America’s politics is always interesting, and frequently dirty

August 19, 2025

Among the big items in the news lately is the issue of gerrymandering. This is an activity in which both sides of the political spectrum indulge. What exactly is gerrymandering?

It is the practice of carefully drawing the lines of electoral districts to benefit the political party that is drawing them. Although it is done frequently, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 made it illegal. The Supreme Court has determined that it is an issue — a “political question” — that federal courts cannot resolve.

One of the most frequently cited examples of gerrymandering is that in Illinois, where both political parties have used it, but a recent Democrat-drawn map is regarded as one of the most effective efforts to benefit one party in the entire country.

There are two basic approaches to gerrymandering: “cracking” and “packing.”

Cracking is the art of dividing a large bloc of the opposition party’s voters, and splitting them up into several districts, thereby reducing their power in electing candidates.

Packing is the opposite. It concentrates as many as possible of the opposition party in one district, giving the opposition a large majority in that district, but at the same time making the other districts have a majority of voters for the party in charge of gerrymandering.

It involves drawing a district to include as many of the opposing party’s voters as possible. This concedes one “sacrificial” district to the opposition with an overwhelming majority, but makes all the surrounding districts safer for the party in power by removing hostile voters.

What does “gerrymandering” mean, and how did it get its name? For that information, we go to usconstitution.net, which offers the following explanation: “In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed off on a new state senate district so bizarrely shaped that his opponents famously said it looked like a mythical salamander. A local newspaper cartoonist combined the two, and the “Gerry-mander” was born.

The website also commented, “For over 200 years, this dark art of political map-making – the practice of drawing electoral districts to give one party an unfair advantage – has been a persistent and controversial feature of American democracy.”

An article in the Center for American Progress in 2019 explained how the design of districts and other factors can create a disproportion in voter politics and election outcomes. In Maryland, Republicans received 37% of the votes for the House of Representatives, but only won 13% of the congressional seats. And, in North Carolina, Democrats received 48% of the vote but won only 26% of the seats.

Some recent examples of gerrymandering in action are that the following states have had the listed percentage of Republican voters, but none of that state’s congressional representatives: Massachusetts, 36%; Connecticut, 42%; Maine, 46%; New Mexico, 46%; New Hampshire, 48%; Rhode Island, 42%; Vermont, 32%; Hawaii, 36%; and Delaware, 42%.

Some blue states have some Republican representatives, but fewer than registered voters should have:
• California - 38% Republicans, but only 9 of 52 (20.9%) representatives
• Illinois - 44% Republicans, but only 3 of 17 (17.6%) representatives
• New York - 43% Republicans, but only 7 of 26 (26.9%) representatives
• Maryland - 34% Republicans, but only 1 of 8 (12.5%) representatives
• New Jersey - 46% Republicans, but only 3 of 12 (25%) representatives
• Oregon - 41% Republicans, but only 1 of 6 (16.7%) representatives

Karl Rove is a Republican political consultant, policy advisor, lobbyist, and was Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff during the George W. Bush administration. He has an article on his website in which he addressed some specific state gerrymandering situations.

“Illinois, New York and California are already gerrymandered to Democrats’ benefit. Donald Trump received 44% of the Illinois vote in 2024, yet 82% of the state’s U.S. representatives are Democrats. The figures are 43% for Mr. Trump and 73% for Democratic congressmen in New York then 38% for Mr. Trump and 83% for Democrats in California.”

There is a lot of left/Democrat concern over the Texas redistricting effort. Rove had some comments about that, too.

“The numbers for Texas are far less lopsided. Mr. Trump received 56% of the 2024 vote, and 66% of the state’s House delegation — 25 of 38 members — is Republican. Now these low-down, dirty Texas Republicans think they can flip five seats through redistricting. That would make the Texas delegation 79% GOP. In other words, a delegation slightly more partisan than New York but somewhat less so than Illinois and California. That also assumes Republicans can beat Rep. Henry Cuellar, a popular albeit troubled Democrat incumbent in South Texas who ran 6 points ahead of Kamala Harris last year.”

“Yes, Texas Republicans are taking advantage of their state legislative majority to tilt things their direction. But the skew in Illinois, New York and California is no accident either. Earlier this decade, Democrats in each state tilted things in their favor (although in New York under some constraint from state courts).”

Rove further notes, however, that the Texas redistricting creates two black majority Congressional districts, and commented, “Isn’t that a goal of the Voting Rights Act?”  

Obviously, honest, non-political political districts and numbers-based results are what we need. But two-party politics is alive and kicking.

A majority thinks that it is time for Congressional term limits

August 5, 2025

It isn’t a new thing, but there is a lot of talk about term limits for members of Congress. The topic of term limits for federal office holders has been around since our nation was founded. In fact, the first controlling document, the Articles of Confederation, did address term limits for Congress.

However, the Founders decided during the Constitutional Convention not to include that in the Constitution.

Back in the early days, Congress was not looked at as, and was not supposed to be, a career. You were elected, you served a while, and then went back to your previous non-congressional job. There were definitely fewer, or perhaps no, 20-year or more congressional members in the early decades.

Currently, despite several attempts through the years to impose term limits via a constitutional amendment, the efforts were never popular enough to generate the two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress to produce an amendment.

Some states have tried to put term limits on their Representatives and Senators, but the courts have struck down all of those efforts. And, the Supreme Court has ruled that only a constitutional amendment can put term limits in place.

Currently, a majority of Americans do favor term limits for members of Congress, according to polls. The U.S. Term Limits (USTL) website notes the following: “Term Limits is known as the largest grassroots movement in American history, and US Term Limits was, and still is, the leader of that movement.”

Three reasons are often cited favoring term limits:
* Term limits could lead to more frequent changes in congressional personnel, and this could bring new and different ideas.
* As their time in Congress increases, some members lose their focus, become comfortable, and do not respond well to constituents.
* Over time, some members may also develop relationships with special interests and lobbyists, and this may change what they think is important.

Another element that has people favoring term limits is the number of members who have become much wealthier during their time in Congress. This includes members from both major parties, and others, as well.

And, of course, there are reasons cited for not imposing term limits. One is that over time, members gain valuable experience and institutional knowledge. Another is that rookie members may be more susceptible to lobbying and special interest efforts. The experience that members gain over time enables them to deal more effectively with passing complicated legislation, and if there is a large number of newer members, that could be a problem.

Then there is the question of what limits should be imposed. The USTL website provides this idea: “Currently, Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas are sponsoring the USTL amendment on Capitol Hill. It calls for a three-term (six year) limit on representatives and a two-term (12 year) limit on senators.” 

This might be the best solution, but some problems could result from it. First, House members can only serve half as many years as those in the Senate. And, if a person is elected to the House and serves two terms, or four years, can that person then run for one or two six-year terms in the Senate? 

Or, the other side: A one-term senator decides to leave and run for the House. Would he or she be eligible for any House terms?

Perhaps a better system would be a limit for the same number of years for all those who serve in Congress, regardless of whether they serve in one house, or both of them. Maybe a total of 12 years in one or both. Or perhaps 12 years is too long. Then, adjust the Senate term to four years, and make eight years the limit.

There is the question of whether current members of Congress will vote to approve an amendment to the Constitution that will limit their length of service.

However, even if members of Congress refuse to pass term limits on themselves, there is another method for getting the job done. A Term Limits Convention can be called to write and pass a constitutional amendment. This process bypasses the Washington roadblock, and allows we the people, and the states, to impose congressional term limits.

To call the Term Limits Convention, the state legislatures in 34 of the 50 states will have to vote for it. That could be difficult, however, given the strong feeling for term limits among the people, it will likely be less difficult than getting both houses of Congress to agree.

There are undoubtedly some or many members of Congress who have served many years and done the job as expected. Maybe one of them is your Representative or Senator. But again, Congress is not supposed to be a career.

One of the nation’s major problems today is that over the decades since its formation, some of the original ideals that made the United States of America a one-of-a-kind nation with a superior system of government have gradually been forgotten, changed, or replaced. Moving back to the way Congress was originally designed to work will be a beneficial step toward restoring the original design.

The Democrat’s criticism of detention facility is no surprise

July 22, 2025

The Trump administration and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have opened a facility in Florida to hold illegal aliens, most of whom are convicted of, or charged with, crimes, until they are deported from the United States. Democrat critics, as usual, make charges that are exaggerated, not true, or inciteful.

Florida Democrat Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz described the facility as an "internment camp," with detainees housed in "cages,” using combined toilet-sink units for drinking water and brushing their teeth, a shower facility lacking privacy, an internal temperature of 83 degrees, and having to eat a meager lunch of a small turkey and cheese sandwich, an apple, and chips. 

Alligator Alcatraz is a prison, a detention facility, not a 5-star hotel. While these law breakers will not have gourmet food and lush accommodations, they will have an air-conditioned place to sleep, meals and bathroom facilities, until their deportation.

Further, Alligator Alcatraz is actually not a facility in which inmates sleep with and try to avoid alligators, as the leftist critics would have you believe. It is a place where inmates will be protected from and not be threatened by alligators, so long as they do not try and succeed in escaping the facility and then having to cross the Everglades swamplands on foot.

The game plan of Democrats and other critics of the Trump administration’s efforts to restore order and legal behavior to immigration is to exaggerate the situation, and even to outright lie to make the situation for the illegal aliens look far worse that it is.

The detention center got its name due to being in the heart of the Everglades, in which reptiles such as alligators and pythons reside. Gov. DeSantis authorized the construction of the center on a 30-square-mile property in Miami–Dade County under an emergency order in June. 

Another critic of the detention center is Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried. In a news release last month, she commented, "This proposed detention center isn’t just cruel, it’s environmentally catastrophic. This facility would desecrate ecologically critical wetlands, trample on Tribal sovereignty, and transform one of the world’s most cherished ecosystems into a prison camp for political gain."

However, the center is not located on a large expanse of nature. It is located on a recently available part of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport that has been transformed to house 5,000 illegal immigrants in sturdy tent structures. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem remarked that the facility's remote location adds an extra layer of security protection, while noting that the detention center is air-conditioned. 

Providing information on exactly who the inmates of the facility are, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, commented that "This group of murderers, rapists, and gang members are just a small sample of the deranged psychopaths that Florida is helping President Trump and his administration remove from our country."

Some of those facing deportation are:

* Lazaro Rodriguez Santana, a Cuban national, was convicted in Texas of sexual assault and failure to register as a sex offender. 
* Honduran national Jose Fortin, convicted of second-degree murder in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 
* Oscar "Satan" Sanchez of Honduras, an alleged MS-13 gang member charged with resisting arrest, conspiracy to commit murder and assault in New York, as well as RICO offenses.
* Venezuelan national Wilfredo Alberto Lazama-Garcia, wanted for murder and aggravated robbery in the South American country. In the United States, he was convicted of conspiracy "to defraud the U.S. government in Oklahoma." 
* Eddy Lopez Jemot of Cuba, convicted of murder, arson, and assault. He was arrested for "cutting the throat of an elderly woman" in Key Largo, Florida, and then lit her residence on fire with hopes of hiding the evidence. Later that night, he allegedly "threatened to kill" another woman via beheading.

Many people wonder why the left works so hard to defend those who entered their country illegally, and many of whom commit vicious crimes.

Author and radio host Jason Rantz offers this explanation: “Somehow, in the warped world of progressive politics, removing predators from our communities is deemed ‘controversial.’ Arresting child rapists, gang members, and drug traffickers has become a rallying cry for Democrats who insist these deportations violate ‘human rights.’ You’d think protecting law-abiding families — immigrants and citizens alike — would be common sense. But not when the Democrats get involved.”

The ridiculous and dangerous practice of the Biden administration to essentially have opened the border to all, regardless of who they were and why they wanted in, is what got us to this place. No sensible person serving as President of the United States would merely shrug their shoulders and allow the 20 million illegals that are still here to roam the country and do as they please. 

Despite all of the good reasons for ICE and CBP to find and deport these people, hundreds or thousands — some politically motivated, others who have fallen victim to the hyperbolic rhetoric — protest against these actions, go so far off course as to interfere with law enforcement, and even stoop to physically attack them.

While America defends the right to hold any idea, these ideas and actions are un-American, and some are criminal.

Democrats missing the boat on immigration and the economy

July 29, 2025

Millions of illegal aliens crossed into the United States over the four years of the Biden-Harris administration. They settled in blue cities and states, for the most part. This was because the blue cities and states welcomed them.

Why would those living in, and running blue cities and states want illegal aliens in large numbers living among their citizens, given the costs of feeding and housing them, and the other problems that they bring with them, like murders, rapes, robberies, etc.?

One explanation is that the basis for how many representatives a state has in the House of Representatives, and votes in the Electoral College depends upon how many people — not just citizens, but all people, including illegals and other non-citizens — reside in a state. Illegal aliens help gain additional representatives and electoral votes.

Many on the left will laugh at that assertion, claim it is some sort of MAGA tactic, or just right-wing misinformation. But there are at least a few Congressional Democrats who support this idea.

Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York is one. She admitted in comments over the last few years that she wants immigrants to enter the United States to help Democrats with redistricting.

The original comments from Clarke came in 2021 during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, and again in a 2024 post on X. Back in 2021, she fussed at Republicans who opposed Haitian migrants.

“I’m from Brooklyn, New York,” she said during the hearing. “We have a diaspora that, that can absorb a significant number of these migrants and that, you know, when I hear colleagues talk about, you know, the, the, the doors of the inn being closed [and] no room in the inn, I, I’m saying, you know, I, I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes.”

Now that we have Donald Trump in the White House, many of the illegals are being caught and deported, and others are self-deporting. Also, the blue states, especially New York and California, are having problems and are losing businesses and residents.

Beginning back during the COVID-19 pandemic, progressively strong states have been seeing a heavy exodus of citizens leaving due to high crime rates, heavy taxes, and government overreach.

Looking for safer streets, economic and personal freedom, thousands are heading for better places like Florida, Texas and Tennessee. These states are projecting gains in congressional seats, with Texas expecting to gain three, and Florida looking for at least two.

This heavy exodus of citizens to red states has caught the attention of at least one blue state governor: California’s Gavin Newsom. He is threatening to call a special legislative session in an emergency effort to redraw district lines. California Republicans now hold only nine House seats, and Newsom hopes to replace between two and five of them with Democrats.

This process is customarily done once every decade. Whether Newsom’s effort to gerrymander more Democrat representatives, if it comes to pass, would be legal or not remains to be determined. It seems that some Democrats have no limits on how far they will go to stop Donald Trump.

It must be noted, however, that red state Texas is considering the same thing to build its Republican majority.

While the left wants to encourage illegal entry to the country and to their states to help them get and hold a majority in the House of Representatives and in Electoral voting, they still do not understand about taxation and prosperity. 

They want to punish the wealthy with absurdly high tax rates, never understanding that high tax rates are harmful to the economy, not just the wealthy.

Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts support a return to 50%, 60% and even 70% tax rates. The left believes that lowering tax rates is just a method to benefit the rich, who they maintain do not pay “their fair share.”

However, why would it ever be fair or even sensible to collect half, or up to 70% of what someone — anyone — earned?

Economist Stephen Moore suggests that those Democrats and others who believe in this plan would be well served to read Arthur Laffer’s latest book, titled, “Taxes Have Consequences.” Laffer, known for the Laffer Curve, and his co-authors show that over the last 100 years, every time tax rates have been cut, three good things have happened: 

* Tax revenues have risen.

* The economy has improved.

* The rich have paid a higher share of the tax burden.

Think about it: If we have a smaller, less costly government that is efficient and restricted to constitutional functions, we will need less tax income to pay the bills. And, people will be able to keep more of what they earn, and use that money to buy the things they need and want. 

The more American citizens — both rich and not rich — spend their hard-earned money on the things they want to purchase is a true benefit to the economy. That will help increase businesses and a growing business sector means more jobs and generally better pay.

The Democratic Party today is much different than in the past

July 15, 2025

Those who are old enough to remember the 1970s and 1980s no doubt realize that today’s Democratic Party has only one thing in common with the Party of those days. That one thing is its name.

The way Democrats thought and functioned back then was much different, and much better. Democrats did have their own ideas about things, but they were not nearly so different from Republicans. Both parties generally held “American” ideals, but had some differences in how they should be sustained.

There was a much broader acceptance of values such as faith, individual rights and freedom, and a smaller, less intrusive government. There wasn’t the heavy focus on ideological issues and how we should view the way our country is being operated. That was due to the fact that the two parties were very close in their idea of what America was and should be. 

If people had different ideas, they weren’t attacked for them, and no set of ideas carried with it a strong effort to “encourage” those with different ideas to accept them.

Today, there is a vast gulf between the ideas of Republicans and Democrats. Even the way each group is referred to is different. Democrats are often referred to as liberals, progressives or socialists. Republicans are often referred to conservatives, MAGA radicals, or Nazis, and such.

But when you look at the fundamentals of each party, the Republicans are the ones whose ideas are by far most like the original founding principles.

Many Democrats support our previously open border, and defend and protect the illegal aliens who entered the country the wrong way. Republicans, however, are working hard to remove these illegals, many of whom are killers, drug or child traffickers, rapists, terrorists and others of ill will.

It is those on the left who deliberately interfere with ICE and CBP agents trying to do their job to protect the people. They attack the agents, throw rocks at them in their vehicles, identify them and threaten them and their families.

President Donald Trump is under heavy leftist criticism for his actions, such as executive orders, deporting illegals, military actions without prior Congressional approval, et al. But those critics on the left either don’t know history, or don’t care, as long as they can use falsehoods to make Trump look bad. The truth is that other presidents — Barack Obama, notably — have done these same things, and been praised for it.

People representing the liberal left in government are pushing further left than ever before, even getting others on the left to criticize them.

A poll in May and June conducted by Unite the Country, a Democrat super PAC, showed that voters perceived the party as “out of touch,” “woke” and “weak.”

This is reflected in persons in positions of prominence on the political left.

The newly elected Democrat nominee for mayor of New York City, “proud socialist” Zohran Mamdani, has been characterized as a communist for his extreme views, past and present.

His anti-America positions include setting up city-run grocery stores, massive tax increases on the wealthy, engaging in anti-police rhetoric and railing against Israel in refusing to denounce the phrase “Globalize the intifada.” 

California Governor Gavin Newsome has essentially ruined his state by imposing foolish leftist policies that have driven businesses and residents out of the state.

A while back, now-Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson got a great deal of attention in her confirmation hearing. When asked to define a “woman,” Jackson responded that she couldn't provide a definition, citing her non-biologist background.

In the vote for her confirmation, some Republicans cited that she dodged the question on whether she favors court packing, has a soft-on-crime sentencing record, and danced around explaining her judicial philosophy.

As a practicing Justice, she has come under criticism from some of her court peers for her apparent lack of understanding of how things work.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a judicial conservative, commented on a dissent she had made. Barrett wrote that Jackson's opinion "is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself." "We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

And Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of Jackson’s liberal judicial colleagues, noted that the points she made in a dissent addressed a topic which was not before the court.

Democrats and other leftists demonstrate daily that the direction of their ideas and policies is clearly at odds with the established values of the Founders of the United States of America. They don’t want to make the United States better, they want to fundamentally transform the country.

A good explanation of what the liberal-left is working for comes to us from the great Thomas Sowell, who said: “At the heart of the liberal-left vision is the idea that the self-anointed saviors should be telling the rest of us, through the power of government, what we ought to do, what we can do and what we cannot do. They will define for us what is good and what is bad, remaking us in their image.”

This is not what our Founders envisioned, and not what is good for America.

Recent polls show how Americans think about important issues

July 8, 2025

Those of us who have been around for a while — seasoned citizens — realize that the level of disagreement has grown greatly in the last decade or so.

With the sharp divide between the left and the right in our country about how it is doing and what needs to be done, it is interesting to see what the concerns are, and how each side views the situation.

A recent poll by Newsmax magazine showed the results of how all voters view the Republican and Democratic parties’ position on important issues. Republicans topped the Democrats on ten issues, while the Democrats won on three. There were five ways voters expressed their opinion: For Republicans, Democrats, Both, Neither, and Not Sure.

The top issues for Republicans were: 
Immigration & border - Rep 47%, Dem 28%
Government spending - Rep 42%, Dem 28%
Terrorism/national security - Rep 41%, Dem 30%
China-U.S. relations - Rep 38%, Dem 29%
Mideast/Hamas/Iran - Rep 38%, Dem 29%
Russia/Ukraine situation - Rep 39%, Dem 31%
Reducing violence and crime - Rep 38%, Dem 31%
Restoring our core values - Rep 40%, Dem 32%
Growing the economy - Rep 40%, Dem 33%
Gun policy - Rep 37%, Dem 34%

The Democrats led on these:
Lowering healthcare costs - Dem 39%, Rep 32%
Addressing Climate Change - Dem 40%, Rep 27%

Increasing home affordability - Dem 34%, Rep 33%

Another poll asked about the Budget and the National Debt, and the poll showed that overall, 75% of voters were very concerned or somewhat concerned. There were four categories of voters: Overall, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. 

Those results were fairly close among the groups: 
Overall - Very concerned 40%, Somewhat 35%
Democrats - Very concerned 42%, Somewhat 36%
Republicans - Very concerned 41%, Somewhat 34%
Independents - Very concerned 40%, Somewhat 37%

In looking at the leading cause of the National Debt — far and away the leading cause in each voting group — Excessive Government Spending won. Overall, 47% chose it, and 54% of Republicans, 48% of Independents, and 40% of Democrats chose it.

A distant second place went to Tax Cuts That Reduced Revenue, with only 16% Overall, Democrats at 17%, Republicans at 14%, and Independents at 13%. Coming in third was Not Sure, with slightly lower numbers.

Other causes coming in at less than 10% each were Military and Defense Costs, Social Programs (like Medicare and Social Security), and COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Spending.

Newsmax also showed how the sources of electricity production have changed since 1950. Data from 2024 provided by the U.S. Energy Information Agency show that while their numbers have changed, fossil fuels — coal, crude oil and dry natural gas — still lead by a wide margin.

Over that period coal usage has dropped by about 25% while crude oil has more than doubled, and dry natural gas has increased by more than 600%. There have been significant increases in biomass, wet natural gas and nuclear. But even so, they make up just less than 25% of all sources. Solar, wind and hydro provide roughly 3.5% of all sources.

It seems a majority sees problems with federal law enforcement having become politicized. Another Newsmax poll illustrated the degree to which Americans consider this to be a problem, and focused on the FBI.

On whether the agency needs to undergo reform by the Trump administration, 55% said “yes,” 30% said “no,” and 15% were “not sure.” 

On whether the FBI has become politicized in recent years, 51% said “yes,” 25% said “no,” and 24% were “not sure.”

Asking voters from the Democratic and Republican parties how they viewed FBI Director Kash Patel’s leadership, Democrats said: Favorable - 24%, Unfavorable - 44%, Not Sure - 32%. Republicans said: Favorable - 62%, Unfavorable - 11%, and Not Sure - 27%.

And for FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, the results were, Democrats: Favorable - 26%, Unfavorable - 37%, and Not Sure - 37%. Republicans said: Favorable - 57%, Unfavorable - 13%, and Not Sure - 30%. Both leaders received a favorable opinion from a plurality of those polled.

On another subject, there is a majority of those polled who agree on three elements. That subject is China, our most threatening adversary. China has purchased thousands of acres of American farm land, much of it near military bases. It has also purchased some American businesses, and has stolen many good ideas from us. It is also the source for many goods that once were produced here.

However, the three areas of the Newsmax polls show that more than 50% of Americans want China to be held accountable.

On the topic of tariffs, 52% strongly or somewhat support them. Those who strongly or somewhat oppose tariffs are only 33%.

Those wanting China to pay reparations for the COVID pandemic are 52%, with 31% opposing. And the third category, reducing the reliance on China, regardless of the costs, are 45% to 29%.

While most of the pro/con numbers are not as far apart as we might expect, given the extreme political divide we see daily, there is still a majority of opinion supporting the Republican position on these issues.

A big Supreme Court decision, and crazy things in blue cities

July 1, 2025

The United States Supreme Court has at long last ruled on an important issue. After months of federal district court judges issuing rulings opposing and halting actions by President Donald Trump, the Court ruled 6-3 that Trump's efforts to end "birthright" citizenship are legal and constitutional.

Not only was it found that the decision on birthright citizenship was valid, it also tells these judges to stop issuing these universal injunctions.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in the majority opinion, stated: "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she continued. “The Court today puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.”

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson commented in a dissenting opinion: “Make no mistake: Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,” she wrote. “This perverse burden shifting cannot coexist with the rule of law.”

However, Barrett promptly and properly corrected Jackson’s flawed reasoning. "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

She further clarified that when these judges issue injunctions to block Trump’s actions, they cannot apply the injunction to more than those parties involved in the case, classifying these nationwide injunctions as judicial overreach.

There are 677 authorized judgeships for these federal courts, with each of those judges having authority over a tiny sliver of the United States of America’s judicial system.  

One has to wonder exactly what these judges, supposedly trained in the law and our Constitution, were thinking when issuing these injunctions. Did they forget their extensive training in the law? Or, did they stuff their judicial integrity under the courtroom bench, and replace legal elements with political preferences?

Does this un-judicial behavior warrant some disciplinary action for those guilty judges.

“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves … not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,” Trump commented. “Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.”

Elsewhere, in San Francisco and New York City, we find the “progressives” hard at it.

Recently, the California Senate reportedly passed a law making it illegal for store employees to confront shoplifters.

Old Navy, which is headquartered in San Francisco, announced that it will close its flagship store there. When asked why, an Old Navy store manager said that his store is hit by shoplifters at least 12 or 14 times a day.

Other name brands have also left the city, including Walgreens, T-Mobile, Whole Foods, Amazon Go, and Nordstroms.

Other downtown stores are merely waiting for their leases to run out, and then they will also leave.

The City of San Francisco just released a $6 million tourism campaign, and the next day the two largest hotels in the city shut down, blaming street conditions, and apparently not believing the tourism campaign would make a difference.

State Farm Insurance has announced that it will no longer provide business and property insurance in California, following Allstate, which left six months ago, due to policies that encourage lawbreaking.

These foolish leftist policies are producing exactly the results that their critics predicted.

And in New York City, a 33-year-old state assemblyman, Zohran Mamdani, is the Democratic candidate for New York City Mayor, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the first Muslim nominee, and a supporter of radical policies.

Predictably, he has an extremely radical plan for New York, should he win the election. 

"This is a city where one in four of its people are living in poverty, a city where 500,000 kids go to sleep hungry every night," he said recently. "And ultimately, it's a city that is in danger of losing that which it makes it so special."

He has proposed the following radical ideas to cure New York’s problems: Free bus service citywide, rent freezes and stricter accountability for negligent landlords, a chain of city-owned grocery stores, and universal childcare for children aged six weeks to five years.

As with so much of the liberal/socialist/progressive mantra, these things sound pretty good. But they don’t work as imagined. Ideas like defunding police, not enforcing some laws, rental price freezes, having the City own and control the grocery stores, and some of his former “solutions” are a recipe for disaster.

Just ask the businesses and residents in San Francisco.

Coal and the other fossil fuels are still very important

June 25, 2025

Anyone who has lived in, or spent much time in this region knows and understands the importance of the coal industry to its development. Without coal, so much that occurred and that we enjoyed would not have happened.

Tens of thousands of jobs and who knows how much money passed through the region due to the mining, sale and transportation of coal mined here to other places.

Over the next several years, Bluefield became the center of activity resulting from the coal boom that occurred several decades ago. It was the finance and shopping center for the southern West Virginia and southwestern Virginia coal fields. People came here from towns miles away because of Bluefield’s role in the coal industry, and the things it offered to them.

How many of us remember driving along Bluefield/Princeton Avenue and seeing dozens or hundreds of coal cars on the railroad tracks loaded with coal moving out of the railyard, and dozens more empty cars on their way back to be refilled?

This lasted for many years, and the area prospered during that time.

However, as life evolves, things change. New and better ways of doing things come to be, and the old ways gradually fade away. 

This process is slow, gradual and not very painful. The other side of that story occurs when some factions start pushing for change before its time, and with things other than the natural replacements.

Unfortunately, the latter process has been the catalyst for what has occurred in the southern West Virginia and southwestern Virginia region’s coal industry.

The idea that burning fossil fuels like coal and oil was damaging to the environment took hold and resulted in what some have called “a war on coal,” which produced the closing of coal burning power plants, and the large decline in the need for coal. At least in the United States.

But science does not agree with the idea that we have too much CO2 in the atmosphere, and that it is harmful. In fact, quite a few scientists say that we need more, as much as two times the amount of CO2. They say that would be a great benefit to plant life. Plants and trees consume CO2 and emit oxygen. Having more plants and trees is a good thing.

During President Donald Trump’s first term the U.S. became energy independent and provided energy sources to other countries. This highly robust level of production was so strong that it lasted well into the Biden administration, despite Biden’s efforts to stifle it. The U.S. produced a record amount of energy in 2023, and out-performed that the following year. 

Eventually, the Biden administration’s efforts did cripple the energy industry. Other countries were still burning coal, and needing coal, oil and gasoline, but they were getting it from other countries, resulting in an economic punch in the gut to U.S. businesses.

The problem with the green energy solution that so many prefer is that while using green energy does not burn fossil fuels or add CO2 to the atmosphere, producing the elements that gather wind and solar power do. All of the materials that must be mined, then transported, and put into production use great amounts of gas and oil.

Now that Trump has been re-elected to the presidency, his administration is working to reinstate the previous philosophy on fossil fuels.

A West Virginia organization — Friends of Coal — based in Charleston, is excited about this change. “The recent decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to roll back burdensome greenhouse gas and toxic emissions regulations marks a pivotal moment for America’s energy future — and a long-overdue reprieve for the coal, natural gas and oil industries that power our nation,” it said.

In its June 20 email, Friends of Coal included a couple of other bright spots:

“The Trump administration on Wednesday formally reinstated the National Coal Council, an advisory group focused on fossil fuels that existed for more than three decades before lapsing under the Biden administration. The Department of Energy in a Federal Register notice restored the group.”

“President Trump took two major steps this week to end the 14-year old ...Democrat war against the coal industry and cheap electricity. Although greens have promised to sue, they are unlikely to succeed as the moves have pretty much been pre-approved by the Supreme Court.”

Some other states, even some that are not coal producers, understand how important it is.

In South Carolina, the state legislature is considering the new S.C. Energy Bill. The bill provides for “all of the above forms of energy for electricity 

generation.” One of the bill’s supporters noted that “the lowest cost, most reliable power that the Low Country has had delivered for over 80 years is from Santee-Cooper with over 60% of that low-cost electricity coming from the primary energy of coal.”

While it is very unlikely that these changes will spur a recovery in the coal industry that puts it back where it once was, things should improve locally, at least some.

And, like other changes the Trump administration supports, these changes will take some time to emerge as is the case with gasoline prices. 

Last Saturday was an interesting, busy and unusual day!

June 21, 2025

On Saturday, the nation celebrated the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, which actually shares a birthday with President Donald Trump. This important point escaped the notice of many leftists.

But the left instead celebrated a new “holiday” called “No Kings.” This was enjoyed by celebrants at protests across the nation to complain about the “King,” the 45th and 47th President of the United States of America.

There were many responses to this “holiday” on social media, in emails and elsewhere. Here are a few examples: “Half his orders are tied up in the judicial branch and he cannot get his budget through the Senate his party controls. That doesn’t sound like a king to me.”

“Is a king a President who is caught having stolen classified documents but doesn’t get prosecuted because he is a ‘well-meaning old man with a poor memory?’” 

“A king might be a man who ignores immigration laws and invites anyone to come into the country.”

“A king is a man who allows foreign countries to fly spy balloons over military bases and won’t let the army shoot them down.”

Many on the left are busy financing or participating in violent “protests” resulting in injuries and property damage and destruction on the basis of their belief that illegal aliens — many of whom have been convicted of violent crimes, or charged with them — should not be deported without additional and unnecessary legal proceedings, despite their being known criminals by virtue of the having entered the country illegally, and existing charges and convictions.

Instead, they blame “King” Trump for using federal authorities to find and remove the illegal aliens, as they are required to do by the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.

At one of the “protests,” there was a poster attached to a speaker stand that said, “No Kings,” and below that are the numbers “8647.” In case you are unaware, 8647 means to eighty-six (murder) president number 47.

But the best idea of all is that in a land that actually was ruled by a king similar to the one the left tries to convince us is in charge of the U.S., there would be no protests championing “No Kings.” Or if there were, particpants would be jailed or shot. Maybe the “king” was unaware of this activity.

Also on Saturday, two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses were shot in a horrible assassination attempt “by someone impersonating a police officer,” as reported by Fox 9, Minneapolis/St. Paul. 

“Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark were killed. Sen. John Hoffman and his wife were taken to a hospital for surgery.”

“Gov. Tim Walz called the incident ‘an unspeakable tragedy.’ This was an act of targeted political violence. Peaceful discourse is the foundation of our democracy. We don't settle our differences with violence or at gunpoint," Walz said.

“Authorities have identified the suspect as 57-year-old Vance Boelter, who remains at large,” Fox 9 reported. And early comments and reports showed different ideas about the suspect’s connections and motives.

A Facebook friend happily posted a video with the person saying that Boelter “has been confirmed to be a strong Trump supporter, who voted for Donald Trump, as well as a registered Republican.” He showed information that convinced him that Boelter is “a right-wing Christian, nationalist.”

He showed a photo of the New York Post newspaper that said Boelter was registered as a Republican. He also strongly condemned those on the right, whom he said rushed to judgement to blame someone on the left for these horrible crimes.

Soon thereafter, a report from NPR said, “Records from the state's secretary of state indicate that Boelter was a member of the Governor's Workforce Development Board once from 2016 until 2018 and again from 2019 until early 2023. State records indicate that he was not registered with any political party.”

“At a press conference, Col. Christina Bogojevic of the Minnesota State Patrol said flyers reading "No Kings" were found in the suspect's car, though she added that there were no direct links beyond that that authorities knew of,” the NPR report continued.

So, which report do we believe: The New York Post that lists Boelter as a Republican, or NPR that said there was no evidence of political affiliation, but that the suspect had worked for state Democrat administrations?

An additional piece of information is that the two Democrat lawmakers who were targeted were voting against their party on an important issue. Both had crossed party lines to vote against continuing free healthcare for illegal immigrants last week.

That fact, and the fact that “No Kings” material was found in the suspect’s car suggest a liberal position for Boelter. However, a list of potential future targets found in Boelter’s car had Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations and people.

It appears that the murders were politically based, although the evidence available does not make it clear which side was behind it.

The level of political-based violence in this country is unacceptable in this country, which highly respects the freedom to hold whatever political positions one chooses. Here, political decisions are made at the ballot box, not through the use of force.

The Department of Education has not helped public education

June 10, 2025

When the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were creating the document, they were determined to develop a system where the federal government was going to have limited size and authority. Under the federalism concept, some things would be left to the states and localities, and education was one of those things.

They reasoned that some things were better left in the hands of the people who were affected by them, and who could adequately control them, and the federal government was not going to control everything. And, at that time, education was not even considered a function local government.

For roughly 200 years, prior to the establishment of the Department of Education (DOE) in 1979, education at first was handled by the community and religions. Eventually, local and state governments took over. 

And, at the time the DOE was created, our education system was regarded as one of the best, if not the best, in the world.

On March 20, two months after Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th President, Whitehouse.gov posted the following: “Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order to officially begin the process of closing the Department of Education. After more than four decades and over $3 trillion spent with virtually nothing to show for it, President Trump’s bold plan will return education back where it belongs — with the states.”

Today, roughly five decades since the DOE was created, American public education has fallen dramatically lower on the success scale.

Earlier this month, Marissa Streit, the CEO of Prager University, provided information demonstrating how much poorer a job public education has been doing since the good old days.

“Right now, the United States is ranked 28th in the world in math and 36th in literacy. 

“One in four eighth graders lack a basic proficiency in math. One in three are not reading at grade level. Only 13% are proficient in U.S. history.

“In certain cities, the numbers are truly appalling. For example, in Chicago, 22 schools didn’t have a single student who was proficient in reading comprehension, and 33 schools didn’t have a single student who was proficient in math.” 

And, she says, it’s not a problem based on insufficient financing. 

“According to the most recent numbers, the United States spends $17,000 per student. In Chicago, it’s $29,000.”

So, what happened?

In the early days of the country, people were very conscientious about child rearing. They wanted the children to be able to function in society, to take care of themselves when the time came. For many years it was more natural for families and communities to teach their children what they needed to know.

And when public education first appeared, that same philosophy was prevalent. 

Today, not so much. Many factors have intervened, affecting how and if kids learn. Cell phones and social media have a great effect, and that effect is largely left to do damage by so many parents who don’t engage with their offspring as once was the habit. Those fairly new factors are a major influence today, but what happened prior to that?

With a federal agency largely in control, and handing out money, school systems do “what they need to do” to keep Washington happy. Last year, the DOE’s budget was $268 billion, and a lot of that went to schools.

And to a dangerous degree, Washington also does what it needs to do to keep voters happy. Millions of voters are involved in education at all levels. Streit cites political concerns as a major factor for the DOE, perhaps even the greatest one.

In 1979 then-President Jimmy Carter was campaigning for reelection, and it wasn’t going well. She notes that with “the Iran Hostage Crisis, crippling inflation, and gasoline shortages, Carter’s approval ratings had plummeted to a dismal 28 percent.”

Needing votes, Carter looked for support and focused on the largest labor union in the country, the National Education Association. While there was no movement in the country for a federal education department, the NEA had been very interested in that for a while.

“So, Carter gave the union what it wanted — a brand new government department and all the perks that go with it: a big budget, a big stick with which to threaten local schools (adopt this program or you won’t get federal dollars) and a big bureaucracy, which they could fill with their loyalists,” Streit wrote. 

Even so, with three candidates in the race in 1980, Ronald Reagan defeated Carter with 50.8% of the vote to Carter’s 41.0%

The DOE began as a political institution, and not focused on students. Its employees are mostly Democrats, Streit wrote, and it dispenses about $80 billion to schools across the country. It goes to educationally questionable initiatives like “teacher development,” “diversity training,” “critical theory studies” and “climate change” awareness, as well as hiring school administrators, counselors, and their assistants, not on educational objectives.

It is fairly clear that the DOE hasn’t helped education, and has actually made things worse. 

Trump’s efforts at cleaning up the federal government and cutting spending will be aided by shutting down the DOE, and it may well help make public education better.

The One Big Beautiful Bill and the environment in the news

June 3, 2025

A very hot topic in the news lately is the Republican’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBB) that passed the House by a razor-thin margin and is now before the Senate. As with many bills of this kind, there are good things, and not-so-good things, in it. And, predictably, the Democrats are 100% against the bill, and even some Republicans have issues with it.

There will be much activity in the Senate for members to get things taken out they don’t like, or to moderate things to make them more acceptable.

And like so many others, this one breaks a common-sense idea about legislation. The OBBB is 1,100 pages long and proposes tax cuts and spending cuts, as well as several other subjects that are not related to each other. The bill contains many things that Republicans and President Donald Trump like and want, hence its title. 

However, as a practical matter, bills before Congress should address 1 item, or maybe a couple that are very closely related, and not be as long as, or longer than, a best-selling novel.

Bills are often used to sneak in a controversial topic that a small number of the members support. It might get passed because the primary topic or topics are very popular, and voting against the bill because of the sneaked-in aspect would not sit well with constituents. Also, having a number of different topics in a bill makes it longer and harder to get through, as well as more difficult to understand and to develop a level of support or opposition.

Ideas about changes to the OBBB are being suggested. The Club for Growth, for example, has a list of 21 “potential improvements,” including: 
* Full and immediate repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act  
* Cut marginal tax rates for individuals 
* Reduction to Corporate Income Tax rate 
* Enhance the qualified business income deduction from 23% to 40% 
* Reduction of capital gains and dividends taxation/investment income 
* Index Capital Gains to Inflation 
* Allow all Americans to save for their futures tax-free through Universal Savings        Accounts 
* Prohibit funding for sanctuary cities 
* Eliminate the SALT deduction 
* Extend Work Requirements to all anti-poverty welfare benefit programs
* Sell federal land

There are also a few articles dealing with the environment that are not widely available. Some of them challenge the popular narrative, while others discuss topics less common than those to which we are accustomed. 

Dr. Roy Spencer is a former NASA scientist, climatologist, author, and former Visiting Fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment. He offered this information in a Heritage Foundation article. 

“Warming of the global climate system over the past half-century has averaged 43 percent less than that produced by computerized climate models used to promote changes in energy policy. In the United States during summer, the observed warming is much weaker than that produced by all 36 climate models surveyed here. 

“While the cause of this relatively benign warming could theoretically be entirely due to humanity’s production of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning, this claim cannot be demonstrated through science. At least some of the measured warming could be natural. Contrary to media reports and environmental organizations’ press releases, global warming offers no justification for carbon-based regulation.”

Two “Key Takeaways” from the Heritage article are:
* Climate models that guide energy policy do not even conserve energy, a necessary condition for any physically based model of the climate system.
* Public policy should be based on climate observations—which are rather unremarkable—rather than climate models that exaggerate climate impacts.

Appearing in emails and elsewhere is this: “After nearly two decades of accelerating ice loss (with losses reaching about 142 billion tons per year from 2011–2020), Antarctica saw a dramatic shift between 2021 and 2023.

“During this period, satellite data (GRACE and GRACE-FO missions) show the Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 108–119 billion tons of ice per year.

This gain was especially pronounced in four major glacier basins in East Antarctica (Totten, Moscow University, Denman, and Vincennes Bay), which had previously been rapidly losing mass.”

Another article discussed a lesser-known factor that affects our environment. “A recent scientific study confirms that changes in Earth’s orbit play a key role in triggering ice ages. These shifts, known as Milankovitch cycles, affect the planet's climate over tens of thousands of years by altering the amount of sunlight reaching Earth. Based on current orbital patterns, researchers estimate that the next ice age could begin within the next 11,000 years. This discovery deepens our understanding of Earth's long-term climate cycles and the natural forces that drive major environmental changes.”

And Researchers from ETH Zurich and the Carnegie Institution for Science say Earth is cooling far faster than we thought — and will turn into a dead, rocky planet like Mars much sooner than expected.

Our environment is very complex, with factors of which most people are unaware that affect it. They are rarely talked about outside of scientific circles. But they have an effect on the environment that cannot be ignored. We must always be aware of the “big picture” of our environment.

Has politics infected the actions of our judicial system?

May 27, 2025

Hardly anyone disagrees with the statement that America has some serious problems. One of the most serious of those problems is what is happening in our judicial system. Mis-interpretation of our Constitution and our laws is not new, but is a problem.

A prominent interpretation issue has to do with birthright citizenship. In January, shortly after being sworn into office, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders. One of them sought to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. 

The liberal left, which supports illegal immigration, immediately reacted. They think that according to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, if an illegal alien woman with child sneaks across the border on a Thursday and gives birth to that child on Friday, that child is automatically a citizen of the United States of America. 

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Upon first reading, and without thoughtful analysis, this would tend to suggest that anyone born in the U.S. is immediately a citizen, no questions asked. But with thoughtful analysis, and/or an understanding of why the 14th Amendment was ultimately passed by Congress, that interpretation falls on its face.

The liberal’s interpretation ignores both the actual language, and the actual purpose of the Amendment. Properly interpreting the Constitution’s language, and the language of laws passed by Congress, is not just relevant, but essential. And, applying the factors that were responsible for that piece of the Constitution, one of its Amendments, or a particular law — the original intent — is critical. 

Just because many years or decades have passed, and thinking may have changed since the enactment of the item in question does not mean that those factors should be or can be ignored.

A useful analysis of this comes from the Heritage Foundation, via Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Meese Center, and Hans von Spakovsky, Election Law Reform Initiative Manager and Senior Legal Fellow.

“For the first century following the 14th Amendment’s ratification, few legal scholars would have batted an eye at a directive like Trump’s. If anything, they’d have been more confused as to why the federal government started issuing passports to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, tourists, and ‘temporary sojourners’ in the first place.  

“Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of ‘universal’ birthright citizenship. 

“This was intended to constitutionalize the protections of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that ‘all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power’ would be considered citizens.   

“That’s because the sponsors of the 14th Amendment made it clear that ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the U.S. means owing your political allegiance to the U.S., and not to another country. Children born to aliens are citizens of their parents’ native land, and thus owe their allegiance to, and are subject to the jurisdiction of, that native land.”

Another example of problematic judicial action is provided by an article in The Western Journal. This challenges that the idea that a federal district judge in one of the hundreds of districts can routinely issue a ruling that affects the entire country, including the actions of its president and the co-equal administrative branch.

“Trump U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued when being questioned by [Supreme Court] Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday that the phenomenon of district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions is relatively new in the nation’s history, becoming prominent in the last four or five administrations.

“Further, they have been meted out in unprecedented numbers against Trump, with 40 in the last four months, he said.

“Sauer directed Kavanaugh to the New Deal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a reference point. ‘There were very, very passionate challenges to nationwide policies during the Roosevelt administration, and they were not addressed by issuing universal injunctions,’ the solicitor general highlighted.

“Sauer also addressed the Supreme Court’s past rulings on whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.

“So, when the [Supreme Court] has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said, ‘You have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court,’’ Sauer argued.

“Then [Justice Clarence] Thomas made the most important observation of the day by asking, ‘So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?’”

“That’s exactly correct. And in fact, those were very limited, very rare, even in the 1960s,” Sauer responded. “It really exploded in 2007.”

So, we are now experiencing a pandemic of improper judicial rulings, it seems. Are these the result of persons appointed to positions of federal judgeships who really do not understand the law and the necessity of judicial neutrality and boundaries? Or, are they more concerned with political goals than with being judicially neutral referees in these cases?

Could the current political divide spell the end of the U.S

May 13, 2025

Douglas Murray is a British author, political commentator, cultural critic, and journalist, and his columns have appeared in a long list of publications, including the New York Post and National Review. 

Back in 2018 he created a video in which he said that “Europe is committing suicide.” He went on to explain that there were two major causes of Europe’s impending downfall.

The first, he said, “is the mass movement of peoples into Europe.” This process had been going on for a long time, “but sped up massively in the migration crisis of 2015, when more than a million migrants poured into Europe from the Middle East, North Africa and East Asia.”

The second major cause, which he said was equally significant, was “that Europe lost faith in itself — its beliefs, its traditions and even its very legitimacy.”

Given the current state of affairs here in the United States, Murray’s comments might also describe the suicidal tendencies we have here.

Our challenges have been going on since before the date that Murray first mentioned about Europe, 2015. And, like the European experience, they have increased markedly in recent years.

Like the European countries, the U.S. has seen a tremendous influx of people from other countries. Millions came across our open borders unvetted during the Biden administration. There were some good people, looking for a better life and escaping oppression. But there were thousands, or perhaps millions, who were drug and child traffickers, murderers, rapists, robbers and terrorists.

Over the last few decades the U.S., like Europe, has seen a gradual abandonment of its once strong history and culture.

We have seen persons in many areas forsake their solemn duties, favoring ideals that are not American ideals, and are dangerous to our future. 

Attorneys general and district attorneys refuse to prosecute many types of crimes. Mayors and municipal council members open their doors to illegal aliens, and protect them from being properly deported.

Many of the people we call educators put their professional integrity on the shelf and fail to present their students with a proper background of their country. They have done an equally bad job of teaching crucial basic concepts, like fundamental math, reading and writing. 

And many parents have likewise failed to teach their children about becoming a good American, respecting the law, the rights of others, and basic human behavior.

News organizations and journalists often see no problem with presenting “news” according to their political ideals, rather than abiding by journalistic principles.

Some medical professionals support and assist people in becoming the opposite gender, even children. And some in public education assist children in doing that, and hide that from their parents.

Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, have recently been heard using what we used to call “cuss words” in their comments on the floor of the chambers. This sort of language, which is profane, is nearly always considered inappropriate, especially for formal settings like public appearances, media appearances, and public activities. 

And the frequency of violence in protests from groups with an ax to grind is shocking. What they are unable to achieve through persuasion with their ideas they try to achieve through force and violence.

Many of these activities are illegal, and all are certainly subversive to the established principles, values and culture of our country.

Politically, we have lost much ground. Many of us remember when Republicans and Democrats got along with each other, despite having different ideas about how to keep the country great, and even to improve it.

The current political discourse reflects the wide gulf in philosophy. One side wants to restore things while the other wants to change everything. The two sides talk to each other in sharp, cutting terms, rarely finding agreement on anything.

Roger Kimball, editor of The New Criterion, sees efforts to restore the previous state of things. He said that following the unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Donald Trump at a campaign rally last year there has been talk of restoration of the values and environment of the past. And that has picked up speed since Trump’s election and inauguration.

In a speech at Hillsdale College’s Blake Center for Faith and Freedom shortly after Trump took office in January, Kimball said, “We always hear about the ‘peaceful transfer of power’ when a new president takes office.

“The usual procedure is for the old crowd to vacate their positions while the new crowd slides in to take their places. The institutions remain inviolate. Nothing essential changes.”

But, he noted, Trump was not elected to preserve the upside-down status quo, but to make badly needed changes. Given the existing political divide as this process gets under way, there is fairly broad satisfaction on Trump’s side, but great fear and resistance on the other.

Whether the suicide that Murray talked about occurring in Europe will be the ultimate conclusion for America remains to be seen. Those who understand and appreciate the original unique design, individual freedom and other benefits of the American system are working hard to see that the shining city on the hill survives this attempted revolution.

There is much discussion of Trump’s first 100 days in office

May 6, 2025

There’s lots of talk about all the things President Donald Trump has and hasn’t done in his first 100 days in office. As expected, his supporters are satisfied with some things, and his critics are shouting about him not completing his rather long and strenuous list of hopes and dreams.

A lot of people are upset over Trump’s heavy focus of tariffs. In case you are not aware of the current tariff situation, here’s a look at what other countries are doing to the United States with tariffs on our goods, taken from the chart that Trump was seen holding in the Oval Office recently.

China - 67%; European Union - 39%; Taiwan - 64%; Japan - 46%; India - 52%; South Korea - 50%; Switzerland - 61%.

The highest two are Vietnam at 90%, and Cambodia at 97%. And there are a few at reasonable levels, such as the United Kingdom, Singapore and Brazil, all at just 10%.

On the other side of this situation is that the highest the U.S. charges is less than 50%, with the highest two at 49% for Cambodia and 46% for Vietnam. Everyone else is below 40%. That doesn’t include the current fight with China that might be higher if things don’t even out through negotiations.

Trump wants low tariffs, or no tariffs, so that trade with other nations is fair for all parties, in terms of cost of goods.

This process will take time — more than the 100 days Trump has been working on it. And, yes, there will be some discomfort.

Richard Porter, writing in Newsmax magazine, describes it this way: “Trump’s tariff policy is pragmatic and populist while theoretically inconsistent. It’s of a piece with his broader attempt to rebalance the terms under which the United States deals with other nations, moving away from the post-war, subsidy-for-friends model toward an everyone-pulls-their-own-weight model — a model in which alliances are premised on shared interests instead of subsidies.”

Perhaps the most noteworthy thing he has accomplished in his early days is to address the influx of some 12 million illegals who casually walked in during the Biden administration, and who it dispersed all across the country, criminals and all.

This critical need did not require Congressional action to reform the immigration policy of the country, as former President Joe Biden and his partners in this travesty kept telling us. All it took was someone willing to fix it.

As of now, daily border encounters are down by 93%; encounters with gotaways – the top threat to public safety – are down by 95%; and migrant crossings are down by 99.99%.

In March of this year, we had less than 7,200 border encounters, the lowest monthly number in recorded history.

The energy picture is also improving, and we are moving to recover the conditions achieved during Trump’s first term. He is moving us away from ideas that sound good, but are not good, such as the New Green Deal, and an electric vehicle mandate. 

We are returning to using clean coal for energy production, which is good for the Appalachian coal field communities, and drilling in new oil fields; working to ship natural gas to Europe, which badly needs it, and continuing fracking.

Because of the increased production of energy, the price of oil, which at one point under Biden was $120 a barrel, is now down close to $60 a barrel. Trump is no longer draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and will likely begin to refill it.

He has also begun doing away with the foolish policy of diversity, equity and inclusion, which put factors other than the abilities of people in their selection for important things.

While many/most prices are still too high, inflation has subsided. “This is truly remarkable,” economist E.J. Antoni, Ph.D., said. “Average annual inflation rate from ‘09 until ‘21 was 1.8%, then Biden drove it up to 8.6% for a year and a half, then it rose steadily at 3.1% for the rest of his term; but now Trump is averaging a mere 1.0% - remarkable!”

Trump is not perfect, not by a long shot. But neither was Biden or Obama, or any other president.

But his ideas are far more “American” than those of either Biden or Obama, or millions of other people who think that what is happening to Abrego Garcia is really important. Then there are the ones who idolize Luigi Mangione, the accused murderer of Brian Thompson, who was gunned down in cold blood as he walked down a street in midtown Manhattan.

Thompson was allegedly killed just because he held the position of CEO of UnitedHealthcare, a health insurance company. And Mangione is being celebrated as "so handsome!!!" and "guilty for being hot." He is even being celebrated with a new musical in his honor, as he and others believe Thompson’s murder was justified because of problems with the health insurance industry.

Much of the opposition to Trump is because some just don’t like him. But mostly it is because what he wants to do to help the country and its citizens are things that work directly against the twisted goals of Democrats, progressives and socialists.