Observations

We need to restore Congress to its original form and function

2026-10-15T10:02:38.971-04:00

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?

2026-10-06T15:30:47.131-04:00

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

2026-10-03T15:13:59.389-04:00

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."

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

2026-09-22T09:37:31.179-04:00

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

2026-09-15T11:16:38.148-04:00

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

2026-09-09T11:41:03.710-04:00

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

2026-09-03T11:30:14.752-04:00

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.

So, murder is now a way to fix the things you don’t like?

2026-08-22T15:58:32.735-04:00

August 18, 2026

Luigi Mangione, the suspected murderer of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson in 2024, pled guilty in court last week to the killing. “I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan,” Mangione said in his plea. “I understood that my actions would place him in fear of death or bodily injury. I knew what I was doing was illegal.”

Mangione, reading his statement to the court. said that “after years of enduring severe pain from an injured back and navigating the insurance system, he learned that UnitedHealthcare would be holding its annual investor conference in New York City on Dec. 4, 2024,” as reported by the New York Times.

He then went to NYC in possession of a gun he made with a 3-D printer with a silencer affixed to it, and committed cold-blooded murder against someone who did not cause his pain, but worked in the health insurance industry which Mangione blamed for his discomfort.

Federal prosecutors said they will seek life in prison, the maximum sentence possible, when Mangione is sentenced in December.

So, just who is Luigi Mangione? According to the Times report, he “was born into a prosperous Maryland family that owned country clubs, nursing homes and a conservative talk radio station. He attended a private, all-boys high school in Baltimore.” That isn’t the sort of life that should build hatred.

Question: How can someone who had such a good life, with a successful and prosperous family, not have learned one of the most basic lessons of life: that murder is wrong?

As nauseating and irrational as Mangione’s action was, nearly as bad is the high level of support this murderous rich kid has received from others.

“The murder of Brian Thompson, the UnitedHealthcare executive, in late 2024 unearthed a torrent of public outrage against the health insurance industry,” the Times reported. “And since then, Americans’ anger has solidified into deep mistrust of the companies.

“Much of the current dissatisfaction stems from rising economic concerns: More and more people cannot afford the increasing costs of insurance premiums and medical bills.”

This situation is now the justification for the murder of an insurance executive, causing unimaginable pain and suffering among his family, friends and co-workers, and not solving the problem.

The Times report continued, “Outside the courthouse, Abril Rios, one of the self-described “Mangionistas” who received a city-issued press badge, said she felt ‘relieved’ to hear Mangione’s testimony detailing the crime. ‘I see the move today as still fighting it,’ she said. ‘I don’t think this is a concession or an admission of guilt.’”

This madness was also covered by CNN, which reported that someone called “Katie” appeared at a Manhattan protest “wearing a black shirt with a large photo of the 26-year-old suspected shooter. ‘But Daddy I Love Him,’ the shirt read in pink.

“’I just thought it was fun and cute and something to show his face and show support,’ she said.

“Did she actually, as the shirt said, love Mangione?

“’I don’t know if you can love someone you’ve never met,’ she responded. ‘I love whoever made that action to stand for health care … They really took a stand. I’m actually surprised something like this hasn’t happened before.’

“’Whoever did commit that act, I really do see him as a hero and a martyr.’

Katie was one of a few dozen people who came to a protest outside federal court in New York City to express support for Mangione.”

Strangely, support for cold-blooded murder has been seen at other protests, where signs with “Free Luigi” were seen, and protesters wore green, referencing Nintendo’s “Luigi” character.

After his arrest and being charged, this murderer received hundreds of supporting letters from not only the US, but also Brazil, Japan and Australia.

And some 27,000 sympathizers had contributed more than $950,000 to a legal defense fund. And the legal defense fund’s website listed 13 “Frequently Asked Questions,” with many of them suggesting contributing or sending him letters.

CNN also said it had contacted some of his supporters to learn how they felt, and why, and their responses focused on our health care system and the insurance companies.

“There’s a lot of sympathy for Luigi,” an unidentified supporter said. “Seems to be like he was mad at the health care system, like we all are. I obviously don’t think anyone should be murdered, and I don’t think that’s a way to solve the problem, but I sympathize with the idea that we can actually make that happen and just to use this moment to make that happen.”

Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk met a similar fate on a college campus in 2025. His crime against humanity: calmly and politely providing members of his audience a different side to their argument. But that was too much for his executioner to handle.

The Thompson and Kirk murders, and the ludicrously large amount of support for this sort of irrational violence should worry each of us. What has happened in our once logical and balanced culture to allow so many to believe the way to solve their problems is to murder people who do not agree with them?

We must protect America’s devotion to freedom of ideas

2026-08-15T13:05:13.182-04:00

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.

Is our 250-year-old constitutional republic going to survive?

2026-08-09T10:33:50.248-04:00

August 4, 2026

Remember when Democrats and Republicans were much closer in their ideas about how to move the country forward than they are today? If so, you are probably a seasoned citizen. If not that seasoned, and you happen to remember this, you are not from Gen Z, but you may be an early Gen X.

That more productive atmosphere is not what we have today.

Many on the left — mostly the younger ones, but also some of the older ones — do not understand the nation’s system that they so eagerly aim to sabotage, turning the country into one more famously inept socialist/communist mess.

Those in the Gen Z crowd were born from 1997 to 2012. By then, we already had high-speed internet, social media, smartphones, and a society that had existed and prospered for more than 200 years. And, while the older generations — like the Silent Generation, the Boomers, etc. — had many things that even older ones didn’t have, they were able to see how things came to be, appreciate their arrival, and enjoy these steps of progress.

Watching media evolve from just radio to the black and white television, and then to color television. Impressed with the development of stereo sound. Cars with automatic transmission, and then air conditioning. Jet aircraft. The space programs. The list goes on and on.

They also learned a lot from their parents about how to behave, and in school they learned real history, and civics, teaching them how the country was developed and supposed to work.

That experience helped them appreciate the great country into which they were so fortunate to have been born.

That element is missing from the environment of these younger folks. They entered a world that was so much better than it was when the older folks were born. Having such a full and special atmosphere from birth, taking it for granted, rather than watching how those great things developed and improved along the way may be why they do not adequately appreciate their wonderful country.

Whatever the reasons for these leftists to fail to understand present-day America and properly appreciate it, they also have no idea how foolish it is to think that socialism/communism will be better, or even tolerable, once it gets fully established.

Businessman David Rubenstein offered this perspective on America: “I would say that the United States is one of roughly 220 countries in the world. And of all these countries, we’re the one where the most people want to immigrate to. We’re the one who’s built the biggest economy in the world, the greatest technology base in the world,” and “we have the greatest entrepreneurial instincts of any country in the world. And that combination of things enables this country to achieve what we’ve achieved.”

Continuing with his praise for our country, he said, “To go through your life, you have used a lot of American technology. You probably can’t get through your day without using a Google, Facebook, or Meta product, or Netflix or one of our American-made automobiles. What European company do you need to use their products to get through the day? Virtually none. And except for TikTok, Americans can get through the day without using anything invented really outside the United States. The world is very dependent on the products we’ve created.”

A major problem today is that so many of the young were denied the fundamental education of what America is, and how it was formed. Our strong, sensible values have deteriorated dramatically over recent decades, because they ceased being taught and encouraged.

How can we strengthen those values? On that topic, another prominent American, radio talk show host, attorney, and author, Hugh Hewitt, suggests that we start teaching civics again to middle school students. He thinks using a book by Wilford McClay, titled “Land of Hope” will help. Hewitt believes it “is the best single book on American history,” and thinks it should be the core curriculum.

Describing McClay’s book: “It’s warts and all, as he says. He’s objective. He’s not neutral, but he’s objective about what we’ve gotten wrong and what we’ve gotten right in the country. Let’s pour ourselves into civics as opposed to ideology. I’d like to get back to some basics about how much we have in common, not what we have to fight over.”

Our constitutional republic has survived and thrived for 250 years. The country is not perfect. No country is. But this one has set records that none other has in those 250 years. And yet, thousands, perhaps millions, of our fellow Americans are dead-set on imposing socialism/communism on us, unable to recognize our great worth, or understand the disasters that their preferred system has brought to Cuba, Venezuela and other countries.

A noteworthy incident occurred during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Outside Independence Hall, Elizabeth Willing Powel asked Benjamin Franklin a question about the Convention’s conclusion: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Our republic has survived a civil war, two world wars, and many other challenges. Will it be able to survive this one?

Traffic cameras are an enigma: public safety versus privacy

2026-07-29T14:13:48.043-04:00

July 28, 2026

As if the current serious political divide in our country and the attempts of the radical left to turn America into Cuba or Venezuela aren’t enough for the country to deal with, we now are becoming aware of a movement among governments and law enforcement agencies to post surveillance and ALPR cameras around their areas.

And we know that there are some present in our area.

The public is told that these devices help protect citizens and help to identify law breakers. There are reportedly tens-of-thousands of AI (Artificial Intelligence) cameras mounted on utility poles and other support elements across the country.

Perhaps the most abundant type of these cameras is the ALPR (automated license plate reader). These enable law enforcement to identify vehicles whose drivers have broken laws or perhaps caused accidents.

That sounds like a good idea, and it can certainly help to identify people involved in law-breaking and other negative behavior. But there is a good bit more to the story.

As this relatively new activity spreads across the country, it is raising major privacy concerns, as these cameras operate in AI-powered networks that track and record public movement.

These cameras capture vehicle license plates and vehicle details like the make, model, and color. They also record timestamps, exact locations, and unique vehicle elements like bumper stickers or dents, all of which can aid law enforcement to identify those who have broken laws.

This data is saved in searchable cloud databases and retained for 30 days or longer. These databases provide authorities with a great deal of information for every vehicle and its owner/driver, and that includes both those who are involved in wrongdoing and everyone else, as well.

As you might imagine, this has sparked intense debate between public safety advocates and civil liberties groups who are concerned with citizen’s privacy rights. And, there is the concern regarding local surveillance data potentially feeding into wider federal immigration or law enforcement tracking networks.

And, it must be said that the problems with having all this information stored are two-fold: First, while those who have access to the information could misuse it, most will not. But that possibility exists, and it appears there is not adequate protection against that at this time.

Second: As Americans, we have a healthy list of inalienable rights that are guaranteed to be protected by our government. One of those is our privacy, although it is not phrased that way in the Bill of Rights.

Among the guarantees is in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Amendment does not use the word "privacy," but protects against unreasonable government searches and seizures. And privacy can be invaded by unreasonable searches. Legitimate searches require a warrant to be issued for probable cause.

Critics warn that the ease of cross-referencing and sharing data with other agencies across the country negates traditional Fourth Amendment privacy safeguards, putting our privacy at risk.

Civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that logging the movements of everyday citizens who are not suspected of any crime is nothing more than un-American mass surveillance.

On its website (aclu.org), the ACLU, in its usual mode, said the following: “Automatic license plate reader (ALPR) companies like Flock Safety are quietly trying to build a nationwide mass surveillance system. If there are Flock cameras in your city, they are tracking, logging, and sharing your movements without a warrant. But we're not powerless. More and more communities are rejecting these creepy cameras — and yours can be one of them!”

At this point, that perspective is more a gross exaggeration than a true picture of what is happening. In other comments, the organization implies that this is an effort by the Trump administration to identify and locate its enemies, rather than the result of technological evolution.

However, the ACLU comment did note the displeasure among the people. The ALPR cameras, crowdsourced tracking maps, such as DeFlock, have led to the cancellation or suspension of camera contracts in at least 30 local municipalities. And the number of others who are concerned is growing.

The other side of this issue is that police departments tell us that this technology is an effective background tool necessary for tracking stolen vehicles, amber alerts, and solving violent crimes. These are certainly valuable and legitimate uses of this technology, and we should welcome these efforts to track and arrest criminals, and have evidence that can be presented against their crimes.

However, just like data centers, and AI -- both of which offer great advantages to the country, but which also contain highly problematic features -- we must find a way for these assets to be used to their highest level of efficiency, but at the same time making sure that the availability of so much personal/private information is only accessed for legitimate and legal purposes.

This will not be an easy task. And the emotional reaction by many, such as the ACLU’s political-infected perspective, will hinder that effort.

The radical leftists are adamant about changing our country

2026-07-25T10:32:32.276-04:00

July 21, 2026

As time marches on, the socialist/Marxist/communist tendencies of the radical left continue to increase. Fairly recently, an organization called the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has come to the fore. Since its formation in 1982 when the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and the New American Movement merged, the DSA grew to become a fairly small organization of around 6,000 members as of 2015.

But after Sen. Bernie Sanders ran for office in 2016, identifying himself as a democratic socialist, a growth spurt began. As of this month, the DSA’s membership is said to be more than 120,000. It is now reputed to be the largest such organization in the nation’s history.

Goals for the left have in the recent past included things like open borders, protecting illegal aliens, DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), men in women’s sports, college debt forgiveness, opposing mandatory voter IDs, etc.

Following are some of the DSA’s agenda items, as published on its website, dsausa.org.

“Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor.”

“End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents' brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas.”

“Defund the Department of War. End all foreign wars and close overseas military bases. Support and fully employ veterans. End immunity for U.S. war criminals and support the International Criminal Court's mandate to prosecute war crimes.”

“Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.”

“Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure.”

“Guarantee universal healthcare at no cost to individuals, including complete access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. Expand healthcare access and quality by investing in new public hospitals and clinics. Make all medical education and training public and free.”

“Housing is a human right. Build new, publicly-owned social housing, strictly regulate investment properties, establish universal rent control.”

“Workers must lead our democratic transition to a green future. Pass a federal jobs guarantee. Implement massive investment in sustainable, publicly owned energy and transit infrastructure. Phase out the use of fossil fuels.”

“Empower workers to come together and fight the boss. Protect, expand, and enforce the rights of all workers to form, join, and strike with their unions, regardless of industry.”

The ideas of the rad left are always things which sound good to a lot of people. However, the reality is very different. The history of this mindset is one of dramatic failure and suffering.

One shining example is Venezuela. Near the end of the 20th Century, Venezuela’s oil industry gave it a very strong economy. And then Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, brought socialism, causing severe economic collapse, a humanitarian crisis, and political turmoil.

Will these radical ideas work?

No police to deter crimes, investigate and arrest suspects of murder, rape, robbery, etc.? The guilty parties will just roam free and commit more crimes. And, no prisons in which convicted or confessed criminals will spend their punishment time? Maybe they will make them go to counselors to straighten them out.

Closing the Department of War, but have only military stationed in the US. Who will run the military? What about deterring military action against our allies? What happens if we are attacked by a foreign nation?

End ICE and legalize migration. Open borders again, and more criminals coming in.

How will healthcare be paid for if no one pays the bills? Building more hospitals and clinics also has costs of construction, and then operation.

The same problem exists on building public-owned housing, and rent control that will be set to make it very affordable.

And then the government will somehow take over the largest corporations and essential industries. Will the government run them as well as the private sector?

They want government to control everything.

These folks do not understand just how well off they are, here in America. Here are a couple of things these anti-American rad leftists should think about to help them understand their country:

One is the reaction from the thousands of visitors from around the world who came here for the FIFA World Cup tournament. They loved America, and one of the most recognizable responses was the comment about how great America is.

The other one is a story from Ken Langone, a founding investor of The Home Depot. Talking about his grandfather who had come here from Italy sometime during World War II, Langone asked his grandfather, who did not speak English, if he had ever gone back to Italy. His mother translated for him. The grandfather answered, “No.” He asked why? Grandfather responded, “There was nothing there for me. That’s why I left. This is where the dreams were. This is what the dreams are. There’s no place on Earth like this.”

Violence with political roots is tearing our country apart

2026-07-18T15:43:36.277-04:00

July 14, 2026

The physical interference with government agents who are arresting people who have broken our immigration laws by coming into the country the wrong way is an example of political violence. And the violent attacks on these agents is an even worse example.

The week-long preliminary hearing for Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer highlights a far more serious one, along with the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a New York street in 2024, the murder of a Minnesota state lawmaker in 2025, two assassination attempts on President Donald Trump in 2024, and attacks on the CDC headquarters, and other targets.

Charged with Kirk’s murder is 22-year-old Tyler Robinson. After the murder and before he was arrested Robinson was talking with his parents. They reportedly asked him why he committed this crime, to which he said, "there is too much evil and the guy spreads too much hate."

Robinson’s roommate and lover, Lance Twiggs, testified in the hearing that Robinson confessed to killing Kirk for the same reason he had given his parents: he was angry at Kirk and disagreed with the things he said at his public appearances.

Since the murder of Brian Thompson, allegedly because of features of healthcare insurance to which many people object, a shockingly large number of people have celebrated the murder as a good and proper way to complain about the way the industry is operating.

So, in the minds of some people, anger at differing ideas, and disgust with insurance issues somehow justify murdering someone.

All of this political violence ought to concern everyone. And, in fact, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 3,445 U.S. adults conducted last September, people do recognize this trend.

The poll shows that 85 percent of those polled believe politically motivated violence is increasing. And Democrats and Republicans are almost evenly supportive of that opinion. The poll shows that 86 percent of Republicans and those who lean Republican, and 85 percent of Democrats and those who lean Democrat recognize that political violence is increasing.

Both left-wing and right-wing politics are blamed for this increase, at nearly the same levels, both over 50 percent among those polled. And, those polled say that nearly half of the extremism is from those who do not have clear political views.

Among Democrats, 76 percent say it is right-wing extremism that is the major problem, and 32 percent say it is left-wing extremism.

Among Republicans, 77 percent say the left-wing is the major problem, and 27 percent say the right-wing is the problem.

Just how big of a problem is political violence? A poll by YouGov shows that 59 percent of all adults think it is a big problem. In the party breakdown of whether it is a big problem, 58 percent of Democrats think it is, 54 percent of Independents think it is, and 67 percent of Republicans think it is.

Perhaps more troubling is the result of whether political violence is ever justified. Here is the percentage of those polled by YouGov who think it is sometimes justified, in the following categories: Very Conservative - 3; Conservative - 6; Moderate - 8; Liberal - 17; Very Liberal - 25.

GovFacts online offers this explanation of the cause of this violence: “At the heart is affective polarization — not mere policy disagreement, but visceral dislike and distrust of opposing parties. Since the 1990s, Americans’ feelings of anger, contempt, and hatred for political opponents have intensified more sharply than in most other Western democracies.

“This is driven less by economic debates about ‘who gets what’ and more by cultural debates over identity, immigration, and religion — arguments about ‘who we are’ that are harder to compromise on.”

This development is so at odds with the American culture. It is a danger to our nation’s well-being, and it puts the country’s future at serious risk.

One of the hallmarks of our constitutional republic is the idea that political differences can, should, and will be resolved through peaceful discussion and compromise, not by violence.

If the people fear violence in response to an idea, they may be deterred from taking part in political activities or exercising their right to free speech. And during a heated or even violent election period, people may even fear going to the polls to vote. This is wrong. It is not the America.

We cannot allow this political violence to continue, let alone to increase. People on all sides need to settle down, cool the hot rhetoric, realize that their differences are merely based on differing ideas that have equal status under the First Amendment, and return to sensible, peaceful means of resolving them.

That requires maturity of thoughts and actions, and staying true to the ideals of America’s founding.

We have got to get back to how things were done a few decades ago. Back then, Democrats and Republicans, who most often held different views on issues, made the effort to talk to each other sensibly and peacefully, working to find a mutually suitable solution to the problems. It isn’t that hard, if you put your mind to it.

Our tax system is a necessary mechanism, but is being misused

2026-07-12T15:18:32.781-04:00

July 7, 2026

Taxes are one thing that many of us think about, and worry about. We understand that taxation is the primary way of financing government functions at all levels. And that by taxing citizens and businesses governments fund public services, infrastructure, and operations. The primary kinds of taxation are income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes.

Under the best of circumstances, governments will work to keep their financial needs as low as possible, while providing essential services, and little else. It’s no secret that such a scenario is not common in our country, although some states are moving in that direction.

Taxation is a broad topic with an array of features that generate interest. One of those is the sorts of tax systems we have here in the United States.

One system for taxing earnings is progressive taxation, which is quite common. The term “progressive” means to move forward toward some target or goal — except in the case of political “progressives,” which is a faction with the goal of moving the country backward.

In taxation, a progressive tax is one that has higher rates as you go up the ladder of earnings. The more you make, the higher the rate of tax you are charged.

For example, in the U.S. the lowest 50 percent of taxpayers paid a rate of 4 percent. Moving up the earnings ladder, those in the 50 - 25 percent range paid 8 percent. Those in the 25 - 10 percent range paid 10 percent; the 10 - 5 percent range paid 14 percent; the 5 - 1 percent range paid 18 percent, and the top 1 percent of earners paid 26 percent.

The theory behind this is that the more money you make, the better able you are to pay more, while those at the lower levels cannot afford high taxes, and in the case of the lowest earners, any taxes. And while those with more money will pay more taxes under a progressive system, they would also pay more under a flat tax, where everyone pays the same rate.

The tax system in the U.S. has been rated number 1: the most progressive tax system among the 33 developed countries. This, incidentally, is not a feather in our cap.

The political Left keeps shouting “tax the rich.” Well, just how much tax revenue does each group pay? In 2023, the top 1 percent of earners paid 38.4 percent of total tax revenue; the top 5 percent paid 59.3 percent of revenue; the top 10 percent paid 70.5 percent of revenue; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 3.3 percent of tax revenue.

And, half of all taxpayers actually paid 97 percent of all federal income taxes.

Will it matter at all to the progressive Left that the highest earning 1 percent paid well more than a third of all tax revenue? Or, that the top 5 percent paid well more than half of it? Do those figures justify the idea of the rich paying their fair share? Not to the progressive Left.

There are proposals in some states — including Washington, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York and California — to impose a wealth tax on the rich folks in addition to their regular tax rate. And there is the possibility of an increase in the amount the wealthy will have to pay for their Medicare and Social Security.

Massachusetts has imposed a 4 percent surtax on income over $1 million, and Washington is considering a 10 percent surtax on the same amount. California is considering a one-time tax of 5 percent on wealth above $1billion. Then there is the question of whether California will stick with just one time.

What these states may not realize is that it is not difficult for wealthy residents and businesses to pack up and move to a red state, if existing taxes, increases in taxes, or a bad business climate make life difficult for them. And some businesses have done this.

California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey lead the nation in how many businesses have moved out. And Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arizona are very happy to have accepted these companies and the jobs they brought to their states.

Governments ought to be thinking about how to keep taxes down for everyone. But they are more concerned with expanding their operations, often for things they should not do, and of course, taxes are how to finance those things.

They also apparently do not understand the benefits of what the wealthy would do with the money they could keep if tax rates were lower. They support local and other businesses when they buy houses, cars, clothes, furniture and other things. They invest in businesses. They support charitable organizations at levels that exceed the amount they can claim as deductions on their tax return.

In its 250-year history, the U.S. government has moved well beyond the limits our brilliant Founders set for it. Those limits include what the government ought to do, and how much control it exerts over the people.

We should all hope that the efforts to eliminate some of the excesses is successful, and that we do move back to that original format.

250 years, and counting. How much further will we be able to go?

2026-07-04T10:29:33.389-04:00

June 30, 2026

As everyone knows, this Saturday is a special day. It not only is America’s birthday, it is its 250th birthday. Most countries don’t make it that long.

Under the modern definitions of sovereignty and governance, there are currently 195 recognized countries: 193 United Nations member states and Vatican City and Palestine, which are regarded as “observer states.”

According to Britannica online, the number of those who do make it to 250 or beyond is well below 100. Countries are divided into two categories: Strict Continuity and Broad Continuity.

Approximately 20-30 have made it under Strict Continuity, which means they possess an unbroken state identity, government structure, and geographic boundary dating back to at least 1776.

Under Broad Continuity, approximately 40-60 countries qualify. These nations have experienced major shifts in government type or borders but have maintained a continuous, recognizable cultural and national identity.

And, we are told that throughout history there have been thousands to tens of thousands of nations that were established, and few have made it to 250.

The United States of America owes its lasting this long to its Founding Fathers and their vision to create a nation unlike any other, so far. Focusing on individual freedom and rights given to each of us at birth, they designed a country with a “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

That was a truly unique design, one that was the result of having lived in and witnessed other types of government systems that failed “the people” because that was not their focus.

For the better part of its 250 years, America’s design was taught, appreciated and highly regarded by the people. They appreciated their many freedoms which are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And that is what made America the highly appreciated and envied nation that it became and has been for a long time.

If you want to become a business person, a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, a CPA, a scientist, a construction worker, a driver, a politician, or whatever, you have the freedom to pursue that goal. You can buy whatever house, car, home appliances, hobby items, and other things you can afford. You can think as you please, although certain dangerous thoughts you might have should not be expressed, and not every action you might dream about is legal.

Through its life, our nation has moved beyond its original limits, with a federal government that has grown in size, cost and power over the people. But even so, our unique system still exists and thrives, and there are efforts to restore its original scope.

Other changes have also occurred that are as dangerous as the growth of the federal government, and perhaps more dangerous.

While differences of opinion have always been present, protected and tolerated, what we are seeing today from the political Left is extreme and dangerous to the future of our republic.

Which leads to a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin in 1787, as he was leaving Independence Hall during the Constitutional Convention. Asked what kind of government they had created, he replied, warning, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Franklin and his colleagues understood that the republic requires an informed citizenry that will be vigilant and strong supporters of the integrity of the system. The people elect the leaders, so they must be alert to challenges to the system.

Today, we have a large and growing segment of the citizenry that is not well informed about their country and its unique and wonderful benefits. Because they grew up with all of this already provided for them, and did not have to work for it, they have little understanding of how great this country already is.

The ideas the political Left wants to replace the original design with are socialistic, communistic ideas that sound good, but do not work and have always failed to produce anything nearly as good as what we have.

Their poisoned dreams include: Implementing government-run, zero-premium Medicare for All; tuition-free higher education and student debt cancellation; free universal childcare; implementing universal rent control; transitioning to a 100 percent renewable energy economy; defunding police, ending cash bail and mandatory minimums, and ultimately freeing incarcerated people; abolishing the Electoral College, and reducing the power of the Supreme Court.

In sharp contrast to the creators of these senseless ideas are the ultra-positive responses to this country from the European visitors who have come here for FIFA World Cup 2026, which ought to be an eye-opener for the Lefties.

Fox News reported that “the visiting fans from those nations really seemed to have enjoyed their time here, and who could blame them?” “[I]t's been fun to follow the exploits of fans from all corners of the world during this year's tournament.”

Liberal talk show host and comedian Bill Maher offered this enlightened comment: “The World Cup is at our shores, and all these people are doing us a great service. They are reminding Americans that this place is kind of awesome.”

Awesome, indeed! But socialists will work to make their changes, and only after will they realize what a horrible mistake it was.

Satisfactorily utilizing new things is always difficult

2026-06-29T14:10:09.164-04:00

June 23, 2026

Why is it that every time some new thing comes along, there are always some negative aspects with it? Maybe some bad things are just part of the thing. Or, maybe those negatives really just result from how some people implement or put the thing to work.

One recent example is the data center craze. Data centers provide us with information and ways of using and accessing it. But they also take up a lot of space, use huge amounts of electricity and water, and those negative aspects affect the same people that the centers are designed to help.

The result has been significant opposition to data centers, as the people are noticing the negatives.

Another one is Artificial Intelligence, or AI. AI gives us smart devices and software that can do lots of things, including things that human beings are now doing. AI can accelerate processes, automate repetitive tasks, analyze huge datasets with high accuracy, reduce human error, and drive innovation.

So, what is wrong with that? Well, AI is accompanied by several issues, such as practical usability hurdles and profound societal and ethical dilemmas. Large Language Models sometimes produce factually incorrect or fabricated information, including false citations, and this can be a real problem in law, medicine, and education. Their huge data sets often contain historical prejudices, stereotypes, and cultural biases which raise concerns in areas like hiring, healthcare, and policing.

AI can be used to deceive people, like teachers, people who use applications for potential workers or scholarship applicants, etc. When a teacher, for example, assigns an essay to his or her students, will they be able to tell if the essay was written by the student, or AI? When you see a video of a well-known person giving you an “important” message, can you be sure it is not AI?

And, there are other issues, as well. One of the ones that will affect millions of Americans is that AI can and will replace lots of human workers. Yes, some AI will be used for work that doesn’t replace existing workers, by creating new areas of work. But, as time goes on, employers will see advantages to using AI instead of people for some tasks, as it can reduce operational costs, and provide other useful advantages.

We already see some of that in stores where checkout is now available by computerized devices. This particular area has generated a good bit of criticism from shoppers, who say they prefer to be checked out by a person. That may be desirable to many, but others appreciate not having to stand in line waiting on the cashier to get to them.

To what extent should we expect AI to replace workers? The June edition of Newsmax magazine addresses this question. One chart shows potential full-time jobs currently being handled by people that may or will be handled by AI. This year, it could replace 25 million workers. By 2027, 45 million; by 2028, 55 million, 65 million by 2029, and by 2030, 99 million.

And the functions that AI will overtake include: 63 percent of Cashiers; 51 percent of Drivers; 42 percent of Translators; 26 percent of Stocking Associates; 24 percent of Customer Service Representatives; 23 percent of Bookkeepers; 21 percent of Cleaners; 19 percent of Bartenders; and 17 percent of Waiters.

Newsmax then tells us that of the 74.08 million women workers, AI may impact nearly 59 million of them. And, of the 84.21 million men workers, AI may impact 48.6 million of them.

The Big Question: What will these millions of replaced workers do to earn a living? Some may be ready to retire, and will choose to do that. Others may be able to perform other types of work that AI hasn’t yet been able to take over, or doesn’t replace as many as some other job types. But this may well be a very serious problem.

On the bright side, the Newsmax report has the results of a poll that shows that employees who have AI skills have more job security than those who do not. The categories: Definitely - 45 percent; Probably - 38 percent; Probably Not - 9 percent; Definitely Not - 3 percent; and Not Sure - 8 percent. So, learning about AI is thus encouraged.

Another poll shows that it is expected to benefit political candidates: Very Beneficial - 65 percent; Somewhat Beneficial - 31 percent; Not Very Beneficial - 3 percent; Not Beneficial At All - 0 percent; and Not Sure - 1 percent.

Returning to the data center subject, the idea of putting the centers in space has drawn some support. This will eliminate the use of millions of gallons water for cooling, as the temperature in space is cold. And being in space will provide massive amounts of solar energy, saving energy produced on Earth.

So, while there are good things about AI and data centers, we must be aware, and prepared to address the problems so that the American people get as much benefit from these new things as the faction that worships them and profits from them.

Europe’s immigration problems should be a warning to us!

2026-06-20T13:47:20.741-04:00

June 16, 2026

Illegal immigration is still a hot topic today. There are many people who still think open borders and millions of illegal aliens roaming the country, getting financial support and other unearned benefits, committing murders and other crimes, is okay.

Others understand that there are so many reasons why we should not allow this anymore, including because it is illegal and against our established system of admitting legal immigrants. But, it still goes on, with heavy support.

A very informative post on Facebook, of all places, addresses this problem, and how it is affecting European nations. This post was written by former Mississippi State Senator Chris McDaniel.

“Europe is warning us again. We’d better listen,” McDaniel begins.

“For years, Western leaders told their citizens that open borders were compassionate. Enlightened. Inevitable. They told them national identity was outdated, that borders were relics, that assimilation wasn’t necessary, and that anyone who objected was simply afraid of the future.

“Well, the future has arrived,” he wrote.

“Across Europe, ordinary citizens are asking a question their leaders spent decades refusing to answer: what happens to a nation when it loses control of who enters, who stays, and what values govern public life?

“The answer is no longer merely theoretical.”

In Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Ireland, for example, they are learning the hard way why this is foolish. And dangerous. Schools and public services are overwhelmed. There is disorder in the streets, social tensions rise and native communities are now in competition with immigrant communities. And worse, native citizens see special consideration for the immigrant communities, as they are now not as important as the immigrants in their own country.

“Of course, that doesn’t mean every migrant is dangerous. It doesn’t mean every asylum claim is false. It doesn’t mean charity has no place in public policy,” McDaniel notes.

“Of course, mercy matters. A civilized nation should show mercy. But a civilized nation must also show prudence. Charity without order isn’t compassion. It’s surrender.”

McDaniel said that where these European nations went wrong was in not considering the real essence of what a nation is. It isn’t just an economy, or a labor market, or a tax base. It is much deeper than that.

“A nation is a people joined by memory, law, language, custom, sacrifice, and a common understanding of right and wrong. When that common understanding is weakened, everything else begins to shake,” he warned.

“A country can’t import the world’s conflicts, customs, grievances, and tribal divisions at unlimited scale and expect social peace to survive untouched. A country can’t tell its own citizens that their history is shameful, their traditions are disposable, their borders are illegitimate, and their concerns are hateful, then act surprised when trust in government collapses.”

And in the European countries, McDaniel noted that the governments are not taking lightly the complaints of their constituents. They have often responded with condescension and lecturing and scolding the citizens.

However, here in the United States, where that same attitude was present under the Biden/Harris administration, it is not the case under President Donald Trump.

A large faction of the populace — primarily Democrats, socialists, liberals — still clings to the previously dominant idea that open borders are not only good, but essential.

An example of just how wild and crazy these concepts of the left are, here is how Michell Wu, Boston’s Mayor, thinks things should be: “Every human being on the planet has the legal right to be in the United States. Regardless of their criminal record or even if they’ve outwardly stated their hate for this country. They have the right to be here, and voice their opinion.”

One wonders if Wu would have the same sympathy for people illegally taking up residence in her house as she does for them illegally taking up residence in her country?

The Trump administration recognizes and follows the constitutional and legal mandates about immigration.

Despite the administration’s efforts to arrest and deport the illegals, especially those who have committed crimes, many leftist sympathizers still condemn actions to enforce our laws. This includes holding protests complaining about enforcing the laws that actually break laws. ICE and others agents are attacked and threatened.

Mayors and governors of blue cities and states provide sanctuary for illegals, as well as interfering with legal actions taken by the federal government.

A country belongs first to its own citizens. Its leaders aren’t elected to manage decline, dilute identity, or apologize for firm borders. They’re elected to preserve the nation entrusted to them.

The very first duty of our leaders — federal, state and municipal — is to their citizens, to preserve the nation, state or town/city they were elected to manage, and to do that legally and responsibly.

“So, the lesson for America is very clear,” McDaniel said. “We must not follow Europe’s lead.”

We can and must secure the border. And we must deport any and all who have broken our laws regulating immigration, and any and all other laws. We can re-establish a firm ideal of what citizenship is. We can require immigrants to adopt our values, speak our language, and become honorable productive Americans. And we must.

The USGS report has some good news for the mining industry

2026-06-13T15:54:15.470-04:00

June 9, 2026

The folks in our region who have been around for a good while — the seasoned citizens — remember the days when the mining industry provided so much benefit to the area. Younger folks, however, are likely not aware of the benefits provided by the mining industry.

The Bluefield railyard was filled with Norfolk and Western Railway coal cars. The full ones were bound for Norfolk and other places where that coal was wanted and needed, and the many empty cars were waiting to be moved to the coal mines to be refilled. Area towns and cities were booming, with Bluefield’s population totaling somewhere between 23,000 and 29,000, and visitors from all over the coal fields were coming there to spend some time.

There were many stores, restaurants and movie theaters. And they were crowded, especially on the weekends. Just after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays there were two lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic on Bland Street and Federal Street crawling out of downtown trying to get home.

It was a great time for the region, and the coal mining industry provided a necessary fuel as well as a great economic benefit, not only to this region, but to the entire country.

And then the change started. Some new fuels were beginning to be used, and some existing ones were being used more than before, making coal mining less important. And later, the global warming/climate change mania came along, and the idea of using coal became a no-no, as it was supposed to be increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which the “experts” said was dangerous.

While there is still a market for coal, and new uses of it are developing, the industry is a mere shadow of its former self. And it likely will increase some now that these new uses are being found and the fallacy of the idea that fossil fuels producing too much CO2 is being openly talked about and scientifically countered.

We also have seen recently efforts on the Trump administration’s part to benefit the coal industry, including a new coal-burning electric plant in West Virginia.

So, this and a recent news release provide a bright spot for the mining industry.

Other substances — minerals — have been in use for a long time, but are now playing a more significant role in our lives. They are used as fuel, in construction, and for other valuable purposes. We use them to build urban infrastructure and in household objects, such as for plumbing and electricity.

Much of the mineral supply we use here comes from other countries, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management is determined and working to increase our domestic supply of these critical materials.

One of those valuable minerals is lithium, and the most dominant suppliers of it currently are Australia and China. But there is a piece of good news for the Appalachian region regarding lithium.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) announced in April the following; “The Appalachian region of the eastern United States contains an estimated 2.3 million metric tons of undiscovered, economically recoverable lithium, enough to replace 328 years of U.S. imports at last year’s level.”

Wow! The USGS report continues: “So how much lithium have they found in them thar hills?? The estimated 2.3 million metric tons of lithium oxide in the Appalachian region would be enough lithium for batteries in: 1.6 million grid-scale batteries large enough to stabilize an electric grid; 130 million electric vehicles; 180 billion laptops, or a 1,000-year supply of laptops for the world (at 2025 levels); 500 billion cellphones, or 60 cellphones for each person on earth.”

“In other words, enough to make the U.S. energy independent for centuries, or at least until a new technology replaces lithium batteries.” And the USGS offers that 2.3 million metric tons may be a conservative estimate, and could possibly be as much as 7.4 million metric tons.

Not so long ago, the U.S. was the dominant lithium producer in the world. Now, three decades later, we may begin to reclaim that distinction.

The USGS report did not say exactly where these deposits are, although they are known to exist in North Carolina, South Carolina, Maine, and New Hampshire. So how much of an effect lithium mining might have on our immediate area is now currently not known. But USGS said that information covering the Appalachians from Maryland to Alabama will be published later.

This discovery, along with the “go get it” attitude of the federal government to extract and use our own mineral supplies, hold great promise, both economically, and from a practical perspective for the country.

It is one element in the effort to bring back to America as much as possible of those products and the jobs that produce them that we willingly allowed to be moved to other countries for the last 30 or so years. In doing this we can create many jobs and reduce or eliminate high prices for products we purchase from other countries.

The idea of producing as many of the things Americans want and need as possible is a sound economic and patriotic idea.

Celebrating the United States of America’s 250th anniversary!

2026-06-06T16:00:40.319-04:00

June 2, 2026

On July 4, 2026, the United States of America will observe and celebrate its 250th anniversary. This has a special designation: A 250-year period or anniversary is called a semiquincentennial. That term is a combination of Latin words: Semi - half; Quin - five; Centennial - 100th anniversary.

The large countries that manage to remain in existence for many, many years are identified as an “empire.” Examples are: The Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Russian Empire; the Mongol Empire, and the Persian Empire. Whether the United States of America is an empire or not can be debated. However, because it has existed for 250 years, it is often discussed in terms of being an empire.

Once, empires were thought to last maybe 300 years, and some lasted much longer. More recently, that has been reduced to around 250 years. And that is where we Americans find ourselves. How much longer will our “empire” last?

In some ways, the country is stable. Its design is head and shoulders above any other in history. However, there are other countries and factions that want to see our demise. And, worse, there are those within the country that want to weaken its strong foundation, and dramatically change it.

Ryan McMaken wrote a piece for the Mises Wire in April titled, “We Are Living in the Fourth American Republic.” It covers four steps since our founding that detail how the country has moved away from the fundamentals established in the U.S. Constitution, and how that is not recognized by either the Democrats or the Republicans in government.

“There is a certain subspecies of conservatives in which the members seem impervious to the abundant evidence all around us that the constitution of the ‘founding fathers’ is a dead letter and the old American republic is now a relic of the past,” he wrote.

“The constitutional order … ceased to exist at least a century ago. The constitution itself — that is, the one ratified in 1788 — hasn’t been in force for a very long time.”

“Many Americans have a certain gift for allowing themselves to be deceived into believing that the words of the written constitution actually describe the de facto reality around us,” he said.

“So, the fact that politicians swear an oath to the old 1787 constitution manages to fool many people into thinking that the politicians actually care what the original intent of the constitution was. An honest assessment of the state of American politics should make it clear today’s politicians — like most politicians over the past century — couldn’t care less about such antiquated notions.”

Whatever the degree of truth one might believe that statement holds, it is clear that one side of the political aisle is much farther from the original intent of the Founders than the other. One side is holding true to what it believes the Constitution says and means, while the other is working overtime to change those fundamental features that deny them the path to total and perpetual power, as well as other changes in the operation of government.

The Democrats want to make Washington, DC a state, a move that would undo something deliberately avoided by the Founders, who believed no state should house the federal capital, because of the degree of power that state would accrue. They also want to make Puerto Rico a state.

On their list is doing away with the Electoral College. However, the Founders wanted to ensure that every state has a meaningful voice in electing the President, hence it was created.

On their list as well is that upon the next Democrat President being elected, pack the Supreme Court by adding additional justices selected by the new President to give the Court a liberal majority forever.

And, there are steps in their method of change that are already under way. Certain career areas where politics is not supposed to exist have been polluted by politically-motivated players.

The brilliant Thomas Sowell, one of today’s most intelligent and thoughtful observers, has warned that we should be aware of our country’s destruction from the inside.

We see prosecutors and judges who ignore existing laws because they disagree with them, giving benefits to the guilty they do not deserve, while preventing victims from getting the benefits they do deserve. If laws are disliked, change them. But do not simply ignore them.

We see “protesters” who object to certain laws and legal actions eagerly breaking laws in an effort to stop what they dislike.

And there’s the degradation of public education by teachers and administrators who improperly replace the traditional curricula with their preferred types of instruction. Critical Race Theory instead of actual history, for example.

Meanwhile, Republicans, conservatives, and others who oppose these efforts will continue to reverse those actions already in place, and to prevent the others from getting put in place.

It is really sad that so many do not understand why our system is worthy of protection. After years of oppressive, unfair rule, the colonies rebelled, and formed a system that guaranteed personal freedom and an end to authoritarian rule. Yet, today, many prefer a return to authoritarian rule, with them in charge.

New things have much glitter, but often some dents and dust

2026-05-29T10:41:06.309-04:00

May 26, 2026

Recently, concerns have arisen over data centers. Data centers are the support system of the internet -- servers, networking equipment and things that provide cooling, power backup, fire suppression and security. In short, they keep these digital services running reliably.

Data centers arose in the mid-20th century and had a strong growth spurt in the 1990s, as the use of the internet grew.

US News & World Report tells us: “The U.S. has more than 4,000 data centers, which is nearly eight times the number of any other country. With thousands more planned or under construction, their energy demand is expected to more than double by 2030.

As with any new and popular development, there are important issues with the centers. The World Resources Institute lists seven problem areas.

1. Managing soaring energy demand - As technology advances and computing demand grows, data centers are becoming increasingly energy hungry. A single modern AI data center can use as much power as 100,000 homes; many of the larger ones now being built are expected to consume up to 20 times that amount.

2. Protecting local water supplies - Data centers require huge amounts of water to keep servers cool enough to function. Mid-sized facilities can use up to 300,000 gallons of water a day, while large facilities can consume as much as 5 million gallons daily — comparable to what a small town uses.

3. Reducing air pollution and climate impacts - Data centers need a constant and reliable power supply. Many facilities rely on gas-fired generation for routine operations alongside diesel generators for emergency backup. Both come with climate and health risks.

4. Mitigating noise - Data center construction, rooftop cooling systems and backup generators can be disruptively noisy. Smaller diesel generators reportedly reach 85 decibels, levels that can harm hearing. Larger industrial units can approach 100 decibels — equivalent to a motorcycle or jackhammer.

5. Addressing competition for land - Massive data centers are reshaping how land is used in many communities. In 2024, the average data center site covered about 224 acres or 0.35 square miles — roughly the size of 450 football fields. This represents a 144% increase since 2022. Developers are increasingly seeking large parcels for multi-building campuses that allow for phased construction and future expansion. Hyperscale facilities require even more land, with the largest campuses exceeding 1,000 acres, or about 1.6 square miles, according to a recent report from the Wisconsin Farm Bureau.

6. Reducing pressure on marginalized communities - Emerging analyses suggest that some data center siting patterns could compound long-standing environmental and economic challenges. A national review of roughly 700 data centers across the country found that nearly half are in census tracts with above-median environmental burdens, such as air pollution, park access and water pollution, as measured by the Center for Disease Control’s Environmental Justice Index. Many were located in areas with social vulnerability indicators, such as poverty and lower education levels.

7. Balancing economic trade-offs - Data center development can create real economic opportunities. Their construction generates hundreds of well-paying — though temporary — jobs for technicians, electricians and other local building trade workers. There are also good-paying opportunities for full-time staff, like technicians, security staff and facility managers.

And a new issue has come to light. “Few studies have examined how data centers affect health, but findings so far suggest data centers warrant closer scrutiny as a potential public health concern.

“’Really nobody is talking about the health impacts of data centers,’ says Neha Gour, one of the authors of the new study, which was published in the journal Frontiers in Climate. ‘And today, when we talk of digital infrastructure, or even any infrastructure for that matter, not including a health component is a huge gap that we need to address.’

“Gour’s study focused on Northern Virginia, an area often referred to as “Data Center Alley” because it is one of the largest concentrations of data centers in the world. It is home to more than 500 data centers that handle a significant portion of the world’s internet traffic, as high as 70 percent by some estimates.”

Currently, West Virginia has no data centers, as of the US News report from last month.

And due to the health and other issues, there is a rather loud and growing force of opposition to having data centers in or too near residential areas. It is, of course, not necessary for data centers to be near residential areas, but they often are, because the preferences of developers and other stakeholders are very important to local governments.

However, some local governments are awakening to the complaints of their citizens, and are becoming more concerned with the effects of the centers on them. Some have even imposed a moratorium on new centers while they evaluate both sides of the issue.

Together, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data centers were first recognized for their new and beneficial attributes. But as they become more widely known, the negative aspects emerge.

The negatives can no longer be swept under the rug while they receive beneficial treatment. The effects these “wonders” have on the people must be given first place on the list of what’s important.

Our political atmosphere is a warning sign of coming disaster

2026-05-22T11:18:21.850-04:00

May 19, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2026-05-18T13:06:14.239-04:00

May 12, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A different way of thinking about President Donald Trump

2026-05-11T21:29:00.003-04:00

May 5, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The left’s chosen direction for America is very troubling

2026-05-02T17:12:00.001-04:00

April 28, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Thomas addresses the progressive attack on America’s freedom

2026-04-24T14:48:00.004-04:00

April 21, 2026

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1990. And, on July 1, 1991, Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court of the United States, and he was confirmed by the Senate on October 15, 1991.

Prior to that he earned his Juris Doctor degree in 1974 from Yale Law School. He was an assistant attorney general in Missouri, served as legislative assistant to U.S. Senator John Danforth, was Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

He is the longest-serving justice since Anthony Kennedy's retirement in 2018. And, since the death of former Justice Antonin Scalia, he is the Court's foremost originalist.

Originalist’s sensible approach is that the laws and the U.S. Constitution must be understood in terms of what they meant when they were enacted, not some modern interpretation that ignores their original meaning and purpose, and instead is interpreted as if the law or Constitution was just enacted.

Thomas, therefore, is a “judicial conservative,” which is not a political conservative, but one who adheres to the original meaning of laws and the Constitution, rather than applying liberal thinking to the process, which means a law or the Constitution can mean different things at different times.

Speaking last week at the University of Texas Austin School of Law, Thomas addressed what he identified as a critique of modern political trends. He said that America’s founding principles are under attack from ideological shifts in academia and government.

The values that are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence have “fallen out of favor,” and are under assault by progressives. "Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government," Thomas told the audience. This movement rejects the idea that rights come from God and instead places complete authority in government institutions, Thomas said.

Our founding documents assert the concept that all people are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights. The definition of unalienable (or inalienable) is that rights are fundamental, inherent entitlements that cannot be taken away, sold, or transferred, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And, Thomas noted that the Constitution was designed to limit government power, and to acknowledge and protect our liberties.

These documents protected Americans from centralized government authority and the majority controlling the minority. He cited principles — such as separation of powers and federalism — as safeguards against centralized authority and majority overreach, which are characteristics of many less-free nations.

History, he said, offers many lessons on the dangers of abandoning natural rights, where strong governments have suppressed those rights. Again, he noted that our system was intentionally designed to prevent this by restraining the government and empowering the citizenry.

But progressivism prefers the government to control everything, even the individual freedoms that the Constitution guarantees us, destroying those freedoms.

And history, Thomas said, is rife with examples of powerful governments suppressing individual freedoms, and the terrible results that followed.

He traces the roots of progressivism back about a hundred years, to early 20th-century, where figures such as President Woodrow Wilson advocated for a larger and more powerful federal government, drawing his inspiration from what had occurred in European nations.

Wilson also said that the Constitution should be read in light of changing conditions. But that is wrong. The Constitution must be read and understood as when it was first created. If changes are deserved, then they can be made through the established process, not simply by current justices who don’t like them, or don’t understand them, simply pretending they don’t exist.

And that also holds true for fundamental principles. Those principles cannot simply be ignored. They have been firmly established through due process. If there is good reason and ample support for changing them, then go through the established process to change them.

During this troubled time of the worst political division in decades, Thomas asked all Americans to rediscover the courage and conviction that our Founders possessed. "In my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration had so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs," he said.

That future has lasted in pretty stable form for nearly 250 years. But it has serious problems today, presented by those who do not understand our system, or who do not appreciate it.

It is interesting that as a unique system of government that has proven its worth for two and a half centuries, so many of those who live in this country and benefit from it, want to change it to something that has been proven to be a failed system over those same 250 years.

If the progressives are successful in their effort to subvert our constitutional republic, they may not live long enough to suffer the consequences of that subversion, as it will take some time to totally ruin the country. But their children and grandchildren most certainly will.