The Democratic Party is undergoing an irrational transformation

October 20, 2026

As we watch with our mouths agape, the once-sensible Democratic Party is going through its second period of transition. Looking back seven decades, the Democrats and Republicans were both focused on improving the nation. Although their respective paths were different, they were much less so than even four decades ago.

The first Democrat transition was becoming more liberal, eventually becoming what they choose to call “progressive.” Today, the ideas of the controlling faction, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), make the wild “progressive” approach seem almost normal.

The Democrats these days hold and participate in protests titled “No Kings.” There, they complain about what they consider authoritarian moves by President Donald Trump and the Republicans. Curiously, what today’s Democrats are campaigning on is electing people with a platform that would actually turn our constitutional republic into a kingdom.

The DSA proposes some crazy things, among which are:

* Healthcare for all, which would guarantee free healthcare; 

* Housing for all, which would include publicly owned housing and universal rent control;

* Ending police forces and incarceration in jails and prisons;

* Economic democracy, where private ownership of large businesses and industries would become public ownership;

* Democracy for all, where Washington, DC would become a state, borders would be opened, and Green Card holders would be able to legally vote;

* Defunding the Department of War, closing all overseas military bases;

They apparently do not realize that everything controlled by the government — like healthcare, housing, and businesses — means that the government can decide what the public will get from those things, if anything.

If government controls all the food producers and sellers, the country could be forced to become vegetarian, or forced to eat lab-made food. If healthcare is under government control, limited availability of medical care could occur, as it does in socialist nations, and forced vaccination.

Without police departments or jails and prisons, robbers, rapists, murderers, etc., would be left alone to continue robbing, raping and murdering. Or maybe, those lawbreakers would be assigned to a kinder rehabilitation program by someone.

The October edition of Newsmax magazine has a large special section addressing this Democratic Party transition.

One part of this coverage features information on six “Socialists Reshaping Politics.” It contains information about them, a sub-title, and quotes from each of them. Here is a little bit of that.

Zohran Mamdani - “Prince of City” — The current Mayor of New York City said on YouTube, “I don’t think we should have billionaires.” And on X, Mamdani said, “The NYPD is racist, anti-queer and a major threat to public safety.” He favors city-run supermarkets, and rent stabilization for two years.

AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) - “Wonder Woman” — On ocasio-cortez.house.gov, the New York Representative called for “defunding the police.” She recently renewed her DSA membership.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed - “Overnight Sensation” — The Democrat candidate for U.S. Senator from Michigan posted on Yahoo.com, “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” He favors ending military aid to Israel, Medicare for all, and abolishing ICE.

Bernie Sanders - “Elder Statesman” — Vermont Sen. Sanders said, “I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks, and major industries,” on FoxNews.com. The 85-year-old serves as an inspiration for younger democrat socialists. 

Peggy Flanagan - “Progressive” — The lieutenant governor of Minnesota, and U.S. Senate candidate commented on FoxNews.com, “We need to rip ICE apart and stop them from terrorizing our communities.” She also wants Medicare for all. And, she calls Israel’s response to the vicious October 7, 2023 attack “genocide.”

Hasan Piker - “Podcaster Power” — He posted on Yahoo.com, “America deserved 9/11, dude.” He has a hard time criticizing most anything without inserting numerous curse words, and thinks Luigi Mangione, the accused murderer of healthcare CEO Bryan Thompson, is a hero.

And then, there are others mentioned by Newsmax, like Darializa Avila Chevalier. She is a 33-year-old Ph.D. graduate student at East Harlem in New York. She won in the June congressional primary, and co-founded a militant student group at Columbia University that helped drive the violent 2024 campus occupation following the Hamas attacks in Gaza.

She referred to America as a “a f-ing disgrace,” and said the U.S. is occupying Native American land. She was a co-writer of the manifesto of the militant student group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest. That document stated, in part, “We are Westerners fighting for the eradication of Western Civilization. … Our intifada is an Internationalist one.”

Of course, not every Democrat endorses this extraordinarily radical platform. About the DSA, long-time Democrat strategist James Carville said this: “These people do not like Democrats. Not only are they not Democrats, (but they also) wish Democrats poorly.” And New York Rep. Tom Suozzi promotes “The Promise of America,” the signers of which are “proud of America, want safety, not lawlessness,” adding, “We are capitalist, not socialist.”

These and other DSA members were either un-educated or deliberately mis-educated about the greatness of the United States of America that has enabled it to survive and prosper for 250 years, and the dangers of socialism/communism that shine brightly across the globe. They must not be allowed to take over the country.

We need to restore Congress to its original form and function

October 13, 2026

A big topic on both sides of the political aisle today is the US Congress. Currently, the good guys have a very thin majority, and the Democrats on the other side are running at all levels of government on the platform of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Former President Barack Obama is no doubt thrilled to see that his horrible idea is still alive and well.

But whatever happens in November, the Congress will still have some issues that need to be dealt with. One of those is the “career in Congress” idea.

When the Founders of our country and the Framers of its Constitution were working to establish the country, their concept of the Congress included the idea of a bicameral body where citizens came to represent their state, district, and citizens for a while, and then returned home and went back to work. Their idea was not to change their job for one in Washington for the rest of their productive lives. We would have “citizen legislators,” people who would come to government for a few years, then go back home to their previous life.

Through the years, that concept has fallen by the wayside, and today being in the House of Representatives or the Senate has become a career field. Many of those serving today have been there a long time. And some of them have become quite wealthy, as they represented their district and state.

For some, perhaps many, that wealth may have resulted from what they knew and did as public servants that they used for their own personal gain.

And we need to recognize that neither the Congressional career aspect, nor the millionaire Representatives and Senators achievement are anything even remotely like what the Founders and Framers had in mind for their country.

Here’s a sample of what has occurred. According to Quorum Analytics, LLC, the longest-serving members of Congress are:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — 50 years (1975 – present)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) — 48 years (1977 – present)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) — 44 years (1981 – present)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — 44 years (1981 – present)

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY-5) — 44 years (1981 – present)

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4) — 44 years (1981 – present)

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD-5) — 44 years (1981 – present)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) — 42 years (1983 – present)

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-9) — 42 years (1983 – present)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — 40 years (1985 – present)

Some of them served in both houses. Some of them have been in Congress longer than some of the newer members have been alive.

And notice that they all began their long tenure in Congress within the last six decades. That latter point shows that this trend has mostly developed, or at least greatly expanded, fairly recently.

And that situation has produced the desire for term limits and age ceilings for Congress among many Americans.

There have been complaints about some of the older members no longer being up to the job. And sometimes, as we grow older, some of us have serious issues that would interfere with our ability to do our job. Like former President Joe Biden, who was truly not able to serve out his tenure.

But not every old person suffers this decline. President Donald Trump, at 80, shows no signs of elderly decline. So, this is a person-by-person situation, and it might be unfair to apply it to everyone.

Term limits, on the other hand, would be a step toward restoring the original concept of citizen legislators. They would prevent people from becoming too powerful in Congress and allow new faces to appear there. And that is desired by a majority of Americans.

Term limits would also help with the age ceiling issue. As people age into their 70s and 80s, they most often do not look for something to do, like serve in Congress. But some might.

The national survey research and strategic services company, McLaughlin and Associates, tell us that an overwhelming average of 82 percent of Americans support a Term Limits Amendment for Congress, crossing party lines with 89 percent Republican, 83 percent Independent, and 76 percent Democrat.

Of course, the question is: what would the limits be?

Trump, in calling for congressional term limits, has suggested limiting House members to three 2-year terms, or 6 years of service, and Senate members to two 6-year terms, or 12 years of service.

But why should senators have 12 years in government, and representatives have only 6 years in government? And, what about someone who serves one or two terms in the House, and then runs for a Senate seat?

And there is also the idea of the citizens being able to elect who they prefer to serve them and their state in Congress. It isn’t an easy problem to solve.

However, in working to restore our constitutional republic to its original, superior form, Congressional term limits are a must. 

Has the United Nations lived up to its promises, or not?

October 6, 2026

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that is in the news a good bit. It was established in 1945 after the conclusion of World War II (WWII), which was a horrible event, lasting years, causing mass destruction in several countries and more than 70 million deaths.

Prior to its establishment, another international organization already existed. The League of Nations, established in 1920, had goals similar to the UN, but was not doing its job very well. As WWII drug on, the major Allied powers, including the United States, decided to establish another organization that would do a better job of ensuring peace and security across the globe.

And on January 1, 1942, 26 countries signed the Declaration by United Nations, which set forth the war aims of the Allied powers, and in 1944 discussions were held about a new organization to replace the League of Nations. And after the end of the war, the UN became active, and a few years later established its headquarters in New York City.

Since then, its story has been uneven, and sometimes bad. Trying to guide the world’s nations to peace and security is a tall order. Countries have their own ideas about what to do, and while the UN is preaching peace and security, they will do what they want. And what some of them want is detrimental to others.

And the UN’s record for enabling peace is a mess. But then, the UN has no power over its 193 members. It can pass resolutions and make international law, but it cannot control what its members do. That is a good thing. We do not need a world government that most certainly would not follow the lead of the United States of America.

Some of the UN’s member countries are terrible places. Nations like China, Iran, North Korea and Syria are very repressive, with horrible records on human rights, and with aggressiveness against other nations, like Russia is exerting over Ukraine, and China is against Taiwan. 

Despite the horrible history of mistreatment of their people, however, these countries are allowed to participate fully alongside free and democratic countries. The UN treats all countries equally, and while this is admirable in some respects, it tends to portray the good ones and the bad ones as equals.

Looking at the long list of global issues that need to be dealt with, we find that the UN focuses on and addresses a few select issues, and ignores the rest. One of those is Climate Change, which has been made out to be a huge global threat. Lots of time is spent on it at the UN, while other issues are left alone.

Another example is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Whatever your personal feelings are on this subject, the UN has issued more resolutions against Israel than every other country on the planet combined.

And that action shows that there is a definite bias against Israel among UN members. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the podium to address the General Assembly last month, many of the representatives -- reportedly dozens of them -- got up and left the hall, not even willing to listen to what that member nation’s leader had to say. How can an international body help the world live in peace if its members will not even listen to what others have to say about important topics?

Netanyahu used his address to defend Israel's military campaigns, to reject accusations of genocide as a lie, and to criticize international moves toward Palestinian statehood, the positions of his nation. As this was happening, the Secretary-General of the United Nations apparently did and said nothing.

A problem that affects many members negatively is that the power of the UN is held by just a relative few of the entire member body. Fifteen members comprise the Security Council, and China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States are the permanent members of the Council. Those five countries have veto power over all the Council’s decisions. This has been shown to negatively affect how the UN can respond to crises, when one of those countries wants to prevent it.

The main purpose of the UN is to bring nations together to resolve their differences, to promote a peaceful world. It has often proven unable or incapable of doing this. 

Reason.com reported last month that, “A Gallup poll released Sunday found that a majority of Americans think the U.N. is doing a ‘poor job’ protecting human rights, upholding international law, supporting sustainable development, and administering humanitarian assistance, international peace, and security.”

Resolutions passed last year by the General Assembly show “an organization that meddles in the domestic politics of its members while failing to pursue its stated mission to ‘maintain international peace and security.’”

Allowing political bias to rule in an organization charged with working to create a peaceful world, is totally wrong, 180 degrees off course. This is why so many believe the UN is bad for the world. Thus, what is the point of the UN continuing to exist? 

An organization that can focus on peace and security is needed. But the UN isn’t it.

Ronald Reagan did not think socialism was a good thing

September 29, 2026

One of my favorite presidents is Ronald Reagan. I’m not saying he was the best ever, but he surely wasn’t the worst. And he darned sure was a really good one.

He had years of experience in leadership and government experience, he was wise beyond his years, and he had a great sense of humor. What more could one ask for in a president?

So, let’s start with an example of Reagan’s wonderful sense of humor. This one is a story he told at an appearance he made: “An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven’s Gate together. And St. Peter, after doing the necessary formalities, took them to show them what was available. He showed them a small room with a bed, and a chair, and a table, and said this was for the Clergyman. 

“And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for him. And he couldn’t believe it when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion, with lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters.

“And he couldn’t help but ask, ‘but wait, how? There’s something wrong. How do I get this mansion when that good and holy man gets only a single room?’

“And St. Peter said, ‘You have to understand how things up here are. We’ve got thousands and thousands of clergy. You’re the first politician who ever made it!’” 

And now, to the serious stuff.

Many conservatives remember and mention Reagan these days, four decades after he was President of the United States. They remember things he did, like helping to win the Cold War, rebuilding the nation’s military, cutting taxes, and he believed and often said that America is a great country.

And, as you might imagine, he was very popular. In one of his elections, Reagan won 49 of the 50 states.

Reagan trusted people, and believed they could be trusted with their own freedom. These days, there is a large faction that believes people should depend upon their government, instead.

In his time communism was thriving in the Soviet Union and East Germany. Millions of people lived under communist rule. There was a wall in Berlin, built to keep people from leaving the country and look for a better life. And the general story about communism was that it “was simply the world that we lived in.” And that situation in those countries, regarded as quite normal, was not about to change.

But Reagan rejected that idea. He told Mikhail Gorbachev, who was President of the Soviet Union at the time, to tear down the Berlin Wall. Standing at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin on June 12, 1987, he said that now-famous comment, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Such a statement was quite extraordinary back then. And it has been fondly remembered ever since.

However, not surprisingly, the people suffering under communism were getting tired of it, and a few years later, the people of Berlin were seen standing on top of the Berlin Wall holding sledgehammers.

Reagan believed that America is good, that communism is evil, that freedom is better than tyranny, and that people should be free to run their own lives. Today, millions of Americans want to trade the benefits that America offers for a nation built on socialism.

However, many people understand that socialism is not a good system. It may look that way from the outside, but its record of failure says otherwise. Here are a few comments about it:

“If socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialists. - Friedrich Hayek

Socialism and communism are but two sides of the same coin.

Socialism: You can vote your way in, but you’ll have to shoot your way out! 

And former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher, had many comments. Here are three:

* “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

* “Socialists cry ‘Power to the people,’ and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean - power over people, power to the State.”

* “Communism produces neither dignity nor prosperity. It takes all power away from the people and places it in the hands of a self-appointed elite. And because it distorts and manipulates the distinctive talents of individuals rather than letting those talents flourish, it prevents progress and prosperity.” 

But the one that ought to get the most attention is this one: “What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the ‘first’ or lower phase of communist society” - Vladimir Lenin, founding head of government of Soviet Russia.

People who campaign for socialism will tell you things like that socialism really is roads, firefighters, or public schools. But that is false. Those are somewhat natural things. Socialism is control by government of the means of production such as businesses, factories, land, and capital. And that control expands over time to include everything.

Let’s close with this from Reagan. “You know, they say there are only two places where communism works: in heaven, where they don't need it—and in hell, where they've already got it."