Six Democrats urge military personnel to ignore Trump’s orders

November 25, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 18, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 11, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On property taxes, and dangerous and violent political language

October 4, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating an event structure and destroying the White House

October 28, 2025

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

A few of the comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 21, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crimes and criminals must be swiftly and effectively dealt with

October 14, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 7, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radical language is dangerous and has no place in our politics

September 30, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 23, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An effective challenge to the climate catastrophe narrative

Sept. 16, 2025

Despite the desperate efforts of the climate catastrophe crowd, very good opinion pieces arguing against their narrative keep being released. Another one appeared in the Wall Street Journal, written by Steven E. Koonin.

The article, titled, “At Long Last, Clarity on Climate,” began: “A recent Energy Department report challenged the widespread belief that greenhouse gas emissions pose a serious threat to the nation. It likely soothed Americans irked by forced energy transitions, but you would be wrong to assume it reassured many alarmed by hypothetical climate catastrophes.” 

Koonin, who is an author and a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, continued, writing that “There is a disconnect between public perceptions of climate change and climate science — and between past government reports and the science itself. Energy Secretary Chris Wright understands this. It’s why he commissioned an independent assessment by a team of five senior scientists, including me, to provide clearer insights into what’s known and not about the changing climate.”

He noted that this group has more than 200 years of research experience collectively, most of which was closely related to climate studies.

“The resulting peer-reviewed report is entirely our work, free from political influence — a departure from previous assessments,” he wrote. “It draws from United Nations and U.S. climate reports, peer-reviewed research, and primary observations to focus on important aspects of climate science that have been misrepresented to nonexperts.” 

Among the report’s key findings:

• Elevated carbon-dioxide levels enhance plant growth, contributing to global greening and increased agricultural productivity. 

• Complex climate models provide limited guidance on the climate’s response to rising carbon-dioxide levels. Overly sensitive models, often using extreme scenarios, have exaggerated future warming projections and consequences. 

• Data aggregated over the continental U.S. show no significant long-term trends in most extreme weather events. Claims of more frequent or intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and dryness in America aren’t supported by historical records. 

• While global sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1900, aggregate U.S. tide-gauge data don’t show the long-term acceleration expected from a warming globe. 

• Natural climate variability, data limitations and model deficiencies complicate efforts to attribute specific climate changes or extreme events to human CO2 emissions. 

• The use of the words “existential,” “crisis” and “emergency” to describe the projected effects of human-caused warming on the U.S. economy finds scant support in the data. 

• Overly aggressive policies aimed at reducing emissions could do more harm than good by hiking the cost of energy and degrading its reliability. Even the most ambitious reductions in U.S. emissions would have little direct effect on global emissions and an even smaller effect on climate trends. 

Koonin notes that this group’s report is the first in a good while that challenges the narrative of catastrophic climate change, and that many people are surprised by it because government has failed to accurately communicate climate science.

What is commonly called “climate science” is often more like “climate crises.” The idea is to scare people about the climate so that they will comply with the narrative and the proposed actions to protect us from catastrophe. 

So many of the previous predictions of devastation have not been correct. Here are some of the many examples of false predictions and the year in which they were made:

1967: Dire Famine Forecast by 1975

1969: Everyone Will Disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam by 1989

1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985

1971: New Ice Age Coming by 2020 or 2030

1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018

1989: Rising Sea Levels Will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000

1989: UN Warns Global Warming Will Wipe Nations Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 

2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past

2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy

2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015

2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018

2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013

2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says We Have 96 Months to Save the World

In 2024 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website published the components of our atmosphere, and the dreaded CO2 (carbon-dioxide), the gas that is blamed for leading us to a ¬catastrophic future, makes up just .04% of it. 

Some scientists say that we need twice as much CO2 to enhance plant growth, and more plants produce more oxygen. And they say that reducing the .04% level by half would seriously endanger plant and human life. 

Others who support the global warming theory, admit that lower CO2 levels would lead to lower — perhaps much cooler — temperatures, since CO2 is credited for raising temperatures.

“Climate policies must balance the risks of climate change against a response’s costs, efficacy and collateral effects,” Koonin wrote. “Reports like ours may draw a lot of anger but our work accurately portrays important aspects of climate science. Acknowledging the facts is essential for informed policy decisions.”

Given the large number of climate catastrophes that have been predicted, and that have not occurred, and given the relatively moderate current atmospheric conditions, perhaps we should relax on this topic.

Blue states and cities are paying a price for their policies

September 9, 2025

We know things are not good in blue states and cities, but over the last seven months we have more clearly seen just how bad things really are. 

Over a ten-year period, from 2012 - 2022 (the latest year for which data is available), there has been a surprising movement of people out of blue states.

The 5 states that have lost the most people are: New York - 1,757,720; California - 1,632,774; Illinois - 881,012; New Jersey - 350,111; Massachusetts - 283,838.

The 5 states that have gained the most people are: Florida - 1,591,626; Texas - 1,268,227; North Carolina - 520,615; Arizona - 483,368; South Carolina - 459,395.

The reasons for this transfer of population are that people in blue states often prefer the lower costs of living, a desire for policies that better match their political and social expectations, economic factors like job opportunities, a less regulated business climate and a preferable tax system that red states offer.

Looking at the tax issue, nine states have no income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. Others are committed to eliminating it. And 14 more have a flat income tax ranging from Arizona at 2.5% to Idaho at 5.695%.

In addition to losing lots of people to red states, the blue states also lost money, as reported by Newsmax. Take California, for example. The 68,449 who moved to Florida took with them $12 billion in personal income over that ten-year period. And the 361,623 who moved to Texas took along $21 billion, the 74,978 who moved to Tennessee took $4.5 billion, and the 146,280 took $9.2 billion to Washington state.

New York has also seen substantial population decline. Over ten years 2 million people have left the state, and Cornell University researchers predict another 2 million will leave over the next 25 years.

While taxes and the business climate are significant factors, other policies are also significant. Harboring, protecting, and even inviting illegal aliens in has definitely caused much harm. The most harmful things are the crimes these illegals commit, like drug and child trafficking, robberies, assaults, rapes and murders.

Illegals are not the only ones committing crimes in blue states and cities, and even in red states, of course. But the policies of blue cities and states invites crime by not aggressively trying to prevent crime, and not punishing criminals.

Ideas like defunding police, failing to aggressively prosecute criminal behavior, which are frequent features of blue states and cities, send a message. These foolish policies actually protect criminals, and endanger citizens.

Some cities refuse to arrest people who rob stores unless they steal more than nearly $1000 worth of merchandise. Some refuse to enforce laws that focus on “minor” crimes, leaving the victims with no recourse against the people that harm them. 

What is the predictable result of failing to arrest people for their crimes? Is it possible that these ne’er-do-wells will continue their criminal behavior, or perhaps increase it? Well, duh!

And more recent news items note the problem of even teenagers who are “committing crimes with impunity.” The perception of these young people that the lack of consequences for their actions has raised concerns among residents and law enforcement officials. Ed Gonzalez, president of the Washington, D.C. Police Union, has said that kids are not afraid of consequences because they know nothing will happen to them. If something does happen to them, it is most often rehabilitation, not punishment.

Defending this approach is D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. She argues that providing young offenders with opportunities for redemption is more important than punishment.

If these problems are to be fixed, we have to look to the people in government, many of whom are failing to protect their constituents. Looking at some of the candidates, along with some of the incumbents, this doesn’t look promising.

Take, for example, Illinois and its major city, Chicago. Chicago has had more murders than any other American city for 13 consecutive years.

Yet, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat and potential 2028 presidential candidate, and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, also a Democrat, seem to think this situation is not worthy of much concern.

Looking ahead, in the race for mayor of New York City, the winner of the Democrat primary was Zohran Mamdani, a self-proclaimed socialist. He has stated that “Capitalism is theft!” and campaigns on making child care and buses free, and wants grocery stores to be city-owned. He also has pushed reparations and abolishing the police.

He is anti-Israel, believes that billionaires should not exist, wants a $30 minimum wage, and wants to increase the income tax on the wealthy by 50%. Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to him that if he does that, the billionaires will move to Florida or Texas, or another red state. Or, perhaps he just want to be rid of them.

And economist Stephen Moore believes that if Mamdani wins, his policies will drive Wall Street and its stock exchange to Texas.

Wake up America! The continued existence or growth of the flawed philosophy of blue states and cities is the death knell for the United States of America.

Can America’s traditional cultural possibly be restored?

 

September 2, 2025

A kindergarten teacher posted some comments on Facebook about her experience with some youngsters on their first days at her school.

“It broke my heart these past 4 days to see how many kindergarteners showed up to school with NO previous exposure to almost anything. It was so overwhelming for them to understand the concept of staying in line, wiping themselves, buttoning their own pants, opening a milk container, holding a pencil correctly.

“I had one who didn’t understand how to unzip his lunchbox so he could eat. Some can’t tell you their name, or don’t KNOW their actual given name that is on the roster. So many had never held a pencil at all, couldn’t sing the alphabet song (let alone recognize any letters/numbers), couldn’t count to ten or recognize shapes/colors.”

She expressed the frustration others show her, saying things like: “Isn’t that what school is for??” Or, “Why should parents have to do YOUR job for you?”

“Yes, school is for learning,” she said, “But when they come in SO far behind right off the bat, it is so defeating and frustrating for these babies. Even at the age of five, they recognize when they don’t know things other kids know. If a child knows who Pennywise the clown is and can recite every word (including the explicit ones) to the latest Cardi B song, but can’t recite the alphabet, count to ten, or open a ketchup packet, we got probs.” 

Now to be realistic, there probably have been some young people like this for as long as there have been humans on the Earth. But apparently, the proportion of this type of unpreparedness for life’s basics has grown enormously.

In the old days, things that previously occurred at home started the learning process. Learning to dress ourselves, feed ourselves, follow rules and procedures, doing simple tasks. And when we got to kindergarten or first grade, or whatever the first “school” experience was, we had a functional basis to begin learning our ABCs, numbers and the other subjects that schools help us learn.

But the nuclear family that has been such an important part of America since its founding is dwindling away. Far too many single-parent families exist today, with many children growing up in a family with no father, or perhaps only a part-time dad.

And there seems to be a lack of understanding among adults about true parenting, the importance of proper and traditional child rearing. And, there is a substantial lack of knowledge about America’s story, and the culture upon which our country was built that parents would pass on to their children by interaction.

And so, we now find that many in the younger generations — Gen Z, Gen X, Gen Alpha, for example — have less and less of an understanding of the background that the older generations have always had. And with the decreased understanding of our founding and our development, we find a country with an ever-weakening sense of itself. 

Our traditional values, institutions, arts, and morality are weakening. More and more we see family instability, materialism, entertainment saturation, and political division. We are losing our identity, our soul. We are committing cultural suicide.

Not only have we as a people failed to maintain our standards, but the ridiculous and dangerous virtual open border of the Biden administration, which invited millions of people — we still do not actually know how many — to enter the country illegally, has compounded the problem. This was done without having any idea of who these people were, or what their intent was.

Some of them were good people looking for a better life. But many others were drug and child traffickers, robbers, rapists, terrorists and murderers. And even those illegals who sought a better life were not oriented to the core values of America, which further diluted our cultural values.

Feelings about a cultural decline are not new. Former U.S. Secretary of Education William J. Bennett noted in an article in Education Week back in 1993 the following: “When the late Walker Percy was asked what concerned him the most about America’s future, he answered: ‘Probably the fear of seeing America, with all its great strength and beauty and freedom ... gradually subside into decay through default and be defeated, not by the Communist movement, demonstrably a bankrupt system, but from within by weariness, boredom, cynicism, greed, and in the end helplessness before its great problems.’”

At the end of the article, Bennett offers this: “The social regression of the past 30 years is due in large part to the enfeebled state of our social institutions and their failure to carry out their critical and time-honored tasks.”

Thirty-plus years past Bennett’s dire observations we find the country even further down the path to cultural collapse. Whether that direction can be reversed is a question yet to be answered. 

America’s politics is always interesting, and frequently dirty

August 19, 2025

Among the big items in the news lately is the issue of gerrymandering. This is an activity in which both sides of the political spectrum indulge. What exactly is gerrymandering?

It is the practice of carefully drawing the lines of electoral districts to benefit the political party that is drawing them. Although it is done frequently, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 made it illegal. The Supreme Court has determined that it is an issue — a “political question” — that federal courts cannot resolve.

One of the most frequently cited examples of gerrymandering is that in Illinois, where both political parties have used it, but a recent Democrat-drawn map is regarded as one of the most effective efforts to benefit one party in the entire country.

There are two basic approaches to gerrymandering: “cracking” and “packing.”

Cracking is the art of dividing a large bloc of the opposition party’s voters, and splitting them up into several districts, thereby reducing their power in electing candidates.

Packing is the opposite. It concentrates as many as possible of the opposition party in one district, giving the opposition a large majority in that district, but at the same time making the other districts have a majority of voters for the party in charge of gerrymandering.

It involves drawing a district to include as many of the opposing party’s voters as possible. This concedes one “sacrificial” district to the opposition with an overwhelming majority, but makes all the surrounding districts safer for the party in power by removing hostile voters.

What does “gerrymandering” mean, and how did it get its name? For that information, we go to usconstitution.net, which offers the following explanation: “In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed off on a new state senate district so bizarrely shaped that his opponents famously said it looked like a mythical salamander. A local newspaper cartoonist combined the two, and the “Gerry-mander” was born.

The website also commented, “For over 200 years, this dark art of political map-making – the practice of drawing electoral districts to give one party an unfair advantage – has been a persistent and controversial feature of American democracy.”

An article in the Center for American Progress in 2019 explained how the design of districts and other factors can create a disproportion in voter politics and election outcomes. In Maryland, Republicans received 37% of the votes for the House of Representatives, but only won 13% of the congressional seats. And, in North Carolina, Democrats received 48% of the vote but won only 26% of the seats.

Some recent examples of gerrymandering in action are that the following states have had the listed percentage of Republican voters, but none of that state’s congressional representatives: Massachusetts, 36%; Connecticut, 42%; Maine, 46%; New Mexico, 46%; New Hampshire, 48%; Rhode Island, 42%; Vermont, 32%; Hawaii, 36%; and Delaware, 42%.

Some blue states have some Republican representatives, but fewer than registered voters should have:
• California - 38% Republicans, but only 9 of 52 (20.9%) representatives
• Illinois - 44% Republicans, but only 3 of 17 (17.6%) representatives
• New York - 43% Republicans, but only 7 of 26 (26.9%) representatives
• Maryland - 34% Republicans, but only 1 of 8 (12.5%) representatives
• New Jersey - 46% Republicans, but only 3 of 12 (25%) representatives
• Oregon - 41% Republicans, but only 1 of 6 (16.7%) representatives

Karl Rove is a Republican political consultant, policy advisor, lobbyist, and was Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff during the George W. Bush administration. He has an article on his website in which he addressed some specific state gerrymandering situations.

“Illinois, New York and California are already gerrymandered to Democrats’ benefit. Donald Trump received 44% of the Illinois vote in 2024, yet 82% of the state’s U.S. representatives are Democrats. The figures are 43% for Mr. Trump and 73% for Democratic congressmen in New York then 38% for Mr. Trump and 83% for Democrats in California.”

There is a lot of left/Democrat concern over the Texas redistricting effort. Rove had some comments about that, too.

“The numbers for Texas are far less lopsided. Mr. Trump received 56% of the 2024 vote, and 66% of the state’s House delegation — 25 of 38 members — is Republican. Now these low-down, dirty Texas Republicans think they can flip five seats through redistricting. That would make the Texas delegation 79% GOP. In other words, a delegation slightly more partisan than New York but somewhat less so than Illinois and California. That also assumes Republicans can beat Rep. Henry Cuellar, a popular albeit troubled Democrat incumbent in South Texas who ran 6 points ahead of Kamala Harris last year.”

“Yes, Texas Republicans are taking advantage of their state legislative majority to tilt things their direction. But the skew in Illinois, New York and California is no accident either. Earlier this decade, Democrats in each state tilted things in their favor (although in New York under some constraint from state courts).”

Rove further notes, however, that the Texas redistricting creates two black majority Congressional districts, and commented, “Isn’t that a goal of the Voting Rights Act?”  

Obviously, honest, non-political political districts and numbers-based results are what we need. But two-party politics is alive and kicking.