Some areas of controversy of 2025 will continue into 2026

December 23, 2025

As the end of 2025 draws near, there are a few things of interest that will still be with us after the New Year arrives.

There is a proposed $6.2 billion merger of two large media organizations, Nexstar and Tegna. If this deal goes through, the merged company would be the largest TV organization in the country, and would reach more than 80 percent of U.S. households. 

Opposing the merger are some conservative groups, including the Conservative Political Action Conference, Newsmax, and the Zionist Organization of America. Their argument opposes the huge degree of coverage the company would have, viewing it as a threat to viewpoint diversity, particularly at the local news level.

On their side is the Telecommunications Act of 1996, amended in 2004, which limits the degree of television ownership at 39 percent, which is slightly less than half of the 80 percent level of ownership the merger would represent.

The Federal Communications Commission Chairman (FCC), Brendan Carr, has supported raising the cap, which would allow the merger to go through.

However, a legal analysis by appellate scholars titled "The FCC Lacks Statutory Authority to Revise the Telecommunications Act's 39% National Ownership Cap for Television” concludes that the FCC does not have the authority to raise, eliminate, or waive the long-standing 39 percent cap. Only Congress has the authority to make such changes, the analysis states.

Given what we have seen in the news and on social media involving the controlling of certain ideas that the media organizations dislike, having one giant voice that covers 80 percent of the country is a very dangerous prospect.

And, as we have seen, questionable court actions have only added to the concerns that our legal system is sometimes driven more by politics than it is by the law and the Constitution. This trend may continue in 2026.

Federal district judges have been issuing orders with nationwide effect. One example: U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to immediately halt efforts to remove criminal illegal aliens until he has more time to consider whether Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was illegal. And, there are other instances where a district judge has also intervened in a presidential action.

There are 94 federal judicial districts and each one has at least one district judge, who is appointed for a life term. In total there are more than 670 federal district judges in the U.S. And as some of these judges see it, each of them, having judicial authority over a very small area of the country, somehow has the power to overrule the President of the United States.

A theory on what has led to many judges making rulings and taking other actions beyond their actual authority is the existing assumption that judges hold absolute immunity for their actions. There are cases where obvious errors and deliberately improper actions by judges have been ignored. Judicial immunity has been awarded to judges by other judges.

However, in a fairly recent 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."

"Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them," said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, author of the opinion.

"When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too," Barrett said in the opinion joined by five other justices on the court.

Unwanted pregnancies that are ended by abortion is a topic that is frequently in the news. Many people favor abortion, and many others oppose it. There is a great deal of emotion on both sides of that discussion.  

This part of the column is not about abortion, per se; it does not speak for it or against it. It is to address a fairly recent and very serious related issue.

Nine states — including New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland, and Oregon, plus the District of Columbia — already allow abortion up to the moment of birth.

California passed a bill that would allow infants to be “aborted” up to 28 days after birth, and Governor Gavin Newsom signed it. Maryland tried to pass a similar law, but it was defeated.

A language device used to “justify” this horrific idea is replacing the term “prenatal” in the written law with the term “perinatal.” “Prenatal” means before birth, but “perinatal” includes a period after birth. This subtle change legalizes infanticide, or murdering newborn children.

How any of us may feel about abortion, this is not permissible or acceptable. It is more than a little frightening to learn that some people in this country would try to justify killing living babies. Could this conceivably be extended to a full year, or more?

While there are other on-going problems in the country, it is possible that one or more of the three issues discussed will be resolved next year. Certainly, we can cross our fingers for that.

Venezuela’s actions deserve the attention they’ve been getting

December 16, 2025

The Trump administration’s efforts to stop drug-laden boats from Venezuela from reaching the U.S. has drawn heavy opposition from Congressional and other Democrats. These are the same Democrats who fiercely defend illegal aliens being in the country, which is a rather strange conflict of interests.

It appears from their reactions to the two topics that the Democrats are more concerned with illegals being deported than they are with Americans being killed by illicit drugs that are smuggled into the country.

And a recent action in the seizing of a Venezuelan oil tanker has added fuel to the Democrat’s fire.

Among the Democrats who have concerns about this is Sen. Chris Coons from Delaware, who said on NewsNation that he is “gravely concerned that [Trump] is sleepwalking us into a war with Venezuela.” Coons is the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and said that he has not received anything from the administration regarding a potential war with Venezuela.

This same concern was expressed by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Paul thinks the seizure could increase tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela. The libertarian senator, who is a sometimes critic of the Trump administration, added that it isn’t “the job of the American government to go looking for monsters around the world, looking for adversaries, and beginning wars.”

However, other GOP senators had a different response to the event, saying they were awaiting more information. Republican Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Jon Husted of Ohio and Roger Marshall of Kansas commented that they did not know the specifics of the seizure. 

Hawley said, as he walked into an elevator, “I will look into it.” Husted commented that he had been in meetings and was not able have been briefed on the matter. And Marshall said that the seizure is “news to me,” but that the U.S. “should be pushing back on Venezuela.” He said that he is “concerned about the drug cartel that is running” the South American country.

The administration offered information that somewhat clarifies its position on the matter. Attorney General Pam Bondi released a video of the seizure on X (formerly Twitter). She commented that the FBI, Homeland Security, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Pentagon had executed the seizure warrant on the tanker, because it was transporting sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran.

The sanction was due to Venezuela’s “involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations,” Bondi said.

Adding to Bondi’s comments, White House deputy assistant Sebastian Gorka said on Newsmax’s "Rob Schmitt Tonight" that the tanker is part of a growing "shadow fleet" of vessels evading sanctions and breaching international law.

"This is a member of a shadow fleet," he said. "The attempts to evade sanctions, and also to just do an end run around international law with flags of convenience — we're not going to allow this anymore."

"So, whether it's Venezuela or whether it's other countries like Iran that are making money in ways that are illegal and counter to the U.S. national interest, as elucidated so very, very eloquently in the president's national security strategy that we published on Friday, we are very serious," Gorka continued.

He warned that the U.S. will be on the watch for any and all illegal maritime operations, including narcotics smuggling, and oil tankers operating in violation of sanctions.

"Whether it's drug boats, whether it's illegal tankers, we're going to take action where we see fit and where it threatens our national security interests as the United States," he said.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz commented that the seizure indicates it is “a bad idea to be a drug trafficker,” but said he did not anticipate the U.S. being in a war with Venezuela. 

While Cruz did not respond to a question regarding whether the president should ask Congress to declare war, he did say that, “If you’re a narcotrafficker, and you’re thinking about getting on a speedboat that is filled with a bunch of cocaine, you’re having second thoughts right now because President Trump is saving the lives of Americans.”  

“The poison that Maduro is flooding into this country is killing Americans and President Trump is fulfilling his responsibility as commander in chief, by saying we’re going to stop this poison that’s killing our kids,” he added.

Democrats are great at one thing: criticizing Donald Trump. It appears they will go to any lengths, use any criticism to try to make Trump look bad. And, apparently it doesn’t matter to them if they turn their backs on the harm that illegal aliens and their counterparts in rogue nations cause, in order to cast aspersions on Trump and his administration.

And let us not forget that so much of this craziness is the direct result of the foolish and dangerous policies of the Biden/Harris administration in ignoring the border crashing by illegals and the death and destruction they brought along with them.

The Trump administration is focused on things that need to be dealt with to restore the country’s national security and other assets. Slowly but surely things should improve. We should applaud this, not criticize it.

Progressive policies create disasters for the American people

December 9, 2025

Back in May the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted an article that addressed “Americans Killed by Illegal Aliens Driving Under the Influence.”

It named 14 Americans who are now dead, which it described as “just a handful of Americans whose lives were taken too soon at the hands of illegal aliens driving under the influence.”

Of those 14, eight were less than 20 years-old, three were 10 years-old or less, two were in their 40s and one was 70. Most of the drunk drivers were from Honduras, with others from Venezuela, and Mexico. 

Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin commented that “Far too many American lives have been lost because of illegal aliens driving drunk.”  “These Americans killed by drunk-driving illegal aliens should still be with us today, and we feel their absence in our schools and offices, at our dinner tables, and throughout our communities. President Trump and Secretary Noem have reopened the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) office to serve all victims of illegal alien crime and their families.”

The VOICE office was opened in 2017 by the Trump administration. It is a resource for those who have been victimized by crime that is related to immigration, the article said. However, the Biden/Harris administration closed the office, leaving victims of crimes by illegal aliens without access to many support services and resources.

Worse, yet, are the number of Americans who have been murdered, with illegal aliens having been charged with the crime.

Among those victims are: 

* Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered on the University of Georgia campus, allegedly by Jose Ibarra, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, in February 2024. 

* A 12-year-old girl named Jocelyn Nungaray killed in Houston, Texas. She was found murdered in a creek in June 2024. Two Venezuelan nationals, Johan Jose Rangel Martinez and Franklin Jose Pena Ramos, who had recently entered the U.S. illegally, have been charged with capital murder.

* Rachel Morin, who was the mother of five, was found murdered in August 2023 in Maryland. Another illegal alien, a Salvadoran national who was in the country illegally, was later arrested and charged in connection with her death.

* A Missouri police officer, 44-year-old David Lee, was killed in 2024 by Honduran Ramon A. Chavez-Rodriguez, an illegal alien. 

These are only a few of the victims. Even one death at the hands of an illegal alien is too many.

There are two problems in the horrors these Americans and their families and friends have experienced at the hands of illegal aliens in the country. First is them being here at all. Second is the ridiculous frequency with which some of these illegals have been treated with kid gloves instead of getting the punishment they so well deserve.

Going easy on criminals is an insult to their victims, and a disgusting failure of prosecutors and judges.

One example is the case of the death of 22-year-old Logan Frederico, who was brutally murdered by a criminal during a break-in at the home where she was visiting friends. Her killer had a record of 39 arrests and 25 felonies. Despite this record, and the accumulated felonies, he had spent less than 2 years in jail.

The state attorney general had assigned an accomplished death penalty litigator to this case, but the progressive district attorney called this “premature” and “reckless.”

Then there is the murder of Iryna Zaruska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who was tragically murdered in an unprovoked stabbing attack while riding a light-rail train in Charlotte, North Carolina last August. A video showing the attack was aired soon afterward.

Decarlos Brown Jr., a 34-year-old homeless man with 14 prior arrests for various offenses, including armed robbery, has been charged with first-degree murder.

Yet, despite his criminal history dating back over a decade, known mental health issues, and having forfeited bond on three occasions, a soft-on-crime judge released him back onto the streets following his most recent arrest last January, and he was able to murder an innocent woman.

Some in law enforcement positions, like prosecutors and judges, charged with prosecuting crimes and punishing criminals to protect the public, seem to think rehabilitation is a superior path to jail time.   

Over the last few years we have seen such “solutions” to crime and police work as “reimagining policing,” diverting 911 calls away from the police department, finding alternatives to arrest, prioritizing “restorative justice,” “deemphasizing” some felonies, and eliminating cash bail. 

GovFacts.com explains the sensible, traditional idea of dealing with criminals. It tells us that “punishment and retribution form the core mission. Society demands consequences when someone breaks the law. A proportional punishment acknowledges the moral weight of criminal acts and provides victims with a sense that justice has been served.”

The idea is for punishment to be so unpleasant that the perpetrator regrets his/her actions, and not do it again, and to discourage others from committing crimes.

But the progressive idea is to merely tell the criminal, “don’t do that anymore” and that will be all that is really needed. As with all “woke” ideas, these sound good, but don’t work, and in reality, are just stupid.

We need harsh punishment. Lawbreakers must pay a real price.

To make important decisions, all points of view should be heard

December 2, 2025

The earliest drafts of the U.S. Constitution did not include a bill of rights. Among those working on the Constitution who thought a bill of rights was important were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, now known as the “father of the Constitution.”

When the delegates of the Constitutional Convention provided the document to the states for ratification, they realized that without a rights declaration, ratification could be difficult.

Some states quickly ratified the document, however, others had hotly contested debates. When those states did ratify the document, they included features that they wanted to be added.

Eventually, the elements of the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution as amendments.

What ultimately became the First Amendment to the Constitution was the one protecting the establishment of religion, and its free exercise; the freedom of speech and the press; the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of those First Amendment items, the idea of free speech is the one that is currently the most prominent.

Over the past several years, the charge has been that various sources — including newspapers and magazines, radio and television news organizations and social media — had been censoring what they regarded as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “false information,” etc. 

There is no doubt that certain things were banned, as the censors admitted as much. But whether they should have banned those opinions and contrary ideas is still being defended.

Those who censored comments claimed they were protecting the public from false information, as if it was their duty, and within their ability to make such judgements. In a country with a constitutional defense of a right of free speech, it was neither of those things.

However, the ability of the people to express their thoughts and ideas about what is happening, what should happen, or what should not happen should be banned only under very special circumstances.

Throughout our history there have been many explanations of why even unpopular speech should not be regulated or banned.

Here are some of them:

* “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington (1783)

* “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

* “He who stifles free discussion, secretly doubts whether what he professes to believe is really true.” – Wendell Phillips (1870)

* “Some people’s idea of [free speech] is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.” – Winston Churchill, (1943)

* “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear…” – George Orwell (1945)

* The U.S. Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. said, in part, “We begin with the common ground. Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.”

* “Freedom of speech is indivisible; unless we protect it for all, we will have it for none.” Law professor Harry Kalven

* “If you are afraid to say it, that is exactly why it needs to be said.” Journalist Andy Rooney

* “If you had to pick one freedom that was the most essential to the functioning of a democracy, it has to be freedom of speech. Because democracy means persuading one another, and then ultimately voting, and the majority, the majority rules. You can’t run such a system if there is a muzzling of one point of view. So, it’s a fundamental freedom in a democracy.” Former U.S Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking at the National Press Club

* Yet, historically, the greatest threat to citizens has come not from those who state falsehoods but those who claim the right to regulate what is true and false.” Jonathon Turley, law professor and author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”

However, even the First Amendment to the Constitution does not protect certain types of speech. These categories are types of speech that may be dangerous. These include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, and true threats.

Speech that may be obviously untrue, but not actually harmful, as are those in the preceding list, may not be banned.

Notice that political speech by Democrats or Republicans or whomever, are not included in the list of speech which may be banned.

So, let’s be honest and open about the differences in ideas. We should combat ideas that we find unpopular, but not with cowardly censorship, but with better and more sensible ideas.

Freedom of speech is one of the several ideas that sets the United States of America above other nations, and we must not allow it or the others to be taken away.

Six Democrats urge military personnel to ignore Trump’s orders

November 25, 2025

The latest event in the Democrat war against President Donald Trump is a video by a group of Democrat lawmakers with military and intelligence backgrounds in which they urge military service members to "refuse illegal orders." 

Those appearing in the video are Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.; Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.; Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H.; Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa.; and Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo. The six lawmakers noted their prior military and government service to give credence to their message. The branches and agencies represented were the Army, Navy, Air Force and Central Intelligence Agency.

A favorite phrase from the 1.5-minute video is, "You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders," which was repeated frequently. The basis for this event is what the group terms "threats to our Constitution [that] are coming from right here at home."

Two of the group, Slotkin and Crowe, have introduced legislation aimed at stopping or limiting Trump’s actions to deploy National Guard members domestically, or to launch military action against narco-terrorists without congressional approval.

As reported by Fox News, “Slotkin’s ‘No Troops in Our Streets Act,’ detailed in a Nov. 13 release, would give Congress the power to block National Guard deployments inside American cities. President Trump has expanded National Guard operations to Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago amid violent crime.

“Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., simultaneously introduced a War Powers Continuing Resolution … to block the president from ordering strikes on drug traffickers in the Caribbean — actions Crow described in a release as ‘unauthorized and illegal.’”

Describing the action of the Democrat 6, Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said: "At the end of the day, they’re mad the American people chose Trump and now they’re calling on the Military and Intelligence Community to intervene. Sounds a little ‘subversive to democracy’-ish."

What makes this event even more controversial than just an organized political opposition movement is that the Democrat 6 speak as if Trump’s orders to the military are patently obvious illegal orders. Even if they were or are illegal, this broad encouragement that every E2, E3, E4, et al, military person should act on their personal evaluation is foolish. As if those with lower ranks and minimal service time are equipped to make such judgements.

Anyone who has served in the military for even a few years knows that you follow orders, without question. This is a standard established in the first few hours of basic training.

All members of the military services are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). In it is the concept that obeying orders is not optional, except in cases where the illegality is plain as day. In such cases, service members risk punishment if they act before a superior authority has ruled the order unlawful.

Fox’s Morgan Phillips’ report on this event includes this information: “The UCMJ’s Article 90 states that any service member who ‘willfully disobeys a lawful command’ of a superior officer can face up to five years’ confinement, loss of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge. If the offense occurs in wartime, the punishment can be death or any lesser penalty a court-martial decides.”

“Military law sets an extremely narrow standard for refusing an order: it must be manifestly unlawful — so clearly illegal that ‘a person of ordinary sense and understanding’ would recognize it as a crime on its face. Examples include commands to kill civilians, torture detainees or overthrow the government.”

Military lawyers remind us that those provisions are the basis of the strict level of discipline that exists in the military services. That is the very system the Democrat 6 video challenges.

Following the release of the video, Trump called for the six Democrat lawmakers to face arrest and trial. “It’s called seditious behavior at the highest level,” Trump charged in a post on Truth Social. “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be arrested and put on trial. Their words cannot be allowed to stand - we won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example must be set.”

In his response to the video’s message, Trump mentioned the punishment outlined in the UCMJ, including the part saying that under certain circumstances, the death penalty could apply.

He had also reposted a comment by another Truth Social user: “Hang them, George Washington would!!” These comments led to the charge that Trump had called for killing the Democrat 6. Trump supporters said that he wasn’t calling for them to be killed, merely noting that the death penalty was a possible penalty for sedition.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La, defended Trump’s declaration that the Democrats engaged in “sedition.” He said they were being “wildly inappropriate” in suggesting military personnel consider Trump’s orders unlawful. He added that in mentioning seditious behavior was punishable by death, that Trump was merely “defining the crime of sedition.”

And always remember that when someone says something, there is how the listener interprets it, and what the speaker actually intended.

It is quite disturbing, perhaps criminal, that former military personnel — who should thoroughly understand military discipline, and the chaos that disobeying orders could cause — would strongly encourage military personnel to disobey orders.

A topic that gets a good bit of attention is media neutrality

November 18, 2025

Republicans and conservatives have for quite a while complained about many, or perhaps most, of the major news media in the country having a strong leftist bias. Donald Trump’s entrance into the political world has made this bias much more obvious.

The brilliant economist and commentator Thomas Sowell has addressed this reality several times, and one of his comments is this one from a publication in 1999: “The press has always claimed to be a watchdog, but too often it has been a lapdog — or an attack dog, depending on the politics of the moment. What is truly remarkable is not the bias itself, but the utter lack of self-awareness about it.” 

One of the critical principles of reliable news journalism is neutrality, meaning that reporting must include equal amounts of the various points of view. Seemingly, that is often not the case, these days. This may be at least partly the fault of college journalism education, which, like so much of higher education recently, has sacrificed traditional teaching of the curricula for pushing political philosophies.

As Sowell mentioned, there was indeed a lack of self-awareness of bias in journalism for many years, but more recently, rather than subconscious failure of bias awareness, there has been a deliberate implementation of bias to suit the political desires of the writers.

Accusations of this bias have been roundly denied by the perpetrators. But recently, a major news provider has come clean, acknowledging its bias.

“The BBC, one of the world’s biggest broadcasters, has been plunged into crisis after two top executives quit after a leaked memo [suggested] that it had misleadingly edited a speech by President Trump that preceded the Jan. 6 Capitol riot,” as reported by The New York Times.

The executives who resigned after this information went public are Tim Davie, BBC’s director general, and Deborah Turness, chief executive of BBC News. 

In early comments on that day, Trump said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." He also said, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”

However, the BBC report deleted part of his comments, and added some comments from roughly 50 minutes later, that were on the subject of U.S. elections and corruption allegations, not marching down to the Capital. The BBC falsely reported Trump saying, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol … and I’ll be there with you … and we fight. We fight like hell.” 

Clearly, the BBC’s fake reporting supported the attitude of Trump’s critics, enabling them to suggest that Trump was inciting violence. And that false perspective became a very popular one with Trump’s media and political enemies.

Director General Davie said in his resignation statement that the BBC was "not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable." And later, CEO Turness stated, “I'd like to make one thing very clear — BBC News is not institutionally biased."

The BBC issued a statement in which it said it "regrets the error" and issued a personal apology to Trump, but has declined to provide financial compensation for its action. Trump has threatened a lawsuit if some financial penalty is not paid. He is claiming that the BBC defamed him in its biased story.

This sort of political chicanery is dishonesty on parade. It defies the very nature of what news journalism is assumed to be, supposed to be. And, it demonstrates the serious and profound lack of integrity and professionalism that is required of news journalists that exists in much of the news media.

The type of false reporting done by the BBC is also being done by several American media outlets that do not like Donald Trump. Those here at home just haven’t yet been caught and outed by insiders who have the integrity and courage to expose their dishonest brethren.

The U.S. faces serious problems in the loss of professional integrity in some fields that are critical to our constitutional republic’s being able to survive. Among these important areas are science, education, journalism and politics.

These important areas have a significant effect on the people, what they believe and what they do, and their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. And in fact, these weaknesses threaten our very existence as the country with a government system that is superior to all others. That system is one which we have enjoyed for the more than two centuries of our existence. 

All great nations eventually fall. And they fall due to serious problem within. We must hope and pray that enough of the American people realize this, and stand up for returning our country to its original state provided to us by our Founding Fathers, and reverse the dishonesty and lack of professional integrity in these important areas of life.

If we fail to make these changes, take a hard look at places like Iran, Russia Cuba and Venezuela, and prepare to join them in disaster.

The search for power, and using it to control the country

November 11, 2025

Since the colonies became fed up with the heavy-handed rule of the British crown more than 250 years ago, a government design opposite to that arrangement has been the goal. A government of the people, by the people and for the people became the dominant theory. And that idea was the basis for our constitution and the government that it created.

But the benefit of that concept has gradually faded through the years, leading to decades of actions that weakened that system, and has taken control out of the hands of the people, and put a growing degree of power in the hands of those serving in government.

Today we see a larger and more controlling government body than our Founders could ever have imagined would evolve from their system.

The tri-partite government consisting of a legislative branch, an administrative branch and a judicial branch, each independent of the other two, and no single branch being more powerful than the others, has been weakened.

Our federal government has grown in the number of administrative departments and employees. Along with that growth has come more and more interference with the freedoms recognized in the U.S. Constitution as belonging to the people, and protected by the government, not provided by it.

In many cases, the growth of government and the accompanying loss of personal freedom that resulted may have been intended to accomplish good things. And perhaps some good did result. However, the weakening of the system is ultimately a greater harm than the relatively small degree of good that may have been gained.

For example, what one may now do with their property is now controlled by volumes of laws and regulations from all levels of government. If, for example, you have a pond or some small water feature, you likely will have to get government approval to change it, or do away with it. Other similar restrictions apply over almost everything.

This negative change in how our government operates is dealt with by Mark Levin in his new book On Power. Levin, a constitutional lawyer, author and syndicated talk show host, comments in his chapter titled, “On Negative Power,” the following: “Given the ubiquity of the federal government and its reach into virtually all areas of society, this is an enormous betrayal of representative government by the supposed representative branches.”

He notes that for a century or so the three branches have been involved in “the construction of a massive administrative state, the contours of which are elusive and seemingly boundless, and constructed without a constitutional foundation.”

And he cites the failure of the judicial branch to call a halt to this development and legitimization of the fourth branch of government: the bureaucracy, which is not in the U.S. Constitution.

In the last 100-plus years, 10 new federal departments have been created:
1903 - the Department of Commerce and Labor, which was separated in 1913 into two departments: the Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor
1953 - the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
1965 - the Department of Housing and Urban Development
1966 - the Department of Transportation
1977 - the Department of Energy
1979 - the Department of Education
1980 - the Department of Health and Human Services
1989 - the Department of Veteran’s Affairs
2002 - the Department of Homeland Security

About this growth and movement away from our governmental design, Levin notes that the failure of the judiciary to intervene, as it can legally do, has given this movement an appearance of legitimacy. “The delegation of representative government to a non-representative, ever-expanding bureaucratic behemoth is, by intent and design, the overthrow of actual representative and consensual government,” he wrote.

“As a result, the unelected judiciary and bureaucracy hold enormous power over the people by literally removing their participation and consent.”

Recognition of the rise in bureaucratic power and authority, and the accompanying loss of individual freedom, is not a new thing. And efforts to do an about-face and restore our republic to its original status are not unheard of, but so far have not been strong enough and not very successful.

President Donald Trump and his administration are making efforts to straighten things out a bit. But that is a long and steep road.

A White House Fact Sheet, released last February, focuses on the idea of dramatically reducing “the size of the Federal Government, while increasing its accountability to the American people,” and ending “ineffective government programs that empower government without achieving measurable results.”

As with everything Trump says and does, criticism and resistance abound. The criticism and resistance of the opposing political forces is expected. And they do not hesitate to exaggerate and mis-represent what is happening. But resistance has also surfaced in the judiciary, reinforcing what Levin said about that. Actions by federal district court judges, many of which have been determined to have been inappropriate, are interfering with Trump’s efforts.

And then there is the criminal activity in much of the resistance. Interfering with federal law enforcement in their efforts to arrest and deport illegal criminal aliens, for example, is not an approved peaceful protest, it is against the law.

On property taxes, and dangerous and violent political language

October 4, 2025

There is a concept in America that the greatest asset that you can own is a home. 

Recently, the point has been made a few times that we do not really own our home. The reasons cited are, first, that if you owe money on a loan and fall on hard times and don’t make your payments, the lender may take your home. From that point of view, you don’t own your home, you are in essence renting it from the lender, and the lender could push you out of it if you can’t pay the loan.

Another is that even if you have paid off the loan you got to buy it, if you cannot pay the property taxes on it each year, the state can take your home. And once again, you don’t really own your home, the state does, and you are merely renting it.

And, in many cases, property taxes on a home are one of the biggest expenses people have each year.

Realwealth online tells us that “The average American homeowner spends around $2,869 on property taxes for their homes every year.” And depending upon the property, it quite often is much more than that. Realwealth goes on to say that “23 states also have a personal property tax on vehicles, adding another $440 for residents. Unfortunately, every state in the U.S. has some type of property tax.”

Some observers have asserted that while property taxes are a huge part of tax collections, they are not necessary. Those taxes payments can be partially made up by additional purchases citizens will make through increased sales taxes on the things they will buy with the property tax money they get to keep, and use for their benefit.

Other savings by the governments that collect taxes on real property can be made by more sensible spending decisions, using that tax money only to support things are truly in the best interest of its citizens.

While this idea has a good bit of support, it has not been the focus of much action, until now.

In March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said what others have said: "Property taxes effectively require homeowners to pay rent to the government. Florida residents need relief."

DeSantis has stated a desire to eliminate all residential and commercial property taxes, although what may actually happen is that only some commercial property will be tax free.

He is currently proposing doing away with property taxes on primary residences, or homestead properties where Floridians actually live. At this point, vacation homes, rental properties, and commercial real estate will remain taxable.

While several states besides Florida have no income tax, the Sunshine State could become the first state with no income tax and no property tax on primary residences, if DeSantis gets his way. 

However, this will require an amendment to the state’s constitution, and that means that 60 percent of both houses of the Legislature must first approve it. Then, 60 percent of voters will have to vote for it. And, the 60 percent bar is a higher level of support than any presidential candidate has ever achieved among Florida voters. 

The likelihood that this proposal, or one of a few other options, will pass seems quite likely, but uncertain at this time.

These days we are seeing talk in the political realm that is unnecessarily harsh and often dangerous. While both major parties engage in over-heated rhetoric, the Democrats are clearly winning that battle.

One fine example is the language of Democrat Virginia Attorney General candidate Jay Jones in a text to a House delegate in 2022.

“Three people, two bullets,” Jones wrote about former Virginia House Speaker Todd Gilbert, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot. “Gilbert gets two bullets to the head.”

“Spoiler: put Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time,” Jones wrote. 

Despite this disgusting rant, Jones is still supported by Democrat leaders and voters.

And last month another Democrat issued similar thoughts about political opponents.

Democrat Texas state Rep. Jolanda Jones said on CNN that her party should get rid of every Republican and slash their necks.

“I’m from the hood, okay? So, when a bully comes, like, if there are no rules, you literally have to figure it out. So, Donald Trump has changed things, and people trying to do what’s always been done is not going to work,” she said. “And I think that’s why Democrats are losing black people, that’s why they’re losing poor people, because poor people, all they want is for us to fight.”

“So, if you hit me in my face, I’m not going to punch you back in your face, I’m going to go across your neck, because we can go back and forth fighting each other’s faces. You’ve got to hit hard enough where they won’t come back,” she continued. 

There is no place in American politics for such violent trash talk. The attitude that produces it is the same attitude behind the past violent riots and the current criminal resistance to federal law enforcement’s efforts to rid the country of violent illegal aliens. It must end.

Creating an event structure and destroying the White House

October 28, 2025

Now that the “No Kings” protest is over, it’s time for new criticisms of President Trump to be launched. And the topic this time is the White House ballroom project.

A few of the comments:

* California Governor Gavin Newsom grumbled that Trump is “literally destroying the White House.” 

* "It’s not his house," Hillary Clinton posted on X. "It’s your house. And he’s destroying it." 

* Jessica Tarlov, a Democrat who co-hosts “The Five” on Fox News, called the ballroom project “a monstrosity.” It is “nothing like any of the other renovations” taken on by past presidents and “almost double the size of the White House itself, she said.”

* “The erasure of the East Wing isn’t just about marble or plaster — it’s about President Trump again taking a wrecking ball to our heritage, while targeting our democracy, and the rule of law,” said Chelsea Clinton.

That last one got a response from Donald Trump, Jr., who told Chelsea: “LOL, your parents tried stealing furniture and silverware from the White House … and let’s not talk about the intern. Sit this one out.”

And, unsurprisingly, there’s another criticism that features some shenanigans.

As reported on PBS, “At this moment in time, of course, the ballroom is really the president’s main priority,” [Karoline] Leavitt said in a five-second clip that leading Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., shared on X.

“Jeffries’ Oct. 23 post decried Leavitt’s comment: ‘The Trump administration just declared that erecting a ballroom is the President’s main priority. Meanwhile. The cost of living is way too high and the Republican health care crisis threatens millions of Americans.’

“The clip of Leavitt’s statement is real, but Jeffries and the House Democratic Caucus clipped her comments in a misleading way that removes the context. Leavitt never said the ballroom is a more important priority for the president than inflation, health care or ending the federal government shutdown.”

Along with the deliberate exaggeration about the project, and the deliberate misinformation provided, these criticisms also ignore an important fact: Donald Trump is not the first or only president to make modifications to the White House. These modifications date back almost to the early days of the White House.

Here are some of the more recent modifications, provided on yahoo.com: 

* 1902: Major renovation and expansion beyond the White House residence under President Theodore Roosevelt. First lady Edith Roosevelt hired architects to separate the White House’s living quarters from its offices. They also enlarged and modernized the White House’s public rooms, redid its landscaping and redecorated its interior.

* 1909: Expansion of the West Wing and creation of the Oval Office under President William Howard Taft, who expanded the existing, temporary building southward, covering the tennis court, and created the first Oval Office.

* 1927: Renovation of upper floors and attic of the White House under President Calvin Coolidge. He replaced the White House’s original wood trusses with steel while rebuilding the roof and adding a third-floor.

* 1929 and 1930: Renovation and reconstruction of the West Wing under President Herbert Hoover. In 1929, Hoover spent seven months remodeling the West Wing, excavating a partial basement and supporting it with structural steel. But on Christmas Eve of that year, a four-alarm fire significantly damaged his newly completed project, and Hoover was forced to rebuild the West Wing.

* 1934 and 1942: Overhaul of the West Wing and construction of the current East Wing under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1934, Roosevelt added a second floor and a larger basement while relocating the Oval Office to its current location; in 1942, he built the current two-story East Wing office building primarily to cover the construction of an underground bunker. 

* 1948 to 1952: Full structural reconstruction of the White House under President Harry Truman, whose "total reconstruction" project preserved its exterior walls while rebuilding its foundation, adding steel and concrete to its structure. In the process, Truman added six rooms and two new sub-basements, bringing the total square footage close to where it is today.

* 1975: President Gerald Ford built a roughly 1,200-square-foot outdoor pool to replace the indoor pool that his predecessor, Richard Nixon, had covered and converted to the press briefing room five years earlier.

* 2007: The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room covers roughly 2,200 square feet and is surrounded by small offices for the White House press corps. President George W. Bush modernized the whole area.

Some people, who look at things other than their dislike for Trump and the public criticisms, think the ballroom is a good idea, even The Washington Post.

It’s difficult to hold large audience events now, as it requires using tents, heaters, chairs and lights, all of which must be set up, then taken down, and may have to be rented. This way, there is a facility that is set up and ready to use, and is a very nice facility. The need for this facility is so obvious that the idea was first proposed by President Harrison—back in 1891.

Is it possible that Trump Derangement Syndrome epidemic will fade, and what he does will be objectively evaluated?

The left: scared of kings. The right: glad we don’t have one.

October 21, 2025

Last Saturday’s “No Kings Day” activities were quite popular, and apparently were actually “mostly peaceful.” This is certainly something to be pleased about, as so many of the left’s past “protests” were actually riots, complete with violence, burning buildings, damaging police vehicles and buildings, etc.

For those who don’t know, the concept behind the “No Kings” protests is yet another criticism of President Donald Trump and his actions. Those actions are being described as authoritarian, thus king-like. Some examples include using ICE agents to deport people from the country who broke the law when they entered, and since. Many of these illegal millions, allowed in by the Biden administration, are not nice people. They are drug dealers, child and women traffickers, rapists, robbers and murderers.

But the “No Kings” crowd either does not understand this, or cares more about protecting the illegals than their fellow Americans. And, therefore, ICE and other law enforcement personnel, and anyone working on this needed task are labeled Nazis, Fascists, etc.

Although the left tries strongly to hide or deny it, many blue cities and states have serious problems with crime, much of which is at the hands of illegal aliens. When Trump seeks to help them by sending ICE and National Guard (NG) personnel to their city or state, they rebel, and the name-calling and exaggeration begins. This, despite the very obvious improvement of life in our nation’s capital, where Trump’s effort had very positive results.

Here are some examples of these comments: California Governor Gavin Newsom commented about Trump sending California NG members to Oregon that, “This isn’t about public safety, it’s about power. The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens. We will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the President of the United States.”

From capitalnewsillinois.com: “After weeks of threatening to do so, President Donald Trump is taking command of 300 Illinois National Guard troops and sending them to Chicago over Gov. JB Pritzker’s objections, the governor announced Saturday.

“’This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will,’ Pritzker said in a statement. ‘It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.’”

“The promised deployment comes as federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, activity has ramped up in Chicago and its suburbs as part of ‘Operation Midway Blitz,’ which has so far resulted in more than 800 arrests, according to the Department of Homeland Security.”

Chicago’s Mayor Brandon Johnson added this: “The problem with the President's approach is that it is uncoordinated, uncalled for, and unsound. Unlawfully deploying the National Guard to Chicago has the potential to inflame tensions between residents and law enforcement when we know that trust between police and residents is foundational to building safer communities. An unlawful deployment would be unsustainable and would threaten to undermine the historic progress we have made.”

However, data provided by whitehouse.gov tells a different story:

* “For 13 consecutive years, Chicago has had the most murders of any U.S. city.”

* “In 2024, Chicago’s murder rate per capita was three times higher than Los Angeles and nearly five times higher than New York City.”

* “Out of Chicago’s 147,899 reported crimes since January 1, arrests have been made in just 16.2% of them.”

* “Chicago has also come under scrutiny over discrepancies in its homicide data reporting.”

Incidentally, Trump is not the only president to employ federal troops in the country. Six presidents – four Republicans and two Democrats – have activated the National Guard 11 times since 1957. They are: John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, H.W. Bush, and now Trump.

On social media were several comments in opposition to the No Kings concept:

* “Congratulations on the ‘No Kings’ protest yesterday! It worked! No king tried to stop your protest. If you had a King …”

* “Lesson for Liberals: We have no Kings. Our government is not Fascist. Conservatives are not Nazis. Our president is not Hitler. If they were, you would be buried in an unmarked grave. Class dismissed!!!”

* “How could we expect a group of people who don’t know the difference between a man and a woman to know the difference between a King and a President?”

* “No Kings, but the left: Installed their candidate without a primary,
prosecuted political opponents, forced people to get an experimental drug or lose their job.”

* “Odd it is. Nazis were National Socialists that tore down statues. Banned free speech. Blamed economic hardships on one group of people. Instituted gun control. Put the state before God. Nationalized health care. Placed strict government regulations on industry … Ladies and Gentlemen, I give to you today’s … Democrats!”

As Trump continues to deport criminal illegals, blue cities and states — where most of the illegals live and commit crimes — continue to fight his efforts. They wouldn’t fight a Democrat president. But a Democrat president would not go after crime-committing illegals.

Crimes and criminals must be swiftly and effectively dealt with

October 14, 2025

Society is currently coping with many problems today. One that stands out quite a bit recently is how people react to a serious, or even a horrific event. It seems there is often an automatic effort to examine the situation to see if the perpetrator is involved in some situation that excuses what he or she did, and there is little or no compassion for the victim.

Here is an example: Brian Robert Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare, was shot and killed as he was minding his own business walking down the street in Midtown Manhattan, New York City, on December 4, 2024.

Charged with the murder is 26-year-old Luigi Mangione. Authorities believe Mangione was motivated by a perception that United Healthcare and the entire industry are “parasitic,” along with a negative opinion about corporate greed.

Murder, as we should all know and believe, is a serious crime. It quite often ends the life of a person for no good reason, and creates havoc and misery among the victim’s family, friends, and associates. It has serious and wide-spread repercussions.

Yet, while opinion polls showed that a majority of American adults find the killing unacceptable, quite a large group of younger respondents think the killing was acceptable, as they agreed with Mangione’s view of the healthcare industry. Worse than that, the polls showed that left-leaning respondents actually sympathized with Mangione, the murderer.

Victor Davis Hanson, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a widely published conservative commentator, wrote an article published in the Daily Signal addressing this situation.

In this article, Hanson discusses two murders committed by two trans shooters, and the way many people attempted to excuse them for their actions, due to their “troubled” lives. He also provided examples of how homeless people have been wholly or partially excused for their crimes, due to their being homeless.

His description of the reactions to these horrible events, and how we must react to them, instead, is right on.

“And when people act out violence, then we have to condemn it. If we don’t condemn it, we can’t deter it. And it’s no excuse that a person is transgender. None at all.”

“And so, what are we to do about this? I think all we can do is restore sanity and say: We’re not going to worry about a person’s homeless status. Once he commits violence, we’re not going to worry about their race. There’s not going to be any exemption for that. We’re not going to worry about their sexual orientation or whether they’re transitioning from one sex to another.

“All we’re worried about, if you commit an act of violence and destroy an innocent person’s life, you’re going to face swift punishment — swift punishment if you are found guilty.

“And we’re not going to consider all of the mitigating circumstances that this therapeutic society has bombed us with, and which prohibits fast and severe punishment for the guilty, who do what? They commit evil. And that’s the thing we’re worried about.”

As bad, or worse than, the “forgiveness efforts” for crimes such as killing innocent people because someone doesn’t like something about the way they live their lives is the ease with which people indulge in criminal activity. 

As reported on Al.com, “Police in two small Mississippi towns are investigating shootings during their schools’ homecoming weekend that left six people dead. Four people were killed in Leland after a high school football homecoming game there.

“The shootings happened in the downtown area of the small town where people had gathered following the game, state Sen. Derrick Simmons told The Associated Press.

“In a separate incident, two people were killed in Heidelberg during homecoming weekend Friday night, according to AP. Both were victims killed on the school campus Friday night, Heidelberg Police Chief Cornell White told The Associated Press. He declined to say whether the victims were students or provide other information about the crimes.”

We also see people interfering with federal agents who are rounding up illegal aliens in the country, most of whom are being sought due having committed other crimes in addition to being in the country illegally. 

While peacefully protesting these activities is protected speech, physically interfering with ICE agents, damaging ICE property, and physically attacking ICE agents are criminal activities.

This backwards morality is likely a result of the cultural deterioration that America has been experiencing over the last 20 or so years. Or, if not a direct result of that, it is certainly a factor.

A lack of discipline for children because of changed family structure and a weakened sense of right and wrong, changes in the curriculum of public education from which a general sense that America needs substantial changes has evolved, and are negatively and seriously affecting our culture.

As Hanson said, swift and significant punishment for crimes is a must. And the people who are charged with the responsibility of identifying criminality and seriously working for appropriate punishment must do their jobs.

Prosecutors and judges who use their political and personal feelings instead of following the laws are a menace to society, and must be replaced. 

The U.S. military is no place for “woke” policies to exist

October 7, 2025

The U.S. military services have a very specific, narrow and critical duty: to protect the United States from its enemies. That requires the personnel in all of the individual services to be highly capable, well-trained, well-disciplined and laser-focused on and heavily devoted to their duties.

Those who served during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and in the years following know well how the military operated, and how the various branches were focused on their duties.

In recent years, particularly during the tenure of former-President Joe Biden, that attention to the critical and highly focused job of the military took a sharp turn away.

Some of the mis-focused elements came before Biden took office, but they reached a critical level during those horrible four years.

Two people in the highest military leadership positions during that time were Lloyd J. Austin, the Secretary of Defense, and General Mark A. Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and were guilty of pushing these ideas.

For many years the “woke” syndrome infected the military, replacing sensible ideals such as military capability and lethality, with foolishness like diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). This caused division among members of the military forces, and diverted needed funds away from the necessities of the military.

One important thing the military had been emphasizing for decades was discouraging racism. But in June of 2020, Mark Esper, the Defense Secretary at the time, employed a new idea: teaching service members about “implicit bias.” This is the idea that there is an unspoken bias favoring white male service members, to the disadvantage of female and non-white service members.

He also established a system of DEI, which expanded during the Biden administration. Spending on this system totaled $68 million in 2022, increased to $86.5 million in 2023, and in 2024 the Department of Defense requested $114.7 million for DEI. 

The DEI system included pushing critical race theory, which is a Marxist concept where everyone is either an oppressor or is oppressed. Ideas such as white privilege, and systemic racism even infected the military academies, accompanied by encouragement of academy students to report any private conversations that contradicted the DEI concept.

Instead of military personnel spending their time maintaining and improving their high levels of performance and their sharp focus on military readiness, much of their time and mental attitudes were sidetracked toward ideals that are not just non-military, but are anti-military.

So, a bad trend that began small quite a few years ago has been growing, and growing quite fast in the last few years. But blessedly, the newly elected Donald Trump administration has a much clearer view of how the military must function, and why.

A new day has dawned at the Department of Defense. And two things are now prevalent and have created much controversy. The second of those is the decision by Trump to return to the Department its original title: The Department of War. As with everything Trump does or says, this has brought criticism.

But not nearly so much as the first of those two things: his choice for the Secretary of the then-Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth. Prior to his nomination, Hegseth worked for Fox News as a co-host on the network’s Fox and Friends Weekend program. 

Needless to say, the left went wild with criticism of his background at Fox News, and other things that the critics found to complain about. A predictable and fair question was, what qualifies him for this job?

Hegseth does have a military background, although some say it isn’t deep enough and broad enough for him to be in charge of our military forces. Some think that a better choice would be a flag officer with 20 years of service.

However, before his work in TV, Hegseth completed Reserve Officers’ Training Corps training while attending Princeton University. He later served as an officer in the U.S. Army National Guard from 2003 to 2021. He attained the rank of captain, and was deployed to Iraq in 2005-2006 with Army National Guard’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division. 

He was deployed to Afghanistan in 2011-2012. He served in Kandahar province with the Minnesota National Guard’s 1-194th Armor Battalion. And during his service he was awarded the Bronze Star.

Hegseth has offered a 10-point strategy to clean up the military branches, and to restore the military’s former and necessary discipline and focus. Those 10 points are:
1. Ending “politically correct leadership”
2. Imposing new physical fitness standards
3. Tackling ideological “garbage”
4. Eliminating anonymous complaints
5. Reinstating discipline and grooming standards
6. Focusing on military strength
7. Emphasizing merit
8. Redefining “toxic” leadership
9. Purging “woke” leadership
10. Revising personnel record retention

The hoopla over gender and ethnicity equality must be put aside. The gender and ethnicity of service members are irrelevant. What is relevant is each person’s ability to meet a set of standards designed to put the most qualified people in uniform. We want and need the most qualified people possible, and the mix of gender and ethnicity will be whatever it turns out to be, based upon choosing highly qualified people.

Radical language is dangerous and has no place in our politics

September 30, 2025

Some of those on the left are recklessly and incorrectly calling Donald Trump, everyone who works for him, and those who support him fascists and Nazis, and labeling the federal agents following his orders as the Gestapo.

Their goal, of course, is to fire up their followers and produce the most negative picture of Trump and his administration. 

And they are using language that is largely knowingly inaccurate and deliberately threatening. Why? Because more accurate, less radical language does not get the desired response from the chosen audience.

But these radical words may lead to violence and threats, and quite possibly already have. 

One example of this is that Delegate Kim Taylor, a Virginia Republican, recently received what she described as a politically motivated death threat. Taylor references a comment made by Virginia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger that she feels is one of the things that raised political tensions, and that may have encouraged the threat she received. 

Spanberger used a rallying cry in a campaign speech earlier this year for her supporters to “let your rage fuel you!” Appealing to rage is not a sensible approach.

On the question of whether Trump is a fascist, that subject was addressed in an article in The Hill last December by opinion contributor Jeremy Etelson. 

He addresses things Trump has done that are clearly not fascist: “During an existential emergency like a global pandemic, a fascist would not delegate decision-making authority to the decentralized state governments. A fascist would not attempt to limit the scope of public-private censorship. A fascist would not appoint judges and justices who interpret the Constitution in an originalist way that minimizes the authority of the federal government and its executive branch,” he explained. 

“A fascist would not end nebulous wars and avoid starting new ones. A fascist would not embrace and empower a diverse coalition of dissenting members of the opposing party who retain their divergent ideological viewpoints. And a fascist certainly would not sit down for hours-long interviews with counterculture, nonconformist stand-up comedians like Joe Rogan, Theo Von and Andrew Schulz. In classic non-fascist fashion, Trump did each of these things.”

The things Trump is trying to accomplish may not be popular with some, but they are generally legal, constitutional and sensible.

For example, finding and removing from our land those “migrants” who have entered the country illegally. Many of them are wanted for crimes in their native country, and/or have committed crimes here. This is something every American should support.

Yet thousands of Americans protest I.C.E. agents doing their job when they attempt to arrest illegals, and even physically interfere with them, and damage cars and other equipment.

If there are people working in the federal government who have disregarded their oaths and duties, then they should resign, and if not, they should be fired. If they have committed crimes, they deserve to be prosecuted.

Yet, there is great wailing and gnashing of teeth about those persons being removed from the federal payroll.

Republicans/conservatives essentially want a country that adheres to the original concepts that our Founders established, and are working toward re-establishing them. Many Democrats/liberals/socialists, on the other hand, want to change some of those original ideals.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees each of us the right to free speech, meaning that we can say pretty much what we want, short of inciting violence or other dangerous things. So, those who do not support the ideals that the Republicans/conservatives support certainly are constitutionally permitted to think and speak about their ideals. But they should do that without using language that not only encourages anger and potential violence, but is demonstrably false, or excessively exaggerated.

Perhaps one reason so many people so readily accept the charge that Trump is a fascist, Nazi, or whatever, is that they were not presented with a true course of history, or the truth about the ideals of the formation and development of the United States of America. And that miseducation, like much of the current flood of false radical language, is a result of leftist political action.

While students are not responsible for an education system that failed them, as Americans, they have the responsibility to conduct themselves in an acceptable manner. This applies to those of all political philosophies.

Even if Trump actually is a fascist or a Nazi, and if his policies are actually tenets of fascism or Nazism, the way to get rid of him and his policies is at the ballot box, not through inciting anger, or violence, or misusing the legal system.

Violent speech or actions are tools of weakness, used by those who are unable to achieve their goals through proper and acceptable methods.

Violence is not an acceptable way for Americans to act, and is not even acceptable behavior for any human being to use to correct things he or she dislikes. 

Further, continued violent actions will eventually encourage more violence, perhaps in the form of responses from the side that has been the victim of the original violence.

The political rhetoric and behavior must be toned down. We must force ourselves to behave honorably, and work peacefully toward our political aims.

Will our nation fall to the continued growth of negative power?

September 23, 2025

Those of us who are not radical leftists, or those who share the same philosophy, but use a different term, are aware of and worried about the left’s efforts to gain power over the rest of the country.

This situation is addressed in the new book by author, American lawyer, former president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, and political commentator, Mark Levin. Titled, “On Power,” this book addresses how power determines exactly how liberty and rights are manifested in our lives and our society

In chapter two, titled “On Negative Power,” Levin deals with the ways negative power limits individual liberty and sovereignty, noting that negative power is the weapon of Communist and fascist regimes, and terrorist quasi-states.

He also notes that negative power does not have to be aggressively pursued, and that western institutions — like the USA — “have been established gradually, by experience and practice, or constituted by design, to counter or limit the most aggressive forms of negative power, such as dictatorships or oligarchies.”

But even these well-thought-out systems become gradually susceptible to the less aggressive efforts of negative power. Levin calls this approach, “authoritarian democracy,” and says that this process may involve one branch of the democracy gaining power, or that all branches eventually coalesce into one.

He goes on to say that typically, unelected governmental branches, like the judiciary and the administrative state, gain power. That pretty much details what has happened to our government.

“In America — a constitutional republic that built barriers, checks and balances, and the separation of powers within the construct of the national government and between and among the national government and the state and local governments — the Constitution was established for the explicit intent of defending against the failed experiences of past republics, such as Athens and Rome, as well as the tyranny of the monarchy, such as Britain, or the mob, such as the French Revolution.”

Despite the thoughtful efforts to defend against the gradual growth of power by government, Levin says that these efforts “are unlikely to birth a republic forever safe from the … plotting of tyrannical minds and forces?”

What he calls “the cunningly named progressive movement” throughout history has worked to fundamentally transform the United States of America. In fact, former President Barack Obama said those very words.

“This is precisely why the early progressive intellectuals in America in the late 1800s and early 1900s, including future Democrat president Woodrow Wilson, relentlessly and furiously assailed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — especially separation of powers and federalism,” Levin wrote. 

“Wilson wrote about the need for a living and breathing constitution and insisted it be understood within an allegory to the human body,” he continued. “How, Wilson asked, can a person live if his organs are constantly working against each other rather than in harmony? In other words, separation of powers, the heart of the Constitution, is as deadly to America as the separation of organs in the human body would be.”

Levin then notes that Wilson and others believed that a complete change from the constitutional philosophy was needed. Wilson, he said, initially could not decide whether this new system should be accomplished by an all-powerful president or judiciary. He ultimately decided on what Levin called the most obvious and certain means, which was the judiciary.

“What better means to achieve the progressive ends, he believed, than the careful selection and appointment of ideological soul mates, who serve for life and without any effective method for public accountability,” Levin wrote, “who would drive this revolution and give it a legal pretext, justification, authority, and protection?”

“Indeed, if your objective is the fundamental transformation of constitutional republics and parliamentary democracies into centralized leviathans, the path of least resistance and maximum impact would seem to be the judiciary.”

We can see this plan in action, with the number of members of our federal judiciary who believe in a “living constitution,” a document that means whatever they want it to at any given time, and not what it meant at its origin, and should continue to mean forever, or until it is properly amended.

Texas Democrat Representative Jasmin Crockett exemplifies the living document idea with her recent comment that committing crimes does not make one a criminal. Other examples come from blue state and blue city judicial officials who decide that certain laws should not be enforced, and make dangerous and arbitrary decisions about bail for those charged with crimes, and reduced charges, or no charges, for serious crimes.

The Democrats have worked toward the “supreme judiciary” concept in their attempts to pack the Supreme Court by increasing the number of justices, and appointing their fellow progressives to the new seats. They also have appointed activist judges whose actions too often are politically driven to other federal court positions. We see judicial activism in action in the numerous recent federal district court rulings that attempt to impose rulings affecting the entire nation, rather than the parties involved, to achieve political ends.

The progressive movement has been active for more than a hundred years, but has not completely taken control of the country. But it has made progress, and it must be reversed.