After 250 good years, now is not the time for major changes

September 22, 2026

We are living in a time of rage. The outlook of so many people is one of anger, and impatience with things they disagree with, instead of understanding and accepting that it is okay that not everyone thinks alike. It’s been a long time since we have seen this level of anger.

It is quite disturbing to observe so many Americans being so adamant about changing our system of government and amending or destroying the U.S. Constitution. 

Maybe they just dislike some aspects of the system. Or, maybe they do not understand how this unique and wonderful system of government came to be, and why it has worked so well for 250 years. 

Today, the left has a long list of radical changes they want to make and things to eliminate. 

One thing on their list is the United States Supreme Court, which they want to pack with “friendly” justices that will vote their way on legal or constitutional matters. Some of them would rather eliminate it completely.

There is a very sensible reason for our Constitution and our body of laws. The Constitution controls how the government operates, and the laws protect its citizens. But the left does not want a system of government and a body of laws designed to be followed as created.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder thinks packing the Court should be a priority. Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren says the Court is illegitimate because it does not follow “widely held public opinion,” It doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.

And, former Rep. Eric Swalwell agreed with Warren, saying the Court “defies the will of the people.” And that is correct, because that is not its purpose.

The popular New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wonders why we have a Supreme Court, asking, “How much does the current structure benefit us? … I don’t think it does.”

And, if those perspectives are not enough, the court-packing faction thinks it will make the Court “less partisan.” Seriously? And, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg wants the Court to have 15 justices consisting of five from each party, who will then select the remaining five.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley explains that a “non-partisan, independent judiciary,” such as what we have, “serves two essential purposes: it plays a vital role in preserving the separation of powers, which prevents all government power from being concentrated in one place, and it stands as a bulwark in defense of minority rights against a majority faction. To ensure its ability to perform these essential roles without being threatened by the political branches — the Congress and the executive branch — the Constitution gives federal jurists life tenure and salary protections.”

Another of the changes they want to make is to abolish the Electoral College.

The United States of America is by design not a pure democracy, where the majority always rules. A good example of why a pure democracy isn’t a good idea is this: In a pure democracy, in a group of twenty people, eleven can rule that the nine must go to jail.

Under such a design, a few large states would decide every presidential election, easily dominating the smaller states. 

Different states and areas of the country have different ideas about things, like what is good for them, and what is not good. But what is better for giant states like New York and California, may be very bad for others, like Vermont and Wyoming.

The Federalist Papers noted that there are 43 states with a smaller population than Los Angeles County, CA, meaning that the votes of each of those 43 states is less than one county in another state. If Los Angeles County was a state, it would be the 11th largest in the nation.

That’s why we have the Electoral College: so that the largest states do not always dominate and choose the president, based on the candidate that will do the most for them.

After much debate, the Founders settled on a compromise of ideas where instead of the raw vote totals of each state being added together to decide who will be president, the decision would be made by state-appointed electoral intermediaries — one for each senator and representative of each state — who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency. This tends to help balance the smaller states against the larger ones.

A lot of Americans do not like the Electoral College, and want to do away with it, because they feel it unfairly and improperly elects the president. However, in 250 years, in the 60 elections of our 47 presidents since 1789, only five times have presidential candidates won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College vote. That’s about 8 percent of the time. It doesn’t seem to be the problem they want everyone to believe it is.

You do not have to have a PhD. in The Art of Deception to realize that following the left’s plan will create a situation where the left will forever dominate elections, and will rule the country until it surpasses Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, and dies.

Our system has worked well for 250 years. We need to keep it.

Watching as the Democratic Party becomes more radical daily

September 15, 2026

The rising of this strong radical leftist movement toward socialism/communism is more than a bit troubling.

When our Founders were developing our unique system of government, they worked to develop one absent all the problems they had experienced and seen in other countries. The solution they arrived at was a constitutional republic based on principles of democracy.

Had the Founders gone with another type of government — like a kingdom, or a heavy socialistic or communist government, or a pure democracy — or even with the chosen system that got changed a few decades ago, it is quite likely that these people that now want to change the system would never have been born. This system they hate so much and want to change made it possible for them to even be around to hate it.

Despite the dramatic lack of evidence to support socialism, many on the political left seem to think that is a better route to travel than the current one that has done pretty darned well for 250 years. 

On this subject, American economist, economic historian, and social theorist Thomas Sowell commented, “Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good.”

Venezuela may be the best example of how socialism doesn’t work. It was once Latin America’s wealthiest nation. But enter the socialist presidents Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. As a result, today, most Venezuelans are living in extreme poverty. 

The Democratic Socialists of America has taken the left’s radicalism to a new level. On Fox News Sunday recently, the co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, Megan Romer, said things like eliminating the Senate, replacing the President and Supreme Court “as we know them,” abolishing ICE, abolishing borders and more, were part of the DSA’s agenda. On that same topic, liberal talk show host Joe Scarborough warned that the DSA’s extreme policies, which he called “craziness,” will push voters to vote Republican. 

HBO talk show host Bill Maher is a liberal who isn’t afraid to call out the excesses of those on his side of the aisle, and does that fairly often. He recently dug into the sympathy that many on the left have shown for Muslims during last Friday’s 25th observance of the 9-11 attacks.

While 2,977 Americans were murdered that day, some on the left were more concerned with the anger at the Muslim terrorists who killed them, he noted. He was particularly upset with the results of a poll showing that one in five Gen Z respondents thought that Osama bin Laden was an “okay” guy.

Maher’s response was: “He’s Luigi Mangione in a turban.”

Maher also criticized the anti-Israel and pro-Islam perspective of the left surrounding the Gaza situation. He outlined the steps Israel has taken to settle things and actually help those living in Gaza, that have been ignored by the anti-Israel faction on the left.

He also noted that when Israel responded to the vicious October 7th Hamas attacks, it was not genocide — as so many have tied to convince the world — but a justified counterattack.

And then, there is Zohran Kwame Mamdani, a naturalized American citizen, born in Uganda of Indian parents who moved here when he was 7 years-old. He is a member of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America, and became the first Muslim and Asian American to serve as New York City’s Mayor.

His platform when running for the office included support for free city buses, a rent freeze in rent-stabilized housing, wanting the city to operate a grocery store in each of the five boroughs, universal child care, the construction of 200,000 new affordable housing units, a $30 minimum wage by 2030, and tax increases on corporations and on those earning above $1 million annually.

As New Yorkers gathered on Friday in observance of the 9-11 Islamic terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and another unidentified target which killed 2,977 Americans, Mamdani was there, against the wishes of many who thought he didn’t really belong there, due to his being a Muslim.

As the names of the victims were being read, many were saddened and wept. Yet, Mamdani and New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were seen not paying any attention to the ceremony, but instead talking and laughing.

Abdulrahman (Abdul) Mohamed El-Sayed is an American politician who is the Democratic nominee in the 2026 US Senate election in Michigan. He is a progressive Democrat who supports Medicare for All and abolishing ICE. If elected, El-Sayed would be the first Muslim member of the U.S. Senate.

Hasan Piker is a political commentator whose rhetoric supports violence and denigrates Jewish people. He reportedly has a large number — 11.3 million — of followers, and has expressed support for designated terrorist organizations and anti-Semitic ideas. And, he recently said America deserved the 9-11 attacks, although he did retract that statement, later.

So, the Democrats and the political left have shown a substantive allegiance to even more radical ideals lately. 

Electing these people and moving the Unites States even farther from its original orientation is not a sensible move.

Stabilization is badly needed in legal and scientific matters

September 8, 2026

I have for many years appreciated Clarence Thomas as an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. That appreciation stems mostly from his originalist and textualist view of laws and the United States Constitution. Thomas may become the longest serving Justice ever.

Originalism is the idea that the Constitution is not a living document, the meaning of which changes with the evolution and changes of our society. Originalism is based upon the sensible idea that the Constitution means what it meant when it was created, as do all of our laws.

Thomas and other originalists are referred to as “conservative” justices. That term has nothing to do with political philosophy, it only has to do with adhering to the original meaning of laws and the Constitution.

This is a concept that eludes the understanding of many present and past justices, as well as many people who prefer a living Constitution and laws that can mean whatever somebody wants them to mean at any given moment in time, and under any circumstances.

Another originalist was former Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who served on the Supreme Court from 1986 until his untimely death in 2016. Scalia was referred to as the intellectual anchor for the originalists and textualists on the Court.

Regarding the idea of originalism and the tendency among some Justices to apply a liberal interpretation to the Constitution, Scalia said, “The Constitution means what it says. You figure out what it was understood to mean when it was adopted and that’s the end of it. If you want more rights, create them by statute, if you want more constitutional rights, create them by amending the Constitution.”

He also maintained that this approach is the only way to safeguard the purpose of the Constitution. The Founders worked hard and over a significant period of time to develop a unique and improved system of government. 

It is a constitutional federal republic with a national government divided into three distinct branches — the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. This arrangement balances power between the federal government and individual states through a system of checks and balances designed to prevent tyranny.

The Constitution is the guide of that system, and it must be correctly interpreted, based upon what the Founders had in mind when they wrote it.

The appropriateness of this concept is so obvious that it is truly troubling that so many people trained in the law do not follow it when it does not suit their preferences.

Another area where what is supposed to be right is often not right is in the area of scientific work. In science, the problem is that there are sometimes so many different scientists working on the same question, and they often all come up with different results in their exploration of the question at hand.

This situation was addressed in the Hillsdale College publication “Imprimis” by Jay Bhattacharya, who became the Director of the National Institutes of Health in 2025. He is a physician and former professor of medicine at Stanford University.

In the Imprimis article, he notes when the findings of a study are made available on TV, in newspapers, on podcasts, etc., people accept those findings. Other scientists often perform the same experiments and come up with different results. But, which results are the correct ones?

“How do we address this,” Bhattacharya asks. “We begin by recognizing the fact that most ideas hatched by scientists do not work or are not true. That is completely normal in science and always has been.” He then cited a paper written in 2005 titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”

The idea of replication is a good one, as it has many scientists seeking the truth, and checking one another by replicating their research and checking their results against the others, or using different methods to find the same results. Eventually, the correct answers come forth.

However, recently a problem has reemerged, one that had been eliminated by the scientific revolution years ago. That problem is the idea that there is a “scientific authority” that determines what is and what isn’t true. 

“Unfortunately, we find ourselves back in a situation today,” Bhattacharya wrote, “as demonstrated a few years ago by the Covid lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination requirements, where a relatively small number of people — directors of government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (prior to Bhattacharya taking the leadership), heads of international agencies like the World Health Organization, and editors of prestigious journals — have the power to say what is true or false in science.

Like political and social ideas, scientific theories must not be censored. And adjustments to constitutional ideals and laws cannot be done because someone dislikes them, or they don’t fit preferences, 

If science has produced conflicting results, none of those results can be determined to be “the one” arbitrarily by some person or group. If a law or constitutional tenet is found to be unsatisfactory, it must be changed through established procedures.

Honesty and professional integrity are demanded of persons in these positions. 

America did not become the great country it is by substituting under-the-table tactics for appropriate legal processes. 

The climate change debate still thrives after seventy years

September 1, 2026

Of the many popular topics of discussion these days — like can men have babies; the many crimes Donald Trump has committed; we really need to do away with police and prisons — there is the on-going talk about our environment.

And, of course, we need to be aware of harmful things that may be going on that could have a serious negative effect of our environment, and the people.

Many warnings over the last few decades have been, “If we don’t stop using fossil fuels to produce electricity and for other things, the United States and likely the rest of the world will suffer and die.”

But not all of these warnings and predictions of doom and gloom are valid, or have come true. And 33 of them will be mentioned.

As always with serious topics, there are at least two sides of the argument. Lately, there has been an effort to silence, or at least reduce the argument that says that our environment is not in any serious trouble.

Let’s go back several years to the mid-to-late 1900s and look at some of these predictions: The Arctic Ocean Will Be Navigable by Mid-Century (1958); Global Famine by 1975 (1967); New Ice Age by 21st Century (1970); Ice Age in 50–60 Years (1971); Catastrophic Cooling in a Century (1972); Space Satellites Confirm Ice Age (1974); Time Magazine: Another Ice Age? (1974); No End to Cooling in Sight (1978).

The reference to Time Magazine mentioned a question about another Ice Age being on its way. Time noted that there was growing Arctic ice, cold winters, and animals migrating as a result, showing that indeed Earth was entering a long period of cold temperatures.

Only a few years later, in 1979, this prediction appeared: “Arctic Ice Will Vanish.” And that warming theme became the dominant one, to wit: Environmental Catastrophe by 2000 (1982); Maldives Underwater in 30 Years (1988); Entire Nations Could Disappear by 2000 (1989); UK Snowfalls Will Vanish (2000); Maple Syrup Industry Dead in 20 Years (2001).

The nations disappearing warning came from a United Nations official, warning that global warming must be reversed to prevent this from occurring.

So, as of 1979, global warming was the problem. Or was it? Three years after the prediction of the maple syrup industry being killed a new warning mentioned the possibility of Britain freezing: “Britain Becomes Siberia by 2020 (2004).”

But then three years after that, warming was again the dangerous threat to life on Earth: “Point of No Return by 2016 (2006); Arctic Ice Gone by 2013 (2007); Climate Deadline is 2012 (2007); Ice-Free Arctic by 2013 (2007); North Pole Ice Cap Melts Away in 2008 (2008); North Pole Could Melt by 2008 (2008); North Pole to Be Ice-Free for First Time in History (2008); Arctic Will Melt in Five to Ten Years (2008); Arctic Ocean Ice-Free by 2014 (2009).”

The “point of no return” came from an Associated Press article that paraphrased Al Gore saying that greenhouse gas emission must be drastically reduced within 10 years.

This trend of warming predictions continued into the next two decades: “Arctic Ice-Free in Two Years (2013); Australia’s Snowfall on the Decline (2017); No More Arctic Ice After 2022 (2018); Humanity Will Go Extinct by 2023 (2018); Glacier National Park Sign Predicted No Glaciers by 2020 (2020); No Snow California by 2021 (2021); End of Snow to Affect 76 Million Americans (2022).” 

The young Swedish climate activist, Greta Thunberg, tweeted that humanity would go extinct by 2023 unless fossil fuel use was immediately ended. At the time, in 2018, she was only 15-years-old, but somehow managed to gain much attention.

And now comes the reality that not one of these 33 predictions of a serious climate crisis has been correct.

Some scientists maintain that the warming that has occurred did so because there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, resulting from burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. 

However, others say that it is actually part of a natural process, and not due to man-made problems. They say that we are still in an Ice Age that began more than 100,000 years ago.

The Earth has alternating periods of cooling (glacials) and warming (interglacials) that last for about a hundred thousand years. As an Ice Age progresses, cooling ends and warming begins. That is where they say we are now.

Although the many predictions of disaster have proven false, there are still many scientists and lay people who either believe that global warming is a man-made problem that needs to be corrected, or are determined to preach that line for some non-scientific purpose.

And, history shows us that there have been periods where our atmosphere has been much, much warmer than it is today.

Here, from climate.gov, is one example: “The fact that these thick, calcium-rich rock layers sit directly on top of rock piles left behind by retreating glaciers indicates that temperatures rose significantly near the end of the Neoproterozoic, perhaps reaching a global average higher than 90° Fahrenheit. (Today's global average is lower than 60°F.)”

Today, we are not really hot. So, relax, and stop freaking out.