Our political atmosphere is a warning sign of coming disaster

May 19, 2026

A recent commentary by columnist George Will was about a possible presidential candidate of the Republican party. In a statement, the “candidate,” quoted Tennessee’s Republican governor Bill Lee. “I’m a conservative. I’m just not angry about it.”

The potential candidate then said, “Americans who enjoy the tone and substance of today’s politics can choose from candidates promising more of the same. But voters who are exhausted and embarrassed by endless turmoil and vitriol from both sides of the political spectrum deserve a choice, not an echo.”

That statement, whether by an actual candidate or a make-believe one, is very true. The political atmosphere today contains anger, exaggeration, outright dishonesty, and un-American attitudes and actions.

As unpleasant as an angry atmosphere may be, it is far less harmful than un-American philosophies and the dishonest and foolish policies being used to put them into use.

There is an abundance of such politicians today, so let’s take a look at a few.

Katie Wilson, a self-described democratic socialist, is the mayor of Seattle, Washington. Her campaign for mayor was noted by some publications as much like that of current New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani.

Like Mamdani’s mayoral experience, Wilson’s new taxes and progressive policies have led to some wealthy residents and businesses leaving the state. Not about to acknowledge the harm her actions have done, Wilson laughingly commented, “I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are super over-blown, and if, you know, the ones that leave — like, Bye!” Then she laughed.

Such arrogance is not a good thing. And it was criticized by Republicans and some Democrats, saying her approach to economic development was careless, and some calling it “anti-business.”

Speaking of Mamdani, his successful campaign for mayor depended heavily on making living in NYC easy on people. Free buses, free childcare, and government-owned-and-operated grocery stores. 

This all sounds good, like most of what socialists think really is good. But “free stuff” isn’t free, and it isn’t cheap. It must be paid for, and those payments come from taxpayers: people, wealthy and not wealthy, and businesses, large and small.

And now Mamdani knows that under current circumstances, the City can’t afford all that free stuff. The reality is that NYC’s budget is already larger than almost every state in the country. He announced in a press conference recently that the City faces a financial “crisis of historic magnitude.”

“Years of mismanagement and chronic under budgeting, alongside a structural imbalance between what New York City sends to the state and what we receive in return, have taken a toll,” he said. The problem is one of “revenue.”

So, with an already serious budget problem, and the promises of free stuff for all, guess what the solution is: raise taxes — not just on the wealthy, but likely on everyone — along with some new and/or increased user fees.

And now, just like Seattle, businesses and the wealthy are leaving the City.

Millionaires, billionaires and businesses are often not popular. However, they do provide some positives in a city or state. Businesses provide things like jobs, products and services, taxes. Wealthy people buy homes, cars, household goods, and donate to needy and beneficial organizations, and pay taxes. 

Virginia Democrats, led by new Governor Abigail Spanberger, who campaigned saying that gerrymandering was unacceptable, tried to redraw voting district lines in the state to give Democrats enormous dominance in a state not nearly dominated by Democrats. The State Supreme Court ruled against that failed plan on constitutional grounds. That is exactly what honest and politically unbiased judicial bodies and judges are expected to do.

Outraged that their illegal plan was properly discovered and killed, the next political ploy of the Democrats is to get rid of the State Supreme Court Justices who made the proper decision on that issue.

The plan is to make the Court a politically biased legislative body instead of a politically neutral judicial one.  And they would do that by having the General Assembly lower the mandatory retirement age for Justices from the current 75 years of age to 54 years of age. As it turns out, 54 is the age of the youngest of the current Justices. 

And then, guess what? The General Assembly, which has a majority in both chambers of the legislature, would then appoint younger replacements from the ranks of their Democrat brothers and sisters who, like them, play not by the laws and the state and federal constitutions, but by their own set of rules, the Democrat rules.

Perhaps these Democrat leaders should be admired for being so open about their subversive, dishonest and illegal methods.

The socialistic efforts of these and other mayors and governors across the country are contrary to the fundamental structure of the United States of America. They want to tear down the most free system yet created, and replace it with a system of eternal failure.

And when they can’t get their way, desperation forces them to cheat to give them the things they are unable to get through an honest election process.

The three examples here ought to be a blazing warning sign against “progressivism,” and socialism.

The view of Earth’s energy production and climate is evolving

May 12, 2026

Climate and energy are two very important topics. They can be closely related and over the last few decades they have been very closely related. Very serious problems were predicted to effect Earth’s climate due to the damage fossil fuels were supposedly causing.

The Fulcrum7 website provided a list of predictions of disaster due mostly to our energy production that did not come true:

1) In 1970, S. Dillon Ripley, a wildlife conservationist who served as secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, warned that 75 percent to 80 percent of species would be extinct by 1995.

2) In 1970, Kenneth Watt, an ecologist and professor at the University of California, Davis, warned that "there won't be any more crude oil," that "none of our land will be usable" for agriculture, and the world would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. 

3) In 1970, biologist Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University warned that by the end of the decade up to 200 million people would die each year from starvation due to overpopulation, life expectancy would plummet to 42 years, and all ocean life would perish. 

4) In 1970, Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, predicted that "world population will outrun food supplies" and "the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine" by the year 2000.

5) In 1971, Dr. S. I. Rasool, an atmospheric scientist at NASA, predicted the coming of a "new ice age" within 50 years.

6) In 1975, Ehrlich, the Stanford biologist, warned that 90 percent of tropical rainforests and 50 percent of species would disappear within 30 years. 

7) In 1988, Hussein Shihab, environmental affairs director of the Maldives, warned that his island nation would be completely underwater within 30 years, which wouldn't even matter because experts also predicted the Maldives would run out of drinking water by 1992.

8) In 2004, a Pentagon analysis warned of global anarchy due to climate change.  Major European cities would be underwater by 2020, at which point Britain would suffer from a "Siberian" climate.

9) In 2008, Bob Woodruff of ABC News hosted a two-hour climate change special warning that New York City could be underwater by 2015, among other apocalyptic predictions.

10) In 2009, former vice president and climate activist Al Gore predicted the Arctic Ocean would have no ice by 2014, which is the same thing Greta Thunberg said would happen by 2022.

Al Gore also issued several other warnings that were false, including: Kilimanjaro’s no more snows within a decade; Glacier National Park glaciers gone by 2020; Polar ice caps ice free by 2016.

Enough scientists and others agreed with these predictions, forcing decisions on energy production that had significant negative influences on the American people, how they lived and where they worked. Fossil fuels, which were the primary sources of energy production for decades, were ruled dangerous, and wind and solar production were advertised as the solutions to the dangers of fossil fuels.

Coal-fired electric plants were closed or scheduled for closure. Mining operations were cut back or shut down. And the use of wind and solar facilities was increased.

As time has passed, the problems with wind and solar have become more well-known. Solar panels don’t work when the sun doesn’t shine, and wind turbines don’t work when the wind doesn’t blow. Thus, dependable 24-hour-per-day backup systems and large battery facilities are needed. 

Both wind and solar systems take up lots of land and use materials that are difficult and expensive to obtain, and their panels and turbines are also difficult or impossible to recycle after they wear out.

And now the scientific reality of clean, renewable energy being so much better is being weakened by scientific data from scientists who are not afraid to talk about the understated problems of wind and solar, and the overstated problems of fossil fuels.

A good many respected scientists say that not only is CO2 not the huge problem we have been told it is, but that we actually need more of it to contribute to plant growth, which will produce more oxygen and consume more CO2.

The reality of the problems of wind and solar, and the exaggerated story of CO2 problems caused by fossil fuels are now recognized for the damage they have done. We are seeing shut down coal-fired power plants reopening, along with the mining industry beginning a comeback.

Chris Hamilton, President of the West Virginia Coal Association, tells us that, “There are moments when events strip away the luxury of theory and force a return to first principles. This is one of those moments. Recently, President Donald Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to strengthen America’s coal supply chains and reinforce the backbone of reliable, affordable electric generation. The order authorizes federal support for mining, transportation, export and domestic terminals, generating unit availability, and long-term fuel security. It is a direct acknowledgment that coal remains indispensable to the stability of the American power system and to the broader national interest.”

The coal industry, so helpful to our area in the past, likely won’t reach its previous levels. But increased coal use will be a good thing.

A different way of thinking about President Donald Trump

May 5, 2026

President Donald J. Trump is an enigma. He is liked and respected by many, and disliked and the subject of negative wishes by many others. In fact, the high degree of dislike for him by his political foes causes many of them to be unable to objectively judge the things he does. Instead, an automatic response to his actions is, “that is horrible, stupid, Hitlerian, fascist, Nazism,” etc.

His supporters, however, even though many do not automatically endorse his every move, like most of what he does. This is because they are not blinded by hatred, and are able to see positive results from many/most of his actions.

A really good, sensible, and objective analysis of Trump was offered during his first term as President by Charles Krauthammer.

In case you don’t know, Krauthammer was a brilliant, respected, and widely published political columnist who started out as a moderate liberal and later turned independent conservative. He won the Pulitzer Prize for his columns in The Washington Post in 1987, and is credited for writing this fine column in March of 2018, not long before he passed away.

Not blinded either by love or hate, Krauthammer’s estimation of Trump was this: “Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He's a ‘Pragmatist.’ (Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn't let emotion distract him or her.)”

Clearly, and thankfully, Trump is not a liberal. And many of those on the right criticize him for not being conservative enough. So, Krauthammer’s view makes sense.

He goes on to mention problems with both the liberal and conservative perspectives, and how Trump sees things. “I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn't see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

“Viewing problems from a Liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata. 

“Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well-being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow.”

And, as an example, he cites a problem current in 2018. “Trump uniquely understands that China's manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it.

“Here again, successful businessmen, like Trump, who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work, you don't continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will. 

“As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15/hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl's Hamburgers.”

Next, he cites five reasons why people don’t, or may not, like Trump:

“(1) he is antithetical to the ‘good old boy’ method of brokering back room deals that fatten the coffers of politicians;

“(2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a president speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who he owes vis-a-vis donations;

“(3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology;

“(4) he says what he is thinking, is unapologetic for his outspoken thoughts, speaks very straightforward using everyday language that can be understood by all … making him a great communicator, for the most part, does what he says he will do and;

“(5) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.”

Instead of viewing Trump as a rich guy intruding into the “sacred” world of politics, viewing him as an apolitical problem solver could result in less radical, and more calm reactions to his efforts to resolve America’s problems. And be realistic: nobody is always wrong. Even Joe Biden and Barack Obama weren’t always wrong.

Put aside the fervent desire to replace our unique and superior governmental system with a failed socialist/communist system that puts nearly everyone at the mercy of a few authoritarian “leaders” who care nothing about rights and freedoms, and who care only about themselves.

Krauthammer’s idea of a pragmatist being precisely what the country needs at this time should be appreciated. Don’t let Trump’s often offensive comments prevent seeing the beneficial things that are happening.

“Donald Trump put his total financial empire at risk in running for president and certainly did not need or possibly even want the job,” Krauthammer wrote. “He wants success for the U.S. and her citizens because he loves his country.”

The left’s chosen direction for America is very troubling

April 28, 2026

The Democratic Party has begun to look ahead to the 2028 election. And the results of a recent poll show the following candidates for president and their degree of support: Kamala Harris - 22 percent; Gavin Newsom - 21 percent; Pete Buttigieg - 12; percent; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - 10 percent; Josh Shapiro - 5 percent; Cory Booker - 4 percent; Mark Kelly - 3 percent; JB Pritzker - 3 percent; Gretchen Whitmer - 2 percent; Andy Beshear - 2 percent; Jon Ossoff - 2 percent; Ro Khanna - 1 percent; Raphael Warnock - 1 percent.

While some are more radical than others, there is not one who qualifies as a moderate, or traditional Democrat.

With that many candidates, no one would likely get a big number of voters. However, with only four getting double-digits, most of them can be ruled out, unless things change and a later poll has different numbers. So, is it Harris, Newsom, Buttigieg, or Ocasio-Cortez? And then, which of the others, if any of them, would be selected as the candidate for vice president?

No true American with traditional values is on that short list. But then, today’s left is not interested in true American values, or electing someone with them to office.

Whichever one or two of these people ultimately gets the nod, a move toward more centrist politics is highly unlikely.

Two recent elections support that assertion: Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor of New York City, and Abagail Spanberger, the new governor of Virginia.

Mamdani is determined to make New York a socialist wonderland, while Spanberger is driving Virginia to replace California as the least appealing place in the country.

Mamdani, a democratic socialist, campaigned as a progressive, supporting fare-free city buses, city-owned grocery stores, a $30 minimum wage, tax increases on businesses and the wealthiest individuals, and other similar things. And he has followed that line as mayor.

Spanberger, on the other hand, ran on a moderate platform, but has removed the moderate mask. She now supports liberal positions on energy, immigration and fiscal policy. She supported the gerrymandering issue allowing the creation of districts that are — all but one — Democrat dominated. This, after previously condemning gerrymandering as unacceptable. Her rating is 47 percent approval, 46 percent disapproval, unusually low for a new governor, and surprising, given her 15-point election margin. 

Add to those two the other socialist/liberal/progressive mayors and governors, and we have a party abandoning the tried and true principles and guaranteed freedoms America has enjoyed for more than two centuries.

One piece of evidence of that radical philosophy is supported by a recent survey by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) which looked at campus culture, and how free speech is viewed by colleges. 

It found that “65 percent of colleges earn an ‘F’ for their speech climate in FIRE's College Free Speech Rankings, the largest survey ever conducted on campus free speech. 34 percent of students find some level of acceptance for violence to stop a campus speech. 70 percent of Americans say higher ed is going in the wrong direction.”

As we all know, the third attempt on President Donald Trump’s life occurred last Saturday at the White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington, DC. Fortunately, no one was killed, and the only injuries were reportedly not life threatening.

This, like the two previous attempts on Trump’s life, seems to be another in a string of violent events where someone wants to murders a person because the murderer doesn’t like what the victim says or does. 

While these actions are not part of the political agenda of the Democratic Party, or of Democrats, this trend seems to be indulged in by people who are not on the right of the political spectrum.

But regardless of the political perspective of these committing murders and attempting murders, these actions are extremely far outside of the political processes of the United States of America. We do not murder or use violence against our political or social foes! This is not Iran or Venezuela.

Life is a precious gift. Who has the right to decide when someone else’s life should end?

Did Charlie Kirk deserve to die because in public events he peacefully presented different views than some of those in the audience?

Did United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson deserve to be shot and killed on a New York street because of his job?

Does a President of the United States deserve to die because his name is Donald Trump, or because of his efforts as President?

If you dislike a person’s ideas, you don’t kill them. You oppose their ideas. You make an argument against whatever it is that bothers you. Each of us is free to think and believe as we choose. And we can express those beliefs, so long as that expression does not go against our laws. 

What has happened in the not too distant past to explain how this sort of illogical and violent thinking has taken hold? How can any American even consider such behavior, let alone indulge in it? Whatever the cause, the punishment for such violence should be swift and fierce.