The USGS report has some good news for the mining industry

June 9, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 26, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our political atmosphere is a warning sign of coming disaster

May 19, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 12, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A different way of thinking about President Donald Trump

May 5, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The left’s chosen direction for America is very troubling

April 28, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Thomas addresses the progressive attack on America’s freedom

April 21, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gas prices will come down, but other troubles lie ahead

April 14, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Birthright citizenship” is a foolish and dangerous practice

April 7, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

And the language of the 14th Amendment actually contains a clause which somewhat provides restrictions: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.