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

BLACK TRUMP SUPPORTER MURDERED – While reading an account of the shooting of Bernell Tremmell, 60, in front of his Milwaukee business in a piece by Dan O’Donnell, he wrote that it was impossible to know the motive for the shooting since the police had no suspect in custody.  Don’t expect any outrage from the BLM movement.

Perhaps, but the front windows of Tremmell’s business is covered with handmade signs promoting President Trumps reelection.  Tremmel had been walking the streets in his neighborhood and in front of city hall.

A woman told of her conversation with Tremmell, and told him “how proud she was of him and he’s brave to put himself out there so visibly as a Trump supporter.”

I couldn’t help but recall the recent survey indicating that 62 percent of Americans say the political climate prevents them from sharing their political views.

CONSULT WITH SCIENTISTS and medical experts was the cry from the left when President Trump began dealing with the virus, when in fact, that was what he was doing.  Those experts were not in agreement when the president cut off travel with China, but later applauded the move as one that probably saved a million lives.

In a City Journal feature, “Following the Science – Where?” Joel Zinberg, M.D., J.D., comments on how doctors try to determine the correct diagnosis when treating a patient with a new complaint.

“Public health officials dealing with a new pathogen, like the coronavirus that causes Covid-19, go through the same process,” he writes, explaining how they must recommend policies with incomplete information and adjust them over time. “But unlike physicians, they do so in public, and sometimes under intense scrutiny.”  Sound familiar?

“Dr. Anthony Fauci – and this is not meant as criticism – has epitomized the public health diagnostic process with multiple, incorrect, early pronouncements,” Zinberg notes.

In January and February, he downplayed the risk of person-to-person spread; he expressed doubt that asymptomatic people could transmit the virus.  In late February, the reassured the public that, “at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day-by-day basis.

“(Then) in March, like many other public health officials here and abroad, he said that, outside of health-care personnel, ordinary people should not wear masks.  In fact, both Fauci and Surgeon General Jerome Adams suggest that mask-wearing could increase a person’s risk of being infected.  All these assertions proved wrong.

“The lesson: in evolving public health emergencies – despite the demand from some politicians to “listen to science – science alone can’t always determine the best course of action.  Policymakers have to balance multiple, competing factors while working with imperfect information and uncertain science.

“Shifting advice from public health officials can also undermine their public credibility and erode public confidence.  This is particularly true when it becomes clear that the original justification for the advice was misleading,” wrote Zinberg.

While reflecting on the past seven months, with the daily White House briefings on the status of our actions to defeat the spread with our government’s top experts, the president’s near daily phone conversations with our nation’s governors, and the president’s appeal to executives of pharmaceutical, medical supply and other private sector companies to meet the needs our country, I come to the conclusion that President Trump listened to the experts and handled the crisis well as anyone could.

It’s laughable that a recent poll revealed that Joe Biden would have handled the virus crisis better than Trump, especially since the Obama-Biden administration left the medical supply cupboards as bare as Mother Hubbard’s.

I found Doctor Zinberg’s insight enlightening.

“IT’S A YES OR NO QUESTION,” Fox News Channel’s Harris Faulkner told Democrat apologist Marie Harf when she asked her if the could name one Republican-led city where widespread violence was a bad as in a number of Democrat-led cities.

Harf responded by saying it was “unfair” to suggest that those mayors did not care about their citizens and claimed that President Trump was targeting Democrat-led cities for political reasons rather than because they were the only ones who warranted intervention.

Pushing back, Faulkner challenged Harf again “to name a Republican city facing similar levels of unrest and violence.  Let me let you answer that.  Is there?”

Harf attempted to indicate that there were “many parts this country led by Republicans that have a very high level of violence.”

Pushing back again, Faulkner asked if they “looked like the streets of Portland and in Chicago right now?”

This time, Harf attempted to blame President Trump, arguing that the presence of federal troops in places like Portland led to the uptick in violence.

PORTLAND EXPLAINED – “If only mobs were allowed to destroy federal property without consequence,” writes Rich Lowry in his National Review piece, “The disgrace of Portland.”

“Then, there wouldn’t have any dispute over federal agents defending a federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon; it could simply be overrun and burned to the ground with no unwelcome resistance,” says Lowry.

Oregon’s left-leaning Sen. Ron Wyden falsely accused the president and Homeland Security secretary Chad Wolf of “weaponizing the DHS as their own occupying army to provoke violence on the streets of my hometown because they think it plays well with the right-wing.”  You mean law-abiding people, Senator?

HISTORY, AS TOLD TO HIGH SCHOOLERS – In my July 21, 2020 special on education, I wrote of my acquisition of a popular school history text, “A People’s History of the United States,” and that I would from time to time publish excerpts from it.

Democrat and Republican failures seem to be covered equally, while radical thought surfaces throughout.  While covering the impeachment of President Clinton over the Lewinsky relationship, the author wrote:

“What the incident showed was that a matter of personal behavior could crowd out of the public’s attention for more serious matters, indeed matters of life and death.

“The House of Representatives would impeach the president on matters of sexual behavior, but it would not impeach him for endangering the lives of children by welfare reform, or for violating international law in bombing other countries (Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan), or for allowing thousands of children die as a result of economic sanctions (Iraq)”

May God continue to bless the United States of America.