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.   

The Decay of the Traditional American Family

An exhaustive study on the collapse of American families highlights too many inconvenient truths to gain traction in the mainstream media. The findings are anathema to the prevailing liberal doctrine. The nation's cancel culture rejects any facts that do not fit their narrative of victimhood.  

The report by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, released July 23, is entitled "The Demise of the Happy Two Parent Home."   Is it any wonder the media ignores the research?  Recall vanquished presidential candidate Hillary Clinton once lectured Americans that it takes a village to raise a child.

The highlights of the research likely will surprise few Americans paying attention to the erosion of traditional values in our society. Here are a few statistics from the sweeping study:

• The percentage of births to unmarried women spiked from 5% in 1960 to 40% in 2018. 

• Fifty years ago, 85% of children lived with two parents.  In 2019, the number plunged to 70% of kids residing with two parents.

• In the 1960's, less than one percent of couples living together were unmarried. By 2019 the figure stood at 12-to-13%. 

• Marriage is not as common as in previous decades. The percentage of women between the ages 15-44 who are married has nosedived from 71% in 1962 to 42% in 2019.            

Although the Joint Economic Committee published the statistics in its report, the data was extracted from studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Center for Health Statistics and National Vital Statistic Reports.  What matters is what the stats reveal about inequality.

More than two-thirds of the births to African-American women are to unwed mothers. About 73% of births to all black woman involved non-martial conceptions.  As a consequence, six in ten black children are apart from at least one parent during their growing up years. 

While marriage has declined for all Americans, fewer African-Americans are entering into marriage. According to the report, less than one-quarter (24%) of African-American women between the ages of 15 and 44 were married in 2019.

Statistics reveal the overwhelming majority of these African-American females are what the study terms "low-education" principals. In socio-economic terms, it means that a disproportionate number of children of color are born into circumstances that hinder their ability to equally participate in the economy.

While income inequality has become a focus of policymakers, few dare to point out how the deterioration of the two-parent family among African-American households is directly correlated to their offspring's opportunities. Instead, they are more likely to dredge up "systemic racism" as the bogeyman.  

Princeton University sociologist Sara McLanahan took stock of the data and observed: "If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal." 

As the study concludes the "inequality in family stability" not only is a contributing factor but also compounds economic inequality.  A plethora of data exists in the public domain documenting that children with two married parents are far less likely to live in poverty than those kids with a single parent.

As a matter of fact, research has established that children raised by married parents do better on a wide array of outcomes.  They are less likely to experience physical, emotional or sexual abuse.  They enjoy better health, achieve higher education levels and earn more as a adults.

This experience applies to both non-white and Caucasians alike.  As the research points out, about 10% of all American children lived with a divorced single parent and close to 15% resided with a never-married parent in 2019.  As highlighted above, the data is much higher for African-Americans.

Another factor eroding family stability is the increase in Americans who have children with multiple partners, complicating relationships among adults and siblings.  Nearly 16% of parents have children with more than one partner.  In 20% of those martial situations, one individual has had more than one partner. 

Brookings Institution scholar Ron Haskins provides a politically incorrect solution. He cites research that shows American adults who finish high school; get a full-time job; and wait until at least age 21 to get married and have children; hold a 75% chance of being a middle-class earner.  Only 2% will be poor.

Government solutions to assist households with children headed by unwed mothers or single moms have failed miserably.  The more than 80 public assistance programs at the state and federal level combined are actually exacerbating the problem.

These public anti-poverty programs have discouraged marriage among those receiving benefits and incentivized single mothers to produce more children out of wedlock to increase government payments. Most of the programs penalize marriage by reducing welfare benefits as household income increases.

In the Joint Economic Committee Report, government statistics document the value of the safety net for single-mother families is 133% higher today than in 1940 and 56% higher than the level in 1960. Of course, inflation accounts for some of the hike. But the sheer number of programs has exploded.  

These federal and state programs are creating a permanent underclass by perpetuating the cycle of having children out of wedlock.  Many reports have documented this consequence but there is virtually no recognition by governments at any level to align assistance with promoting family stability.

What appears clear is the collapse of marriage and family are a reflection of the changing values in American culture.  In 2002, a Gallup Poll uncovered that 45% of American agreed having a baby outside of marriage was morally acceptable.  In 2019, the figure had zoomed to 64% of respondents.

Nobel-Prize winning University of Chicago economist James Heckman has pinpointed the issue that undermines government solutions.  He cites as one of the chief obstacles an "honest engagement" on the changes in the American family that are driving family disruption.  

"The family is the source of life and growth," Heckman says. "Families build values, encourage (or discourage) their children in school and out.  Families--far more than schools--create or inhibit life opportunities."

In the Woke era, it is racist to blame the demise of the family for income inequality and racial inequity, especially among African-Americans.  The Woke crowd prefers to demand dialogue about systemic racism.  But, if they want to solve the problem, then they need look no further than family instability. 

Facts should matter in this debate.  However, feelings and political correctness have been deemed more relevant by politicians and policy makers.  The result will continue to be solutions that don't address the the moral and social issue of the deterioration of the two-parent family.    

Unhealthy Consequences of Pandemic Lockdowns

Lockdowns imposed by mayors and governors during the pandemic are fueling a health epidemic. While nearly 200,000 deaths are blamed on the virus, millions are suffering from drug overdoses, suicides, divorces, domestic violence and life-threatening risks associated with scrubbing elective surgeries.

It raises a legitimate question: Did experts at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),  health authorities and elected officials weigh the consequences of a quarantine to protect Americans from the virus against the ramifications of a protracted, enforced isolation on Americans health?" 

Just to be clear, quarantine-like edicts, endorsed by scientists, were necessary to staunch the spread of the virus in the earliest months of the outbreak.  However, the continuation of solitary confinement-like restrictions and social restraints elevate concerns for a plethora of residual health complications.  

A review of past statements and official pronouncements of health experts unearths evidence a few recognized the danger of extended shutdowns. For the most part, their warnings were unheeded. It is patently untrue to call the mushrooming health crisis a result of "unintended consequences."  

If health executives did not realize the complications, they are derelict in their duty to consider the inevitable problems with elongated lockdowns.  In every crisis, civic leaders and health officials must balance actions with their duty to protect every citizen.  It is essential to equitable solutions.

In the rush to free up hospital beds, elective surgeries were one of the first victims of the lockdowns.  Doctors will vouch that many procedures that were postponed were not optional.  Cancer patients and organ recipients were forced to wait. Their surgeries, inexplicably, were deemed non-critical.  

Breast cancer surgery, for example, was considered an elective procedure.  The American College of Surgeons supported this illogical decision.  Most Americans thought elective surgery meant face lifts or perhaps rotator cuff surgeries that could be delayed without serious consequences. They are wrong.

The World Economic Forum estimates 28 million elective surgeries were cancelled during the height of the epidemic.  The group's study found 38% of global cancer surgeries were postponed or cancelled. The backlog will take at least 45 weeks to clear, according to their calculations.

Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston analyzed 15 years worth of data on cancer treatment and survival rates.  As an example, the study showed even a 30-to-40 day delay in treatment significantly reduced the chances of survival for colon cancer patients.  

Delayed treatment is not the only cause for concern.  Americans with symptoms were avoiding preventive screenings and biopsies, raising the specter that their cancer would go undiagnosed, thus delaying treatment.  There are no statistics on Americans now facing long odds of survival due to the lockdown.

Surgery postponements could also be one contributor to a sharp increase in suicides and drug overdoses as people try to cope with the pain and anxiety.  Dr. Robert Redfield Jr., a virologist and a specialist at the CDC, presented evidence of the catastrophe during a medical conference on July 28. 

"We are seeing sadly far greater suicides than deaths from COVID," he lamented.  "We are seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose....than we are seeing the deaths from COVID." New data confirms drug overdoses have risen 18% nationally. 

The report was done by the Washington, D.C. based group the Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program at the University of Baltimore.  In summary, the study reveals more than 60% of counties participating in the project reported increases in drug overdoses during the pandemic.

America's young adults have not been spared the anxiety of the long confinement.  A CDC report issued last month found 25.5% of adults between the ages of 18-24 reporting having "seriously considered suicide" due to the pandemic.  A total of 10.7% admitted having suicide ideas.

"Isolation, which is also disconnection from other people, will unravel us psychologically very quickly," said Dr. Kevin Gilliland, a clinical psychologist and director of an outpatient resource center.  "I think we have all been surprised by it." 

Calls surged 335%  from March through July to the U.S. government-funded Disaster Distress Helpline, which offers counseling and emotional support.  Help line counselors report callers expressed "feelings of isolation and interpersonal concerns" related to physical distancing and social confinement.  

No one should be shocked by the data.  In May, a group of 500 doctors wrote President Trump to raise awareness of the "short, medium and long-term harm to people's health with a continued shutdown." In the letter, the doctors described exactly the health problems now surfacing.

"The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, suicide, heart attack, stroke or kidney failure.  In youths, it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty and abuse," they warned.

Suicide data is notoriously slow to collect nationally so it will likely be years before the country knows the extent of the fatalities.  

However, data exists on divorces.  Legal Templates, a firm that provides legal documents online, found a 34% increase in divorces compared to 2019.  An analysis shows marriages began to crumble as early as three weeks into the lockdown.  A majority (58%) were married less than five years.

A coalition of American attorneys had predicted the acceleration in divorces because of the extended quarantines, shaky finances, mounting unemployment, child care issues and mental health.  Their warnings fell on deaf ears in most quarters.

Likewise, the Center for Battered Women's Legal Services triggered alarms when it called on communities to expect an inflection in domestic violence with so many couples stuck at home.  The group predicted an increase in more violent abuse as the lockdowns wore on.

A United Nations report called abuse a "shadow pandemic" that went unnoticed.  Globally the number of abuse cases soared 20%.  That number may be understated for the U.S.  In one Colorado county, the group Rise Above Violence recorded a 51% increase in calls about abuse and a 25% hike in domestic violence.

As the case with most data, there is a long lag between the collecting and reporting of national figures on abuse, both among couples and child abuse.  By the time the truth emerges, most people will have forgotten how quarantines, lockdowns and forced isolation wrecked havoc on millions of lives.

A J.P Morgan Chase analysis suggests shutdowns failed to alter the course of the virus.  The report states: "Unlike rigorous testing of potential new drugs, lockdowns were administered with little consideration that they might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths" than the virus.

Some reading these grim assessments may dismiss the impact as Monday Morning Quarterbacking or hindsight.  Even if you agree with that appraisal, there is ample proof many experts admonished officials of the impending health disaster.  Few listened and even fewer addressed the issues.

Others will insist the shutdowns were needed to save lives for the "greater good."  But don't all lives matter? How many life-years will be stolen from cancer patients, suicide victims, battered women and people in need of organ transplants? How many young people will develop mental health issues?   

The lesson for leaders and health officials is that consequences of decisions are not to be treated as inevitable.  Trade-offs are implicit in a health crisis, too, whether or not experts want to admit it.  It is a balancing act that demands a thorough analysis before guidelines and shutdowns are ordered. 

A Surreal Presidential Race Gets Stranger

President Trump is not running against former Vice President Joe Biden, no matter what the ballot reads. Even Democrat voters admit the election has less to do with their candidate.  This election pits President Trump versus Donald Trump.  Running against yourself is a first in modern political history

The recent Democratic Party National Convention focused on Mr. Trump at the expense of their candidate. It was a hate-fest loaded with speaker-after-speaker who skewered the man with the orange tan. Each word dripped vitriol.  Mr. Trump was the devil in disguise with the bad comb-over.

For a majority of Democrats, their candidate might as well not exist. (And he mostly has been MIA.) They have only one candidate: ABT (Anybody But Trump). The party, since 2016, has targeted removing him from office by whatever means necessary.  Now they have a legitimate opportunity.

And let's face it, Joe Biden was not the party faithful's first choice. His resume includes two failed races for the White House.  He was trailing in the early primaries before the power brokers anointed him their guy to avoid a potential election disaster with socialist Bernie Sanders heading the ticket. 

Even former President Obama dawdled until the race was settled before endorsing his former veep, whose campaign lacked the electricity of Sanders. Biden allies are still flustered over Mr. Obama's betrayal when he embraced Hillary Clinton as his successor.  Perhaps, Mr. Obama knew Mr. Biden is unelectable.       

Mr. Biden has the charisma of a turnip.  And that's unkind to turnips. He shuffles on stage wearing a mask.  His speeches ramble. His mental flubs are legendary.  The few media interviews he has granted end in nonsensical malapropisms. He seldom ventures outside his basement to face questions.

Let's pause here for the Democrat response.  None of this matters. People loath Donald Trump.  He is the opposite of likable, kindly Joe. A reckless, strident, narcissist.  He is a science denier who allowed a virus to bring America to its knees.  He is a racist and unpresidential. And have you seen his Tweets? Gag!

Whipping up pathological revulsion for the enemy may work for Democrats.  But party leaders are clearly worried about voter enthusiasm.  That is why Sen. Kamala Harris was tapped for the second spot on the ticket.  Democrats keep reminding us she is a "woman of color."  I guess no one has ever seen her photo.

Now the newly minuted vice presidential candidate is front and center in the campaign.  Sen. Harris is likely to be the face of the Democratic Party presidential race, relegating Mr. Biden to appear groundhog-like from his bunker.  The strategy certainly appears to be on target with voters.

After Biden became the apparent nominee, polls showed the 77-year-old with a double digit lead.  Some had the former Delaware senator 15 points ahead of the president.  Now the polls are tightening with 65 days until the election and a wave of panic has risen, a disturbing  reminder of what happened in 2016.

A clear majority (58%) of Democrats say their vote is mostly "about opposing Trump."  Only three in ten Democrats (36%) admit their decision to vote for Biden is more about their candidate.  In comparison, 74% of Trump voters say they are backing their candidate rather than opposing Mr. Biden.

The nonpartisan Pew Research Center's latest survey underscores the shifting tide nationwide.  Mr. Biden currently enjoys an eight point lead, but it was 10 points a few months ago.  The Real Clear Politics average of all polls has Biden ahead by eight percentage points, down from a 10 point margin.

Just when giddy Democrats were popping champagne corks, the latest Rasmussen Reports national presidential poll was released at the end of last week.  It showed Mr. Biden holding a razor-thin lead over President Trump: 46% to 45%.  What was a runaway election, suddenly looks like a squeaker.    

Several polls rate some of the most important swing states as toss-ups after Mr. Biden was ahead in earlier research. The two candidates are virtually tied in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  Since the election is decided by the Electoral College, state polls are a better barometer than national surveys. 

Mr. Biden's slippage can partly be attributed to a growing suspicion among voters about his diminished mental capacity. Political research firm  Zogby International polled 1,007 likely voters and found that 55% believe Mr. Obama's former wingman "is in the early stages of dementia."

A breakdown of the results shows 55% of independent voters and 32% of Democrats agree with the premise of intellectual impairment. Even worse for Democrats, a majority of women (50%) are on board too. Women are a key demographic for the Democrat presidential candidate.  

Democrats who suggest the subject of Mr. Biden's dementia is off limits have convenient amnesia.  The party and its candidates openly questioned President Ronald Reagan's mental capacity during his campaign for a second term.  No one thought it was inappropriate given his age.

For the record, Mr. Reagan was 77-years old when he left office in January, 1989.  Mr. Biden will be the exact same age on January 20, when he will be sworn in if he wins the presidential office.  At the time of his election, Mr. Trump was age 70. 

Of course, Democrats have trashed Mr. Trump's mental acuity since his election and every day since.  The man is certifiably bat poop crazy, their lackeys in the media hee-haw at every opportunity.  If mental health is legitimate issue for Mr. Trump, then it certainly should be applicable to Mr. Biden.

Voters even predict Mr. Biden will not serve out his first term, if elected.  The latest Rasmussen Reports national survey finds 59% of likely voters believe the former veep's running mate will become president before the first term concludes.  That includes a near majority (49%) of his own party's voters.

So Democrats have to wonder.  How does a politician who voters believe may be mentally unfit and too old to serve out a four-year term appeal to the electorate? The current strategy appears to be avoiding the media except for the occasional friendly MSNBC or CNN interview, while Sen. Harris shines.  

There so many other strange qualities about this race.  The Coronavirus has shutdown the normal campaigning that flourishes at this juncture in the race.  Virtual campaigning is a non sequitur. The excitement of a crowd is missing.  There is little emotion. Interest is dwindling among the electorate.

If you doubt that assessment, consider the viewership for recent political conventions.  Both parties failed to garner the same audience ratings as they did in 2016.  Interestingly, the most watched evening of the Democratic Convention was the night former First Lady Michelle Obama spoke.   

The Coronavirus also has stolen Mr. Trump's secret campaign weapon: large indoor rallies.  His packed rallies in 2016 built voter enthusiasm and turned political elections on its head. No one had campaigned that way, eschewing media advertising for the most part to increase turnout. 

Both parties are anguishing over voter turnout, the key to winning any election. Since Trump voters are more motivated according to polling, that cannot be good news for Democrats.  They are counting on Trump Derangement Syndrome to galvanize their legions to return their mail ballots.

Issues have taken a backseat to hatred.  The Democrats top theme is how Mr. Trump bungled the handling of the Coronavirus. With many schools still closed and businesses struggling to reopen, the Democrats are mining the rich vein of anger about the seemingly endless quarantine regime.

However, Democrats have served up a prime issue for Republicans. Incessant rioting in Democrat-controlled cities and the steady march to defund police departments has struck a chord with many voters. Republicans are drumbeating the issue of "law and order," a winner in past elections.   

In the aftermath of rioting, Mr. Trump's approval rating soared to 52% last week in a Zogby analytics poll.  "The president has recorded his best job approval rating on record," said pollster Jonathan Zogby.  Mr. Trump's job rating among African-Americans climbed to 36%, an alarming trend for Mr. Biden.     

Despite the news, Democrats are maintaining a facade of confidence. Mr. Biden has already hinted at some of his likely cabinet choices, including the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. His minions probably are considering ideas for redecorating the Oval Office. He is a shoo-in.

In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently shocked some political pundits when she openly suggested Mr. Biden should skip the presidential debates.  "I don't think there should be any debates," she said, claiming President Trump will make any confrontation "an exercise in skullduggery."

With a comfortable lead in national polls, other Democrats share Ms. Pelosi's opinion but have expressed their views privately.  They picture the debates as a lose-lose proposition for Mr. Biden.  They don't trust him on the debate stage because of his penchant for verbal mischief and think he will be bested by Trump.  

That may explain why Democrats are preparing for the worst.  Two organizations with Democrat fingerprints have been formed with the mission of ensuring Mr. Trump leaves office when he is vanquished and preserving election integrity.  The groups are Stand Up America and Indivisible Action.

Despite their stated purpose, some suspect their real intent is to unleash a storm of protests if Mr. Trump wins the election.  One of their leaders admitted on One America News that his group would stir up chaos about the results, raising issues about outside interference in the election.  Sound familiar?

And the Biden campaign has assembled a group of 600 lawyers and thousands of others to prepare for possible "chicanery" in the November election. According to his campaign, about 10,000 volunteers have signed on to stake-out polling places.  That seems odd in light of Democrat focus on mail-in voting.

An anticipated record number of mail-in ballots raises the specter of delays in announcing the state results on election night.  In a tightly contested race, this could drag on for weeks or even months. It heightens the prospect of a contentious political legal battle like the nation has never experienced.

That would be the capstone on this surreal presidential race.     

Post Office Mess: Stop Pretending It's About Voting

Suppose you own a business that hemorrhages red ink every year.  In the latest year, your firm loss $8.86 billion. Your company's total indebtedness is $160 billion and climbing. Even worse your main source of revenues is shriveling. Would you keep pouring more of your money into this miserable business?

The enterprise described above is the United States Postal Service. The archaic service is the subject of a fierce political battle in Congress. Democrats want to throw a $25 billion lifeline to the embattled agency.  They claim the issue involves nothing less than maintaining the integrity of the presidential election.

With Democrat-run states promoting mail-in voting, they have dredged up a canard to force Republicans to relent after the GOP refused to support a $20 billion bailout in March as part of the stimulus package.  This is nothing more than a stunt to paint the president and his party as villains opposed to fair elections.

In the spring, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi charged the Postal Service required an immediate injection of taxpayer money to avoid imminent bankruptcy.  Her opening gambit called for $25 billion. She revised it to $50 billion and upped the ante to $75 billion. Last week the House settled on a $25 billion bailout.

At the time of Pelosi's dire prediction, the kerfuffle over mail-in ballots had not escalated into a full throated political catfight. With the election looming, the speaker decided to flip the issue to forge a new narrative.  This is really about ensuring that mail ballots are delivered, she now insists.       

To put the dispute in perspective, the agency has $160 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and debt with no clear path to profitability, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report issued in May.  The watchdog highlighted "progressively worsened" financial viability since its 2009 review. 

In its report, the GAO underscored that the post office was organized to be self-sustaining but rang up a $78 billion deficit during the fiscal years 2007-2019.  The GAO singled out declining mail volumes at a time when wage and benefit costs are spiraling at an increasing rate.

Despite handling fewer pieces of mail, the agency has increased its workforce.  In 2007, the agency's head count was 786,000.  Faced with less volume, USPS trimmed its force to 617,000 in 2013. Today the Post Office has 633,110 workers.  Increasing head count in the midst of falling volumes is bad business. 

Since 2012, the Postal Service has defaulted on payments for pre-funding retiree health benefits.  As a result, from 2012-to 2016 it failed to pay $33.9 billion toward funding the benefits. It puts future payments to retirees in jeopardy.  USPS keeps raising rates to stave off the inevitable collapse of its scheme.

In January this year, the post office raised overall mailing rates by 1.9%, on the heels of a 10% hike in the cost of a first-class stamp and an increase of 2.45% on other services in 2019. The moves were designed to raise revenues by more than $2 billion. However, expenses continue to outpace revenues.    

In its annual report to Congress for the most recent fiscal year, the Post Office recorded $71.3 billion in revenues and $80.1 billion in expenses.  Compensation and benefits accounted for $47.5 billion of the expenses.  The agency had a net loss of $8.86 billion.  

Until 2007, rising mail volumes and high-margin letter delivery enabled USPS to frequently break even.  Then the recession struck and businesses, the originators of the majority of all mail, bailed on paper mail.  USPS, which handled 213 billion pieces of mail in 2006, processed 142 billion in 2019, a 33% decline.

The Post Office's retail operation has also suffered a steep decline. Customer visits to post office locations totaled 1.06 billion in 2012. In 2019, in-person visits plummeted to 812 million, a decline of 23%. In the face of such results, prudent business managers cut personnel and lower expenses.  

As volumes plunge, less infrastructure is required to manage the flow of mail.  The postal service began consolidating operations to reduce costs, including the removal of sorting machines. This practice predates President Trump and current Post Master General Louis DeJoy, who took office in June.

The previous Post Master General Megan Brennan, a former letter carrier who worked 34 years with USPS, served from 2015 until 2020. She and Mr. Trump exchanged verbal jabs during her tenure. Even after ordering cost reductions, she said the service would continue to post losses at an "accelerating rate."

That hasn't stopped Democrats from accusing the administration of election tampering.  Their allegation includes charges the post service is removing collection boxes to thwart ballot counting.  In reality, there are 141,000 blue-collection boxes in the nation, which are often moved from low-to-high demand areas.

The Democrats know this, but are branding it a heinous plot by the post master general.  Nonsense.  Undeterred by the truth, Democrats also charge the Post Office is locking some blue mail boxes to prevent ballots from being inserted in mail slots. This one hardly dignifies a response.

This practice of locking some blue boxes is standard operating procedure.  These so-called caps are put on collection boxes when there is a rash of mail thefts.  Postal workers place the red caps on the boxes after the final pickup of the day and remove them the next morning, since thefts are mostly done at night.

In an effort to placate Democrats, Postmaster General DeJoy announced last week the planned removal of mail processing equipment will be suspended until after the November election. But even this concession will not prevent Democrats from ginning up conspiracy theories to extort a parachute for USPS.

The Democrats' allegations are also part of a coordinated effort to counter Mr. Trump's claims of the possibility of massive voter fraud with mail-in ballots.  They want to shift the talking-point to the administration's alleged attempts to sabotage mail balloting by manipulating the postal system. 

This is all a smokescreen for Democrats to bail out the financially insolvent USPS. If the post service were a private business, it would have long ago declared bankruptcy.  But because its service touches millions of Americans, Congress keeps feeding it more money, including a $10 billion loan earlier this year.

Democrats also want to save the post office to prop-up the National Association of Letter Carriers, the union that represents most postal workers. Democrats have a vested interest in keeping the NALC union afloat because 77% of its political action committee donations go to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.

No matter what happens USPS should be able to easily handle the increased volume.  The agency sorts and delivers billions of items every single week.  The scale of the mail-in ballots is in the tens of millions.  On any given week, the volume of mail-in ballots handled will be a few percentage points of the total.

There will be a larger surge in mail during the Christmas holiday season.  Despite the annual spike, the Post Office manages to handle the Tsunami of mail and packages.  How will mail-in ballots be any different?  The USPS union has seized the mail-in ballot issue to lobby for funding.

A San Antonio union official inadvertently revealed the threat his members fear most.  "This (lack of funding) is to undermine how good we are, and to finally say, 'Oh, well, you just got to privatize it,' and that's totally wrong, what they're doing," complained Carlos Barrios of Local 195 in San Antonio.

Union leaders are clearly worried about renewed calls to privatize the Post Office.  Such a move would likely result in thousands of layoffs, weakening the power of the union.  Given the agency's deteriorating finances, privatization makes more sense than continuing to prop up a business dinosaur.

Democrats and all Americans should be more concerned about the states' ability to count every ballot in a timely manner.  Converting to a vote-by-mail system is an arduous process.  Many states are ill prepared to conduct a mail election with their current resources. Look no further than what happened in New York.

Six weeks after New York's June 23 primaries, election officials were just wrapping up the vote count.  An election official told The Atlantic the "jury-rigged system" had failed its debut.  It is a dire omen of what can be expected in November as many states struggle with building the election infrastructure.

Five states have regularly conducted exclusively mail balloting: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington.  Twenty-eight states have expanded absentee balloting; mailed ballots to all eligible voters; or relaxed the rules governing who may request an absentee ballot. 

This stew of different procedures and varying levels of state experience with mail balloting is likely to produce an election night catastrophe rivaling the hanging chads controversy of the 2000 election. Even a $25 billion infusion into the Post Office will not solve that looming calamity. 

The House package still must be approved by the Republican controlled Senate and signed by the president.  Expect the GOP to cave on the issue.  Then it will be up to Mr. Trump to end the charade and insist the Post Office operate within its budget.   

The Murky Money Trail to Black Lives Matter

Tracing funding for Black Lives Matter requires following a murky trail of complex legal entities that facilitate raising millions of dollars for the activist group. In some ways, the path has characteristics of a money laundering operation because other nonprofits act as a pass through for funding BLM. 

Black Lives Matter has evolved from a hashtag in 2013 to an international movement with a seemingly unlimited supply of cash to fund operations.  Although BLM has never been certified as a charitable organization, it is the recipient of millions of tax-free donations from other lesser known groups.

Navigating the financial labyrinth, involves deep research that no mainstream media outlet is interested in doing. The intricate curving trail appears to be a deliberate effort to skirt the edges of laws of the Federal Elections Commission and charitable foundations.

The corkscrew road begins with ActBlue, a political action committee (PAC) that fundraises for Democratic Party politicians and causes.  In what appears to be a sleight of hand to frustrate nosy reporters, ActBlue is an umbrella brand for two separate not-for-profit entities.

The duo includes: ActBlue Charities, a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization; and ActBlue Civics, another charitable group that fundraises for liberal advocacy groups.  The ActBlue PAC and the two charities share leadership and office space as well as the same political goals.

The political action committee ActBlue functions as a fund raising platform for the three affiliated entities.  Billions of dollars have been raised to support the trio.  The ActBlue PAC website claims it has collected $5.75 billion online since it was established in 2004.

The Black Lives Matter's website has disclaimer language at the bottom in small print that alerts visitors donations are processed through ActBlue Charities, making gifts tax-deductible.  Money given directly to Black Lives Matter cannot be deducted.  ActBlue is in fact functioning as a pass through to BLM.

There is nothing illegal about this arrangement.  However, the funds arrive at BLM without the names of donors attached, allowing individuals to give money while remaining anonymous. The fundraising arm ActBlue charges a transaction fee of 3.95% for each donation it receives and passes along.

When the two ActBlue charities file their reports, the money it paid out is listed as a lump sum under pass through contributions.  The two nonprofits don't have to identify which groups received the money or the amount of each donation, making it impossible to learn how much cash was funneled to BLM.

ActBlue is just one of the actors financially propping up Black Lives Matter.  Another organization Thousand Currents, a non profit, provided what it called "fiduciary oversight, financial support and administrative services" for several years.  However, it came under increasing public scrutiny.

Reporters at a conservative website recently revealed the vice chairman of Thousand Currents was Susan Rosenberg, a former member of the terrorist Weather Underground who was sentenced to 58 years in prison for possession of a cache of weapons and explosives after her arrest in 1984. 

Rosenberg also allegedly was an accomplice in the 1981 Brink's truck robbery that resulted in the deaths of two guards.  Her sentence was commuted in 2001 by President Bill Clinton.  She served 16 years of her five-decades long sentence.  Despite her crimes, the activist finagled a gig as vice chairman of a nonprofit.

After word leaked of her association with Thousand Currents, the organization was folded into a California nonprofit with ties to billionaire George Soros.  A filing by Thousands Currents with the California Department of Justice on July 13, 2020 contained the following notice.

"Thousand Currents, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, (and) all the assets associated with Thousands Current fiscal sponsorship of the Black Lives Matter Global Network project," is being transferred to the Tides Center, a California nonprofit.

At the the time the papers were filed, an audit for 2019 showed that the organization held about $3.4 million in assets for Black Lives Matter. Thousand Currents had pumped nearly $1.8 million into the activist group in the previous fiscal year. 

In the filing, Thousand Currents notified the state  that Tides Center would "serve as the new fiscal sponsor for the Black Lives Matter Global Network project."  Publicly available records show that the Tides Center had nearly $1 billion in total assets at the end of 2019. 

InfluenceWatch, a public interest watchdog, has published extensive research on Tides Center, created in 1976.  Tides operates like no other nonprofit.  Donors make gifts to "savings accounts" held by Tides investments that grow in value.  At some point, donors advise Tides to pay out grants.

Tides Foundation, an affiliate of Tides Center, paid out $291 million in grants to other liberal, Democrat nonprofits.  Tides Foundation brags it has worked with more than 15,000 individuals and organizations to support projects which advocate "shared prosperity and social justice."

Under the Tides model, donors can give directly to fund projects without being identified with the political or social cause.  Tides officials have made no secret of their mission to offer "anonymity" to donors.  Tides promises this same anonymity to foundations that give money to fund their causes.

When a traditional foundation sends cash to Tides, they are not required by law to reveal any information about the grants eventual destination to the Internal Revenue Service. When Tides files its annual tax return, it lists its donations but is not compelled to reveal where the money came from.

Another unique feature of Tides is that it serves as an incubator for new activist groups.  For example, if a donor wants to fund a specific agenda for which no group exists, Tides will assist in creating one, offering recruiting, financial, administrative and oversight support. 

The Tides Foundation and the Tides Center fatten their idealogical war chest by charging an eight-to-nine percent handling fee on funds that pass through their accounts on the way to other activists. When Ben & Jerry's designated some profits to environmental charities, 20% of the cut was shipped to Tides.   

Pew Charitable Trusts has dispatched more than $40 million to Tides since 1996. At least 17 other foundations have poured money into the charitable arm.   Open Society Foundation, a George Soros nonprofit, has given at least $3.5 million to Tides.  Tides has also supported nonprofits connected to Soros.

This tangled web is necessary for funding Black Lives Matter, according to its defenders.  The reason? The organization claims it created a Black Lives Matter Global Network, which was incorporated in Delaware in 2016, as the initial step in creating its own foundation.

However, the network has not yet been recognized as tax-exempt under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Code Section 501(c)(3) and thus must rely on "fiscal sponsorships" from other nonprofits.  Fiscal sponsorships are legal arrangements, according to the National Council of Nonprofits.

There is a difference in operating in a technically legal fashion and being totally transparent.  An organization, such as Black Lives Matter with millions of dollars, should demonstrate it has nothing to hide by publishing a list of individuals and foundations that have provided funding.

The Black Lives Matter movement demands public accountability from police, public officials, businesses and individuals. Apparently, the group does not apply the same principle to its leadership or organization.