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.

A majority thinks that it is time for Congressional term limits

August 5, 2025

It isn’t a new thing, but there is a lot of talk about term limits for members of Congress. The topic of term limits for federal office holders has been around since our nation was founded. In fact, the first controlling document, the Articles of Confederation, did address term limits for Congress.

However, the Founders decided during the Constitutional Convention not to include that in the Constitution.

Back in the early days, Congress was not looked at as, and was not supposed to be, a career. You were elected, you served a while, and then went back to your previous non-congressional job. There were definitely fewer, or perhaps no, 20-year or more congressional members in the early decades.

Currently, despite several attempts through the years to impose term limits via a constitutional amendment, the efforts were never popular enough to generate the two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress to produce an amendment.

Some states have tried to put term limits on their Representatives and Senators, but the courts have struck down all of those efforts. And, the Supreme Court has ruled that only a constitutional amendment can put term limits in place.

Currently, a majority of Americans do favor term limits for members of Congress, according to polls. The U.S. Term Limits (USTL) website notes the following: “Term Limits is known as the largest grassroots movement in American history, and US Term Limits was, and still is, the leader of that movement.”

Three reasons are often cited favoring term limits:
* Term limits could lead to more frequent changes in congressional personnel, and this could bring new and different ideas.
* As their time in Congress increases, some members lose their focus, become comfortable, and do not respond well to constituents.
* Over time, some members may also develop relationships with special interests and lobbyists, and this may change what they think is important.

Another element that has people favoring term limits is the number of members who have become much wealthier during their time in Congress. This includes members from both major parties, and others, as well.

And, of course, there are reasons cited for not imposing term limits. One is that over time, members gain valuable experience and institutional knowledge. Another is that rookie members may be more susceptible to lobbying and special interest efforts. The experience that members gain over time enables them to deal more effectively with passing complicated legislation, and if there is a large number of newer members, that could be a problem.

Then there is the question of what limits should be imposed. The USTL website provides this idea: “Currently, Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas are sponsoring the USTL amendment on Capitol Hill. It calls for a three-term (six year) limit on representatives and a two-term (12 year) limit on senators.” 

This might be the best solution, but some problems could result from it. First, House members can only serve half as many years as those in the Senate. And, if a person is elected to the House and serves two terms, or four years, can that person then run for one or two six-year terms in the Senate? 

Or, the other side: A one-term senator decides to leave and run for the House. Would he or she be eligible for any House terms?

Perhaps a better system would be a limit for the same number of years for all those who serve in Congress, regardless of whether they serve in one house, or both of them. Maybe a total of 12 years in one or both. Or perhaps 12 years is too long. Then, adjust the Senate term to four years, and make eight years the limit.

There is the question of whether current members of Congress will vote to approve an amendment to the Constitution that will limit their length of service.

However, even if members of Congress refuse to pass term limits on themselves, there is another method for getting the job done. A Term Limits Convention can be called to write and pass a constitutional amendment. This process bypasses the Washington roadblock, and allows we the people, and the states, to impose congressional term limits.

To call the Term Limits Convention, the state legislatures in 34 of the 50 states will have to vote for it. That could be difficult, however, given the strong feeling for term limits among the people, it will likely be less difficult than getting both houses of Congress to agree.

There are undoubtedly some or many members of Congress who have served many years and done the job as expected. Maybe one of them is your Representative or Senator. But again, Congress is not supposed to be a career.

One of the nation’s major problems today is that over the decades since its formation, some of the original ideals that made the United States of America a one-of-a-kind nation with a superior system of government have gradually been forgotten, changed, or replaced. Moving back to the way Congress was originally designed to work will be a beneficial step toward restoring the original design.

The Democrat’s criticism of detention facility is no surprise

July 22, 2025

The Trump administration and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have opened a facility in Florida to hold illegal aliens, most of whom are convicted of, or charged with, crimes, until they are deported from the United States. Democrat critics, as usual, make charges that are exaggerated, not true, or inciteful.

Florida Democrat Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz described the facility as an "internment camp," with detainees housed in "cages,” using combined toilet-sink units for drinking water and brushing their teeth, a shower facility lacking privacy, an internal temperature of 83 degrees, and having to eat a meager lunch of a small turkey and cheese sandwich, an apple, and chips. 

Alligator Alcatraz is a prison, a detention facility, not a 5-star hotel. While these law breakers will not have gourmet food and lush accommodations, they will have an air-conditioned place to sleep, meals and bathroom facilities, until their deportation.

Further, Alligator Alcatraz is actually not a facility in which inmates sleep with and try to avoid alligators, as the leftist critics would have you believe. It is a place where inmates will be protected from and not be threatened by alligators, so long as they do not try and succeed in escaping the facility and then having to cross the Everglades swamplands on foot.

The game plan of Democrats and other critics of the Trump administration’s efforts to restore order and legal behavior to immigration is to exaggerate the situation, and even to outright lie to make the situation for the illegal aliens look far worse that it is.

The detention center got its name due to being in the heart of the Everglades, in which reptiles such as alligators and pythons reside. Gov. DeSantis authorized the construction of the center on a 30-square-mile property in Miami–Dade County under an emergency order in June. 

Another critic of the detention center is Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried. In a news release last month, she commented, "This proposed detention center isn’t just cruel, it’s environmentally catastrophic. This facility would desecrate ecologically critical wetlands, trample on Tribal sovereignty, and transform one of the world’s most cherished ecosystems into a prison camp for political gain."

However, the center is not located on a large expanse of nature. It is located on a recently available part of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport that has been transformed to house 5,000 illegal immigrants in sturdy tent structures. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem remarked that the facility's remote location adds an extra layer of security protection, while noting that the detention center is air-conditioned. 

Providing information on exactly who the inmates of the facility are, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, commented that "This group of murderers, rapists, and gang members are just a small sample of the deranged psychopaths that Florida is helping President Trump and his administration remove from our country."

Some of those facing deportation are:

* Lazaro Rodriguez Santana, a Cuban national, was convicted in Texas of sexual assault and failure to register as a sex offender. 
* Honduran national Jose Fortin, convicted of second-degree murder in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 
* Oscar "Satan" Sanchez of Honduras, an alleged MS-13 gang member charged with resisting arrest, conspiracy to commit murder and assault in New York, as well as RICO offenses.
* Venezuelan national Wilfredo Alberto Lazama-Garcia, wanted for murder and aggravated robbery in the South American country. In the United States, he was convicted of conspiracy "to defraud the U.S. government in Oklahoma." 
* Eddy Lopez Jemot of Cuba, convicted of murder, arson, and assault. He was arrested for "cutting the throat of an elderly woman" in Key Largo, Florida, and then lit her residence on fire with hopes of hiding the evidence. Later that night, he allegedly "threatened to kill" another woman via beheading.

Many people wonder why the left works so hard to defend those who entered their country illegally, and many of whom commit vicious crimes.

Author and radio host Jason Rantz offers this explanation: “Somehow, in the warped world of progressive politics, removing predators from our communities is deemed ‘controversial.’ Arresting child rapists, gang members, and drug traffickers has become a rallying cry for Democrats who insist these deportations violate ‘human rights.’ You’d think protecting law-abiding families — immigrants and citizens alike — would be common sense. But not when the Democrats get involved.”

The ridiculous and dangerous practice of the Biden administration to essentially have opened the border to all, regardless of who they were and why they wanted in, is what got us to this place. No sensible person serving as President of the United States would merely shrug their shoulders and allow the 20 million illegals that are still here to roam the country and do as they please. 

Despite all of the good reasons for ICE and CBP to find and deport these people, hundreds or thousands — some politically motivated, others who have fallen victim to the hyperbolic rhetoric — protest against these actions, go so far off course as to interfere with law enforcement, and even stoop to physically attack them.

While America defends the right to hold any idea, these ideas and actions are un-American, and some are criminal.

Democrats missing the boat on immigration and the economy

July 29, 2025

Millions of illegal aliens crossed into the United States over the four years of the Biden-Harris administration. They settled in blue cities and states, for the most part. This was because the blue cities and states welcomed them.

Why would those living in, and running blue cities and states want illegal aliens in large numbers living among their citizens, given the costs of feeding and housing them, and the other problems that they bring with them, like murders, rapes, robberies, etc.?

One explanation is that the basis for how many representatives a state has in the House of Representatives, and votes in the Electoral College depends upon how many people — not just citizens, but all people, including illegals and other non-citizens — reside in a state. Illegal aliens help gain additional representatives and electoral votes.

Many on the left will laugh at that assertion, claim it is some sort of MAGA tactic, or just right-wing misinformation. But there are at least a few Congressional Democrats who support this idea.

Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York is one. She admitted in comments over the last few years that she wants immigrants to enter the United States to help Democrats with redistricting.

The original comments from Clarke came in 2021 during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, and again in a 2024 post on X. Back in 2021, she fussed at Republicans who opposed Haitian migrants.

“I’m from Brooklyn, New York,” she said during the hearing. “We have a diaspora that, that can absorb a significant number of these migrants and that, you know, when I hear colleagues talk about, you know, the, the, the doors of the inn being closed [and] no room in the inn, I, I’m saying, you know, I, I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes.”

Now that we have Donald Trump in the White House, many of the illegals are being caught and deported, and others are self-deporting. Also, the blue states, especially New York and California, are having problems and are losing businesses and residents.

Beginning back during the COVID-19 pandemic, progressively strong states have been seeing a heavy exodus of citizens leaving due to high crime rates, heavy taxes, and government overreach.

Looking for safer streets, economic and personal freedom, thousands are heading for better places like Florida, Texas and Tennessee. These states are projecting gains in congressional seats, with Texas expecting to gain three, and Florida looking for at least two.

This heavy exodus of citizens to red states has caught the attention of at least one blue state governor: California’s Gavin Newsom. He is threatening to call a special legislative session in an emergency effort to redraw district lines. California Republicans now hold only nine House seats, and Newsom hopes to replace between two and five of them with Democrats.

This process is customarily done once every decade. Whether Newsom’s effort to gerrymander more Democrat representatives, if it comes to pass, would be legal or not remains to be determined. It seems that some Democrats have no limits on how far they will go to stop Donald Trump.

It must be noted, however, that red state Texas is considering the same thing to build its Republican majority.

While the left wants to encourage illegal entry to the country and to their states to help them get and hold a majority in the House of Representatives and in Electoral voting, they still do not understand about taxation and prosperity. 

They want to punish the wealthy with absurdly high tax rates, never understanding that high tax rates are harmful to the economy, not just the wealthy.

Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts support a return to 50%, 60% and even 70% tax rates. The left believes that lowering tax rates is just a method to benefit the rich, who they maintain do not pay “their fair share.”

However, why would it ever be fair or even sensible to collect half, or up to 70% of what someone — anyone — earned?

Economist Stephen Moore suggests that those Democrats and others who believe in this plan would be well served to read Arthur Laffer’s latest book, titled, “Taxes Have Consequences.” Laffer, known for the Laffer Curve, and his co-authors show that over the last 100 years, every time tax rates have been cut, three good things have happened: 

* Tax revenues have risen.

* The economy has improved.

* The rich have paid a higher share of the tax burden.

Think about it: If we have a smaller, less costly government that is efficient and restricted to constitutional functions, we will need less tax income to pay the bills. And, people will be able to keep more of what they earn, and use that money to buy the things they need and want. 

The more American citizens — both rich and not rich — spend their hard-earned money on the things they want to purchase is a true benefit to the economy. That will help increase businesses and a growing business sector means more jobs and generally better pay.

The Democratic Party today is much different than in the past

July 15, 2025

Those who are old enough to remember the 1970s and 1980s no doubt realize that today’s Democratic Party has only one thing in common with the Party of those days. That one thing is its name.

The way Democrats thought and functioned back then was much different, and much better. Democrats did have their own ideas about things, but they were not nearly so different from Republicans. Both parties generally held “American” ideals, but had some differences in how they should be sustained.

There was a much broader acceptance of values such as faith, individual rights and freedom, and a smaller, less intrusive government. There wasn’t the heavy focus on ideological issues and how we should view the way our country is being operated. That was due to the fact that the two parties were very close in their idea of what America was and should be. 

If people had different ideas, they weren’t attacked for them, and no set of ideas carried with it a strong effort to “encourage” those with different ideas to accept them.

Today, there is a vast gulf between the ideas of Republicans and Democrats. Even the way each group is referred to is different. Democrats are often referred to as liberals, progressives or socialists. Republicans are often referred to conservatives, MAGA radicals, or Nazis, and such.

But when you look at the fundamentals of each party, the Republicans are the ones whose ideas are by far most like the original founding principles.

Many Democrats support our previously open border, and defend and protect the illegal aliens who entered the country the wrong way. Republicans, however, are working hard to remove these illegals, many of whom are killers, drug or child traffickers, rapists, terrorists and others of ill will.

It is those on the left who deliberately interfere with ICE and CBP agents trying to do their job to protect the people. They attack the agents, throw rocks at them in their vehicles, identify them and threaten them and their families.

President Donald Trump is under heavy leftist criticism for his actions, such as executive orders, deporting illegals, military actions without prior Congressional approval, et al. But those critics on the left either don’t know history, or don’t care, as long as they can use falsehoods to make Trump look bad. The truth is that other presidents — Barack Obama, notably — have done these same things, and been praised for it.

People representing the liberal left in government are pushing further left than ever before, even getting others on the left to criticize them.

A poll in May and June conducted by Unite the Country, a Democrat super PAC, showed that voters perceived the party as “out of touch,” “woke” and “weak.”

This is reflected in persons in positions of prominence on the political left.

The newly elected Democrat nominee for mayor of New York City, “proud socialist” Zohran Mamdani, has been characterized as a communist for his extreme views, past and present.

His anti-America positions include setting up city-run grocery stores, massive tax increases on the wealthy, engaging in anti-police rhetoric and railing against Israel in refusing to denounce the phrase “Globalize the intifada.” 

California Governor Gavin Newsome has essentially ruined his state by imposing foolish leftist policies that have driven businesses and residents out of the state.

A while back, now-Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson got a great deal of attention in her confirmation hearing. When asked to define a “woman,” Jackson responded that she couldn't provide a definition, citing her non-biologist background.

In the vote for her confirmation, some Republicans cited that she dodged the question on whether she favors court packing, has a soft-on-crime sentencing record, and danced around explaining her judicial philosophy.

As a practicing Justice, she has come under criticism from some of her court peers for her apparent lack of understanding of how things work.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a judicial conservative, commented on a dissent she had made. Barrett wrote that Jackson's opinion "is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself." "We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

And Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of Jackson’s liberal judicial colleagues, noted that the points she made in a dissent addressed a topic which was not before the court.

Democrats and other leftists demonstrate daily that the direction of their ideas and policies is clearly at odds with the established values of the Founders of the United States of America. They don’t want to make the United States better, they want to fundamentally transform the country.

A good explanation of what the liberal-left is working for comes to us from the great Thomas Sowell, who said: “At the heart of the liberal-left vision is the idea that the self-anointed saviors should be telling the rest of us, through the power of government, what we ought to do, what we can do and what we cannot do. They will define for us what is good and what is bad, remaking us in their image.”

This is not what our Founders envisioned, and not what is good for America.

Recent polls show how Americans think about important issues

July 8, 2025

Those of us who have been around for a while — seasoned citizens — realize that the level of disagreement has grown greatly in the last decade or so.

With the sharp divide between the left and the right in our country about how it is doing and what needs to be done, it is interesting to see what the concerns are, and how each side views the situation.

A recent poll by Newsmax magazine showed the results of how all voters view the Republican and Democratic parties’ position on important issues. Republicans topped the Democrats on ten issues, while the Democrats won on three. There were five ways voters expressed their opinion: For Republicans, Democrats, Both, Neither, and Not Sure.

The top issues for Republicans were: 
Immigration & border - Rep 47%, Dem 28%
Government spending - Rep 42%, Dem 28%
Terrorism/national security - Rep 41%, Dem 30%
China-U.S. relations - Rep 38%, Dem 29%
Mideast/Hamas/Iran - Rep 38%, Dem 29%
Russia/Ukraine situation - Rep 39%, Dem 31%
Reducing violence and crime - Rep 38%, Dem 31%
Restoring our core values - Rep 40%, Dem 32%
Growing the economy - Rep 40%, Dem 33%
Gun policy - Rep 37%, Dem 34%

The Democrats led on these:
Lowering healthcare costs - Dem 39%, Rep 32%
Addressing Climate Change - Dem 40%, Rep 27%

Increasing home affordability - Dem 34%, Rep 33%

Another poll asked about the Budget and the National Debt, and the poll showed that overall, 75% of voters were very concerned or somewhat concerned. There were four categories of voters: Overall, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. 

Those results were fairly close among the groups: 
Overall - Very concerned 40%, Somewhat 35%
Democrats - Very concerned 42%, Somewhat 36%
Republicans - Very concerned 41%, Somewhat 34%
Independents - Very concerned 40%, Somewhat 37%

In looking at the leading cause of the National Debt — far and away the leading cause in each voting group — Excessive Government Spending won. Overall, 47% chose it, and 54% of Republicans, 48% of Independents, and 40% of Democrats chose it.

A distant second place went to Tax Cuts That Reduced Revenue, with only 16% Overall, Democrats at 17%, Republicans at 14%, and Independents at 13%. Coming in third was Not Sure, with slightly lower numbers.

Other causes coming in at less than 10% each were Military and Defense Costs, Social Programs (like Medicare and Social Security), and COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Spending.

Newsmax also showed how the sources of electricity production have changed since 1950. Data from 2024 provided by the U.S. Energy Information Agency show that while their numbers have changed, fossil fuels — coal, crude oil and dry natural gas — still lead by a wide margin.

Over that period coal usage has dropped by about 25% while crude oil has more than doubled, and dry natural gas has increased by more than 600%. There have been significant increases in biomass, wet natural gas and nuclear. But even so, they make up just less than 25% of all sources. Solar, wind and hydro provide roughly 3.5% of all sources.

It seems a majority sees problems with federal law enforcement having become politicized. Another Newsmax poll illustrated the degree to which Americans consider this to be a problem, and focused on the FBI.

On whether the agency needs to undergo reform by the Trump administration, 55% said “yes,” 30% said “no,” and 15% were “not sure.” 

On whether the FBI has become politicized in recent years, 51% said “yes,” 25% said “no,” and 24% were “not sure.”

Asking voters from the Democratic and Republican parties how they viewed FBI Director Kash Patel’s leadership, Democrats said: Favorable - 24%, Unfavorable - 44%, Not Sure - 32%. Republicans said: Favorable - 62%, Unfavorable - 11%, and Not Sure - 27%.

And for FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, the results were, Democrats: Favorable - 26%, Unfavorable - 37%, and Not Sure - 37%. Republicans said: Favorable - 57%, Unfavorable - 13%, and Not Sure - 30%. Both leaders received a favorable opinion from a plurality of those polled.

On another subject, there is a majority of those polled who agree on three elements. That subject is China, our most threatening adversary. China has purchased thousands of acres of American farm land, much of it near military bases. It has also purchased some American businesses, and has stolen many good ideas from us. It is also the source for many goods that once were produced here.

However, the three areas of the Newsmax polls show that more than 50% of Americans want China to be held accountable.

On the topic of tariffs, 52% strongly or somewhat support them. Those who strongly or somewhat oppose tariffs are only 33%.

Those wanting China to pay reparations for the COVID pandemic are 52%, with 31% opposing. And the third category, reducing the reliance on China, regardless of the costs, are 45% to 29%.

While most of the pro/con numbers are not as far apart as we might expect, given the extreme political divide we see daily, there is still a majority of opinion supporting the Republican position on these issues.

A big Supreme Court decision, and crazy things in blue cities

July 1, 2025

The United States Supreme Court has at long last ruled on an important issue. After months of federal district court judges issuing rulings opposing and halting actions by President Donald Trump, the Court ruled 6-3 that Trump's efforts to end "birthright" citizenship are legal and constitutional.

Not only was it found that the decision on birthright citizenship was valid, it also tells these judges to stop issuing these universal injunctions.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in the majority opinion, stated: "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she continued. “The Court today puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.”

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson commented in a dissenting opinion: “Make no mistake: Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,” she wrote. “This perverse burden shifting cannot coexist with the rule of law.”

However, Barrett promptly and properly corrected Jackson’s flawed reasoning. "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

She further clarified that when these judges issue injunctions to block Trump’s actions, they cannot apply the injunction to more than those parties involved in the case, classifying these nationwide injunctions as judicial overreach.

There are 677 authorized judgeships for these federal courts, with each of those judges having authority over a tiny sliver of the United States of America’s judicial system.  

One has to wonder exactly what these judges, supposedly trained in the law and our Constitution, were thinking when issuing these injunctions. Did they forget their extensive training in the law? Or, did they stuff their judicial integrity under the courtroom bench, and replace legal elements with political preferences?

Does this un-judicial behavior warrant some disciplinary action for those guilty judges.

“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves … not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,” Trump commented. “Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.”

Elsewhere, in San Francisco and New York City, we find the “progressives” hard at it.

Recently, the California Senate reportedly passed a law making it illegal for store employees to confront shoplifters.

Old Navy, which is headquartered in San Francisco, announced that it will close its flagship store there. When asked why, an Old Navy store manager said that his store is hit by shoplifters at least 12 or 14 times a day.

Other name brands have also left the city, including Walgreens, T-Mobile, Whole Foods, Amazon Go, and Nordstroms.

Other downtown stores are merely waiting for their leases to run out, and then they will also leave.

The City of San Francisco just released a $6 million tourism campaign, and the next day the two largest hotels in the city shut down, blaming street conditions, and apparently not believing the tourism campaign would make a difference.

State Farm Insurance has announced that it will no longer provide business and property insurance in California, following Allstate, which left six months ago, due to policies that encourage lawbreaking.

These foolish leftist policies are producing exactly the results that their critics predicted.

And in New York City, a 33-year-old state assemblyman, Zohran Mamdani, is the Democratic candidate for New York City Mayor, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the first Muslim nominee, and a supporter of radical policies.

Predictably, he has an extremely radical plan for New York, should he win the election. 

"This is a city where one in four of its people are living in poverty, a city where 500,000 kids go to sleep hungry every night," he said recently. "And ultimately, it's a city that is in danger of losing that which it makes it so special."

He has proposed the following radical ideas to cure New York’s problems: Free bus service citywide, rent freezes and stricter accountability for negligent landlords, a chain of city-owned grocery stores, and universal childcare for children aged six weeks to five years.

As with so much of the liberal/socialist/progressive mantra, these things sound pretty good. But they don’t work as imagined. Ideas like defunding police, not enforcing some laws, rental price freezes, having the City own and control the grocery stores, and some of his former “solutions” are a recipe for disaster.

Just ask the businesses and residents in San Francisco.