Gas prices will come down, but other troubles lie ahead

April 14, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Birthright citizenship” is a foolish and dangerous practice

April 7, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes on college campuses have weakened higher education

March 31, 2026

For a long, long time young people have been encouraged to go to college. There, they could study and learn the important aspects of the career field they wanted to work in, and have four or more years of being in a wonderful positive learning atmosphere. Studying at the college level fostered personal growth, critical thinking, self-discipline, independence, important new and lasting relationships, and prepared graduates to earn more income than otherwise would be likely.

All of this led to a higher quality of life. In other words, it helped one become an adult with many important assets that otherwise might not be gained.

However, in more recent years, some changes have occurred that make college less of a possibility due to the very high costs, and due to other aspects, which many believe make it less desirable. 

Many of us remember the campus and classrooms being places with differing ideas, and an attitude that supported the concept of being exposed to many different ideas. The only concepts that were addressed in class were those relevant to the particular subject, and were known and accepted theories and facts.

At many, perhaps most, colleges and universities today, that atmosphere has changed substantially. Some ideas are epted, while others are strongly discouraged.

The results of this change in academic attitude can be seen in areas such as news journalism, education at all levels, some legal areas, as well as other professions where things are now very different.  

There are many who will deny that this trend exists, particularly those who practice it, and those who agree with that malpractice. And there are others who will defend this very different atmosphere, saying they are doing what must be done.

Jonathon Turley is a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School, a practicing attorney, legal analyst, respected legal authority, and author. In his job as a law professor, he has seen close up what is occurring today. In his book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, he addresses the changed atmosphere at colleges and universities. 

In the chapter titled “Academic Orthodoxy and the Restoration of Free Speech in Higher Education” he first talks about “academics” and the “academy,” noting that today professors “often refer to ourselves as ‘academics’ and our profession as the ‘academy.’”

Dating back to 387 BCE, the “academus,” as it was known at the time, “would become the model for unbridled intellectual pursuit: the search for knowledge and understanding essential to human development. The most important element was protection for free inquiry. It provided a safe space where forbidden thoughts or ideas could be explored without fear.”

He also noted that the greatest danger to those “protections” was from within, and that same danger exists today. “We have watched as professors are targeted for expressing dissenting views on subjects ranging from systemic racism to police abuse to gender identification to climate change.” And he says that in such cases some professors even work to get the non-conformists among them suspended.

“Even law professors have supported shouting down speakers and barring others from campuses entirely because of their opposing views.”

“The extent of speech curtailment depends on the level of tolerance for opposing views at any given school. That level of tolerance appears to be dropping across the country.

“For academics, what was once a protected space for viewpoint diversity has become a place for enforced orthodoxy. Those who are accused of ‘harmful’ speech can be stripped of every cherished aspect of an intellectual life, including their academic positions.”

Professors who disagree with the prevailing concepts were once content to just be quiet, Turley explained. But today, that isn’t enough. Now, they must confess their shortcomings and pledge to repent.

Since Turley’s great book is about free speech, he doesn’t address how this attitude affects the day-to-day presentation of information in the classroom and student graduates that result from it.

With free speech and an atmosphere of competing ideas now dead on many campuses, is it any wonder that students are no longer presented an objective course of study, but instead receive an ideologically designed substitute?

Not surprisingly, the prevailing concepts among college academics are leftist favorites, such as DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), critical race theory, unfettered abortion, and the like. 

In such an atmosphere the political neutrality and adherence to traditional methods considered necessary in some majors are no longer imperative, and integrity and professionalism are no longer important attributes for graduates.

There are still some unbiased news journalists and politically neutral news organizations, judges and prosecutors who adhere to the ideas of applying the laws equally and punishing criminals, teachers and schools that teach the traditional and approved curricula, and those who maintain the traditions in our culture that have built and maintained the United States of America into a unique and wonderful nation.

But seeking a college degree today in a respected and sought-after major can no longer be trusted to meet the high standards of days gone by. What one receives is too often a politically engineered replacement for an important and formerly respected field of study.