Two critical elements of the USA: The Supreme Court and elections

October 27, 2026

When our country was being designed, the Founders spent a great deal of time discussing various elements of existing governments. They came up with a unique tri-partite system with separation of powers consisting of an Executive Branch, with a President who is elected by the people; a bicameral Legislative Branch, with members of the House of Representatives and Senate  who are (now) elected by the people; and a Judicial Branch with judges and justices appointed by the Executive Branch and approved by the Legislative Branch.

Notice that the Judicial Branch is by design not political like the other two branches. The idea was to have non-partisan and independent judges and justices who were guided by the U.S. Constitution and federal laws, not by politics. The only political element of the Judicial Branch is that members are nominated by and approved by politically oriented branches, but not elected by partisan positions.

Political factions and notable individual politicians these days are openly and extremely critical of decisions with which they disagree that are issued by the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Sometimes courts and those who sit on them, even the Supreme Court, are accused of being politically oriented. However, Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan have both refuted those claims. There are, however, obvious philosophical differences among the justices and judges.

Judges and justices should follow the intent of the elements of the Constitution and federal laws when they were enacted. If a law or Constitutional element is no longer relevant or appropriate, it must still be followed until it is properly overturned or amended by appropriate processes. Justices’ or judges’ contrary opinions of some laws or constitutional elements are irrelevant; the original intent should rule. As former Justice Antonin Scalia observed: The Constitution is a fixed legal document that “says what it says, and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”

The Supreme Court was designed to interpret the laws and the Constitution as established, without regard for popular opinion, or the feelings of one group or another. Such a concept provides essential stability on legal and constitutional matters.

The idea of abolishing or packing the Supreme Court is subversive to the functioning of the United States of America.

Election security and integrity are things every honest, red-blooded American ought to appreciate and insist on. Yet, so many on the left oppose things that will make elections more secure, like no mailed ballots, except for a few verifiable good reasons, such as for military personnel who are stationed away from their legal residence; verified photo IDs; voter rolls that are checked for accuracy regularly; and such things.

Some of the problems with voting today are:
* Mailed ballots are at risk of being stolen on their way to voters, and after being submitted by the voter.
* Ballots can be mis-handled or discarded by poll workers, if not controlled by a secure process.
* Computers used in voting and vote counting are subject to being hacked or have corrupt programming.
* Voter rolls can contain the names of persons who have passed away, or moved away.
* Ineligible voters can show up and vote at polling places without a secure method of identifying eligible voters.

Why would anyone not want to remove elements and processes that would enable cheating, like dead people voting, people voting who are not eligible to vote, or people filling out mailed ballots that are not theirs. 

The safest and most reliable way to vote is to have just one election day, or perhaps two consecutive days; use and file paper ballots; have voters show validated photo IDs; and have the vote counting process observed and audited by trustworthy bi-partisan individuals.

Penalties for breaching strict election-related laws and rules must be severe.

The Center for American Progress recommends addressing some of the most serious vulnerabilities in America’s election infrastructure, such as:
1.Requiring voter-verified paper ballots or records for every vote cast.
2.Replacing old voting machines.
3.Conducting robust postelection audits to confirm election outcomes.
4.Updating and securing outdated voter registration systems and e-poll books.
5.Requiring minimum cybersecurity standards for voter registration systems and other pieces of voting infrastructure.
6.Performing mandatory pre-election testing on all voting machines, as well as continuous vulnerability analysis.
7.Expanding threat information sharing, including comprehensive threat assessments accompanied by mandatory reporting requirements.
8.Elevating coordination between states and federal agencies on election security, including real-time notification of security breaches and threats.
9.Providing federal funding for updating election infrastructure.

It is troubling that so many people do not understand our unique and excellent system of government, and think changing it would make it better. They do not understand how great America is, and why it has survived and thrived for 250 years.

Or, perhaps they want to change the system to allow one political ideology to take and maintain control of the country, turning the United States into a kingdom or other authoritarian nation, like what we see in so much of the rest of the world.

Hopefully, next week’s election will not result in shifting the control of the Congress, enabling those who want to change our country to begin that dangerous process.

The Democratic Party is undergoing an irrational transformation

October 20, 2026

As we watch with our mouths agape, the once-sensible Democratic Party is going through its second period of transition. Looking back seven decades, the Democrats and Republicans were both focused on improving the nation. Although their respective paths were different, they were much less so than even four decades ago.

The first Democrat transition was becoming more liberal, eventually becoming what they choose to call “progressive.” Today, the ideas of the controlling faction, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), make the wild “progressive” approach seem almost normal.

The Democrats these days hold and participate in protests titled “No Kings.” There, they complain about what they consider authoritarian moves by President Donald Trump and the Republicans. Curiously, what today’s Democrats are campaigning on is electing people with a platform that would actually turn our constitutional republic into a kingdom.

The DSA proposes some crazy things, among which are:

* Healthcare for all, which would guarantee free healthcare; 

* Housing for all, which would include publicly owned housing and universal rent control;

* Ending police forces and incarceration in jails and prisons;

* Economic democracy, where private ownership of large businesses and industries would become public ownership;

* Democracy for all, where Washington, DC would become a state, borders would be opened, and Green Card holders would be able to legally vote;

* Defunding the Department of War, closing all overseas military bases;

They apparently do not realize that everything controlled by the government — like healthcare, housing, and businesses — means that the government can decide what the public will get from those things, if anything.

If government controls all the food producers and sellers, the country could be forced to become vegetarian, or forced to eat lab-made food. If healthcare is under government control, limited availability of medical care could occur, as it does in socialist nations, and forced vaccination.

Without police departments or jails and prisons, robbers, rapists, murderers, etc., would be left alone to continue robbing, raping and murdering. Or maybe, those lawbreakers would be assigned to a kinder rehabilitation program by someone.

The October edition of Newsmax magazine has a large special section addressing this Democratic Party transition.

One part of this coverage features information on six “Socialists Reshaping Politics.” It contains information about them, a sub-title, and quotes from each of them. Here is a little bit of that.

Zohran Mamdani - “Prince of City” — The current Mayor of New York City said on YouTube, “I don’t think we should have billionaires.” And on X, Mamdani said, “The NYPD is racist, anti-queer and a major threat to public safety.” He favors city-run supermarkets, and rent stabilization for two years.

AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) - “Wonder Woman” — On ocasio-cortez.house.gov, the New York Representative called for “defunding the police.” She recently renewed her DSA membership.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed - “Overnight Sensation” — The Democrat candidate for U.S. Senator from Michigan posted on Yahoo.com, “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” He favors ending military aid to Israel, Medicare for all, and abolishing ICE.

Bernie Sanders - “Elder Statesman” — Vermont Sen. Sanders said, “I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks, and major industries,” on FoxNews.com. The 85-year-old serves as an inspiration for younger democrat socialists. 

Peggy Flanagan - “Progressive” — The lieutenant governor of Minnesota, and U.S. Senate candidate commented on FoxNews.com, “We need to rip ICE apart and stop them from terrorizing our communities.” She also wants Medicare for all. And, she calls Israel’s response to the vicious October 7, 2023 attack “genocide.”

Hasan Piker - “Podcaster Power” — He posted on Yahoo.com, “America deserved 9/11, dude.” He has a hard time criticizing most anything without inserting numerous curse words, and thinks Luigi Mangione, the accused murderer of healthcare CEO Bryan Thompson, is a hero.

And then, there are others mentioned by Newsmax, like Darializa Avila Chevalier. She is a 33-year-old Ph.D. graduate student at East Harlem in New York. She won in the June congressional primary, and co-founded a militant student group at Columbia University that helped drive the violent 2024 campus occupation following the Hamas attacks in Gaza.

She referred to America as a “a f-ing disgrace,” and said the U.S. is occupying Native American land. She was a co-writer of the manifesto of the militant student group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest. That document stated, in part, “We are Westerners fighting for the eradication of Western Civilization. … Our intifada is an Internationalist one.”

Of course, not every Democrat endorses this extraordinarily radical platform. About the DSA, long-time Democrat strategist James Carville said this: “These people do not like Democrats. Not only are they not Democrats, (but they also) wish Democrats poorly.” And New York Rep. Tom Suozzi promotes “The Promise of America,” the signers of which are “proud of America, want safety, not lawlessness,” adding, “We are capitalist, not socialist.”

These and other DSA members were either un-educated or deliberately mis-educated about the greatness of the United States of America that has enabled it to survive and prosper for 250 years, and the dangers of socialism/communism that shine brightly across the globe. They must not be allowed to take over the country.

We need to restore Congress to its original form and function

October 13, 2026

A big topic on both sides of the political aisle today is the US Congress. Currently, the good guys have a very thin majority, and the Democrats on the other side are running at all levels of government on the platform of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Former President Barack Obama is no doubt thrilled to see that his horrible idea is still alive and well.

But whatever happens in November, the Congress will still have some issues that need to be dealt with. One of those is the “career in Congress” idea.

When the Founders of our country and the Framers of its Constitution were working to establish the country, their concept of the Congress included the idea of a bicameral body where citizens came to represent their state, district, and citizens for a while, and then returned home and went back to work. Their idea was not to change their job for one in Washington for the rest of their productive lives. We would have “citizen legislators,” people who would come to government for a few years, then go back home to their previous life.

Through the years, that concept has fallen by the wayside, and today being in the House of Representatives or the Senate has become a career field. Many of those serving today have been there a long time. And some of them have become quite wealthy, as they represented their district and state.

For some, perhaps many, that wealth may have resulted from what they knew and did as public servants that they used for their own personal gain.

And we need to recognize that neither the Congressional career aspect, nor the millionaire Representatives and Senators achievement are anything even remotely like what the Founders and Framers had in mind for their country.

Here’s a sample of what has occurred. According to Quorum Analytics, LLC, the longest-serving members of Congress are:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — 50 years (1975 – present)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) — 48 years (1977 – present)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) — 44 years (1981 – present)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — 44 years (1981 – present)

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY-5) — 44 years (1981 – present)

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4) — 44 years (1981 – present)

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD-5) — 44 years (1981 – present)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) — 42 years (1983 – present)

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-9) — 42 years (1983 – present)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — 40 years (1985 – present)

Some of them served in both houses. Some of them have been in Congress longer than some of the newer members have been alive.

And notice that they all began their long tenure in Congress within the last six decades. That latter point shows that this trend has mostly developed, or at least greatly expanded, fairly recently.

And that situation has produced the desire for term limits and age ceilings for Congress among many Americans.

There have been complaints about some of the older members no longer being up to the job. And sometimes, as we grow older, some of us have serious issues that would interfere with our ability to do our job. Like former President Joe Biden, who was truly not able to serve out his tenure.

But not every old person suffers this decline. President Donald Trump, at 80, shows no signs of elderly decline. So, this is a person-by-person situation, and it might be unfair to apply it to everyone.

Term limits, on the other hand, would be a step toward restoring the original concept of citizen legislators. They would prevent people from becoming too powerful in Congress and allow new faces to appear there. And that is desired by a majority of Americans.

Term limits would also help with the age ceiling issue. As people age into their 70s and 80s, they most often do not look for something to do, like serve in Congress. But some might.

The national survey research and strategic services company, McLaughlin and Associates, tell us that an overwhelming average of 82 percent of Americans support a Term Limits Amendment for Congress, crossing party lines with 89 percent Republican, 83 percent Independent, and 76 percent Democrat.

Of course, the question is: what would the limits be?

Trump, in calling for congressional term limits, has suggested limiting House members to three 2-year terms, or 6 years of service, and Senate members to two 6-year terms, or 12 years of service.

But why should senators have 12 years in government, and representatives have only 6 years in government? And, what about someone who serves one or two terms in the House, and then runs for a Senate seat?

And there is also the idea of the citizens being able to elect who they prefer to serve them and their state in Congress. It isn’t an easy problem to solve.

However, in working to restore our constitutional republic to its original, superior form, Congressional term limits are a must. 

Has the United Nations lived up to its promises, or not?

October 6, 2026

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that is in the news a good bit. It was established in 1945 after the conclusion of World War II (WWII), which was a horrible event, lasting years, causing mass destruction in several countries and more than 70 million deaths.

Prior to its establishment, another international organization already existed. The League of Nations, established in 1920, had goals similar to the UN, but was not doing its job very well. As WWII drug on, the major Allied powers, including the United States, decided to establish another organization that would do a better job of ensuring peace and security across the globe.

And on January 1, 1942, 26 countries signed the Declaration by United Nations, which set forth the war aims of the Allied powers, and in 1944 discussions were held about a new organization to replace the League of Nations. And after the end of the war, the UN became active, and a few years later established its headquarters in New York City.

Since then, its story has been uneven, and sometimes bad. Trying to guide the world’s nations to peace and security is a tall order. Countries have their own ideas about what to do, and while the UN is preaching peace and security, they will do what they want. And what some of them want is detrimental to others.

And the UN’s record for enabling peace is a mess. But then, the UN has no power over its 193 members. It can pass resolutions and make international law, but it cannot control what its members do. That is a good thing. We do not need a world government that most certainly would not follow the lead of the United States of America.

Some of the UN’s member countries are terrible places. Nations like China, Iran, North Korea and Syria are very repressive, with horrible records on human rights, and with aggressiveness against other nations, like Russia is exerting over Ukraine, and China is against Taiwan. 

Despite the horrible history of mistreatment of their people, however, these countries are allowed to participate fully alongside free and democratic countries. The UN treats all countries equally, and while this is admirable in some respects, it tends to portray the good ones and the bad ones as equals.

Looking at the long list of global issues that need to be dealt with, we find that the UN focuses on and addresses a few select issues, and ignores the rest. One of those is Climate Change, which has been made out to be a huge global threat. Lots of time is spent on it at the UN, while other issues are left alone.

Another example is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Whatever your personal feelings are on this subject, the UN has issued more resolutions against Israel than every other country on the planet combined.

And that action shows that there is a definite bias against Israel among UN members. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the podium to address the General Assembly last month, many of the representatives -- reportedly dozens of them -- got up and left the hall, not even willing to listen to what that member nation’s leader had to say. How can an international body help the world live in peace if its members will not even listen to what others have to say about important topics?

Netanyahu used his address to defend Israel's military campaigns, to reject accusations of genocide as a lie, and to criticize international moves toward Palestinian statehood, the positions of his nation. As this was happening, the Secretary-General of the United Nations apparently did and said nothing.

A problem that affects many members negatively is that the power of the UN is held by just a relative few of the entire member body. Fifteen members comprise the Security Council, and China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States are the permanent members of the Council. Those five countries have veto power over all the Council’s decisions. This has been shown to negatively affect how the UN can respond to crises, when one of those countries wants to prevent it.

The main purpose of the UN is to bring nations together to resolve their differences, to promote a peaceful world. It has often proven unable or incapable of doing this. 

Reason.com reported last month that, “A Gallup poll released Sunday found that a majority of Americans think the U.N. is doing a ‘poor job’ protecting human rights, upholding international law, supporting sustainable development, and administering humanitarian assistance, international peace, and security.”

Resolutions passed last year by the General Assembly show “an organization that meddles in the domestic politics of its members while failing to pursue its stated mission to ‘maintain international peace and security.’”

Allowing political bias to rule in an organization charged with working to create a peaceful world, is totally wrong, 180 degrees off course. This is why so many believe the UN is bad for the world. Thus, what is the point of the UN continuing to exist? 

An organization that can focus on peace and security is needed. But the UN isn’t it.

Ronald Reagan did not think socialism was a good thing

September 29, 2026

One of my favorite presidents is Ronald Reagan. I’m not saying he was the best ever, but he surely wasn’t the worst. And he darned sure was a really good one.

He had years of experience in leadership and government experience, he was wise beyond his years, and he had a great sense of humor. What more could one ask for in a president?

So, let’s start with an example of Reagan’s wonderful sense of humor. This one is a story he told at an appearance he made: “An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven’s Gate together. And St. Peter, after doing the necessary formalities, took them to show them what was available. He showed them a small room with a bed, and a chair, and a table, and said this was for the Clergyman. 

“And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for him. And he couldn’t believe it when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion, with lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters.

“And he couldn’t help but ask, ‘but wait, how? There’s something wrong. How do I get this mansion when that good and holy man gets only a single room?’

“And St. Peter said, ‘You have to understand how things up here are. We’ve got thousands and thousands of clergy. You’re the first politician who ever made it!’” 

And now, to the serious stuff.

Many conservatives remember and mention Reagan these days, four decades after he was President of the United States. They remember things he did, like helping to win the Cold War, rebuilding the nation’s military, cutting taxes, and he believed and often said that America is a great country.

And, as you might imagine, he was very popular. In one of his elections, Reagan won 49 of the 50 states.

Reagan trusted people, and believed they could be trusted with their own freedom. These days, there is a large faction that believes people should depend upon their government, instead.

In his time communism was thriving in the Soviet Union and East Germany. Millions of people lived under communist rule. There was a wall in Berlin, built to keep people from leaving the country and look for a better life. And the general story about communism was that it “was simply the world that we lived in.” And that situation in those countries, regarded as quite normal, was not about to change.

But Reagan rejected that idea. He told Mikhail Gorbachev, who was President of the Soviet Union at the time, to tear down the Berlin Wall. Standing at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin on June 12, 1987, he said that now-famous comment, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Such a statement was quite extraordinary back then. And it has been fondly remembered ever since.

However, not surprisingly, the people suffering under communism were getting tired of it, and a few years later, the people of Berlin were seen standing on top of the Berlin Wall holding sledgehammers.

Reagan believed that America is good, that communism is evil, that freedom is better than tyranny, and that people should be free to run their own lives. Today, millions of Americans want to trade the benefits that America offers for a nation built on socialism.

However, many people understand that socialism is not a good system. It may look that way from the outside, but its record of failure says otherwise. Here are a few comments about it:

“If socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialists. - Friedrich Hayek

Socialism and communism are but two sides of the same coin.

Socialism: You can vote your way in, but you’ll have to shoot your way out! 

And former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher, had many comments. Here are three:

* “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

* “Socialists cry ‘Power to the people,’ and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean - power over people, power to the State.”

* “Communism produces neither dignity nor prosperity. It takes all power away from the people and places it in the hands of a self-appointed elite. And because it distorts and manipulates the distinctive talents of individuals rather than letting those talents flourish, it prevents progress and prosperity.” 

But the one that ought to get the most attention is this one: “What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the ‘first’ or lower phase of communist society” - Vladimir Lenin, founding head of government of Soviet Russia.

People who campaign for socialism will tell you things like that socialism really is roads, firefighters, or public schools. But that is false. Those are somewhat natural things. Socialism is control by government of the means of production such as businesses, factories, land, and capital. And that control expands over time to include everything.

Let’s close with this from Reagan. “You know, they say there are only two places where communism works: in heaven, where they don't need it—and in hell, where they've already got it."

After 250 good years, now is not the time for major changes

September 22, 2026

We are living in a time of rage. The outlook of so many people is one of anger, and impatience with things they disagree with, instead of understanding and accepting that it is okay that not everyone thinks alike. It’s been a long time since we have seen this level of anger.

It is quite disturbing to observe so many Americans being so adamant about changing our system of government and amending or destroying the U.S. Constitution. 

Maybe they just dislike some aspects of the system. Or, maybe they do not understand how this unique and wonderful system of government came to be, and why it has worked so well for 250 years. 

Today, the left has a long list of radical changes they want to make and things to eliminate. 

One thing on their list is the United States Supreme Court, which they want to pack with “friendly” justices that will vote their way on legal or constitutional matters. Some of them would rather eliminate it completely.

There is a very sensible reason for our Constitution and our body of laws. The Constitution controls how the government operates, and the laws protect its citizens. But the left does not want a system of government and a body of laws designed to be followed as created.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder thinks packing the Court should be a priority. Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren says the Court is illegitimate because it does not follow “widely held public opinion,” It doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.

And, former Rep. Eric Swalwell agreed with Warren, saying the Court “defies the will of the people.” And that is correct, because that is not its purpose.

The popular New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wonders why we have a Supreme Court, asking, “How much does the current structure benefit us? … I don’t think it does.”

And, if those perspectives are not enough, the court-packing faction thinks it will make the Court “less partisan.” Seriously? And, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg wants the Court to have 15 justices consisting of five from each party, who will then select the remaining five.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley explains that a “non-partisan, independent judiciary,” such as what we have, “serves two essential purposes: it plays a vital role in preserving the separation of powers, which prevents all government power from being concentrated in one place, and it stands as a bulwark in defense of minority rights against a majority faction. To ensure its ability to perform these essential roles without being threatened by the political branches — the Congress and the executive branch — the Constitution gives federal jurists life tenure and salary protections.”

Another of the changes they want to make is to abolish the Electoral College.

The United States of America is by design not a pure democracy, where the majority always rules. A good example of why a pure democracy isn’t a good idea is this: In a pure democracy, in a group of twenty people, eleven can rule that the nine must go to jail.

Under such a design, a few large states would decide every presidential election, easily dominating the smaller states. 

Different states and areas of the country have different ideas about things, like what is good for them, and what is not good. But what is better for giant states like New York and California, may be very bad for others, like Vermont and Wyoming.

The Federalist Papers noted that there are 43 states with a smaller population than Los Angeles County, CA, meaning that the votes of each of those 43 states is less than one county in another state. If Los Angeles County was a state, it would be the 11th largest in the nation.

That’s why we have the Electoral College: so that the largest states do not always dominate and choose the president, based on the candidate that will do the most for them.

After much debate, the Founders settled on a compromise of ideas where instead of the raw vote totals of each state being added together to decide who will be president, the decision would be made by state-appointed electoral intermediaries — one for each senator and representative of each state — who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency. This tends to help balance the smaller states against the larger ones.

A lot of Americans do not like the Electoral College, and want to do away with it, because they feel it unfairly and improperly elects the president. However, in 250 years, in the 60 elections of our 47 presidents since 1789, only five times have presidential candidates won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College vote. That’s about 8 percent of the time. It doesn’t seem to be the problem they want everyone to believe it is.

You do not have to have a PhD. in The Art of Deception to realize that following the left’s plan will create a situation where the left will forever dominate elections, and will rule the country until it surpasses Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, and dies.

Our system has worked well for 250 years. We need to keep it.

Watching as the Democratic Party becomes more radical daily

September 15, 2026

The rising of this strong radical leftist movement toward socialism/communism is more than a bit troubling.

When our Founders were developing our unique system of government, they worked to develop one absent all the problems they had experienced and seen in other countries. The solution they arrived at was a constitutional republic based on principles of democracy.

Had the Founders gone with another type of government — like a kingdom, or a heavy socialistic or communist government, or a pure democracy — or even with the chosen system that got changed a few decades ago, it is quite likely that these people that now want to change the system would never have been born. This system they hate so much and want to change made it possible for them to even be around to hate it.

Despite the dramatic lack of evidence to support socialism, many on the political left seem to think that is a better route to travel than the current one that has done pretty darned well for 250 years. 

On this subject, American economist, economic historian, and social theorist Thomas Sowell commented, “Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good.”

Venezuela may be the best example of how socialism doesn’t work. It was once Latin America’s wealthiest nation. But enter the socialist presidents Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. As a result, today, most Venezuelans are living in extreme poverty. 

The Democratic Socialists of America has taken the left’s radicalism to a new level. On Fox News Sunday recently, the co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, Megan Romer, said things like eliminating the Senate, replacing the President and Supreme Court “as we know them,” abolishing ICE, abolishing borders and more, were part of the DSA’s agenda. On that same topic, liberal talk show host Joe Scarborough warned that the DSA’s extreme policies, which he called “craziness,” will push voters to vote Republican. 

HBO talk show host Bill Maher is a liberal who isn’t afraid to call out the excesses of those on his side of the aisle, and does that fairly often. He recently dug into the sympathy that many on the left have shown for Muslims during last Friday’s 25th observance of the 9-11 attacks.

While 2,977 Americans were murdered that day, some on the left were more concerned with the anger at the Muslim terrorists who killed them, he noted. He was particularly upset with the results of a poll showing that one in five Gen Z respondents thought that Osama bin Laden was an “okay” guy.

Maher’s response was: “He’s Luigi Mangione in a turban.”

Maher also criticized the anti-Israel and pro-Islam perspective of the left surrounding the Gaza situation. He outlined the steps Israel has taken to settle things and actually help those living in Gaza, that have been ignored by the anti-Israel faction on the left.

He also noted that when Israel responded to the vicious October 7th Hamas attacks, it was not genocide — as so many have tied to convince the world — but a justified counterattack.

And then, there is Zohran Kwame Mamdani, a naturalized American citizen, born in Uganda of Indian parents who moved here when he was 7 years-old. He is a member of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America, and became the first Muslim and Asian American to serve as New York City’s Mayor.

His platform when running for the office included support for free city buses, a rent freeze in rent-stabilized housing, wanting the city to operate a grocery store in each of the five boroughs, universal child care, the construction of 200,000 new affordable housing units, a $30 minimum wage by 2030, and tax increases on corporations and on those earning above $1 million annually.

As New Yorkers gathered on Friday in observance of the 9-11 Islamic terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and another unidentified target which killed 2,977 Americans, Mamdani was there, against the wishes of many who thought he didn’t really belong there, due to his being a Muslim.

As the names of the victims were being read, many were saddened and wept. Yet, Mamdani and New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were seen not paying any attention to the ceremony, but instead talking and laughing.

Abdulrahman (Abdul) Mohamed El-Sayed is an American politician who is the Democratic nominee in the 2026 US Senate election in Michigan. He is a progressive Democrat who supports Medicare for All and abolishing ICE. If elected, El-Sayed would be the first Muslim member of the U.S. Senate.

Hasan Piker is a political commentator whose rhetoric supports violence and denigrates Jewish people. He reportedly has a large number — 11.3 million — of followers, and has expressed support for designated terrorist organizations and anti-Semitic ideas. And, he recently said America deserved the 9-11 attacks, although he did retract that statement, later.

So, the Democrats and the political left have shown a substantive allegiance to even more radical ideals lately. 

Electing these people and moving the Unites States even farther from its original orientation is not a sensible move.

Stabilization is badly needed in legal and scientific matters

September 8, 2026

I have for many years appreciated Clarence Thomas as an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. That appreciation stems mostly from his originalist and textualist view of laws and the United States Constitution. Thomas may become the longest serving Justice ever.

Originalism is the idea that the Constitution is not a living document, the meaning of which changes with the evolution and changes of our society. Originalism is based upon the sensible idea that the Constitution means what it meant when it was created, as do all of our laws.

Thomas and other originalists are referred to as “conservative” justices. That term has nothing to do with political philosophy, it only has to do with adhering to the original meaning of laws and the Constitution.

This is a concept that eludes the understanding of many present and past justices, as well as many people who prefer a living Constitution and laws that can mean whatever somebody wants them to mean at any given moment in time, and under any circumstances.

Another originalist was former Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who served on the Supreme Court from 1986 until his untimely death in 2016. Scalia was referred to as the intellectual anchor for the originalists and textualists on the Court.

Regarding the idea of originalism and the tendency among some Justices to apply a liberal interpretation to the Constitution, Scalia said, “The Constitution means what it says. You figure out what it was understood to mean when it was adopted and that’s the end of it. If you want more rights, create them by statute, if you want more constitutional rights, create them by amending the Constitution.”

He also maintained that this approach is the only way to safeguard the purpose of the Constitution. The Founders worked hard and over a significant period of time to develop a unique and improved system of government. 

It is a constitutional federal republic with a national government divided into three distinct branches — the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. This arrangement balances power between the federal government and individual states through a system of checks and balances designed to prevent tyranny.

The Constitution is the guide of that system, and it must be correctly interpreted, based upon what the Founders had in mind when they wrote it.

The appropriateness of this concept is so obvious that it is truly troubling that so many people trained in the law do not follow it when it does not suit their preferences.

Another area where what is supposed to be right is often not right is in the area of scientific work. In science, the problem is that there are sometimes so many different scientists working on the same question, and they often all come up with different results in their exploration of the question at hand.

This situation was addressed in the Hillsdale College publication “Imprimis” by Jay Bhattacharya, who became the Director of the National Institutes of Health in 2025. He is a physician and former professor of medicine at Stanford University.

In the Imprimis article, he notes when the findings of a study are made available on TV, in newspapers, on podcasts, etc., people accept those findings. Other scientists often perform the same experiments and come up with different results. But, which results are the correct ones?

“How do we address this,” Bhattacharya asks. “We begin by recognizing the fact that most ideas hatched by scientists do not work or are not true. That is completely normal in science and always has been.” He then cited a paper written in 2005 titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”

The idea of replication is a good one, as it has many scientists seeking the truth, and checking one another by replicating their research and checking their results against the others, or using different methods to find the same results. Eventually, the correct answers come forth.

However, recently a problem has reemerged, one that had been eliminated by the scientific revolution years ago. That problem is the idea that there is a “scientific authority” that determines what is and what isn’t true. 

“Unfortunately, we find ourselves back in a situation today,” Bhattacharya wrote, “as demonstrated a few years ago by the Covid lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination requirements, where a relatively small number of people — directors of government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (prior to Bhattacharya taking the leadership), heads of international agencies like the World Health Organization, and editors of prestigious journals — have the power to say what is true or false in science.

Like political and social ideas, scientific theories must not be censored. And adjustments to constitutional ideals and laws cannot be done because someone dislikes them, or they don’t fit preferences, 

If science has produced conflicting results, none of those results can be determined to be “the one” arbitrarily by some person or group. If a law or constitutional tenet is found to be unsatisfactory, it must be changed through established procedures.

Honesty and professional integrity are demanded of persons in these positions. 

America did not become the great country it is by substituting under-the-table tactics for appropriate legal processes. 

The climate change debate still thrives after seventy years

September 1, 2026

Of the many popular topics of discussion these days — like can men have babies; the many crimes Donald Trump has committed; we really need to do away with police and prisons — there is the on-going talk about our environment.

And, of course, we need to be aware of harmful things that may be going on that could have a serious negative effect of our environment, and the people.

Many warnings over the last few decades have been, “If we don’t stop using fossil fuels to produce electricity and for other things, the United States and likely the rest of the world will suffer and die.”

But not all of these warnings and predictions of doom and gloom are valid, or have come true. And 33 of them will be mentioned.

As always with serious topics, there are at least two sides of the argument. Lately, there has been an effort to silence, or at least reduce the argument that says that our environment is not in any serious trouble.

Let’s go back several years to the mid-to-late 1900s and look at some of these predictions: The Arctic Ocean Will Be Navigable by Mid-Century (1958); Global Famine by 1975 (1967); New Ice Age by 21st Century (1970); Ice Age in 50–60 Years (1971); Catastrophic Cooling in a Century (1972); Space Satellites Confirm Ice Age (1974); Time Magazine: Another Ice Age? (1974); No End to Cooling in Sight (1978).

The reference to Time Magazine mentioned a question about another Ice Age being on its way. Time noted that there was growing Arctic ice, cold winters, and animals migrating as a result, showing that indeed Earth was entering a long period of cold temperatures.

Only a few years later, in 1979, this prediction appeared: “Arctic Ice Will Vanish.” And that warming theme became the dominant one, to wit: Environmental Catastrophe by 2000 (1982); Maldives Underwater in 30 Years (1988); Entire Nations Could Disappear by 2000 (1989); UK Snowfalls Will Vanish (2000); Maple Syrup Industry Dead in 20 Years (2001).

The nations disappearing warning came from a United Nations official, warning that global warming must be reversed to prevent this from occurring.

So, as of 1979, global warming was the problem. Or was it? Three years after the prediction of the maple syrup industry being killed a new warning mentioned the possibility of Britain freezing: “Britain Becomes Siberia by 2020 (2004).”

But then three years after that, warming was again the dangerous threat to life on Earth: “Point of No Return by 2016 (2006); Arctic Ice Gone by 2013 (2007); Climate Deadline is 2012 (2007); Ice-Free Arctic by 2013 (2007); North Pole Ice Cap Melts Away in 2008 (2008); North Pole Could Melt by 2008 (2008); North Pole to Be Ice-Free for First Time in History (2008); Arctic Will Melt in Five to Ten Years (2008); Arctic Ocean Ice-Free by 2014 (2009).”

The “point of no return” came from an Associated Press article that paraphrased Al Gore saying that greenhouse gas emission must be drastically reduced within 10 years.

This trend of warming predictions continued into the next two decades: “Arctic Ice-Free in Two Years (2013); Australia’s Snowfall on the Decline (2017); No More Arctic Ice After 2022 (2018); Humanity Will Go Extinct by 2023 (2018); Glacier National Park Sign Predicted No Glaciers by 2020 (2020); No Snow California by 2021 (2021); End of Snow to Affect 76 Million Americans (2022).” 

The young Swedish climate activist, Greta Thunberg, tweeted that humanity would go extinct by 2023 unless fossil fuel use was immediately ended. At the time, in 2018, she was only 15-years-old, but somehow managed to gain much attention.

And now comes the reality that not one of these 33 predictions of a serious climate crisis has been correct.

Some scientists maintain that the warming that has occurred did so because there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, resulting from burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. 

However, others say that it is actually part of a natural process, and not due to man-made problems. They say that we are still in an Ice Age that began more than 100,000 years ago.

The Earth has alternating periods of cooling (glacials) and warming (interglacials) that last for about a hundred thousand years. As an Ice Age progresses, cooling ends and warming begins. That is where they say we are now.

Although the many predictions of disaster have proven false, there are still many scientists and lay people who either believe that global warming is a man-made problem that needs to be corrected, or are determined to preach that line for some non-scientific purpose.

And, history shows us that there have been periods where our atmosphere has been much, much warmer than it is today.

Here, from climate.gov, is one example: “The fact that these thick, calcium-rich rock layers sit directly on top of rock piles left behind by retreating glaciers indicates that temperatures rose significantly near the end of the Neoproterozoic, perhaps reaching a global average higher than 90° Fahrenheit. (Today's global average is lower than 60°F.)”

Today, we are not really hot. So, relax, and stop freaking out.

So, murder is now a way to fix the things you don’t like?

 

August 18, 2026

Luigi Mangione, the suspected murderer of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson in 2024, pled guilty in court last week to the killing. “I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan,” Mangione said in his plea. “I understood that my actions would place him in fear of death or bodily injury. I knew what I was doing was illegal.”

Mangione, reading his statement to the court. said that “after years of enduring severe pain from an injured back and navigating the insurance system, he learned that UnitedHealthcare would be holding its annual investor conference in New York City on Dec. 4, 2024,” as reported by the New York Times.

He then went to NYC in possession of a gun he made with a 3-D printer with a silencer affixed to it, and committed cold-blooded murder against someone who did not cause his pain, but worked in the health insurance industry which Mangione blamed for his discomfort.

Federal prosecutors said they will seek life in prison, the maximum sentence possible, when Mangione is sentenced in December.

So, just who is Luigi Mangione? According to the Times report, he “was born into a prosperous Maryland family that owned country clubs, nursing homes and a conservative talk radio station. He attended a private, all-boys high school in Baltimore.” That isn’t the sort of life that should build hatred.

Question: How can someone who had such a good life, with a successful and prosperous family, not have learned one of the most basic lessons of life: that murder is wrong?

As nauseating and irrational as Mangione’s action was, nearly as bad is the high level of support this murderous rich kid has received from others.

“The murder of Brian Thompson, the UnitedHealthcare executive, in late 2024 unearthed a torrent of public outrage against the health insurance industry,” the Times reported. “And since then, Americans’ anger has solidified into deep mistrust of the companies.

“Much of the current dissatisfaction stems from rising economic concerns: More and more people cannot afford the increasing costs of insurance premiums and medical bills.”

This situation is now the justification for the murder of an insurance executive, causing unimaginable pain and suffering among his family, friends and co-workers, and not solving the problem.

The Times report continued, “Outside the courthouse, Abril Rios, one of the self-described “Mangionistas” who received a city-issued press badge, said she felt ‘relieved’ to hear Mangione’s testimony detailing the crime. ‘I see the move today as still fighting it,’ she said. ‘I don’t think this is a concession or an admission of guilt.’”

This madness was also covered by CNN, which reported that someone called “Katie” appeared at a Manhattan protest “wearing a black shirt with a large photo of the 26-year-old suspected shooter. ‘But Daddy I Love Him,’ the shirt read in pink.

“’I just thought it was fun and cute and something to show his face and show support,’ she said.

“Did she actually, as the shirt said, love Mangione?

“’I don’t know if you can love someone you’ve never met,’ she responded. ‘I love whoever made that action to stand for health care … They really took a stand. I’m actually surprised something like this hasn’t happened before.’

“’Whoever did commit that act, I really do see him as a hero and a martyr.’

Katie was one of a few dozen people who came to a protest outside federal court in New York City to express support for Mangione.” 

Strangely, support for cold-blooded murder has been seen at other protests, where signs with “Free Luigi” were seen, and protesters wore green, referencing Nintendo’s “Luigi” character.

After his arrest and being charged, this murderer received hundreds of supporting letters from not only the US, but also Brazil, Japan and Australia.

And some 27,000 sympathizers had contributed more than $950,000 to a legal defense fund. And the legal defense fund’s website listed 13 “Frequently Asked Questions,” with many of them suggesting contributing or sending him letters.

CNN also said it had contacted some of his supporters to learn how they felt, and why, and their responses focused on our health care system and the insurance companies. 

“There’s a lot of sympathy for Luigi,” an unidentified supporter said. “Seems to be like he was mad at the health care system, like we all are. I obviously don’t think anyone should be murdered, and I don’t think that’s a way to solve the problem, but I sympathize with the idea that we can actually make that happen and just to use this moment to make that happen.”

Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk met a similar fate on a college campus in 2025. His crime against humanity: calmly and politely providing members of his audience a different side to their argument. But that was too much for his executioner to handle.

The Thompson and Kirk murders, and the ludicrously large amount of support for this sort of irrational violence should worry each of us. What has happened in our once logical and balanced culture to allow so many to believe the way to solve their problems is to murder people who do not agree with them?

We must protect America’s devotion to freedom of ideas

August 11, 2026

One of the big negatives in the country today is that many members of some important professions have put their integrity in a drawer in their basement or attic, and replaced it with political motivation. This is especially harmful when those professionals are lawyers and judges, education administrators and teachers, and people working in news media and social media.

Where news is concerned, the heaviest distribution of these folks is on the left side of the political aisle. Liberal/socialist-leaning media are busy controlling what they air, print and post, happily and energetically pouring forth their preferred perspectives, and just as happily and energetically blocking opposing material.

Trying to find a balanced news outlet is not as easy as it used to be. And that can, and does, have an effect on how people think about things. When you only get one set of ideas of the many actually available, you are not able to make independent judgements, you are being controlled.

One small effort to impose some limit on how much control any entity or group of entities could gain over the populace occurred two decades ago.

Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, placing a 39 percent cap on how much broadcast television ownership a company may have. That’s a pretty large number, allowing one owner to have more than one-third of all of the broadcast television stations. A tiny limit, but it is a limit.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently voted to eliminate that cap, undoubtedly thrilling the broadcast industry, as it swung open the door to more consolidation of TV station ownership. 

Large television station companies have been urging this change since day one, and new FCC Chairman, Brendan Carr, has argued for the change, saying traditional broadcasting entities are unfairly regulated, while tech companies and streaming companies are not.

The TV people also say that restricting these purchases puts TV stations at risk of closure, due to the evolving technology of communications, which favors new media over traditional media.

Critics, however, counter that point, saying that television remains a unique market. With the decline in newspapers that has occurred, local TV stations are depended upon more and more for local news. Therefore, they should continue to be independent, and not become controlled by a few large companies.

The 2-to-1 FCC vote featured the Republican Carr, and Commissioner Olivia Trusty voting for the change, and Democrat Commissioner Anna Gomez opposing it.

The FCC position is that decisions by a company to purchase additional broadcast stations will be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than through a blanket ceiling on total ownership. This is a much less likely way to restrict too much ownership.

Opponents of the FCC decision immediately responded, asking if an independent federal agency has the authority to eliminate a limit imposed by a federal law. They maintain that Congress must decide any changes to a federal law. This issue will undoubtedly go before a federal court.

But the government and the people must keep their eyes on situations where some individual or company, or group of individuals or companies quietly gain a high degree of control over an important aspect of our lives.

Here is another similar example: Three investment companies — BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street Global Advisors — control about 74 percent of the ETF (exchange traded funds) equity market, and that equates to being the largest shareholder in roughly 88 percent of S&P 500 companies.

Those three firms have enough voting power to influence how those companies operate. Is it a good situation when three firms have this much control over that many companies in America?

The term “diversity” has become a frequently used term recently. However, the United States has always had a fairly diverse atmosphere. Many options exist in nearly any subject you can name. Food, entertainment, jobs, clothing, vehicles, political ideas, areas of study, etc. 

You won’t find that diversity in authoritarian nations, which are often communist or socialist. In those nations, you get what the government says you can have, and nothing more.

We should fight movements that limit our choices, whether that involves three companies that might one day pretty much decide what products we can buy, due to their high level of control over those large and important companies. Or having only a few media organizations that decide which of the many important ideas we will be able to access, and how much news we will accurately hear about.

In addition to the insane changes to the government they think are smart, the heavily anti-American agenda of the left — particularly the even-more-radical Democratic Socialists of America, which wants no police, no prisons, no U.S. Senate, no Supreme Court, no Electoral College, no ICE, to give amnesty to all illegals, to take over important industries, and more — lean heavily towards a government with little diversity, and an environment where nearly everything allowed in the land will be what is approved by, and imposed by government.

Our constitutional republic is under attack by enemies from both inside and outside the country. We must defeat them decisively and quickly. 

Is our 250-year-old constitutional republic going to survive?

August 4, 2026

Remember when Democrats and Republicans were much closer in their ideas about how to move the country forward than they are today? If so, you are probably a seasoned citizen. If not that seasoned, and you happen to remember this, you are not from Gen Z, but you may be an early Gen X.

That more productive atmosphere is not what we have today.

Many on the left — mostly the younger ones, but also some of the older ones — do not understand the nation’s system that they so eagerly aim to sabotage, turning the country into one more famously inept socialist/communist mess.

Those in the Gen Z crowd were born from 1997 to 2012. By then, we already had high-speed internet, social media, smartphones, and a society that had existed and prospered for more than 200 years. And, while the older generations — like the Silent Generation, the Boomers, etc. — had many things that even older ones didn’t have, they were able to see how things came to be, appreciate their arrival, and enjoy these steps of progress.

Watching media evolve from just radio to the black and white television, and then to color television. Impressed with the development of stereo sound. Cars with automatic transmission, and then air conditioning. Jet aircraft. The space programs. The list goes on and on.

They also learned a lot from their parents about how to behave, and in school they learned real history, and civics, teaching them how the country was developed and supposed to work.

That experience helped them appreciate the great country into which they were so fortunate to have been born.

That element is missing from the environment of these younger folks. They entered a world that was so much better than it was when the older folks were born. Having such a full and special atmosphere from birth, taking it for granted, rather than watching how those great things developed and improved along the way may be why they do not adequately appreciate their wonderful country.

Whatever the reasons for these leftists to fail to understand present-day America and properly appreciate it, they also have no idea how foolish it is to think that socialism/communism will be better, or even tolerable, once it gets fully established.

Businessman David Rubenstein offered this perspective on America: “I would say that the United States is one of roughly 220 countries in the world. And of all these countries, we’re the one where the most people want to immigrate to. We’re the one who’s built the biggest economy in the world, the greatest technology base in the world,” and “we have the greatest entrepreneurial instincts of any country in the world. And that combination of things enables this country to achieve what we’ve achieved.”

Continuing with his praise for our country, he said, “To go through your life, you have used a lot of American technology. You probably can’t get through your day without using a Google, Facebook, or Meta product, or Netflix or one of our American-made automobiles. What European company do you need to use their products to get through the day? Virtually none. And except for TikTok, Americans can get through the day without using anything invented really outside the United States. The world is very dependent on the products we’ve created.”

A major problem today is that so many of the young were denied the fundamental education of what America is, and how it was formed. Our strong, sensible values have deteriorated dramatically over recent decades, because they ceased being taught and encouraged.

How can we strengthen those values? On that topic, another prominent American, radio talk show host, attorney, and author, Hugh Hewitt, suggests that we start teaching civics again to middle school students. He thinks using a book by Wilford McClay, titled “Land of Hope” will help. Hewitt believes it “is the best single book on American history,” and thinks it should be the core curriculum.

Describing McClay’s book: “It’s warts and all, as he says. He’s objective. He’s not neutral, but he’s objective about what we’ve gotten wrong and what we’ve gotten right in the country. Let’s pour ourselves into civics as opposed to ideology. I’d like to get back to some basics about how much we have in common, not what we have to fight over.”

Our constitutional republic has survived and thrived for 250 years. The country is not perfect. No country is. But this one has set records that none other has in those 250 years. And yet, thousands, perhaps millions, of our fellow Americans are dead-set on imposing socialism/communism on us, unable to recognize our great worth, or understand the disasters that their preferred system has brought to Cuba, Venezuela and other countries.

A noteworthy incident occurred during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Outside Independence Hall, Elizabeth Willing Powel asked Benjamin Franklin a question about the Convention’s conclusion: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Our republic has survived a civil war, two world wars, and many other challenges. Will it be able to survive this one? 

Traffic cameras are an enigma: public safety versus privacy

July 28, 2026

As if the current serious political divide in our country and the attempts of the radical left to turn America into Cuba or Venezuela aren’t enough for the country to deal with, we now are becoming aware of a movement among governments and law enforcement agencies to post surveillance and ALPR cameras around their areas.

And we know that there are some present in our area.

The public is told that these devices help protect citizens and help to identify law breakers. There are reportedly tens-of-thousands of AI (Artificial Intelligence) cameras mounted on utility poles and other support elements across the country. 

Perhaps the most abundant type of these cameras is the ALPR (automated license plate reader). These enable law enforcement to identify vehicles whose drivers have broken laws or perhaps caused accidents.

That sounds like a good idea, and it can certainly help to identify people involved in law-breaking and other negative behavior. But there is a good bit more to the story.

As this relatively new activity spreads across the country, it is raising major privacy concerns, as these cameras operate in AI-powered networks that track and record public movement.

These cameras capture vehicle license plates and vehicle details like the make, model, and color. They also record timestamps, exact locations, and unique vehicle elements like bumper stickers or dents, all of which can aid law enforcement to identify those who have broken laws. 

This data is saved in searchable cloud databases and retained for 30 days or longer. These databases provide authorities with a great deal of information for every vehicle and its owner/driver, and that includes both those who are involved in wrongdoing and everyone else, as well.

As you might imagine, this has sparked intense debate between public safety advocates and civil liberties groups who are concerned with citizen’s privacy rights. And, there is the concern regarding local surveillance data potentially feeding into wider federal immigration or law enforcement tracking networks.

And, it must be said that the problems with having all this information stored are two-fold: First, while those who have access to the information could misuse it, most will not. But that possibility exists, and it appears there is not adequate protection against that at this time.

Second: As Americans, we have a healthy list of inalienable rights that are guaranteed to be protected by our government. One of those is our privacy, although it is not phrased that way in the Bill of Rights.

Among the guarantees is in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Amendment does not use the word "privacy," but protects against unreasonable government searches and seizures. And privacy can be invaded by unreasonable searches. Legitimate searches require a warrant to be issued for probable cause.

Critics warn that the ease of cross-referencing and sharing data with other agencies across the country negates traditional Fourth Amendment privacy safeguards, putting our privacy at risk.

Civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that logging the movements of everyday citizens who are not suspected of any crime is nothing more than un-American mass surveillance.

On its website (aclu.org), the ACLU, in its usual mode, said the following: “Automatic license plate reader (ALPR) companies like Flock Safety are quietly trying to build a nationwide mass surveillance system. If there are Flock cameras in your city, they are tracking, logging, and sharing your movements without a warrant. But we're not powerless. More and more communities are rejecting these creepy cameras — and yours can be one of them!”

At this point, that perspective is more a gross exaggeration than a true picture of what is happening. In other comments, the organization implies that this is an effort by the Trump administration to identify and locate its enemies, rather than the result of technological evolution. 

However, the ACLU comment did note the displeasure among the people. The ALPR cameras, crowdsourced tracking maps, such as DeFlock, have led to the cancellation or suspension of camera contracts in at least 30 local municipalities. And the number of others who are concerned is growing.

The other side of this issue is that police departments tell us that this technology is an effective background tool necessary for tracking stolen vehicles, amber alerts, and solving violent crimes. These are certainly valuable and legitimate uses of this technology, and we should welcome these efforts to track and arrest criminals, and have evidence that can be presented against their crimes.

However, just like data centers, and AI -- both of which offer great advantages to the country, but which also contain highly problematic features -- we must find a way for these assets to be used to their highest level of efficiency, but at the same time making sure that the availability of so much personal/private information is only accessed for legitimate and legal purposes.

This will not be an easy task. And the emotional reaction by many, such as the ACLU’s political-infected perspective, will hinder that effort. 

The radical leftists are adamant about changing our country

July 21, 2026

As time marches on, the socialist/Marxist/communist tendencies of the radical left continue to increase. Fairly recently, an organization called the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has come to the fore. Since its formation in 1982 when the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and the New American Movement merged, the DSA grew to become a fairly small organization of around 6,000 members as of 2015. 

But after Sen. Bernie Sanders ran for office in 2016, identifying himself as a democratic socialist, a growth spurt began. As of this month, the DSA’s membership is said to be more than 120,000. It is now reputed to be the largest such organization in the nation’s history.

Goals for the left have in the recent past included things like open borders, protecting illegal aliens, DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), men in women’s sports, college debt forgiveness, opposing mandatory voter IDs, etc.

Following are some of the DSA’s agenda items, as published on its website, dsausa.org.

“Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor.”

“End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents' brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas.”

“Defund the Department of War. End all foreign wars and close overseas military bases. Support and fully employ veterans. End immunity for U.S. war criminals and support the International Criminal Court's mandate to prosecute war crimes.”

“Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.”

“Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure.”

“Guarantee universal healthcare at no cost to individuals, including complete access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. Expand healthcare access and quality by investing in new public hospitals and clinics. Make all medical education and training public and free.”

“Housing is a human right. Build new, publicly-owned social housing, strictly regulate investment properties, establish universal rent control.”

“Workers must lead our democratic transition to a green future. Pass a federal jobs guarantee. Implement massive investment in sustainable, publicly owned energy and transit infrastructure. Phase out the use of fossil fuels.”

“Empower workers to come together and fight the boss. Protect, expand, and enforce the rights of all workers to form, join, and strike with their unions, regardless of industry.”

The ideas of the rad left are always things which sound good to a lot of people. However, the reality is very different. The history of this mindset is one of dramatic failure and suffering.

One shining example is Venezuela. Near the end of the 20th Century, Venezuela’s oil industry gave it a very strong economy. And then Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, brought socialism, causing severe economic collapse, a humanitarian crisis, and political turmoil.

Will these radical ideas work? 

No police to deter crimes, investigate and arrest suspects of murder, rape, robbery, etc.? The guilty parties will just roam free and commit more crimes. And, no prisons in which convicted or confessed criminals will spend their punishment time? Maybe they will make them go to counselors to straighten them out.

Closing the Department of War, but have only military stationed in the US. Who will run the military? What about deterring military action against our allies? What happens if we are attacked by a foreign nation?

End ICE and legalize migration. Open borders again, and more criminals coming in.

How will healthcare be paid for if no one pays the bills? Building more hospitals and clinics also has costs of construction, and then operation.

The same problem exists on building public-owned housing, and rent control that will be set to make it very affordable.

And then the government will somehow take over the largest corporations and essential industries. Will the government run them as well as the private sector? 

They want government to control everything.

These folks do not understand just how well off they are, here in America. Here are a couple of things these anti-American rad leftists should think about to help them understand their country:

One is the reaction from the thousands of visitors from around the world who came here for the FIFA World Cup tournament. They loved America, and one of the most recognizable responses was the comment about how great America is.

The other one is a story from Ken Langone, a founding investor of The Home Depot. Talking about his grandfather who had come here from Italy sometime during World War II, Langone asked his grandfather, who did not speak English, if he had ever gone back to Italy. His mother translated for him. The grandfather answered, “No.” He asked why? Grandfather responded, “There was nothing there for me. That’s why I left. This is where the dreams were. This is what the dreams are. There’s no place on Earth like this.”