Some areas of controversy of 2025 will continue into 2026

December 23, 2025

As the end of 2025 draws near, there are a few things of interest that will still be with us after the New Year arrives.

There is a proposed $6.2 billion merger of two large media organizations, Nexstar and Tegna. If this deal goes through, the merged company would be the largest TV organization in the country, and would reach more than 80 percent of U.S. households. 

Opposing the merger are some conservative groups, including the Conservative Political Action Conference, Newsmax, and the Zionist Organization of America. Their argument opposes the huge degree of coverage the company would have, viewing it as a threat to viewpoint diversity, particularly at the local news level.

On their side is the Telecommunications Act of 1996, amended in 2004, which limits the degree of television ownership at 39 percent, which is slightly less than half of the 80 percent level of ownership the merger would represent.

The Federal Communications Commission Chairman (FCC), Brendan Carr, has supported raising the cap, which would allow the merger to go through.

However, a legal analysis by appellate scholars titled "The FCC Lacks Statutory Authority to Revise the Telecommunications Act's 39% National Ownership Cap for Television” concludes that the FCC does not have the authority to raise, eliminate, or waive the long-standing 39 percent cap. Only Congress has the authority to make such changes, the analysis states.

Given what we have seen in the news and on social media involving the controlling of certain ideas that the media organizations dislike, having one giant voice that covers 80 percent of the country is a very dangerous prospect.

And, as we have seen, questionable court actions have only added to the concerns that our legal system is sometimes driven more by politics than it is by the law and the Constitution. This trend may continue in 2026.

Federal district judges have been issuing orders with nationwide effect. One example: U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to immediately halt efforts to remove criminal illegal aliens until he has more time to consider whether Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was illegal. And, there are other instances where a district judge has also intervened in a presidential action.

There are 94 federal judicial districts and each one has at least one district judge, who is appointed for a life term. In total there are more than 670 federal district judges in the U.S. And as some of these judges see it, each of them, having judicial authority over a very small area of the country, somehow has the power to overrule the President of the United States.

A theory on what has led to many judges making rulings and taking other actions beyond their actual authority is the existing assumption that judges hold absolute immunity for their actions. There are cases where obvious errors and deliberately improper actions by judges have been ignored. Judicial immunity has been awarded to judges by other judges.

However, in a fairly recent 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."

"Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them," said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, author of the opinion.

"When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too," Barrett said in the opinion joined by five other justices on the court.

Unwanted pregnancies that are ended by abortion is a topic that is frequently in the news. Many people favor abortion, and many others oppose it. There is a great deal of emotion on both sides of that discussion.  

This part of the column is not about abortion, per se; it does not speak for it or against it. It is to address a fairly recent and very serious related issue.

Nine states — including New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland, and Oregon, plus the District of Columbia — already allow abortion up to the moment of birth.

California passed a bill that would allow infants to be “aborted” up to 28 days after birth, and Governor Gavin Newsom signed it. Maryland tried to pass a similar law, but it was defeated.

A language device used to “justify” this horrific idea is replacing the term “prenatal” in the written law with the term “perinatal.” “Prenatal” means before birth, but “perinatal” includes a period after birth. This subtle change legalizes infanticide, or murdering newborn children.

How any of us may feel about abortion, this is not permissible or acceptable. It is more than a little frightening to learn that some people in this country would try to justify killing living babies. Could this conceivably be extended to a full year, or more?

While there are other on-going problems in the country, it is possible that one or more of the three issues discussed will be resolved next year. Certainly, we can cross our fingers for that.

Venezuela’s actions deserve the attention they’ve been getting

December 16, 2025

The Trump administration’s efforts to stop drug-laden boats from Venezuela from reaching the U.S. has drawn heavy opposition from Congressional and other Democrats. These are the same Democrats who fiercely defend illegal aliens being in the country, which is a rather strange conflict of interests.

It appears from their reactions to the two topics that the Democrats are more concerned with illegals being deported than they are with Americans being killed by illicit drugs that are smuggled into the country.

And a recent action in the seizing of a Venezuelan oil tanker has added fuel to the Democrat’s fire.

Among the Democrats who have concerns about this is Sen. Chris Coons from Delaware, who said on NewsNation that he is “gravely concerned that [Trump] is sleepwalking us into a war with Venezuela.” Coons is the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and said that he has not received anything from the administration regarding a potential war with Venezuela.

This same concern was expressed by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Paul thinks the seizure could increase tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela. The libertarian senator, who is a sometimes critic of the Trump administration, added that it isn’t “the job of the American government to go looking for monsters around the world, looking for adversaries, and beginning wars.”

However, other GOP senators had a different response to the event, saying they were awaiting more information. Republican Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Jon Husted of Ohio and Roger Marshall of Kansas commented that they did not know the specifics of the seizure. 

Hawley said, as he walked into an elevator, “I will look into it.” Husted commented that he had been in meetings and was not able have been briefed on the matter. And Marshall said that the seizure is “news to me,” but that the U.S. “should be pushing back on Venezuela.” He said that he is “concerned about the drug cartel that is running” the South American country.

The administration offered information that somewhat clarifies its position on the matter. Attorney General Pam Bondi released a video of the seizure on X (formerly Twitter). She commented that the FBI, Homeland Security, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Pentagon had executed the seizure warrant on the tanker, because it was transporting sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran.

The sanction was due to Venezuela’s “involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations,” Bondi said.

Adding to Bondi’s comments, White House deputy assistant Sebastian Gorka said on Newsmax’s "Rob Schmitt Tonight" that the tanker is part of a growing "shadow fleet" of vessels evading sanctions and breaching international law.

"This is a member of a shadow fleet," he said. "The attempts to evade sanctions, and also to just do an end run around international law with flags of convenience — we're not going to allow this anymore."

"So, whether it's Venezuela or whether it's other countries like Iran that are making money in ways that are illegal and counter to the U.S. national interest, as elucidated so very, very eloquently in the president's national security strategy that we published on Friday, we are very serious," Gorka continued.

He warned that the U.S. will be on the watch for any and all illegal maritime operations, including narcotics smuggling, and oil tankers operating in violation of sanctions.

"Whether it's drug boats, whether it's illegal tankers, we're going to take action where we see fit and where it threatens our national security interests as the United States," he said.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz commented that the seizure indicates it is “a bad idea to be a drug trafficker,” but said he did not anticipate the U.S. being in a war with Venezuela. 

While Cruz did not respond to a question regarding whether the president should ask Congress to declare war, he did say that, “If you’re a narcotrafficker, and you’re thinking about getting on a speedboat that is filled with a bunch of cocaine, you’re having second thoughts right now because President Trump is saving the lives of Americans.”  

“The poison that Maduro is flooding into this country is killing Americans and President Trump is fulfilling his responsibility as commander in chief, by saying we’re going to stop this poison that’s killing our kids,” he added.

Democrats are great at one thing: criticizing Donald Trump. It appears they will go to any lengths, use any criticism to try to make Trump look bad. And, apparently it doesn’t matter to them if they turn their backs on the harm that illegal aliens and their counterparts in rogue nations cause, in order to cast aspersions on Trump and his administration.

And let us not forget that so much of this craziness is the direct result of the foolish and dangerous policies of the Biden/Harris administration in ignoring the border crashing by illegals and the death and destruction they brought along with them.

The Trump administration is focused on things that need to be dealt with to restore the country’s national security and other assets. Slowly but surely things should improve. We should applaud this, not criticize it.

Progressive policies create disasters for the American people

December 9, 2025

Back in May the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted an article that addressed “Americans Killed by Illegal Aliens Driving Under the Influence.”

It named 14 Americans who are now dead, which it described as “just a handful of Americans whose lives were taken too soon at the hands of illegal aliens driving under the influence.”

Of those 14, eight were less than 20 years-old, three were 10 years-old or less, two were in their 40s and one was 70. Most of the drunk drivers were from Honduras, with others from Venezuela, and Mexico. 

Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin commented that “Far too many American lives have been lost because of illegal aliens driving drunk.”  “These Americans killed by drunk-driving illegal aliens should still be with us today, and we feel their absence in our schools and offices, at our dinner tables, and throughout our communities. President Trump and Secretary Noem have reopened the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) office to serve all victims of illegal alien crime and their families.”

The VOICE office was opened in 2017 by the Trump administration. It is a resource for those who have been victimized by crime that is related to immigration, the article said. However, the Biden/Harris administration closed the office, leaving victims of crimes by illegal aliens without access to many support services and resources.

Worse, yet, are the number of Americans who have been murdered, with illegal aliens having been charged with the crime.

Among those victims are: 

* Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered on the University of Georgia campus, allegedly by Jose Ibarra, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, in February 2024. 

* A 12-year-old girl named Jocelyn Nungaray killed in Houston, Texas. She was found murdered in a creek in June 2024. Two Venezuelan nationals, Johan Jose Rangel Martinez and Franklin Jose Pena Ramos, who had recently entered the U.S. illegally, have been charged with capital murder.

* Rachel Morin, who was the mother of five, was found murdered in August 2023 in Maryland. Another illegal alien, a Salvadoran national who was in the country illegally, was later arrested and charged in connection with her death.

* A Missouri police officer, 44-year-old David Lee, was killed in 2024 by Honduran Ramon A. Chavez-Rodriguez, an illegal alien. 

These are only a few of the victims. Even one death at the hands of an illegal alien is too many.

There are two problems in the horrors these Americans and their families and friends have experienced at the hands of illegal aliens in the country. First is them being here at all. Second is the ridiculous frequency with which some of these illegals have been treated with kid gloves instead of getting the punishment they so well deserve.

Going easy on criminals is an insult to their victims, and a disgusting failure of prosecutors and judges.

One example is the case of the death of 22-year-old Logan Frederico, who was brutally murdered by a criminal during a break-in at the home where she was visiting friends. Her killer had a record of 39 arrests and 25 felonies. Despite this record, and the accumulated felonies, he had spent less than 2 years in jail.

The state attorney general had assigned an accomplished death penalty litigator to this case, but the progressive district attorney called this “premature” and “reckless.”

Then there is the murder of Iryna Zaruska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who was tragically murdered in an unprovoked stabbing attack while riding a light-rail train in Charlotte, North Carolina last August. A video showing the attack was aired soon afterward.

Decarlos Brown Jr., a 34-year-old homeless man with 14 prior arrests for various offenses, including armed robbery, has been charged with first-degree murder.

Yet, despite his criminal history dating back over a decade, known mental health issues, and having forfeited bond on three occasions, a soft-on-crime judge released him back onto the streets following his most recent arrest last January, and he was able to murder an innocent woman.

Some in law enforcement positions, like prosecutors and judges, charged with prosecuting crimes and punishing criminals to protect the public, seem to think rehabilitation is a superior path to jail time.   

Over the last few years we have seen such “solutions” to crime and police work as “reimagining policing,” diverting 911 calls away from the police department, finding alternatives to arrest, prioritizing “restorative justice,” “deemphasizing” some felonies, and eliminating cash bail. 

GovFacts.com explains the sensible, traditional idea of dealing with criminals. It tells us that “punishment and retribution form the core mission. Society demands consequences when someone breaks the law. A proportional punishment acknowledges the moral weight of criminal acts and provides victims with a sense that justice has been served.”

The idea is for punishment to be so unpleasant that the perpetrator regrets his/her actions, and not do it again, and to discourage others from committing crimes.

But the progressive idea is to merely tell the criminal, “don’t do that anymore” and that will be all that is really needed. As with all “woke” ideas, these sound good, but don’t work, and in reality, are just stupid.

We need harsh punishment. Lawbreakers must pay a real price.

To make important decisions, all points of view should be heard

December 2, 2025

The earliest drafts of the U.S. Constitution did not include a bill of rights. Among those working on the Constitution who thought a bill of rights was important were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, now known as the “father of the Constitution.”

When the delegates of the Constitutional Convention provided the document to the states for ratification, they realized that without a rights declaration, ratification could be difficult.

Some states quickly ratified the document, however, others had hotly contested debates. When those states did ratify the document, they included features that they wanted to be added.

Eventually, the elements of the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution as amendments.

What ultimately became the First Amendment to the Constitution was the one protecting the establishment of religion, and its free exercise; the freedom of speech and the press; the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of those First Amendment items, the idea of free speech is the one that is currently the most prominent.

Over the past several years, the charge has been that various sources — including newspapers and magazines, radio and television news organizations and social media — had been censoring what they regarded as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “false information,” etc. 

There is no doubt that certain things were banned, as the censors admitted as much. But whether they should have banned those opinions and contrary ideas is still being defended.

Those who censored comments claimed they were protecting the public from false information, as if it was their duty, and within their ability to make such judgements. In a country with a constitutional defense of a right of free speech, it was neither of those things.

However, the ability of the people to express their thoughts and ideas about what is happening, what should happen, or what should not happen should be banned only under very special circumstances.

Throughout our history there have been many explanations of why even unpopular speech should not be regulated or banned.

Here are some of them:

* “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington (1783)

* “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

* “He who stifles free discussion, secretly doubts whether what he professes to believe is really true.” – Wendell Phillips (1870)

* “Some people’s idea of [free speech] is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.” – Winston Churchill, (1943)

* “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear…” – George Orwell (1945)

* The U.S. Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. said, in part, “We begin with the common ground. Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.”

* “Freedom of speech is indivisible; unless we protect it for all, we will have it for none.” Law professor Harry Kalven

* “If you are afraid to say it, that is exactly why it needs to be said.” Journalist Andy Rooney

* “If you had to pick one freedom that was the most essential to the functioning of a democracy, it has to be freedom of speech. Because democracy means persuading one another, and then ultimately voting, and the majority, the majority rules. You can’t run such a system if there is a muzzling of one point of view. So, it’s a fundamental freedom in a democracy.” Former U.S Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking at the National Press Club

* Yet, historically, the greatest threat to citizens has come not from those who state falsehoods but those who claim the right to regulate what is true and false.” Jonathon Turley, law professor and author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”

However, even the First Amendment to the Constitution does not protect certain types of speech. These categories are types of speech that may be dangerous. These include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, and true threats.

Speech that may be obviously untrue, but not actually harmful, as are those in the preceding list, may not be banned.

Notice that political speech by Democrats or Republicans or whomever, are not included in the list of speech which may be banned.

So, let’s be honest and open about the differences in ideas. We should combat ideas that we find unpopular, but not with cowardly censorship, but with better and more sensible ideas.

Freedom of speech is one of the several ideas that sets the United States of America above other nations, and we must not allow it or the others to be taken away.