Our tax system is a necessary mechanism, but is being misused

July 7, 2026

Taxes are one thing that many of us think about, and worry about. We understand that taxation is the primary way of financing government functions at all levels. And that by taxing citizens and businesses governments fund public services, infrastructure, and operations. The primary kinds of taxation are income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. 

Under the best of circumstances, governments will work to keep their financial needs as low as possible, while providing essential services, and little else. It’s no secret that such a scenario is not common in our country, although some states are moving in that direction.

Taxation is a broad topic with an array of features that generate interest. One of those is the sorts of tax systems we have here in the United States. 

One system for taxing earnings is progressive taxation, which is quite common. The term “progressive” means to move forward toward some target or goal — except in the case of political “progressives,” which is a faction with the goal of moving the country backward.

In taxation, a progressive tax is one that has higher rates as you go up the ladder of earnings. The more you make, the higher the rate of tax you are charged.

For example, in the U.S. the lowest 50 percent of taxpayers paid a rate of 4 percent. Moving up the earnings ladder, those in the 50 - 25 percent range paid 8 percent. Those in the 25 - 10 percent range paid 10 percent; the 10 - 5 percent range paid 14 percent; the 5 - 1 percent range paid 18 percent, and the top 1 percent of earners paid 26 percent.

The theory behind this is that the more money you make, the better able you are to pay more, while those at the lower levels cannot afford high taxes, and in the case of the lowest earners, any taxes. And while those with more money will pay more taxes under a progressive system, they would also pay more under a flat tax, where everyone pays the same rate. 

The tax system in the U.S. has been rated number 1: the most progressive tax system among the 33 developed countries. This, incidentally, is not a feather in our cap.

The political Left keeps shouting “tax the rich.” Well, just how much tax revenue does each group pay? In 2023, the top 1 percent of earners paid 38.4 percent of total tax revenue; the top 5 percent paid 59.3 percent of revenue; the top 10 percent paid 70.5 percent of revenue; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 3.3 percent of tax revenue.

And, half of all taxpayers actually paid 97 percent of all federal income taxes.

Will it matter at all to the progressive Left that the highest earning 1 percent paid well more than a third of all tax revenue? Or, that the top 5 percent paid well more than half of it? Do those figures justify the idea of the rich paying their fair share? Not to the progressive Left.

There are proposals in some states — including Washington, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York and California — to impose a wealth tax on the rich folks in addition to their regular tax rate. And there is the possibility of an increase in the amount the wealthy will have to pay for their Medicare and Social Security.

Massachusetts has imposed a 4 percent surtax on income over $1 million, and Washington is considering a 10 percent surtax on the same amount. California is considering a one-time tax of 5 percent on wealth above $1billion. Then there is the question of whether California will stick with just one time.

What these states may not realize is that it is not difficult for wealthy residents and businesses to pack up and move to a red state, if existing taxes, increases in taxes, or a bad business climate make life difficult for them. And some businesses have done this.

California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey lead the nation in how many businesses have moved out. And Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arizona are very happy to have accepted these companies and the jobs they brought to their states.

Governments ought to be thinking about how to keep taxes down for everyone. But they are more concerned with expanding their operations, often for things they should not do, and of course, taxes are how to finance those things.

They also apparently do not understand the benefits of what the wealthy would do with the money they could keep if tax rates were lower. They support local and other businesses when they buy houses, cars, clothes, furniture and other things. They invest in businesses. They support charitable organizations at levels that exceed the amount they can claim as deductions on their tax return. 

In its 250-year history, the U.S. government has moved well beyond the limits our brilliant Founders set for it. Those limits include what the government ought to do, and how much control it exerts over the people.

We should all hope that the efforts to eliminate some of the excesses is successful, and that we do move back to that original format.

250 years, and counting. How much further will we be able to go?

June 30, 2026

As everyone knows, this Saturday is a special day. It not only is America’s birthday, it is its 250th birthday. Most countries don’t make it that long.

Under the modern definitions of sovereignty and governance, there are currently 195 recognized countries: 193 United Nations member states and Vatican City and Palestine, which are regarded as “observer states.”

According to Britannica online, the number of those who do make it to 250 or beyond is well below 100. Countries are divided into two categories: Strict Continuity and Broad Continuity.

Approximately 20-30 have made it under Strict Continuity, which means they possess an unbroken state identity, government structure, and geographic boundary dating back to at least 1776.

Under Broad Continuity, approximately 40-60 countries qualify. These nations have experienced major shifts in government type or borders but have maintained a continuous, recognizable cultural and national identity.

And, we are told that throughout history there have been thousands to tens of thousands of nations that were established, and few have made it to 250.

The United States of America owes its lasting this long to its Founding Fathers and their vision to create a nation unlike any other, so far. Focusing on individual freedom and rights given to each of us at birth, they designed a country with a “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

That was a truly unique design, one that was the result of having lived in and witnessed other types of government systems that failed “the people” because that was not their focus.

For the better part of its 250 years, America’s design was taught, appreciated and highly regarded by the people. They appreciated their many freedoms which are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And that is what made America the highly appreciated and envied nation that it became and has been for a long time.

If you want to become a business person, a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, a CPA, a scientist, a construction worker, a driver, a politician, or whatever, you have the freedom to pursue that goal. You can buy whatever house, car, home appliances, hobby items, and other things you can afford. You can think as you please, although certain dangerous thoughts you might have should not be expressed, and not every action you might dream about is legal.

Through its life, our nation has moved beyond its original limits, with a federal government that has grown in size, cost and power over the people. But even so, our unique system still exists and thrives, and there are efforts to restore its original scope.

Other changes have also occurred that are as dangerous as the growth of the federal government, and perhaps more dangerous.

While differences of opinion have always been present, protected and tolerated, what we are seeing today from the political Left is extreme and dangerous to the future of our republic.

Which leads to a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin in 1787, as he was leaving Independence Hall during the Constitutional Convention. Asked what kind of government they had created, he replied, warning, “A republic, if you can keep it.” 

Franklin and his colleagues understood that the republic requires an informed citizenry that will be vigilant and strong supporters of the integrity of the system. The people elect the leaders, so they must be alert to challenges to the system.

Today, we have a large and growing segment of the citizenry that is not well informed about their country and its unique and wonderful benefits. Because they grew up with all of this already provided for them, and did not have to work for it, they have little understanding of how great this country already is.

The ideas the political Left wants to replace the original design with are socialistic, communistic ideas that sound good, but do not work and have always failed to produce anything nearly as good as what we have.

Their poisoned dreams include: Implementing government-run, zero-premium Medicare for All; tuition-free higher education and student debt cancellation; free universal childcare; implementing universal rent control; transitioning to a 100 percent renewable energy economy; defunding police, ending cash bail and mandatory minimums, and ultimately freeing incarcerated people; abolishing the Electoral College, and reducing the power of the Supreme Court.

In sharp contrast to the creators of these senseless ideas are the ultra-positive responses to this country from the European visitors who have come here for FIFA World Cup 2026, which ought to be an eye-opener for the Lefties.

Fox News reported that “the visiting fans from those nations really seemed to have enjoyed their time here, and who could blame them?” “[I]t's been fun to follow the exploits of fans from all corners of the world during this year's tournament.”

Liberal talk show host and comedian Bill Maher offered this enlightened comment: “The World Cup is at our shores, and all these people are doing us a great service. They are reminding Americans that this place is kind of awesome.”

Awesome, indeed! But socialists will work to make their changes, and only after will they realize what a horrible mistake it was.

Satisfactorily utilizing new things is always difficult

June 23, 2026

Why is it that every time some new thing comes along, there are always some negative aspects with it? Maybe some bad things are just part of the thing. Or, maybe those negatives really just result from how some people implement or put the thing to work.

One recent example is the data center craze. Data centers provide us with information and ways of using and accessing it. But they also take up a lot of space, use huge amounts of electricity and water, and those negative aspects affect the same people that the centers are designed to help.

The result has been significant opposition to data centers, as the people are noticing the negatives.

Another one is Artificial Intelligence, or AI. AI gives us smart devices and software that can do lots of things, including things that human beings are now doing. AI can accelerate processes, automate repetitive tasks, analyze huge datasets with high accuracy, reduce human error, and drive innovation.

So, what is wrong with that? Well, AI is accompanied by several issues, such as practical usability hurdles and profound societal and ethical dilemmas. Large Language Models sometimes produce factually incorrect or fabricated information, including false citations, and this can be a real problem in law, medicine, and education. Their huge data sets often contain historical prejudices, stereotypes, and cultural biases which raise concerns in areas like hiring, healthcare, and policing.

AI can be used to deceive people, like teachers, people who use applications for potential workers or scholarship applicants, etc. When a teacher, for example, assigns an essay to his or her students, will they be able to tell if the essay was written by the student, or AI? When you see a video of a well-known person giving you an “important” message, can you be sure it is not AI?

And, there are other issues, as well. One of the ones that will affect millions of Americans is that AI can and will replace lots of human workers. Yes, some AI will be used for work that doesn’t replace existing workers, by creating new areas of work. But, as time goes on, employers will see advantages to using AI instead of people for some tasks, as it can reduce operational costs, and provide other useful advantages. 

We already see some of that in stores where checkout is now available by computerized devices. This particular area has generated a good bit of criticism from shoppers, who say they prefer to be checked out by a person. That may be desirable to many, but others appreciate not having to stand in line waiting on the cashier to get to them.

To what extent should we expect AI to replace workers? The June edition of Newsmax magazine addresses this question. One chart shows potential full-time jobs currently being handled by people that may or will be handled by AI. This year, it could replace 25 million workers. By 2027, 45 million; by 2028, 55 million, 65 million by 2029, and by 2030, 99 million.

And the functions that AI will overtake include: 63 percent of Cashiers; 51 percent of Drivers; 42 percent of Translators; 26 percent of Stocking Associates; 24 percent of Customer Service Representatives; 23 percent of Bookkeepers; 21 percent of Cleaners; 19 percent of Bartenders; and 17 percent of Waiters.

Newsmax then tells us that of the 74.08 million women workers, AI may impact nearly 59 million of them. And, of the 84.21 million men workers, AI may impact 48.6 million of them.

The Big Question: What will these millions of replaced workers do to earn a living? Some may be ready to retire, and will choose to do that. Others may be able to perform other types of work that AI hasn’t yet been able to take over, or doesn’t replace as many as some other job types. But this may well be a very serious problem.

On the bright side, the Newsmax report has the results of a poll that shows that employees who have AI skills have more job security than those who do not. The categories: Definitely - 45 percent; Probably - 38 percent; Probably Not - 9 percent; Definitely Not - 3 percent; and Not Sure - 8 percent. So, learning about AI is thus encouraged.

Another poll shows that it is expected to benefit political candidates: Very Beneficial - 65 percent; Somewhat Beneficial - 31 percent; Not Very Beneficial - 3 percent; Not Beneficial At All - 0 percent; and Not Sure - 1 percent.

Returning to the data center subject, the idea of putting the centers in space has drawn some support. This will eliminate the use of millions of gallons water for cooling, as the temperature in space is cold. And being in space will provide massive amounts of solar energy, saving energy produced on Earth.

So, while there are good things about AI and data centers, we must be aware, and prepared to address the problems so that the American people get as much benefit from these new things as the faction that worships them and profits from them.

Europe’s immigration problems should be a warning to us!

June 16, 2026

Illegal immigration is still a hot topic today. There are many people who still think open borders and millions of illegal aliens roaming the country, getting financial support and other unearned benefits, committing murders and other crimes, is okay.

Others understand that there are so many reasons why we should not allow this anymore, including because it is illegal and against our established system of admitting legal immigrants. But, it still goes on, with heavy support.

A very informative post on Facebook, of all places, addresses this problem, and how it is affecting European nations. This post was written by former Mississippi State Senator Chris McDaniel.

“Europe is warning us again. We’d better listen,” McDaniel begins.

“For years, Western leaders told their citizens that open borders were compassionate. Enlightened. Inevitable. They told them national identity was outdated, that borders were relics, that assimilation wasn’t necessary, and that anyone who objected was simply afraid of the future.

“Well, the future has arrived,” he wrote.

“Across Europe, ordinary citizens are asking a question their leaders spent decades refusing to answer: what happens to a nation when it loses control of who enters, who stays, and what values govern public life?

“The answer is no longer merely theoretical.”

In Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Ireland, for example, they are learning the hard way why this is foolish. And dangerous. Schools and public services are overwhelmed. There is disorder in the streets, social tensions rise and native communities are now in competition with immigrant communities. And worse, native citizens see special consideration for the immigrant communities, as they are now not as important as the immigrants in their own country.

“Of course, that doesn’t mean every migrant is dangerous. It doesn’t mean every asylum claim is false. It doesn’t mean charity has no place in public policy,” McDaniel notes.

“Of course, mercy matters. A civilized nation should show mercy. But a civilized nation must also show prudence. Charity without order isn’t compassion. It’s surrender.”

McDaniel said that where these European nations went wrong was in not considering the real essence of what a nation is. It isn’t just an economy, or a labor market, or a tax base. It is much deeper than that.

“A nation is a people joined by memory, law, language, custom, sacrifice, and a common understanding of right and wrong. When that common understanding is weakened, everything else begins to shake,” he warned.

“A country can’t import the world’s conflicts, customs, grievances, and tribal divisions at unlimited scale and expect social peace to survive untouched. A country can’t tell its own citizens that their history is shameful, their traditions are disposable, their borders are illegitimate, and their concerns are hateful, then act surprised when trust in government collapses.”

And in the European countries, McDaniel noted that the governments are not taking lightly the complaints of their constituents. They have often responded with condescension and lecturing and scolding the citizens. 

However, here in the United States, where that same attitude was present under the Biden/Harris administration, it is not the case under President Donald Trump.

A large faction of the populace — primarily Democrats, socialists, liberals — still clings to the previously dominant idea that open borders are not only good, but essential. 

An example of just how wild and crazy these concepts of the left are, here is how Michell Wu, Boston’s Mayor, thinks things should be: “Every human being on the planet has the legal right to be in the United States. Regardless of their criminal record or even if they’ve outwardly stated their hate for this country. They have the right to be here, and voice their opinion.” 

One wonders if Wu would have the same sympathy for people illegally taking up residence in her house as she does for them illegally taking up residence in her country?

The Trump administration recognizes and follows the constitutional and legal mandates about immigration.

Despite the administration’s efforts to arrest and deport the illegals, especially those who have committed crimes, many leftist sympathizers still condemn actions to enforce our laws. This includes holding protests complaining about enforcing the laws that actually break laws. ICE and others agents are attacked and threatened.

Mayors and governors of blue cities and states provide sanctuary for illegals, as well as interfering with legal actions taken by the federal government.

A country belongs first to its own citizens. Its leaders aren’t elected to manage decline, dilute identity, or apologize for firm borders. They’re elected to preserve the nation entrusted to them.

The very first duty of our leaders — federal, state and municipal — is to their citizens, to preserve the nation, state or town/city they were elected to manage, and to do that legally and responsibly.

“So, the lesson for America is very clear,” McDaniel said. “We must not follow Europe’s lead.”

We can and must secure the border. And we must deport any and all who have broken our laws regulating immigration, and any and all other laws. We can re-establish a firm ideal of what citizenship is. We can require immigrants to adopt our values, speak our language, and become honorable productive Americans. And we must.

The USGS report has some good news for the mining industry

June 9, 2026

The folks in our region who have been around for a good while — the seasoned citizens — remember the days when the mining industry provided so much benefit to the area. Younger folks, however, are likely not aware of the benefits provided by the mining industry.

The Bluefield railyard was filled with Norfolk and Western Railway coal cars. The full ones were bound for Norfolk and other places where that coal was wanted and needed, and the many empty cars were waiting to be moved to the coal mines to be refilled. Area towns and cities were booming, with Bluefield’s population totaling somewhere between 23,000 and 29,000, and visitors from all over the coal fields were coming there to spend some time.

There were many stores, restaurants and movie theaters. And they were crowded, especially on the weekends. Just after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays there were two lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic on Bland Street and Federal Street crawling out of downtown trying to get home.

It was a great time for the region, and the coal mining industry provided a necessary fuel as well as a great economic benefit, not only to this region, but to the entire country.

And then the change started. Some new fuels were beginning to be used, and some existing ones were being used more than before, making coal mining less important. And later, the global warming/climate change mania came along, and the idea of using coal became a no-no, as it was supposed to be increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which the “experts” said was dangerous. 

While there is still a market for coal, and new uses of it are developing, the industry is a mere shadow of its former self. And it likely will increase some now that these new uses are being found and the fallacy of the idea that fossil fuels producing too much CO2 is being openly talked about and scientifically countered.

We also have seen recently efforts on the Trump administration’s part to benefit the coal industry, including a new coal-burning electric plant in West Virginia.

So, this and a recent news release provide a bright spot for the mining industry.

Other substances — minerals — have been in use for a long time, but are now playing a more significant role in our lives. They are used as fuel, in construction, and for other valuable purposes. We use them to build urban infrastructure and in household objects, such as for plumbing and electricity.

Much of the mineral supply we use here comes from other countries, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management is determined and working to increase our domestic supply of these critical materials.

One of those valuable minerals is lithium, and the most dominant suppliers of it currently are Australia and China. But there is a piece of good news for the Appalachian region regarding lithium. 

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) announced in April the following; “The Appalachian region of the eastern United States contains an estimated 2.3 million metric tons of undiscovered, economically recoverable lithium, enough to replace 328 years of U.S. imports at last year’s level.”

Wow! The USGS report continues: “So how much lithium have they found in them thar hills?? The estimated 2.3 million metric tons of lithium oxide in the Appalachian region would be enough lithium for batteries in: 1.6 million grid-scale batteries large enough to stabilize an electric grid; 130 million electric vehicles; 180 billion laptops, or a 1,000-year supply of laptops for the world (at 2025 levels); 500 billion cellphones, or 60 cellphones for each person on earth.”

“In other words, enough to make the U.S. energy independent for centuries, or at least until a new technology replaces lithium batteries.” And the USGS offers that 2.3 million metric tons may be a conservative estimate, and could possibly be as much as 7.4 million metric tons.

Not so long ago, the U.S. was the dominant lithium producer in the world. Now, three decades later, we may begin to reclaim that distinction.

The USGS report did not say exactly where these deposits are, although they are known to exist in North Carolina, South Carolina, Maine, and New Hampshire. So how much of an effect lithium mining might have on our immediate area is now currently not known. But USGS said that information covering the Appalachians from Maryland to Alabama will be published later. 

This discovery, along with the “go get it” attitude of the federal government to extract and use our own mineral supplies, hold great promise, both economically, and from a practical perspective for the country.

It is one element in the effort to bring back to America as much as possible of those products and the jobs that produce them that we willingly allowed to be moved to other countries for the last 30 or so years. In doing this we can create many jobs and reduce or eliminate high prices for products we purchase from other countries.

The idea of producing as many of the things Americans want and need as possible is a sound economic and patriotic idea.

Celebrating the United States of America’s 250th anniversary!

June 2, 2026

On July 4, 2026, the United States of America will observe and celebrate its 250th anniversary. This has a special designation: A 250-year period or anniversary is called a semiquincentennial. That term is a combination of Latin words: Semi - half; Quin - five; Centennial - 100th anniversary.

The large countries that manage to remain in existence for many, many years are identified as an “empire.” Examples are: The Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Russian Empire; the Mongol Empire, and the Persian Empire. Whether the United States of America is an empire or not can be debated. However, because it has existed for 250 years, it is often discussed in terms of being an empire.

Once, empires were thought to last maybe 300 years, and some lasted much longer. More recently, that has been reduced to around 250 years. And that is where we Americans find ourselves. How much longer will our “empire” last?

In some ways, the country is stable. Its design is head and shoulders above any other in history. However, there are other countries and factions that want to see our demise. And, worse, there are those within the country that want to weaken its strong foundation, and dramatically change it.

Ryan McMaken wrote a piece for the Mises Wire in April titled, “We Are Living in the Fourth American Republic.” It covers four steps since our founding that detail how the country has moved away from the fundamentals established in the U.S. Constitution, and how that is not recognized by either the Democrats or the Republicans in government.

“There is a certain subspecies of conservatives in which the members seem impervious to the abundant evidence all around us that the constitution of the ‘founding fathers’ is a dead letter and the old American republic is now a relic of the past,” he wrote.

“The constitutional order … ceased to exist at least a century ago. The constitution itself — that is, the one ratified in 1788 — hasn’t been in force for a very long time.”

“Many Americans have a certain gift for allowing themselves to be deceived into believing that the words of the written constitution actually describe the de facto reality around us,” he said.

“So, the fact that politicians swear an oath to the old 1787 constitution manages to fool many people into thinking that the politicians actually care what the original intent of the constitution was. An honest assessment of the state of American politics should make it clear today’s politicians — like most politicians over the past century — couldn’t care less about such antiquated notions.”

Whatever the degree of truth one might believe that statement holds, it is clear that one side of the political aisle is much farther from the original intent of the Founders than the other. One side is holding true to what it believes the Constitution says and means, while the other is working overtime to change those fundamental features that deny them the path to total and perpetual power, as well as other changes in the operation of government.

The Democrats want to make Washington, DC a state, a move that would undo something deliberately avoided by the Founders, who believed no state should house the federal capital, because of the degree of power that state would accrue. They also want to make Puerto Rico a state.

On their list is doing away with the Electoral College. However, the Founders wanted to ensure that every state has a meaningful voice in electing the President, hence it was created.

On their list as well is that upon the next Democrat President being elected, pack the Supreme Court by adding additional justices selected by the new President to give the Court a liberal majority forever.

And, there are steps in their method of change that are already under way. Certain career areas where politics is not supposed to exist have been polluted by politically-motivated players.

The brilliant Thomas Sowell, one of today’s most intelligent and thoughtful observers, has warned that we should be aware of our country’s destruction from the inside.

We see prosecutors and judges who ignore existing laws because they disagree with them, giving benefits to the guilty they do not deserve, while preventing victims from getting the benefits they do deserve. If laws are disliked, change them. But do not simply ignore them.

We see “protesters” who object to certain laws and legal actions eagerly breaking laws in an effort to stop what they dislike.

And there’s the degradation of public education by teachers and administrators who improperly replace the traditional curricula with their preferred types of instruction. Critical Race Theory instead of actual history, for example.

Meanwhile, Republicans, conservatives, and others who oppose these efforts will continue to reverse those actions already in place, and to prevent the others from getting put in place.

It is really sad that so many do not understand why our system is worthy of protection. After years of oppressive, unfair rule, the colonies rebelled, and formed a system that guaranteed personal freedom and an end to authoritarian rule. Yet, today, many prefer a return to authoritarian rule, with them in charge.

New things have much glitter, but often some dents and dust

May 26, 2026

Recently, concerns have arisen over data centers. Data centers are the support system of the internet -- servers, networking equipment and things that provide cooling, power backup, fire suppression and security. In short, they keep these digital services running reliably.

Data centers arose in the mid-20th century and had a strong growth spurt in the 1990s, as the use of the internet grew.

US News & World Report tells us: “The U.S. has more than 4,000 data centers, which is nearly eight times the number of any other country. With thousands more planned or under construction, their energy demand is expected to more than double by 2030.

As with any new and popular development, there are important issues with the centers. The World Resources Institute lists seven problem areas.

1. Managing soaring energy demand - As technology advances and computing demand grows, data centers are becoming increasingly energy hungry. A single modern AI data center can use as much power as 100,000 homes; many of the larger ones now being built are expected to consume up to 20 times that amount.

2. Protecting local water supplies - Data centers require huge amounts of water to keep servers cool enough to function. Mid-sized facilities can use up to 300,000 gallons of water a day, while large facilities can consume as much as 5 million gallons daily — comparable to what a small town uses.

3. Reducing air pollution and climate impacts - Data centers need a constant and reliable power supply. Many facilities rely on gas-fired generation for routine operations alongside diesel generators for emergency backup. Both come with climate and health risks.

4. Mitigating noise - Data center construction, rooftop cooling systems and backup generators can be disruptively noisy. Smaller diesel generators reportedly reach 85 decibels, levels that can harm hearing. Larger industrial units can approach 100 decibels — equivalent to a motorcycle or jackhammer.

5. Addressing competition for land - Massive data centers are reshaping how land is used in many communities. In 2024, the average data center site covered about 224 acres or 0.35 square miles — roughly the size of 450 football fields. This represents a 144% increase since 2022. Developers are increasingly seeking large parcels for multi-building campuses that allow for phased construction and future expansion. Hyperscale facilities require even more land, with the largest campuses exceeding 1,000 acres, or about 1.6 square miles, according to a recent report from the Wisconsin Farm Bureau.

6. Reducing pressure on marginalized communities - Emerging analyses suggest that some data center siting patterns could compound long-standing environmental and economic challenges. A national review of roughly 700 data centers across the country found that nearly half are in census tracts with above-median environmental burdens, such as air pollution, park access and water pollution, as measured by the Center for Disease Control’s Environmental Justice Index. Many were located in areas with social vulnerability indicators, such as poverty and lower education levels.

7. Balancing economic trade-offs - Data center development can create real economic opportunities. Their construction generates hundreds of well-paying — though temporary — jobs for technicians, electricians and other local building trade workers. There are also good-paying opportunities for full-time staff, like technicians, security staff and facility managers.

And a new issue has come to light. “Few studies have examined how data centers affect health, but findings so far suggest data centers warrant closer scrutiny as a potential public health concern.

“’Really nobody is talking about the health impacts of data centers,’ says Neha Gour, one of the authors of the new study, which was published in the journal Frontiers in Climate. ‘And today, when we talk of digital infrastructure, or even any infrastructure for that matter, not including a health component is a huge gap that we need to address.’

“Gour’s study focused on Northern Virginia, an area often referred to as “Data Center Alley” because it is one of the largest concentrations of data centers in the world. It is home to more than 500 data centers that handle a significant portion of the world’s internet traffic, as high as 70 percent by some estimates.”

Currently, West Virginia has no data centers, as of the US News report from last month. 

And due to the health and other issues, there is a rather loud and growing force of opposition to having data centers in or too near residential areas. It is, of course, not necessary for data centers to be near residential areas, but they often are, because the preferences of developers and other stakeholders are very important to local governments.

However, some local governments are awakening to the complaints of their citizens, and are becoming more concerned with the effects of the centers on them. Some have even imposed a moratorium on new centers while they evaluate both sides of the issue.

Together, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data centers were first recognized for their new and beneficial attributes. But as they become more widely known, the negative aspects emerge. 

The negatives can no longer be swept under the rug while they receive beneficial treatment. The effects these “wonders” have on the people must be given first place on the list of what’s important.

Our political atmosphere is a warning sign of coming disaster

May 19, 2026

A recent commentary by columnist George Will was about a possible presidential candidate of the Republican party. In a statement, the “candidate,” quoted Tennessee’s Republican governor Bill Lee. “I’m a conservative. I’m just not angry about it.”

The potential candidate then said, “Americans who enjoy the tone and substance of today’s politics can choose from candidates promising more of the same. But voters who are exhausted and embarrassed by endless turmoil and vitriol from both sides of the political spectrum deserve a choice, not an echo.”

That statement, whether by an actual candidate or a make-believe one, is very true. The political atmosphere today contains anger, exaggeration, outright dishonesty, and un-American attitudes and actions.

As unpleasant as an angry atmosphere may be, it is far less harmful than un-American philosophies and the dishonest and foolish policies being used to put them into use.

There is an abundance of such politicians today, so let’s take a look at a few.

Katie Wilson, a self-described democratic socialist, is the mayor of Seattle, Washington. Her campaign for mayor was noted by some publications as much like that of current New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani.

Like Mamdani’s mayoral experience, Wilson’s new taxes and progressive policies have led to some wealthy residents and businesses leaving the state. Not about to acknowledge the harm her actions have done, Wilson laughingly commented, “I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are super over-blown, and if, you know, the ones that leave — like, Bye!” Then she laughed.

Such arrogance is not a good thing. And it was criticized by Republicans and some Democrats, saying her approach to economic development was careless, and some calling it “anti-business.”

Speaking of Mamdani, his successful campaign for mayor depended heavily on making living in NYC easy on people. Free buses, free childcare, and government-owned-and-operated grocery stores. 

This all sounds good, like most of what socialists think really is good. But “free stuff” isn’t free, and it isn’t cheap. It must be paid for, and those payments come from taxpayers: people, wealthy and not wealthy, and businesses, large and small.

And now Mamdani knows that under current circumstances, the City can’t afford all that free stuff. The reality is that NYC’s budget is already larger than almost every state in the country. He announced in a press conference recently that the City faces a financial “crisis of historic magnitude.”

“Years of mismanagement and chronic under budgeting, alongside a structural imbalance between what New York City sends to the state and what we receive in return, have taken a toll,” he said. The problem is one of “revenue.”

So, with an already serious budget problem, and the promises of free stuff for all, guess what the solution is: raise taxes — not just on the wealthy, but likely on everyone — along with some new and/or increased user fees.

And now, just like Seattle, businesses and the wealthy are leaving the City.

Millionaires, billionaires and businesses are often not popular. However, they do provide some positives in a city or state. Businesses provide things like jobs, products and services, taxes. Wealthy people buy homes, cars, household goods, and donate to needy and beneficial organizations, and pay taxes. 

Virginia Democrats, led by new Governor Abigail Spanberger, who campaigned saying that gerrymandering was unacceptable, tried to redraw voting district lines in the state to give Democrats enormous dominance in a state not nearly dominated by Democrats. The State Supreme Court ruled against that failed plan on constitutional grounds. That is exactly what honest and politically unbiased judicial bodies and judges are expected to do.

Outraged that their illegal plan was properly discovered and killed, the next political ploy of the Democrats is to get rid of the State Supreme Court Justices who made the proper decision on that issue.

The plan is to make the Court a politically biased legislative body instead of a politically neutral judicial one.  And they would do that by having the General Assembly lower the mandatory retirement age for Justices from the current 75 years of age to 54 years of age. As it turns out, 54 is the age of the youngest of the current Justices. 

And then, guess what? The General Assembly, which has a majority in both chambers of the legislature, would then appoint younger replacements from the ranks of their Democrat brothers and sisters who, like them, play not by the laws and the state and federal constitutions, but by their own set of rules, the Democrat rules.

Perhaps these Democrat leaders should be admired for being so open about their subversive, dishonest and illegal methods.

The socialistic efforts of these and other mayors and governors across the country are contrary to the fundamental structure of the United States of America. They want to tear down the most free system yet created, and replace it with a system of eternal failure.

And when they can’t get their way, desperation forces them to cheat to give them the things they are unable to get through an honest election process.

The three examples here ought to be a blazing warning sign against “progressivism,” and socialism.

The view of Earth’s energy production and climate is evolving

May 12, 2026

Climate and energy are two very important topics. They can be closely related and over the last few decades they have been very closely related. Very serious problems were predicted to effect Earth’s climate due to the damage fossil fuels were supposedly causing.

The Fulcrum7 website provided a list of predictions of disaster due mostly to our energy production that did not come true:

1) In 1970, S. Dillon Ripley, a wildlife conservationist who served as secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, warned that 75 percent to 80 percent of species would be extinct by 1995.

2) In 1970, Kenneth Watt, an ecologist and professor at the University of California, Davis, warned that "there won't be any more crude oil," that "none of our land will be usable" for agriculture, and the world would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. 

3) In 1970, biologist Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University warned that by the end of the decade up to 200 million people would die each year from starvation due to overpopulation, life expectancy would plummet to 42 years, and all ocean life would perish. 

4) In 1970, Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, predicted that "world population will outrun food supplies" and "the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine" by the year 2000.

5) In 1971, Dr. S. I. Rasool, an atmospheric scientist at NASA, predicted the coming of a "new ice age" within 50 years.

6) In 1975, Ehrlich, the Stanford biologist, warned that 90 percent of tropical rainforests and 50 percent of species would disappear within 30 years. 

7) In 1988, Hussein Shihab, environmental affairs director of the Maldives, warned that his island nation would be completely underwater within 30 years, which wouldn't even matter because experts also predicted the Maldives would run out of drinking water by 1992.

8) In 2004, a Pentagon analysis warned of global anarchy due to climate change.  Major European cities would be underwater by 2020, at which point Britain would suffer from a "Siberian" climate.

9) In 2008, Bob Woodruff of ABC News hosted a two-hour climate change special warning that New York City could be underwater by 2015, among other apocalyptic predictions.

10) In 2009, former vice president and climate activist Al Gore predicted the Arctic Ocean would have no ice by 2014, which is the same thing Greta Thunberg said would happen by 2022.

Al Gore also issued several other warnings that were false, including: Kilimanjaro’s no more snows within a decade; Glacier National Park glaciers gone by 2020; Polar ice caps ice free by 2016.

Enough scientists and others agreed with these predictions, forcing decisions on energy production that had significant negative influences on the American people, how they lived and where they worked. Fossil fuels, which were the primary sources of energy production for decades, were ruled dangerous, and wind and solar production were advertised as the solutions to the dangers of fossil fuels.

Coal-fired electric plants were closed or scheduled for closure. Mining operations were cut back or shut down. And the use of wind and solar facilities was increased.

As time has passed, the problems with wind and solar have become more well-known. Solar panels don’t work when the sun doesn’t shine, and wind turbines don’t work when the wind doesn’t blow. Thus, dependable 24-hour-per-day backup systems and large battery facilities are needed. 

Both wind and solar systems take up lots of land and use materials that are difficult and expensive to obtain, and their panels and turbines are also difficult or impossible to recycle after they wear out.

And now the scientific reality of clean, renewable energy being so much better is being weakened by scientific data from scientists who are not afraid to talk about the understated problems of wind and solar, and the overstated problems of fossil fuels.

A good many respected scientists say that not only is CO2 not the huge problem we have been told it is, but that we actually need more of it to contribute to plant growth, which will produce more oxygen and consume more CO2.

The reality of the problems of wind and solar, and the exaggerated story of CO2 problems caused by fossil fuels are now recognized for the damage they have done. We are seeing shut down coal-fired power plants reopening, along with the mining industry beginning a comeback.

Chris Hamilton, President of the West Virginia Coal Association, tells us that, “There are moments when events strip away the luxury of theory and force a return to first principles. This is one of those moments. Recently, President Donald Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to strengthen America’s coal supply chains and reinforce the backbone of reliable, affordable electric generation. The order authorizes federal support for mining, transportation, export and domestic terminals, generating unit availability, and long-term fuel security. It is a direct acknowledgment that coal remains indispensable to the stability of the American power system and to the broader national interest.”

The coal industry, so helpful to our area in the past, likely won’t reach its previous levels. But increased coal use will be a good thing.

A different way of thinking about President Donald Trump

May 5, 2026

President Donald J. Trump is an enigma. He is liked and respected by many, and disliked and the subject of negative wishes by many others. In fact, the high degree of dislike for him by his political foes causes many of them to be unable to objectively judge the things he does. Instead, an automatic response to his actions is, “that is horrible, stupid, Hitlerian, fascist, Nazism,” etc.

His supporters, however, even though many do not automatically endorse his every move, like most of what he does. This is because they are not blinded by hatred, and are able to see positive results from many/most of his actions.

A really good, sensible, and objective analysis of Trump was offered during his first term as President by Charles Krauthammer.

In case you don’t know, Krauthammer was a brilliant, respected, and widely published political columnist who started out as a moderate liberal and later turned independent conservative. He won the Pulitzer Prize for his columns in The Washington Post in 1987, and is credited for writing this fine column in March of 2018, not long before he passed away.

Not blinded either by love or hate, Krauthammer’s estimation of Trump was this: “Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He's a ‘Pragmatist.’ (Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn't let emotion distract him or her.)”

Clearly, and thankfully, Trump is not a liberal. And many of those on the right criticize him for not being conservative enough. So, Krauthammer’s view makes sense.

He goes on to mention problems with both the liberal and conservative perspectives, and how Trump sees things. “I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn't see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

“Viewing problems from a Liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata. 

“Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well-being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow.”

And, as an example, he cites a problem current in 2018. “Trump uniquely understands that China's manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it.

“Here again, successful businessmen, like Trump, who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work, you don't continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will. 

“As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15/hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl's Hamburgers.”

Next, he cites five reasons why people don’t, or may not, like Trump:

“(1) he is antithetical to the ‘good old boy’ method of brokering back room deals that fatten the coffers of politicians;

“(2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a president speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who he owes vis-a-vis donations;

“(3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology;

“(4) he says what he is thinking, is unapologetic for his outspoken thoughts, speaks very straightforward using everyday language that can be understood by all … making him a great communicator, for the most part, does what he says he will do and;

“(5) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.”

Instead of viewing Trump as a rich guy intruding into the “sacred” world of politics, viewing him as an apolitical problem solver could result in less radical, and more calm reactions to his efforts to resolve America’s problems. And be realistic: nobody is always wrong. Even Joe Biden and Barack Obama weren’t always wrong.

Put aside the fervent desire to replace our unique and superior governmental system with a failed socialist/communist system that puts nearly everyone at the mercy of a few authoritarian “leaders” who care nothing about rights and freedoms, and who care only about themselves.

Krauthammer’s idea of a pragmatist being precisely what the country needs at this time should be appreciated. Don’t let Trump’s often offensive comments prevent seeing the beneficial things that are happening.

“Donald Trump put his total financial empire at risk in running for president and certainly did not need or possibly even want the job,” Krauthammer wrote. “He wants success for the U.S. and her citizens because he loves his country.”

The left’s chosen direction for America is very troubling

April 28, 2026

The Democratic Party has begun to look ahead to the 2028 election. And the results of a recent poll show the following candidates for president and their degree of support: Kamala Harris - 22 percent; Gavin Newsom - 21 percent; Pete Buttigieg - 12; percent; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - 10 percent; Josh Shapiro - 5 percent; Cory Booker - 4 percent; Mark Kelly - 3 percent; JB Pritzker - 3 percent; Gretchen Whitmer - 2 percent; Andy Beshear - 2 percent; Jon Ossoff - 2 percent; Ro Khanna - 1 percent; Raphael Warnock - 1 percent.

While some are more radical than others, there is not one who qualifies as a moderate, or traditional Democrat.

With that many candidates, no one would likely get a big number of voters. However, with only four getting double-digits, most of them can be ruled out, unless things change and a later poll has different numbers. So, is it Harris, Newsom, Buttigieg, or Ocasio-Cortez? And then, which of the others, if any of them, would be selected as the candidate for vice president?

No true American with traditional values is on that short list. But then, today’s left is not interested in true American values, or electing someone with them to office.

Whichever one or two of these people ultimately gets the nod, a move toward more centrist politics is highly unlikely.

Two recent elections support that assertion: Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor of New York City, and Abagail Spanberger, the new governor of Virginia.

Mamdani is determined to make New York a socialist wonderland, while Spanberger is driving Virginia to replace California as the least appealing place in the country.

Mamdani, a democratic socialist, campaigned as a progressive, supporting fare-free city buses, city-owned grocery stores, a $30 minimum wage, tax increases on businesses and the wealthiest individuals, and other similar things. And he has followed that line as mayor.

Spanberger, on the other hand, ran on a moderate platform, but has removed the moderate mask. She now supports liberal positions on energy, immigration and fiscal policy. She supported the gerrymandering issue allowing the creation of districts that are — all but one — Democrat dominated. This, after previously condemning gerrymandering as unacceptable. Her rating is 47 percent approval, 46 percent disapproval, unusually low for a new governor, and surprising, given her 15-point election margin. 

Add to those two the other socialist/liberal/progressive mayors and governors, and we have a party abandoning the tried and true principles and guaranteed freedoms America has enjoyed for more than two centuries.

One piece of evidence of that radical philosophy is supported by a recent survey by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) which looked at campus culture, and how free speech is viewed by colleges. 

It found that “65 percent of colleges earn an ‘F’ for their speech climate in FIRE's College Free Speech Rankings, the largest survey ever conducted on campus free speech. 34 percent of students find some level of acceptance for violence to stop a campus speech. 70 percent of Americans say higher ed is going in the wrong direction.”

As we all know, the third attempt on President Donald Trump’s life occurred last Saturday at the White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington, DC. Fortunately, no one was killed, and the only injuries were reportedly not life threatening.

This, like the two previous attempts on Trump’s life, seems to be another in a string of violent events where someone wants to murders a person because the murderer doesn’t like what the victim says or does. 

While these actions are not part of the political agenda of the Democratic Party, or of Democrats, this trend seems to be indulged in by people who are not on the right of the political spectrum.

But regardless of the political perspective of these committing murders and attempting murders, these actions are extremely far outside of the political processes of the United States of America. We do not murder or use violence against our political or social foes! This is not Iran or Venezuela.

Life is a precious gift. Who has the right to decide when someone else’s life should end?

Did Charlie Kirk deserve to die because in public events he peacefully presented different views than some of those in the audience?

Did United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson deserve to be shot and killed on a New York street because of his job?

Does a President of the United States deserve to die because his name is Donald Trump, or because of his efforts as President?

If you dislike a person’s ideas, you don’t kill them. You oppose their ideas. You make an argument against whatever it is that bothers you. Each of us is free to think and believe as we choose. And we can express those beliefs, so long as that expression does not go against our laws. 

What has happened in the not too distant past to explain how this sort of illogical and violent thinking has taken hold? How can any American even consider such behavior, let alone indulge in it? Whatever the cause, the punishment for such violence should be swift and fierce.

Justice Thomas addresses the progressive attack on America’s freedom

April 21, 2026

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1990. And, on July 1, 1991, Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court of the United States, and he was confirmed by the Senate on October 15, 1991.

Prior to that he earned his Juris Doctor degree in 1974 from Yale Law School. He was an assistant attorney general in Missouri, served as legislative assistant to U.S. Senator John Danforth, was Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

He is the longest-serving justice since Anthony Kennedy's retirement in 2018. And, since the death of former Justice Antonin Scalia, he is the Court's foremost originalist.

Originalist’s sensible approach is that the laws and the U.S. Constitution must be understood in terms of what they meant when they were enacted, not some modern interpretation that ignores their original meaning and purpose, and instead is interpreted as if the law or Constitution was just enacted.

Thomas, therefore, is a “judicial conservative,” which is not a political conservative, but one who adheres to the original meaning of laws and the Constitution, rather than applying liberal thinking to the process, which means a law or the Constitution can mean different things at different times.

Speaking last week at the University of Texas Austin School of Law, Thomas addressed what he identified as a critique of modern political trends. He said that America’s founding principles are under attack from ideological shifts in academia and government.

The values that are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence have “fallen out of favor,” and are under assault by progressives. "Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government," Thomas told the audience. This movement rejects the idea that rights come from God and instead places complete authority in government institutions, Thomas said.

Our founding documents assert the concept that all people are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights. The definition of unalienable (or inalienable) is that rights are fundamental, inherent entitlements that cannot be taken away, sold, or transferred, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

And, Thomas noted that the Constitution was designed to limit government power, and to acknowledge and protect our liberties.

These documents protected Americans from centralized government authority and the majority controlling the minority. He cited principles — such as separation of powers and federalism — as safeguards against centralized authority and majority overreach, which are characteristics of many less-free nations.

History, he said, offers many lessons on the dangers of abandoning natural rights, where strong governments have suppressed those rights. Again, he noted that our system was intentionally designed to prevent this by restraining the government and empowering the citizenry.

But progressivism prefers the government to control everything, even the individual freedoms that the Constitution guarantees us, destroying those freedoms.

And history, Thomas said, is rife with examples of powerful governments suppressing individual freedoms, and the terrible results that followed.

He traces the roots of progressivism back about a hundred years, to early 20th-century, where figures such as President Woodrow Wilson advocated for a larger and more powerful federal government, drawing his inspiration from what had occurred in European nations.

Wilson also said that the Constitution should be read in light of changing conditions. But that is wrong. The Constitution must be read and understood as when it was first created. If changes are deserved, then they can be made through the established process, not simply by current justices who don’t like them, or don’t understand them, simply pretending they don’t exist.

And that also holds true for fundamental principles. Those principles cannot simply be ignored. They have been firmly established through due process. If there is good reason and ample support for changing them, then go through the established process to change them.

During this troubled time of the worst political division in decades, Thomas asked all Americans to rediscover the courage and conviction that our Founders possessed. "In my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration had so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs," he said.

That future has lasted in pretty stable form for nearly 250 years. But it has serious problems today, presented by those who do not understand our system, or who do not appreciate it.

It is interesting that as a unique system of government that has proven its worth for two and a half centuries, so many of those who live in this country and benefit from it, want to change it to something that has been proven to be a failed system over those same 250 years.

If the progressives are successful in their effort to subvert our constitutional republic, they may not live long enough to suffer the consequences of that subversion, as it will take some time to totally ruin the country. But their children and grandchildren most certainly will.

Gas prices will come down, but other troubles lie ahead

April 14, 2026

Gas prices have been very high for the last five years. While such things are frequently blamed on the current administration, and often rightly so, there are quite a few factors involved. Some of those are: availability and the price of crude oil, refining costs and profits, transportation, storage, blending and retail, regulations, and taxes.

Another factor is the company from which you may purchase gas. Some gas stations can purchase gas at better prices than others due to various factors, including the size of their company and how much gas it purchases for all of its subsidiaries. Smaller companies, or single stations do not have the purchasing power of larger companies.

In the Biden/Harris administration, the main factor was regulation. Today, in the Trump administration the military activity in Iran is a big factor. However, one major factor that is not usually addressed in such cases is the effect federal and state taxes have on prices.

Data from taxfoundaton.org tells us that the federal government charges 18.4 cents per gallon. While each administration could perhaps do something about that, they rarely do. And something administrations cannot do anything about is the amount of taxes each state places on fuels. This is generally referred to as a “user fee.”

Additional information from taxfoundation.org is a list of state gas taxes, which range from 8.95 cents per gallon in Alaska to 70.92 cents per gallon in California. The difference between the highest and the lowest state tax rate is nearly 62 cents per gallon.

The five highest gas taxes in the country are: 
California - 70.92 cents per gallon
Illinois - 66.4 cents per gallon
Washington - 59.04 cents per gallon
Pennsylvania - 58.7 cents per gallon
Indiana - 54.5 cents per gallon
Michigan - 48.2 cents per gallon

On the other side of this issue are the five lowest gas taxes:
Alaska - 8.95 cents per gallon
Hawaii - 18.9 cents per gallon
New Mexico - 18.88 cents per gallon
Arizona - 19 cents per gallon
Oklahoma and Texas - 20 cents per gallon

Local readers may be interested to see that Virginia drivers pay 41.6 cents per gallon and West Virginia drivers pay 35.7 cents per gallon in taxes.

So, in the state with the highest tax rate, California drivers will pay 89.32 cents per gallon in taxes, and drivers in Alaska will pay 27.35 per gallon in taxes, when the federal tax is figured in.

Thus, while the actions of a given administration may have a positive or negative effect on gas prices, state and federal taxes definitely have an effect.

Looking at per gallon gas prices over the recent past, provided by the Energy Information Administration, average prices in President Donald Trump’s first term were $2.42 in 2017, $2.72 in 2018, $2.60 in 2019 and $2.17 in 2020.

During President Joe Biden’s tenure, prices were $3.01 in 2021, $3.95 in 2022, $3.52 in 2023, and $3.30 in 2024.

When Trump took office for the second term in 2025, the average price was $3.10. By February of 2026, the average price had dropped to $2.80.

The current rise in prices has a few factors behind it, including the increases in crude oil prices due to the Iran conflict. Also, prices tend to begin rising each spring, as spring break and vacation travel picks up, increasing demand for gasoline.

The general feeling is that when the Iranian conflict slows or ends, and when travel slows in the fall, prices will return closer to the level of Trump’s first term.

As if the high fuel costs were not enough of a problem, an article in the April issue of Newsmax magazine reports on efforts of some states to track how much their citizens drive. “Critics warn they will inevitably lead to user fees based on miles driven, thereby restricting the long-cherished American dream of hitting the open road.”

The article continues, suggesting this “Big Brother” technique will enable states to track your every move, and “also impose a per-mile surcharge to discourage commuting or long-haul driving.” “It could also be used to penalize those who drive during rush hour or other peak driving times.”

One goal of this vehicle tracking is to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions by limiting auto mileage and to compensate for declining gas tax revenues caused by electric vehicles and more efficient gas-powered engines.” Or maybe, if this doesn’t work, they will just raise the gas tax. Drivers in California, Illinois, Washington, et al, will surely like that.

Economist Stephen Moore worries that such fees could cause prices to rise, as the cost of delivering merchandise will rise. He also noted, “The fact that they’re going to have these monitors, it’s almost like having a camera on you everywhere you go.”

Noting that vehicles are “liberating inventions,” you can go where you want, when you want, he says, “That’s why Communist countries didn’t allow people to have automobiles. They love mass transit because they know where you’re going, and they can direct where you are going.”

Given the negatives of vehicle tracking, maybe this temporary rise in gas prices isn’t as bad as we think it is.

“Birthright citizenship” is a foolish and dangerous practice

April 7, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently addressing the issue of birthright citizenship, which has been around for quite a while.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is at the root of this problem. It was enacted following the Civil War in 1868 to provide citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children, and ensuring they were recognized as citizens by both the federal government and their home states. It was a key Reconstruction amendment, not an award of citizenship to just anyone.

There is a legal process for immigrants to become a citizen. That process has been in existence in various forms for over 235 years, beginning with the first official naturalization law in 1790. This process has evolved over the years, and it has never held that all that is needed to become a citizen is to be born here.

It is difficult to imagine that the intention of the 14th Amendment was ever to allow everyone born in the U.S. to automatically be a citizen, regardless of the circumstances surrounding being born in the country. Yet, for a long time, it has been regarded as an approved process. This makes a strong case for the idea of relying on “original intent” when interpreting the Constitution and laws.

Giving citizenship to anyone/everyone who is born here without any other considerations makes no sense. A pregnant woman of the Chinese Communist Party comes to Mexico and crosses the border illegally at 2:00 a.m., then gives birth at 4:00 p.m. in the United States, and later returns to China. Why should her child be a citizen? Why should any child born to an illegal alien, or to anyone not a citizen, be given citizenship?

And the language of the 14th Amendment actually contains a clause which somewhat provides restrictions: “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.”  

Illegal aliens and any child born to someone in the U.S. are not subject to the “jurisdiction thereof” unless they have vowed allegiance to it. That does not mean just being there. Some say that being controlled by its laws and subject to punishment for breaking them qualifies as being subject to it. That isn’t enough.

There is something called “birth tourism” that exists in this country. That is the practice of traveling to a country, most often a country with birthright citizenship, to have the child born there, and acquire citizenship in that country. In addition to the U.S., Canada also is a popular choice. The cited reasons for seeking such a destination are for education and health benefits, and safe residency for the child. There are supposedly legal risks for doing this, however, if visa fraud or some negative intent is hidden from immigration authorities.

There are birth tourism centers for Chinese women who come to America to secure U.S.-born citizenship for their babies. One example of this is in Irvine, California, where a luxury apartment complex catered to these women, charging $40,000 to $80,000 for stays that included housing, medical services and post-birth services. This one was raided by the FBI in 2015. And there were other similar places in California.

One suggested theory for why Chinese women are doing this is that after birth and acquired citizenship, the women and their babies return to China where the children are indoctrinated with particular pro-China ideals, and later returned to the U.S. to help subvert the country. 

The New York Sun reports that “analyzing the results from decades of ‘birth tourism’ … Peter Schweizer, in his book The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon, estimates that ‘at least 750,000 and possibly as many as 1.5 million Chinese, who are also American citizens by virtue of being born here, are now growing toward adulthood in China.’”

The possibility that the child citizens may work to have their parent(s) given permission to live here, too, also exists.

The Supreme Court, following testimony on the issue in a hearing last week, is thought by many observers to support the existing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, due to the long time over which it has been regarded as granting citizenship.

For the Supreme Court to rely on precedent to support an existing situation is a frequent factor. However, we can hold out hope that in this case, the Court will recognize the foolishness, and the potential danger to the country, of allowing this concept to remain in existence.