Politics should never be part of decisions on legal matters

February 24, 2026

The term “originalism” refers to the idea that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time it was created and adopted. And therefore, an “originalist” is someone who understands the logic of this position and who accepts it.

The contrary position held by many is that the Constitution is a “living document,” which means that what the Founders thought 250 years ago is meaningless today, and the Constitution should be interpreted today using concepts that are “more modern,” even if they are actually contrary to the original meaning.

Under this way of thinking the right of free speech could be interpreted as meaning not that we are free to say a broad array of things, but that we can only say what the controlling individuals allow us to say, however limited that may be.

That mentality is like believing the Constitution is merely an ancient guideline, sort of like a drawing of the design of a house that can be altered to suit the desires of the owner.

But that concept is both foolish and dangerous. It’s like believing that the commandment “thou shalt not steal” really contains an unwritten phrase: “unless you want to.”

When the Constitution and laws are viewed under this foolish concept, it is referred to as “judicial activism.” Every law and constitutional ideal changes with the tide of human preference. That is like being on the ocean in a boat with no motor, sails, or oars, and being completely at the mercy of the weather and the water.

Originalism prevents activist interpretation of the Constitution’s concepts, and establishes standards our Founders intended to last forever, or at least until they are changed by appropriate methods, such as through acts of Congress supported by a substantial majority of the people.

An area where there is great difference on meaning is the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That language seems fairly clear. But some disagree, and try to alter the meaning to help achieve their goals. However, if the original language is not clear enough, perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 may help. It defines the Amendment’s meaning as an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home, and other similar things.

Contrarians to the original context of the Amendment say that it does not say what types of Arms are covered and which ones are not. Of course. That is the salient point.

The Founders did not say that pistols are covered but rifles and cannons are not. They said “keep and bear Arms”: Meaning, all Arms. 

We have a wider variety of Arms/weapons around now than in the 1700s. Anti-gunners want to outlaw “assault rifles” — whatever those are, as no legal description exists — and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. They also want to outlaw automatic rifles and machine guns. Their argument is that the Founders would likely have not included these in the right to bear Arms, if they had existed in the 1700s. We will never know if that is true.

However, we must remember that our Founders were not worried about different types of guns, they were concerned about specific types of government. One type of government they meticulously avoided was a pure democracy, because of the danger of that type of government to become tyrannical, where 51 percent of the people could vote to jail or kill the other 49 percent.

And while some of today’s weapons can be more of a problem than the others, the imperative question remains: Why should law-abiding citizens be forbidden from owning them if they want them? 

Many states have gun laws, and some of those laws are very restrictive. Yet, in some of these states, gun crimes are commonly committed, anyway. It isn’t the guns that are the problem, it is the persons who have the guns, often illegally, that is the problem. Many law-abiding citizens own one or more guns. Neither the person or his or her guns have committed crimes.

Instead of interfering with the constitutionally guaranteed rights by limiting or outlawing gun ownership, we instead need to work very hard to teach people from a very young age about right and wrong, and being a good citizen. Discourage crime through high standards, strict adherence, and severe/harsh punishment for disobeying those standards and the laws that they have produced.

Teaching our young people how to be a good human being is a critical factor, one that has been ignored much too often in recent years. The nuclear family has fallen drastically in practice, and our education system is infected with many people who are interested in pushing their preferred political ideals more than presenting approved subject matter.

Consequently, the sense of proper behavior, and understanding and appreciating our system of government are well below the acceptable level. But it is not too late to begin restoring these concepts to where they should be.

Why aren’t secure voting and borders important to Democrats?

February 17, 2025

It is safe to say that nearly everyone believes that elections at all levels are critically important. After all, that activity chooses the people who serve us by operating our towns, counties, states and nation. And in America, we are blessed with the right and privilege of being able to select those people.

Elections therefore should be thoughtfully and efficiently organized, with some level of convenience, and highly secured by rules that protect the election process and results. That way, the candidates that the voters choose actually win the elections.

It is also safe to say that there is some degree of illegal activity in most every election, although sometimes very small.

With this in mind, in 2025, the House of Representatives passed the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. The aim of this legislation is to make elections more secure.

The original SAVE Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, but the revised SAVE America Act also increases the security of elections, requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote in federal elections.

Voter ID is hardly controversial. Gallup and Pew Research Center polls, among others, found that more than 80 percent of American citizens support photo ID to vote.

Yet, some oppose the idea of an ID or a photo ID as necessary to vote, saying that this puts some people in a situation where they will not be able to vote. However, why can anyone who is a citizen of the USA, and therefore eligible to vote, not be able to get the required ID with just a little effort?

As to the complaint of having any ID to vote, here are a few things that you need an ID or photo ID for: get a US Passport, get through a TSA checkpoint, apply for government programs, drive a motor vehicle, pick up prescriptions, buy alcohol, buy a gun, open a bank account, rent or buy a house or car, get married, rent a hotel room, and last, but not least: attend the Democrat National Convention.

So, Democrats believe that it is important to show a photo ID to participate in a convention that nominates the party’s candidate for President, but think it is unfair to require the voters who elect the President to show a photo ID.

Other examples of the apparent confused logic: Democrats want ICE agents to show photo IDs when arresting illegal aliens, but oppose photo IDs to vote.

Recently, Georgia Democrat Sen. Jon Ossoff required attendees to present a government-issued photo ID to enter his "Rally for Our Republic," but opposes a photo ID for federal elections.

And, Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, noted on X that House rules require members to insert their identification card before voting on legislation.

“Notable that 213 Democrats just used their congressional photo ID to vote NO on a voter ID bill,” he wrote.

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia commented, “The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe.”

Yes, it is possible, perhaps likely, that some American citizens will have problems under these requirements. No system is perfect. The current system stands as a hallmark of imperfection.

A poll by Newsmax/TIPP shows that Americans view illegal immigration negatively. Overall, Americans think illegal immigration impacts the U.S. negatively by a 50 to 21 percent margin, with 39 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents saying it’s a problem.

On the backing of ICE, while 78 percent of Republicans support ICE, only 22 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of Independents do.

It is difficult to understand why so many oppose ICE deporting illegal aliens with criminal charges, or who are just in the country illegally, which also is a crime. It has not always been like this.

Comparing recent Presidents on the subject of deportations and the reactions to that, data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security show that Bill Clinton deported 12.5 million with no protests/riots; George W. Bush deported 10.3 million with no protests/riots; Barack Obama deported 5.3 million with no protests/riots; and Donald Trump has deported 1.5 million with 350 protests/riots. 

Wonder why there is this huge difference in presidents doing the same thing for the same reason? Could political considerations, or personal feelings be involved?

Newsmax magazine published a piece in its February edition regarding federal government salaries. “The average salary in a large majority of federal agencies now exceeds $100,000 annually,” the article says.

Open The Books, the watchdog group that promotes transparency throughout the federal government, reported the agencies and departments with the highest average pay, and listed 12, along with the average annual pay and the number of employees.

Leading the pack is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with 721 employees, and an average annual pay of $236,006. The largest number of employees is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation with 6,036 employees, and an average annual pay of $173,627. 

And the lowest paid of the group are the Office of Management and Budget, with 811 employees, and the Federal Trade Commission, with 1,302 employee,  both of which have an average annual pay of $164,468.

America’s 250th year is one of disagreement, not celebration

February 10, 2026

As the United States of America approaches its 250th birthday, we see a country sharply divided, perhaps more so than ever.

The political Right is attempting to take the unique and wonderful design and work to restore it to its original form. The political Left is desperately trying to subvert those actions and turn the country instead into what it prefers: a pure democracy.

But democracies are not what you may think. On that subject, the late commentator Walter Williams said, “The Founders knew that a democracy would lead to some kind of tyranny.”

Founder John Adams offered: “"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet, that did not commit suicide." 

It is relevant to note that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution even mention “democracy.” Instead, the founders envisioned a representative republic — a “Republican Form of Government” — a system that was designed to avoid the “tyranny of the majority,” a huge negative feature of democracies.

They favored a republic — a representative government, or government by the people — over a pure democracy, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10.

Yet, the Democrats, both those in and not in the U.S. Congress, have the bad habit of referring to “our democracy” as if it is one. Or maybe it’s just a preference they want to push.

The closest the country comes to “democracy” is when it is described as a "democratic republic" or a "representative democracy," phrases which flirt with the term “democracy, but recognize that it is not one. 

The Left is actively working as swiftly as possible to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” as per Barack Obama. 

It tries to pass and sometimes does pass laws and takes actions that weaken the system, while opposing those that maintain or strengthen it.

The Left appoints judges and justices that will not honor the original intent of the Constitution and federal and state laws, and will “interpret” them in ways never imagined when they were created.

It wants to enlarge the U.S. Supreme Court and pack it with liberal justices who will make law from the bench by mis-interpreting the Constitution and laws in ways that help them in their subversive efforts.

Their presidents, governors and mayors support the election of and make appointments of attorneys general and prosecutors who have a soft-on-crime attitude that values criminals more than law-abiding citizens.

The Left often criticizes its political opponents for doing things it has done in the past, as if they never imagined such things before.

Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian, and conservative political commentator who writes and does video commentaries for The Daily Caller, offered this view in one of those videos of what the Left is doing, relative to recent incidents in Minnesota.

“I want to talk very quickly today about what is going on in Minnesota. What I’m really disturbed about is the utter hypocrisy that we’re seeing with this street insurrectionary movement. 

“They have canonized Renee Good and Alex Pretti for resisting ICE officers, and they were tragically shot and they’ve become martyrs. Why did the Left tell us that it was perfectly okay for somebody to go to a demonstration with a military-grade, semi-automatic weapon with extra clips and just stick it in his waistband, visible [to] anybody, and then get into a brawl with law enforcement officers? 

“At the same time, tell us if anybody had a concealed weapon anywhere on January 6, they needed to be put in jail? All of our most prominent liberals are saying the state of Minnesota has a right to do what? Attack federal officers? 

“I thought the Left didn’t like state’s rights. I thought they said that this was insurrectionary.”

For the second time in a very short period of time, Congressional Democrats have tried to jam through favored concepts by stuffing them into government funding bills, the purpose of which is to prevent a government shutdown. It is a common practice to put controversial items in an important bill that has great support or, in this case, has great importance. But while it is not a good thing, even though it is a common practice in other legislation, it should not be allowed in government funding emergency legislation. It has a strong resemblance to blackmail.

In the latest of these attempts, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, has said that there are three demands necessary to get Democrats’ support for 

a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill that must pass by Feb. 13 to avoid a partial government shutdown.

While these may be good ideas, and one of them has already been put into effect, this is not the way to get them implemented. A truly good idea will likely get adequate support, without threatening a government shutdown.

Give the Left credit: they are adamant and working continuously to change the country into one ruled by those with socialist/communist ideals, not the ideals of personal freedom that our Founders believed in so earnestly. But the Democrats hard work will bring freedom-ending change to America, if they are successful.

Violent “protests” are illegal, and often lead to tragedies

February 3, 2026

As the original report of an event that will have strong interest among contrasting groups is released, people start reacting. Some react quite conservatively, mentioning only what has been broadcast or published. Others add information that is only partly true, or what they believe is true, even though it was not part of the initial news item, and hasn’t been confirmed.  And still others deliberately make up things that suits their narrative.

All sides use these devices to strengthen their particular position in these hotly debated events about who was right and who was wrong. Along the way, new information often comes along, that can affect how people react.

A new piece of information has appeared regarding Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both of whom were shot and killed by ICE personnel in Minnesota last month as they participated in illegal protests/riots that interfered with the federal agents doing their job to remove illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds or charges.

The two incidents that occurred weeks apart were handled as separate and unrelated events. However, new information purports to show a connection between these two individuals from many years ago.

According to the report, Good and Pretti, both 37 years-old, were classmates from 2006-2010 at the University of Minnesota, and knew each other as members of a club. It says that police discovered the connection when they accessed Pretti’s encrypted phone data, showing that both he and Good belonged to a group chat called “Kingfield Signal ICE watch group.”

Signal group chats are used by anti-ICE activists in Minneapolis and elsewhere to track, identify and impede federal law enforcement officers, according to FBI Director Kash Patel.

"We immediately opened up that investigation because that sort of Signal chat being coordinated with individuals, not just locally in Minnesota, but maybe even around the country — if that leads to a break in the federal statute or a violation of some law, then we are going to arrest people," Patel said. "You cannot create a scenario that illegally entraps and puts law enforcement in harm's way," he added.

That Pretti was a member of the Kingfield Signal ICE watch group, was confirmed by Jeanne Massey, who coordinates rapid response for that and other groups. Good’s involvement, however, has not been confirmed. But the idea that the two knew each other for many years prior to the recent events adds to the discourse, making both Good and Pretti look somewhat worse.

Both Good and Pretti were voluntarily participating in interference with ICE’s legal activities to arrest and deport illegal aliens, focusing on the “worst of the worst.” Some 70 percent of those captured so far have been charged with or convicted of crimes, either in the U.S., their home country, or perhaps some combination.

Good and her spouse, Becca Good, were present at an ICE enforcement activity, and both had made critical remarks to agents. When she blocked a street with her vehicle, refused to exit the vehicle when ordered, and then drove at an ICE agent, she was shot.

Pretti had been involved in interfering with ICE several days before the day he died, damaging an ICE vehicle and being injured as he resisted arrest. On the day of his death, he was with a mob interfering with ICE, carrying a pistol and resisting arrest with no ID. While he did have a concealed carry permit, carrying a weapon while physically and illegally interfering with law enforcement activity was not very smart.

The U.S. Constitution protects Americans expressing their thoughts and feelings about things in public gatherings. But that protection has limits: The public gatherings must be peaceful, including things like carrying signs and chanting or singing. They must not involve violence or interference with lawful activities of law enforcement, such as blocking them, physically attacking them, getting in their faces or touching them or their equipment.

The activities of both Good and Pretti, and hundreds of others, violated the Constitution’s protection of peaceful behavior, opening up the possibility of their being arrested. This behavior cannot be ignored, let alone encouraged. 

Why Americans choose to defend illegal aliens and their crimes, and try to prevent their deportation is a fair question. There is much more sympathy for cases like those of Good and Pretti than for the much larger number of Americans killed or injured by illegal aliens.

Obviously, being in the country illegally is a crime, at least a misdemeanor, and in cases where illegals have been deported and have returned, is a felony. And crimes must be dealt with for the safety of the American people.

The tragic deaths of Good, Pretti and any others that may have died, or may die in the future can easily be avoided.

If blue governors and mayors would turn over those illegals to the federal government in their states and cities, there would be less need, or perhaps no need, for ICE to move into these areas.

And if those who dislike the efforts of federal law enforcement to remove the criminal element and the others here illegally would protest peacefully, or not protest legal actions at all, these deaths, injuries, and arrests would not occur.