President Grinch

   The president left town two days before Christmas, leaving behind a veto of military pay hikes as well as a threat to veto a covid relief bill. A result of his action could be a government shutdown within a few days, since the veto was part of a larger bill authorizing funding for the entire government.
   Soon after the Grinch left town, the White House added another 26 names to the president's pardon list, which included several who were convicted of several crimes, including lying to Congress, and other federal offenses.
   The list included two of the president's close associates and a family relative.

Pardon Spree

   Speculation is rising as to how many pardons the president will issue before leaving office next month.
   Typically, outgoing presidents give clemency to a few who have been convicted of federal crimes but who have also shown remorse or for various reasons deserve to have a clear record.
   This year, however, considering Donald Trump's attitude toward minorities and his favoritism toward friends and supporters, many commentators wonder whether he will expand on his history of pardoning close allies, no matter how egregious their offenses.
   The potential splurge of pardons would well include members of his own family, who may be facing a variety of charges, as well as himself.
   Whether he can legally pardon himself is debatable among Constitutional scholars and lawyers, but the reality is that he may try.
   Presidential pardon power, however, applies only to federal offenses. The state of New York has been preparing a case against Trump for months, and has waited only because he has been in office, thus avoiding a potential long court argument over whether a sitting president can be indicted.
   On the federal level, the Department of Justice has a policy of not filing charges against a president while in office, thus avoiding a legal challenge as to whether they can.
   A president can be impeached and, if convicted, removed from office, after which other charges can be filed. The Constitution is clear on this issue, since it specifies that after impeachment and conviction, punishment can only be removal from office. Other charges can then be filed in court.
   But whether a president can pardon himself remains an open and major question. A president can certainly pardon anyone he likes, but only for federal offenses, even those for which no charges have yet been filed. That's called a preemptive pardon.
   Observers are waiting and watching to see who and how many of his friends, family and supporters will be pardoned before January 20, when he is to leave office.
   

Pharaoh Syndrome

   Those who insist that the current plague does not exist and is largely a product of news media propaganda, may be suffering from what can be called the pharaoh syndrome -- king of denial.
   And the more they deny there is a problem, the worse the plague becomes. Those who read the Bible can list nearly a dozen problems that the ancient Egyptians suffered before they finally let the Jews leave for their ancestral home in Israel.
   Americans today can list many problems of the past few years, including wildfires in California, tornadoes in Louisiana and Texas, severe storms in the Midwest, five boats suddenly sinking during a parade honoring President Trump in Texas, as well as the continuing  covid 19 pandemic that takes several thousand lives daily.
   Coincidences? Perhaps. But many devout religionists insist that the virus does not exist, despite the overcrowded hospital intensive care units and the reports that the president himself, members of his family, close associates, members of the White House staff and members of Congress have all been infected by the virus.
   Others claim any suggestion that they wear a face mask and take other precautions to protect themselves and others from the virus is a violation of their civil rights. Tell that to the many hundreds of families who have lost loved ones to the corona virus so far this year.
   As of December 9, nearly half a million Pennsylvanians had become sick with the virus, and the statewide death toll was approximately 12,000.

   Meanwhile, the president of the United States spends most of his time arguing that he actually did win the election, and any numbers to the contrary are fake.
   He seems more intent on staying in power than in helping to save the lives of fellow Americans, more of whom die in a single day than were killed at Pearl Harbor or on 9/11.

Second Term

   There remain two events that would enable Donald Trump to remain in office after January 20 for a second term as president.
   First, the Electoral College, which will formally meet on Monday, December 14, will choose one of the two candidates.
   Second, the electoral vote will be presented to a joint session of Congress on January 6, at which time acceptance of the electoral vote finalizes the choice for the presidency.
   But.
   Suppose the electors do not honor their pledge to vote for Joe Biden as the next president, and select Trump instead?
   Secondly, even if they do keep their promises and support Biden, the choice is not final until accepted by Congress.
   And suppose Congress does not accept the electoral tally?
   What then?
   Would the issue go to the Supreme Court, which has a six to three Republican majority, three of whose members were chosen by Trump?
   So it is indeed possible -- remotely, but possible -- that Trump's unyielding fight to stay in office may succeed. Is it likely that he will win, as he consistently insists he did win re-election?
   Probably not likely. But it is possible, if his team can persuade enough electors to change their promises to vote for Biden and to vote for Trump instead.
   And if they do uphold their promises, will the Congress accept the result?
   It sounds far-fetched, but history shows that similar things have happened in the past, as electors changed their promises or that a tie in the electoral college moved the final choice to the House of Representatives.
   You can look it up.
   So if it happens again, which way will the Supreme Court go, if the case ends up before the nine justices?

   Meanwhile, the Supreme Court summarily denied a request by Pennsylvania Republicans to hear their challenge to the result in that state. It was a single sentence, unsigned. which no doubt means that all nine justices agreed. It remains to be seen whether team Trump will try again.
   All this may explain why the Trump team continues to ignore being 80 million votes behind in the popular vote and a substantial lag in the potential electoral tally.
   It ain't over until it's over, and it won't be until the Congressional ninth inning on January 6. And even then it may go to extra innings.
   We live in interesting times.

Faux News

   The president's reliance on the Faux News network as an echo chamber for his propaganda is becoming more blatant daily. Meanwhile, other TV networks are refusing to carry some of his more virulent lies, including a 46-minute video he recorded, in which he again spouted his complaints.
   Also, during a campaign visit to Georgia supposedly in support of Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate in a runoff election scheduled for next month, major news networks carried only some of his remarks. The Faux News network, meanwhile, carried the entire speech live.
   Other news programs noted that many of his remarks were false, misleading or incomplete, and they provided examples. It's noteworthy, however, that traditional broadcast facilities increasingly use the term "flat-out lies" when referring to some of the president's comments.
   It didn't used to be that way. The L-word was so strong that traditional print and broadcast faculties did not use it. Now, however, the president's lies are so blatant and frequent that it's not possible to describe them as anything else.
   Meanwhile, he continues his diatribe that the election was rigged, his opponents cheated, and that really, he won. His lawsuits, however, are regularly dismissed for lack of evidence, and he continues to act as if he really will remain the current president of the United States.
   Expect him to formally announce his candidacy for the 2024 election at noon on January 20, the same hour that Joe Biden takes the oath of office as president.
   The saddest part is that so many Americans believe everything he says, despite clear evidence that he is not only mistaken, but that he lies.
   As for his claim that millions and millions of fake ballots were printed and distributed, and that's how the election was rigged, consider this: There are 50 states, the District of Columbia, 435 districts that elect members of the House of Representatives, all of whom face election every two years, one-third of all the senators, plus thousands of state, county and municipal candidates to be listed on separate ballots for each election district.
   So how many election districts are there in each state? How many in the entire nation? Is the president insisting that a single provider print separate ballots for each and every district? Or is he insisting that there is a single ballot for the entire country?
   If so, how long would each ballot be?
   Reality check: Each district sets up its own ballot operation, some for printed ballots, some for machine balloting, and some with a combination.
  So the likelihood that a single source could print and provide ballots for each of the thousands of election districts in America is ...

SCOTUS Independence

   It seems the president expects the Supreme Court to do his bidding and reverse nearly 30 lower court rulings that tossed his challenges to American voting procedures that cost him re-election.
   Judging from his public comments, Donald Trump wants the Republican majority on the court -- three of whom are his appointees -- to overrule the tradition of electing a president, taking it way from voters and moving it to politicians.
   But Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, and cannot be summarily dismissed by someone who thinks he is in charge of everything. SCOTUS is a separate and independent branch of the U.S. government, with equal status to Congress and the president.
   Nevertheless, this president behaves like he's in charge of everything, and anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong and is to be ignored or fired. That may have worked in his private business empire, but the U.S. government is not an empire and he is not an emperor.
   So this president is in a dilemma. Can he realistically ignore the Supreme Court? Or can he close it down if he does not approve of its decisions? Take this thinking a few steps further, and the question becomes whether he can ignore the voters and stay in office?
   Currently, he is lamenting the reality that the Supreme Court may not take up his challenges, most notably the one by the federal district court in Pennsylvania that said elections are decided by voters, not by lawyers.

Druid Dilemma

   The latest in the series of stories about Jack McHarg and his dealings with the spirit world is now available at bookstores or via Amazon.

Inauguration Daze

   The president continues his allegations that the election was rigged, despite some 30 court cases being summarily dismissed by state and federal courts for lack of evidence.
   He has finally acknowledged that he will probably leave the White House on January 20, inauguration day, leading some to suspect that he will not attend the swearing-in ceremony of his successor.
   And, given the fierceness of his insistence that he actually did win the election, this gives rise to speculation that he will hold a separate "inauguration" for a second term, to be held at his Florida estate.
   Or at minimum, there will be some sort of appearance at the same hour that Joe Biden is sworn in at the nation's capitol in Washington.

Attitude

   Donald Trump: "Don't talk to me like that. I'm the president of the United States."
   Pug Mahoney: "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."
   Note: Americans, particularly journalists, have the right to ask any question of anyone else at any time, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
   The president is not a king or a dictator, and it's long past time he stopped acting like one. Unless that is his intention, to continue in his position even after January 20 despite the results of the general election, as certified by the individual states.

Covid Statistics

Just checked some covid stats.

   Morris County NJ, my home county, has seen 12,550 cases and 854 deaths.
   Bucks County PA, where I am now, has seen 15,408 cases and 658 deaths.

Pennsylvania, 25,132 cases and 9,932 deaths
NJ 311,400 cases and 16,772 deaths.
US, 12.5 million cases and 257,629 deaths.

I'm staying home.

   Other countries have better policies, and the problem is less. Thanks to the fearful leader, many Americans deny it exists and blame the "fake news media" for spreading nonsense. The pharaoh syndrome (king of denial) is spreading, and the virus rides with it.

Speculation

   So why is the president trying so hard to overturn the well documented results of an election that he lost by nearly 8 million votes as well as a solid margin in the electoral college?
   Repeated attempts to block several state results in court challenges have failed, either dismissed by judges or abandoned by law firms.
   Could it be that he plans to force a tie electoral vote, which would put the final choice into the Congress? That's not likely to work either.
   Perhaps it's his ego, which does not allow him to admit defeat in anything, ever. Or is the power play to remain president a move to remain in office permanently? He has in the past spoken of his next ten years in office, which is disallowed by the Constitution.
   Could it be that he would suspend the Constitution by executive order? As if that is even possible. But in the past, reality has not stopped him from doing things that others would not try.
   Perhaps he is relying on the enthusiasm of his dedicated supporters to enable him, and they would support his every move, even those that would result in violence.
   This would mean a civil war.

Sore Loser?

    "He cheated" and "That's not fair" are two expressions many of us remember from our childhood when playmates did not win a competition. By high school, especially in sports, we learned to accept defeat, congratulate the winner and move on.
   Some, however, never learn that, and for the rest of their lives refuse to accept a loss and spend many hours blaming others for embarrassing them.
   Currently, we are seeing similar behavior by the man who happens to be president of the United States, using the same expressions that children use when they do not win.   
   Granted, the results are not yet official, even ten days after Election Day, and won't be until the Electoral College certifies the vote in December and later presents their conclusion to Congress.
   Meanwhile, projections by news media, relying on the same tabulations as gathered by the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, show that Joe Biden has a total of more than 270 electoral votes to become the next president.
   But even if the four states that had not yet completed their vote count all favored Donald Trump, that would still not be enough to overtake the presumed winner. The current president had a total of 214 electoral votes as of Monday. Assuming that Alaska, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina put their total of 43 electoral votes to the Trump column, that would still be only 257 votes, 13 short of the 270 needed for reelection.
   That would mean that several previously submitted state counts would have to be overturned, and several lawsuits have been submitted to do just that. Winning an overturn in Pennsylvania alone, for example, with its 20 electoral votes, would be more than enough to return Trump to the Oval Office.
   So what are the odds of any of those court challenges succeeding? As well as winning in all four of the states that had not yet completed their vote counts?
   Somewhere between slim and none. Meanwhile, America will hear the chanting of a sore loser.

Licentious

  As for those who claim that suggesting they wear a mask as a health precaution and that government has no right to tell them what to do, one can only ask whether they were ever told to cover their mouths when they cough or sneeze; whether they have a driver's license; whether they obey speed limits when driving; whether they follow one-way street signs; and whether the auto they own has a license and whether they are covered by liability insurance.

 All are government mandates. 

   So let's all sneeze in each other's faces, drive 90 miles an hour in the opposite direction on a one-way street in the middle of town, and beat up on anyone who disagrees with us on any topic at any time. 

   Law? Pshaw. Health and consideration of others? Nonsense.

 

   "Greed is good," according to Gordon Gekko in the movie about Wall Street.

Debate Debacle

   News media worldwide went bonkers over the childish behavior of the president during the televised debate Tuesday evening.
   As expected, the debate quickly degenerated into a swamp of interruptions, name-calling, insults and lies, largely made by the Donald Trump.
   Eventually, however, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate, said, "Will you shut up, man?" and referred to Trump as a "clown."
   Moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News was unable to persuade the president to avoid interrupting, reminding him that both sides had agreed that the debaters would not interrupt.
   Trump's response was, "He did it too!" a defense normally used by children who are caught misbehaving.
   In all, the debacle led the organizers of the debate to say there would be changes in the way future debates are conducted.
   Some of the suggestions included attaching an "off" switch on each debater's microphones so the moderator could turn them off. That, however, would not stop someone from talking. And there is the possibility that future debates would be cancelled.

Taking Debate

   Speculation is high as to whether Joe Biden will yield to temptation and respond to Donald Trump's taunts during the first debate of the current presidential campaign, set for Tuesday evening.
   Also, what will he do about the many interruptions that Trump typically launches while others are speaking, replete with insults?
   There is also the question whether either candidate will actually answer any of the questions posed by the moderator.
   Especially of interest will be whether Trump says anything about his financial doings, as documented in a major expose printed in the New York Times. His only comment so far has been to assert that the report is "fake" and the information in it was obtained illegally.
   But if the data is "fake," what does it matter how it was acquired? If it was only "made up," as Trump alleges, then it was not obtained illegally. On the other hand, if the tax return data was gotten legally, then the president has an obligation to respond.
   He has claimed that because his returns are under audit, he cannot release them publicly. But there is nothing in IRS regulations that stipulates that an individual cannot disclose his personal financial information.
   Other presidents and candidates have done that, so the question now becomes, what is Trump hiding?

The bell tolls for thee

   The death toll from the corona virus in the United States just passed 200,000. At this rate, a quarter-million Americans will have died from this disease by Election Day. 

   Yet the man up for re-election as president downplays the danger of the virus, mocks his opponent for wearing a face mask and holds massive campaign rallies where few of his followers take any of the precautions urged by science.

    Question: Why is he risking the lives of his own voters?

RIP RBG

   "Let the people speak,''  said  GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2016, nearly a year before a presidential election when a vacancy appeared on the Supreme Court. McConnell stalled Senate action until after the election, so the new Republican president could choose a replacement.
   That was then. Now, Republicans want a replacement nomination for the deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before she is even in the ground, and the next presidential election is mere weeks away.
   Justice Ginsburg died Thursday, Sept. 17, the day before Rosh Hashanah, but will not be buried until Monday, Sept. 28, the day after Yom Kippur.
   Yet the president says he will announce a replacement nomination this weekend, two days before the burial.
   So much for respect and tradition when power is at stake.

Social Welfare

   Democracy in America is in danger of falling victim to greed and power.
   "Radical left-wing liberal socialist" have all become foul words, but that has always been said of those who endorse programs that might benefit all members of society, and not just the wealthy, privileged few.
   It was true in the late 19th Century when labor unions were being formed. Later, the income tax was opposed as a "punishment" of the wealthy and a gift to the "undeserving poor." As if there were large numbers of people who deserved to be poor.
   Then came the social welfare programs of the Great Depression era. Minimum wage laws and other laws that prevented employers from reducing pay when business declined. Unemployment compensation for those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Social Security pensions to encourage retirement by the elderly, thus making jobs available for younger workers.
   Then came a health care program for the elderly (Medicare), and a rule prohibiting insurance companies from refusing coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, thus putting the full burden of health care costs on those with low income or inability to work. Then came a health care program for the poor (Medicaid).
   All these and more are government-sponsored programs to benefit all members of society -- to ensure the social welfare of all.
   But by demonizing these programs as "socialist," implying that they are all symptoms of a cruel dictatorship, some politicians and their followers want to dismantle all these programs, leaving many Americans to fend for themselves regardless of their abilities.
   This strategy would conserve wealth and power to the few members of the republic who inherited their status, rather than having to work their way up through the ranks of society.
  Soon it will up to voters to decide whether they want government to continue on its path of eliminating programs designed to assist those in need, or to return to its function of ensuring the welfare of all members of society.
   If that be socialism, let us make the most of it, even as we avoid a dictatorial government bent on ensuring the prosperity of the few at the expense of the many.

Ballot Bingo

The problem with voting early is that you provide more paper ballots for the GOP to challenge and delay final results of the election. Despite what the prez claims, results are not final on Election Day because absentee and mailed ballots are not counted until after the polls close, and the choice for any president is not final until the Electoral College meets in early December. And it's not fully official until Congress opens and reads the Electoral College results in early January. Meanwhile, the GOP can mount legal challenges each step of the way, forcing the final choice into the House of Representatives.
  Remember Bush v Gore and the so-called "hanging chads," which led to many votes being discarded.

Wolfpack Journalism

The caribou feeds the wolf, but the wolf keeps the caribou strong -- Inuit proverb.

   Just as the wolf strengthens the herd by removing the weak and the sick, journalism strengthens democracy by exposing politicians who are a danger to society.
   Popular politicians often attack journalists who criticize their work, since their supporters will believe them before they believe news reports, especially if a politician warns of "a danger to society." This was evident some 70 years ago as Sen. Joseph McCarthy spoke repeatedly of a "Communist menace."

   As long as a politician keeps his popularity, he can increase his rhetoric. But when that rhetoric loses its believability, a politician's popularity diminishes, and journalists increase their exposures of his half-truths, misinformation and sometimes outright lies, just as a wolf pack moves in on a weak or sick member of a caribou herd.

   This is not to denigrate wolves or journalism, but only to describe the phenomenon. By thinning the herd of its weakest or sickest members, the wolf pack makes the caribou herd strong.

   So also, by exposing a weak or phony government official, journalism makes democracy stronger.

Sully Trashes Trump

   The big news this week is that Capt. Chesley Sullenberger, pilot of the airliner that he brought down on the Hudson River and who was last to leave the plane after all passengers and crew were rescued, has sharply criticized the prez for remarks on military casualties. 
   Also, prez demanded that a Fox news reporter be fired after she accurately described the story that he called military casualties "losers." This from Fox, usually an avid backer of all that prez does. But that applies mostly to the evening commentators. During the day, the news folk are closer to neutral. 
   Meanwhile, many are waiting to hear a comment from John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general who was also prez chief of staff and whose son was killed in Afghanistan. The report is that prez was with Kelly at the son's grave at Arlington National Cemetery when the prez mused, "why would anyone do that?" or words like that. 
   Prez has also criticized Kelly as washed up, someone who couldn't take the pressure of the White House job. 
   The New Yorker magazine is calling for Kelly to speak up. But others cite the military tradition of staying out of politics. That applies generally to those on active duty. Several retirees are trashing the prez. That includes commentators on news channels as well as Sullenberger. 
   I expect prez has crossed the ultimate line, and Kelly will speak. The journalist in me suggests he may wait a few days and a long essay will appear in next Sunday's newspapers. 

First Amendment Challenge

Who gets to decide which stories to publish? The editor, not the politician -- Pug Mahoney

   "It's a totally fake story, and a disgrace that they're allowed to do it," said the president about a report that quoted him as calling war victims "losers" and "suckers."
   Note to the president: You don't get to decide what is published and what is not. But the more important issue is this: Who is to "allow" publication of a story, especially one that is critical of a president? Is the current president claiming authority to decide which news stories can be published, allowing only those that support his government?
   Perhaps it's time he read the First Amendment to the Constitution.
   The current issue of the Atlantic magazine described in detail the president's attitude toward military personnel in general and particularly those killed or captured during wartime, citing numerous examples of his comments about war victims.
   During the presidential election campaign, he referred to Sen. John McCain, a former Navy pilot who was shot down and held prisoner in North Vietnam for nearly ten years, as only being a war hero "because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."
   And the report described several example of his reluctance to visit cemeteries, including one in France that honored U.S. Marine casualties of battles in the First World War.

Perspectives

   Americans are dying from the corona virus at the rate of about 1,000 each day, and at that rate, the total will reach nearly a quarter of a million deaths by Election Day.
  That's twice the size of the entire population of New Haven, Connecticut, and roughly the same as the population of Birmingham, Alabama; Anchorage, Alaska; Scottsdale, Arizona; Fort Wayne, Indiana; or Jersey City, New Jersey.
   Yet some real estate salesman turned politician would have you consider that the total is only a minuscule portion of the entire national population. And this is true. With a U.S. population of more than 300 million, a death rate of 300,000 is only 0.001 percent.
   No big deal, his supporters say. Besides, that will help build up "herd immunity" for the rest of us. Assuming "the rest of us" are numbered among the survivors. 
   Granted, those numbers are rounded off and simplified to make a point. Those who are more talented at math will take the total population of 328.2 million, the U.S. Census Bureau's 2019 estimate, and compare that to the latest death count of 186,000 as of today, Sept. 3. Add to that the current death rate of 1,000 or more Americans daily for the next 70 days until Election Day, Nov. 3, and you get 256,000. That's a quarter of a million.
   Those who want a more precise number can go to their calculators and crunch the numbers. The rest of us will accept that a quarter of a million Americans dead of a virus that could have been brought under control long since, as was done in other countries, is far too high a number.
   So why do so many otherwise intelligent people insist that covering your nose and mouth, avoiding crowds, and washing your hands is a violation of their civil rights?
   Unless they believe that being stupid is acceptable behavior in the face of danger. Or as H.L. Mencken is reported to have said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
   Our resident cynic Pug Mahoney would point to the election of the current president as another example.

Say What?

   "America is not a racist country." So said Donald Trump Jr. in a speech to the Republican National Convention. One wonders what country he has been living in for the past several decades, or what hiring practices he has seen, or what TV news programs he has been watching the past few weeks, or what friends he has had who can describe to him being routinely stopped for "traffic checks" while driving under the speed limit on a major highway.
   Such an offense is known as "driving while Black."
   Drivers of color -- including members of the U.S. Congress -- can say they are stopped and questioned far more often than their white counterparts.
   Most police officers take their jobs seriously, and do not stop or question others without due cause. However,  there are a few -- far too many -- who resort to violence if a person does not show what they deem to be "sufficient respect."
   Boys in America learn early on that shooting someone in the back is wrong. But apparently some police officers believe that shooting a Black person in the back is OK, no matter that the person is unarmed and walking away.
   In some states, high-speed police chases are prohibited by department rules, because they are too dangerous, to bystanders and any alleged suspect as well as to the police themselves. Officers in such departments defend such a rule by saying, "We'll get him next time." This on the grounds that they can track the vehicle, and that the perpetrator is likely to continue his reckless behavior, so there is no good reason to endanger others over a traffic offense.
   But that's the policy of responsible departments and officers. There are far too many who focus on stopping people of color, on the rationale that the crime rate is higher among people of color than among others. Whether that be true is not a good enough reason to arbitrarily stop people of color more often than members of other groups, without any other cause.
   And if it is true that crime rates are higher among members of any particular group, then it's up to members of that groups to assist in encouraging lawful behavior by all.
   Historically, that's what happened among other ethnic and minority groups in America as they struggled to achieve the equal opportunity promised by the American tradition.
   That applies to all, regardless of race, creed, color or spiritual belief. Sadly, some political leaders these days blame minority members for all the problems America faces, without attempting to work together to resolve these problems.

More Sabotage

   The president today added a threat to send sheriffs, law enforcement and perhaps military personnel to polling places allegedly to monitor voters and remove fake citizens from the premises.
   Never mind that he has no legal authority to take any such action, but such a barrier has not stopped him in the past from talking and threatening. Add this to his threat to delay the presidential election and his warning that he may not accept the results if he loses.
   By law, the presidential election is held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, when electors are chosen in the various states, who then meet in early December to finalize the results.
   But the president has talked repeatedly that the results may not be known "for weeks, months or even years." This can only be taken as a plan that he would stay in office for however long it takes for such a controversy to be resolved.
   The Constitution stipulates that a president's term ends at noon on January 20. How, then, could he stay in office beyond that time? Unless he is forging a strategy to seize power and remain in the Oval Office, despite what election results say.
   The answer could well be that it is the responsibility of American voters to make their choice clear, by both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. If the results show that a strong majority of the population want the incumbent to leave, then he must.
   Likewise, if a similar majority want him to stay in office, then he has won re-election, and America should accept that.
   However, if there is strong evidence of tampering -- as the president himself has already threatened to do -- then it will be the responsibility of Congress to impeach him, hold a trial and order him removed from office.
   If he still refuses, then the nation faces yet another crisis. In addition, the man himself would still be liable for arrest and prosecution for attempting to improperly and illegally influence election results, for example by sending sheriffs into polling places to check the citizenship status of voters.
   That's not their job. It is the responsibility of local election officials. Any attempt to suppress that is tantamount to a threat to American democracy.

Ballot Blathering

   As for the allegation that "millions and millions" of fake ballots are being sent to voters, consider this: There are 436 federal election districts in America, including the District of Columbia. In Pennsylvania alone there are 79 counties, and 18 representatives sent to the U.S. House. The PA House has 203 members, one for each election district in the state. In addition, there are county, city and municipality candidates, and that would require separate ballots for each district. That makes for a minimum of 203 different ballots in Pennsylvania plus however many there are to accommodate county, city and town candidates.
   Add to that the number of cities, towns and state legislative 
districts throughout the nation, and the idea that "fake" ballots -- each different -- will be sent to the more than 150 million registered voters in the U.S. becomes so much blathering by someone who is already making up excuses if he loses.
   He did the same blathering four years ago, complaining that the fix was in, favoring the opposition. Surprise! He won -- not the popular vote, but the electoral vote. So who did the fixing?
   Also, only a few states allow universal mail in voting for voters. Most of the others require that such a ballot be requested in advance of the election. Some limit the number of reasons a mail in ballot can be sought.
   Another point: Districts arrange for printing, which means that different paper could be used and different layouts, as well as different names, will appear on each ballot.
   All in all, the prez either has no idea what he's talking about, or he's lying. Or maybe both.

History and Presidents

   If you want to insist that presidential candidates be born in one of the states, that would rule out the first seven presidents, who were born before the United States of America existed. It would also exclude Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona when it was still a territory, and not yet a state. All that in addition to those who were born in other nations to American citizen parents, such as John McCain, Ted Cruz and George Romney. As for the current argument that the parents of Kamala Harris were immigrants and therefore she was not qualified, the question becomes, how many generations must a family be here before they become "real American"?
   Detail: The current president's mother immigrated from Scotland, and his grandparents from Germany.
   Notice that all the objections regarding citizenship and eligibility are posed against Democrats and not against Republicans.
   Once again, here's a list of presidential candidates NOT born in America: John McCain, born in Panama to a military family. Ted Cruz, born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. George Romney, father of Mitt Romney and also a presidential candidate. And Chester A. Arthur, arguably born in Canada (actually northern Vermont, but questionably over the border) to an American mother and an Irish father.

Birtherism Reborn

   The president said he was unsure whether Kamala Harris, Democrat Joe Biden's choice for vice presidential nominee, was eligible as a candidate because her parents were immigrants.
   Harris was born in California in 1964 to parents who had come from India and Jamaica.
   The Constitution specifies that a candidate for a White House office be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. It does not say "native born," although even if it did, Harris would still be eligible.
   And if a son or daughter of immigrants would be disqualified from a candidacy, that would rule out the president himself, since his mother was an immigrant from Scotland.
   The entire ploy is a repeat of the president's argument that Barack Obama was not eligible, based on the claim that he was born in Kenya, not in America. The same truth applies: Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if not, his mother was from Kansas, which gave him "natural born" citizenship.
   It's odd that this citizenship argument has only been applied to Democratic candidates, and not to Republicans. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a candidate in 2016, was born in Canada, to a Cuban father and an American mother. John McCain was born in Panama, to a military family. And George Romney, Mitt's father and also a candidate for the presidency, was born in Mexico to Mormon missionary parents.
   So why is the "birtherism" issue raised only against Democrats?
   Can you say "hypocrisy"?
   Or one could call it ignorance, but that's no excuse for someone who took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution."
   One can only conclude that he has not read the Constitution, and will not listen to those who have.

Election Sabotage

   "Neither rain nor snow nor sleet nor gloom of night can stay these hardy couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds." -- U.S. Postal Service motto.

   A presidential budget cut, however, may accomplish what the weather cannot, and that is to block election ballots from being delivered in time to be counted.
   The president has been specific in his warning about defunding the Postal Service, no doubt because of his fear of losing re-election. He has claimed repeatedly that "millions" of fake and phony ballots are on the way to overwhelm the system, so he wants to take away funding from the Postal Service as his way of preventing this alleged fraud.
   Never mind that there is zero evidence that illegitimate ballots were cast in previous elections, and no evidence that it's likely to happen this year.
   But his constant yammering about the danger of fraudulent voting, along with budget cuts, eliminating overtime and reducing the number of mail boxes nationwide, all combine to the inescapable conclusion that he is afraid of losing, and will do whatever it takes to stay in the White House, even after he loses.
   In fact, he has admitted he is blocking funds for the Postal Service because he is worried about mail-in ballots.
   "They need that money," he said, so the post office "can take all of these millions and millions of ballots" and carry them to election officials. He added that without that money, the USPS won't be able to handle mail-in voting.
   Therefore, without the money, the ballots won't be counted.
   All of this is happening as the new postmaster general, a major supporter of the president, reduces operations to slow down the mail, including a ban on overtime.
   The president cited the dangers of "universal mail-in voting" as part of his reason for cutting funds to the Postal Service.  However, only eight states are mailing ballots to all registered voters this year, including several that for years have had mail-in voting available to all. Most states still conduct voting at polling places, with the option for absentee voting for those who will not be in their home district on election day, or who are too ill to vote in person. Many states also offer mail-in voting for those worried about catching the corona virus in public places.

Sunday School

   Massive plague sickens 5 million Americans and takes 160,000 lives.
   Millions out of work as the economy crashes.
   Hurricane strikes East Coast, followed by tornadoes and the worst earthquake in 100 years.
   Millions of people refuse to wear face coverings, claiming this violates their civil rights. Result: Virus hits harder and more people get sick.
   Question: Is it possible that Someone is trying to tell us something?

Details

   The president signed an executive order restoring an additional $400 in jobless benefits to Americans out of work because of the pandemic issue.
   However, only $300 of that is to be provided by the federal government. The other $100 additional benefit is to come from each state.
   But.
  Each state must first ask for it, then wait for the request to be approved. Also, what if the states don't have that additional funding? Will the federal grant be withheld?
   Also, what of the reality that Congress is in charge of financing, and this executive order bypasses that reality?
   Meanwhile, whenever reporters ask a question that the president doesn't like, especially one that exposes a falsehood that he has repeated often, he walks out.
   Moreover, his "news briefing" announcing the executive order was held at his golf club in New Jersey and attended by devoted members of the club as a cheering section.
   Moral: Ignoring reporters does not make the questions go away.

Freedom To Criticize

"Treason doth never prosper.
What's the reason?
For if it prosper,
None dare call it treason." -- Sir John Harington (1560-1612)

"Free, representative government is predicated on the assumption that the people, having the facts will make the right decisions when they go to the polls. If the press abdicates its responsibility, the system will fail." -- John Stormer, "None Dare Call it Treason," 1964.

"If this be treason, let us make the most of it," -- Patrick Henry, 1775.

   For those who say it is unpatriotic to criticize the government, consider the document written by Thomas Jefferson and published on July 4, 1776. As Americans, we have not only the right but the obligation to criticize our governments, whether local, state or national.
   Criticism, then, is not an affront to patriotism, but a right and a duty. Government is not a compact between the rulers and the ruled; it is an agreement among the people themselves, and is the ultimate in patriotism.
   That's why the Constitution begins with the phrase, "We, the People," and not with "We the Government."
   And that may well be why the arch-conservative author John Stormer so strongly defended the free press in 1964.
   Unlike some politicians today, who regularly attack news media as "fake," and expect journalists to abdicate their Constitutionally guaranteed responsibility and do as they're told. History tells us that the first to fall as an autocratic government takes power is a free press.

Presidential Logic

   "If you do half the testing, you'd have half the cases" of Covid 19, said the president. Therefore, with zero testing, there would be zero cases.
   If you don't look for something, that means it's not there. I've never been to Toledo, so that means it doesn't exist.

Taking Debate

   "Never argue with an idiot. Because, being an intelligent man, you'll try to deal with him on his level. But on his level, he'll beat you every time." -- Pug Mahoney

  Consider for a moment the plans for a televised discussion of campaign issues by the two major candidates for president.
   It has been suggested that former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate, avoid debating Donald Trump, the current president and Republican candidate for re-election.
   The view from here is that Biden should not avoid a debate, but that he should ignore the many falsehoods, incorrect propositions and flat-out lies that Trump has a habit of spouting.
   Instead, Biden should focus on his own plans to lead the nation out of recession and virus problems. Otherwise, he would spend his whole time correcting Trump's lies. Better to present his own plans, and leave corrections to the moderator and the news media.
   A major issue, however, will be how to deal with Trump's habit of interrupting, which is his way of dominating news conferences as well as any discussion about anything at any time.
   This habit was especially noticeable four years ago during debates with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. One way to deal with this could be for Biden to appeal to the moderator to enforce what rules there may be about interrupting. Another would be to stop talking, and wait for an opportunity to silence the interrupter the way Joe McCarthy was silenced many years ago: "Have you no shame? At long last, have you no sense of decency?"
   Still another would be to talk over the interrupter with a chant of "Yammer, yammer, yammer, yammer ... etc."
   When the yammering president finally does stop talking, Biden can return to describing his plans to help revive the nation, unlike his opponent's habit of blaming others.
   Will any of this happen? Stay tuned. We live in interesting times.

Fixation

   The coming election will be "the greatest disaster in history," the president said today.
   Translation: He knows he will lose, and this is another step in his campaign to discredit the system by calling it "fixed"
   Of course, he also did that four years ago, warning that the fix was in to favor his opponent. But here's another way to look at it. The fix may well have been in, but he did the fixing.
   The current talk follows his suggestion that the election be delayed, ostensibly because of the dangers of the corona virus and a Postal Service overwhelmed by a barrage of fake ballots. Reminder: the current chief of the Postal Service is an ardent Trump supporter.
   Another suspicion that the fix is in.
   Reality check: No election has ever been postponed, and the president has no authority to change the day of the general election. Only Congress can do that, and a president has no veto power over it.
   Second reality check: There is no evidence of substantial voter fraud. Repeated investigations have turned up only a handful of mistaken ballot submissions, usually by people who believed they were fully eligible but for some small reason were not. As for votes cast by undocumented aliens in the country illegally, they're not so stupid as to expose themselves to authorities and risk prison and deportation.
   But the biggest danger facing America later this year is that Trump will refuse to step aside despite an overwhelming loss by both popular vote and electoral vote. He is already warning of widespread fraud, despite there being no evidence that it is likely to happen.
   He could, of course, challenge the results in the courts, but that would require separate lawsuits in a multitude of states. That has already happened, but in only one state -- Florida -- and it involved the electoral count in a close race between George W. Bush and Al Gore in the election of 2000. It was not until Dec. 12 of that year that the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recount and Gore conceded.
   The presidential election, by law, is held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, which this year is November 3. The Electors then meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, which this year will be December 14. Both dates are set by law, which can be changed only by Congress.
   Therefore, any claim or suggestion that the outcome of the presidential election won't be known for many weeks or even months, as the prez has warned, is nonsense.
   So what will he do if he loses? He will put the blame on someone or something else, as he has done repeatedly throughout his lifetime as his way of "proving" that he never loses. And don't expect him to concede.

A Declaration

   When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with a president, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
   Presidents derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever any president becomes destructive of the people's unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to remove that president and elect a new one, who is more likely to ensure their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that a president duly elected should not be removed for light and transient causes, but when a long train of abuses shows a design to reduce the people to absolute despotism, it is their right and their duty to remove such a president.
   The current president has a history of repeated attempts to establish a tyranny over the states. As proof, consider these facts:
   He has refused to approve laws necessary for the public good.
   He has obstructed laws for the naturalization of foreigners, and blocked other laws that would encourage their immigration.
   He has tried to make judges dependent on his will alone.
   He has sent swarms of security forces to harass the people, without the consent of local legislators.
   He has excited domestic insurrection against these outside forces.
   We the people have asked repeatedly for changes, but these requests have been answered only by repeated injury.
   Therefore, a president whose character is marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to hold office as the leader of a free people.
   
   The above updates parts of a document published in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Danger Definitions

   The president used unidentifiable government security agents to control political opposition in Oregon, and has said he will take similar action in other American cities. An alternate term for such a government force is "secret state police."
   In German, the phrase is "geheime staats polizei," which in the 1930s was shortened to "gestapo."
   Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Self Praise

   I was angered today when I hear the current occupant of the Oval Office say, "I have done more for Black Americans than anyone, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln."

   That exception is only "possible"? Freedom from slavery is only a "possible exception"? What has he done that is greater or more important than freedom from slavery?

   Next perhaps he'll align himself with Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and with John Lewis.

Civil War?

   As the Republican president sends federal agents into Democratic-controlled American cities to deal with protests, local officials point out that the forces are not wanted, have not been requested, and violate the Constitution.
   So what if he sends them in anyway, as he has threatened, to Chicago, New York, Boston, Philadelphia and other cities where there has been no violence?
   He has already sent forces into Portland, Oregon, and those troops wear camouflage outfits, without identification, drive unmarked vehicles and arrest people nowhere near federal properties.
   The consequence of a federal government sending troops into cities, bypassing local and state security forces, can swiftly lead to autocratic control or even a confrontation between independent local forces and an unwanted federal interference.
   Granted, he has not (yet) sent in active duty military forces, since that would be an even more clear violation of the Constitution, but he has sent in members of other federal security forces -- highly questionable in itself, since they have not been requested, wear military style camouflage gear and do not identify themselves.

Election Warning

"I will totally accept -- if I win."

   Question by Chris Wallace to President Trump: "Will you accept the results of the election?"
   Answer: "I'll have to see."
   Implication: He may not accept the result if he loses, and will refuse to leave the White House at the end of his term.
   Compare that conversation, broadcast today on Fox television, to Trump's answer to a similar question in October, 2016: "I will totally accept ... if I win."
   So if he loses the vote come November, will he or will he not accept the results? Given his attitude of four years ago, he may not, and could refuse to leave the White House when his term expires on January 20, 2021.
   As it is, he did in fact lose the popular vote for election in November 2016, but gained the presidency by winning the vote in the Electoral College, even as he claimed the entire process was "rigged" against him.
   This prompted resident cynic Pug Mahoney to wonder, Who did the rigging? Perhaps he and his team manipulated the electoral vote by focusing on the states where he was likely to win enough electoral votes to take the office, thus making the popular vote in many other states irrelevant.
   Already, many Americans are wondering via Internet postings what will happen if he refuses to concede and leave the White House. Will that mean the Secret Service will step in and escort him from the building? Or will Congress and the new president leave him there and ignore him?
   Considering his history, being ignored could well be a more severe loss to his ego than losing the election.

Setting an Example

   It has been said that a national leader sets an example for the rest of the country, but that the current president of the U.S. does not.
   Actually, he does set an example. By not wearing a mask during this time of rampant illness, even as he uses the term "plague," he says to Americans that it's OK to refuse to cover your mouth when you cough. By his behavior, he says it's OK to attend large gatherings like political rallies. By his insults, he shows that it's OK to ignore physicians about health issues.
   So follow his example: Don't wear a mask in public, and don't wear a seat belt when you drive. By this president's example, it's OK to be stupid.

Fake News

"If we did half the testing, we'd have half the cases." -- President Donald Trump.

"I've never been to Toledo, but that doesn't mean it's not there." -- Pug Mahoney.

   Watch for "official" government statistics issued by the White House to "prove" that the corona virus is under control. The president's team has ordered hospitals to submit its data to the White House-controlled Department of Health rather than to the independent Center for Disease Control (CDC). This will enable the loyalist team to scrub the data, changing the cause of death for many corona virus victims, thus "proving" that the pandemic is not only under control but is rapidly disappearing, as the president predicted several months ago.
   The president has repeatedly blamed the increase in infections on the increase in testing, insisting that fewer tests would mean fewer problems.
   Say what? If you stop looking for something, that does not mean it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, hospitals throughout America are renting refrigerator trucks to store the corpses of corona victims, because there is no room for mortuaries to take them. And intensive care units are overflowing their capacity to care for victims of the disease.
   Nonetheless, the president insists that there is no problem, and refuses to listen to briefings from Dr. Anthony Fauci of his own pandemic task force that the problem is getting worse as people ignore medical advice to wear facial coverings and avoid crowds.
   Fauci has been disinvited from meeting the president, and White House agents have begun attacking the infectious disease specialist for daring to disagree with the president.
   By the way, did you notice that mask worn by the president at his carefully arranged photo op as he visited a veterans' hospital was adorned with the presidential seal? All others were plain.
   Can you say, "Ego trip?"

Spill Chick

   Much has been said about the ability of computer programs to catch spelling errors, and it's true that such a program is a useful tool. But like any tool, it is only as good as its user.

   For example, an individual word may be spelled correctly, but if it's the wrong word, the computer will pass and move on to the rest of the peace.

  There's one.

   A member of the Irish parliament blamed the computer for not catching what she claimed was an error when she wrote in an email to colleagues that "the anus is on you," instead of  "the onus is on you."

   The error was not in the spelling, but in the writing. Each word was spelled correctly, but one was the wrong word.

   Here's another example of a sentence that will post a computer spill chick taste:

  "New is their thyme four awl gut man to came to the age of there potty."

   And of course there is the problem of British or American usage, or words borrowed from another language. And if you use "auto correct" after writing something, the machine will change words it does not recognize even if a word is spelled correctly, or if a writer is deliberately misspelling a word as a teaching example.

   So the lesson here is to use spell check but be aware of its limitations, and do NOT use any auto spell changing program.

   Editor's motto: Everyone should proof read their own copy, but no one should be the only one to proof read their copy. In addition, the machine wont flag messing worms, even if term needed is "word."

   By the way, this peace past the machines spill chick pogrom.

Update

   Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified against the president in a congressional impeachment trial, retired from the Army after being passed over for promotion, likely due to pressure from the White House.
   Roger Stone was convicted of lying to investigators about Russian interference in the 2016 election in an effort to protect the president, but his sentence was commuted by that same president a day before he was to start his prison term.

Biden: My Time

"When other folks get dizzy, I keep busy, bidin' my time." -- George & Ira Gershwin, 1930

   Corona virus fears have kept many Americans at home rather than attending crowded political rallies. And unlike the incumbent president, who is actively campaigning for re-election and seems to need massive rallies to stoke his ego, Democratic candidate Joe Biden stays home and only gives an occasional speech, most recently via computer to web sites and broadcasters.
   In this time of crisis, economic as well as physical health issues have become key issues for American voters and their families. But to ignore one and misrepresent the other would be hazardous to any candidate's political health, yet that seems to be just what the incumbent is doing.
   Biden, however, acknowledges the importance of both, wearing a face covering in public even as he offers a plan for economic recovery from the most serious recession to hit the nation since 2007 during the administration of Republican President George W. Bush.
   Biden took office as vice president under President Barack Obama in January 2009, and the economic crisis was over some six months later, beginning the longest period of growth in American history.
   And despite the current administration's claim of creating the prosperity, the reality is that Donald Trump inherited a healthy economy. "We  created the best economy in 30 years," Trump supporter Steven Moore said in an interview on Fox news. His associate Hogan Gidley, the Trump campaign's national press secretary, said that "We don't need to guess what a Biden economy would look like, since Americans have been forced to live through it already. Biden's policies caused the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression" of the 1930s.
   Fact check: Biden was not president during the recovery, which took only six months. He did, however, have some responsibility for economic policy during the Obama Administration, and this led to the long period of growth. The Trump administration did not "create" this "best economy," but rather inherited it. Recovery from the Great Depression was led by Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, who inherited the crisis from Republican President Herbert Hoover.
   Now the issue facing voters is who would be better qualified to lead the nation back to economic as well as physical health; the candidate with experience in dealing with an economic crisis, who acknowledges the reality of a virus pandemic and urges everyone to take precautions, or the candidate who claims credit for an economic recovery that began before he took office, who denies the existence of a widespread death toll from a virulent disease, and who refuses to obey a subpoena asking for details about his business dealings. He insisted that 99 percent of those affected by a covid 19 infection recover completely. Meanwhile, more than 130,000 Americans have died from the disease.
   The choice is yours: A candidate with extensive experience in dealing with an economic crisis, or one who denies its existence and issues get-out-of-jail cards to his buddies who have confessed to a wide range of crimes.

Voice of Trumpland

   The Voice of America, traditionally, an independent news broadcaster known for its neutrality, is on its way to becoming a propaganda machine for the Trump Administration.
   Using the excuse that hiring foreign nationals takes away jobs from Americans, the new chief of the agency ordered the broadcaster not to renew visas for those experts in other languages and cultures who come from other nations.
   This means these experts will have to return to their home countries, perhaps to retaliation and repercussions from governments hostile to the U.S.
   Last month, we wrote as the shakeup started that top leadership at the Voice of America and senior journalists were replaced by avid Trump supporters, and we warned that the previously independent and reliable broadcaster will become a propaganda arm for conservative political followers of the current president.
   The new leader, Michael Pack, showed up for work in mid-June and immediately fired the chiefs of four -- count 'em, four -- broadcast networks supervised by the U.S. Agency for Global Media. They included Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; Radio Free Asia; Office of Cuban Broadcasting, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. Earlier, two top officials at Voice of America resigned in anticipation of Pack's arrival.
   Pack also dissolved advisory boards for each of the networks and placed his own aides above them, according to a report by NPR. Pack gave no reason for his actions, NPR noted, other than saying that he could.
   The latest move, to deny visas to those who could supply reliable texts to the various broadcasters, means they would likely be replaced by Trump devotees, to be hired by the newly named presidential adherents.

SCOTUS Smackdown

   The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the president is not immune from prosecution, and must obey subpoenas sent by a state court and a congressional committee seeking his personal financial records.
   The court punted, however, in that it sent the two cases -- one state and one federal -- back to lower courts for further consideration. Result: His personal financial records are not likely to become public until after election day.
   Technically, the state case seeking his tax returns did not ask the president for them, but rather his accounting firm, and the records will have to be given to a New York grand jury investigating his activities before he was elected president. And since grand jury investigations are secret, whatever is in the documents won't be known until and unless charges are filed.
   The president has tried to block any and all attempts to see his financial records, unlike other presidents, who have voluntarily released them. And this causes resident cynic Pug Mahoney to wonder, What's he hiding? If he has done nothing wrong or illegal, why not show the evidence?
   Initially, he claimed his returns were "still under audit" by the Internal Revenue Service, that he is audited every year and therefore he cannot release them. But the IRS responded that while the agency cannot release the documents, any individual can do so at any time.
   Congressional committees, however, can subpoena such documents from the agency for use in formulating legislation, but the president's attorneys argued that the current move is more political harassment than real legislative activity.
   Both case now go back to lower courts to be resolved, and that's likely to take many months. The major part of today's decision, however, is that no one -- not even the president of the United States -- is above the law. And this follows precedents set in cases involved both Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat Bill Clinton.

Number Games

Figures don't lie, but liars do figure. -- Mark Twain

   The president claims that for 99 percent of those who contract the corona virus, the results are "totally harmless." Assuming that's true, then for the remaining one percent, the results are not harmless, and people die.
   Therefore, of the 3 million Americans who have contracted the virus, then according to the president's claim, only 30,000 (one percent of the total) are not harmless and could be potentially serious.
   Reality check: The death toll from the corona virus in America is now 130,000, in just five months.
   That's a lot more than one percent.

Que Tonto El

   Supporters of the president told Native American protestors at the Mount Rushmore rally to "Go home, back to where you came from." Which brought the response, "We are home, this is where we came from. You guys are the invaders."
   Couple that with the president's defense of mask wearing that he did wear one, once, and that "It looked good. It made me look like the Lone Ranger."
   Except that the Lone Ranger's mask covered only the eyes, not the nose and mouth, which is required to help control spread of the corona virus.
   Meanwhile, the meaning of "Tonto" in Spanish is "fool," and usually refers to a stupid person. However, the origin of the word "fool" goes back to Medieval times, and referred to a court jester, whose duty it was to amuse the master by pointing to connotations that others would not say, sometimes for nefarious reasons.
   In that context, the court jester, or fool, was neither stupid or ignorant, but a clever advisor.
   Also, the Lone Ranger's "faithful companion" used the term "Kemosabe," which can be said to derive from the Spanish phrase "qui no sabe," which means "he who doesn't know."
   So it can be said that the two were engaging in friendly insults, which close companions do.
   Therefore, when the president says wearing a Lone Ranger-type mask in these days of soaring covid infections makes him look good, the nickname "Kemosabe" may well apply, since as the name implies, he doesn't know what he's talking about.