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.

Changes on college campuses have weakened higher education

March 31, 2026

For a long, long time young people have been encouraged to go to college. There, they could study and learn the important aspects of the career field they wanted to work in, and have four or more years of being in a wonderful positive learning atmosphere. Studying at the college level fostered personal growth, critical thinking, self-discipline, independence, important new and lasting relationships, and prepared graduates to earn more income than otherwise would be likely.

All of this led to a higher quality of life. In other words, it helped one become an adult with many important assets that otherwise might not be gained.

However, in more recent years, some changes have occurred that make college less of a possibility due to the very high costs, and due to other aspects, which many believe make it less desirable. 

Many of us remember the campus and classrooms being places with differing ideas, and an attitude that supported the concept of being exposed to many different ideas. The only concepts that were addressed in class were those relevant to the particular subject, and were known and accepted theories and facts.

At many, perhaps most, colleges and universities today, that atmosphere has changed substantially. Some ideas are epted, while others are strongly discouraged.

The results of this change in academic attitude can be seen in areas such as news journalism, education at all levels, some legal areas, as well as other professions where things are now very different.  

There are many who will deny that this trend exists, particularly those who practice it, and those who agree with that malpractice. And there are others who will defend this very different atmosphere, saying they are doing what must be done.

Jonathon Turley is a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School, a practicing attorney, legal analyst, respected legal authority, and author. In his job as a law professor, he has seen close up what is occurring today. In his book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, he addresses the changed atmosphere at colleges and universities. 

In the chapter titled “Academic Orthodoxy and the Restoration of Free Speech in Higher Education” he first talks about “academics” and the “academy,” noting that today professors “often refer to ourselves as ‘academics’ and our profession as the ‘academy.’”

Dating back to 387 BCE, the “academus,” as it was known at the time, “would become the model for unbridled intellectual pursuit: the search for knowledge and understanding essential to human development. The most important element was protection for free inquiry. It provided a safe space where forbidden thoughts or ideas could be explored without fear.”

He also noted that the greatest danger to those “protections” was from within, and that same danger exists today. “We have watched as professors are targeted for expressing dissenting views on subjects ranging from systemic racism to police abuse to gender identification to climate change.” And he says that in such cases some professors even work to get the non-conformists among them suspended.

“Even law professors have supported shouting down speakers and barring others from campuses entirely because of their opposing views.”

“The extent of speech curtailment depends on the level of tolerance for opposing views at any given school. That level of tolerance appears to be dropping across the country.

“For academics, what was once a protected space for viewpoint diversity has become a place for enforced orthodoxy. Those who are accused of ‘harmful’ speech can be stripped of every cherished aspect of an intellectual life, including their academic positions.”

Professors who disagree with the prevailing concepts were once content to just be quiet, Turley explained. But today, that isn’t enough. Now, they must confess their shortcomings and pledge to repent.

Since Turley’s great book is about free speech, he doesn’t address how this attitude affects the day-to-day presentation of information in the classroom and student graduates that result from it.

With free speech and an atmosphere of competing ideas now dead on many campuses, is it any wonder that students are no longer presented an objective course of study, but instead receive an ideologically designed substitute?

Not surprisingly, the prevailing concepts among college academics are leftist favorites, such as DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), critical race theory, unfettered abortion, and the like. 

In such an atmosphere the political neutrality and adherence to traditional methods considered necessary in some majors are no longer imperative, and integrity and professionalism are no longer important attributes for graduates.

There are still some unbiased news journalists and politically neutral news organizations, judges and prosecutors who adhere to the ideas of applying the laws equally and punishing criminals, teachers and schools that teach the traditional and approved curricula, and those who maintain the traditions in our culture that have built and maintained the United States of America into a unique and wonderful nation.

But seeking a college degree today in a respected and sought-after major can no longer be trusted to meet the high standards of days gone by. What one receives is too often a politically engineered replacement for an important and formerly respected field of study. 

America’s dangerous internal problems may bring its demise

March 24, 2026

A lot of Americans believe and say outright and with pride that America is the greatest nation on Earth. It was designed to give its citizens more individual freedom than any nation, and give them a government that they controlled, rather than a government that controlled them.

It was both a unique and a brilliant design, one that the Founders developed by having witnessed other nation’s designs, which were authoritarian and otherwise unacceptable to them. But while it is still the greatest nation on Earth by virtue of its design, it has many problems that attack its reputation and threaten is continued existence.

Today we see that America’s unique and superior design is being ignored. The country is somewhat like a wonderful house, with lots of good rooms and features, but over time some of them have gradually been unused.

People didn’t understand what some of the rooms and features were for, and no one ever explained that to them. So, they quit using them, and now spend more time in the new under-developed wing, trying to make it suit them and their desires.

This has occurred for the most part because so many people do not have a good understanding of why things were established as they were: they don’t know the story of their country’s birthing and history. This is largely due to a failure to maintain the two-parent family and the broad culture that created it, and a public education system that has slipped off the rails and now spends valuable time on things that are not part of the traditional successful curriculum.

One of the most important things of our culture that has slowly been declining is the two-parent family, something that senior citizens remember as being nearly universal.

The Institute for Family Studies tells us that “Approximately 63 – 65 percent of U.S. children live with two married parents, a decline from 77 percent in 1980. Roughly 30 percent of U.S. children now live outside a two-parent home, with 22 – 26 percent in single-parent households (mostly mother-only). The U.S. has the world's highest rate of children living in single-parent households.”

The Niskanen Center published that “roughly 40 percent of American children are born to unmarried parents.” And the America First Policy Institute tells us that:       

* Single-parent households often have fewer economic resources than married-couple households.

* Children in single-mother households are more likely to experience lower school performance and higher risks of behavioral issues.

* Research indicates that the absence of a father figure is strongly linked to higher delinquency rates in adolescent boys, regardless of income differences. 

As for public education, like the two-parent family, things are not what they used to be. 

The Pew Research Center asked for the reasons public K-12 education is going in the wrong direction. About half or more say the following are major reasons: 
* Schools not spending enough time on core academic subjects, like reading, math, science and social studies (69 percent). 
* Teachers bringing their personal political and social views into the classroom (54 percent). 
* Schools not having the funding and resources they need (52 percent).

Looking at education among nations of the world, The Balance published this evaluation: “Singapore consistently ranks first globally in K–12 education, particularly in math and science, according to 2022/2025 PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) data and analyses. Other top-performing systems include Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Finland, often recognized for rigorous curricula, high-quality teacher training, and high achievement rates. The U.S. ranks above the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) average in science but lower in math.”

So many people today are in love with ideas that threaten our country’s greatness by subverting its beneficial qualities. And, of course, some are focused on gaining power for their group over the rest of us, like what happens in so many other countries across the globe.

Thomas Sowell is a brilliant 95-year-old American economist, economic historian, and social theorist. He warns us that America is being destroyed from within. This destruction, he says, is directed by a reckless elite that is obsessed with social justice, cultural decay, and a reckless disregard for history. He calls this intellectual bankruptcy, and says that expanding government power for social justice, for example, creates despotism, and kills American freedoms. 

His ideas and observations on what is happening in our country have been quoted hundreds of times. Here are some: 

“Some Americans will never appreciate America, until after they have helped destroy it, and have then begun to suffer the consequences.”

“Ours may become the first civilization destroyed, not by the power of our enemies, but by the ignorance of our teachers and the dangerous nonsense they are teaching our children.”

“Virtually every stupid idea in vogue today was thought of by somebody in the past — and has led to disaster, again and again. That is why it is dangerous to neglect the study of history, so that we have to keep on learning what is wrong with clever ideas the hard way.”

We can turn things around if enough of those on the wrong path return to being traditional Americans. That is a tall order.

Virginia’s Spanberger gets it wrong; Hegseth gets is right

March 17, 2026

Virginia is turning into a very different place since the election. The Youngkin-Sears administration had done a good job. Glen Youngkin and Winsome Sears brought $121 billion in committed private sector investments, had 270,000 more Virginians working, and nearly 200,000 open and unfilled jobs. They also had 4 straight years of record budget surpluses. All of these good things were the result of conservative pro-growth and pro-worker policies.

The new Governor, Democrat Abigail Spanberger, seems to be a student of New York City’s Muslim Communist Mayor, Zohran Mamdani. While claiming to be a moderate, she supported President Joe Biden’s reckless spending, and his inflationary and job-killing regulations. Now, she wants to bring that same failed economic agenda to Virginia.

She also opposes Virginia’s right-to-work law. This helps union bosses force workers to join a union just to get a job. That threatens the business climate that has made Virginia a location for private investment and job creation.

She claimed to want to increase affordability for Virginians, but has turned her back on her promises and supports placing taxes on virtually everything. 

That list of tax additions includes: Additional local sales tax in all Virginia counties and cities; new personal property tax on electric leaf blowers and electric landscaping equipment; taxes on large employers; gun and ammunition taxes; new income tax brackets; a delivery tax for Northern Virginia; an investment income tax; an event tax; a storage facility tax; a gym membership tax; dog walking and dog grooming taxes; a counseling tax; a digital personal property tax; new car taxes and highway use fees; a vehicle repair tax; a home repair tax; a dry cleaning tax; a rideshare tax; and a fantasy sports tax.

How is that affordability promise looking for you?

Spanberger is following the disastrous lead of California and New York City. Small businesses, working families and anyone who believes in free enterprise will suffer under her governorship.

As bad as all of those are, as well as some other reckless policies, she also wants to change the voting districts. But the goal is for immediate results, not fairness. This is an especially interesting issue, because she has been seen on video criticizing what she now professes. She said not long ago, “Gerrymandering is detrimental to our democracy and it weakens the individual voices that form our electorates. Opposing gerrymandering should be a bipartisan priority.”

She supports an item on the April 21 ballot that would put an amendment on the November ballot allowing state lawmakers to redraw the congressional district map at will. Normally, redistricting occurs every 10 years following the census, not when a legislature makes a partisan decision to change it. 

All Virginians who believe in honesty and fair elections are strongly encouraged to vote “No” on this issue.

And Congressional Democrats and others are busy with their war on all things Trump.

The effort to forever end Iran’s years of killing Americans and its efforts to become a nuclear power are atop the list. One specific criticism of the Department of War is what they say is the unnecessary spending of millions by Secretary Pete Hegseth on fancy foods for our military.

"Hegseth spent $93 billion in one month – roughly the cost of extending the ACA tax credits for three years," New York Sen. Chuck Schumer wrote. "But instead of lowering American’s healthcare costs, Hegseth used millions of taxpayer dollars on fruit baskets, Herman Miller recliners, ice cream machines, Alaskan King Crabs, and a Steinway & Sons grand piano.”

And, not surprisingly, the California Governor, the wild and crazy Gavin Newsome, also jumped on that bandwagon, along with several others.

But predictably, these critics are uninformed, misinformed, or lying through their teeth. A little research would protect them from these earth-shatteringly embarrassing faux pas.  

History is on Hegseth’s side.

“Steak and lobster! The outrage!” said The Whiskey Cowboy. “Special meals in association with deployment, before battle, or special events in the military is a tradition. This is nothing new. Those of us who have served know full well the sacrifices troops make during deployment and even in non-deployment times. We also know the risks that come with serving. It is part of the job. It is part of what we signed up for.

“So, the outrage seen by some concerning the steak and lobster meals served to troops now is beyond idiotic.” 

Real Clear Politics reported that when Gen. Lloyd Austin was the Secretary of Defense (now War) under President Joe Biden: “The military spent $103.7 million on meat, fish and poultry, including $16.6 million on ribeye steak and 147 orders of lobster tail for $6.1 million. Orders of blueberries, ice cream and doughnuts also exceeded $100,000.”

And Washington Examiner columnist Salena Zito wrote: “It is a common practice for the Pentagon to provide these special meals, often known as “surf and turf Fridays,” to our service men and women at least once a week. And this has been the case for decades.”

Yet again, the Left’s efforts to counter Trump’s administration at every turn includes a deep dive into the sewer to develop misinformation and outright lies. This behavior is not just dirty politics, it is un-American.

Crime in the U.S. was lower in 2025, but problems still exist

March 10, 2026

The Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) report of crime levels in 2025 is positive. Here are some takeaways:

* “Reported levels of 11 of the 13 offenses covered in this report were lower in 2025 than in 2024; nine of the offenses declined by 10% or more. 

* “Looking at changes in violent offenses, the rate of reported homicides was 21 percent lower in 2025 than in 2024 in the 35 study cities providing data for that crime, representing 922 fewer homicides. There were 9 percent fewer reported aggravated assaults, 22 percent fewer gun assaults, and 2 percent fewer domestic violence incidents last year than in 2024. Robbery fell by 23 percent while carjackings decreased by 43 percent.” 

* “When nationwide data for jurisdictions of all sizes is reported by the FBI later this year, there is a strong possibility that homicides in 2025 will drop to about 4.0 per 100,000 residents. That would be the lowest rate ever recorded in law enforcement or public health data going back to 1900, and would mark the largest single-year percentage drop in the homicide rate on record.”

That, of course, is very good news, and a checkmark for the Trump administration and its focus on crime. Unfortunately, despite the good news from the CCJ, murder in this day and time is not as unusual as we might like it to be, and as it should be. 

There are still far too many murders, and over the last several years a troubling trend has developed: Murdering someone because you don’t like them, what they do, or their ideas.

What, exactly, is the definition of “murder?” That term is — as are so many these days — frequently misapplied to incidents involving someone’s death. Britannica online defines it this way: “murder, in criminal law, the killing of one person by another that is not legally justified or excusable, usually distinguished from the crime of manslaughter by the element malice aforethought.”

The murders of two people fairly recently draws attention to this irrational event.

Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk and UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson were senselessly murdered. While suspects have been charged and legal proceedings are ongoing, neither suspect has confessed or been found guilty. However, while it imperative that the guilty parties are convicted and appropriately punished, this trend must be halted. The murders of these two people for the reasons that have been identified are senseless and inexcusable — one because of his beliefs and the other for the job he held. 

This behavior is related to many other things that people do for no good reason, or perhaps no reason at all. It represents a failure of that person to have learned proper and acceptable behavior, and the failure of families and our culture to instill the concepts of basic humanity.

There is also some weird behavior associated with these senseless murders, such as how many people agree with why these two people were senselessly murdered, and support their deaths.

Looking at the two victims of this horrendous stupidity, what happened in these two examples?

Charlie Kirk co founded Turning Point USA (TPUSA) — a conservative student organization — in 2012 and served as its executive director. He supported several conservative positions, including opposition to abortion, gun control, DEI programs, and LGBTQ rights, and became aligned with Christian principles. 

He believed that it was important to speak to those who held different views. At his public appearances, he would ask for comments, and in a calm and thoughtful manner present his differing ideas, which often were effective to those who had different views. But he was murdered for that on a college campus on September 10th last year.

On December 4, 2024, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed in a targeted attack on a Manhattan street just before 7:00 a.m. Luigi Mangione was arrested and charged with the crime days later. The investigation turned up a manifesto of Mangione’s expressing anger toward corporate America, and reflected the intense public frustration over health insurance coverage denials that had developed. So, a man was murdered because he was associated with a particular type of company.

While violence in 2025 was lower than before, political violence has been on the rise over the last few years. In America, whatever your politics are, how radically different they may be from that of others, any level of political violence is a highly inappropriate and unacceptable response.

What is behind these senseless and unjustifiable acts of violence and inhuman behavior is essentially the mere dissatisfaction with contrary ideas. But why is it the chosen action in these situations to commit violence or other negative actions against someone simply because they have different ideas than you, or because they are involved in a business that you don’t like?

People must learn to deal with such differences, like Americans used to do. The freedoms our Constitution guarantees us make that necessary. The idea of free speech is to have a variety of ideas from which we as a people select our pathway, not one dictated set of ideas.

We cannot allow political passions to produce violence.

Israel and the U.S. seek to reduce Iran’s Islamic threat

March 3, 2026

The history of conflict between the United States and Iran goes back nearly 50 years. Iran was officially designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism by the United States Department of State on January 19, 1984, and is widely held to be the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Data from the Department of Defense (now the Department of War) shows that Iran was responsible for at least 608 American troop deaths in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, which is roughly 17 percent of all U.S. personnel deaths there. As many as 995 American deaths have resulted from Iranian violence, according to another estimate.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force supports numerous proxy forces. This support includes providing money, weapons, and training to groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as well as various Shia militias, and their violent actions.

With one of the goals of Iran’s Islamic leaders being “death to America,” the rulers have worked to develop nuclear weapons, and that has been regarded as one of the most dangerous things that could occur. In response, President Donald Trump worked to negotiate Iran away from that goal. 

Moving Iran away from its goals of Islamic superiority was, in fact, a growing attitude among the Iranian people. They recently participated in public protests against their rulers. But those tyrannical rulers murdered more than 30,000 protesters.

And then when Iran refused to negotiate with Trump, he ordered attacks on the nuclear facilities, doing great damage to them.

However, that did not dissuade Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been the supreme leader of Iran since 1989. Efforts to develop nuclear weapons were renewed, and this refusal to make a move toward being a peaceful nation spurred the attacks last weekend on Iran by Israel and the United States, which resulted in the death of Khamenei and some 40 other leaders. 

When news of Khamenei’s death became known in Iran, the Iranian people cheered, seeing the possibility of a normal home place in their future. When the news reached the rest of the world, Iranians across the globe celebrated, including here in the United States. 

Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett agreed with the Iranians. He commented, “They hung kids for tweets. They cut women’s eyes out for wearing makeup. They threw gay folks off of buildings. They murdered Americans. Who will grieve for this dirtbag?”

However, while Iranians inside and outside of Iran celebrated, and others recognized that this was a giant step toward eliminating an Islamic threat to our country, here in America, Democrats did not celebrate what the Iranians thought was wonderful. Instead, they gathered in several protests around the country.

There was much criticism among Congressional Democrats and others of Trump’s action. He should have asked Congress for permission, they say. 

In response, protests were organized, but most or many were not done off the cuff. “Scores of protests were sponsored by a coalition of leftwing groups, including: the ANSWER Coalition, the National Iranian American Council, 50501, American Muslims for Palestine, the People’s Forum, Palestinian Youth Movement, CodePink, Black Alliance for Peace and the Democratic Socialists of America,” as published by the UK’s The Guardian.

“The coalition listed other ‘emergency protests’ on Saturday, including in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami and Minneapolis,” the story continued.

Conservative commentator Guy Benson takes this view: “The emerging consensus among many elected Democrats is some version of: To be clear, Iran’s outlaw regime is deeply evil, exports terrorism around the world, pursues genocidal nuclear weapons, is drenched in American blood, and slaughters its own civilians en masse. But …” we still don’t like what he did.

And, surprisingly, a “handful of House Democrats are justifying the operation, bucking most of their party who are calling the operation a reckless and illegal action,” as reported by Fox News. Among those supporting the actions are: Rep. Greg Landsman, D Ohio, Rep. Tom Suozzi, D N.Y., Josh Gottheimer, D N.J., and Sen. Jacky Rosen, D Nev., and Sen. John Fetterman, D Pa.

And, we must not forget or ignore that despite the over-heated rhetoric from the Left, Trump’s using the military is no different than what other presidents before him have done.

Two examples: Former President Bill Clinton utilized military forces in Somalia in1993 for Black Hawk Down; deployed troops in Bosnia in 1995; and in Kosovo in 1999 for NATO airstrikes. Former President Barack Obama did likewise in Libya in 2011 for airstrikes on Muammar Gaddafi; in 2014 through 2017 against Isis in Iraq and Syria; and in Yemen. Neither Clinton nor Obama approached Congress for approval.

It is not unusual, or unconstitutional, for a President to unilaterally employ military forces for an important national security concern, particularly when time is critical, and publicity of Congressional action would threaten the action.

And when you consider the target of these actions — an Islamic-ruled enemy nation with a history of killing Americans, and working to develop nuclear weapons that could be used against us — this was a good decision. Under Islamic rule, Iran is dangerous, and that needs to change, despite what Democrats may think.

Politics should never be part of decisions on legal matters

February 24, 2026

The term “originalism” refers to the idea that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time it was created and adopted. And therefore, an “originalist” is someone who understands the logic of this position and who accepts it.

The contrary position held by many is that the Constitution is a “living document,” which means that what the Founders thought 250 years ago is meaningless today, and the Constitution should be interpreted today using concepts that are “more modern,” even if they are actually contrary to the original meaning.

Under this way of thinking the right of free speech could be interpreted as meaning not that we are free to say a broad array of things, but that we can only say what the controlling individuals allow us to say, however limited that may be.

That mentality is like believing the Constitution is merely an ancient guideline, sort of like a drawing of the design of a house that can be altered to suit the desires of the owner.

But that concept is both foolish and dangerous. It’s like believing that the commandment “thou shalt not steal” really contains an unwritten phrase: “unless you want to.”

When the Constitution and laws are viewed under this foolish concept, it is referred to as “judicial activism.” Every law and constitutional ideal changes with the tide of human preference. That is like being on the ocean in a boat with no motor, sails, or oars, and being completely at the mercy of the weather and the water.

Originalism prevents activist interpretation of the Constitution’s concepts, and establishes standards our Founders intended to last forever, or at least until they are changed by appropriate methods, such as through acts of Congress supported by a substantial majority of the people.

An area where there is great difference on meaning is the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That language seems fairly clear. But some disagree, and try to alter the meaning to help achieve their goals. However, if the original language is not clear enough, perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 may help. It defines the Amendment’s meaning as an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home, and other similar things.

Contrarians to the original context of the Amendment say that it does not say what types of Arms are covered and which ones are not. Of course. That is the salient point.

The Founders did not say that pistols are covered but rifles and cannons are not. They said “keep and bear Arms”: Meaning, all Arms. 

We have a wider variety of Arms/weapons around now than in the 1700s. Anti-gunners want to outlaw “assault rifles” — whatever those are, as no legal description exists — and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. They also want to outlaw automatic rifles and machine guns. Their argument is that the Founders would likely have not included these in the right to bear Arms, if they had existed in the 1700s. We will never know if that is true.

However, we must remember that our Founders were not worried about different types of guns, they were concerned about specific types of government. One type of government they meticulously avoided was a pure democracy, because of the danger of that type of government to become tyrannical, where 51 percent of the people could vote to jail or kill the other 49 percent.

And while some of today’s weapons can be more of a problem than the others, the imperative question remains: Why should law-abiding citizens be forbidden from owning them if they want them? 

Many states have gun laws, and some of those laws are very restrictive. Yet, in some of these states, gun crimes are commonly committed, anyway. It isn’t the guns that are the problem, it is the persons who have the guns, often illegally, that is the problem. Many law-abiding citizens own one or more guns. Neither the person or his or her guns have committed crimes.

Instead of interfering with the constitutionally guaranteed rights by limiting or outlawing gun ownership, we instead need to work very hard to teach people from a very young age about right and wrong, and being a good citizen. Discourage crime through high standards, strict adherence, and severe/harsh punishment for disobeying those standards and the laws that they have produced.

Teaching our young people how to be a good human being is a critical factor, one that has been ignored much too often in recent years. The nuclear family has fallen drastically in practice, and our education system is infected with many people who are interested in pushing their preferred political ideals more than presenting approved subject matter.

Consequently, the sense of proper behavior, and understanding and appreciating our system of government are well below the acceptable level. But it is not too late to begin restoring these concepts to where they should be.

Why aren’t secure voting and borders important to Democrats?

February 17, 2025

It is safe to say that nearly everyone believes that elections at all levels are critically important. After all, that activity chooses the people who serve us by operating our towns, counties, states and nation. And in America, we are blessed with the right and privilege of being able to select those people.

Elections therefore should be thoughtfully and efficiently organized, with some level of convenience, and highly secured by rules that protect the election process and results. That way, the candidates that the voters choose actually win the elections.

It is also safe to say that there is some degree of illegal activity in most every election, although sometimes very small.

With this in mind, in 2025, the House of Representatives passed the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. The aim of this legislation is to make elections more secure.

The original SAVE Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, but the revised SAVE America Act also increases the security of elections, requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote in federal elections.

Voter ID is hardly controversial. Gallup and Pew Research Center polls, among others, found that more than 80 percent of American citizens support photo ID to vote.

Yet, some oppose the idea of an ID or a photo ID as necessary to vote, saying that this puts some people in a situation where they will not be able to vote. However, why can anyone who is a citizen of the USA, and therefore eligible to vote, not be able to get the required ID with just a little effort?

As to the complaint of having any ID to vote, here are a few things that you need an ID or photo ID for: get a US Passport, get through a TSA checkpoint, apply for government programs, drive a motor vehicle, pick up prescriptions, buy alcohol, buy a gun, open a bank account, rent or buy a house or car, get married, rent a hotel room, and last, but not least: attend the Democrat National Convention.

So, Democrats believe that it is important to show a photo ID to participate in a convention that nominates the party’s candidate for President, but think it is unfair to require the voters who elect the President to show a photo ID.

Other examples of the apparent confused logic: Democrats want ICE agents to show photo IDs when arresting illegal aliens, but oppose photo IDs to vote.

Recently, Georgia Democrat Sen. Jon Ossoff required attendees to present a government-issued photo ID to enter his "Rally for Our Republic," but opposes a photo ID for federal elections.

And, Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, noted on X that House rules require members to insert their identification card before voting on legislation.

“Notable that 213 Democrats just used their congressional photo ID to vote NO on a voter ID bill,” he wrote.

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia commented, “The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe.”

Yes, it is possible, perhaps likely, that some American citizens will have problems under these requirements. No system is perfect. The current system stands as a hallmark of imperfection.

A poll by Newsmax/TIPP shows that Americans view illegal immigration negatively. Overall, Americans think illegal immigration impacts the U.S. negatively by a 50 to 21 percent margin, with 39 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents saying it’s a problem.

On the backing of ICE, while 78 percent of Republicans support ICE, only 22 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of Independents do.

It is difficult to understand why so many oppose ICE deporting illegal aliens with criminal charges, or who are just in the country illegally, which also is a crime. It has not always been like this.

Comparing recent Presidents on the subject of deportations and the reactions to that, data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security show that Bill Clinton deported 12.5 million with no protests/riots; George W. Bush deported 10.3 million with no protests/riots; Barack Obama deported 5.3 million with no protests/riots; and Donald Trump has deported 1.5 million with 350 protests/riots. 

Wonder why there is this huge difference in presidents doing the same thing for the same reason? Could political considerations, or personal feelings be involved?

Newsmax magazine published a piece in its February edition regarding federal government salaries. “The average salary in a large majority of federal agencies now exceeds $100,000 annually,” the article says.

Open The Books, the watchdog group that promotes transparency throughout the federal government, reported the agencies and departments with the highest average pay, and listed 12, along with the average annual pay and the number of employees.

Leading the pack is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with 721 employees, and an average annual pay of $236,006. The largest number of employees is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation with 6,036 employees, and an average annual pay of $173,627. 

And the lowest paid of the group are the Office of Management and Budget, with 811 employees, and the Federal Trade Commission, with 1,302 employee,  both of which have an average annual pay of $164,468.

America’s 250th year is one of disagreement, not celebration

February 10, 2026

As the United States of America approaches its 250th birthday, we see a country sharply divided, perhaps more so than ever.

The political Right is attempting to take the unique and wonderful design and work to restore it to its original form. The political Left is desperately trying to subvert those actions and turn the country instead into what it prefers: a pure democracy.

But democracies are not what you may think. On that subject, the late commentator Walter Williams said, “The Founders knew that a democracy would lead to some kind of tyranny.”

Founder John Adams offered: “"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet, that did not commit suicide." 

It is relevant to note that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution even mention “democracy.” Instead, the founders envisioned a representative republic — a “Republican Form of Government” — a system that was designed to avoid the “tyranny of the majority,” a huge negative feature of democracies.

They favored a republic — a representative government, or government by the people — over a pure democracy, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10.

Yet, the Democrats, both those in and not in the U.S. Congress, have the bad habit of referring to “our democracy” as if it is one. Or maybe it’s just a preference they want to push.

The closest the country comes to “democracy” is when it is described as a "democratic republic" or a "representative democracy," phrases which flirt with the term “democracy, but recognize that it is not one. 

The Left is actively working as swiftly as possible to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” as per Barack Obama. 

It tries to pass and sometimes does pass laws and takes actions that weaken the system, while opposing those that maintain or strengthen it.

The Left appoints judges and justices that will not honor the original intent of the Constitution and federal and state laws, and will “interpret” them in ways never imagined when they were created.

It wants to enlarge the U.S. Supreme Court and pack it with liberal justices who will make law from the bench by mis-interpreting the Constitution and laws in ways that help them in their subversive efforts.

Their presidents, governors and mayors support the election of and make appointments of attorneys general and prosecutors who have a soft-on-crime attitude that values criminals more than law-abiding citizens.

The Left often criticizes its political opponents for doing things it has done in the past, as if they never imagined such things before.

Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian, and conservative political commentator who writes and does video commentaries for The Daily Caller, offered this view in one of those videos of what the Left is doing, relative to recent incidents in Minnesota.

“I want to talk very quickly today about what is going on in Minnesota. What I’m really disturbed about is the utter hypocrisy that we’re seeing with this street insurrectionary movement. 

“They have canonized Renee Good and Alex Pretti for resisting ICE officers, and they were tragically shot and they’ve become martyrs. Why did the Left tell us that it was perfectly okay for somebody to go to a demonstration with a military-grade, semi-automatic weapon with extra clips and just stick it in his waistband, visible [to] anybody, and then get into a brawl with law enforcement officers? 

“At the same time, tell us if anybody had a concealed weapon anywhere on January 6, they needed to be put in jail? All of our most prominent liberals are saying the state of Minnesota has a right to do what? Attack federal officers? 

“I thought the Left didn’t like state’s rights. I thought they said that this was insurrectionary.”

For the second time in a very short period of time, Congressional Democrats have tried to jam through favored concepts by stuffing them into government funding bills, the purpose of which is to prevent a government shutdown. It is a common practice to put controversial items in an important bill that has great support or, in this case, has great importance. But while it is not a good thing, even though it is a common practice in other legislation, it should not be allowed in government funding emergency legislation. It has a strong resemblance to blackmail.

In the latest of these attempts, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, has said that there are three demands necessary to get Democrats’ support for 

a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill that must pass by Feb. 13 to avoid a partial government shutdown.

While these may be good ideas, and one of them has already been put into effect, this is not the way to get them implemented. A truly good idea will likely get adequate support, without threatening a government shutdown.

Give the Left credit: they are adamant and working continuously to change the country into one ruled by those with socialist/communist ideals, not the ideals of personal freedom that our Founders believed in so earnestly. But the Democrats hard work will bring freedom-ending change to America, if they are successful.