181.5
California 16.8 15.9 California 145
New York 14.5 18.3 New York 1612
Illinois 15.2 11.9 Illinois 534
Pennsylvania 13.1 12.4 Pennsylvania 517


Dem Avg 14.9 14.6 Dem Avg 702