We must protect America’s devotion to freedom of ideas

August 11, 2026

One of the big negatives in the country today is that many members of some important professions have put their integrity in a drawer in their basement or attic, and replaced it with political motivation. This is especially harmful when those professionals are lawyers and judges, education administrators and teachers, and people working in news media and social media.

Where news is concerned, the heaviest distribution of these folks is on the left side of the political aisle. Liberal/socialist-leaning media are busy controlling what they air, print and post, happily and energetically pouring forth their preferred perspectives, and just as happily and energetically blocking opposing material.

Trying to find a balanced news outlet is not as easy as it used to be. And that can, and does, have an effect on how people think about things. When you only get one set of ideas of the many actually available, you are not able to make independent judgements, you are being controlled.

One small effort to impose some limit on how much control any entity or group of entities could gain over the populace occurred two decades ago.

Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, placing a 39 percent cap on how much broadcast television ownership a company may have. That’s a pretty large number, allowing one owner to have more than one-third of all of the broadcast television stations. A tiny limit, but it is a limit.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently voted to eliminate that cap, undoubtedly thrilling the broadcast industry, as it swung open the door to more consolidation of TV station ownership. 

Large television station companies have been urging this change since day one, and new FCC Chairman, Brendan Carr, has argued for the change, saying traditional broadcasting entities are unfairly regulated, while tech companies and streaming companies are not.

The TV people also say that restricting these purchases puts TV stations at risk of closure, due to the evolving technology of communications, which favors new media over traditional media.

Critics, however, counter that point, saying that television remains a unique market. With the decline in newspapers that has occurred, local TV stations are depended upon more and more for local news. Therefore, they should continue to be independent, and not become controlled by a few large companies.

The 2-to-1 FCC vote featured the Republican Carr, and Commissioner Olivia Trusty voting for the change, and Democrat Commissioner Anna Gomez opposing it.

The FCC position is that decisions by a company to purchase additional broadcast stations will be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than through a blanket ceiling on total ownership. This is a much less likely way to restrict too much ownership.

Opponents of the FCC decision immediately responded, asking if an independent federal agency has the authority to eliminate a limit imposed by a federal law. They maintain that Congress must decide any changes to a federal law. This issue will undoubtedly go before a federal court.

But the government and the people must keep their eyes on situations where some individual or company, or group of individuals or companies quietly gain a high degree of control over an important aspect of our lives.

Here is another similar example: Three investment companies — BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street Global Advisors — control about 74 percent of the ETF (exchange traded funds) equity market, and that equates to being the largest shareholder in roughly 88 percent of S&P 500 companies.

Those three firms have enough voting power to influence how those companies operate. Is it a good situation when three firms have this much control over that many companies in America?

The term “diversity” has become a frequently used term recently. However, the United States has always had a fairly diverse atmosphere. Many options exist in nearly any subject you can name. Food, entertainment, jobs, clothing, vehicles, political ideas, areas of study, etc. 

You won’t find that diversity in authoritarian nations, which are often communist or socialist. In those nations, you get what the government says you can have, and nothing more.

We should fight movements that limit our choices, whether that involves three companies that might one day pretty much decide what products we can buy, due to their high level of control over those large and important companies. Or having only a few media organizations that decide which of the many important ideas we will be able to access, and how much news we will accurately hear about.

In addition to the insane changes to the government they think are smart, the heavily anti-American agenda of the left — particularly the even-more-radical Democratic Socialists of America, which wants no police, no prisons, no U.S. Senate, no Supreme Court, no Electoral College, no ICE, to give amnesty to all illegals, to take over important industries, and more — lean heavily towards a government with little diversity, and an environment where nearly everything allowed in the land will be what is approved by, and imposed by government.

Our constitutional republic is under attack by enemies from both inside and outside the country. We must defeat them decisively and quickly. 

Progressive policies create disasters for the American people

December 9, 2025

Back in May the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted an article that addressed “Americans Killed by Illegal Aliens Driving Under the Influence.”

It named 14 Americans who are now dead, which it described as “just a handful of Americans whose lives were taken too soon at the hands of illegal aliens driving under the influence.”

Of those 14, eight were less than 20 years-old, three were 10 years-old or less, two were in their 40s and one was 70. Most of the drunk drivers were from Honduras, with others from Venezuela, and Mexico. 

Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin commented that “Far too many American lives have been lost because of illegal aliens driving drunk.”  “These Americans killed by drunk-driving illegal aliens should still be with us today, and we feel their absence in our schools and offices, at our dinner tables, and throughout our communities. President Trump and Secretary Noem have reopened the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) office to serve all victims of illegal alien crime and their families.”

The VOICE office was opened in 2017 by the Trump administration. It is a resource for those who have been victimized by crime that is related to immigration, the article said. However, the Biden/Harris administration closed the office, leaving victims of crimes by illegal aliens without access to many support services and resources.

Worse, yet, are the number of Americans who have been murdered, with illegal aliens having been charged with the crime.

Among those victims are: 

* Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered on the University of Georgia campus, allegedly by Jose Ibarra, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, in February 2024. 

* A 12-year-old girl named Jocelyn Nungaray killed in Houston, Texas. She was found murdered in a creek in June 2024. Two Venezuelan nationals, Johan Jose Rangel Martinez and Franklin Jose Pena Ramos, who had recently entered the U.S. illegally, have been charged with capital murder.

* Rachel Morin, who was the mother of five, was found murdered in August 2023 in Maryland. Another illegal alien, a Salvadoran national who was in the country illegally, was later arrested and charged in connection with her death.

* A Missouri police officer, 44-year-old David Lee, was killed in 2024 by Honduran Ramon A. Chavez-Rodriguez, an illegal alien. 

These are only a few of the victims. Even one death at the hands of an illegal alien is too many.

There are two problems in the horrors these Americans and their families and friends have experienced at the hands of illegal aliens in the country. First is them being here at all. Second is the ridiculous frequency with which some of these illegals have been treated with kid gloves instead of getting the punishment they so well deserve.

Going easy on criminals is an insult to their victims, and a disgusting failure of prosecutors and judges.

One example is the case of the death of 22-year-old Logan Frederico, who was brutally murdered by a criminal during a break-in at the home where she was visiting friends. Her killer had a record of 39 arrests and 25 felonies. Despite this record, and the accumulated felonies, he had spent less than 2 years in jail.

The state attorney general had assigned an accomplished death penalty litigator to this case, but the progressive district attorney called this “premature” and “reckless.”

Then there is the murder of Iryna Zaruska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who was tragically murdered in an unprovoked stabbing attack while riding a light-rail train in Charlotte, North Carolina last August. A video showing the attack was aired soon afterward.

Decarlos Brown Jr., a 34-year-old homeless man with 14 prior arrests for various offenses, including armed robbery, has been charged with first-degree murder.

Yet, despite his criminal history dating back over a decade, known mental health issues, and having forfeited bond on three occasions, a soft-on-crime judge released him back onto the streets following his most recent arrest last January, and he was able to murder an innocent woman.

Some in law enforcement positions, like prosecutors and judges, charged with prosecuting crimes and punishing criminals to protect the public, seem to think rehabilitation is a superior path to jail time.   

Over the last few years we have seen such “solutions” to crime and police work as “reimagining policing,” diverting 911 calls away from the police department, finding alternatives to arrest, prioritizing “restorative justice,” “deemphasizing” some felonies, and eliminating cash bail. 

GovFacts.com explains the sensible, traditional idea of dealing with criminals. It tells us that “punishment and retribution form the core mission. Society demands consequences when someone breaks the law. A proportional punishment acknowledges the moral weight of criminal acts and provides victims with a sense that justice has been served.”

The idea is for punishment to be so unpleasant that the perpetrator regrets his/her actions, and not do it again, and to discourage others from committing crimes.

But the progressive idea is to merely tell the criminal, “don’t do that anymore” and that will be all that is really needed. As with all “woke” ideas, these sound good, but don’t work, and in reality, are just stupid.

We need harsh punishment. Lawbreakers must pay a real price.

Too much government control negatively affects the people

October 22, 2024

We have all probably noticed that over the last few decades, and likely almost as long as the country has existed, the federal government has been growing and has gotten much bigger, much more powerful, and mind-bogglingly expensive.

While the addition of new government departments, agencies, offices, etc., and their increases in size, may have been intended to improve government functioning, and were done for the best of reasons, that has often not been the result.

While the elements of government are constitutionally under the control of the administration and Congress, that leadership changes fairly often, and with those changes come different ideas about how government should work. But most of the personnel in the various administrative departments and agencies stay in their positions for years or decades, and while they are there they develop their own ideas about how their part of government should work.

These concepts frequently are at odds with what is expected by the people, and what best serves their interests. As a result, terms like “deep state” and “administrative state” have arisen to describe them.

Complaints about this troubling problem are not unusual, and quite often highlight true problems caused by a particular area of government. But the complaints quite often fall on deaf ears, or do not have needed support to change things. A recent correspondence from the CEO of a South Carolina electric cooperative to its customers is a good example.

Palmetto Electric Cooperative President and CEO, A. Berl Davis Jr., identified and explained one such problem brought on by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Davis began by discussing referees in a football game, who he said often operate as if they are more important than the game itself. “I think of the Environmental Protection Agency the same way,” he wrote. “The role they fill is a critical one, but their recent set of regulations on power plants is a bad call. Unfortunately, the consequences will be much worse than merely losing a ballgame. The EPA’s latest interference in the energy industry threatens our access to reliable, affordable electricity. It’s one more reason our cooperative’s energy costs are rising, along with inflation and the increasing price of wholesale power from one of our primary power sources, Santee Cooper.”

EPA’s recent rule aimed at existing coal and new natural gas power plants requires them to either greatly reduce their output or install carbon capture and storage. “In theory, carbon capture and storage, or CCS, might sound like a neat idea. A power plant’s carbon emissions could be injected deep underground rather than released into the atmosphere,” Davis wrote. “But in practice, CCS is unproven and unbelievably expensive. No utility in the country has successfully pulled off CCS at the level the EPA is requiring for America’s fleet of power plants.”

This action’s expense results in higher prices for consumers, and also puts power suppliers in a crisis. As he explains it, “South Carolina urgently needs more power supply, not greater restrictions on our existing power plants or the ones our state needs to build. Our state has already struggled to supply sufficient electricity during the coldest hours of the winter, such as when freezing weather led to rolling blackouts in parts of South Carolina during Christmas 2022. And South Carolina’s power needs are only increasing amid the state’s rapid population and economic growth.”

Some help can come from solar farms, he notes, but also recognizing that solar power is not always there when it is needed, like on cold winter mornings and at night when the sun isn’t shining.

“To keep up, we will need to be able to rely on 24/7 energy sources including natural gas and, at least for now, coal. Yet the EPA seems intent on throwing its yellow flag and ejecting those reliable power plants from the game,” Davis wrote. “The job of keeping the lights on is hard enough during a challenging time for the energy industry. We don’t need the government making it any harder or more expensive for you.” And this problem affects other states, too.

He said further that Palmetto Electric Cooperative is joining other organizations to fight the EPA’s dangerous rules in court and in the Congress.

Decisions like this one are made by bureaucrats in government offices, not by the one law-making body that we have: Congress. Where the environment is concerned, decisions like this one are often the result of political positions and ideals, not on actual problems and needs, and the effects they will have on the people that the bureaucrats exist to properly serve.

The “administrative state” must be brought under control. Our government needs to be reduced in its degree of control, its size and its cost. Its focus must be restored so that it works for the good of all of the people, not just the political faction that most government employees favor, whatever that may be.

In the election next month there is the opportunity to do one of two things: either continue the current trend and increase the size, cost and control of government by electing radical Democrat liberals/socialists, or say a loud “no” to that.

We must not yield to those seeking global governance

May 28, 2024

Some of the countries on Earth are independent. Some are voluntarily members of a group. Others are ruled and totally controlled by another country. America, blessedly, is an independent nation, and has been since 1776.

When our country was organizing after declaring and winning its independence from the British empire, the Founders worked hard and long to design a nation that would be sustainable, successful and somewhat unique.

Their design has proven to be a very good one. “Today, it parallels old empires like Rome and Britain in scope, aesthetics, and influence,” WorldAtlas online notes. “Rome's legal system, infrastructure, and language permeated the known world, much like the USA's cultural exports, English language, and democratic principles. Britain's former naval prowess and colonies echo the USA's global military bases and economic reach. However, the USA differs in its soft power emphasis, using cultural, economic, and political influence more than direct colonial control.”

The WorldAtlas description continues: “Fueled by immigration, innovation, and resources, it emerged as a global power post-WWII. Its strengths lie in its diversified, technologically-advanced economy, military supremacy, and cultural influence. Furthermore, as it occupies a fairly isolated continent, it is currently near-impossible to successfully invade.”

For nearly 250 years the US has been a nation of individual freedom that has made great contributions to life on Earth. Its government has held fairly strong on the ideals upon which it was built, including being an important nation in the interests of the world, using its influence and strength generally for its benefit as well as the common good, and at the same time maintaining and protecting its national independence.

The USA belongs to and participates in many international organizations, offering its knowledge and wisdom to help solve international problems. And it is the wisdom of our unique design that has allowed the US to provide such leadership to the rest of the world.

There are political and ideological factions within the country that actually want to abandon what made America the great, often world-leading nation it became. Their desires and actions have often been in plain sight for many years, and their actions have actually moved the country in small steps toward that goal.

Included in this movement is a path toward one-world government. Organizations like the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization seek to control some of what many or all nations do, or perhaps to be part of a world government.

An attitude contrary to things the US currently and historically does is alive and well, and factions in the US seem all too eager to change them.

One example of shifting national control to an international agency is the plan supported by the Biden administration to give away American sovereignty by supporting two World Health Organization (WHO) treaties. This has received very little public discussion.

Signing onto these treaties would transfer to the WHO the rights of states to make decisions on public health. However, the federal government does not possess the right to do this under the U.S. Constitution, even if taking this action was a sensible thing to do. And, we must recognize that anything that subverts the nation’s ability to make its own decisions to another nation or international body is foolish in the extreme.

This action is opposed by the Republican Attorneys General in 22 states. In a letter put together by Montana’s Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, the AGs said, “We will resist any attempt to enable the WHO to directly or indirectly set public policy for our citizens.”

This significant threat to our independence and national sovereignty is discussed on ConservativeHQ.com, a site operated by Richard A. Viguerie. It says, “The WHO will discuss drafts of its proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations at the upcoming World Health Assembly, May 27 to June 1. The proposals aim to give the WHO more authority to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics.”

The 22 Attorneys General believe that these amendments would “transform the WHO from an advisory, charitable organization into the world’s governor of public health.”

And ConservativeHQ notes that “[a]t the end of May, President Biden intends to join other nations in supplanting our Constitution and the liberties it guarantees with something called ‘global governance.’”

“Their plan, which has been stealthily negotiated for several years at the World Health Organization, would permit no informed debate – let alone require the approval of the American people through their elected representatives in the United States Senate.”

This is wrong on many levels. It goes against our Constitution, and the idea of an independent constitutional republic that it created.

Because of its unique design the US has amassed great successes over its nearly 250 years of existence. It must not become just one of dozens or hundreds of nations following a path determined for it by others. Many of them hope to see the US lose its independence, and become a nation of sheep doing what they are told by the elite globalists. 

We the people must make the important determinations for our country, and protect the freedoms the Founders so judiciously provided for the people.

America’s future is threatened by those who want to change everything

April 9, 2024

The future of the United States of America may be less secure than at any time since its inception. The country that has provided so much for so long, and has set a standard that no other country in the world has ever matched, is now seen by a large faction as no longer good enough.

What made America so great? Many things. A tripartite government with no single branch more powerful than the others. Each branch has the ability to respond to the actions of the other branches in our system of checks and balances. 

We don’t have a ruler; no king/queen, emperor or czar. Our leaders are our employees — they work for us! And the President, Vice President and members of Congress are selected at the ballot box by the eligible voters, who choose from candidates that they have participated in choosing. Judges and Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and approved by the Congress, and others are simply hired as employees.

Our system provides vast amounts of personal freedom, with a Bill of Rights that guarantees us the freedom for important things, like speech, the press, religion, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, security in our homes, fairness in legal matters, national defense.

So long as what we do does not violate a constitutional principal or sensible laws, we may do as we please. We can buy whatever house, car, appliances, clothing, entertainment, or personal items we choose.

Our Constitution provided the greatest degree of personal freedom in the history of human beings, but it is being replaced by restrictions on virtually every conceivable area of life. This is not new, of course, but has taken a dose of amphetamines in recent years.

Personal freedom, once a hallmark of the nation, is seen by this dissatisfied faction as a threat to the future. And the secret to a positive future in the mind of these people is a life that is much more controlled, with the bureaucracy having much more authority over the people.

Many restrictions exist on what we can and cannot do with our property, what kinds of things we can and cannot purchase. We are told there are legitimate reasons for these limitations. that is true, up to a point. But the number of federal, state and local regulations is huge, and cumbersome.

And many of the regulations are made by unelected bureaucrats, and are not approved by Congress, but nonetheless have the force of law.

The Code of Federal Regulation has 50 subsections where the government has seen fit to issue regulations that control what we can do, and how it must be done. One example of this was discussed by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) on its website.

A NAM survey last summer found that “U.S. manufacturers’ concerns over federal regulations have reached a six-year high as nearly 100 new major regulations — from 30 federal agencies and offices — threaten jobs and investment.”

Ohio Manufacturers’ Association President Ryan Augsburger noted that “In the next year, the Biden administration plans to issue even more regulations — approximately 3,200, including about 280 ‘major rules’ and 1,326 ‘significant rules.’”

Augsburger wrote that “More than 63 percent of manufacturers are spending more than 2,000 hours per year complying with federal regulations, diverting resources that would otherwise go towards employee compensation, new hires and additional investment in U.S. facilities,” citing the NAM’s Q2 2023 Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey.

He then listed examples of the cost of these burdensome regulations:

** The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed particulate matter rule, which is expected to cost “up to $197.4 billion in U.S. economic activity and endanger as many as 973,900 current U.S. jobs”;

** The Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed climate-disclosure requirement, which the NAM recently advocated against in testimony before the House; and

** The Federal Trade Commission’s proposal to ban noncompete agreements, which 70 percent of manufacturers use to safeguard their intellectual property.

Negative consequences such as these are not limited to manufacturing; they occur in virtually every area of work.

Our government is too big, too controlling and spends too much. Our national debt is $34.6 trillion. That comes to just under $103,000 for every person in the country.

Is it possible that this large faction of Americans desiring to impose restrictions on our freedoms actually has a plan for a better country in mind? Well, yes, they have a plan. But it is not a plan to make America better. 

Their plan is for a larger, more restrictive government, and much less personal freedom for the people. It is very much opposed to the concept that our Founders had in mind, and for which they created our governmental system. They and their plan are un-American and anti-American.

This continued degradation of the brilliant system we inherited must be reversed, or before much longer America as it was designed will no longer exist. Our freedoms must be restored and protected. And our government must be returned to its intended limited status.

The fundamental transformation of the country just keeps coming

March 19, 2024

Being fed up with most everything that has made America the very special place that it is, those on the left want to change how our system of employment works. We have fairly recently seen efforts to replace people getting promotions and raises due to the level of their performance with a focus on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion). With DEI, getting a particular job or a raise is based upon who they are, their race, gender, etc., not their level of skills and knowledge.

One aspect of this desire for change was posted in a meme on Facebook that said: “Every single job should pay a living wage. If the work matters enough to hire someone to do it, that worker should be able to afford a safe, comfy home; fresh, nutritious food; and fun vacation sometimes, and enough left to save. Yes, every single job, including yours.” 

First, there is the question what a living wage is, and who gets to decide that? A living wage in some cities and areas of the country is very different from a living wage in towns and cities in other places.

This idea ignores the different levels and requirements of jobs.  Some have high demands and greater needs, and higher pay. Others have low requirements, with lower pay. Then there is the background and level of performance of the worker. Under this theory, a high school or college student working a very basic job should earn a wage high enough to satisfy the details of the Facebook meme. Or someone in an apprenticeship learning the basics of a new job should earn a living wage from day one.

The job/pay situation is complicated.

Support for reducing the standard 40-hour, five-day workweek to a 32-hour, four-day workweek has recently gained momentum. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, has introduced a bill to do just that. Under his bill, people will work a four-day week, but be paid for what they would earn working a five-day week.

The 40-hour workweek has been the standard for some 80 years, being brought into effect by the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1940. It has worked very well, for the most part. But, Sanders says that due to advances in automation and other aspects of production, companies can afford to give employees more time off, but keep their pay and benefits the same.

He told a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that the economic gains that have resulted from automation and other factors have benefitted CEOs, while workers have still made the same amount of money.

“The question that we are asking today is a pretty simple question,” Sanders said. “Do we continue the trend that technology only benefits the people on top, or do we demand that these transformational changes benefit working people? And, one of these benefits must be a lower workweek, 32-hour workweek. This is not a radical idea.”

However, if labor and machine operation are reduced by 20 hours a week, productivity will drop by 20 percent. Employers will have the same labor costs, but will have fewer goods and services to sell. Businesses will lose income and profit.

The employer will then have to raise prices to compensate for the lost productivity, or hire more workers to take up the slack. More workers may make up the loss of productivity, but that will cause an increase in labor costs. 

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy argued that the proposal is essentially a pay increase forced upon businesses. And, he predicted that the 32-hour workweek would "destroy some employers" who would be unable to adjust to the new system.

Both of these concepts — first, that every worker should get a living wage, regardless of job demands, ability and experience; and, second, pay workers the same for working 32 hours per week as they got for 40 hours per week — are typical of liberal/socialist “reasoning.” They represent what the great economist and author Thomas Sowell so rightly termed “stage-one thinking.” 

Stage-one thinking is when an idea pops up that delights many, and they react with “Wow! What a great idea. Let’s do it!” They fail to look beyond the attractiveness of that “great idea” to see what might happen down the road. After it has been in effect for a while, the results are most often much worse than expected.

So often, liberal/socialist ideas target and negatively affect businesses, because the proponents of these ideas think businesses are just selfish entities that take advantage of their workers. But businesses provide jobs and make things we want and need. And, being able to work and earn money to live on is a good thing. Without businesses that can operate relatively freely, where would we get the things we need and want?

It is also a good thing that in America anyone can pursue any work area they choose, and so long as they can learn the trade or profession and perform it at a suitable level, they will be happy and can live a decent life.

Recklessly altering this proven system is a dangerous move that will likely produce negative effects on the country, its people and its businesses.

Our traditional standard of free speech is under attack in America

More and more these days, people seem to be having fits over what other people think and believe. No longer do they just go on their way, shaking their heads in dismay and disagreement, but they plot how to punish those horrible excuses for humanity who dare to think for themselves.

Back in the fifties, a song in a Broadway musical was about “standing on the corner, watching all the girls go by.” After a couple of verses, the lyric says, “Brother, you can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking.” 

Today, you may not go to jail for what you think, but you can get attacked and “cancelled” by those who dislike your ideas, and therefore dislike you, and will see to it that you get your just desserts.

Examples of cancelling someone are not hard to find. You may have heard about speakers on college campuses being shouted down as they were speaking by students who disagreed with their ideas. A professor at the University of Southern California was put on leave because of the outrage that occurred when students mis-heard a Chinese word the professor used, and claimed he had used the N-word. He had not.

Such high-handed behavior is sharply at odds with the First Amendment’s protection of our ability to speak freely and the other freedoms the Founders of our country had in mind. That is un-American.

What someone thinks or does has become deserving of public rebuke in the minds of some who think differently. Given the radical thoughts of so many in positions of influence, perhaps in the not too distant future, it may become an area of criminality.

People see themselves as judge and jury, and convict someone on nothing more than a different point of view. Our traditional standard of free speech is being killed.

Another of our once strong standards is the sense of right and wrong. That is much weaker, given the large number of people who willingly commit crimes and other lesser wrongs. These impulses have been nourished by idiotic liberal concepts, such as defunding the police, the no-cash bail movement, and those whose job is to prosecute crime, but refuse to do it.

We haven’t forgotten the rash of incidents in cities across the country that were taken over by bands of ne’er do wells and criminals trashing public buildings and businesses, and robbing and killing people.

Newsmax magazine published a story about a crime spike in its April edition. It involved an ABC News analysis of data supplied by the state police in each of the states reported on, showing new homicide records in 12 cities in 2021. Two of the records broken last year were set in 1984 and 1987, and two others in 1990 and in 1991. The rest were in the 2000s, most on them in 2019.

The crime centers are: Columbus and Toledo, Ohio; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Austin, Texas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Portland, Oregon; Tucson, Arizona; Rochester, New York; Louisville, Kentucky; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Indianapolis, Indiana; and St. Paul, Minnesota.

What do these cities have in common, besides crime? They are all run by Democrat administrations.

There used to be three strong elements in our society that helped children learn how to be good humans: the home, the schools, and the churches. Actually, there still are three, but one of them has seen a dramatic decrease in participation: the churches. 

According to a Gallup 2019 poll, “… Gallup finds the percentage of Americans who report belonging to a church, synagogue or mosque at an all-time low, averaging just 50 percent in 2018.

“U.S. church membership was 70 percent or higher from 1937 through 1976, falling modestly to an average of 68 percent in the 1970s through the 1990s. The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 and more than half of that change occurring since the start of the current decade [2010s].”

And while the other two areas have seen changes, too, those changes are less about numbers than about what goes on, or no longer goes on, in homes and schools.

Families too often consist of only one parent, and too often child rearing is not an important focus, at least not in the traditional way.

Schools are more and more becoming ideological training centers, and less and less educational centers. 

The grading system that has existed for decades is being replaced with a feel-good mish-mash that replaces actual testing for subject knowledge with a broad subjective judgement by the teacher. It’s not whether students earn an A, B, C, D or F, it’s about whether students made a respectable effort. Even basic discipline is missing.

These weak standards are not everywhere; not in every school system or in every school, of course, but they should not be anywhere.

So many kids and young adults today do not know and exhibit the strong traditional standards that built this great nation. Many, perhaps most, were not taught and expected to mirror those ideals, and some have just subscribed to an “easier” way of life.

Whatever the reason, the nation is suffering and becoming weaker.

July 4th, and the reason true Americans celebrate that historic day

Two days ago, as most everyone knows, the United States celebrated Independence Day, the day in 1776 that the Continental Congress declared that the thirteen American colonies were united, free, and independent states, and no longer under the thumb and subordinate to the British monarch, King George III.

For most of my many years the Fourth of July has been something nearly all Americans understood and observed with respect and gratitude. Sure, there were some who didn’t share that respect, and there were periods where some even protested what the country was doing.

Times like the 1960s and 70s when those who proudly served their country in the military were roundly scorned and subjected to disrespect and hate from the anti-war crowd. But those people were not a majority, and their negative feelings ran their course, and normality was eventually restored.

Today, the number of people who do not really know America and think it is a systemically racist country is staggering. This failure of families and schools to teach young people about America has resulted in millions of misinformed younger people who do not understand or appreciate their country.

That negative storyline is getting far more play than the traditional one that sees America as “a shining city on a hill,” to quote former President Ronald Reagan.

But to provide a picture of how and why America has been so highly respected for so long, we have the testimony of some who came to America the right way, and became true Americans. 

Quang Nguyen came here as a 13-year-old boy who left South Viet Nam seeking political asylum 46 years ago. He spoke to a Freedom Rally in Prescott Valley, AZ in 2010. Here are seven excerpts from his address. His views are far more representative of reality than what is getting so much attention today.

“Man, every morning I wake up thanking God for putting me and my family in the greatest country on Earth. I just want you all to know that the American dream does exist and I am living the American dream. I was asked to speak to you about my experience as a first-generation Vietnamese-American, but I’d rather speak to you as an American.”

“I am a proud US citizen and here is my proof. It took me 8 years to get it, waiting in endless lines, but I got it, and I am very proud of it.”

“Thirty-five years ago, I left South Vietnam for political asylum. The war had ended. At the age of 13, I left with the understanding that I may or may not ever get to see my siblings or parents again. I was one of the first lucky 100,000 Vietnamese allowed to come to the U.S. Somehow, my family and I were reunited 5 months later, amazingly, in California. It was a miracle from God.”

“If you haven’t heard lately that this is the greatest country on Earth, I am telling you that right now. It was the freedom and the opportunities presented to me that put me here with all of you tonight.”

“I also remember the barriers that I had to overcome every step of the way. My high school counselor told me that I cannot make it to college due to my poor communication skills. I proved him wrong. I finished college. You see, all you have to do is to give this little boy an opportunity and encourage him to take and run with it. Well, I took the opportunity and here I am.”

“In 1982, I stood with a thousand new immigrants, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and listening to the National Anthem for the first time as an American. To this day, I can’t remember anything sweeter and more patriotic than that moment in my life.”

“You see, America is not just a place on the map, it isn’t just a physical location. It is an ideal, a concept. And if you are an American, you must understand the concept, you must accept this concept, and most importantly, you have to fight and defend this concept. This is about Freedom and not free stuff. And that is why I am standing up here.”

What a contrast to U.S. hammer thrower Gwen Berry, who recently placed third at the Olympic trials. She turned away from the American flag and displayed an “Activist Athlete” tee shirt as the National Anthem played while she and the two other female U.S. athletes stood on the podium. The other two appropriately honored the Anthem. Berry later said, “The Anthem doesn’t speak for me. It never has.”

Being born here, perhaps Berry didn’t notice the good things about America as she grew up, as opposed to Nguyen. Having grown up in and fled from a poor, war-torn nation to America, he saw the difference between America and South Viet Nam and so many other countries. He worked hard to become a citizen, and proudly tells the story to others of how much America means to him.

Berry, on the other hand, worked hard to earn the privilege of representing America, and then publicly disrespected it.

Has the United States reacted appropriately to the COVID-19 virus?

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on, the country is also besieged by pandemic fatigue. Everyone is tired of the restrictions on normal living, even as most abide by them, fearing getting or spreading the virus.

As with every crisis, there are the varying ideas of what is behind it all. Generally labeled “conspiracy theories,” these ideas affect people in three broad categories: true believers, non-believers, and those in the middle who aren’t sure what to believe. 

After all, who in America, a nation founded on principles of individual freedom, wants to believe that government at the national, state, and local levels would impose these heavy restrictions for any reason other than because they are believed to be necessary? 

Yet, many who are not conspiracy theorists do acknowledge the heaviness of these restrictions, and question their true value. 

“First, I have been shocked at the unprecedented exertion of power by the government since last March — issuing unilateral decrees, ordering the closure of businesses, churches, and schools, restricting personal movement, mandating behavior, and suspending indefinitely basic freedoms. Second, I was and remain stunned — almost frightened — at the acquiescence of the American people to such destructive, arbitrary, and wholly unscientific rules, restrictions, and mandates.”

Are those the words of QAnon, a leading voice of conspiracy theories? No. They are the words of Dr. Scott Atlas, a medical doctor and former professor at Stanford University Medical Center, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a member of the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology, a special advisor to former-President Donald Trump and member of the Coronavirus Task Force in 2020.

His comments at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar this past February were published in Hillsdale’s monthly speech digest Imprimis.

He readily acknowledges the bad things: “Over 500,000 American deaths have been attributed to the virus; more will follow. Even after almost a year, the pandemic still paralyzes our country. And despite all efforts, there has been an undeniable failure to stop cases from escalating and to prevent hospitalizations and deaths,” Atlas stated.

But he also recognizes the damage done by government-imposed lockdowns. Perhaps with the best of intentions, the lockdowns “have been extraordinarily harmful,” he said, to children by suspending in-person schooling, including poor learning, school dropouts, social isolation, and suicidal thoughts, most of which are far worse for lower income groups.

Further, people who are afraid to go to see doctors has resulted in up to 78 percent of cancers that were never detected due to missed screenings over a three-month period. Atlas noted that “if one extrapolates to the entire country, 750,000 to over a million new cancer cases over a nine-month period will have gone undetected.”

Add to that circumstance the missed critical surgeries, delayed presentations of pediatric illnesses, heart attack and stroke patients, and the number of injuries resulting from the lockdowns grows even greater. And he said that these problems are all well documented.

“Beyond hospital care,” he said, “the CDC reported four-fold increases in depression, three-fold increases in anxiety symptoms, and a doubling of suicidal ideation, particularly among young adults after the first few months of lockdowns, echoing American Medical Association reports of drug overdoses and suicides. Domestic and child abuse have been skyrocketing due to the isolation and loss of jobs.”

He states that hundreds of thousands of abuse cases went unreported, as abuse is commonly discovered when abused children are at school.

And a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that the lockdowns will generate a three percent increase in the mortality rate and a 0.5 percent drop in life expectancy over the next 15 years. This will disproportionately affect African-Americans and women, the Bureau study showed. Those effects translate into what the study refers to as a “staggering” 890,000 additional U.S. deaths. 

To determine the best path forward, Atlas suggests that policymakers should objectively consider the impact both of the virus and the anti-virus policies to date. “This points to the importance of health policy, my own particular field, which requires a broader scope than that of epidemiologists and basic scientists. In the case of COVID, it requires taking into account the fact that lockdowns and other significant restrictions on individuals have been extraordinarily harmful — even deadly — especially for the working class and the poor,” he said.

We can see the benefit of not locking everything down by looking at how Florida has come through the virus to date. Florida remained largely open, and focused its vaccination program first on the oldest, most vulnerable population. 

A Wall Street Journal op-ed stated that “a year after the virus hit the U.S., Mr. Cuomo’s luster has faded, and Mr. DeSantis can claim vindication. The Sunshine State appears to have weathered the pandemic better than others like New York and California, which stayed locked down harder and longer.”

“Between Nov. 1 and Feb. 28, there were 5.8 new cases per 100 people in New York, 6.4 in California, and only 5 in Florida, where businesses could stay open at full capacity,” the op-ed continued.

Not giving into fear and thoughtfully addressing the pandemic has paid large dividends for Florida. We should learn from this.

The “Flight 93 Election” of four years ago is over. Or is it?

 

“In September 2016, I called that year’s presidential election contest ‘The Flight 93 Election.’ My thesis was simple: a Clinton victory would usher in an era of semi-permanent Democratic-leftist rule.” 

So wrote author Michael Anton, in his new book, The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return.

“But I asserted and still believe that one-party rule of the USA — blue-state politics from coast to coast — could, once established, last a very long time and might end only with the country itself,” he continued.

Blessedly, Anton’s fear was not fulfilled by the American people; Hillary Clinton did not win, and blue state politics coast-to-coast did not become reality. 

And now we are approaching another election, and concerns are raging. Democrats are afraid that if President Donald Trump loses the election he will not allow a peaceful transfer of power.

In 2016, instead of the blue state take-over Anton feared, we got President Trump. But we also got a group of Congressional Democrats that would not allow the next administration to operate without interference. They spent the next dozens of months and tens of millions of dollars hampering Trump’s efforts to straighten out the eight previous years of Democrat failure with fatally flawed investigations.

Much straightening out was accomplished, despite the Democrats’ efforts, however. For example, taxes and needless regulations were reduced, setting off a long-awaited, but long-delayed recovery from the Great Recession of 2008. Unemployment for every group, especially black and Hispanic Americans, reached record, or near-record lows, as jobs and companies returned from overseas where they had been driven by past foolish economic policies.

Today, despite the good things that have occurred since 2017, we have a country more divided than at any time in decades. Much or most of the division comes from the emotional reaction to Trump’s personality, and some resulting from the successes he has achieved, much to the Left’s chagrin. 

The opposition decries the good that has been done, and proposes to “fix” things with higher taxes, lax immigration policies, killing the fossil fuel industry along with the jobs and economic boost that go with it, and a list of other equally foolish, socialistic concepts.

A major issue this time is the United State Supreme Court, the only one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government that was designed to be non-political. This was done quite purposefully to provide objective, politically neutral legal oversight of the political decisions made in the legislative and administrative branches. The Supreme Court was to be a non-political body to apply the Constitution and the laws, the meanings of which do not change over time, unless change is brought about through established legal and constitutional processes.

Through the years, judges have been confirmed to the federal courts who are not neutral interpreters of legal and constitutional language, but apply their personal, social and political ideals in place of applying Constitutional principles based upon their meaning when ratified, and applying the meaning of laws when enacted. They refer to their activism as providing “life” to the Constitution and laws. The meaning of a “living” Constitution changes with the swirling winds of society.

The encroachment of these activist judges and justices destroys the political independence of the courts, turning them into another political body, the members of which were not elected by anyone. That is not smart, and it is not acceptable.

Which brings us to the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett. The Democrats are opposed to her confirmation for one reason: They do not like her because she said, and they believe, that she will not be an activist justice who makes law from the bench, the way Democrats prefer.

Democrats depend upon activists on court benches to create through judicial fiat policies and laws they cannot enact through the legitimate law-making process.

Judges/justices are supposed to apply the law as written, not rule based upon how they might feel about litigants or issues. As Justice George Sutherland, on the Supreme Court from 1922 to 1938, wrote, "If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned." 

We are not electing a Homecoming King next month, or a senior superlative, like Most Popular, Best Looking, Funniest, etc. We are voting for a person to put into effect policies and support laws that move the country forward. This is a person who gets things done, however ill-mannered or offensive he/she may otherwise be.

Donald Trump has filled that role well for four years, and if re-elected he will again; Joe Biden lives in a different universe.

‘Therefore, not only will 2020 be another ‘Flight 93 Election,’ as will every election, until and unless one of two things happens,” Anton continues. “Either the left achieves the final victory it has long sought, and the only national elections that matter are Democratic primaries to determine who goes on to defeat — inevitably — a hopelessly outnumbered and ineffectual ‘opposition.’ Or the Republican Party — or some successor — leads a realignment along nationalist-popular lines that forces the left to moderate and accept the legitimacy of red-state/flyover/’deplorable’ concerns.”

A broad, reality-based COVID-19 perspective is desperately needed

Stipulated: COVID-19 is a serious disease. If you get it, you may be in for a few horrible weeks of fighting it. And, you may lose your life.

This coronavirus sneaked out of China, and caught the world by surprise. Very little was known about it, and dealing with it was difficult.

The warnings from scientists about becoming infected were horrifying. Which explains why such drastic actions by federal, state and local officials were so readily obeyed. At first.

As of Sunday, nearly 90,000 Americans had died from it, and about 1.5 million Americans were known to have been infected with the disease. But there are some problems with these numbers.

We really don’t know how many have actually been infected, because many infected people don’t have symptoms, or have mild symptoms, and are not tested. If they aren’t tested, nobody knows they have the virus. An article in Forbes magazine cited a study by a team at Kyoto University estimating that nearly 18 percent of those with the virus had no symptoms. We have learned the percentage of persons tested that have a positive result is about 13 percent.

If testing shows that 1.5 million Americans have the active virus, applying the Kyoto study’s data to that figure means that approximately 1.8 million actually have been infected. Two hundred thousand to three hundred thousand people were going about their business, never knowing they were infected, and could have been infecting others.

The number of people who actually die from it is also uncertain. That’s because if a person passes away and has been infected, the mandated conclusion often is that they died of COVID-19. There is no distinction between whether someone died “because of” the virus, or merely “with” the virus.

Factcheck.org noted in an analysis that “The CDC guidance says that officials should report deaths in which the patient tested positive for COVID-19 — or, if a test isn’t available, ‘if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.’ It further indicates that if a ‘definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as probable or presumed.'”

So, if someone has pneumonia or is run over by a beer truck and dies, and they test positive for the virus, they may be recorded as having died of the virus, whether that was the primary cause of death or not.

In dire situations like this pandemic, a reasoned perspective is needed, but is very difficult to develop. We certainly do not want to make too little of the coronavirus, putting Americans needlessly at risk. But we also must not make too much of it by needlessly continuing the heavy economic and social restrictions, and the damage they produce. It is a narrow line to walk.

On May 17 there were 1,507,829 active cases. Of those, 89,589 had died and 275,560 had recovered. For active cases, death occurred for 6 percent, while 18 percent recovered. No information is provided about the other million-plus who tested positive.

USA Today reported earlier this month, “Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testified to Congress in March that the mortality rate may be as low as 1.0 percent when accounting for people who are infected but don’t develop symptoms severe enough to be tested.”

Some perspective on causes of death in 2018, from the CDC:

Heart disease: 647,457; Cancer: 599,108; Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936; Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201; Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383; Alzheimer’s disease: 121,404; Diabetes: 83,564; Influenza and pneumonia: 55,672; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,633; Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,173.

Available information indicates that unless you are elderly or have some sort of pre-existing health issue, you have a very good chance of surviving COVID-19.

Fauci, who is President Donald Trump's coronavirus expert, stated at a coronavirus task force meeting, “I've looked at all the models, I've spent a lot of time on the models. They don't tell you anything. You can't really rely upon models," according to The Washington Post.

Yet inaccurate models were utilized in developing the measures that health officials said should be implemented to limit the impact of the virus, and a one-size-fits-all list of restrictions was imposed on the nation.

As time passed, while New York, New Jersey and a few other states were hit hard, several states were barely affected. Alaska, Montana, Hawaii, Wyoming and Vermont had fewer than 1,000 cases and fewer than 100 deaths. Eight other states reported more than 1,000 cases, but also fewer than 100 deaths. The harsh restrictions in these states may have done more harm than good.

As more time has passed, some states have relaxed restrictions, allowing a slow, careful reopening to occur. Georgia and Florida have drawn criticism for their re-opening actions, but have shown declining cases, so far.

Abandoning the one-size-fits-all approach and treating areas according to their actual disease level is a sensible way to start getting the economy re-started. That is a very important step.

We should embrace and build on America’s traditional values

Today’s political atmosphere is toxic. It is filled with hard feelings, bad intentions, exaggeration, insults, misunderstandings, and more. People on one side of the political spectrum often automatically write off people on the other side simply because they hold different opinions.

It is difficult to have a calm, rational discussion about the differences, as some are offended or angered with the mere prospect of coming face to face with ideas that are different than their own. In this atmosphere, details get lost in the noise, and the essence of the broad philosophies of each side, which need to be discussed, compared and evaluated, lie there ignored while the battle rages.

Those on the political right, conservatives, hold to a set of principles that should not scare or anger anyone. They are practical concepts to which our country has subscribed for many decades, such as: free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values and strong national defense.

Here, stated more broadly, are those conservative principles:

1. The federal government exists to preserve life, liberty and property, and it is instituted to protect the rights of individuals according to natural law. Among these rights are the sanctity of life; the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly; the right to bear arms; the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law; and to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor.

2. The federal government’s powers are limited to those named in the Constitution and should be exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people.

3. Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ personal and political predispositions.

4. Individuals and families—not government—make the best decisions regarding their and their children’s health, education, jobs, and welfare.

5. The family is the essential foundation of civil society, and traditional marriage serves as the cornerstone of the family.

6. The federal deficit and debt must not place unreasonable financial burdens on future generations.

7. Tax policies should raise only the minimum revenue necessary to fund constitutionally appropriate functions of government.

8. America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system of free enterprise, with special emphasis on economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies promoting free trade and deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort markets and impair innovation.

9. Regulations must not breach constitutional principles of limited government and the separation of powers.

10. America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens.

11. Justice requires an efficient, fair, and effective criminal justice system—one that gives defendants adequate due process and requires an appropriate degree of criminal intent to merit punishment.

12. International agreements and international organizations should not infringe on American’s constitutional rights, nor should they diminish American sovereignty.

13. America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad.

14. The best way to ensure peace is through a strong national defense.”

Contrary to the common narrative, conservatives who hold these principles are not racist. They are not xenophobic, or homophobic, or sexist, or white-nationalistic. Those mischaracterizations come from political antagonists who either don’t make the effort to understand conservative principles, and instead react emotionally. Others deliberately twist their meanings in an effort to delegitimize them, hoping to demonize the opposition and generate support for their own rebellious ideas.

Those 14 principles, “True North: The Principles of Conservatism,” were articulated by The Heritage Foundation, and have in their favor ages of proven success. It was upon these steadfast, common sense principles that the United States of America was established, and upon which it became the great nation that it is.

Rather than working to further improve the American system, an opposition force works to tear it down and replace these solid, proven principles with historically unsuccessful and dangerous principles of socialist and communist systems that have failed wherever they have been tried.

Democrat socialists won’t admit that socialism is their goal, saying that they really don’t want full-blown socialism, only certain desirable parts of it.

But socialistic methods are a slippery slope, and once a nation is well down the slope, escape is virtually impossible. For a real life, contemporary example, review the recent history of Venezuela.

During the 1970s, Venezuela was the richest country in Latin America, and one of the most stable democracies in the Americas. Then came the election of President Hugo Chávez, who propagated "socialism for the 21st century," which was about establishing liberty, equality, social justice, and solidarity. 

Today, Venezuela is the third least free economy in the world, ahead of only Cuba and North Korea.