These are my observations and opinions from my select news of the day.

“ENOUGH ALREADY,” some of you may be saying about my coverage of the liberal media’s incessant attack on President Trump, but I will continue because you need to know what they are saying and what they are doing; to the presidency, our freedoms and their profession.

During an interview with Apology Joe Biden on Meet the Press, NBC News anchor Chuck Todd, speaking of the president’s response to the virus outbreak, asked, “Do you think there is blood on the president’s hands considering his slow response, or is that too harsh of a criticism?”

You just know that Todd was baiting the former vice president, thinking and hoping that he would be critical of the president’s response. However, Biden answered, “a little too harsh.”

He should have stopped there, but instead he showed his ignorance by saying, “He (Trump) should listen to the health experts.  He should listen to his economists.”  Biden is simply out of touch.

As a moderator for NBC’s February 19, 2020 debate, two weeks after the president suspended travel from China, Todd posed no questions on the virus.

Chris Hayes at MSNBC declared that the president was being combative, when he effectively told the people of Michigan to “drop dead,” according to Brad Slager of PJ Media, who wrote of the media being hyper-critical of how the administration is dealing with the virus crisis.

Yesterday, I wrote of Michigan’s incompetent Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whittmer, who foolishly criticized President Trump, while he was communicating with all governors to assess their needs.  I listened to one of his teleconferences with them and heard other governors ask for specific help or to praise him for what he had already done.

“For proof of (Whittmer’s incompetence), we only need to see how they are covering things on the state level,” notes Slager. “While she was loudly pointing fingers at President Trump for not doing enough for Michigan … the governor had not even managed to submit the needed documents for FEMA to be designated with a disaster declaration.”

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020, FEMA spokesman Michael Hart indicated that his agency had not received a request for a major disaster declaration, yet there she was on the news networks railing against the president.

Over at CNN, anchor Wolf Blitzer was doing his part to point the finger at the president for his handling of the crisis. During an interview with New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell, he allowed her to criticize the president for blaming her for not cancelling Mardi Gras, without challenging her not taking action on the event that was fully under her purview, according to Slager.

AND THEN THERE’S PBS and its NPR network, that just received – unbelievably – a handout of $75 million as part of the virus relief package to “make fiscal stabilization grants to public television and radio stations facing declines in non-federal revenues.”

You should be aware that a Washington State NPR station indicated that it would stop airing the president’s daily virus briefings “because they could not be fact-checked in real-time.”

MOST LIKELY, YOU’VE HEARD that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts received a $25 million handout from funds approved for virus relief, thanks to Nancy Pelosi.  But have you heard that shortly after the president signed the bill, e-mails went out to the 100 members of the National Symphony Orchestra, saying they would no longer be paid after April 3, 2020?

BACK TO BIDEN – Apology Joe Biden recently tweeted this @JoeBiden: “It’s hard to believe this to be said, but if I’m elected president, I will always lead the way with science.  I will listen to the experts and heed their advice.  I will do the opposite of what we’re seeing Donald Trump do every day.”

Thankfully, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, saw the need to respond @RepDanCrenshaw: “You also stated as recently as last week that restricting travel from China was a bad idea.  Scientists disagree with you.  Experts agree it saved lives.  If you were president, we would be in a much worse position to combat coronavirus than we are today.”

THE NAME CASS SUNSTEIN may not be familiar to you.  He was a close confidant of Barack Obama from his Chicago Law School days, who wound up as the head of Obama’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, where his record was mediocre at best.

During my days in Texas, I recall reading about Sunstein and his radical theories, but I haven’t seen his name in print until this weekend when Ari Schulman, the editor of The New Atlantis blog wrote about his dramatic reversal in confronting the coronavirus.

On February 28, 2020, Sunstein, writing in Bloomberg News, said, “At this stage, no one can specify the magnitude of the threat from the coronavirus.  But one thing is clear: A lot of people are more scared that they have any reason to be. They have an exaggerated sense of their own personal risk.

“The situation is very fluid, but as of now, most people in North America and Europe do not need to worry much about the risk of contracting the disease. That’s true even for people who are traveling to nations like Italy that have seen outbreaks of the disease.

“Still, the disease is new, and it can be fatal. Unless the disease is contained in the near future, it will induce much more fear, and much more in the way of economic and social dislocation than is warranted by the actual risk.

“Many people will take precautionary steps (cancelling vacations, refusing to fly,  avoiding whole nations) even if there is no adequate reason to do that.”

“Suppose that residents of a midsize city are alarmed about the risk, perhaps because false rumors are flying, perhaps one person or a few people in the are have been diagnosed with the coronavirus.  It is like that for residents of that city, the risk of infection is low and much lower than risks to which they are accustomed in ordinary life – say the risk of getting the flu, pneumonia or strep throat.  Informing people of that fact is likely to calm people down.”

BUT… on March 26, 2020, Sunstein, in his piece “This Time the Numbers Show We Can’t Be Too Careful,” he admits that he has “long been a critic of precautionary principle, which calls for potentially expensive precautions against bad outcomes in the face of scientific uncertainty.”

A defender of quantitative cost-benefit analysis, Sunstein writes that “In the context of the coronavirus pandemic, it’s unusually challenging to engage (that)”, and suggests that “the U.S. should continue with expensive precautions, even if they take a major economic toll.”

Not a Trump supporter, Sunstein does acknowledge that “Trump, and many others, have been right to emphasize the importance of balancing a range of considerations, and not focusing only on one.

He concludes his opinion with, “On the basis of current knowledge, extensive precautions, not ending soon, are simply justified by the most hard-headed forms of analysis that we have.”

What a difference a month made in the furtive mind of Sunstein.

“He (Sunstein) told people four weeks ago that if they held the view he now holds, they had a brain defect,” Schulman recalls.

Space does not permit me to relate more to share other Sunstein theories that will be of interest to you, I know.  Watch for them here.

May God continue to bless the United States of America.