I must admit that there are times when I feel like I live in an alternative universe, where my basic core beliefs are outside of the norm and that people, especially government officials seem determined to make life as miserable as possible. Here is one example:

On December 1^st, 2025, New York decided to not honor ICE detainers on prisoners already in New York jails. As a result, they released 6,947 criminal illegal aliens onto the streets of New York. They were all gone by January 20. The known crimes these individuals have committed include:

• Twenty-nine homicides
• Two-five hundred assaults
• One-hundred ninety-nice burglaries
• Three-hundred five robberies
• Three-hundred ninety-two dangerous drug offenses
• Three hundred weapons offenses
• Two-hundred and seven sexual predatory offenses

Another who is still in custody, is Roman Amatitla, an illegal from Mexico who is charged with arson and eight counts of second-degree murder. Four individuals were killed, including a 3-year-old girl, when he allegedly set fire to an apartment building. Despite ICE’s efforts, the New York Department of Corrections has vowed to not co-operate with ICE and will not provide updates to ICE if he is ever released.

Given that career criminals commit anywhere between 50 to 100 crimes for everyone they are charged, the total numbers are pretty scary.

As I look at that list, I am trying to understand how New York officials could believe that releasing these individuals will make life better, easier, or safer for anyone, be they resident or visitor. How exactly does releasing these criminals who prey overwhelmingly on minority communities both legal and illegal, fulfill the oaths of office which include upholding the laws of New York? Do they honestly believe that honoring the ICE detainers will harm these career criminals? And what about the lives of those who work, abide by the rules, and pay taxes? All those people try to create a good life. Do they really need the government to create barriers to their future wellness and happiness?

In the end, we must ask if such actions serve the public or only the ideology of career politicians who live in a world very different from the average citizen. Or, to put it another way, it would be nice to see our public officials put the needs and concerns of citizens before the feelings of foreign nationals who prey on U.S. citizens.

Near the end of World War 1as the war was lost, the Imperial German Naval leaders created a plan for the entire Imperial navy to said out to seek a final, apocalyptic battle with the British fleet. It was to be apocalyptic in that the German admirals knew they could not win such a battle, but the defeat of the Imperial navy would save the “honor” of the Imperial navy. Fortunately, the crew of the fleet got wind of the proposed battle and mutinied thus not only stopping the battle but also acted as the spark which ended up forcing the Kaiser to step down from his throne and go into exile.

Let’s have some fun and bring the story above up to date and replace the players. For the German admirals with the mad plan, let’s have the state assemblies of the United States who are constantly thinking up new taxes. For the crew of the fleet, we shall use the citizens of those states. In our little scenario, the assemblies of many states decide to institute a state income tax and a surtax on the “wealthy” all in the name of equity but in reality, to collect more taxes for the ever-growing largess of the states. Next, we examine the effects of higher taxes.

The results are truly amazing and glaring and include the following points which are only a sample of the changes:

1. Eleven states have instituted income taxes since 1960.  These states are West Virginia, Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Illinois, Maine, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, New Jersy and Connecticut. While as late as 1970 these states accounted for about one third of national production, they now only provide about one fifth of national production.
2. The taxes of those states are aimed not only at the “wealthy”, but also at the middle class. In California for example, the”9.3% income tax rate starts at an income of $72,724 which is less than the median income in the state for a single earner ($76,190)”.
3. In a failed attempt to battle homelessness and fund universal pre-school, Portland’s Multnomah county placed surtaxes on those who are already paying the states 9.3% top tax rate (for singles, $125,000), which is the average salary of a Portland police officer. Since then, homelessness has increased and employment has declined.
4. On the other hand, low tax states have been welcoming hundreds of thousands of new residents fleeing the high tax states. Major corporations such as Tesla, Chevron, Oracle and others have moved to these states and as a result, these states report strong growth rates, such as Texas (10%), Florida (8.5%), Alabama (4.3%, etc., while New York reports a growth rate of -1.3%, Oregon of -3%, California -1.2%.

Like the common sailors of the Imperial fleet, the average citizens of high tax states have taken themselves out of harms way. With each citizen that leaves a high tax state, that state comes perilously close to entering a death spiral. Each productive citizen takes his or her expertise and tax dollars with them, leaving behind those lower on the productivity ladder and even those who depend on the largess of the state which will refuse to learn the lessons of their actions. Most likely, rather than correcting the error of their ways, they will double down on raising taxes which will only lead to an increased scramble for the exit doors.

Sources: The Growing State Tax and Jobs Divide, WSJ, A14, 4/15/2926 and How to Hollow Out Your State’s Economy, WSJ, A13, 3/18/2026

In every personal, national, political, or corporate negotiation, there is a bottom line beyond which communication or the opportunity to successfully interact becomes impossible. That point may be one of morality, ideology, self-interest, or philosophy. Finding and understanding that point can be difficult and often clouded by one’s own prejudices, mood, etc. I believe, however, that Europe has reached a great divide in one especially important matter: immigration.

There is an ongoing struggle across much of the world caused by waves of Muslim immigrants and their impact on the European nations to which they flock. Some are drawn by the opportunity for a better life financially and educationally, others are drawn by the generous welfare programs which were set up after World War II.  There can be no doubt that there are others who see the European nations as targets for their long-term goal of conquering through the cradle. In this, they emulate the cry from Quebec decades ago when the French-Canadians envisioned change through a demographic war known as the revenge of the cradle. It sought to overturn the English power in the province and replace with a French culture orientation. Finally, there are others who see the European nations with their lack luster leaders as weak reeds who cannot stand up to Muslim power using the cradle, refusal to integrate and by sapping the financial strength of their hosts. The great question can the West reach an accommodation with the immigrants whose basic core beliefs, whose moral outlook are clearly opposed to those of the West? In fact, the question is really will Muslim immigrants accept and integrate Western values. In short, the answer is a strong no!

Why do I say there is no manner to reconcile the majority of Muslim immigrants and the natives of those European nations? There are two very simple reasons, and they serve as a great divide which cannot be bridged.

The first is fundamental and obvious: how women are viewed and treated in many of the most conservative Muslim countries, specifically the thirty-one where female genital mutilation is practiced and is practiced in those communities in Western nations. I recently read an article in the Daily Mail by Dr. Renee Hoenderkamp (12/16/2025, pp.15) in which she describes the real horrors of FMG going on even today, in Great Britain. She worked in a London hospital in a largely Muslim community, and she describes the time as “the most harrowing medical experiences of my career….”  Women regularly entered the hospital victims of FGM, unable to “urinate properly and crushed each month by period pains so excruciating they were bent double.” And childbirth brought with it even greater pains as well as a greater chance of death. How can any culture or religion mandate such horrors on women who are fifty percent of that population? Certainly not in the name of protecting them. For those women living in those populations where FGM is the norm, Islam truly does mean submission.

We also see the outward manifestations of outlandish religious laws on women when we see women walking around totally covered with only their eyes showing. The human form must be covered so as not to inflame impure thoughts and actions. The males of that same religion are not subject to the same tyranny as they wear any clothing they wish. We should not object, for least that woman was outside; she had her father, uncle, or brother to chaperone her. Those who are without a male family member are not allowed to go shopping on their own, go for a walk, drive, take a bus, etc. Must they be “protected” because the average Muslim man is unable to control himself unless a woman is in a burka. And of course, women do not need to have an education as they have a limited role in life. Thank goodness those women did not receive an education past the age of ten or they might ask why they are subjected to such a course, degrading life. No, not all women in Islam are treated in this manner, but for too many they are denied the option to be free and to create their own lives.

Secondly, conservative Islam, in particular the Shia version of Islam, is at its heart a totalitarian system. The religious leaders are divinely guided and not politically chosen. Additionally, the mullahs or religious leaders have the sole authority to interpret the rules and laws of the religion. The Sunni version sees its leaders as political figures chosen through consensus. This divide is huge and has been a matter of wars between the two camps. But the divide between the Shia vision of Islam and the basic ideals of the West are even greater. It is a fundamental chasm.

The Shia version is closer to communism than to a religion, for every action is guided by the “party line” as interpreted by a divinely chosen leader. This has been devastating to the followers of Islam; an example is the Ottoman Empire. Since the end of the seventeenth-century, Islam has been retreating. Even the Sultans in Istanbul could not change the decay of the Empire. Attempts at reforms such as with the military which was the power foundation holding up the edifice of the Ottomans were defeated time and again. The religious conservatives went so far as to massacre any troops trying to emulate the West. When you are divinely chosen and have the authority to interpret the very laws under which all must obey, what are the chances of smoothly integrating into societies which believe in ideals that are totally anathema to your own personal whims?

Is there hope that the conservative Muslim population can be integrated into Western values? Many Muslims want our conveniences, our fancy gym shoes, computers, clean water, abundant food and all the rest the West has to offer. They do not realize their very mindset blocks them from creating those items themselves. Instead, they must be like beggars, waiting for the West to give them what they desire.

 All the while, our “leaders” continue to appease the worse of the immigrants in order to avoid the violence that is a very real danger and which is spreading through our lands. No, it is better to keep quiet as churches are burned, no go zones created, gang wars over drugs explore in our cities, women raped and the assailants released because “they just don’t understand our culture.” Do not worry, the citizens are docile so they will continue to work and pay for the “freebies” given to the immigrants. Why can’t the West just admit that the gap between those who prefer a mindset from the Middle Ages and the modern West is too great to bridge? They will take what is given to them with no string and live off the generosity of those who act like fools. It appears our “leaders” will continue to appease the immigrants in the clearly mistaken belief that the majority will turn into useful citizens. How long do we wait, how long before we see any indication that there is even a bit of interest in assimilation?

The basic tenants of a religion will provide the guidelines of a society and how fifty percent of the population is treated will determine if a society will be successful or fail. The prime function of an immigration policy is that it must benefit the receiving nation. No sane immigration policy welcomes individuals who are inherently hostile to the core values of the admitting state. Dare anyone point to any of the Western nations that are better, more productive, or safer after a period of unrestricted illegal immigration?

If you feel that all societies are equal, that we just have to “understand” them, that their values are equal to ours, then go live in that society and see how long you hold onto your illusions. Experience it, embrace it. Especially if you are a woman. But remember, it is much easier to get into that society than out.

I first read this novel over forty years ago and although I did not recall the exact plot, I remembered that as I finished it, I put it aside vowing to never read another of Mishima’s’ works. My fear was that having read one more, I might have to devour his extensive list of works, a bit like an old friend who refused to purchase on Judy Collins record (that shows how long ago that was), as then he would have to purchase them all.

A very good friend presented me with a copy of this work for my birthday, and it was with a mixture of excitement and trepidation that I began to read it. The story itself seems to be simple; it centers around a widow, a sailor she meets, her young teenage son and the circle of his friends.  Filled with a subtle sensuality (as you would expect when you consider the author), it tells a story of how the son, and his friends reflect a form of nihilism that Mishima believed was part of the Japanese post-war character. The “tribe” of boys looked down on society, the family and anyone who was not in their “enlightened” circle. They were superior, above all the bourgeois values and norms and were determined to create their own world. Mashima also rejected Japan’s new materialism, democracy and flirtation with communism.

The book traces the young son’s disillusionment with the sailor who is courting his mother and the betrayal by the sailor when he decides to give up his life at sea and marry the boys’ mother. That action is a betrayal of the boys (not the sailors) sense of superiority, and the group of boys believe they must “punish” the sailor, or they will not be true to their sense of themselves.

As I finished the short novel, I felt the same sense of amazement at the power of Mishima’s writing. I slowly closed the book, put if my lap and let the last two paragraphs sink into my mind. The power that the book projected so many years ago was still there, as strong as ever. It is a book that dares to look at the dark side of disillusioned youth.

Mashima was one of Japan’s premier authors during the 1960’s. His novels were nominated five times for the Nobel Prize for literature, but he is probably best remembered for his dramatic action at Japan’s West Point in Tokyo in 1970. There, with some of his personal self-defense force, he seized a main building, captured the commandant and harangued the gathering cadets to throw off the new Japanese values of materialism, democracy, etc. and to recapture Japan’s sense of “national essence” including  Emperor worship or all of Japan would end up as a “rootless people”.  Failing to rally the cadets, he committed seppuku and had his second cut off his head as prescribed in the ceremony. He was forty-five years old.

What place did he hold in the minds of the Japanese youth of that time? In my previous lifetime I worked at Panasonics headquarters in Secaucus New Jersey.  One of the photos I kept displayed was of Mishima haranguing the cadets on that day in 1970. None of the older Japanese commented on the photo in my office, but the younger generation were more open in their comments, and I found it interesting that a simple photo could pierce the normal Japanese self-containment and lead to an openness that was so rewarding.

Read this book at your own peri or sense of excitement. The term you use after the reading may tell you something of yourself.

Written between October 1946 and April 1947 while awaiting trial and hanging in Poland, Hoss once again validates the proposition that the greatest mass murders were not crazy or fanatical, but rather believers in the ideology du jour. They often present very logical arguments for their actions, all the stronger because so many of them are noted Doctor of Medicine or Law. They represent the highest intellectual standards and yet are responsible for the deaths of untold millions. Knowing that we was going to die, there is nothing in his writing that would indicate his willingness or ability to commit genocide. Additionally, there is no indication of any personal dislike or distain for the Jewish people of whom were the majority of his victims. The closes he comes to any form of antisemitism not in deed but rather in a statement he makes twice just before he is hung: “Please ask the Polish people to forgive me.”  Not the Jews, the Poles. How telling; it was as if the millions murdered under his regime did not and never existed.

Hoss was a believer, a National Socialist to the end; not necessarily in every bit of that pseudo-political philosophy, but enough so that he found a moral home in which he could face the world. Each time Himmler gave him a new task, he set to it with a determination and will to do the best he could. According to Paskuly, this is due to the strict upbringing of his father who wanted Hoss to enter the priesthood. This dream of his father was shattered when Hoss believed a priest had broken the sanctity of the Confessional.

 Yet the basic values of hard work and determination to complete any job in the best manner possible remained with him. Directed by Himmler to build Auschwitz and to manage it as it grew into the largest concentration camp of the Nazi regime, followed a machine that operated according to a set of Rules and regulations for Concentration Camps which were developed by Theodore Eicke, who developed the camp system and demanded that each SS guard develop a sense of hardness that went far beyond the societal boundaries. Eicke viewed each prisoner as an ENEMY OF THE STATE and demanded that the title never be forgotten. His fanaticism was the exact opposite of the technocratic approach taken by Hoss.

The book also contains Hoss’ profiles of various high level SS leaders involved in the camps, a profile of the organization of the camps, a section on Lebensborn, minutes from the infamous Wannsee conference and other details which help to create a better understanding of the camp system.

In the end, we face banality. We find what could be a middle-aged bureaucrat who goes to work each day and comes home to his loving wife and three beautiful daughters. The is no extremely angry, no ranting, no self-image as a man on a holy image. Just the dull, non-descript man found by Hannah Arndt, Dr. Douglas Kelley, and others. That is the lesson in and of itself, for it shows how thin the veneer of civilization may be and that it can be so easy to pierce.

The recent movie, Nuremberg, centers around two characters; Dr. Douglas Kelley, who spent many hours interviewing and interacting with the twenty-two defendants during the first Nuremberg trial and Reichsmarschall Hermann Goring.

Dr. Kelley in 1945 was 35 years old at the time of his work at Nuremberg, upon which the movie is based. He was a U.S. Army psychiatrist with an excellent reputation. His goal was to understand the mind set of the defendants in terms of how they viewed the war crimes they faced and how they could participate in the conducting of those terrible crimes. He interacted with those individuals for only one month, but that month changed his life forever. After those interviews, he gradually became more introverted, subject to flare ups of anger, and more argumentative. His career which held so much promise became short-circuited as he disagreed with fellow doctors and administrators; he was no longer invited for interviews; his scholarly papers were ignored and not published and he became a pariah. In 1958, he died by suicide.

What was it that changed the course of Kelley’s life? It was that month when he spoke with the twenty-two defendants and found a secret that he believed was totally opposed to the image that most people had of those defendants. It is a secret that has haunted generations as they studied the horrors of the Third Reich.

Dr. Kelley concluded, contrary to popular opinion, that the defendants were ordinary individuals; some brighter than others, some more vain, but all profoundly human. They were not devils or demons, they were not mad; in most cases they could be your next store neighbors until the right conditions were created. Dr. Kelley believed that it was not madness that enabled those men to participate in such crimes, but rather from a moral decay disguised as duty. We must remember that numerous commanders of the Nazi killing squads (the Einsatzgruppen) were medical and legal doctors and others possessing the finest intellectual educations in their fields. In their minds, their “work” was noble and ridding the earth of unhealthy and deadly enemies of their race.

In this book, 22 Cells, he saw that the “gradual process of moral desensitization, in which obedience and ambition eroded empathy” enabled those men (and so many others), to commit war crimes on a scale previously unknown. His belief in that process led him to believe that in any society, if the conditions were right, those actions could be repeated and that knowing that society had to take steps to safeguard such a recurrence. Naturally, such a view was not very popular in the victor nations who saw themselves as being not only the physical but also the moral victors of the war.

Long before Hannah Arendt went public with the phrase, the banality of evil, Dr. Kelley had spoken that way of what he had learned in Nuremberg. Like Kelley, Arendt paid a price using that phrase, yet there has never been any evidence to the truth of those words. They paid the price for staring into the darkest portion of the human mind. Will we learn from what they found? Try asking the average teenager of today who fought who in World War II. Ask them who fought in our Civil War. Some may say that Nazi Germany was an aberration, a fluke of history. If that is to be believed, what about the Armenian genocide, the Ukraine famine of the 1930’s, the intentional famine in China under Mao, the muti-year war in the Congo, the slaughter in Rwanda. Need I go on? Their ignorance is not their fault, but someone will have to pay the price for that ignorance. Perhaps not in this decade, perhaps not in the next, but there is always a price to pay for such ignorance.

There can be no finer example of the banality of evil than the book written by the commandant of Auschwitz and one of the greatest mass murders in history, Rudolph Hoss. Written while awaiting trial, he does not attempt to deflect blame or plead some sort of extraordinary circumstances for his actions. Instead, he paints a picture of a very bland, ordinary man simply doing his duty as he was ordered. A good family man, loving father, his main concern was to please his superiors everyday. He was the perfect face of the banality of evil.

For further reading, please consider The Nazi Conscience by Claudia Koonz, The Nuremberg Interviews by Leon Goldensohn, The Mind Doctor of Nuremberg by Kendrick D. Erasmus, and Marriage & Fatherhood in the Nazi SS by Amy Carney, Death Dealer by Rudolph Hoss.

Numerous times over the past year ( e.g., Jan.2, Jan.23, Feb. 5, March 8, June 6, Oct. 10), I have written and posted articles concerning the disaster that is befalling much of the E.U., but especially Germany in its’ quest to go green. 

Tens of thousands of jobs lost, leading technical companies relocating, soaring energy prices, expanded welfare rolls, mounting national debt and decreasing individual liberty has been the reward for a decade of pie in the sky social and energy policies. Government leaders in western Europe are acting like teenagers who refuse to believe that tomorrow will never come and the bills they are creating will never come due.

The link below will take you to an article which provides facts and figures that should shock and dismay European leaders, yet somehow those leaders continue on a path of proven failure. While those same leaders express concern about the “American First” direction of President Trump, they have no qualms about continuing their, “Our Citizens Last” policies.

The nations of eastern Europe are on growth paths as they battle the bureaucrats of the E.U. Instead of asking how those nations are able to grow their economies without the flood of immigrants from third world “nations,” the E.U. like a spoiled child continues to stamp its’ feet and demand that those nations adhere to the E.U.’s failed policies.

Is there still time for nations such as Germany to change their course, reverse their belief in fairy tale economic and energy polices and play upon their traditional strengths to build a better future?

Please copy this link to the article: https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/walpurgis-night-of-madness-germany-in-the-grip-of-climate-socialism/

It has been about a year and a half since I last visited London and from the news I have seen here in the States, I wanted to see what the mood in the city regarding their politics was, economy, immigration, etc. While having breakfast I was able to read several British papers and what particularly struck me were the first pages of The Daily Mail (12/19/2025), which has the highest circulation but is not considered to be on par with the Times of London (which is further to the Left in its reporting). So let me present three stories which I believe indicate where the U.K. is at currently:

1. Phillipson blocks safe spaces for women: Bridget Phillipson is the Women and Equalities Secretary (a position specifically aimed at protecting Women and bettering their lot).  In response to the recent decision by the High Court, she has released a statement that their recent ruling is “trans-exclusive” and refuses to release (enforce) them after the court ruling three months ago. The guideline was created after the British Supreme Court ruled that banned “transgender women-biological males-from women’s lavatories.  According to Ms. Phillipson, the court ruling would ban women from taking their infant sons into changing rooms and pools. She has already missed the deadline for presenting guidelines to Parliament. Apparently “woke” is alive and well in the U.K. and is defiance of the law of the land. Here is the woman who is charged with protecting women and she refuses to enforce the law which specifically protects women. Your government at work for your benefit?
2. British boys don’t need misogyny lessons-migrants do: The Labour government has decided that British school boys need to be taught about misogyny in response to a dramatic increase of violence against women. The goal is to reduce sexual violence by half within a decade.  The leader of the Conservative party, Kemi Badenoch has said that “if you tell boys that they are the problem, you don’t create respect, you create resentment, you create backlash…”. The current effort by Labour seems to have been based on a BBC TV drama Adolescence which tells the story of a 13-year-old-boy who was arrested on suspicion of murdering a female classmate. Ms. Badenoch has urged the Labour government to publish data on the nationality and immigration status of sexual offenders, which the government has refused to do. It is interesting that the “sexual grooming” which has plagued the U.K. for more than ten years and resulted in tens of thousands of female victims was due to be discussed openly in Parliament, but at the last moment the Labour government cancelled the discussion as it might upset Pakistani voters. Your government at work, protecting it’s citizens?
3. The Cost of Welfare: Projections are that one in eight Brits will be claiming disability benefits by 2030, up from the current one in ten. At the same time, new guidelines mean that by 2030, four million Brits will be on disability with absolutely no need to look for work or prove their sickness continues. The government claims that they are working on reforms which will save about two billion pounds (about $2.7 billion) in the next four years (hardly a brilliant success). This “savings” is part of the total cost of over one-hundred-ninety billion currently.

Those three stories from one day’s news show a nation with major problems. OK, every country has its’ problems and, on the whole, the attitude in Mayfair and the money sections of the city was positive.  It was great seeing and feeling the power that some of the young Brits had as they hit the pubs after work.  They were positive and you could feel their excitement.  Fantastic! On the other hand, from the taxi drivers to bar tenders to some everyday Brits, there were more cautious comments, ranging from “we are broke” to” there is no money”, to complaints of their National Health Service (need a cancer consultation? You get a lottery ticket-not kidding- and then the NHS tells you when your consultation will be; one person got a phone consultation in thirteen months’ time). Then there is the underlying problem of the migrants.  A local council was upset as a local building was being refurbished to house five-hundred immigrants, which was more than lived in the village. That same day over five hundred immigrants were caught coming over from France. The immigrants are coming faster than the government can build houses for them, when there is a housing shortage already for native Brits.

I have to admit, I love the U.K. and I am aware of how much has changed over the thirty plus years that I have been visiting.  Gone are the carts selling fruits having been replaced by falafel stands.  And East London?  It is a different country all together, and only time will tell what will happen. London is no different than any U.S. city; it is still safe unless you wander into a section that you know if trouble. Added to this is the current policy under the Labour government of thought control such as arresting an individual for silently praying in a public space, or the seventy-year-old Grandmother who was arrested for criticizing the local government on Facebook.  There is a feeling of national malaise in the air and the current government is holding on with every tool at it’s disposal.

The changes are plain to see and like the rest of Western Europe, the British government is stuck in doing the same things which have failed, hoping for a different result. Fortunately, at least the government is not locking up or shutting out rival political parties as we have seen in the EU.  If the Brits continue down their current failing road, I believe there is little hope for national renewal. It is a shame, as there is so much good to see that that wonderful land.

For too long the public school system in the United States has had a virtual monopoly in the education system. Unfortunately, their “product” (educated individuals) does not meet the standard necessary to properly function. Not only can the “product” not read or do math up to minimal standards, the “product” is woefully misinformed about history, civics, and their responsibilities as citizens. In response some states have expanded the use of Charter Schools and home schooling has also begun to grow, spurred on during the pandemic when parents realized what was being taught to their children. The United States spends more per child than any other nation on the earth and gets back the lowest return. We do not have to repeat the dismal figures of failed school districts where a minute percentage of children can read or do math to grade level. Recently the University of California, San Diego has reported that in just five short years, the number of first-year students who need remedial math has increase 30-fold. Whereas in 2020 less than 1% of students needed remedial math, the number has jumped to one in eight. These terrible numbers are not at a day care center, but at a university! How did those students even manage to gain entry? Is there any reason to believe that the students are any better prepared in English or history or any other topic? And I have not even mentioned the damage that has been done by the progressive cause de jour, DEI with its deadly view of the value of the United States.

But all is not lost as there are those who have found a way to use social media as a tool to counter the failure of our public schools. One such option is Prager U, founded by Dennis Prager just a few short years ago. The site offers over 3,500 videos in their digital vault aimed at presenting a well-balanced presentation on topics such as history, religion, government, the workings of government, the economy and more.

The ability to reach out across the airwaves to individuals around the world is amazing.

• 1 in 3 Americans has watched at least one Praeger video.
• Seventy percent of minds are changed on at least one topic after watching.
• Five million views of Prager content every day.
• Twenty-five percent of survey respondents identify as non-conservative.

And they did this without a single cent to taxpayer money.

No matter where you live, no matter is you are liberal, conservative or whatever, a visit to PragerU will be an interesting adventure. We very often exist in a bubble of those who agree and think as we do and PragerU may just expand deflate your bubble. Dare you?

Since the 1970’s, Justices for the Supreme Court have for the most part come from Ivy-League, East Coast law schools.  Justice Barrett breaks that trend ( being a native of New Orleans) and as a result, her clear writing, legal and teaching experience provides us with a clear and clean understanding of some of the key factors used in her decision making process. Her book is written in a manner that goes against the grain of the ivy league schools in that it is concise, takes on real issues and discusses the procedure, forces and philosophies which guide the decision-making process of the Court. While she provides personal background information on her life, unlike some Justices, she makes the reader understand that her rationale to reach a conclusion is not based or tainted by her personal views, but rather by understanding what the words of the Constitution mean.

It is refreshing to read her book as she clearly discusses the pros and cons of a number of issues, not only legal issues before the Court, but also the political questions facing the Court, such as the concept of Court packing, lifetime tenure, etc.  We see the actors behind the scenes such as the law clerks, the traditions of the Court that have evolved over the years, which are designed to maintain a balance of civility and professionalism even among the Justices.  Her discussions on areas such as textualism and originalism include their history and forces behind each so that everyone can understand the dynamics of each concept.

The Justice is obviously a serious scholar of the law but one which can clarify a subject in a few words where others will need much more room or confuse the issue by inserting their personal views and bias. Her love for the law and the Constitution is clear. 

During her confirmation, she withstood the slings and arrows of several Senators who attacked her over their concerns regarding health care, abortion rights, her religion and her judicial philosophy (Originalist). She withstood the fire, never once reaching or referring to any notes. The fact that she is an Originalist and would therefore not let her personal feelings impact her duties seemed to both some Senators who seem to favor an more “progressive)” attitude toward law.

 Give this read a try, especially if you wish to gain a higher regard for the Court and the Justices.