Santa: Forget the Ferrari; Bring Us Tolerance

Dear Santa Claus:

Despite my semi-exemplary behavior, last year you ignored my Christmas wish for a  661-horsepower Ferrari with a turbo charged, naturally aspirated V8 engine. A red one, to match Rudolf's nose. Perhaps, you couldn't lug it down the chimney.  Maybe elves drive Porches and refuse to make Italian cars.   

I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Unlike Virginia, I still believe in you Santa. But I admit you are on shaky ground at the Roy residence.  Don't expect wine and cheese this year.  And if you are not wearing a mask, don't show up unless you want Dr. Fauci to place you on his naughty list.  

This year I am surrendering my selfish lust for a shiny red Ferrari.  I wish for something every American needs, especially me.  I am requesting Tolerance.  Note the capital T for emphasis.  We are becoming increasingly unwilling to respect other opinions or beliefs contrary to our own. Our minds are shuttered.

We lash out at those with whom we disagree.  We judge people based on their politics instead of their character. The undercurrent of narrow-mindedness is dividing families.  We ostracize friends who don't support our candidate.  We huddle in social silos, limiting our circle to those who nod in agreement.

People who share our dogmatism are our tribal nation.  Civil discussions are no longer possible between those with differing ideas. We condemn expressions we consider foreign to established norms. Once we were open minded. No belief was considered too eccentric because we valued freedom of thought.

I recall visiting the North Pole one year and being privy to a class on mutual respect taught by Prancer.  I was struck by how all the other reindeer asked thoughtful questions and received sensible answers. There was no paw wagging.  Not one reindeer tore down a statue or looted a North Pole Nike store.

Santa we need the Readers Digest version of that class in every stocking hung by the fireplace.  We don't respect those who view the world through a lens that deviates from someone's idea of mainstream.  We mock and criticize our friends and turn them into enemies over their political choices. 

Freedom of speech has been disfigured to mean freedom from speech we don't like.  There are safe places at our universities where disagreement with the prevailing Woke doctrine is prohibited.  Ideas cannot be challenged because dissent labels the objector as racist, homophobic, misogynist or jingoistic.

We find it hard to trust people who hold contrary perspectives.  If they believe that whacky theory, then their intellect is missing a neuron or two. How can seemingly astute adults fall for an outlandish conjectural theory?  Our fallback position is to mistrust them and their motives for their views. 

Worst of all, Santa, there is a growing tide of censorship in America.  I know you run the North Pole like it was Venezuela.  But for centuries in our country it was considered treason not to allow the free exchange of ideas, even bad ones.  Now our news media and tech firms quash speech they don't like.

I am beginning to ramble. But hear me out.  This censorship is a reflection of our intolerance.  There is an acceptable view, as sanctioned by the elite, that we all must endorse or face searing rejection.  Some even lose their jobs over it.  Can you imagine firing Blizten over his views on reindeer resettlement?

I don't know about you Santa, but I don't want to live in a world where everyone thinks alike.  It would be boring, unchallenging and plainly unAmerican.  I enjoy the repartee of a good old fashioned disagreement.  We learn when our biases are contested.  It provides an opportunity to reexamine our justifications.

Oh, and one more thing.  I wish we could just argue over facts and not squishy feelings.  We are each entitled to our own feelings.  But these emotions should not outweigh facts.  If we make everything about our selfish sensations then all hope of honest dialogue will vanish.

I know folks are now calling for unity. But I am afraid that is code for group think.  This country, despite what many think, has been divided since its founding.  What unites us is our belief in freedom not politics. That includes the freedom of speech.  Freedom of religion. Liberty for all.  Justice and American values. 

Santa, I am over the whole red Ferrari incident.  Tell Virginia I think she is a complete idiot for not believing in you.  That's my opinion and I am not changing my mind.  Geez!  I just remembered I wished for Tolerance.  Hurry, Santa.  As you can tell, I need that gift more than anyone this Christmas.

Your Semi-Naughty But Never Wavering Believer,

Drew Roy 

Scurrilous Media Raises Fears About Vaccine

Coronavirus is the first disease to kindle a anti-vaccine flrestorm even before the immunization is publicly available.  Surveys show disturbing numbers of Americans will refuse to be vaccinated, despite the endorsement of public health officials.  A dishonest media is guilty of swaying public opinion. 

Ever since President Trump spearheaded Operation Warp Speed to jumpstart research into developing a vaccine, a politically motivated media has deliberately draped ominous clouds of suspicion over the effort.  The scientists are being rushed.  Protocols are being skirted to benefit the president, the media insisted.  

This insidious effort, aided by Democrats, inflamed an anti-vaccine sentiment even before the results of immunization trials were publicly disclosed. A responsible media should be educating the public about the benefits rather than twisting the vaccine into a partisan or ideological issue.  It is disgustingly perverted.

Unfortunately, the unethical media has succeeded.  The non-partisan Pew Research Center unveiled a study documenting the propaganda's impact.  In May, 72% of Americans surveyed said they would get the vaccine.  By September, the percentage plummeted to 51%.  That is a precipitous attitudinal shift.

The research discovered that three-quarters of Americans think it is likely that a COVID-19 vaccine will be approved in our country before its safety and effectiveness are fully understood.  Another 78% are concerned the approval process is moving too fast.  That tracks will the media's coverage of the vaccine.

In this climate, the Federal Food and Drug Administration on December 11 authorized the emergency use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech to turn the tide in the battle against the Coronavirus. Vaccine shipments are underway today.  It won't matter if Americans don't get the shot.  

The media and the incoming administration do not want President Trump to get one iota of credit for delivering a knockout punch to the spread of the virus.  They will do whatever is necessary, even deceive the public, to ensure Americans will be skeptical of the Trump-led campaign.

If you doubt the premise, you have not be reading the New York Times, Washington Post or watching the major network news.  No opportunity has been wasted to quote scientists, professors, immunologists and health officials, who have what the media terms "grave doubts" about the vaccine.

Here is just one sample from Alison Buttenheim, an associate professor of nursing and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, who referred to the situation as a perfect storm of "justified distrust." "I've heard people say, 'I'll get the European one,'" she said, adding others want Anthony Fauci to get it first. 

The naysayers are the grist of the media propaganda mill.  But most experts in the field are excited about the prospect of a vaccine to help arrest the surge of Coronavirus cases.

Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 2009 to 2017, cites the results of the trials as good news for Americans.  "The most obvious is the striking efficacy of the vaccines being produced by Moderna, Inc. and Pfizer and its partner BioNTech. "

He points out that the vaccines are game changers with efficacy levels of 90% or higher.  "A 70% uptake (people who voluntarily take the shot) vaccination could end the explosive spread of the virus," he noted in a piece he authored for The Wall Street Journal.  Endorsements like this are rare.

The injustice of the media cries of wolf is this: it preys on the increasing public apprehension about all vaccines, including those for children.  A study in the Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics  cited the "parental refusal of vaccines" for children as a reason preventable diseases are more prevalent.

The research included a study that found 77% of parents reported having concerns about one or more childhood vaccinations.  Reasons cited are religious beliefs, personal or philosophical reasons, and safety concerns.  The report mentions public education as the key factor in gaining parental acceptance and trust.

Adults are just as nervous about vaccinations for themselves. Estimates from the CDC conclude in the last 10 years less than half of American adults received a flu shot.  It reached a high of 43.6% in 2014 and a low of 37.1% in 2017.  Those are worrisome statistics with the COVID vaccine arriving soon.

As the nation's hospitals, pharmacies and doctors are poised to begin vaccinations, the bureaucrats are still playing politics with Americans' health.  New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo has already signaled that racial preferences will be considered in decisions about who gets vaccinated first.

This flies in the face of commitments by Cuomo and other health officials that those in nursing homes would be a top priority, since they have suffered disproportionately from the virus.  There are 2.1 million adults in nursing homes, less than 1% of the population, but they represent 40% of all COVID deaths. 

In San Antonio and Bexar County, health officials are lobbying to make the vaccine available to teachers in the first wave, despite earlier assurances nursing home staff and patients would get preference. This stunning reversal is nothing more than a blatant political move to placate the teachers union.  

It is unconscionable for nursing home staff and their patients not to be prioritized for the vaccine.  Shame on those who continue to politicize this virus. The attitude of politicians and cultural elites is that old people are going to die soon anyway, so why waste the vaccine on them?  It reeks of a culture of death.

Politicians are not heeding the advice of an independent advisory panel of infectious disease experts, doctors and scientists. The group, known as the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, recommended parcelling out the vaccine to healthcare workers and nursing homes first.

FDA approval lagged behind the United Kingdom and Canada, which green-lighted COVID vaccines two weeks before the U.S.  The UK rolled out its vaccination program last week, giving the first injection to a 90-year old woman. However, the U.S. media focused on a single negative to hike fears.

Big media hyperventilated over two Britons who suffered significant allergic reactions to the Pfizer vaccine.  Most overlooked the fact both individuals recovered. Of course, there will be those who endure allergic reactions to the COVID vaccine, as there are with even the most common vaccines.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates the odds you will have a severe allergic reaction to a vaccine are about 1 in 760,000. To put that into perspective, your chances of being struck by lightening are a little higher: 1 in 700,000.  Don't expect those facts to appear in any American media.

A respectable media would be celebrating the arrival of vaccines that are 90% effective, not unnecessarily raising the specter of health-threatening outcomes.  The prediction here is that the media is setting the stage for the Biden Administration to halt vaccinations for more study to guarantee its safety.

It may sound outlandish but the media's unhinged hatred of all things Trump allows for such dire predictions.  Democrats cannot abide a Trump triumph.  Why else would the media be fostering an environment of distrust for a life-saving vaccine?

Electric Cars Failing To Energize Buyers

A decade ago, a spunky startup company named Tesla unveiled the first all electric automobile.  Despite the media hoopla, major car manufacturers sniffed in skepticism.  Now virtually every major auto maker has debuted its own electric car.  Despite the array of choices, consumers are energetically unimpressed. 

For all the media electricity surrounding the industry, gasoline powered light trucks remain the top selling model in the U.S. with sales of 12.2  million units in 2019.  By comparison, consumers purchased 2.1 million electric powered cars the same year.  Forecasts are for a modest uptick to 2.3 million this year.

Pioneering Tesla is far and away the consumer choice for electric cars. The California-based firm racked up sales of 381,190 vehicles in 2019. Nissan's electric car, Leaf, was a distant second with 130,000 units. Tesla's sales last year eclipsed the entire U.S. electric auto market of 361,000 cars in 2018.

Electric boosters point out that today's market is quadruple the 2015 U.S. sales. Since 2012, the average growth rate of electrics is 25% per annum.  There are an estimated 1.1 million electric cars purring along on streets and highways in America.  

Worldwide, Global EV Outlook estimates that sales in the first seven months of this year topped 2.1 million plug-in electric units.  There are about 7.2 million electric cars operating around the globe. However, it represents about 1% of the total fleet of an estimated 1.4 billion vehicles on the planet.

China has the largest number of electric vehicles in operation: 2.3 million. However, Norway lays claim to the title of Electric Champion. Nearly eight-out-of-every-ten (79%) of vehicles sold in October in this European country was electric.  In total, about 60% of autos driven in Norway are electric.   

The Norwegian government offers generous sale incentives, including eliminating taxes and road fees along with discounts for parking and tolls. Incentives are driving the American market too.  California, home to 46% of the nation's electric vehicles, shells out sales rebates, subsidies and other perks.

Electric supporters bemoan the obstacles to charging up sales: restricted supply, limited geographic availability, lack of consumer knowledge as well as perennial issues of cost, range and charging times.  They insist without these barriers, gasoline-powered cars would become extinct.  

Tesla, the global electric market leader with a 17% share, has a unfortunate history of missing production goals, which limits availability.  The issue of cost, however, is still a factor as new gasoline car prices average $38,000, while the average cost of an electric vehicle is $55,000, according to Car and Driver.  

But averages can be misleading.  A long-range Tesla Model S retails for $81,190, while its top brand scales upward of $100,000.  Tesla has introduced a smaller car, the Model 3, but the price tag is $50,190 for the long-range battery. Interested in an SUV? The Audi E-Tron carries a $75,000 sticker price.   

That is a tough sell when the median household income income in the U.S. is $64,000. 

One positive, despite the price tag, is the range of electric cars is expanding.  Tesla's newest long range battery powers its car for 322 miles, Nissan's long-range Leaf has a range of 226 miles, while the plug-in electric Hyundai can travel 258 miles on a single charge.  

A more pressing issue is the lack of charging stations in the country. Unlike gasoline stations, it can be difficult to find an electric charger unit.  Statista estimates there are about 13,093 charging outlets at grocery and retail stores, and 20,000 stand alone stations. China has 400,000 charging stations.  

Home charging equipment is not inexpensive.  The average cost nationwide to install an electric vehicle charger at home is $1,200, but it may be as much as $4,500, depending on your auto's battery range.  An electrician is normally required to install a 240-outlet, charger and wall-mounted system.  

For most electric models, fully recharging an average  lithium-ion battery will cost $9 in electricity.  Even with today's low gasoline prices, electrics are still cheaper to operate. Industry figures estimate a plug-in electric will cost about $421 annually, compared to $l,500 for a standard gasoline automobile.  

Electric cars are up to three times as efficient as their gasoline-powered cousins. The difference in performance can be attributed by the fact that electric motors are 90% more efficient at converting energy into motion.  And, of course, electric cars run without creating CO2 carbon dioxide emissions.

Achieving the world mantra of "net zero carbon emission by 2050" argues for embracing electric vehicles to save the planet.  But there are some "dirty" secrets about producing clean running electric cars. Hardly any attention has been paid to critical mineral commodities relied on to manufacture lithium-ion batteries.

Cobalt, graphite, lithium and manganese are the raw materials that are used to build the batteries.  These elements are concentrated in a small number of Third World countries where environmental and labor regulations are lax or nonexistent, according to a U.N. report.  Many of the mines employ child labor.

Mining for these minerals creates a trail of pollution from the source as well as the processing upstream.  A United Kingdom study estimated that acquiring the raw materials to fuel the next generation batteries would require doubling the annual production in 2018.

When a new EV appears in a Tesla dealership, it already has produced 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission during manufacturing.  The equivalent amounts for manufacturing a conventional gasoline powered automobile is 14,000 pounds, Forbes magazine reported this year.

There is also the issue of generating electricity to recharge the EV batteries.  Assuming a fleet of 261 million electric vehicles in the U.S., it would trigger a 29% increase in power generation by the nation's grid and spark a 44% hike in installed electricity capacity at a price tag estimated at $1.4 trillion. 

Most consumers are blind to these consequences and environmentalists are loathe to come clean.  Wider adoption of electric cars biggest hurdle, however, may be convincing consumers to part with their money for a car that does not fit their needs.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, Americans are taller, larger and their appetite for SUV's and trucks is nearly insatiable.  Buyers are looking for extra room, more horsepower, fuel efficiency and lots of gadgets that make their driving experience safer.  Even with hefty subsidies, consumers prefer space and power.

Small electric vehicles are a mismatch for today's auto consumer. Tesla and the other auto manufacturers need to reassess, redesign and reengineer a new generation of electric vehicles that hit the sweet spot with buyers at a price they can afford.  Until then, electrics will be stuck in sales purgatory.

Surging COVID Cases Spark Draconian Measures

As COVID cases flare like a rampaging California wildfire, a swarm of authoritarian governors are resorting to stringent infringements on personal freedoms in the name of health and safety. Many measures are clearly unconstitutional.  Others are inane with no basis in science.  

The restrictions come in the wake of harsh lockdowns that persisted from spring through most of the summer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) assured Americans that forced isolations would "flatten the curve," thus relieving the stress on health systems while slowing the virus spread.

Most Americans abided by the dictates.  Of course, there were isolated cases of brazen misbehavior.  The actions of a few should not condemn the majority. But it is also fair to point out that scores of protests, riots, sporting events and post-election political celebrations were also contributors to the insidious spread.  

Once lockdown constraints were eased, the virus ticked up while hospitalizations remained within acceptable occupancies as determined by powerful health systems.  But as the new rules loosened, COVID cases began a steady march upward, triggering Draconian abuses of power. 

Michigan's Democrat  Governor Gretchen Whitmer ordered gatherings in personal residences be limited to include people from no more than two households. New Mexico's Democrat Governor Michelle Lyan Gresham slapped a limit of no more than five people per residence for Thanksgiving gatherings. 

Oregon's Democrat Governor Kate Brown capped indoor gatherings in personal residences at six people, threatening to use police to enforce her dictum.  Other states, such as Massachusetts and New Jersey, are ordering restaurants and bars to close between 10 p.m. at 5 a.m. based on whims not science.

Here is an example of the kind of condescending comments from health officials in support of the autocratic governors from Dr. Mark Dworkin, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Illinois:

"Plenty of people will congregate (on Thanksgiving) and nobody will get sick and they'll go 'hah nah, fake news.' But there will be other families that will be devastated and it will be very bad for them.  If you want to play Russian roulette with COVID, that's your right, but I think it's foolish."

What is clear by these haughty pronouncements from elitists is they believe you are the problem.  Forget their scientific-approved lockdowns failed.  These hypocrites believe you need to be punished despite the fact most Americans are wearing masks, social distancing and practicing hygiene in public.

There is no 100% safe way for people to go about their daily lives even masked and socially distanced. Sheltering in place 331 million people for a year is a prescription for health problems at least as life-threatening as the virus. Every country emerging from mass lockdowns is experiencing COVID spikes.

The governors, instead of haranguing citizens, should be embarrassed by their own miserable failure to protect the most vulnerable individuals, despite their pledges to make it a top priority of their COVID response.  COVID deaths at nursing homes are accelerating in every state.

The latest CDC figures show 37% of all new Coronavirus fatalities are linked to the nation's 26,000 nursing homes.  A total of 46% of all hospitalizations are for people aged 65 and older.  The CDC reports  a staggering 662,000 nursing home patients have been infected this year. 

Why haven't the governors been held accountable by the media and health officials?  The answer is the media's incessant political weaponization of the virus.  Now the media puppeteers are riveted on climbing cases to raise fear.  New tactics include deceitfully raising doubts about the safety of vaccines. 

Meanwhile, there has been no mention that the United States is now testing an average of 1.7 million individuals every day, contributing to the rising cases.  Nearly 200 million Americans (181.1 million) have been tested for the virus or 56% of the population, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Of those individuals tested for COVID, more than 145.6 million tested negative.  The CDC estimates about 40% of those who tested positive are asymptomatic, meaning they exhibit none of the usual symptoms (dry cough, fever, lost of taste, etc.).

Although hospital wards are deluged with patients, stays for COVID patients are falling nationwide. A study by the Mayo Clinic hospital in Rochester, Minnesota, found hospital patient stays now average five days, half as long as in March. The reason: hospitals are armed with better treatment options now.  

The current billowing rise in cases could have been predicted as the cacacoon lockdowns were lifted.  Returning to the dark days of sheltering in place will be difficult if not impossible to enforce.  If nothing else, the country's hospitals and health officials should have beefed up staff for the inevitable flood.

This latest round of infringements clamped on individual liberties by governors is fueling more lawsuits.  Most state and federal courts have so far declined to invalidate state and local restraints to combat the virus, except for a handful of narrow rulings on curbs. But the tide is shifting.

A recent decision by the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania struck down unconstitutional aspects of Pennsylvania's emergency COVID order limiting the size of indoor gatherings and demanding the "closure of all business that are not life sustaining." 

That was followed last week by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the restraints on religious freedom imposed by New York's Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo, who clamped restrictions on churches and synagogues,  limiting worshipers to 10 or 25 during the pandemic.

The plaintiffs in the case claimed Cuomo's order unfairly targets houses of worship while treating secular institutions less stringently and allowing designated essential businesses to operate without similar limits.  Other state governors have also scapegoated religion as an enemy of public health and safety.

"Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten," the SCOTUS majority (5-4) wrote in its opinion.  "The restrictions at issue here, effectively banning many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty."

    

It is about time the courts stepped into the breach of constitutional freedoms by politically ambitious governors who believe unelected scientists provide the authority to allow the government to order what Americans can do in the privacy of their homes.  

All Americans want to protect themselves from this virus. The overwhelming majority have followed the public orders to the letter. Blaming them for the upturn in cases is just a way for politicians to distract  responsibility for their own pathetic decisions which have fallen short in protecting the most vulnerable. 

Meet America's Clinical Trial Volunteer Heroes

They are nameless, faceless and unsung.  They could be a grad student, a writer or that individual you passed in the grocery aisle. These invisible Americans are risking their personal health to volunteer for about a 1,000 COVID-related research trials in our country. They are America's newest heroes.

Upwards of 100,000 Americans have volunteered for vaccine trials in America.  Thousands are participating in drug trials in other nations. Without these volunteers, the clinical trials required to approve the vaccines would be impossible.  The research ensures the vaccine's safety and effectiveness.

Let's reveal the identities of a few of these courageous volunteers: Ian Haydon, a 29-year old from Seattle. Sophia Upshaw, a 22-year-old graduate student from Atlanta.  Jennifer Haller, a 43-year-old mother of two. And Elle Hardy, an Australian freelance writer based in the United States.

Their personal stories reflect something about the nearly undefinable American spirit.  People in our country are imbued with a desire to help others out of a sense of patriotic duty.  We don't read or hear much about this trait any more yet it is instilled in all who believe in the principles of this country.

Take Jennifer Haller for example.  She had participated in other clinical research trials before volunteering for the COVID test.  Her son had enrolled in three medical trials unrelated to the virus.  She believes in the power of clinical studies, recognizing their value to protect the lives of others.

When she volunteered for the COVID trial by Kaiser Permanente, Jennifer did not realize she would be the very first patient receiving a vaccine that had never been tested on human beings.  Was she frightened? Did she consider aborting the opportunity?  Allow Jennifer to answer in her own words.

"No.  But not because I am super strong, but because I wanted to be able to give something back and contribute in some way.  A lot of people can't do something like what I'm doing.  They couldn't potentially take off work or be healthy enough to participate..." she says in a CNN interview. 

Her unselfishness is inspiring.  So is the story of volunteer Ian Haydon, who endured a systemic adverse reaction to the vaccine being developed by Moderna Therapeutics.  He is one of three people in the research effort to experience side effects from the revolutionary vaccine.

Moderna, a Cambridge, Massachusetts, based pharmaceutical firm, is using a genetic material that triggers the body to create a protein that trains the immune system to recognize the virus as an invader. Moderna partnered with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NAID). 

Despite suffering a negative reaction, Haydon endorses the vaccine. "I understand that sharing the story, it's going to be frightening to some people.  I hope that it doesn't fuel any sort of general antagonism towards vaccines in general or towards even this vaccine, " he allows. 

Haydon's concern for others motivated him to sign up for the Phase I trail designed to be the first opportunity for researchers to evaluate the vaccine on humans. Although the vaccine made him sick, Haydon would do it again. "I don't regret the decision I made to enroll in this study."

Spoken like a patriot swayed by his altruism.  Haydon, a communications manager, learned about the study from a colleague who forwarded a link.  Even though he admittedly "doesn't like needles," He immediately applied and eleven days later Moderna contacted him.  Bravery in action.

Sophia Upshaw also leaped at the chance to help advance research on a vaccine.  "It's something I could do," she told Science News.  "We are all feeling helpless and trying to help in any way we can...Everyone is trying to do what they can," she explains.  

Sophia concedes her family was worried about her participation. "They are happy that people are choosing to participate in the trial. They're just not happy that it's me," she admits in an interview.  Her parents were relieved when Sophia did not develop a severe reaction to the vaccine.

Elle Hardy's original journey from journalist to clinical research volunteer was spurred by simple economics.  She was broke.  That sparked her interest in a medical trial for an anthrax vaccine several years ago.   She made a few dollars, but research volunteers certainly don't get rich.  

She was in South Korea this February doing research on a major Coronavirus outbreak and managed to escape infection.  She returned to her native Australia, but eventually flew to the U.S. to continue her freelance journalist career.  An opportunity arose when recruiting began for a Phase III clinical trial. 

"I wish I could say that I signed up for the vaccine trial out of some sense of public service.  But my first response when I was asked to take part in the trial was, 'Hell yes,' because I wanted a chance to get some protection from the Coronavirus as soon as possible," Elle confesses in a story in Business Insider.

Before she was admitted to the trial, the clinic reviewed her medial history, her medications, administered a pregnancy test, measured her blood pressure and pulse and extracted eight vials of her blood. Throughout the trial the clinicians monitored her blood samples.  

The trial was the Phase III test for Moderna's mRNA-1273 vaccine, which the pharmaceutical firm announced results show the drug is 94.5% effective.  Elle was one of 30,000 people enrolled in the study across multiple sites in the United States.  Participants were either given the vaccine or a placebo.

Elle is certain she did not receive the placebo.  She had a slight reaction to the two doses administered by the clinicians. A recent antibody test confirmed she was positive, meaning the vaccine had done its job giving her body the means to fight off Coronavirus.

"I wasn't concerned about receiving an experimental drug," Elle says. "In spite of political and market pressure, I can't see pharmaceutical companies blowing up their reputations by pushing forward with a vaccine that's dangerous to humans."

Ongoing trials for other Coronavirus drugs still need volunteers. Online screening surveys are available for those who wish to participate.  Compensation varies based on the vaccine trial you enter.  Some drug firms offer pay for travel and time involved with participating. 

However, most volunteers don't raise their hands for the money.  They view their participation as a noble calling and a selfless way to perhaps spare lives that otherwise may be taken by Coronavirus. Every American might pause this week to give thanks for these heroic volunteers.   

When the vaccine arrives soon, a grateful nation should celebrate Jen, Ian, Sophia and Elle along with the thousands of other fearless trial volunteers who made mass inoculation possible.  

How To Reform Elections To Restore Public Trust

Growing numbers of Americans have lost faith in the country's election system. It is not a new phenomenon.  Since the Bush-Gore presidential contest in 2000, polls show a decline in voters' trust in the system.  If the process is not overhauled, Americans will no longer view elections as democratic.

This gloomy state of affairs has only been exacerbated by the 2020 election.  Even today, almost two weeks since the national election day, states are continuing to count votes.  National elections are being decided by a few thousand votes in some states, placing a premium on timely and accurate tabulation.

Democrats whine President Trump shares the blame for the strain on election integrity.  They cite his derision of mail-in voting as being susceptible to fraud.  But they have convenient amnesia.  For four years, Democrats falsely claimed Mr. Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

People forget that Democrats were convinced Hillary Clinton was robbed of her rightful seat in the Oval Office.  Even after the Mueller Report found no collusion, a Reuters/Ipsos poll in March, 2019, discovered 48% of voters believed Trump conspired with the Russians to rig the election.

The drumbeat of the unscrupulous media's propaganda about Russian interference sowed the seeds of current public distrust in elections.  A Pew Research poll this August uncovered fully 75% of respondents said it was likely Russia or another country would influence the outcome of the 2020 election.   

These and other polls confirm Americans are suspicious of the transparency and fairness of the country's most important election. Part of it can be attributed to partisanship.  When your candidate loses, you are convinced the election was hijacked.  But as this election illustrates, there are reasons to question fairness.

Even if you are a partisan elated with the election outcome, surely you agree the current process of counting and reporting results adds to distrust and cynicism.  Without major changes, Americans will become fatigued with the election chaos and simply fail to show up at the polls or vote by mail.  

That would be a mortal blow to democracy.  Here are six major changes that should be adopted.  Five of the reforms fall under the authority of states.  If the country wants to restore Americans' faith in the fairness of the country's national elections, it is urgent to act now.   

1.  News networks and online platforms should refrain from calling any state's results before election authorities certify the final outcome.  This election news organizations called Arizona for Biden with Mr. Trump holding a solid lead.  In the case of Florida and Texas, where all trends pointed to a Trump victory, the networks waited longer to declare a winner.  The media cabal does not determine election outcomes. Only state election authorities have that responsibility. The media's anointing of winners contributes to election discord and turmoil, especially with millions of votes in a state to yet be counted.  It is practice that should be voluntarily halted in the public interest.

2.  States should be forbidden to mail out ballots to all registered voters on its rolls.  A 2012 Pew Research study found approximately 24 million--or one in every eight--voter registrations are no longer valid or inaccurate.  More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as current registered voters.  Approximately 2.75 million people are registered in more than one state.  More recently, the conservative legal group Judicial Watch forced California to agree to begin removing 1.5 million inactive registered voters from its roles. The legal organization scrutinized the rolls and unearthed the implausible fact that 101% of California's eligible voters were registered.  Mailing ballots to people on outdated registration rolls is an open invitation for ballot harvesting and fraud. Voters should be required to submit a signed request for a mail ballot, just as they do for absentee voting. 

3. The harvesting of mail-in or absentee ballots should be banned. Period.  Ballot harvesting is a term which refers to the collection of mail-in or absentee ballots by paid activists or volunteers who deliver the votes to polling places.  Twenty-six states, plus the District of Columbia,  condone groups (many affiliated with political parties) to hoover up voter ballots.  Twelve of those states limit how many ballots one designated agent is allowed to collect.  The practice is fraught with loopholes for the exploitation by nefarious political operatives.  There have been numerous convictions for ballot harvesting fraud over the decades.  Every state should forbid the practice.   

4.  States need to recalibrate the voting deadlines to accommodate the realities of mail-in and early voting. Because of the pandemic, mail-in balloting exceeded in-person voting.  That trend likely may continue.  Therefore, states need to establish reasonable deadlines for voters to request and return mail-in and absentee ballots. Some pundits were chagrined over the fact many mail ballots were cast even before the presidential debates. Then move up the debate schedule. States should not be allowed to accept mail ballots on Election Day or after.  All the states need to do is to allow plenty of time to account for distributing the ballots and the handling of completed ballots by the postal service.  

5.  State election officials should be required to begin counting mail-in and in-person early votes as soon as they are received. Three key battleground states--Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan--refused to allow election officials to begin counting early votes until Election Day, slowing the tabulation process.  In Alaska, state election officials spent a week counting ballots cast on Election Day. Only last week did they allow mail-in ballots to be tallied.  As a result, the state only reported results for 55% of the votes cast nearly 10 days after the election. There is no legitimate reason to wait until Election Day to count early votes as long as the results are not publicly reported until the polls close.

6.  States are still processing and tabulating too many ballots by hand, causing inordinate delays.  The methodology and processes for counting and verifying votes varies from state-to-state.  Hand-counting is still used in combination with optical scanners in many states.  In other states, optical scanners verify mail ballot signatures, comparing those to the database of registered voters.  Almost all states use barcoding and optical character recognition machines to count votes. The technology exists to completely automate the entire process, but states have lagged behind in adopting changes, citing the costs.  What is more important in a state than to protect the integrity of elections and ensure prompt reporting of results?  Case closed.

State legislatures have the authority over most aspects of elections.   However, in Pennsylvania even after state legislators approved deadlines, the Secretary of Commonwealth (State) issued different guidance to election officials.  A court eventually ruled against the secretary, but the damage had be done.  

It was the same story in California where Gov. Gavin Newsom used the pandemic to justify issuing an executive order requiring vote-by-mail ballots to be sent to all registered voters.  A California judge ruled after the election that the governor had overstepped his authority. The ruling came months too late.   

Although the Elections Clause in the Constitution delegates to the states primary responsibility for regulating elections, it vests the ultimate authority for federal elections in the Congress.  The Congress has the power to pass laws that can preempt any contrary state statues.  Washington can remedy the problem.

In this divisive political climate, it is wishful thinking to believe any agreement on reforming federal election rules will be approved by the new Congress.  Too many states will resist efforts to institute meaningful reform.  For now, America is stuck with its flawed, obsolete and inherently fallible system.

Surreal Presidential Election Finally Ends...Maybe

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden declared himself the winner in the 2020 contest as votes were still being tallied at a snail's pace in a handful of mostly Democratic Party-controlled states.  Legal challenges by the Trump campaign are pressing forward today in the midst of the contentious election.

That's the kind of year 2020 has been.  Screwy.  Surreal. Tumultuous. Implausible. Hostile. 

Democrats and the media cabal branding the president a sore loser have inchworm memories.  In the 2000 election, Democrat Al Gore's lawyers were able hold hostage vote certification in Florida for 47 days through legal challenges.  Every candidate has a right to demand a fair and full ballot count.

Even vanquished former presidential contender Hillary Clinton warned Democrats in advance of the vote to not concede the election too early.  The media in its giddiness over the trends in tabulations anointed Biden the victor despite the fact key states had yet to certify final vote totals.  

The media and Democrats were hoping for a clear repudiation of the president.  A sweeping landslide that would shame Mr. Trump's supporters, whom the media mocks as Neanderthals.  Instead the race was tightly contested in nearly every state, except for the ones that have seemingly outlawed Republicanism.  

The latest totals for the popular vote show Biden with a 2.8% edge over the president.  Biden captured 50.61% of the ballots cast to 47.73% for Mr. Trump. As the contest inches closer to finality,  Biden's vote count stands at 75.2 million to 71 million for the president.

In 15 states, including many battleground states, the victorious candidate's margin was 9% or less.  Biden's victory was a narrow escape not a mandate as he and his media allies have contended in their post election euphoria.    

In Wisconsin, Biden won by 20,540 votes out of 3.2 million ballots.  In Arizona, Biden is currently clinging to a 17,553 vote margin.  The Democrat is up 10,196 votes in Georgia out of 4.8 million. Even Nevada, which provided the final electoral votes needed to win, was a 31,464-vote squeaker for Biden.

While vote counting agonizingly proceeds today, it appear pundits will be wrong about the turnout topping 160 million.  According to the Associated Press, 146,285,631 million votes have been tallied.  Even with more ballots dribbling in, it will be difficult to reach 155 million.

However, one election aspect is already clear.  Both Biden and the president eclipsed former president Barrack Obama's record vote total of 69.4 million. Trump managed to pull 8.02 million more votes than he did in 2016, while Biden outperformed Clinton by 9.4 million ballots.

Democrats and Republicans should be embarrassed by the unfathomable delays in vote tabulation.  Some states, such as Texas, Florida and California, handled many more ballots than Pennsylvania, Arizona and Nevada with timely reporting.  Why did it take so long in those states and others, such as Georgia?

Democrat apologists blame the influx of mail-in ballots that swamped election officials.  That is bogus because virtually every state had more mail-in votes than in-person ballots.  In a nation that birthed high tech, it is unconscionable to wait a week until a final vote can be certified.  We are not Nigeria.

Three states under the thumb of Democrat governors--Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin--issued orders that thwarted timely reporting of votes.  Election officials in those states were not allowed to start tabulating the mail-in ballots until election day or a few hours before.  

There were computer glitches in at least two states, Georgia and Michigan.  In Michigan, the flaw caused 6,000 votes to be incorrectly given to Biden.  After initially blaming the malfunctions on tabulation machines, both states reversed course and attributed the errors to humans.  Interesting.

The company that manufacturers the vote tabulating computers is Dominion Voting Systems, which supplied its equipment to 28 states this election.  There were no other public reports of mishaps as happened in Michigan.  But it fosters conspiracy theories about the fairness of elections.

Even if there was no chicanery involved, the snafu triggered wholesale conjecture about transparency.  The mishap fanned conspiracy flames when an enterprising reporter dug up a Washington Post story that said Dominion had donated $25,001 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2015.

For the benefit of Democrats shaking their heads, this was verified by liberal fact-checking site Snopes. 

There were other oddities.  In Wisconsin, nearly every registered voter cast a ballot.  The Wisconsin Election Commission reported there were 3,684,726 registered voters.  The state tallied 3,296,836 votes in the presidential contest.  That's a 90% voter turnout.  No other state came close.  Hmmmm. 

This election also signaled a shift in voting patterns that will likely become the new normal.  More voters cast their ballots before election day than in any previous presidential election.  By the last count, there were 101 ballots cast in early voting, more than double the number in 2016.

Mail-in voting drew both proponents and critics for increasing turnout. Eight states sent ballots to every registered voter on its rolls. The states were California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, South Dakota and Vermont.  Most other states required voters to request a mail-in ballot.  

For all the Democrat crowing, the party performed abysmally in state legislatives races in the Sun Belt and Rust Belt, handing Republicans an advantage ahead of redistricting after the Census determines the number of Congressional seats in each state.  The defeat came despite Democrats' record fund raising.

The Democrats failed to flip a single statehouse chamber in its favor, including in the key states of Texas, North Carolina and Florida.  The GOP appears poised to bolster its number of seats in the House of Representatives and has the prospect of holding the Senate, depending on two Georgia runoffs.

The biggest losers in the 2020 election, however, were the pollsters. Most polling is now designed to suppress an opponent's turnout, inflate candidate spending or deliberately mislead the public.  How else can you explain pollsters continuing failure to accurately predict outcomes and margins?

For example, the Real Clear Politics lists of polling results from various research firms showed that Biden would win by a margin of 11-to-7 percent.  One pollster had Biden with a 12% blowout.  Polling organizations also predicted toss-up races for incumbent Senators Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins.

Both candidates won by comfortable margins, but the polling data incentivized Democrats to pour nearly $200 million into the two races in an effort to flip the Senate seats. This happens too often to be coincidental.  Polling data can no longer be trusted to be accurate or authentically researched.

In the absence of demographic voting data, it is too early to critically analyze why Biden won.  However, certainly the president's handling of the pandemic was clearly on the minds of voters.  Even those who ranked the economy their top issue were worried rising virus cases would trigger shutdowns.

That said, it cannot be disputed that visceral hatred of President Trump, not Biden's appeal, was a deciding factor.  Whether Democrats will admit it, they conspired with the media and social platforms to viciously attack Mr. Trump for four years. No president has endured such orchestrated loathing.

A campaign based on searing hatred recalls the ugliness that led to Hitler's rise in Germany.  Disagreements on policies, style and personalities are natural, but it undermines democracy when bitter acrimony decides elections. In this corrosive atmosphere, Biden has issued a plea for unity.

Americans want unity and an end to the Washington belligerence. However, name a Democrat who called for cooperation instead of resistance during the past four years?  Still waiting.  That renders Biden's words hollow, political claptrap.    

Let's pray that no matter our political choices Americans can still civilly discuss our differences. We don't banish friends or family members who disagree with us.  We don't call dissenting voters miscreants for not seeing the world as we do.  Until there is mutual respect, the nation will remain hopelessly alienated. 

An Election Like No Other In American History

This presidential election is unprecedented.  One candidate has mostly campaigned from his basement, appearing publicly as often as a ground hog.  The incumbent has crisscrossed America in the midst of a pandemic.  More Americans are voting by mail than ever before. And vote tabulations may take months.   

Talk about crazy.  The Coronavirus outbreak turned political conventions into virtual events robbing the parties of must-see television.  The presidential debates were chaotic, raising the question if they will become a relic of the past.  A mask evolved into the symbol of a party.  Forget donkeys and elephants.

Not since the 1918 midterm election have Americans trooped to the polls during an epidemic.  Despite the Spanish Flu that resulted in the deaths of millions worldwide, voters ignored the perils of the contagion and showed up in person to cast their ballots.  Patriotic duty was a higher calling in those times.

The U.S. Election Project, run by Professor Michael McDonald at the University of Florida, estimates more than 93.1 million Americans voted by November 1.  About 34 million voters braved long lines to tap the screens of electronic machines.  More than 59 million mail-in ballots have been returned.  

The data suggests a historic turnout of voters in this presidential election. Based on the Election Project's projections total turnout may exceed 150 million, compared to 138 million in 2016.  If that happens, it will mean 62% of eligible voters will submit ballots.  In 2016, 58.7% of registered voters cast ballots.

However, those lofty estimates are based on past voting behavior when turnout on election day is usually robust. That may not be the case this election. No one knows if the convenience of mail-in voting will alter the annual election day stampede to the polls. November 3 could prove to be a historic anomaly.

There is partisan debate over which candidate benefits most from a large turnout.  A Gallup Poll conducted in July reported 32% of voters identified as Democrats, while 26% were Republican.  However, when you include those who lean toward one party or the other, Democrats have a 21% margin.  

Polls, usually closely watched in presidential elections, have lost much of their cache after their research was thoroughly discredited in the wake of President Trump's thumping of Hillary Clinton.  Pollsters had Clinton winning by a double-digit margin.  Both campaigns are gulping grains of salt with the polls.

Even a few pollsters are proclaiming that if their data is wrong again the industry will suffer a black-eye that will leave permanent damage to their credibility.  Polls have been politicized just like everything else in the country, which accounts for the large dose of public skepticism.   

According to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Democrat Joe Biden should be polishing up his acceptance speech right now.  The polls as of November 1 have the former veep clinging to a seven percentage point lead.  However, Biden's lead has slipped from the 10.3% point edge on October 11. 

In the battleground states, the two candidates are running neck-and-neck.  Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan are rated toss ups in the polls with neither candidate holding a solid lead.  In the last election, Mr. Trump picked off a few states that had been Democrat strongholds.

Especially in tight races, the votes of African-Americans and Hispanics likely will tilt the outcome.  There are worrisome signs for Democrats. Mr. Trump captured 8% of the black vote and 29% of Hispanics in 2016, which was enough to beat Ms. Clinton by razor-thin margins in Rust Belt states.

An Emerson College poll shows Mr. Trump increasing his margin with both key groups.  The latest figures have 19% of African-Americans voting for the incumbent and 41% of Hispanics.  If those percentages hold on election day, it will make Mr. Biden's ascension to the Oval Office more difficult. 

The turnout among voters 18-29 will be closely watched too. Former President Obama racked up solid majorities in this demographic which voted in record numbers. However, turnout collapsed in the Trump-Clinton race. The question lingers if the 77-year old Biden can energize turnout among young people. 

Perhaps, the biggest question of 2020 is this one: Will high turnout result in the over representation of older, white voters relative to their share of the population? This group provided Mr. Trump with an edge in the 2016 election. But defections among this group could be the Achilles Heel for his campaign.

One miscalculation by Democrats may turn out to be fatal.  The Biden-Harris camp has turned the election into a a referendum on Mr. Trump's handling of the Coronavirus.  According to Gallup, the top issue with 90% of voters is the economy.  The virus ranks fifth, behind terrorism, healthcare and crime.

Mr. Trump received a pre-election bump with third quarter data showing a 33% rise in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a proxy for the country's economic growth.  The surge means that the American economy has clawed back most of its pandemic losses, sitting now at 3.5% below the year-end for 2019.

Polls do not tell you who will actually vote.  All that matters in every presidential election is which candidate is most effective in turning out their respective political bases.  In every election, there are turnout surprises and this one is guaranteed to be no different. 

However, headed into election day Pew Research Center's latest survey of registered voters shows an 11-percentage point "enthusiasm" gap between the two candidates.  Of those supporting Biden, 57% are "strong" backers.  Mr. Trump fares better with 68% of his likely voters expressing "strong" support. 

If media still matters, then Biden should get a boost from the fawning news coverage his campaign has been accorded.  Evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS are significantly more negative toward President Trump, according to The Media Research Center (MRC).

The research group analyzed every episode of the three networks evening news from July 29 through October 20 and found 91% of Mr. Trump's coverage was negative.  Meanwhile, Biden had a 66% positive score.  Since Inauguration Day in 2017, MRC noted 90% of the Trump coverage has been negative.

When the voting tabulation begins November 3, expect agonizingly slow reporting of results in many states. Likely, more than a few states will be understaffed in verifying signatures on mail-in ballots. Three states are allowing mail-in ballot counting to continue past election day, further impeding timely results.

Both campaigns have assembled armies of lawyers and poll watchers to scour the nation sniffing for signs of voter suppression, ballot harvesting and mail-in ballot rejections.  Both sides already have been tussling in courts over mail-in voting. Presume a wave of court challenges and recounts after November 3. 

In the end, this campaign may not be decided by the voters.  It may come down to the candidate with the best legal team.  This bizarre election will likely lurch into the Twilight Zone.  The winner may not be known for weeks or months.  What else would you expect in 2020?

Email Scandal: Media Covering Up For Joe Biden

An explosive expose in the New York Post revealing emails from Joe Biden's son Hunter is gaining traction, despite frenzied efforts by Democrats, social platforms and the mainstream media to bury the article weeks before the presidential election.  It is a hypocritical display of journalistic double standards.

When the rival New York Times used "unidentified" individuals to scorch President Trump over his taxes, Democrats defended the newspaper's right to cloak its sources in anonymity.  Now those same Democrats are branding the Post bombshell "unverified" because the emails have not been authenticated by Hunter.

The Democrats reversal is all the more dubious because they colluded with Facebook and Twitter to censor the Post revelations to protect their candidate.  Yet these social media oligarchs had no problem giving free reign to the Times to post its unauthenticated hatchet job on Mr. Trump.

Twitter claims it censored the article and locked the Post account because of its "hacked materials policy."  This is the same social media platform that allowed hacked materials from Wikileaks to be shared by millions of users.  Twitter's justification is nothing more than a pretext for censorship to shield Joe Biden. 

Mainstream news outlets on television, radio and print ganged up on the Post, branding its reporting a "smear story." But the cabal has refused to investigate the scandal.  They are relying on the Democrat talking point that the Post reporting is "unverifiable to justify their lack of journalistic enterprise.  

The media's obfuscation stinks of the double standard it has employed to mask their naked bias. The New York Times has regularly used anonymous sources to bludgeon Mr. Trump, including on the tax allegations.  By definition, that makes their reporting unverifiable. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.  

To catch up readers, the Post reported Hunter's emails were part of a cache of data recovered from a laptop that was dropped off at a repair shop in Delaware in April 2019.  Hunter Biden's signature appears on the repair order.  The Post published numerous emails and photos from the laptop.

As one example, there is this email from Vadym Pozhardskyi, a top executive at Burisma: "Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent (sic) some time together."  The email was sent a year after Hunter assumed his lucrative position with Burisma.  

Despite all the harrumphing by Democrats and their media allies, neither Hunter nor Joe Biden has denied the fact that the emails are real.  Joe Biden has refused to address the scandal, telling CBS he had "no response." No other reporters dared raise the issue for fear of being ostracized by their colleagues. 

After his CBS dustup, Biden was so infuriated his campaign on October 19 called a "lid for in-person events" while the former vice president prepared for the last presidential debate.  He remained bunkered until the last debate and has failed to publicly address the swirling allegations.        

The emails from Hunter's computer appear to debunk Joe Biden's prior claims that he had "never spoken" with his son about his overseas dealings. Hunter Biden was paid more than $83,000 a month for serving on Burisma's board during the 2014-2015 period, according to published court records.

During that same timeframe, Vice President Biden served as the "point person" on Ukraine at the direction of President Obama.  From 2014-2017, the senior Biden made five trips to the Ukraine on official government business while Hunter was dealing with scandal ridden Burisma Holdings.

Biden was captured on video in March of 2016 bragging how he threatened to pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine if the government did not fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma.  Six hours after his warning, the prosecutor was summarily dismissed.

In a desperate attempt to deflect criticism of Biden,  Democrat Adam Schiff called the Post story part of a Kremlin "disinformation" campaign.  His defense is laughable because Schiff used discredited Russian intel in a Hillary Clinton-sanctioned dossier to rig an impeachment of the president.   

Schiff vowed he had proof the Kremlin is behind the Post story. Since his allegation, Schiff's falsehood has been laid bare by the Director of National Intelligence and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The Californian has only a passing acquaintance with the truth.   

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee complicated Biden's problems by announcing a probe of the emails obtained by the Post.  Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, says his committee is in the process of vetting the information contained in the emails.

News reports are circulating that the FBI has possession of Hunter's laptop.  The agency would neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.  However, the FBI plans to question Hunter's ex-associate Tony Bobulinski, who accused Joe Biden of lying about his involvement in his son's dealings. 

The Wall Street Journal obtained emails and texts from Bobulinski that implicate Joe Biden in Hunter's schemes, including those with China Energy, a Shanghai-based conglomerate.  The correspondence also corroborates the emails published by the New York Post.  

Perhaps, the media blackout can suppress the damning  emails for the remainder of the election cycle.  But what happens if Joe Biden wins? The Republicans will have a trove of incriminating allegations to justify an impeachment.  Democrats beware.  Political payback can be brutal.

But what should worry all Americans even more is that censorship has become the norm in this country.  Twitter, Facebook, Google use their muscle to ban any news or information that don't like.  That is an ominous development in a country that has enshrined free speech in the Constitution.  

The mainstream media long ago lost its title to unbiased reporting. News conspirators regularly censor legitimate stories that do not fit their expressed political agenda.  Most Americans accept their behavior as just the way things are.  But censorship endangers freedom of the press when the truth is dispensable.    

Free speech and a transparent and fair press are what every democracy requires to survive.  The United States is losing both, a disheartening development with the most defining election in a lifetime barely a week away.

Supreme Court Packing: Threat To Judicial Fairness

Even before President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, Democrats openly championed the idea of expanding the number of justices to 15.  With the Senate confirmation hearings underway, court packing is now an emotionally charged issue on the campaign trail.

As the issue has elbowed its way into the headlines, the media and some politicians on both sides of the aisle have made misleading statements about what the Constitution has to say about the Supreme Court.  In fact, the Constitution is silent regarding the size of the court in Article III:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall at stated times, receive for their services, compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

In Section Two of Article III, the Constitution enumerates the cases to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.  There is no mention of how many justices will serve on the high court. The size of the court, now with nine justices,  has evolved over many decades in America.

Congress tinkered with the number of justices seven times in the first 80 years to achieve partisan political goals.  As a result, as few as five justices served under President John Adams and as many as ten under President Abraham Lincoln.  Congress set the original Supreme Court at six justices in 1789.

A decade had barely elapsed before President Adams, a month before the presidential election, nominated and Congress confirmed a successor to Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth in 1801.  Then Adams and his allies passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 lowering the number of court justices from six to five.

However, no justices died before President Thomas Jefferson assumed office with six sitting justices. He added a seventh justice in 1807. Then President Andrew Jackson tacked on two members raising the number to nine justices in 1837, but twenty years later a court decision infuriated a sitting president.   

President Lincoln, upset over the Supreme Court's 1857 decision in the Dred Scott case, added a tenth justice in 1863 in an effort to serve his political goals.  Congress sliced the number to nine in 1869 under President Ulysses Grant in an act of political partisanship. For 127 years the court has stood at nine.

With that history as background, it can be unequivocally stated that Congress has the authority to change the size of the court with approval of the president.  The Constitution does not prohibit it and the history of the U.S. is replete with examples of legislative action designed to alter the make-up of the court.

The last time court packing burst into public discourse was 1936, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt floated a plan to hike the size of the judicial branch to 15 justices after the court struck down New Deal laws.  Opposition to Roosevelt's scheme was universal, including from many in his own party. 

Roosevelt wisely pulled the plug on the idea.  Today's efforts to resurrect court packing reeks of partisanship, just as past efforts been solely for political motives.  As the nation's early history shows, once a single Congress monkeys with the court's size it emboldens future legislatures to do the same.  

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose death created the current court vacancy, opposed proposals to grow the number of jurists on the court.  She said such a plan would make the court appear to be a partisan vehicle for politicians.  In her words:

"It would be that--one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to," Ginsburg told National Public Radio (NPR) on July 24. 

Even Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden make it clear in 1983 that he had a dim view of court packing.  He called fellow Democrat President Roosevelt's invention to pack the court "a bonehead idea." He added: "It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make." Those comments came on the Senate floor.

Again in 2005, Biden branded the idea a "power grab," dismissing it as an underhanded plot of someone "corrupted by power."  But the "new" Biden has equivocated for months, before caving to media pressure and struggling to walk a political tightrope with his position. 

"I am not a fan of court packing, but I don't want to get off on that whole issue," Biden pleaded on October 11.  He has since flip-flopped to appease Democrats by adding, "Let's see what happens," a reference to the Barrett nomination. Certainly, there is support from many Democrats to enlarge the court.   

Biden's running mate Sen. Kamala Harris, along with fellow Democrats Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg, all acknowledged they are "researching" the idea.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren has also signaled she is open to adding justices as is Rep. Alexanderia Ocasio-Cortez. 

Their positions reflect the opinions of Democrat voters.  The movement assuredly will gain momentum if Judge Barrett is confirmed by the Senate. A Democratic Congress will react swiftly to reshape the court to their liking, especially if their presidential candidate wins in November.   

But an ABC News/Washington Post poll in late September found that a majority of Americans (54%) oppose inflating the court. A minority of 32% support broadening the number of justices.  The remainder had no opinion.  A plurality of Democrats (45%) favor the concept, while 39% are opposed.

The court has already become politicized by the ordinary process of nominating candidates for judicial vacancies.  If both parties engage in political gamesmanship by modifying the make-up of the court for their own gain, it will splinter the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution.  

When that happens, the Supreme Court will become a fiefdom packed with justices appointed to do the political bidding of the parties instead of rendering impartial decisions.  For more than a century the Supreme Court has been comprised of nine justices.  There is no reason now to discard that tradition.

Media's Misleading COVID Data To Indict Trump

Democrats and their candidate Joe Biden have pounced on the opportunity to turn the presidential election into a referendum on Mr. Trump's 'bungling' of the pandemic.  The theme taps into a rich vein of public anger over the never ending outbreaks, lockdowns, job losses and work-from-home issues. 

Understandably,  the patience of Americans is all but exhausted.  The nation's citizens feel imprisoned by a virus they initially thought would be no worse than garden-variety flu. Tragically, some Americans have lost loved ones to the virus.  A return to normalcy appears to fade with each passing day.

Americans can at least agree that doctors, nurses and staff on the front lines at hospitals are the genuine heroes in the fight to provide urgent healing in the midst of chaos, along with the scientists who have waged their own battle in labs to unravel the mysteries of the virus.

However, public angst has been heightened by sometimes conflicting scientific theories and hypothesizes.  For example, on February 28, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Centers for Disease Control Director Dr. Robert Redfield and a colleague published an analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine

In an analysis of widely reported global death rates for COVID-19, they wrote the disease's fatality rate was "more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza." Their report influenced Mr. Trump's perspective.   Hindsight has proven their assessment was flawed, but scientists were grappling with a novel virus.   

Scientists' work was complicated by the lack of cooperation from China, where the Coronavirus originated.  No one blames scientists who worked feverishly in labs to solve the secrets of COVID-19. But when scientists are confounded, it opens the door for the media to create its own narrative. 

The media klieg lights shine on infections (cases) and deaths.  The numbers make scary headlines: Death toll surpasses 210,000! Coronavirus cases soar past 7 million! Instead of putting the figures into perspective through meaningful comparisons, the media flaunts the numbers to fuel public outrage. 

News outlets make no secret their mission to pin the blame on the president for the pandemic. Pundits regularly cite as 'evidence' of the administration's epic failure the following statistic: the United States has only five percent (4.29%) of the population but more than 20% of global COVID-19 deaths.

Your fact-checker can confirm these statistics are true as verified by the Centers for Disease Control and Johns Hopkins Research. However, it is not a useful measurement of success or failure of the administration.  The data point is skewed by the size of the U.S. population, the world's third largest.

Using the same metric (global population percentage and COVID deaths), Belgium's death count is seven-times greater than its population percentage.  Chile, Spain and Britain are five times greater.  Italy and Sweden have recorded fatalities that are a smidgen under five-times their population percentage.

It is a meaningless statistic if you a serious journalist determined to make apples-to-apples comparisons.  But let's acknowledge critics' argument there are countries, such as Germany, who have done a better job in terms of managing the worse effects of the pandemic. Let's test that premise with data.

The statistics listed are from the following sources: World Health Organization, Johns Hopkins Research, Centers for Disease Control, Statista, a global provider of data.   All numbers and percentages are as of October 2 reports.  

• The United States has conducted 111 million Coronavirus tests. That is second only to China's 160 million, a country three times the size of America. The U.S. has conducted 336,250 tests per one million population.  Israel (402,619) and the U.K. (368,471) are the only countries that rank higher than the U.S. on that metric, which is the fairest comparison. Germany ranks below the U.S. in tests per million (202,724).
• The U.S. ranks 48th in the world in fatality rates for the virus. The U.S. death rate as a percentage of confirmed cases is 2.87%.  Italy, for example, is 11.2%. The United Kingdom is 9.2%,  Germany (3.14%) and France (5.2%) are among the 47 countries with worst fatalities as a percent of confirmed cases.
• To adjust for population differences, it is fair to compare the data on deaths per 100,000 population.  The U.S. ranks eleventh in the world on this metric (64.11 per million) with the United Kingdom only slightly behind.  Belgium, Brazil and Mexico all rank higher. Germany has reported 15.21 deaths per million population, a lower rate than the U.S. 
• The U.S. ranks seventh in the world in the number of confirmed cases per one-million population: 25,554.  That means about 2.5% of America's population has been infected with the virus.  Germany's rate is 3,703 confirmed cases per one-million with an infection rate of less than 1%.  The U.S. has four times the population of Germany and America is more than 20 times larger than the European country in terms of land mass.  

Even those comparisons do not take into consideration differences in culture, democracies, healthcare systems  and domestic freedoms. However, it is fair to point out that some countries have done better than the United States on a few metrics.  That begs the question: What did those nations do differently?

Since Germany is often singled out as a model, it is interesting to learn their protocols were not significantly different from the United States.  Here is what Germany's Federal Minister of Health wrote on the World Economic Forum website about how his country contained the Coronavirus:

"First the German healthcare system was in good shape going into the crisis; everyone has had full access to medical care.  With an excellent network of general practitioners available to deal with milder COVID-19 cases, hospitals have been able to focus on the more severely ill.

"Secondly, Germany was not the first country to be hit by the virus, and thus had time to prepare.  Accordingly, the country's ICU capacity was increased by 12,000 to 40,000 (beds) very quickly."

"Third, Germany is home to many laboratories that can test for the virus and to many distinguished researchers in the field, which helps to explain why the first COVID-19 test was developed here."

To summarize, Germany used its hospitals for the worst cases; with more advance warning than the U.S., it increased its ICU capacity rapidly; and the country was blessed with more private labs than the U.S. to do testing needed to staunch the virus.  Germany's advantages had little to do with its political leadership.

Germany managed its health crisis much the same way as the U.S., allowing its 16 federal regions the latitude to make local decisions based on the seriousness of the outbreak in each territory.  Even these measures have not spared Germany from a second wave of infections now hitting Europe.

With an uptick in new cases, German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently vowed to avoid another national lockdown.  In addition, she announced the country plans to improve its testing and contact tracing system, including levying fines of 60 euros ($58 US) for individuals providing false information.

Ms. Merkel made a political calculation that most world leaders are embracing.  Opening the economy, even a crack, likely will spur more social contact and infections.  However, countries can no longer remain locked down without risking the collapse of their economy, hindering a recovery for many years.

Like Mr. Trump, the German chancellor also has critics who accused her of not doing enough to halt the virus and reopen the economy. Virtually every nation's leader has faced harsh criticism.  It is an outgrowth of the natural despair, anxiety and frustration people are experiencing in every country.

Indulging in political gamesmanship during a pandemic solves no issues and serves to polarize the population.  President Trump can certainly be faulted for his optics (not wearing a mask) and his narcissist bravado.  Many object to the president's preening and exuberant optimism during crisis briefings.

These optics have shaped perceptions instead of data.  Information about the virus is constantly evolving as the world's scientific community increases its knowledge of the virus. Throughout the pandemic, there has been an evolution of treatments, protection protocols, data reporting and testing regimes.   

Perhaps another American president would have made faster decisions that could have mitigated the virus. Realistically, hindsight is a luxury leaders cannot afford during the midst of a mushrooming health crisis. The history of the COVID-19 pandemic is too recent to be fairly and definitively assessed. 

Presumptions about the virus based on politics are unreliable. But regardless, numbers of  Americans will be motivated to cast their ballots for a change in direction in the handling of the Coronavirus. Today perceptions matter more than factual data on most issues. That's just the world we live in.

NY Times: Trump Tax Story Raises Thorny Issues

No journalist has bothered to question how The New York Times obtained copies of President Trump's tax returns.  In a pre-October election surprise, the Times claimed in a page-one story that Mr. Trump paid $750 in federal taxes.  The revelation raises serious legal and ethical issues for the publisher.   

For the record, the Times report said Mr. Trump paid only $750 in taxes in 2016 and that the president paid no taxes in 10 of the past 15 years.  The Times did not disclose the source of its information.  This has become standard procedure at the Times, smearing the president based on unnamed informants.

There was a time when journalistic ethics required at least one person to go on the record to collaborate information obtained from anonymous sources.  That principle has been shredded by the Times and its editors. The newspaper prefers to hide behind a iron curtain of secrecy for its most salacious reporting. 

Here are just a few recent headlines: Trump will dump Mike Pence from the ticket; The Mueller Report will tie Trump to Russian collusion; President Trump will not walk away from a nuclear deal with North Korea; Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatens to resign.

All these stories were based on anonymous sources.  The reporting had one other thing in common.  Not a single article turned out to be true.  These stories cited are just the tip of the iceberg.  There are literally scores of examples involving Mr. Trump.  Fairness and impartiality are quaint canons at the Times.

Trump organization lawyer Alan Garten, who spoke on the record, ripped the Times reporting.  "The New York Times story is riddled with gross inaccuracies.  Over the decades, the President has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government. " Garten actually has seen the tax filings.

The attorney went on the complain that he reached out to the Times to explain the tax situation but his "repeated requests" to the newspaper for proof of its claims were rejected. Why is the Times unwilling to share its source material if indeed the story is true? Whom are they protecting?  

Based on its past reporting and ethical lapses, there should be an ocean of skepticism until there is collaboration from an independent source.   Of course,  the unsubstantiated charge hasn't prevented Democrats from flogging the tax contrivance to damage the Trump campaign.

It might be just a coincidence that the Times detonated the bombshell the Sunday before the first presidential debate.  But that would strain the bounds of credulity.  Using the Times reporting, Democrat candidate Joe Biden had air cover to torpedo Mr. Trump during the debates about the tax returns.

Expect the editorial fusillade to continue.  The Times promised their "massive investigation" is just a preview of coming attractions.  The newspaper revealed "additional articles will be published in the coming weeks." This smacks of collusion between the Biden campaign and the Times.  

The Times radioactive projectile failed  to mention a pertinent fact. The Washington Post on October 3, 2016, ran an article about Mr. Trump's 1995 tax return.  In its reporting, the Post noted Mr. Trump declared a net operating loss of $916 million that tax year because of losses at his Atlantic City casinos.

Under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules, Mr. Trump is allowed to carry forward that loss, offsetting it against future taxable income. The Post reported the $916 million loss will "allow him (Trump) to avoid taxes for up to 18 years."  The newspaper did not accuse Mr. Trump of shady accounting.  

Mr. Trump simply took advantage of the tax code.  The same way one of the world richest men Warren Buffet does.  In 2011, Mr. Buffet publicly disclosed his taxable income was $39.8 million.  He paid a 17% tax rate, far below his secretary whose income was taxed at 36%.  Buffet used tax laws to his benefit.

This is not the first time Mr. Trump's tax returns have been leaked to the media. In 2017, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow obtained a portion of the president's 2005 tax return.  According to the report, Mr. Trump paid $38 million in taxes, an effective rate of about 24.5%.  Maddow mentioned no tax shenanigans.  

While the Times manufactured outrage over Mr. Trump's tax filings, no legal scholar stepped forward to challenge the unauthorized disclosure of an individual's federal tax data.  The IRS code, Section 7213, makes it unlawful for any government officer or employee to disclose personal return data.

The code specifically mentions federal as well as state employees. IRS rules make it unlawful to "willfully print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information." A violation is punishable by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $5,000.

If employees at the IRS or New York state revenue agency leaked the data to The New York Times those individuals broke the law. Partisans will claim it is the president's fault for not opening his tax records to the public.  But Mr. Trump is not required by the Constitution or federal law to comply.

Is Mr. Trump hiding something?  The same question should be directed at The New York Times.  Where did the journalists who wrote the story get the tax return information? What is the Times hiding by not publishing the actual tax returns upon which the inflammatory article was based?

Since the Times is so offended by individuals who pay no federal taxes, it is worth noting that a certain New York City newspaper paid ZERO to the federal government in 2017, according to a published accusation.  Can you guess the the name of the publishing company? That's right, The New York Times.

The Times reported $111 million in income that year.  The Times has never disputed that allegation, instead defending itself by claiming the request is "an attempt to distract from our newsroom's ongoing investigation into President Trump's taxes..." The evasion clumsily dodges a public acknowledgement.

The question of how much federal tax the Times pays has never been disclosed.  Public firms are required to file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including tax estimates. But the numbers recorded on their financial statements are often different than the amount these firms pay the IRS.

The only way to know for certain is for the august New York Times to divulge its federal tax returns for the last 10 years.  Of course, the publishing firm is not required to report that data to the public.  Nor is President Trump obligated under any law to publicly expose his federal or state tax return amounts.

If you think President Trump deserves this kind of treatment, ask yourself if you would be willing to unseal your tax returns for publication in The New York Times? If this can happen to the president of the United States, what protects ordinary Americans from this kind of unauthorized invasion of privacy?

The answer is nothing.  That should be troubling to even the most partisan Democrat.  

My Secret Life On the Pro-Life Front Line

For three years, unbeknownst to even my best friends, I was a protestor at an abortion clinic.  The experience opened my eyes to the reality behind abortion statistics: 61 million babies have been terminated since Roe V. Wade in 1973.  What I learned may surprise some who support abortion.

My crusade began when I volunteered at the San Antonio Coalition for Life, a non-denominational organization dedicated to ending abortion and offering women alternatives to the procedure. Volunteers are required to sign a statement of peace, agreeing to be respectful and nonbelligerent.  

On Saturday mornings, I stood on a sidewalk outside of a Planned Parenthood facility silently praying and holding a sign, "End Abortion." Usually a clump of 12 to 20 people huddled together.  These Pro-Life warriors ranged in age from seniors to college-age women and young parents who brought their children.

Saturday's were the busiest days at the clinics.  The parking lot was jammed with cars.  Some had rosaries or crosses dangling from the rearview mirror inside the vehicle.  Many women were there for pregnancy tests.  Others were scheduled for abortions, Planned Parenthood's main source of income.

Despite the sheen of "women's healthcare" here is data from Planned Parenthood's 2019 annual report.  The organization, partially funded by American taxpayers, performed 213,042 "well women" tests, a euphemism for healthcare.  Abortions totaled 345,672 last year. Abortions cost from $75 to $2,500,   

Notwithstanding what you read in the media, our protests were amicable. No one shouted at the women entering the clinic.  We were coached to be cordial, never condemning the women.  Trained counselors would try to engage the women, often without success. But ever so often, there would be a moment.

Like the time a young woman heeded a counselor's polite invitation. Her boyfriend, stood angrily near the clinic door, his fists clenched. The frightened woman tentatively walked to the sidewalk.  A conversation ensued. In hushed tones, she admitted her boyfriend had coerced her into seeking an abortion.

Halfway through the encounter, the boyfriend rushed toward her and grabbed her arm, jerking her away from the counselor.  As he practically dragged the female to the clinic, he shouted obscenities at the counselor. He then raced to the sidewalk and confronted me and others, threatening to punch us.

The teary eyed girl disappeared into the clinic. She emerged an hour later and approached the counselor as her boyfriend steamed alone in the car.  "After I heard about the process, I couldn't go through with it," she said, dabbing her eyes with a Kleenex.  She thanked the counselor and haltingly walked away. 

Over the three years, I repeatedly witnessed similar scenes.  Young men coaxing, cajoling and bullying their female partners into getting an abortion.  This wasn't about a woman's choice.  Although I am certain, there were women who made their own decision.  They usually arrived accompanied by a female.  

Perhaps, the incident that sticks out most in my mind involved an obviously wealthy client.  A blonde female, who looked no more than 16, alighted from a shiny Cadillac.  An older man opened the door for her and then returned to the comfort of the front seat.  Minutes passed and then he sauntered toward us.

He looked haggard. After some chit-chat, he admitted the teenager was the daughter of his boss.  The father, obviously embarrassed, ordered his employee to drive the teenager to the clinic.  He admitted he personally opposed abortion and was conflicted about his role in the episode.

The employee paced back and forth as he waited more than an hour for the teenager.  She finally appeared, a grimace on her face, her hands covering her abdomen.  He gently helped her in the car.  Once settled, she burst into tears.  It was heart-wrenching.  Women who have abortions endure pain and lifelong guilt.

I never observed a woman departing the clinic, smiling and appearing relieved.  The opposite was true.  Most looked numbed, distressed, barely able to walk.  Often the boyfriends or partners were the ones who appeared satisfied. My observations may be challenged as atypical.  Data backs up my account.

The statistics show that 99.31% of all abortions are for social and economic reasons.  Forget the propaganda about incest and rape. Only .09% of abortions are for those two reasons combined.  Among social reasons, nearly half (48%) abortions are triggered by "relationship problems" with the baby's father.

More than eight in ten (85%) of women who seek abortions are unmarried.  Although many cite poverty as the rationale for abortion, the data shows it is perverse logic.  Aborting a baby does not lift a woman out of her economic circumstances.  The overwhelming majority continue to exist below poverty level.

Some of those statistics are from the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health think tank that supports abortion rights.  Their data also shows most abortions (90%) occur at 10 weeks into the pregnancy.  At that time, the fully formed baby has a heartbeat, a brain, fingernails, eyes and developing ears. 

Planned Parenthood cynically targets communities of color.  Studies show 79% of their facilities are located within walking distance of neighborhoods with proportionately higher populations of black and Hispanic women.  Since 1973, an estimated 20 million African-American babies have been aborted.

That is why I volunteered to stand for life.  However, my chief motivation was the loss of my twin brother Dean who died after three days of life.  I have often wondered what his life would have been like? How would it had changed my own life?  I will never know.  Life is precious, something to be valued.

In this presidential election, abortion has erupted again on the political scene with the vacancy on the Supreme Court.  Democrats have ratcheted up the rhetoric about the court overturning Roe vs. Wade.  It is a classic Democrat election argument.  Americans should not be fooled by the grandstanding.

State legislatures, Congress and even the Supreme Court will never overturn abortion.  It is entrenched in American law and and the laws of many states. The battle for America's soul will never be decided by laws or courts.  Only a change on our hearts and beliefs will end the practice.  

America Unmasked: Will We Like What We See?

Americans are in for a shock.  When the pandemic mask mandates are abolished, some of us might shriek in astonishment.  We will be seeing folks entire faces for the first time in months.  Family, neighbors, doctors, grocery clerks will look...well, different.  Will we like what an unmasked population looks like?

The question demands serious commentary. The Great Masking of Americans commenced about July 3, 2020 BC.  Before Corona.  Since then, the populace has hidden behind face coverings of all sizes, shapes and colors. Not even virus guru Dr. Fauci knows what to expect when our disguises are removed.  

Imagine your consternation when you realize you must start brushing your teeth regularly.  With that mask cloaking your mouth, no one could smell your stinky breath.  You could eat garlic three meals a day and no one would notice.  When you drop the mask, you will have to relearn to brush and gargle mouthwash. 

No longer will you be able to mask that pimple the size of a Texas anthill on your chin.  Uncovered, male grooming will be in vogue again.  Gone will be that goatee you thought was manly.  Checking your self image in a mirror can no longer be avoided, even if you have Quarantine 15 (as in pounds gained.)

Women who have been wearing makeup but no lipstick behind the mask are going to be forced to add extra time to prepare to go outside their homes.  Some stores are gearing for the inevitable rush by stocking dozens of shades of lipstick.  Lord knows we have enough toilet paper to last a lifetime. 

Without masks, Americans' voices will sound normal again.  Those face coverings muffle our speech, forcing us to practically yell at friends or Starbucks baristas.  Most of the time we nod although we don't understand a single word, even with hearing aids. Seniors will have to relearn to lip read.  

Another dilemma in Unmasked America with be what to hang on the review mirror in your car. For months your mask has hung like a badge of virtuous honor from the mirror.  Now it sits empty.  Looping a pair of your underwear on the mirror seems creepy, but hey, it is a new era in America.

That reminds me: What are we going to do with all those masks once decrees come tumbling down like the Berlin Wall?  Some folks have one to match every outfit, like Nancy Pelosi.  Can't just toss them away. Perhaps, guys could convert their face coverings into a Speedo-like swim suit.  Awful image, right? 

On the subject of mask etiquette (notice the smooth transition), can we just agree in future pandemics it is uncool to wear your face covering while riding alone in your car?  You've seen those goofballs. Are they trying to protect their car from COVID?  I can understand if you drive a Bentley.  But a Honda?

New decorum rules should be established for Zoom meetings.  No one needs to wear a mask for a virtual meeting.  It violates scientific propriety and makes you appear goofy.  Alert: the virus does not spread through the ethernet. The good news is you don't have to wear pants on these video conferences.  

And while we are on the subject of protection, a bandana is not a mask. It is bad manners to wear one, particularly in a bank.  You resemble a member of the Butch Cassidy gang.  Emily Post would never approve of an accessory more at home in a rodeo or at a cattle ranch to be worn at your favorite bistro.  

Mask shaming should be outlawed too.  Nothing worse than when you absentmindedly stroll toward a grocery store and someone confronts you in the parking lot.  "Why aren't you wearing a mask?" the stranger demands.  Uh...I have it in my pocket and I will don my face covering once I enter the store.

The stranger, likely a Democrat, huffs.  "You can catch the virus even in a parking lot!" Obviously, he has been watching too much CNN. There is no scientific research on spreading COVID in parking lots.  But likely a scary study will surface soon claiming parking lots are a petri dish for the virus. 

This shaming has gotten so out of hand in places like California that a Golden State online newsletter felt compelled to consult a former FBI hostage negotiator on how to approach people about wearing masks. You can't make up this stuff folks.  He advised using soothing, non-threatening language.  Oh, goodie!

Apparently, a couple in Manhattan Beach, California, did not read the newsletter.  They accosted two unmasked men in a cafe.  Under California guidelines, diners could remove their masks once their food arrived.  The woman angrily doused one of the men with coffee.  The police were summoned.   

In Park City, Utah, a woman sauntered into a Walmart without a face covering.  She had been exempted by public health authorities because of a medical condition.  That didn't stop a masked shopper from ramming his cart into the woman.  Charges were filed against the male assailant.   

Self-righteous vigilantes are patrolling neighborhoods too.  During Corona, a cadre of snitchers are reporting unmasked violators to the Neighborhood Mask Watch Patrol.  Who knew you were living next door to a stoolie?  Even Never Maskers are bowing to the pressure.

A Pew Research study in June found that 65% of adults said they wore a mask regularly in stores or other businesses.  A followup survey in August, shows the mask wearers are now 85% of the adult population. Mask wearing has now become a normal part of our fashion statement.  

At this juncture, you are probably wondering when the mask orders will be rescinded.  No one really knows except the Dear Leaders In Our Benevolent Government.  But I had a premonition.  I dreamed it would be during the third term of President Joe Biden.  Surely, by then we can Unmask America.