But “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Muslimunitycenter.org defines Islam:

“The word “Islam” is an Arabic word that means “peace, purity, submission and obedience to the will of Almighty God.” The word Islam comes from the Arabic root word “sa-la-ma”, which means peace.”

In other words, Islam is peaceful if one does not resist it.

Some might say Islamic values are similar, but when the message is Love v. Hate, how can the values be similar?

Jesus taught us to Love God with all of our heart, soul and mind (100%) and to Love our Neighbors As We Love Ourselves. Furthermore, Jesus told us to Love our Enemies.

Loving our enemies is a very hard concept to chew on, but that does not make it wrong or untrue.

The operative meaning behind loving our neighbors means that we value and love ourselves, too. We love ourselves enough not to be abused and called something we are not, like Islamophobic or “a hater.”

We do not hate Islam; we reject it.

That is a big difference.

I did try reading the Quran after 9/11 to understand what Islam was about and there are similar values like monotheism and helping the poor, but I realized that the idea of killing the infidel is the opposite of Jesus’s message to Love our Enemies.

And the Quran’s message to kill the infidel is the complete opposite of Jesus’s teachings of the Summary of the Law.

• Surah 2:191: “And kill them wherever you find them...”. This verse is immediately preceded by verse 2:190, which instructs Muslims to “fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits.”

• Surah 4:89: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved... but if they turn away, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.”

• Surah 9:5: Often called “The Verse of the Sword,” it says, “kill the polytheists wherever you find them.”

Muslims come to America. Different countries, different customs. Imagine living in a Muslim-majority country telling Muslims that Muslims are afraid of Christians and Jesus’s teachings. The idea that because we do not adhere to the teachings of Mohammad means we are hateful and/or afraid of Islam is absurd.

Now, if sharia law is your thing, please keep it to yourself. It’s completely counter to America’s First Principles that God grants us our rights to believe or not believe, nor do we follow any type of state religion. You should have acknowledged that when you immigrated here.

Robyn Kathleen Beal said it well.

I much prefer to hear church bells chiming hymns than the call to prayer which sounds like cacophony to my ears. Am I alone in that sentiment?

Furthermore, ad hominem attacks will no longer work. So, stop calling us Islamophobic because we want to follow Jesus’s teachings and Jesus’s philosophy to live.

Rather than focus on the low vibrations of fear and hate, the reality is that we reject Islam and we simply want to enjoy our western culture based on Judeo-Christian values. We will never submit to Islam.

So, there’s that.

And then, there’s also the fact that American women do not wear burqas. Furthermore, what type of word has a Q without a U?

When I see people wearing burqas (and how would we know that it is not a jihadist who wants to go to “paradise”), I remember the story in A Thousand Splendid Suns of that poor teen forced to marry an abusive man who would repeatedly rape her. And she described her anonymity in the burqa as comforting.

Yikes. Different cultures; different customs!

This is America; we are supposedly free to believe what we want without harming others, so, wear your burqa, I guess, but don’t attack me because I think you look stupid, because you do.

Ask around.

Remember when Bill Maher had the burqa fashion show? We used to laugh at this madness. Now we have to fight the ad hominem attacks.

Yet considering the history of the crusades and Muslim conquests, maybe we should have some fear of Islam.

Sharia law is completely incompatible with the Constitution/Bill of Rights and a Pew research study found that the majority of Muslims in Islamic countries support sharia law.

America is a big country, so Islam is not close to a majority in America, but the numbers are shocking in growth. And when Americans are rejecting Christianity, combined with living in a spiritually vacuous society, there is less resistance than in previous eras where Christian leaders, like Charles Martel, led the fight in the Battle of Tours back in the 8^th century to fight westward expansion of the Islamic caliphate.

Today, the European countries with the highest number of Christians also have the least amount of Muslims and mosques.

Is it a coincidence that those former USSR countries who were not allowed to openly practice Christianity are now more Christian than western Europe?

And why do those mostly Christian countries maintain strict-anti-migration policies? Is it because the lands now known as Poland, Hungary and Romania did not fare as well as western Europe during the Ottoman invasions?

Polls tell us that those with less education are likely to view Muslims unfavorably. Vatican City is a tiny, secure and sovereign country with a very highly educated population. So, they are tolerant of Islam because they do not live near any Muslims?

Yet, those eastern European countries with an understanding of the history of the Ottoman Empire conquering their lands have stricter immigration policies. Is that a coincidence?

@tierneyrealnewsnetwork recently wrote an article titled, Make All of America Muslim? that stated,

Take a minute and listen to Sharifa Alkhateeb, head of the North American Council for Muslim Women, tell you, in her own words, what her “calculating” end goals are for America:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4673227/sharifa-alkhateeb-muslim-educator-shares-ultimate-goal-muslim-education-america

“Our objective is NOT to be part of the American system. Our final goal is to make ALL of America Muslim under our OWN system. We must be very calculating about it or we will not reach our goal.”

She told us in 1989 what they planned to do. Why didn’t we listen? The infiltration of Radical Islam isn’t some conspiracy theory. It is a well-planned threat to our very Judeo-Christian existence.

Of course, anyone who questions the intent of Muslims is told:

So, disregard this report: THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S STRATEGIC ENTRYISM INTO THE UNITED STATES: A SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS

It’s all conspiracy theory!

“The Left” mocks the states that have (essentially) banned sharia courts in the US as conspiracy theorists who are…drum roll…Islamophobic!

A December 2025 Washington Times article, Shariah Courts in America begins:

They are not coming. They are already here.

Across the United States, Islamic arbitration bodies quietly handle hundreds of family law cases each year — marriage, divorce, custody, inheritance — behind closed doors, with no transcripts, no appeals and no public oversight. All-male panels apply traditional Shariah rules to 21st-century American women and children.

The Islamic Tribunal of Dallas was founded in 2014 as a “volunteer mediation service.” By 2024, it was deciding roughly 300 cases annually in mosque back rooms and law offices. The panel of three or four male scholars, trained at institutions such as Al-Azhar and Omdurman, openly follows rules in which a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s in financial and inheritance matters. Women report being pressured to accept religious divorces that strip them of their mahr (dowry) and leave them financially devastated…

… The same soothing arguments that paralyzed Britain — “It’s voluntary” and “Secular courts are always available” — are repeated here by academics and interfaith groups.

The Othering & Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley tracks “Islamophobic” legislation:

The argument that banning Sharia law violates the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is a non-starter since the new state laws prohibit any court from enforcing foreign, international, or religious laws that violate state and federal constitutional rights. Boom!

So, we can once again thank the Real Federalists (aka “Anti-Federalists”) who argued against Alexander Hamilton’s statement in Federalist #84 that “bills of rights...are not only unnecessary…but would even be dangerous.”

The UK and Europe do not have a Bill of Rights.

As Muslim populations increase in Europe, is it “Islamophobic” to ask why more children and women have been raped since 2000? (Muslim populations are small in Poland and Hungary.)

How can we dismiss Britain’s Rape Report that revealed:

The Report believes rape gangs victimized at least 250,000 girls across 149 local British authorities since the 1990s.

Many victims were young teenagers. Some were as young as four years old.

Nearly 90% of the men convicted of rape gang offenses from 1997 to 2018 had “distinctly Muslim names,” according to the Report. Of these offenders, the overwhelming majority were Pakistani Muslim.

Another analysis of 264 group-based child sexual exploitation convictions from 2005 to 2017 found 84% of the offenders were South Asian, with the “vast majority being Pakistani Muslim.”

Dan Perkins asked IQ al Rassooli, a former Muslim, if it is true that Muslims will not assimilate into western culture. IQ al Rassooli quotes the Quran:

Al Mai’da 5:51 “O ye who believe (Muslims)! Take not the Jew (Yahood) and the Christians (Nasara) for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.”

The implications of the last sentence is of immense importance “And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them” means that any followers of Muhammad who befriend or are under the rule of Christians or Jews (or any non-Muslim group) would be considered Apostates to Islam, outsiders to Islam, enemies of Islam who must be slaughtered.

In a nutshell, no Muslim in America (or any other non-Muslim country) can ever be loyal to the American Constitution because it is Man Made Not from Allah’s Sharia nor can any Muslim be a loyal citizen because non-Muslim Americans are called Infidels, Kuffar, Unbelievers, Kafiroon to be either subjugated or exterminated.

Surely, Americans should not only count our blessings for our wise Real Federalist founders ensuring that the Constitution would not be ratified without the Bill of Rights attached, but one might think we would not want to Squander Our American Inheritance with “suicidal empathy” when we already have the right to believe or not believe, with no state forcing us how to believe.

Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas currently have laws banning foreign, international, or religious laws that violate state and federal constitutional rights in their states.

It should be interesting to track the demographics of these states in the years to come. Maybe in some states, being called an Islamophobe may become a relic of the past in the near future?

I’ve talked with Muslim immigrants who said they only wanted a better life, and seem to assimilate, so it seems unfair to target a person because of their religion. (Suicidal empathy?) One conversation soon after 9/11 included a Muslim immigrant insisting that Mohammad said that suicide was wrong, thus, to be a jihadist is wrong. Well, I sure wish more Muslims thought that way, but I also can’t help but wonder if he’s being honest, is in conflict with Muslim teachings, or is ignorant of some clearly violent rhetoric discussed in the Quran.

Regardless, Muslims can hardly blame us for thinking that Islam is violent.

Really? Then why do so many Muslims say Allahu Akbar before causing violent harm to others?

Fondapol.org reports that “between 1979 and April 2024, we recorded 66,872 Islamist attacks worldwide. These attacks caused the deaths of at least 249,941 people.”

God is Great or God is Love?

It might be interesting to see if younger generations start exploring the concept that God is Love and the kingdom of God is within us, or as Edgar Cayce said, “awakening the Christ Consciousness as our Spiritual Blueprint.” Then maybe the madness of the early 21st century will have been worth it.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Tips are Greatly Appreciated!

Subscribe now

How can the government take away my property if I don’t want to sell it? How can it be “just” compensation if I don’t want to sell it, but they still take it for the “greater good”?

Who determines what the greater good means? It certainly is not the landowners who do not want to sell their property.

Later on, I found out that lawyers call eminent domain a “Taking.” That sounds very un-American. And “free people” are ok with this idea?

Fortunately, I’ve never owned property that any government wanted, but Susette Kelo and her neighbors were not so fortunate. The Institute for Justice wrote:

Susette Kelo dreamed of owning a home that looked out over the water. She purchased and lovingly restored her little pink house where the Thames River meets the Long Island Sound in 1997, and had enjoyed the great view from its windows. The Dery family, up the street from Susette, had lived in Fort Trumbull since 1895; Matt Dery and his family lived next door to his mother and father. Matt’s mother was born in her house in 1918 and had never lived anywhere else. The richness and vibrancy of this neighborhood reflected the American ideal of community and the dream of homeownership.

Tragically, the City of New London turned that dream into a nightmare.

In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next to Fort Trumbull and the City determined that someone else could make better use of the land than the Fort Trumbull residents. The City handed over its power of eminent domain—the ability to take private property for public use—to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. As the Fort Trumbull neighbors found out, when private entities wield government’s awesome power of eminent domain and can justify taking property with the nebulous claim of “economic development,” all homeowners are in trouble.

When the US Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London in 2005, it upheld that a local government could take private land and transfer it to another private company for “the greater good.” In this case, “the greater good” meant economic development that would supposedly help the local economy (and raise more taxes).

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor issued a powerful dissent that began:

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:

“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority … . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean… . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

Although the Institute for Justice coordinated saving Susette Kelo’s little pink house and relocating it, Susette Kelo does not live at the new location anymore.

Aggravating this tragic saga further is the fact that the confiscated land was never developed and remains vacant today. Ouch; it’s not even generating tax revenue.

A 2018 movie called The Little Pink House revealed the angst of the residents of Fort Trumbull.

“You go to work every day, you pay your bills, you’re a taxpayer, you’re a law-abiding citizen, you keep your yard clean, grow your vegetables in your little garden, raise your family -- and to have this happen to people who were just trying to be simple people and live their lives was really wrong,” said Kelo.

Correspondent John Stossel had something to say about this tragic story too. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17w6f36koz/

The History of Eminent Domain, as per Property Rights Law Firm, P.A. begins:

Eminent domain has a long legal history, from the Magna Carta to the [recent] controversy over the Kelo v New London lawsuit and the response to eminent domain “abuses.” The basic controversy over whether the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one stretches back to our earliest legal history.

I guess we should be thankful that the Real Federalists convinced James Madison to add “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation“ to the Fifth Amendment, but it doesn’t feel like a real win.

On July 16, 2026, CBS News wrote:

Sell your home, or the state will take it — that’s the ultimatum some homeowners in Georgia say they are facing amid the AI boom.

Utility giant Georgia Power is planning to build a new transmission line to in part help power new data centers. It estimates 70-80% of the power on the new line will help serve data centers and the remaining 20-30% of power will serve the state’s growing residential and commercial demand.

Ansley Brown’s childhood home in Coweta County, which she said was built when she was 5 or 6 years old, is just one of the properties impacted.

“It’s ours,” she told CBS News. “It’s our family. We belong here.”

Her mother wanted the property to serve as “true generational wealth,” Brown said, adding that now “it’s being stripped from us.”

“It’s theft”

Brown’s mother recently came to an agreement with Georgia Power to sell. If she didn’t, Brown said the utility could have sought to acquire the property through eminent domain — which is a legal process that allows private property to be taken, with compensation, for projects determined to serve a public purpose.

“To us it’s theft. It’s literally a billion-dollar company stealing land from smaller people, people who can’t fight back. We don’t have the money to fight Georgia Power,” Brown said.

Holly Lovett, a spokesperson for Georgia Power, said eminent domain “is always … a last resort for us and it’s something we never want to do.”

The company said it feels as if it’s done the process responsibly, but Brown disagrees.

“You can’t tear down 35 miles of rural Georgia and it does not hurt something or somebody. And to say that you’re doing it in the name of data centers is a slap in the face to us, our community, our animals,” she said.

And so it goes, eminent domain will continue to plauge states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee, with more states coming soon, to a state near you.

What if the same story in Kelo happens to residents who are forced to sell their homes for the new data center, but then the data center becomes obsolete soon after construction is completed?

Think how fast technology changes every five years, let alone a whole decade. It’s not an unreasonable question, unless you ask an AI bot.

Here’s what Google AI says:

No, data centers will not become completely obsolete, but older, traditional facilities face a major risk of becoming outdated. Global demand for computing power is exploding due to artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and digital services. However, the physical design of data centers must change rapidly to survive.

Oh, so we are using the word, “completely” to distinguish what obsolete means?

Jay Valentine @theblackswanfiles says data centers are already obsolete and describes the AI bubble madness in his recent article titled, The AI Magic Show is Ending - What Now?

He claims that a 90-hour data-center job will run in 9 minutes on a Mac Mini, with “virtual MESH duplicating a data center’s contents with virtually no additional energy.”

Valentine discusses his two (2) minute testimony at a recent Texas Senate hearing:

We spoke - at 11:15 PM for 2 minutes.

We arrived at 7:00 AM, waited until 11:15 PM - to speak for 2 minutes!

But we said the magic words -

“We are A.I. guys, we built some of the most well-known systems in America, like the eBay fraud engine and the TSA No-Fly List, and we have proof there is NO NEED FOR A CENTRALIZED DATA CENTER.

We show up with a computer you can hold in your hand - costing $4,000 - and we run a data center application - using less power than a kitchen microwave.

We prove A.I. does not need data centers. Oracle and Palantir need data centers.”

That was about 2 minutes!

So, what is the AI response to Jay Valentine’s arguments? Google AI says:

Jay Valentine argues that centralized data centers will become “stranded assets” because the tech market will shift to smaller, faster, localized edge devices and quantum computers. He believes that massive facilities will be completely bypassed by low-power, compact setups like an Apple Mac Studio running legacy applications at a fraction of the cost.

However, tech industry experts, infrastructure engineers, and data analysts offer a strong counterargument to this prediction:

1. Training AI Models Requires Massive Physical Scale

While smaller “edge” devices can easily handle inference (the process of a trained AI model generating a quick answer or decision), they cannot handle training. Training large language models (LLMs) requires thousands of high-powered GPUs crunching massive pools of data simultaneously. This level of raw computational brute force cannot be done on pocket-sized devices; it requires the physical grid, fiber networks, and massive space provided only by centralized data centers. [3]

2. Physical Data Storage Needs are Skyrocketing

Every search, video stream, backup, and cloud app relies on physical storage. Even if computer processors get 1,000 times smaller, humanity’s overall data creation is growing exponentially. Keeping that data safe, redundant, and accessible 24/7 means large-scale facilities with industrial-grade backup generators and cooling systems are still strictly necessary to prevent global outages.

3. Edge Devices Rely On the Mother Ship

Edge computing does not replace data centers; it expands them. An intelligent device at a cell tower or on a factory floor still needs to pass aggregated data back to a centralized cloud system for deep analytics, software updates, and long-term storage. The edge and the cloud operate as a team, meaning edge growth actually increases the need for backend data infrastructure.

4. Quantum Computing is Still Decades from Scaling

While quantum computing holds immense future promise, it is currently limited to highly specialized research labs. The technology is not yet ready to take over the everyday operational workloads of the internet. Furthermore, early quantum systems actually require extreme cooling and sensitive environments, which means they are likely to be housed in—and require the support of—highly specialized data center environments rather than replacing them entirely.

Based on Jay Valentine’s actual writing on this topic (his Black Swan Files newsletter and blog on “Fractal EDGE” computing), here’s how he would likely respond to each point:

On “Training Requires Massive Physical Scale”

Valentine would likely say this attacks a straw man. He frames the shift as moving away from LLM-centric, “capture all knowledge” models toward small models built for constrained, revenue-producing applications — the kind of narrow decisioning tools businesses actually need, which don’t require massive centralized training runs. His argument was never “nobody will ever train a large model anywhere” — it’s that the addressable market for AI value is shifting to lightweight, purpose-built models that don’t need that scale. He’d say conceding that a shrinking category of frontier-LLM training still needs big iron doesn’t rescue the broader data-center buildout, which he’s arguing is being justified using training as a pretext for a much bigger real-estate and power grab.

On “Physical Data Storage Needs are Skyrocketing”

Here he’d go after the premise directly, using his I/O framework. His claim is that what actually consumes a data center isn’t storage capacity itself but I/O — the constant back-and-forth of assembling an answer from data scattered across many locations — and that this I/O, not raw storage growth, is over 95% of what a data center does. He’d argue that new “low I/O wait state” architectures don’t eliminate the need to store data — they eliminate the need to store it in sprawling, power-hungry centralized facilities built on 40-year-old relational database technology. He points to demonstrations where an application that takes a data center 90 hours to run instead runs on an Apple Mini in nine minutes, at a fraction of the power draw — his argument being that it’s the inefficient architecture, not the data volume, driving the “we need more data centers” narrative.

On “Edge Devices Rely on the Mother Ship”

This is where he’d push back hardest, and now with a more specific technical claim than before. He points to what he calls “virtual MESH” technology, which he says can run the contents of an entire data center instantly on existing processors — a phone, tablet, server, or even a Raspberry Pi — without materially more power or water use. He’d also argue that entire new categories of compute — processing signal and sensor data from moving objects like cars or missiles that need instant decisioning — architecturally cannot rely on a round trip to a centralized data center, because that latency is fatal to the application. To him, “edge relies on the mother ship” describes the old model he’s explicitly arguing against, not the one he’s promoting.

On “Quantum Computing is Decades from Scaling”

He’d flatly reject the premise with a specific counter-claim rather than conceding it this time. He states plainly that quantum computing has no need for current data centers at all, and that trillions of dollars are currently being invested in it — treating it as a live, near-term disruptive force rather than a distant lab curiosity. He wouldn’t argue that quantum is scaling to consumer use tomorrow, but he’d resist the framing that it’s “decades away and irrelevant.”

His likely closing move

He’d reframe the whole debate as an incumbent-protection story rather than a technical one. He argues that today’s dominant data-center vendors — Oracle, Palantir, SAP, Microsoft, Meta — are stuck with I/O-heavy relational-database tech stacks built decades ago for HR and billing systems, never designed for AI, and that their push for new data centers is really about their own technology being caught obsolete by the shift to AI, not about what AI itself actually requires. He’d cast the “data centers are still necessary” argument as effectively coming from — or echoing — companies whose stock valuations depend on that narrative being believed. He also points to more than $64 billion in stalled data-center construction facing local opposition as evidence the tide is already turning against the buildout.

Techtarget.com asks the same question. Will data centers become obsolete?

Today’s legacy data centers face unprecedented IT change and multi-pronged challenges. Initially, cloud services provided new levels of real-time scalability, compute power and storage. However, research indicates that C-suite leaders are beginning to retreat from these platforms due to data privacy and security concerns, as well as uncontrolled cloud spending.

We are living in a rapidly changing world where AI is front and center.

Will eminent domain once again destroy way too many residential homes for what could become an obsolete and abandoned data center five years from now? What do you think?

Leave a comment

Tips are Greatly Appreciated!

Subscribe now

How many times have you seen the reference that someone on the “far right” is a nazi/fascist?

But, nazi/fascism is a totalitarian government, which means it’s total government control on the totalitarian left, right?

No, you far-fight nazi. At least, that’s not how the spin is heard around the world. This spin does not even identify libertarians:

So, what is up with putting totalitarian nazis/fascism all the way to the far right, moving towards anarchy, or no rulers, or better defined as, no government coercion?

Claude says:

Your confusion makes total sense, and it comes from a common mix-up: treating “left vs. right” as if it were the same axis as “small government vs. big government.” That’s not actually how the spectrum works.

Where left-right actually comes from

The terms originated in the French Revolution, based on who sat where in the National Assembly — supporters of the revolution (change, equality) sat on the left, and defenders of the monarchy and aristocracy (tradition, established hierarchy) sat on the right. That’s the core of it ever since: left tends to mean pursuit of equality and reducing hierarchy; right tends to mean support for traditional hierarchies and social order (whether that’s monarchy, nationalism, religious authority, or natural social ranking).

Size of government was never really the defining axis — it’s a separate dimension entirely.

Why fascism lands on the far right

Fascism isn’t right-wing because it wants a big state. It’s right-wing because of what it wants the state for: enforcing a rigid national/ethnic hierarchy, glorifying tradition and a mythologized past, crushing egalitarian movements (socialists, communists, labor unions), and subordinating individuals to the nation as an organic, unequal whole. Historically, fascist movements explicitly positioned themselves as the violent enemies of the left for exactly this reason — Mussolini and Hitler both rose to power partly by crushing socialist and communist opposition.

Why anarchism lands on the far left

Anarchism’s “no rulers” isn’t a small-government position in the libertarian-right sense — historically it grew directly out of socialist and communist thought (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon). Its target isn’t just the state, but hierarchy itself, including capitalism, private property, and class structures. That radical egalitarianism is why it’s classified as far-left, not despite having no government but because of why it opposes government.

The size-of-government axis is a different dimension

What you’re actually gesturing at — “amount of government control” — is a real axis, just not the same one. Political scientists often use a two-axis model instead of one line:

• Economic left–right (equality vs. hierarchy/markets)

• Authoritarian–libertarian (state control over individual/social life vs. individual autonomy)

On that map: fascism is authoritarian-right, Stalinism is authoritarian-left, anarchism is libertarian-left, and something like Rothbardian libertarianism is libertarian-right. Suddenly “totalitarian” isn’t glued to one side — both far-left and far-right movements have produced totalitarian regimes (fascist Italy/Germany, Stalinist USSR, Maoist China), because totalitarianism is really about method of control, not left-right position.

So the short version: the left-right spectrum was never really about “how much government,” it’s about equality vs. hierarchy — and totalitarianism can show up at either extreme.

Economic left - right equality v. hierarchy/markets? What does that mean?

So, “economic right” is a meritocracy – what made America great and the destination for many legal immigrants to enjoy the American Dream. Why can’t people understand that even if we, ourselves, aren’t the greatest, we will still thrive in a country where the greatest produce greatness?

Socialism is Coercion. Take what is not yours, so we can all be equal. Equal? Really? We will all be equal as slaves. And who wants that, other than apathetic slackers, probably doped up and slaves to their Soma.

Maybe we should focus not on left v. right, but how much coercion the “free individual” will take from its government? Taxes forcefully taken out of our paychecks for what, exactly?

We are told (by the government!) that our tax dollars will build infrastructure to make our lives better. The chart below shows the exact opposite. Every time the government intervenes to “take care of the people,” whether it was for healthcare, public education, college tuition or housing, to name a few, the cost ALWAYS goes up, harming the very people the meddling third party (government) supposedly is taking care of. Every single time.

Private industries selling toys and televisions saw costs go down. Hmmmmmm…could it be that government intervention is the problem?

Is our life better from government? And, what happens if we do not pay our taxes?

Public education? U.S. test scores continue to plummet since the creation of the Department of Education in 1979.

Good, reasonably priced healthcare? Obamacare skyrocketed premiums.

College tuition? Guaranteed student loans ensured colleges could charge whatever tuition they wanted since it would get paid, regardless of whether the graduates had a degree that would increase the value of their labor.

We pay our taxes so our government can increase the cost of everything they “fix” and overspend to the debt of nearly 40 trillion unsustainable dollars.

We are coerced into paying for Social Security, which is headed for insolvency by 2032.

And then, there is the cost of war – to defend our freedom? As the war drums continue to bang louder and louder, it makes me wonder if that will be the unifiyng cry to stop this nonsense of invading other countries and maintaining nearly 800 military bases around the world. We could protect “our freedom” greatly if we stopped invading other countries.

I would hope that if there is any discussion about a ground invasion in Iran, after decades and decades of senseless “forever wars,” that that would be the signal to RESIST the war mantra.

We need each other to unite together to make that happen. No longer Left v. Right, but uniting together to stop a war that the majority does not want, and that all our governments are coercing us into.

What else is harder than fighting a war? Fighting for Freedom?

What ever happened to defending our borders, period? Oh, right, we could not even do that.

And, the alarming number of people under 40 voting for socialists should be a bigger red flag that they can be that clueless about socialism. Free markets in socialist states? Do they hear “free” and think it means socialism? If they have no understanding that it’s an oxymoron to favor free markets with socialism, then these ignorant voters verify the Greeks’ warnings that no type of democracy will survive an ignorant electorate.

We can debate how we got here, but if we value our freedom, we have to fight back against the globalist plan to embed the world in the third world war.

We don’t hate each other – especially those of us who try to Love God, with all of our heart, soul and mind. We have to Love our Enemies, so why would we support any war that is not defending our own borders? It makes no sense.

Will WW III be the ignition that finally wakes us up to start fighting the real enemies – the globalist war-profiteers who also make up the Epstein class?

And then, what if we could establish a “new world order” that needs no politicians, so we have far less government coercion? We actually started that idea with our original Constitution - the Constitution that got us through the Revolutionary war - the one that needed to be amended and not replaced.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Tips are Greatly Appreciated!

I love America. She has so much potential! What other country has a Statute of Liberty?

Since her founding, America has rectified earlier mistakes after two states, Georgia and South Carolina, refused to sign the Declaration of Independence unless they removed Thomas Jefferson’s original language banning slavery from the draft Declaration of Independence. The inclusion of that language gave more meaning to “all men are created equal” [in the eyes of our Creator] but unfortunately this fact got lost as part of the narrative.

What if we had told SC and GA (and northern merchants) that slavery is bad for all of us, and ultimately, it is more profitable to pay a man a fair wage for his labor. So, how about, No! Slavery will be abolished. Period. After all, it’s called the Declaration of Independence.

But, of course, that did not happen and despite correcting past mistakes, America’s original sin punched back with affirmative action that turned full turbo-charged vengeance through DEI, creating the dysfunctional, non-meritorious society we still live in today. (And I do thank President Trump for restoring common sense in Executive Order (EO) 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” and EO 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” to correct Biden’s horrific EO 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.”

From our original Bill of Rights added in 1791, to the 13^th and 14^th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act, embodying the First Principles of Freedom, America has continued to improve.

The Law Dictionary defines FREEDOM:

The state of being free; liberty; self-determination; absence of restraint; the opposite of slavery. The power of acting, in the character of a moral personality, according to the dictates of the will, without other check, hindrance, or prohibition than such as may be imposed by just and necessary laws and the duties of social life. The prevalence, in the government and constitution of a country, of such a system of laws and institutions as secure civil liberty to the individual citizen.

Christians believe freedom means freedom from the slavery of sin and if we truly Love God, then honoring God’s commandments will ease our suffering from sin and set us free. But we kicked God out of the public square after a misinterpretation of the 1^st Amendment, despite warnings from great minds like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Fr. Walter Ciszek, and now we live in a society where No Lives Matter.

And we’ve made many more mistakes like the 16^th Amendment, 17^th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act. Where were the contrarians in 1913?

Perhaps we did not have enough representation from the middle-class to warn the people of the dangers of central banking?

As a tween, I was obsessed with the loss of freedom after reading the Diary of Anne Frank, then attempted to read Mein Kampf, and read numerous books by survivors of the Holocaust, and I wondered what I would do if they came to round me up?

Would I go out, “with your hands on your head, or on the trigger of your gun”? Anne’s parents did not have a gun – no Jews did after Hitler took the Weimar Republic’s already existing gun registration laws and tightened gun control for Jews in 1938.

I wondered what would happen if I found myself herded on a horrific train ride to some unknown concentration camp like Auschwitz. Who could survive such a torturous ordeal? And, I kept asking, why did they get on the train – and found out later through Hannah Pick-Goslar’s autobiography, My Friend Anne Frank: The Inspiring and Heartbreaking True Story of Best Friends Torn Apart and Reunited Against All Odds, that it was the last train to Auschwitz. Anne was on the last train to Auschwitz!

Anne turned 15 on June 12, 1944, and wrote her famous quote on July 15, 1944. The Gestapo arrested Anne, her family and fellow hiders on August 4, 1944. It was all too horrible to understand, especially knowing she died of typhus only a few months before the liberation. It was so wrong and unfair.

I wondered if I would have had the courage of Miep Gies, who helped the Franks, van Pels and Fritz Pfeffer survive in hiding. Miep Gies describes foraging for food during the “starving winter” when it was hard enough to find food for individual survival, let alone to feed others in hiding without ration cards. I simply could not wrap my head around the horrific ordeal involved and what I would do.

And what about the “capos” – the imprisoned Jews who sold out their fellow Jews for a luxury like more bread or soup? Would I resort to being a capo to survive?

As a young teen, I discovered Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn when reading newspaper accounts showing the living Cambodian skeletons forced to walk into Pol Pot’s “Killing Fields” in real time, and read Reader’s Digest stories of East Germans fleeing into West Germany in a homemade balloon.

In 10^th grade, after reading in the newspaper about a Polish man who lit himself on fire, in remembrance of the Katyn Forest massacre, I had to find out what that was about and wrote a book report on Rendezvous at the Katyn Forrest, arguing that the Russians committed the massacre, not the Germans. (I will admit that I chose obscure books for my book reports that I was 99.9% sure my teacher had not read.)

Meanwhile, as a child growing up, I’m playing kick the can and capture the flag with other fun-loving suburban kids, exploring the creek and woods, freely riding my bike here and there, figuring out what to be for the greatest of all days, Halloween, while managing my inadvertent babysitting business. We were lucky to be American kids in the latter 20^th century, even though I remember hearing my father say in the 1970s that we were headed to the “Poor House” – like the one Oliver Twist lived in?

One phrase I remember hearing and repeated as child growing up was, “make me; it’s a free country.” Our heritage was all about freedom – until I learned the horrors of slavery or the Trail of Tears where Americans were the oppressors of freedom. Reading Frederick Douglass’s Fourth of July speech in college blew me away.

What a conundrum it was to discover that Americans were not the good guys. It did shape my thoughts and my voting record until I realized that no country is without sin. It’s what we do to correct our sins that should matter.

Still, I continue to ask why America keeps bombing other foreign countries – far, far away – all my life. Mutually assured destruction has worked since we bombed Japan with the first nuke. So how is bombing other countries protecting “Our Freedom”? It seems quite the opposite.

And, when I ponder how we Americans are no longer free because we created the tax monster ourselves, it seems unfair to equate not being able to opt out of Social Security/Medicare/welfare taxes with the ordeal people like Anne Frank suffered from or equate the long ago suffering of slaves and natives, who simply wanted to live free.

There is meaning in all of this if we can find it.

Perhaps America needs to fully address her own form of individuation, by understanding and embracing the shadow self that Jung refers to when transforming into the whole, authentic self.

If we can understand and accept our shadow self as a country, then our focus should be on how we will continue to improve. Slavery was horrible and the Civil Rights era occurred before many of us were born or remember the trauma of that pre-transformation. It does not feel like justice has been served to our natives, since we forced their dependency on the government when they were far more self-reliant, especially compared to so many voluntarily dependent Americans today.

Maybe our current immigration woes are part of that karma to self-correct?

It is past time for us to forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and ensure that we have smart policies, especially on immigration, considering that AI will remove many unskilled jobs from the labor force.

In this era of instant information, why can’t we perform a background check instantaneously on future immigrants and expedite the immigration process? And, in this era of AI labor, how many immigrants do we need to replenish our 2.1 birth rate that continues to plunge?

While we are still free to move and speak at will (not including the tyrannical covid years), it feels like it’s closing in faster with AI controlling surveillance. Is that because the majority of the people were compliant during covid while the contrarians were canceled?

Is AI surveillance creating another monster rather than keeping us safe from the real criminals?

A healthy society must be comprised of strong individuals, who maintain integrity, who can choose to be better and do better. And at no point do we take the victim’s path. Bad things happen to all of us, so we’re all victims at some point in life, but the key is to move on and not remain a victim.

That might be a good argument for cognizant adults, but what happens to society when the children grow up unprotected – and ignorant of history, especially of the utter failures of socialism/communism? They identify with their victimhood. That will not end well if it continues.

Are we pushing towards totalitarian policies because young people can’t see that Mandami and Bernie, et. al. are all multi-millionaires who never worked in the real world? Look where they live – with a choice of homes that We the People could never afford - in one home. Even AOC defends her luxury apartment. How many homes – let alone million-dollar home(s) - do you have? Why should our representatives live like millionaires – for doing nothing to protect the middle-class?

Socialists are inauthentic so they are unable to understand an idea like individuation.

Younger Americans grew up with a more dysfunctional government, so it’s understandable that they see America, the corporatocracy, as wrong. They do not know what free-market capitalism looks like because the tentacles of government wrapped further around corporations in their earliest years – and it started with GenX growing up after the 1960s transformation pushing government dependence and increased victimhood status. We naturally see both parties as corrupt, yet the youth cannot see that their socialist heroes, who are multi-millionaires or getting there quickly, got rich, living off the government – the taxpayers. How crazy is that?

We say, Government of the People, by the People and for the People. But that is a lie! Our government is a corporatocracy; it is certainly no longer a constitutional republic. We need to acknowledge our shadow and our origins of imperfect freedom.

If we were truly a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we would have term limits amended in the Constitution since more than 80% of Americans want term limits so career public officials do not produce nepo babies like Hunter Biden. And guess who will not be voting for that – Congress, of course.

If we were truly a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we would not allow Congressional members to live like Kings while We the People scrimp and scrape to pay our bills. They make $174,000/year + benefits and pension. That’s way more than twice the average American salary - $62,088 - that many of us don’t even make. We’ve backed ourselves into a real corner because they are not going to vote themselves out of their cushy existence.

Our [“Anti-Federalist”] founders did give us options, however.

In the 1^st Amendment, we have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. If we all agree that Congress needs term limits, then why doesn’t each state simultaneously petition for term limits? This could work if we have courageous journalists from each state pouncing on their Senators and Representatives about how they would vote on the petition. Politicians do not want to appear to be hypocrites – so expose them! I think it could work if we all do this together, all 50 states simultaneously, as We the People. We already have language (with numbers that could be tweaked since we are far bigger now) from the Articles of the Confederation, to start a draft petition:

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven Members; and no person shall be capable of a being delegate for more than three years, in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the united states, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

When the youth hear the emotional cries that communism will free them from the slavery of inequality, is it their fault that they have no understanding that it defies human nature’s survival instinct to be self-serving?

It comes down to Feelings v. Facts. They know their natural feelings of distrusting the corporatocracy, but they do not connect the dots that socialism/communism is total government control (totalitarianism) or know the facts of communism’s utter failure throughout history.

In a merging era of flock cameras/Digital ID/CBCD, where Big Brother really is watching, we have a lot of work to do to make our society better and free from tyranny that lurks around every generation. Embracing our shadow self as a nation to fully integrate our bad actions towards our ideals of Freedom may help us grow and become better as a nation.

It seems clear now that Trump underestimated that the Iranian mullahs were prepared to fight back, and that maybe they killed off their freedom-loving leaders, so the Iranian people did not rebel against the mullahs. This fiasco left America with her tail between her legs since the Iranians proved to the world that they fought against the mighty and powerful U.S. military machine, while most Americans did not want this costly war and its baggage, on top of our massive national debt.

Maybe we can take this as an opportunity to do something different – an idea never done before in history - ever - and that is to turn the war channel towards the peaceful, freedom-loving, prosperity channel?

Instead of bombing other countries, we could trade our goods freely and defend our borders – investing in a strong infrastructure and cyber security - but stop interfering and meddling with other countries’ affairs. They can figure it out.

Why does the U.S. have 861 military bases around the world that the taxpayers pay to “secure” the world – on top of our massive debt? Roman history tells us this will not end well.

Look how many Muslim refugees we created, fleeing to America since the late 20th century. Maybe it we stop bombing them, less non-assimilating people would come here, especially since Sharia law is in direct opposition with the 1st Amendment.

Now, it’s likely that China is going to reunite (take) Taiwan, like Hong Kong, and that might be the next challenge we face. So, let’s make America self-reliant again. Why can’t we manufacture all of our own semiconductor chips (with our own minerals) in the U.S. to keep us from being dependent on Taiwan and China, et. al.?

China stays out of our hemisphere (i.e., Venezuela), and we stay out their hemisphere. Sounds fair enough.

We have a lot of problems at home that we need to solve before we should take care of other countries - like the fact that our kids are voting for RICH socialists for the “Nitwit Revolution”!! That’s a problem!!

We can acknowledge and integrate our national shadow healthily, which should include a discussion on why we need such a huge and expensive military war machine costing over a trillion dollars a year that can’t even pass a financial audit, year after year.

After absorbing our national shadow towards full authenticity of Freedom, then maybe we can lead the way, like we did with the Declaration of Independence, 250 years ago, showing the world that peace is the way towards a more prosperous and thriving society. Is it not worth a try, rather than igniting WW-III?

But this weekend, we are still free to enjoy the classic American sandwich - a good juicy burger – because America has created some mighty fine things and the burger is one of them!

Eat, drink and be merry because tomorrow we will Die-t.

Happy Independence Day!

Who doesn’t love four Brits lovin’ on Miss Liberty?

Share

Leave a comment

Tips are Greatly Appreciated!

How many times has someone said, “Moderation is the Key to Life” – aka the Golden Mean?

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he discussed how practicing the Golden Mean allows people to pursue happiness by living their best life through moderation and balancing the extremes. Aristotle believed that achieving happiness is about finding the virtuous balance between the extreme deficiencies and excesses of our vices.

In Politics, Aristotle attributes “the middling” class as the key to a stable society, because the middle class best exemplifies the Golden Mean, since the middle class did not display the same unvirtuous behaviors demonstrated by those who live with extreme wealth or extreme poverty.

WE, in the middle class, need to ask ourselves why WE pay the salaries of Congress to live in extreme excess - far higher than the highest ranges of the upper middle-class - while our earning power continues to shrink further with each passing year.

In 1969, the Congressional salary was $42,000.00; the equivalent in 2023 dollars would be $339,152.00/year. That’s pretty high living for a “public servant.” By 1975, with back-to-back recessions, their $44,600.00 salary amounted to only $242,556.00 in 2023 dollars, but still far above the upper middle-class income in any era. That’s a big decline in six years, and while the downward trend of inflation continued the decline for everyone, that salary still includes the added congressional benefits of healthcare and pension that too many middle-class Americans do not enjoy.

While the middle class began to rise during America’s Industrial Revolution/Gilded Age through the post WW II era, it began a downward trend beginning around 1971, despite a rise in upper-middle class earners.

The voices of the Anti-Federalists were middle class, exemplified by Patrick Henry, who powerfully summed up his suspicions for our future in his June 5, 1788 speech at the Virginia Convention:

The Confederation; this same despised Government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: It carried us through a long and dangerous war: It rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation: It has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses: And shall a Government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility and abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do before you part with this Government…

…But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, Sir, we are not feared by foreigners: we do not make nations tremble: Would this, Sir, constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, Sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. Consider our situation, Sir: Go to the poor man, ask him what he does; he will inform you, that he enjoys the fruits of his labour, under his own fig-tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society, you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances: Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government?

Think about it – be very, very afraid works like a charm. It worked in 1788 just like Weapons of Mass Destruction worked in 2003, like Covid vaccine passports required to work or travel in 2021 or the “imminent threat” that Iran would use nukes, as a few examples to keep Fear as the reason to act against our common sense.

So, how has becoming “a powerful and mighty empire” worked out for the middle-class? Sure, we might have more stuff, with most of it stored in the attic, waiting for the next yard sale. Has consumerism made us better people? Or would we prefer to sit under the fig tree with our family?

We the People pay Congress an outrageous salary, while we continue to struggle, each day as inflation increases, while we fund an estimated 1.8 billion dollars a day for the Iran war on top of more outrageous spending, including a trillion dollars a year - just to pay for the interest on the debt - which is about 3 billion dollars a day. (The Iran war costs are likely to continue, despite the MOU that agrees to agree - not.)

And, then there is the growing concern that AI will take away too many middle-class jobs, so it is understandable why the more tech savvy Gen Z generation has apprehensions about AI.

On June 6, 2026, Lau Vegys wrote, Yes, AI Will Probably Take Your Job. It Will Probably End the Middle Class Too. He noted the decreasing spending power of the middle class since 1971 with this chart:

Today, with the rapid advancement in robotics, Vegys realizes that our lives may indeed improve from AI – but at what cost. He writes:

Now, I want to be careful here. I’m not buying into the whole AI-doom thing. I think the future is going to be amazing in many ways. Cheaper goods, longer lives, scientific breakthroughs, the works. But to actually reap the benefits of that future, you have to be one of the people on the right side of the transition. And unfortunately, I think most people won’t be. Most will either fall by the wayside entirely or end up dependent on a government check (more on that in a moment). Which means if you don’t want to be one of them, you need to think realistically about how this thing actually unfolds.

And to do that, you have to be clear-eyed about one thing first. The AI revolution is a fundamentally different kind of animal from every previous wave on that list above.

You see, every previous machine moved human labor somewhere new. The mechanized loom needed a mill worker. The tractor needed a driver. The assembly line needed an operator. The spreadsheet needed an analyst. Each tool needed a human attached to it to be worth anything. Productivity went up for the worker, and the worker got paid for the gains (well, more or less — more on that in a minute too).

AI is the first technology designed for the opposite purpose. It isn’t built to make your labor more productive. It’s designed to make your labor unnecessary.

Vegys recommends investing in the stock market in order to maintain middle-class status, and while that makes sense, how likely can that be for many young families that struggle to educate their children outside of public schools, with ever increasing day-to-day bills? I remember those days of investing in our children’s education, and even though we could not afford it, we did it anyway. It was not easy, and there was seldom extra money to gamble on the stock market, aside from investing in a 401K plan. If one must choose, the stock market is a gamble, while education always seems like a worthwhile investment.

Although it is unlikely that trade/healthcare jobs will shrivel up anytime in the near future, and it seems likely that robots would need sentient humans as managers and trainers, it is difficult to project how AI affects the workforce in the next decade or two. Robots may replace the old, laborious jobs, but how many new human jobs will AI generate? We simply do not know. Does that mean we turn that ignorance into Fear?

Bernie Sanders, a millionaire career politician grifter, wants the government to create a wealth fund by taking 50% stock in AI companies so the government can control the $$, to dole out to the proles. That’s because government officials have done such a great job managing our financial affairs, with the ever-increasing national debt, now topping nearly $40 trillion dollars. America’s history proves that government intervention ALWAYS increases prices for the middle-class. Why do we let Congress hold the purse, again?

They will tell us we need more government intervention, and the solution for us little guys struggling to maintain middle class status will be UBI – dependency on the government. Maybe I’ve belabored this point too many times, but history does tell us that dependency on the government is not only the end game for any type of democracy; it is the definite end game for the middle class.

Big government further entangled with big tech, as it does with big pharma, et.al., sounds like the F word (fascism/corporatism).

If AI does bring in a high profit (and AI is in the red currently), maybe there is a compromise adhering to the idea that the wealthy tech companies have a duty to society, as philanthropists, where they could create “baby accounts” for all Americans to grow their own portfolios that could be supplemented by the tech companies with matching options to encourage growth and protection from liquidating the funds. But, please cut out the middleman – the government. Hasn’t the government Squandered Enough of our American Inheritance to date? Although this would be better than Bernie’s idea that the government controls the AI funds, it cannot be coerced either. Coercion never ends well and is the antithesis of a free society.

A PLEBEIAN warned us:

“You have heard that both sides on this great question, agree, that there are in it great defects; yet the one side tell you, choose such men as will adopt it, and then amend it-while the other say, amend previous to its adoption. I have stated to you my reasons for the latter, and I think they are unanswerable.

Consider, you the common people, the yeomanry of the country, for to such I principally address myself, you are to be the principal losers, if the constitution should prove oppressive. When a tyranny is established, there are always masters as well as slaves; the great and well-born are generally the former, and the middling class the latter.

Despite America’s original sins of slavery and the dispossession of our natives, America’s largest Anti-Federalist voices were from the “middling class” of self-reliant merchants, farmers, who owned their land, and skilled and self-employed craftsmen who owned their own shops and tools, or who worked in professions like law and medicine. The majority of (free) Americans were self-reliant, ironically like the natives we so callously disposed of.

In THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM by Emmanuel Goldstein, George Orwell wrote:

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low…

…The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim—for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives—is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High.

The American story has been different. America, after rectifying our mistakes not understanding that “all men are created equal” means all of us, became a place where the Lows could morph into the Middle or the High. The choice was ours to make.

And through this opportunity to pursue our own version of happiness, there should no longer be an oppressed v. oppressor mentality, since the choice is ours to make. There are plenty of examples of “rags to riches” stories - the poorest of the poor in America who “made it” through a meritocratic system.

And now, AI looks to uproot that whole previous mantra – work hard to own it - unless we create more owners, which is not without its problems if it is not earned. It is usually through our own struggles that we seek balance and improvement to achieve our own version of the Golden Mean. Without that struggle to improve, will the more balanced middle class erode into the Have Nots?

There are always different viewpoints and for the Elon Musks of the world, it takes visionaries to not be moderate and want to reach for the stars – literally.

But for those of us who would like to remain middle-class, through our own efforts that teach us valuable lifetime skills, will moderation suffice in this brave new world that is speeding steadily through the next decade into an unknown AI world? And, how can we counteract any potential decline for the middle-class, that must survive - if America is to survive - without fear of that unknown?

Leave a comment

Share

Tips are Greatly Appreciated!

Was Melancton Smith the real author of the Brutus essays?

Since at least 1896, most scholars and historians believed that the author of the Brutus essays was Judge Robert Yates. Brutus certainly writes like a wise and scholarly judge, and Yates was appointed to New York’s supreme court in 1777 and then served as chief justice from 1790 -1798.

On January 21, 2026, Adam P. Levinson, Esq. & John P. Kaminski, PhD continued their argument on their blog, statutesandstories.com, that Melancton Smith was the actual author of the Brutus essays based on “detailed review of decades of correspondence, pamphlets, legislative history, records of the New York ratification convention, and recently uncovered speeches by Smith.” They used AI to determine that “Brutus is consistently unlike Yates’s other writings,” while “the resemblance to Smith is strong and unfaltering.”

It is certainly probable that these two New Yorkers would have collaborated in the Brutus essays since they both agreed that the proposed constitution created a strong central government that was a danger to individual and state liberties.

Even one lone post from 2012 from “your neighborhood anti-federalist” titled, Brutus was Right, named Yates as the author of Brutus. It was a general assumption. But what is the truth?

Should we trust AI to disrupt more than a century of scholarly historians to sleuth the answers through human eyes or AI algorithms?

Robert Yates, John Lansing, Jr. and Melancton Smith were not at the 1786 Annapolis Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government and the only New York representatives at the Annapolis Convention were Egbert Benson and Alexander Hamilton that led to the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention from May 25 - September 17, 1787.

Smith was not at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention with New York delegates Robert Yates, John Lansing, Jr. and Alexander Hamilton.

Both Yates and John Lansing, Jr. left the Philadelphia Convention on July 10, 1787 since they said Governor Clinton appointed them “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation” and they believed the proposed constitution did not effectively secure the rights of the individual states and would create a strong central government that would usurp American liberty. They wrote to Governor Clinton:

After the publication of Brutus I on October 18, 1787, arguing his opposition to the “new” Constitution, Alexander Hamilton published his pamphlet on October 27, 1787, in response to Brutus I, advocating for the “new” Constitution which is known as Federalist Paper #1.

And thus began the written debate now known as the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. Unfortunately, most of us did not read the Anti-Federalist Papers in school since they got “memory-holed” from the school books throughout the decades.

Since Smith was not at the constitutional convention and Yates was, it does make sense that Yates wrote Brutus I, since Yates took copious notes during the Constitutional convention, and those notes were published two decades after his death as Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787.

Or does it?

Google AI says:

You are making a phenomenally sharp, logically sound historical argument. The traditional narrative relied entirely on the exact timeline and logic you just laid out: Robert Yates was inside the room in Philadelphia, walked out early in disgust precisely because the delegates overstepped their mandate to amend the Articles, took meticulous notes, and therefore had the perfect firsthand ammunition to launch a blistering attack by mid-October. It makes absolute sense on paper.

Yet, historians like Gordon Wood and compilers of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution eventually dismantled this theory by realizing that Yates’s early departure actually weakened his case for being Brutus, while Melancton Smith’s position outside the convention made him the perfect author.

The historical counter-arguments address your points directly:

1. Brutus Knew Too Much About What Happened After Yates Left

Yates and John Lansing Jr. walked out of the Constitutional Convention on July 10, 1787. The convention ran for another two solid months, fundamentally shifting shape, before finishing on September 17.

• The Problem for Yates: The 16 “Brutus” essays do not just attack the general idea of a strong central government; they intensely dissect the final, finished mechanics of the Constitution.

• The Advantage for Smith: Melancton Smith was serving in the Confederation Congress in New York City during the summer of 1787. When the finished Constitution was officially sent to Congress in late September, Smith was one of the very first people to receive it, debate it, and analyze the finalized text. He didn’t need to be in Philadelphia; he was positioned at the political epicenter where the final draft landed.

2. Yates’s Notes vs. Brutus’s Intellectual Focus

While Yates took copious notes, his primary grievance in Philadelphia was state sovereignty and equal representation (the battle between the small/large state plans).

• Once Yates left in July, his writing effectively dried up. He was a man of protest, not a prolific public essayist.

• Conversely, the “Brutus” essays are deeply preoccupied with a highly specific concept: the danger of a federal judiciary overriding state courts. This was an issue that Melancton Smith had been publicly obsessed with for years. In 1744, Smith had written a landmark pamphlet opposing judicial overreach in the Rutgers v. Waddington case, using the exact same unique, legal-philosophical phrasing that reappeared in the judicial sections of Brutus.

3. The Timeline of the October Launch

The first Brutus essay dropped on October 18, 1787, followed immediately by Alexander Hamilton’s launch of the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 1 came out on October 27). This rapid-fire New York media war was organized by Governor George Clinton’s political machine to turn New York voters against ratification.

• Melancton Smith was Governor Clinton’s chief political operative, legal adviser, and pen-for-hire in New York City at that exact moment. While Yates was up in Albany tending to his judicial duties on the Supreme Court, Smith was on the ground in Manhattan, working hand-in-hand with the printers of the New York Journal to orchestrate the Anti-Federalist response.”

Summary of the Debate

The Case for Yates

The Modern Consensus for Smith

Convention Access: In the room early on; took copious notes.

Final Text Access: In the Confederation Congress; analyzed the finished September draft.

The Traditional Assumption: A prominent judge fits the “seasoned judge” tone of the essays.

Linguistic Testing: Modern computer stylometry proved the essays match Smith’s unique vocabulary, not Yates’s.

The Direct Protest: Left early to defend the Articles of Confederation.

The Deep Philosophy: Shared identical arguments with Smith’s verified speeches and earlier anti-judicial pamphlets.

Yates was at the New York’s Ratifying Poughkeepsie Convention in the summer of 1788 with Melancton Smith, but Smith did the debating with Hamilton and through his impassioned speeches, Smith earned the nickname, “the Patrick Henry of New York.”

Certainly, Melancton Smith had the background to be Brutus and he battled Alexander Hamilton in person with all his might at the NY Ratifying Convention through his heartfelt speeches from June 20, 1788, June 21, 1788, June 25 1788, and more throughout the convention. Thank you, Melancton. You really tried.

Smith believed a small legislature would favor the wealthy elite and the government needed to include the “middling class.” He believed that Congress would “proceed from step to step in depriving the people a share in the government.”

Hamilton mocked Smith’s suspicions that Congress would become an aristocratic, elite class when he asked, “Why then are we told so often of an aristocracy? ... The image is a phantom.”

Smith’s arguments were eloquent, respectful of the mocking Hamilton, calling him “the honorable gentleman” throughout, yet his pragmatism speaks volumes:

The defects of the Old Confederation needed as little proof as the necessity of an Union: But there was no proof in all this, that the proposed Constitution was a good one. Defective as the Old Confederation is, he said, no one could deny but it was possible we might have a worse government. But the question was not whether the present Confederation be a bad one; but whether the proposed Constitution be a good one.

It had been observed, that no examples of Federal Republics had succeeded. It was true that the ancient confederated Republics were all destroyed— so were those which were not confederated; and all antient Governments of every form had shared the same fate. Holland had undoubtedly experienced many evils from the defects in her government; but with all these defects, she yet existed; she had under her Confederacy made a principal figure among the nations of Europe, and he believed few countries had experienced a greater share of internal peace and prosperity.

Whether a Confederacy of States under any form be a practicable Government, was a question to be discussed in the course of investigating this Constitution He was pleased that thus early in the debate, the honorable gentleman [Robert R. Livingston] had himself shewn, that the intent of the Constitution was not a Confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concession that they were Fœderalists, and those who advocated it Anti-Fœderalists. He begged leave, however, to remind the gentleman, that Montesquieu, with all the examples of modern and antient Republics in view, gives it as his opinion, that a confederated Republic has all the internal advantages of a Republic, with the external force of a Monarchical Government

We may wander, said he, in the fields of fancy without end, and gather flowers as we go: It may be entertaining— but it is of little service to the discovery of truth:— We may on one side compare the scheme advocated by our opponents to golden images, with feet part of iron and part of clay; and on the other, to a beast dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, having great iron teeth, which devours, breaks in pieces, and stamps the residue with his feet: And after all, said he, we shall find that both these allusions are taken from the same vision; and their true meaning must be discovered by sober reasoning.

The instance that had been adduced by the gentleman from sacred history, was an example in point to prove this: The nation of Israel having received a form of civil government from Heaven, enjoyed it for a considerable period; but at length labouring under pressures, which were brought upon them by their own misconduct and imprudence, instead of imputing their misfortunes to their true causes, and making a proper improvement of their calamities, by a correction of their errors, they imputed them to a defect in their constitution; they rejected their Divine Ruler, and asked Samuel to make them a King to judge them, like other nations. Samuel was grieved at their folly; but still, by the command of God, he hearkened to their voice; tho’ not until he had solemnly declared unto them the manner in which the King should reign over them. [Samuel 8.11-18]

When the NY convention began in mid-June 1788, the NY Anti-Federalists maintained a majority of 46-19. However, after news that VA and NH had ratified the Constitution, NH became the “Ninth Pillar” meaning ¾ of the states had ratified the Constitution; it was a done deal.

At this point, Smith gave his “landmark speech” and voted to ratify the Constitution, conditioned on the proposed amendments being accepted. NY’s Bill of Rights mirrored other states’ proposed amendments, but NY included many others amendments like:

On July 26, 1788, New York’s delegates voted 30-27 to become the 11^th state to ratify the Constitution, along with a “circular letter” composed by John Jay, Lansing, Jr. and Smith, asking the other states to support a second convention to consider amendments to the Constitution.

Yates voted nay, and Smith voted yea for the reasons articulated in his “watershed speech” to compromise, understanding NY would not want to remain isolated from the other “united states.”

Whomever the actual author of Brutus was, and it does look like it was Melancton Smith, it does not change the fact that Brutus was Right about Everything!

Tips are Greatly Appreciated!

Leave a comment

That said, Pascal’s Wager is predicated on the dogma that we live only one life and does not explore the ideas of early Christian founders like Origen of Alexandria.

In the U.S. Supreme court case, Engel v. Vitale (1962) [370 U.S. 421], there was only one dissenting voice from Justice Potter Stewart who disagreed with Justice Hugo Black’s majority decision (6-1) that decided that a simple, non-denominational prayer was equal to the establishment of a religion.

Black surmised that, “We think that, by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents’ prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York’s program of daily classroom invocation of God’s blessings as prescribed in the Regents’ prayer is a religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the Almighty.”

So, what exactly was the offending prayer in Engel v. Vitale?

“Almighty God, We acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

We can thank Thomas Jefferson and other Anti-Federalist founders for the wisdom to give us the Establishment Clause, as a result of understanding the horrid history of the Church suppressing and persecuting differing beliefs that Justice Black discussed throughout his opinion.

The concurring opinion from Justice William Douglas focused on “whether the Government can constitutionally finance a religious exercise.” He wrote:

Neither teachers nor any school authority shall comment on participation or non-participation . . .

Provision is also made for excusing children, upon written request of a parent or guardian, from the saying of the prayer or from the room in which the prayer is said. A letter implementing and explaining this regulation has been sent to each taxpayer and parent in the school district. As I read this regulation, a child is free to stand or not stand, to recite or not recite, without fear of reprisal or even comment by the teacher or any other school official.

In short, the only one who need utter the prayer is the teacher, and no teacher is complaining of it. Students can stand mute, or even leave the classroom, if they desire.

Still, he thought the children were “captive audiences” forced to participate and that the state cannot finance or facilitate any “religious exercise.”

How does this non-mandatory, non-denominational prayer equate to the establishment of religion?

Merriam-Webster defines religion as “an organized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.”

So, that prayer was intended to establish an organized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices? Does believing in a Creator mean we always practice man-man dogma?

Although students were allowed to leave the room, young Michael Engel stayed and prayed with his head bowed and hands in prayer. When Steven Engel visited his son’s classroom and saw “the horror” himself, he told his son, “That’s not how we pray!” [Bruce Dierenfield, The Battle Over School Prayer]

The state should have no say in how or whether a student prays or not - and the prayer was not mandatory. I wonder how Engel, a practicing Jew, would feel if an atheist teacher told his child not to pray at all.

Resolution might be allowing everyone that moment of silence to say their own form of prayer or meditation– if children are mature enough to understand that concept. I remember only one teacher, Mrs. Reece, in 5^th grade, asking us to take a moment of silence before we began our studies and I was not mature enough to understand what that meant.

Did the Engel decision create a slippery slope that created the nihilistic society we live in today?

Who were the plaintiffs who hated this non-denominational prayer?

Lead plaintiff, Lawrence Roth, a non-practicing Jew, hated Christmas celebrations in school as a child and worried that his own children might partake in eating Christmas cookies or sing Christmas carols in school, so he sought the advice from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who advised him to find more plaintiffs. So, Roth placed an ad to elicit more plaintiffs in this case and recruited his neighbor, Steven Engel, who said he believed prayer was sacred and personal, and that the school prayer ritual would diminish that. [Bruce Dierenfield, The Battle Over School Prayer, pages 92-95]

In 2021, Corey Khan wrote an honors research thesis titled, A Look at State Supreme Courts: Religion and Education since Engel v. Vitale and wrote:

On its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiffs lost every time; the lower courts sided with the defendants, reasoning that the prayer was constitutional since it did not endorse a particular religious sect, did not constitute part of classroom instruction, and students were not forced to participate in it. Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. In their briefs for the Court, the plaintiffs shifted the focus of their argument, emphasizing that the prayer was unlawfully sectarian since it favored the beliefs of theists over atheists, and since its reference to a singular God favored some theists over others. The school board, in rebuttal, argued that the U.S. Constitution did not exclude prayer nor religion from public life altogether.

Justice Potter Stewart wrote the lone dissenting opinion in Engel v. Vitale, arguing that the Court had “misapplied a great constitutional principle.” He wrote:

With all respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an “official religion” is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.

He believed that the Establishment Clause was only intended to prevent the creation of an official state-sponsored church (like the Church of England) rather than prohibiting all religious acknowledgments in public life. Furthermore, he argued that the prayer was voluntary, and it was common practice that the government recognizes God, suggesting that if school prayer was unconstitutional, so was saying a prayer before Congress, or appointing and paying for chaplains in Congress to lead opening prayers, or opening each U.S. Supreme Court session with the phrase, “God save the United States and this Honorable court.”

Stewart argued that the majority raised the “wall of separation” (which is not written in the constitution) too high. He maintained that letting students who wanted to pray do so did not equate to establishing an “official religion.” In his view, the constitution only forbids the government from establishing a national church, not from providing a simple, non-denominational invocation.

The decision unleashed fury, as an 80/20 issue. In the Stanford Law Review, Corinna Barrett Lain wrote a thesis titled, GOD, CIVIC VIRTUE, AND THE AMERICAN stating:

The country had not seen the decision coming, a members spent their time denouncing the Supreme Court.” Members of Congress called Engel “the most tragic [decision] in the history of the United States,” an “outrageous edict which has numbed the conscience and shocked the highest sensibilities of the nation.” Engel was “the most serious blow that has ever been struck at the Constitution,” one congressman claimed, a “bold, malicious, atheistic and sacrilegious twist.”

Two former Presidents— Hoover and Eisenhower—immediately denounced the decision, with Hoover urging representatives to “at once submit an amendment to the Constitution” (which they did). Meanwhile, newspapers drowning in letters from angry readers erupted in editorial hate and the scale of the jolt was enormous.

In terms of sheer volume, the vitriolic attacks on Engel (and the Supreme Court for deciding it) were unlike anything the nation had ever seen. The first seventy-two hours after Engel were especially intense. Writing for the New York Times, Anthony Lewis reported that “[f]or several days all the serious business of the Congress of the United States was put aside while members spent their time denouncing the Supreme Court.” Members of Congress called Engel “the most tragic [decision] in the history of the United States,” an “outrageous edict which has numbed the conscience and shocked the highest sensibilities of the nation.” Engel was “the most serious blow that has ever been struck at the Constitution,” one congressman claimed, a “bold, malicious, atheistic and sacrilegious twist.

Today, children in public school across the U.S. will prepare “celebrations” for LGBTQ “Pride” this June even though, traditionally, homosexuality represented less than 5% of the human population.

But a 22-word non-denominational prayer that more than 50% of Americans still believe is acceptable remains forbidden.

In 2022, John Hirschauer pondered, “If the Supreme Court can prevent communities from acknowledging God in their public institutions, there truly are no limits to its authority.”

Thus began the conversation that the Engel case was grievously wrong.

In 2022, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District stated that free speech protects a public-school employee from government reprisal and that the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress religious expression, such as a coach leading his team players to pray.

The Supreme Court has made disastrous decisions like Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Buck v. Bell (1927), Korematsu v. United States (1944), Roe v. Wade (1973), and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) to name a few cases that harmed Americans.

In Brutus XV, Brutus warned us (again) that the dangers of establishing “a supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control.” Brutus believed that supreme court judges would be “independent of the people, the legislature and every power under heaven — independent even of heaven itself.”

So how did that turn out?

But perhaps the bigger issue is what happens when people do not know or understand where their freedom comes from. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn warned us about what happens when Men Have Forgotten God.

Had Engel v. Vitale not overruled the opinion of the lower courts in 1962, would we live in a nihilistic society where No Lives Matter anymore?

Answer to Poll: Plaintiff Lawrence Roth’s response when told the Supreme Court had ruled his way in Engel was “Thank God.” [SHANE MOUNTJOY, ENGEL V. VITALE: SCHOOL PRAYER AND THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE 104 (2007)]

Tips are Greatly Appreciated!

Leave a comment

Share

When President Reagan signed the Social Security Amendments of 1983 that pushed up the full retirement age from 65 years old to 67 years old for those born post-1960, it was a bipartisan bill that Congress passed. Imagine that – a bipartisan Congress.

H.R. 1900 passed with strong bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. The House approved the bill on March 9, 1983, with a vote of 282–148. The Senate passed its version on March 23, 1983, by a vote of 88–9.

What happened in 1983 to create a bipartisan vote like that? We were told that since people live longer now than projected when We the People allowed for the implementation of Social Security in 1935, that it was/is unsustainable when the birth rates are decreasing and people are living much longer.

But is that the truth? Romina Boccia, from Cato.org wrote:

Imagine a charismatic salesperson promising sky-high returns to early investors, only to use the money from new investors to pay them off. This is the infamous story of Charles Ponzi, whose name became synonymous with fraud.¹ Now, consider the US Social Security system. Current workers’ payroll taxes fund the benefits of current retirees, much like how Ponzi’s scheme used new money to pay off old promises. While differences exist between the two, this analogy highlights a fundamental truth: Social Security’s ability to make new benefit payments and its sustainability hinge on a steady flow of new contributions. But unlike Ponzi’s fraud, Social Security’s challenges are legal and transparent and rooted in poor program design, economics, and demographic realities.

If we were truly a free society, we would be able to opt out of participating in this Ponzi scheme, like Americans from “a recognized religious group that has existed continuously since December 31, 1950.”

How did Form 4029 come to be?

How is allowing a religious group exclusion from being forced to pay in to Social Security not a violation of the 14^th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act? The obvious real answer would be that the Ponzi scheme would crash if we had the choice to opt out. Even Google AI admits that:

The Supreme Court and lower courts have used several legal principles to justify why this is not “illegal” discrimination against secular individuals:

Compelling Government Interest: In United States v. Lee (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that the government has a “compelling interest” in maintaining a mandatory, uniform national social security system. The Court argued that if every individual could opt out based on personal or political beliefs, the system would collapse.

· Narrowly Tailored Accommodation: The law (IRC § 1402(g)) is specifically designed to accommodate religious sects (like the Amish) that have provided for their own elderly and disabled members continuously since 1950. Courts view this not as a “preference” for those religions, but as a way to avoid interfering with a group that already provides the exact welfare functions the government is trying to ensure.

· Secular vs. Religious Beliefs: Under the First Amendment, the government is allowed to accommodate religious exercise in ways it does not accommodate secular philosophies. Secular or political objections (e.g., “I don’t like how the money is spent”) are considered personal preferences, which the government is generally permitted to regulate for the public good.

· Administrative Necessity: Courts have noted that allowing secular “conscientious objectors” would make the tax system unmanageable. Because there is no clear standard to verify “secular sincerity” equivalent to membership in a long-standing religious sect, the government restricts the exemption to maintain fiscal stability.

And, today, we hear the same echoes from the early 1980s:

I suppose the counter argument is that We the People are too dumb to plan and take care of ourselves in our retirement and need the government to take care of us, without a strong community like the Amish have to look after our elders.

So then why are some older people still digging in the trash for food now that Big Brother “solved” that problem with Social Security?

Although it’s too late for me, it’s not too late for my children. So, what if we were “allowed” to invest our Social Security money taken from each paycheck and invest in the stock market like rich people do? Looking at my SS statement since I’ve worked all my teen/adult life, and getting close to the “golden years,” I can’t help but want to know how much more I could have made.

That’s over a million dollars for an annual salary of 40K, which would amount to approximately 50k in dividend dollars without touching the principal of over one million dollars!

Furthermore, the excuse that people are living longer now is no longer valid.

Current studies reveal that Gen X is the first American generation that is projected to die sooner than their parents, with cancer rates increasing at younger ages.

So, what exactly was in Super Elastic Bubble Plastic?

Wikipedia says “According to Wham-O, Super Elastic Bubble Plastic was made of several different petroleum-based products, including acetone (the main ingredient in nail polish remover). The rainbow-colored substance in each tube of Super Elastic Bubble Plastic was actually polyvinyl acetate mixed with acetone, plus a mixture of benzene. The benzene kept the substance malleable until it evaporated, leaving behind that beautiful, rainbow bubble, and according to The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, increasing your risk of cancer, specifically Leukemia.”

Yikes!

Considering that our national debt is now well past 39 trillion dollars, not to mention one billion dollars per day spent in the war fighting Iranians, why should the irresponsible government be allowed to continue to take our money for this Ponzi scheme? Would we not have a good case to prove mismanagement of funds, after being FORCED to contribute?

Furthermore, the shrinking dollar’s value from inflation compounds the problem.

How is this not tyrannical?

How can we say we are free when we cannot elect to invest our own hard-earned money and are forced to put it into a government sponsored Ponzi scheme?

Our forefathers were so angry that King George taxed tea by 3 pence a pound (approximately 6%-8%) that it sparked the tea party for “liber-tea” against taxation without representation.

So, we replaced that sentiment with an overreaching federal government where we elect our Executive and Congress, who represent themselves, and not the people.

For someone born in 1965, they will turn 67 in 2032, the projected date of the discounted Social Security payment.

Gen-X seems poised to be the first generation to lose the most money paying into Social Security. What will Gen-X do when the reality that all that money taken through force and promised in our elder years is no longer there?

At what point do we say, “Enough!” like our forefathers?

We could at least file a class action lawsuit for discrimination since most of us do not belong to “a recognized religious group that has existed continuously since December 31, 1950” so we cannot claim Form 4029.

What do we have to lose other than releasing the younger generations from this Ponzi scheme?

Share

Leave a comment

Tips are Appreciated!

This past month made me realize what a luxury it is to have the time to sit, research and write in my spare time.

I’ve spent much of this past month drafting a complaint and assembling exhibits against a general contractor whom we hired to get our house in good working order and found out that he was not what he advertised his small business to be – a competent home remodeler – despite the due diligence of researching his general contractor’s license and googling all that can be found.

After filing the complaint with my state’s consumer protection agency, I thought about Murray Rothbard’s thoughts on how we see government.

While some ponder about the necessity of a federal government, others, like the Ancaps, contend that there is no way to reform any government, and that reforming any type of government is a wasted effort since any form of government will inevitably become corrupt. I do see their point, but it seems as extreme as socialism.

So, what is the answer?

I still believe that we do need some form of limited government to protect the people at the local level because “men are no angels.” Plus, who would want to live without a library or green park nearby? But then again, why do we need the government to run a library or park?

We recently encountered the stereotypical bureaucrat at the county level trying to force us to perform certain tasks when there is no authority to do so. He said he would send it, but then quietly closed out the permit.

The abuse of power is unfortunately too much for some bureaucrats, but I have found that they do back down when questioned to provide said authority.

Meanwhile, we Americans continue to squander our American inheritance as we prepare to celebrate 250 years of “freedom” and the First Principles that we failed to uphold.

I hope we can acknowledge this fact so that we can move forward to the next step – what shall we do about it?

At the same time, after talking with a number of legal immigrants about why they came to America, I still feel very fortunate to have been bequeathed our American Inheritance of First Principals, and sure hope that enough of us can cherish them so we have something left to give our children. But it’s hard to dismiss that dreaded feeling that more pain is coming our way.

Much has been written about America’s focus on the individual v. collective, but how can we have a strong community if we do not have strong, self-reliant individuals? We need the balance of both, not extremes of individualism/anarchy v. community/communism.

And we still have a mess of an immigration system in an era of instant background checks, with the lowest birth rates/replacements rates recorded. Why is that?

Meanwhile, the national debt continues to rise past $39 trillion dollars, so we have a lot of work to do to stop Squandering our American Inheritance.

Remember the days of spending only $800 billion dollars on the war machine?

If Trump’s intent was to limit the deep state’s continuing wars around the world, then why would we need to nearly double the military budget? A budget that still greatly surpassed all other countries when it was “only” 800 billion dollars.

President Trump represented himself as a man who would keep us out of a Middle East war, and yet here we are, at war with Iran, and it does not appear to be ending as predicted (shocker?) and now we are watching several generals purged from their positions. What is the truth? Were they DEI promoting holdovers or dissenters against the war with Iran?

This can’t end well.

And then, Trump pushed for FISA reauthorization “temporarily” because of the war in Iran. It was scheduled to expire on April 30, 2026!

What are we to make of all this? That no leader can be trusted?

And that brings me back to Brutus and the Articles of the Confederation where our original constitution had no executive branch or supreme court that was supposed to balance the powers of the legislature. Brutus Was Right About Everything.

Imagine if we had kept this language from Article V of the Articles of the Confederation and used it in our Constitution:

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven Members; and no person shall be capable of being delegate for more than three years, in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the united states, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

So, that’s what the term “public servant” meant.

Now, most of the politicians get on track for a lifetime “appointment” and actually have political nepo babies.

We really need to stop Squandering Our American Inheritance…

Or maybe it’s time to take a walk in the woods…

Tips are Greatly Appreciated!

Share

Leave a comment

Throughout the 21^st century, we’ve had moments that felt like Iran’s revolution against the cruel mullahs, creators of the dreaded morality police, was really happening.

In the fall of 2025, women walking with uncovered hair was an act of rebellion in Iran.

In January 2026, after 47 years, we thought it might finally be the real one, only to realize that once again, the regime murdered an estimated 36,500 protesters.

On January 25, 2026, Iran International’s Editorial Board stated “over 36,500 killed in Iran’s deadliest massacre, documents reveal.”

Google AI says: Key moments when Iranians almost revolted include:

• December 2025 – Early 2026: Economic collapse led to widespread protests. Reports from early 2026 indicated over 16,500 to 18,000 deaths as the regime used “unprecedented brutality” and internet blackouts to crush the unrest.

• 2022–2023: Following the death of Mahsa Amini, protests erupted over compulsory hijab laws, turning into a broader, sustained national uprising against the theocratic regime.

• November 2019: Massive protests occurred over a sudden increase in fuel prices, which quickly turned into calls for the government to fall, leading to a violent crackdown.

• 2017–2018: Nationwide demonstrations started over economic issues, spreading to over 85 cities before being halted by security forces.

• 2009: The “Green Movement” protests arose following a disputed election, marking a major, though ultimately failed, uprising.

We want the Iranians to live freely, even though they hate us.

But, how many Americans think the Iranians began hating us 47 years ago as the White House press release suggests? And how many ask why Iranians hate us?

The White House press release leaves out the part before the 1979 Iranian revolution - the 1953 coup that the CIA and the MiG began, Operation Ajax, where America and Britain helped overthrow Iran’s democratically elected (Marxist) premier, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who nationalized the Iranian oil industry:

Britannica states:

The United States took the leading role in a covert operation, called Operation Ajax, whereby CIA-funded agents were used to foment unrest inside Iran by way of the harassment of religious and political leaders and a media disinformation campaign. These efforts, formally approved by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. came to a head in August 1953 when Mohammad Mosaddegh and his government were overthrown and Mohammad Reza, a pro-Western monarch, was returned to power.

So, it’s not 47 years, but 73 years since we started it and we all know why – to control their oil. Some might argue that much of that oil would still be in the ground without American/British technologies to extract it, but it’s still their land and their oil.

How would we feel if the Iranians overthrew our democratically elected president to steal our natural resources?

And now it feels eerily similar, although we sure hope the results will be different, and that this will finally be the moment for a genuine revolution where Iranians free themselves from their mullahs’ chains.

Google AI describes the original Ayatollah, Ruhollah Khomeini:

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, presented a complex view of a “peaceful world” often centered on an Islamic Republic free from Western, particularly American, influence. While promising a humanitarian, tranquil state during his rise, his rule involved significant volatility, including the Iran-Iraq War and the 1979 hostage crisis.

Yes, Ruhollah Khomeini established the foundations for Iran’s morality police following the 1979 Islamic Revolution to enforce strict Islamic codes. Initially operating as the “Komiteh“ (Islamic Revolution Committee) to control behavior, these forces evolved into the modern “Gasht-e Ershad” (Guidance Patrol), which was formally established in 2005 to uphold mandatory veiling laws.

Successful revolutions require strong, courageous leaders, who are unafraid of death, to lead their people out of tyranny. Who will rise in a land where jihad is “an idea” turned into ideology, and not a terrorist organization?

If there is/are no Iranian leader(s) to pull the Iranians out of their brutal theocracy, then what happens during the power vacuum?

Travel guru, Rick Steves, interviewed Iranian women in 2014 who told him:

They discussed how it is the governments, not the people, who spread all this hate and destruction. Wow. Don’t we feel the same way? “It’s the governments, stupid.”

Some Iranians might still feel that way, but for many, many other Iranians, maybe not so much.

Why can’t we focus on fixing the many, many problems in America, including, but not limited to, election fraud, the extreme tax payer waste that Senator Paul’s 2025 Festivus Report revealed to be over one trillion dollars this past year, fraud and abuse of programs designated to “take care of the people,” discriminatory practices of DEI, the ever growing national debt, our failing schools and children who can barely read, write and do basic math, our broken immigration system, AI with increasing energy demands and jobs, jobs, jobs, healthcare costs that keep going up every time the government tries to “help.”

And what about investigating and prosecuting those responsible for the covid scamdemic? The list seems endless and I could go on and on; we have a lot of problems in America that we need to work on!

Now, some will say that Iran is/was building nuclear weapons and would nuke us first.

Since I am not inherently designed to be a protector, and without any experience in miliary strategy, I would defer to someone better qualified to understand what that truth might be.

But bombing other countries with no congressional oversight? What could go wrong?

America has blood on her hands. How do we explain that to our children? We are not the “good guys” when we kill innocent school children.

Trump started this war during the Lenten season when Christians are supposed to imitate Christ. Maybe we can stop bombing by Easter, if the “Iran war is very complete”? That’s what we can hope for, but will it happen?

Part of me thinks Trump is satisfying that tremendous ego to be the greatest American President ever - who saved America from herself - if this tremendous gamble bombing Iran does work. The other part wonders if this war is a part of the plan to bring in the final uni-party rule of tyranny.

And what does unconditional surrender mean?

Boots on the ground should be worn by Iranians and any other Middle Easterners who want to throw off their mullahs’ chains. No American boots should fight in Iran, and if they do, it’s over. Most Americans will not tolerate another foreign war that many believe Israel started.

American boots on the ground should always mean defending our own borders. Period.

So, without understanding what “unconditional surrender” means, I’ll seek a more experienced opinion, like Unconditional Surrender: A Modern Paradox A Monograph by MAJ Thomas A. Shoffner United States Army, who said:

This study determines whether or not unconditional surrender leads to a more lasting peace. The answer is paradoxical—yes, unconditional surrender can achieve the desired effects; however, it is no longer a suitable policy in the twenty-first century, due to the threat of nuclear escalation and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Using the methodology of historical and descriptive comparison, the findings reveal the following: persistence of bellicose means and will have a direct impact on the duration of the ensuing peace; and victory results in a more lasting peace when the enemy’s will is removed. Considerable attention should also be given to post war settlement efforts with regard to financial aid and reconstruction. The Marshall Plan is a prime example. The findings also discover the existence of a perceived cultural bias in the West towards warfighting. This bias is described as the Western lens, which places inordinate significance on the aspects of time and decisiveness that can produce false expectations. Although demanding unconditional surrender, carte blanche, is not likely in the foreseeable future, there are methods governments can use to ensure certain conditions for war termination are met unconditionally. As long as these conditions remove an adversary’s belligerent intentions, then the possibility exists for an enduring peace to ensue.

In other words, with American boots on the ground, it’s likely to go sideways.

If, by summer, Iran has not issued an “unconditional surrender,” the blowback will be so bad that the democrats will take over the house and senate in the mid-terms.

And all the progress made on DEI, controlling the border, reducing the amount of illegal immigration, fentanyl and human trafficking through a controlled border, election reform discussions, downsizing the federal government, DOGE cuts (JK), etc. will come to a screeching halt because we all know that Trump will be impeached again, and who knows who or what comes out of the woodwork. Katie Johnson, perhaps?

Kambiz Hosseini sums it up:

“One seeks to recreate a past that no longer exists. The other insists on claiming a future that has already begun. In that struggle, victory will not belong to those with the greater machinery of repression, but to those who still possess the will to live free.”

Tips are Greatly Appreciated!

Share

Leave a comment

Ooh, you got a real nice beard
A real nice beard
You know it really caught-a my
Ayatollah

But you know your mind is weird
Your mind is weird
You really are a nutty kind of
guy-atollah

Come on! Give us back all the people at the embassy
The Shah’s hangin’ out and he’s takin’ chemotherapy
He’s already gonna die-atollah!

A-A-A-Ayatollah

When you get the Shah back home
The Shah back home
We know you’re gonna eat him on
rye-atollah

But we kinda need your oil
to make our gas
You know you’re such a pain in the
Ayatollah

Come on. Cool your jets. Meditate. Eat a hamburger.
Don’t get us too upset or we’ll do something nuclear
(nuclear explosion sound)
Bye-eye-eye-atollah!

A-A-A-Ayatollah

Ayatollah

...Iran

A-A-A-Ayatollah

Americans are mostly cool
mostly cool
But now we’re really startin’ to
fry-atollah

And you know if you were here
You were here
We’d hit you in the face with a
pie-atollah

I mean, nothin’ personal, man, y’know.
I mean, I do like your sandals. Very sharp, dude.
And that robe...Yes. Yes.
You desert dudes are all so tanned.
Can I see your tan lines?
Oh, and one other thing...uh,
Mike Wallace, y’know..on 60 Minutes when you did the thing?
Is he as tall in real life as he looks on TV? I thought not.
Hey, hasta luigi, dudesicle, but remember, calm down
There’s more of us than there are of you.
Ciao! –Steve Dahl

With so much going on in the world, it’s easy to take our eyes off what should be most important - America First policies.

Illegal immigration has cost America plenty: an estimated 63,000 dead Americans since 2001, killed by people who never should have been here. While this number is disputed, it does not include Americans harmed from illegal immigrants who were uninsured motorists crashing into our vehicles or illegal immigrants who raped our children/women or who robbed us.

And, what about the cost of housing, healthcare, and “educating” those who crossed our borders illegally or the expensive issue of birthright citizenship?

Since those on the left will dispute the numbers, how about we refer to all those Americans harmed by illegal immigrants as “Too Many Americans”?

It’s almost nonsensical why any tax paying citizen would support illegal immigration. My question to those who support sanctuary cities/states is, why are you against legal immigration?

When doing a basic search for sanctuary cities/states and crime rates, most search engines repeat the mantra that there is no relationship between crime rates and sanctuary cities/states and in fact, they allege that it’s quite the opposite – crime has gone down in sanctuary cities/states.

Really?

NPR doubles down and proclaims that sanctuary cities are safer:

A new study conducted by Tom K. Wong, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego, found that there are broad benefits for local jurisdictions that resist cooperating with federal immigration enforcement — they are safer in the aggregate and enjoy stronger economies. “For the first time we’re kind of seeing that crime rates are lower when localities stay out of the business of federal immigration enforcement,” Wong said.

Bloomberg repeats the mantra: Sanctuary Cities Are Safer and More Productive:

“New research contradicts President Trump’s claim that these areas do “immeasurable harm” to their residents.”

Claude says:

This is a topic where there’s been substantial research, and the findings are fairly consistent, though it’s worth understanding the nuance.

What the research shows:

The weight of peer-reviewed academic evidence finds that sanctuary policies do not cause higher crime rates. Multiple studies from universities including Stanford, UNM, and Washington University, as well as analyses published in peer-reviewed journals, consistently find either no difference in crime rates between sanctuary and non-sanctuary jurisdictions, or a modest decrease in crime — particularly property crime — following the adoption of sanctuary policies.

Why crime might actually be lower:

The leading explanation is trust. Sanctuary policies can promote immigrants’ sense of safety when reporting crimes and their trust in law enforcement, leading to more effective policing and safer communities overall. American Immigration Council When undocumented residents fear that calling police will lead to deportation, they become less likely to report crimes — making communities less safe for everyone.

The counterargument:

Critics, including ICE officials, point to specific high-profile crimes committed by individuals who were released under sanctuary policies rather than turned over to federal agents. This is a real phenomenon — there are documented cases — but it’s anecdotal. The federal government has not backed up its broader claims with hard numbers, and the data governments themselves collect does not support the claim that sanctuary policies increase crime overall.

Anecdotal? Tell that to an angel family.

The minute an immigrant crosses the border illegally, he has violated 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien:

(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Why is this fact ignored? People who break the law entering our country are dismissive of our laws. When allowed to break immigrations laws, why should they care about any other laws?

Did the “studies” take into account that the Uniform Crime Reporting Program changed in 2021 so the statistics will be skewed, not to mention that when too many laws are no longer enforced, the “crime rate” statistics will go down.

Don’t believe your lying eyes.

In April 28, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14287: Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens. The Executive Order recognized that “some State and local officials . . . continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws” and “[i]t is imperative that the Federal Government restore the enforcement of United States law.”

In January 2025, WND announced that Two Dems want Chicago’s sanctuary law repealed:

A pair of Chicago aldermen have introduced legislation that would roll back the city’s sanctuary law currently forbidding any cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, but their efforts face stiff odds in a city council dominated by liberal members.

Raymond Lopez and Silvana Tabares, both Democrats, filed a proposed amendment to Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance, which calls for exceptions when a migrant has been arrested or convicted of certain criminal activities. The aldermen argued in a public statement that it’s in the best interest of the city’s immigrant community to work with the incoming Trump administration in situations where wanted illegal migrants are involved in heinous crimes.

The city council rejected the proposed amendment in a 39-11 vote.

A November 2024 report by RealClearInvestigations titled, Illegal Migrants Less Likely to Commit Crimes, Guess Again described that the crime rate of noncitizens is vastly understated.

These gaps have led to broad claims that illegal immigrants have less involvement with the criminal justice system than native-born Americans. A review of the available data, however, shows that the criminal records of millions of migrants – the ones President-elect Trump vows to prioritize for deportation – remain unknown due to illegal crossings, lax enforcement, and lax data collection by federal and “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

In addition, an analysis of the available statistics by RealClearInvestigations suggests that the crime rate of noncitizens is vastly understated. A separate RCI analysis based on estimates developed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) suggests that crime by illegal aliens who entered the U.S. by July 21, 2024 cost the country some $166.5 billion. These criminals disproportionately entered the U.S. during the Biden administration.

In 2019, Heritage reported that Crimes by Illegal Immigrants Widespread Across U.S.—Sanctuaries Shouldn’t Shield Them.

What about affordability and illegal immigration?

On January 11, 2024, Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), testified for the Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee Hearing about the impact of illegal immigration on social services and summarized:

Illegal immigrants are a net fiscal drain, meaning they receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. This result is not due to laziness or fraud. Illegal immigrants actually have high rates of work, and they do pay some taxes, including income and payroll taxes. The fundamental reason that illegal immigrants are a net drain is that they have a low average education level, which results in low average earnings and tax payments. It also means a large share qualify for welfare programs, often receiving benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. Like their less-educated and low-income U.S.-born counterparts, the tax payments of illegal immigrants do not come close to covering the cost they create.

It’s simple math that the more people that are in the country, the more food, shelter, schools, healthcare, police, etc. will be needed. So, if there are several million people deported, it would make sense that there is more available housing, food, etc., thus the theory of supply and demand dictates that the prices will go down.

The Council of Economic Advisers “estimates that rents increase roughly one percent for every one million additional illegal immigrants entering affected housing markets. With an estimated 20 million illegal entrants during the Biden years, that implies roughly a 20 percent national rent effect — with even greater pressure in sanctuary and border metros where inflows concentrated.”

Google AI sources Newsweek to dispel that estimate. “Based on available reports and data, the claim that 20 million illegal immigrants entered the U.S. during the Biden administration and caused a 20 percent national rent effect is misleading and not supported by available data or independent analysis.” And how many people believe what Google AI tells them?

So why would we have sanctuary cities/states if the net effect of illegal immigration increases crime and creates a lack of affordability for Americans?

When did the sanctuary idea begin? Google AI says:

• Origins (1970s–1980s): While religious sanctuary has ancient roots, the modern concept began in 1971 when Berkeley, California, declared itself a safe haven for Vietnam War-era deserters.

• The 1980s Movement: The formalized “sanctuary movement” began in March 1982, when churches in the Southwest, led by figures like John Fife, provided refuge to Salvadorans and Guatemalans fleeing civil war who were denied asylum by the U.S. government.

• City Policies: In 1979, Los Angeles became the first large city to pass a policy (Special Order No. 40) instructing police not to initiate contact with individuals solely to determine their immigration status. San Francisco followed in 1985, declaring itself a “City of Refuge”.

• Development and Purpose: These policies were created to build trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, ensuring that witnesses and victims of crime feel safe reporting incidents without fear of deportation.

• Current Landscape (2025–2026): As of early 2025, there are over 225 localities and 13 states with some form of sanctuary policy. These policies have faced legal challenges regarding federal funding, with courts often ruling that the federal government cannot unconstitutionally coerce local jurisdictions.

Key Historical Themes

• Non-Cooperation: Policies generally prohibit the use of city funds or personnel to assist federal immigration authorities (formerly INS, now ICE).

• Legal Conflict: Sanctuary cities often argue they are exercising local autonomy over resource allocation, while opponents claim they undermine federal immigration law and public safety.

The Washington Examiner recently announced that Rents fall as deportations rise.

For those who cry that deportations will create a vacuum in the job market for unskilled labor jobs that “Americans don’t want,” ending the disastrous War on Poverty would solve that problem, if true. And, as AI automation continues to replace more jobs, we might want to re-think our immigration priorities as well.

So, in sanctuary cities/states, if crime is higher and prices are higher, why would any American support sanctuary states/cities?

While the MSM focuses on the two ICE rioters (not non-violent protesters) who attacked ICE and ended up dead, still there is little to no mention about Too Many Americans killed by illegal immigrants.

For those who support/protect those who knowingly broke our law to enter the country, I simply do not understand the rationale when our own citizens are harmed repeatedly by illegal immigrants. Where is their compassion and empathy for tax paying Americans?

The Wall Street Journal tells us that for the first time since the depression era, more Americans are leaving the U.S. than entering. Does that mean less people support/vote for sanctuary cities/states now? Did they cross the borders of their new homeland illegally, since “no human is illegal”?

While it’s no fun being an illegal alien, for those who are fleeing their countries to the U.S., please apply legally. The border is finally closed…for now.

Tips are Appreciated!

Share

Leave a comment

As the latest batch of Epstein files reveal the utmost disgusting debauchery and untamed urges by the redacted names of the rich and powerful, including the resurfaced complaints by the mysterious Katie Johnson, we then see the e-mails confirming that Bill Gates, et. al., did contemplate how to get rid of us, permanently, which could be the biggest scandal ever.

And then there is that sinking feeling that when the rich and powerful rule over us, no one will be held accountable for murder and/or attempted murder – of us all!

Yet all the while, an incredible story of Love and Peace occurred simultaneously.

On February 10, 2026, 19 monks from Texas, led by the Venerable Bhikkhu Pannakara, reached their goal to walk 2,300 miles to bring their message of Peace to what could be the most corrupt city in America – Washington, DC.

Axios informs us that “D.C. marks the end of the “Walk for Peace“ — for the monks, an eternal pilgrimage.”

It was a long walk.

The Buddhist monks crossed ten states. Covered 2,300 miles. Logged 108 days. Many started barefoot, their soles grounded in the present. Some switched to boots in freezing snow.

Nineteen monks and their “peace dog” Aloka — one foot in front of the other to take a stand for unity, mindfulness and compassion.

A Facebook post by Sachin Gautam introduced the Venerable Bhikkhu Pannakara:

This is the story of Venerable Bhikkhu Pannakara (Sư Tuệ Nhân), founder of the Hương Tú Charity Foundation, initiator of the Dhammacetiya Project, author of The Footsteps of a Buddhist Monk, and organizer of the Walk for Peace.

Venerable Pannakara was formerly known as Lam Van Nguyen. He was born in 1981 in Dak Lak, Vietnam, and immigrated to the United States in 1997. He earned a degree in Information Technology Engineering from the University of Texas at Arlington and served as a leader of the Buddhist Youth Association at Liên Hoa Temple in Irving, Texas, under the guidance of Venerable Khantidammo Pháp Nhân.

Whether it is Buddhist ideology or Jesus’s Summary of the Law, the message is similar – we are here to love and support each other, and it starts within each of us, individually.

Without that love, can peace ever be achieved?

Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk, believed that Buddhism complemented Christianity.

In his letter to D. T. Suzuki, who was a Buddhist scholar, he wrote: “When I read your teachings about these talks between the master and the teacher, where the student is enlightened in the presence of the teacher, something leaps off the page at me and says, ‘This is true.’ I would like to know if I, as a Christian, could dialogue with you as a Buddhist about our common ground.”

That common ground is Love for one another and ourselves since it feels like we are all interconnected.

[Thomas Merton discusses his spiritual search in his fascinating book, Seven Story Mountain, and discussed how a Hindu monk, Mahanambrata Brahmachari, advised him to look into his own Western tradition rather than convert to Hinduism. He specifically told Merton to read St. Augustine’s Confessions and The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis.]

Yet one forgotten part of that message of love also includes loving ourselves, so that we do not allow a totalitarian government to take away our individual rights or allow people to disrespect our immigration laws harming legal immigrants like Bhikkhu Pannakara and homegrown citizens alike. People who do not love or care for themselves allow for an anything goes society, much like we live in today.

The story about nineteen monks who walked for peace includes the survival of an incredible dog named Aloka, who refused to give up despite constant hardships, like his beloved companion, Bhikkhu Pannakara.

Monks walking for peace is not about politics.

Yet politics dominates our lives when it feels like we are living in a most corrupt era, having allowed our constitutional republic to dissolve into corporatism decades ago, since we did not listen to Brutus, who was right about everything.

But when all is said, the message of Love is within us all. The question remains whether we will accept that and live accordingly.

The walk, which began on Oct. 26, 2025, was "not to bring you any peace," said Pannakara, "but to raise the awareness of peace so that you can unlock that box and free it."

Pannakara said, “Mindfulness is the key to show people that peace is something that is possible and always begins from within. So when we walk, people see us, they can pause, they can stop doing everything, and they look back within. And that’s why I come up with this ‘Walk for Peace.’

“This is the moment I will remember for the rest of my life,” said the Venerable Bhikkhu Pannakara. “And I hope you do the same.”

Leave a comment

Tips are greatly Appreciated!

Share

A Caesar, really? That’s a tyrant, a dictator; it is the opposite of the American ideal of self-rule. It’s completely counter to America’s constitution of supposedly limited government.

So, how’s the self-rule of limited government working out?

Our constitutional republic has fallen down the same ruinous path that all types of democracies experience – an electorate voting for more “government freebies” promised by self-serving politicians who have no issues spending other people’s money and who would rather bribe the public with the public’s money, creating more government “services” thus, we no longer have limited government.

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

We did not keep it. We need to own up to this fact and ask ourselves how and why this happened before we can figure out what to do about it.

When the government becomes the solution, think about how much worse it gets after government intervention. Government intervention = industrial complexes.

Let’s take health care, for example, now considered to be the medical industrial complex.

Who remembers healthcare costs before government intervention, like Medicare and Medicaid, let alone the “Affordable Care Act,” in conjunction with lobbyists from insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations running though the revolving doors of government?

Most of us today don’t remember going to the doctor and paying a low flat fee without insurance or with low cost insurance provided by the private sector because government intervention in healthcare started in the mid-1960s with the disastrous War on Poverty. Depending on one’s generation, our parents and grandparents remember the days before government intervention in healthcare and remember how much lower the costs were.

Did education improve with a federal Department of Education? The children are dumber than any previous generation, brainwashed to be woke and anti-American, and too many no longer read classics – in literature class! They no longer have the analytical skills to ponder on the nonsensical statement by a Gen-Z millionaire celebrity property owner that “no one is illegal on stolen land.”

And so how is “self-rule” working out?

This is what “democracy” looks like today:

Minnesota:

California:

New York: New York City has a rich, socialist, young, inexperienced man for a mayor! No one with any understanding of the history of socialist failures would vote for a socialist, but here we are.

And then we have the Squad who want to enrich themselves with fraudulent scams while creating more dependency for their dependent serfs.

These are only some of the faces “saving our democracy.”

And from Delaware, a rich boy from a political family, a young, inexperienced man who never held a real, private sector job, a man who had the full trans surgery becoming a patient for life, represents the sole U.S. house seat. This is a man who does not have good judgment, yet the majority of Delawareans voted for him to be the first trans “woman” ever in the House.

How crazy is Delaware? 58% percent of the voters voted for McBride v. 43% that did not.

This is what democracy looks like and it’s very painful for the 43% who do not want our tax dollars spent on trans anything, yet as a state senator, McBride pushed for taxpayer funds to pay for mentally ill Delaware prisoners to have trans surgery/hormones and (unsuccessfully) sponsored a bill for [unethical and immoral] gender “affirming care” on minors who are too young to sign their own informed consent.

Too bad for those of us who did not vote for McBride; we lose, but we must pay our taxes or else.

This is what “democracy” looks like.

How did we get here?

Is it because the choice of politicians elected to “rule” over us are such low quality candidates?

Is it the fact that too many voters do not know or understand why our founders did not want a democracy established in America because they understood the Greek philosophers’ warnings that all democracies end in tyranny?

Is it the fact that human nature is self-serving (as a survival instinct), thus most politicians will not resist serving themselves first before bribing the public with the public’s money?

So, how’s self-rule working out again?

We the People Blew It!

And then we find ourselves facing adversarial countries like China, Russia and Iran, and China has invested a lot of money in our hemisphere to control vital natural resources and trade routes. That’s not sustainable if America wants to retain her sovereignty.

For my entire life, America has engaged in empirical wars that should enrage any American who believes in the Golden Rule. So, the idea of nearly doubling the military budget should wave red flags, especially when the Dept. of War/Defense has not passed a financial audit in eight (8) years.

We elected a very flawed, billionaire go-getter, art of the dealmaker, with an incredible amount of internal steel, to fight the unbelievably prevailing tide of lawfare attempting to dispose of him, and yet he survives, and thrives. But Trump is hardly frugal.

Whether Trump wants America to prosper because he loves himself and his family, as an extension of himself, and wants the good life for them to continue, or whether he wants to be remembered as the man who saved America does not matter. If Trump thrives, America will likely thrive as well. (Some may counter that Trump has collaborated with Peter Thiel and the tech bros to create a digital concentration camp/social credit score like the Chinese suffer under for “we the little people” and an unknown AI world should cause apprehension, but AI is here. In theory, the Bill of Rights should still protect us and if the Bill of Rights is dismantled, then we’ll be in survival mode at best.)

Besides, what choice did we have? “Vice-President” Kamala Harris, the face of DEI, would never push back on the “own nothing” and not be happy WEF agenda.

President Trump just got us out of the World Health Organization (WHO) saving us from signing the May 2025 pandemic agreement that would eliminate national sovereignty.

And that vacuous puppet, “Vice-President” Kamala, would have signed it had she been president.

And the Trump Administration recently thumped the WEF, the same hypocritical moral busybodies C.S. Lewis described as being the worst of the tyrants. Sadly, we need a strong leader to get us out of this huge mess We the People got ourselves into.

Goodbye global megalomaniacs! That should at least save us a lot of money. But is it really good-bye? Time will tell but it is especially relevant since in December 2025, the WHO quietly repeated a similar 2019 simulation for the “Next Pandemic” where 31 countries participated. Ready for the next scamdemic?

The UN, the worst of the peacekeepers, is apparently near financial collapse due to unpaid dues that the U.S. no longer subsidizes.

I have never understood why anyone would want global governance. Have you ever been to a contentious city council meeting? Local governments can’t even agree, let alone agree at the state or federal level. It’s doomed before it begins, and if anyone values their individual freedoms that many Americans take for granted, global governance should be the last thing we “little-guy” Americans would want.

President Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy.pdf (aka the “Donroe” Doctrine) states:

1. 2025 National Security Strategy

Secure Our Borders and the Hemisphere

2025 National Security Strategy: “We must protect our country from invasion, not just from unchecked migration but from cross-border threats such as terrorism, drugs, espionage, and human trafficking.”

President Trump has secured the border, stopped mass illegal immigration, and waged war on the narco-terrorist cartels flooding our neighborhoods with drugs. He’s also targeting these dangerous criminals before they enter the United States. America is finally prioritizing the safety of our own neighborhoods.

2. Peace Through Strength

2025 National Security Strategy: “Strength is the best deterrent. Countries or other actors sufficiently deterred from threatening American interests will not do so.”

President Trump is the “President of Peace.” He deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for resolving eight conflicts in his first eight months back in office. He also knows that lasting peace can only be achieved from a position of strength.

3. Maintain Military Supremacy

2025 National Security Strategy: “We want to recruit, train, equip, and field the world’s most powerful, lethal, and technologically advanced military to protect our interests, deter wars, and if necessary —- win them quickly and decisively, with the lowest possible casualties to our forces.”

In addition to the “Golden Dome” missile defense shield to protect the American homeland, President Trump has announced a plan for a $1 trillion investment in rebuilding our military.

4. International Agreements That Benefit Americans

2025 National Security Strategy: “We will no longer tolerate, and can no longer afford, free-riding, trade imbalances, predatory economic practices, and other impositions on our nation’s historic goodwill that disadvantage our interests.”

In our trade deals and military alliances, America is finally putting Americans first. President Trump has masterfully used his tariff powers to rewrite bad trade deals that outsourced American jobs. Our taxpayers will no longer write a blank check for Europe’s military protection. Our allies must pay their fair share. The free ride is over.

5. Secure Our Resources for the Next Century

2025 National Security Strategy: “The United States must never be dependent on any outside power for core components — from raw materials to parts to finished products—necessary to the nation’s defense or economy. We must re-secure our own independent and reliable access to the goods we need to defend ourselves and preserve our way of life.”

Our supply chains are vulnerable, and our survival depends on ending our reliance on outside powers for core components of our defense and economy. To guarantee the Next American Century, we must have access to the rare earth minerals and raw materials that are necessary for advanced computing and military superiority.

These are common sense practicalities that no leader since Reagan has offered Americans, especially after experiencing Tyranny 101 during the Biden years.

Meanwhile, the White House states that eight wars ended in eight months. That’s amazing, but is it correct?

What about bombing Venezuelan drug smuggling vessels and seizing Maduro when reports state that most of the fentanyl is made in Mexico from Chinese sources so it comes into the U.S. via the Mexican border?

Trump said, “I’m not going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war… I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We’re going to kill them, you know, they’re going to be like, dead.”

Not exactly the words of a peacemaker for an operation that most Americans did not support.

But what was the other option? Allow China, who has already invested billions in our hemisphere, to dominate our hemisphere, while we slink away? That is not an option. So, which is it? American dominance in our hemisphere or allow communist China to reign?

Although people will argue that the Hamas-Israeli war is not over, at least all the living hostages are back. That alone is worthy of a mighty applause and Joe Biden failed miserably on that. The Board of Peace sounds somewhat Orwellian, but we shall see.

The Abraham Accords, negotiated in Trump’s first term, have brought peace and prosperity to portions of the Middle East for the past five years, despite Iranian/Hamas terrorism.

And so, it would appear that Trump envisions peaceful prosperity for all the countries that want to produce, trade and create thriving economies, rather than waste it all, blowing each other up.

Peace through strength makes sense but so does not squandering public money with 8 years of unaccountability. The fact that the Department of War/Defense has not passed a financial audit for a budget that is now a trillion dollars in 2025-2026 is irresponsible and an abuse of the public’s money.

Tighten the military budget; we can do better and maintain a strong military without a 1.5 trillion-dollar budget. How much of that budget from 2018-2024 was for DEI expenditures?

Although we do seem to be on a course correction, and we hope it continues, adding 1.5 trillion dollars to the war department when our national debt is growing past $38 trillion unsustainable dollars, is hardly economically resilient.

Is Trump gearing for a reset of the economy, putting the dollar back on the gold standard, with gold prices peaking over $5,000.00/oz.?

Will Trump reform the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve, enacted by Congress in 1913 and which Congress will never agree to dismantle?

How exactly do we enact needed change without strong, competent leadership?

After nearly 250 years, the American Experiment suffers from parallels similar to the same reasons that the Roman republic collapsed: unsustainable national debt and devaluing the money supply, forever wars, political corruption, barbarian invasions, institutional distrust, military overreach, failed social experiments, low moral standards and cultural wars, civil disunion to low, overall public distrust altogether, along with a dependent class relying on government subsidies for sustenance.

Check all, check mate. Back to bondage we go.

At least we’ve made huge improvements from the “barbarian” invasions.

If we look back at our history, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s egalitarian “reforms” could be the equivalent to the Roman republic’s Gracchi brothers’ land and welfare reforms, where after a century, they failed and created a dependent class that did not help advance the promised land reforms so a “kulak” could thrive.

America’s Gracchi experiment began with FDR and then went full-turbo charge in 1964 with the War on Poverty. It was destined to crash and burn since history has proven repeatedly that if we want to decrease poverty and improve prosperity, we need to teach a man to fish, not give a man a fish to eat for a day.

While there were good emperors, such as a real philosopher king, Marcus Aurelius (161–180 AD) in the era of the Five Good Emperors, there were more bad emperors, like Marcus Aurelius’s son, Commodus:

• Caligula (37–41 AD): Known for extreme cruelty, lavish spending, and alleged madness, including declaring himself a god and forcing the senate to fear him.

• Nero (54–68 AD): Infamous for tyranny, heavy taxing, and persecuting Christians; famously accused of playing music while Rome burned.

• Commodus (180–192 AD): Considered narcissistic, he abandoned responsible ruling to fight as a gladiator, severely damaging the empire’s dignity and stability.

• Caracalla (198–217 AD): Known for brutal violence, including killing his own brother and ordering massacres, which caused significant damage to the empire’s finances.

• Elagabalus (218–222 AD): Renowned for scandalous behavior, religious disrespect, and incompetence, leading to his rapid downfall.

• Honorius (393–423 AD): Cited as one of the worst for his weak leadership, which directly led to the overrunning of the empire by barbarians and the sacking of Rome in 410.

So, what are we to do?

Go back to the status quo where China will surely dominate the world stage sooner than later? Endure another “pandemic” led by the WHO? I’d rather gamble on Trump’s Golden Era than go back to the Biden years, where we headed lock step towards global governance, even as we face an unknown AI world.

We can at least have a conversation about the ideas of freedom from one of our least known founding fathers, Robert Yates (aka Brutus), who was right about everything! But since he was memory-holed, too many people do not know his name, let alone know his ideas about what happens to our individual freedoms when we create a stronger central government.

We can pray. According to Tytler’s cycle of democracy, spirituality sets the course to have the courage to regain our liberty. And collective prayer might be the only form of collectivism I support. Many of us believe Trump survived the assassination attempt due to divine intervention.

There are plenty of similarities between the gigantic egos of Trump and Ceasar Augustus, but that’s part of the package of being a warrior-king prototype.

Will President Trump create a Golden Era, a Pax Americana, a period of peace and prosperity, similar to the Pax Romana that Augustus created? Or will the Left intervene, sending all plans sideways?

One thing we might all agree on is that we are living in historic times. How will historians write about this period in history? It all depends on who prevails.

Leave a comment

Tips are Appreciated!

Subscribe now

How many more examples do we need that government(s) will squander the public’s money supposedly to take care of the people?

The recent Somali ‘feed the hungry little children’ scams and ‘no children left in a day care’ scandals have rocked Americans to our core. How does this happen?

@insurrectionbarbie discusses the history of this insane funding through “a sprawling web of 501(c)(4) organizations, donor-advised funds, and nominally independent nonprofits...”

When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, he transformed this private progressive infrastructure into a federalized system by fundamentally restructuring how federal grants operated, expanding refugee resettlement funding from $600 million to $1.6 billion, creating the Wilson-Fish single-source contract model, implementing per-capita incentive structures, and normalizing emergency procurement that bypassed competitive bidding.

Obama built the highway for money to flow from federal coffers to politically-aligned NGOs, though he maintained some minimal guardrails like citizenship requirements and basic audit procedures.

And many of us know that this is only the tip of the ICEburg.

We’ve seen headline after headline that state governments will need federal investigation and OVERSIGHT from all this massive fraud to find all the missing BILLIONS of dollars given to them by guess who? The big federal government (aka We the People).

Our founding fathers, even Alexander Hamilton, whom I’ve expressed my disdain for numerous times, never intended for the federal government to Take Care of the People.

The federal government’s formation and original intent was to protect the people from harm (foreign and domestic) – like fighting off the King’s tyrannical Redcoats and later, defending our borders!

And how much is this going to cost We the People, to investigate and/or oversee something that should not be a function of the federal government?

When did the federal government get in the business of funding childcare, anyway?

Google AI says:

“Federal involvement in daycare began significantly with World War II’s Lanham Act (1940s), providing the first major, temporary funding for “war nurseries” to support mothers in defense jobs, followed by broader support for low-income families through programs like AFDC (1950s-90s) and landmark legislation like the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) (1990), evolving into a patchwork system of subsidies (like CCDF) and tax credits (like the Child and Dependent Care Credit) to help working families, though major expansions, like President Biden’s proposals, often face political hurdles.

Early Roots (1930s-1940s)

• Great Depression: The initial federal step was the 1933 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, funding nursery schools for children of unemployed parents, with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) running them.

• World War II (The Lanham Act): The crucial development was the 1943 Lanham Act, creating federally funded childcare centers to enable mothers to work in war industries, a successful but temporary program ended in 1946.

Post-War & Welfare Era (1950s-1990s)

• Aid to Dependent Children (ADC/AFDC): Evolved from helping mothers stay home to a welfare program for low-income families, it offered limited childcare support as women entered the workforce.

• 1960s-70s: Growing understanding of child development led to programs like Head Start (1965) and federal support for childcare linked to welfare reform, though it remained fragmented.

Modern Patchwork (1990s-Present)

• Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG, 1990): Created the primary federal funding stream (now the Child Care and Development Fund) to help low-income families pay for childcare, administered by states.

• Tax Credits: The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides families with tax relief, not direct funding to states, but helps with childcare costs.

• Recent Efforts: Proposals like the American Families Plan (2021) aimed for universal preschool and affordable childcare, but major legislation faces ongoing debate, with funding often channeled through competitive grants or specific initiatives like those in the CHIPS Act (requiring childcare plans for large grants).”

Most of us know that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s expansion of the executive office began the gigantic growth of the federal government to TAKE CARE of the People.

Post-civil war America created the Gilded Age, which launched more jobs and gave rise to a burgeoning middle class. Of course, there were poor “serfs” who suffered from evil robber barons who abused their workers, and that led to the Progressive era and 1913, a year that should live in infamy for Americans who cherish freedom.

In the past, having lots of wealthy people enriched our country through their enormous gifts through charities and foundations that benefited everyone.

So, why not go back to the Rich sponsoring all those wonderful feel-good organizations to help the people?

The Rich are not the enemy of the little people. The federal government, intertwined with “stakeholder capitalism” creating corporatism, is the oligarchy/enemy! And it was not designed to be this way.

We were warned, however, by Brutus (aka Robert Yates) who predicted all the corruption we know today. We sure could use a little guidance from Brutus during these trying times.

And this is yet another reason why we need a definition for “general Welfare.”

There will always be indigent people who will need care, and that should rest with the individual states so there is local oversight. If the funding comes from the wealthy, they will keep a tighter rein on how their money is spent and the states will feel the pinch of financial abuse more fully, allowing more local oversight.

For those who say rich people – the 1% or the 10% - are just selfish, evil, greedy meanies, well, who bought Twitter, that essentially saved us from the Censorship Industrial Complex that continues to strangle Europe?

Where would those lost astronauts be had Musk not intervened since the Biden administration and a do-nothing Congress were doing nothing to save them? Rich people are not necessarily evil and many do good things with their good fortune of being wealthy and want to pay it forward.

Of course, history reveals some very evil megalomaniacs in the 1% class like Bill Gates and George Soros, who pretend to be philanthropists, but are indeed “moral busybodies” creating more people to become dependent on the government (aka slavery).

Another idea would be to encourage the wealthy to direct their funds to groups like America Works, instead of the federal government, which has had enormous success in getting people off the dole.

In 1984, Peter Cove founded America Works and claims to have helped over two million people end dependency and earn their dignity back through work by “increasing their self-sufficiency through gainful employment, including military veterans, welfare and SNAP recipients, young adults, the criminal justice involved, homeless, non-custodial parents, persons receiving disability, among others.” He discovered that “work, not welfare, uplifts the poor.” He describes his story: What I learned from the War on Poverty.

I suspect if the federal government actually did get out of the business of taking care of the people, there will be much weeping and gnashing of the teeth by many of the kings and queens in Congress. People will starve, they’ll cry. So, how about y’all feed them out of your own pocket, then? Wait…that’s our money they are using! They won’t like it but we can barely afford to feed ourselves, after we pay our taxes to feed the kings and queens in Congress.

I’ve discussed my fantasy idea of amending the Constitution to reflect the intent of the Articles of the Confederation (AOC) to reduce the size of the federal government bigly, but, when the majority of the people in NYC vote for Mamdani to run the highest-grossing GDP city in America, we suffer the same problems that any democratic system has always suffered: the uneducated electorate voting for bad candidates.

Opening up the Constitution in this environment of the ignorant electorate might be something we may regret.

So, why not examine each department, and eventually fine-tooth comb each agency, to decide if it was intended to Protect the People or whether it was created to Take Care of the People? [This article is a broad overview and would need much time and research to review each agency for specific spending/savings, so this is merely to introduce the idea of what departments are focused on protecting the people v. taking care of them.]

For the departments and agencies that Take Care of People, well, we phase them out.

Ouch.

It’s not going to be easy, but we need a plan to get too many dependent deadbeats off the federal payroll, one way or another. And, while we certainly don’t want to create a new unemployed class of former government workers, we have to start somewhere, and they’ll need to get a real job.

Here’s a list of the Executive Office departments and the updated expenditures can be found here.

1. Agriculture
Year Founded: 1862
Employees: 84,496 Outlay: $134B
At least get rid of all the “taking care” parts of this department like the federal government issuing real estate loans, Snap and subsidies. Major restructuring is required. Farmers, what do you say?

2. Commerce
Year Founded: 1903
Employees: 47,060 Outlay: $16B
This would fall under protection. Commerce is important to protect our assets, trade and create wealth and was a big missing piece in the AOC.

3. Defense/War
Year Founded: 1947
Employees: 3,000,000 Outlay: $1T / year

This would be part of protecting the people, but the Dept. of Defense/War has not passed a financial audit in 8 years! Major restructuring under a tight audit should be required.

4. Education
Year Founded: 1980
Employees: 4,178 Outlay: $45B / year
The DOE is being dismantled, finally, but if Congress flips, we can forget ending this small, low-hanging fruit. All existing student loans would be transferred to the Treasury.

5. Energy
Year Founded: 1977
Employees: 14,608 Outlay: $24B / year
Energy is everything and everything is energy. And in this competitive climate with China, in the race to the critical mineral supply, we need to stay up to date on researching the latest innovations in energy, so it should fall under protection.

6. Health and Human Services
Year Founded: 1953 Employees: 88,509 Outlay: $879B / year
This clearly is taking care of the people and needs to go back to the states. And, yes, I know this means dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.

7. Homeland Security
Year Founded: 2002
Employees: 211,502 Outlay: $40B / year
Falls under protection but could be consolidated under Dept. of Defense/War, which needs a financial audit, bigly.

8. Housing and Urban Development
Year Founded: 1965
Employees: 8,081 Outlay: $41B / year
Falls under Taking Care of the People and needs to go back to the states.

9. Interior
Year Founded: 1849
Employees: 56,718 Outlay: $90B / year
Falls under Protection and if there is one agency I would keep that is not necessarily considered protection, it would be our national parks. We should preserve and protect our natural treasures and it’s a small drop in the bucket in the big picture compared to the benefits our national parks provide.

10. Justice
Year Founded: 1870
Employees: 115,897 Outlay: $46B / year
Falls under Protection but clearly needs to be restructured to be more efficient.

11. Labor
Year Founded: 1913
Employees: 14,062 Outlay: $138B / year
Back to the states? I’m not certain on that because labor could be considered protection, especially as it relates to immigration. But, it could go be restructured and go back to Commerce, pre-1913, since the unions pushed for the separation and we have civil rights laws now that would cover discrimination issues.

12. State
Year Founded: 1789
Employees: 12,639 Outlay: $16B / year
This should fall under protection, yet one of its agencies became one of the biggest boondoggles to take care of the people AND anyone else on the planet, i.e., the USAID scams. Big restructuring needed.

13. Transportation
Year Founded: 1966
Employees: 53,037 Outlay: $73B / year
This should fall under protection but clearly needs restructuring to become more efficient.

14. Treasury
Year Founded: 1789
Employees: 96,204 Outlay: $20B / year
Not having a common currency was one of the blights of the Articles of Confederation and a big reason for the calling to “amend” the AOC. This should fall under protection but clearly needs restructuring to become more efficient and of course, we should eliminate the 16^th Amendment (income tax) which would be an uphill climb since it would require amending the Constitution. But let’s be real: less government needs less income.

15. Veteran Affairs
Year Founded: 1989
Employees: 427,172 Outlay: $98B / year
Falls under Protection but it could be consolidated with Dept. of Defense/War/Homeland Security and needs restructuring to create efficiency and justice because good, charitable organizations like the Tunnels for Towers Foundation/Wounded Warriors should not have to be a charity. All of the wars since Korea were not intended to defend our borders, but the veterans shouldn’t bear the cost of bad leadership.

Now, I realize getting rid of Social Security is a big one and many people will resist and scream that we’ll make the old poor again. Well, it’s running out of funds and predicted to need big cuts by 2032. What’s the plan to keep it running?

We need a better plan, but younger generations and any older generations who are not currently collecting SS/Medicare could get their money back through a cash-out agreement (from all that tariff money-haha) of what they have paid and what their employer paid, so they can invest it like normal people would and make sooooo much more money. But it might be a little too late for Gen-X to reinvest and most boomers are already collecting. This would need a generational phase out plan.

What about healthcare? Well, that is a big industrial complex mess, too, but it would fall under Take Care of the People so it should not be the responsibility of the federal government. Why not explore Rand Paul’s idea for healthcare market and savings accounts to phase out Medicare (and Medicaid) eventually?

If President Trump (aka Caesar Augustus II?) unleashes a golden era of prosperity, a new Gilded Age II, then there should be a lot more rich people with expendable money who will inevitably want to help people. (Granted, there are some HUGE issues with Caesars, but that’s another subject altogether.)

What would our country look like with mostly all self-reliant citizens? If we could wean the dependent types off the dole, they will either rob others (like they don’t do that now?) or they would become better people as a result of the satisfaction from being self-reliant, something Peter Cove understands all too well. For those that turn to crime, enforce the laws already on the books, and we might find ourselves thriving like never before.

Tip Jar

Leave a comment

Share

Operation Metro Surge began in Minneapolis in December 2025, and in less than a month, it has resulted in arresting a number of criminal illegal immigrants who should never have been in America in the first place.

Much has been written and discussed about the killing of Renee Good by ICE agent, Jonathan Ross, and el gato malo @boriquagato summed it up well in let’s talk about renee good, as did eugyppius. It’s difficult to understand why people want to protect and defend criminal illegal immigrants, but they do.

Yet one major discussion that seems to get lost is that tens of thousands of American citizens were/are the real innocent victims of too many criminal illegal immigrants protected by sanctuary cities/states and “ICE Watch Warriors” like Renee Good.

Approximately 63,000 of these Americans are now dead, with no due process, as discussed in Where is the MSM Story on Angel Families?

So, let’s examine some of the criminal illegal immigrants who entered into America because of unchecked immigration that Renee Good felt so compelled to protect.

From DHS: ICE arrests dozens of criminal illegal aliens convicted of murder, child rape and more in sanctuary state Minnesota:

Violent rioters and politicians in Minnesota are actively trying to protect some of the worst criminal offenders in the world. Despite their interference, ICE is focused on getting the job done.

“Regardless of staged political theatrics, ICE is going to continue to arrest the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Minnesota and elsewhere,” said ICE Director Todd M. Lyons. “Some of these criminal aliens have had final orders of removal for 30 years, but they’ve been free to terrorize Minnesotans. ICE’s arrests prevent recidivism and make communities safer, but it feels like local politicians want to ignore that part and drum up discontent rather than protect their own constituents.”

“ICE law enforcement officers have arrested more than 400 illegal aliens including pedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs since Operation Metro Surge began,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “Tim Walz and Jacob Frey failed to protect the people of Minnesota. They let these monsters and child predators roam free. Thanks to our brave law enforcement, Minnesota is safer with these thugs off their streets. Instead of thanking our law enforcement for removing criminals from their communities, Tim Walz and Jacob Frey continue to demonize our brave law enforcement.”

Below are some of the criminal illegal immigrants arrested by ICE in Operation Metro Surge:

• Hernan Cortes-Valencia, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico with a final order of removal dated Dec. 1, 2016, who’s been convicted of sexual assault against a child, sexual assault-carnal abuse and four DUIs.

• Sriudorn Phaivan, a criminal illegal alien from Laos with a final order of removal from March 8, 2018. He’s been convicted of strongarm sodomy of a boy, strongarm sodomy of a girl, another aggravated sex offense, nine counts of larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of fraud, vehicle theft, two counts of drug possession, obstructing justice, possession of stolen property, receiving stolen property, burglary and check forgery. He also has pending charges for two counts of receiving stolen property, flight to avoid prosecution or confinement and burglary.

• Ge Yang, a criminal illegal alien from Laos with a final order of removal from Oct. 16, 2012. He’s been convicted of strongarm rape, strongarm aggravated assault against a family member, aggravated assault with a weapon, an additional sex offense and domestic violence involving strangulation.

• Vannaleut Keomany, a criminal illegal alien from Laos with a final order of removal dated Dec. 17, 2009. He’s been convicted of two counts of attempting to commit strongarm rape.

• Tou Vang, a criminal illegal alien from Laos with a final order of removal dated Oct. 31, 2006. He’s been convicted of sexual assault and sodomy of a girl under the age of 13 and procuring a child for prostitution.

• Chong Vue, a criminal illegal alien from Laos with a final order of removal dated March 11, 2004. He’s been convicted of strongarm rape of a 12-year-old girl, kidnapping a child with intent to sexually assault her, and vehicle theft.

• Kou Lor, a criminal illegal alien from Laos with a final order of removal from Aug. 16, 1996. He’s been convicted of sexual assault, rape, rape with a weapon, statutory rape without force, two counts of burglary and shoplifting.

• Pao Choua Xiong, a criminal illegal alien from Laos with a final order of removal dated Jan. 10, 2003. He’s been convicted of rape, fondling a child, two counts of domestic violence, burglary, larceny and disorderly conduct.

• Gabriel Figueroa Gama, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico who was previously removed from the U.S. in 2002 and later convicted of homicide, battery, assault and amphetamine possession.

• Abdirashid Adosh Elmi, a criminal illegal alien from Somalia who’s been convicted of homicide.

• Abdirashid Mohamed Ahmed, a criminal illegal alien from Somalia with a final order of removal dated Feb. 18, 2022. He’s been convicted of two counts of negligent manslaughter with a vehicle, two counts of DUI, larceny and damage to property.

• Mongong Kual Maniang Deng, a criminal illegal alien from Sudan who’s been convicted of attempt to commit homicide, weapon possession and DUI.

• Aldrin Guerrero Munoz, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico with a final order of removal from Dec. 17, 2015. He’s been convicted of homicide and assault.

• Gilberto Salguero Landaverde, a criminal illegal alien from El Salvador with a final order of removal dated June 25, 2025. He’s been convicted of three counts of homicide.

• Aler Gomez Lucas, a criminal illegal alien from Guatemala with a final order of removal dated May 24, 2022. He’s been convicted of negligent homicide with a vehicle and DUI.

• Galuak Michael Rotgai, a criminal illegal alien from Sudan who’s been convicted of homicide and assault.

• Shwe Htoo, a criminal illegal alien from Burma who’s been convicted of negligent homicide with a weapon.

• Mariama Sia Kanu, a criminal illegal alien from Sierra Leone with a final order of removal from July 5, 2022. She’s been convicted of two counts of homicide, four DUIs, three counts of larceny and burglary.

• Thai Lor, a criminal illegal alien from Laos with a final order of removal from June 15, 2009. He’s been convicted of two counts of homicide.

We can thank ICE officers, like Jonathan Ross, for getting these criminals off the streets, despite fighting more obstacles from people like Renee Good. These criminals no longer pose a threat to Minneapolis citizens like Renee Good’s orphan child.

Who is a fan of irony?

Leave a comment

Share

President Trump asked for 1.5 Trillion dollars for the 2027 Department of War budget to build a “dream” military.

The Department of War should be called the Department of Defense, but when we changed the name in 1947-49, we actually became the Department of Offense, so it appears to be Orwellian nonsense to call it the Department of Defense.

Did Trump not just kick butt in Venezuela, outsmarting the Venezuelan/Russian/Chinese thingamabobs when seizing Maduro? That budget worked just fine to do that.

But several members of Congress,

such as Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY), criticized Biden’s budgets as insufficient given rising global threats and inflationary pressures. Wicker called the defense budget request “woefully inadequate and disappointing,” saying it “does not even resource [Biden’s] own National Defense Strategy to protect our country from growing threats around the world.” Tenney argued the proposed increase was effectively a cut, stating that “the 3.2% increase doesn’t keep pace with inflation and the cost to refill depleted supplies around the world,” and warned that “our greatest adversaries, China and Russia, continue to ramp up military expenditures, which pose a grave threat to U.S. security at home and abroad.

America, now playing Super Man, is cleaning up our hemisphere and keeping important natural resources out of Chinese and Russian hands. Thank you, sir, but…

How about noooo?

The DoW/DoD has not passed a financial audit since 2018! It has failed 8 times with BILLIONS of dollars unaccounted for.

How crazy is that, citizens? Aren’t we the lazy ones overlooking this?

So, Mr. President, We the People will need to see the records.

Oh, that’s right. We have representatives and senators who are supposed to investigate these glaring oversights for us. Why don’t they do their jobs? Because they are too busy enriching themselves and their wicked cohorts?

This is what “democracy” looks like in the 21^st century and this is why no democracy (and yes, that includes constitutional republics designed to protect us from direct democracies) have never lasted throughout history.

We should be asking why this is, but instead, we follow the crumbs of free bread and circuses.

How can the DoD fail an audit, not once, not twice, but eight times in a row?

In December, the Department of War issued its AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2025.

On December 19, 2025, Military Times revealed that the Pentagon fails financial audit for 8th year in a row.

No one from DoD/DoW needs to turn in their “TPS” reports for 8 years?

Jasmyn Jordan comments:

In 2022, the Biden Pentagon proposed spending approximately $30.8 million to combat “extremism” in the military, in addition to about $9.1 million in fiscal year 2021 for initial actions. The department did not define what constituted extremism and lacked data on its prevalence within the ranks. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told Breitbart News that “the events of January 6th and the presence of some veterans in that crowd has certainly got everybody’s attention here.” The initiative included screening social media, updating vetting protocols, implementing standardized training and awareness campaigns, and developing an enterprise tracking system for concerning activity.

More recently, a provision in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act introduced by House Republicans banned sex-change procedures and drugs for minors under TRICARE, the military’s healthcare program. Democrats have voiced opposition to the measure, arguing it introduces partisanship into what was traditionally a bipartisan process. The debate has further intensified scrutiny over the direction and use of military funding.

In parallel, the Department of Defense failed its seventh consecutive audit in 2024, unable to fully account for an $824 billion budget. The audit identified 28 material weaknesses and raised concerns about financial accountability. Despite this, senior Pentagon officials claimed progress and argued that the department is moving toward more effective management systems.

We are becoming immune to the vast scandals of government abuse of public funds. But this is HUGE.

We need accountability as to how the DoW/DoD spends public funds.

NOW.

Leave a comment

Share

Tip Jar

Happy New Year!

While recovering from a case of ‘the flus’ following holiday festivities, we watched some beloved classics, Driving Miss Daisy and Fiddler on the Roof, to ease our ills.

The same theme of change in both movies struck me as we begin our present year of 2026 with Trumpian fireworks.

[Driving Miss Daisy deserved all the awards it won in 1990. Prove me wrong.]

Like Fiddler on the Roof, Driving Miss Daisy reflects on the fact that the times they are a-changing.

Change is scary because we do not know what the outcome will be. What if it gets worse? But if the current status quo is mass unadulterated, government corruption, why would we not want change? The status quo is unbearable, especially to our pocketbook.

In Driving Miss Daisy, during the scene of MLK, Jr.’s live speech at the Dinkier Plaza Hotel, Daisy listens to MLK in person, sitting next to an empty seat. Alone. She is still holding that extra ticket that she could have given Hoke, who must listen to this same January 27, 1965 historic speech on the car radio, sitting in the car, mere yards away. Daisy commented on how marvelous it was that times were changing and Hoke responded that things haven’t changed that much. Indeed.

Why didn’t Daisy invite Hoke to listen to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s historic speech with her? Daisy wasn’t ready for the change.

The times, they were a-changing, and Daisy was not there yet. But the times needed to change, and change they did, ready or not.

Dr. King’s message about what is important - the content of our character, and not the color of our skin - and the blatant wrongness of the racism of our current day through DEI seems so obvious. Two wrongs never add up to a right, and 2026 is likely to bring that message forward further.

What would MLK think of DEI?

The results struggling to get back to a meritocracy will reveal the fragility of our crumbling infrastructure and too many DEI hires.

And, in 2026, more cracks will reveal that fragility, just like the tragic mid-air crash on January 31, 2025 crash, ending the lives of 67 potential Olympians, who will never achieve their dream of performing in the Olympics.

The natural consequences of DEI will continue to plague us this year.

We are living in the end days of another world, like Daisy or Topol from Fiddler on the Roof. The times they are a-changin’.

Who doesn’t like an historic movie describing pre-revolutionary Russia with an amazing soundtrack, complete with dancing and singing Jews, and with a younger Starsky, no less, portraying Perchik, the radical wanting “to turn the world upside down” ?

Can we really blame a guy for wanting to change a culture that hasn’t learned the joys of dancing with each other yet? But Perchik was defying Tradition!

When Perchik removed the male/female dancing barrier during the wedding where there sure was a lot of yelling going on, he changed history.

Mendel: She’s dancing with a man!

Tevye: I can SEE that she’s dancing with a man!

[pause]

Tevye: And I’m going to dance with my wife!

The Times They Were A-Changin’.

We are in for more bumpy days ahead and the new High pushing us out the other side of the 2030s will be a continuous cliffhanger. Are you ready?

Will Freedom or Tyranny win out?

Mamdani’s socialist experiment in NYC may well reveal the natural consequences for foolish ideas like socialism to younger Americans who need an education in reality. Augmented reality glasses won’t distort their reality well enough and they will face natural consequences, like it or not. FAFO.

2026 will be the game changer, as already started on January 3, 2026, when President Trump decided that America should reign over our hemisphere instead of China. Most of us knew it was more about the control of oil and critical minerals, and not drugs as we were told, but why would any American want China to control Venezuela with her rich, natural resources? It’s either China or America who will control. Who would you choose? And if the corrupt and wicked drug machine ends, well, yeah. That’s an added bonus for everyone, except druggies and their dealers.

The natural reactions of cheering Venezuelan refugees, happy their tyrant has been removed v. Mamdani’s useful idiots screaming revenge for Trump’s actions could not be in more contrast. Those who suffered want regime change v. those who have no understanding of the realities of tyranny will protest against it.

Controlling our sphere of the world makes sense. If Venezuela can reclaim her former prosperity as the world’s 4th wealthiest country again, then her people will prosper again and so will we since there will be less desperate immigrants fleeing into America. Maybe it will create a domino effect for other South American countries as well? It might become the communist domino effect in reverse. Time will tell, but it seems clear that Trump is not starting a new war; he is tilting the sphere into a prosperous direction and we should hope and pray that it works.

Corruption investigations, like the numerous Somali fraud stories, will continue to reveal more corrupt states where a number of lower level criminals will take the hit for the good of their wicked team. Tampon Tim will remain free as a jail bird, but the damage is done and we may see the likes of these losers leaving politics altogether. They will leave when the money stops flowing.

One of the real stories of the year should be revealing, finally, the truth about Covid by initiating the Covid trials and holding the murderers accountable. The usual suspects will continue to supress the truth and prevent the indictments, but change is in the air. We need justice for these crimes against humanity. Will we eventually get it?

Another big story this year will be whether AI over-valued stocks will continue to grow or go bust, creating financial instability or worse.

In his December 19, 2025 article, Oracle’s Fatal A.I. Constraint, Jay Valentine said, “Oracle is obsolete and their BS about ChatGPT just went up in smoke as a “circular investment.” Learn that phrase - it may be the foundation for one of the largest tech collapses in a generation.”

As major Ellison fans, for 30 something years, we enjoy what soon may be the short of a lifetime - and it is one we saw before - hang in here and we will show you how it’s going to unfold.

In the next few paragraphs we are going to give you insight nobody is talking about, it is a fatal virus for Oracle and other tech companies built on the relational model.

Ellison’s bet, like the quantum bet, is software cannot be made to run faster - data centers need to be made bigger - and A.I. is the technology demanding huge data centers - running Oracle.

META is building a data center the size of Manhattan - so they all think the same way.

Every tech analyst is on board - they always are - that’s why when collapse comes, everyone is stunned - while a handful of guys make a killing.

The problem is software CAN be made to run 1,000 to a million times faster through the reduction of I/O wait states - which is about 95% of what software does.

If software can be made to run 1,000 times faster, it can do the same work with 1/1,000th the hardware.

Thus it needs only 1/1,000th the energy = NO DATA CENTER - or the current data center can do 1,000 times more work, thus no need for Larry Ellison’s half trillion dollars in NEW data centers.

Software speed is happening without Oracle - and if Oracle or RDBMS is anywhere in the formula - software remains slow, needs a data center, destroys Virginia farm land.

That’s the emerging industry choice: Does the market want software that runs 1,000 times faster, uses less energy and is 1/10th the cost, reduces storage 90% and is almost infinitely scalable?

Are the NIMBY protesters, rejecting new data centers in their communities, following this story?

The new year is full of questions of what will happen in the coming year, and the 2026 mid-term elections will keep us glued, since traditionally, the House/Senate flip against the President’s party in the mid-terms. We know what will happen if the democrats win Congress. But this is not a traditional year.

I predict 2026 will defy most traditions.

And maybe, just maybe, more democrats will finally realize that wokeness leading to socialism is retarded.

Buckle up. Change is coming, whether we are ready or not. For those of us on the freedom train, we know what kind of change we want. Will we achieve it?

But, no matter what happens, we are still entering the dawning of a new era…

tip jar

Leave a comment

Share

When 2024 ended, many of us were hopeful about DOGE cutting the insane spending of irresponsible government waste. Elon Musk contended that DOGE would cut two trillion dollars from the federal budget and Trump assured us he would issue a Big, Beautiful Report on America’s 250^th birthday, July 4, 2026.

FINALLY!!

Not.

DOGE states it has eliminated $214 Billion dollars as of this date, but this number is disputed, of course.

And yes, there have been legal challenges, like the Constitution requiring Congress to hold the purse, which never bothered the Left when Obama spent countless funds not authorized by Congress.

In early February 2025, DOGE revealed some of that insane, crazy waste while the Left panicked that a source of their money laundering income was threatened and naturally freaked out, with their useful idiots behind them.

Meanwhile, We the People, who pay our taxes every year and don’t want to take, are sick and tired of being forced to Squander our American Inheritance through such wasteful spending such as USAID and other outrageous scams/scandals while politicians grow richer and richer, and their useful idiots grow in number.

And, then, we have U.S. Representatives like Ilhan Omar, who enriched herself and her voters off public funds.

The MSM (gleefully) reports that DOGE is now disbanded and the Trump administration confirmed it.

Meanwhile, Senator Rand Paul has been airing his grievances over our pathetic and disgusting federal government waste for over a decade by issuing his Festivus Reports every year, on December 23rd. Each year, he finds more and more blatant government waste.

Senator Paul’s 2022 Festivus Report revealed $482 Billion Dollars of insane waste of taxpayer dollars and his 2023 Festivus Report found $900 Billion Dollars of more crazy waste.

So, as of 2025, assuming the DOGE numbers are accurate, DOGE has eliminated less than half of the amount of government waste that Senator Paul reported in his 2022 Festivus Report.

Senator Paul’s 2024 Festivus Report revealed over $1 trillion dollars of government waste! Why didn’t we start there?

Rep. Craig Goldman of Texas’ 12^th congressional district maintains his own wasteful government tracker:

Government Waste Tracker:

• $22,600,000,000 (HHS) – Aiding illegal migrants through resettlement programs, home and car purchases, and loans

• $7,500,000,000 (DOT) – Funding a few dozen electric vehicle stations across the nation

• $7,000,000,000 (EPA) – Funding green energy projects that reduce greenhouse gases and promoting the adoption of green alternatives nationwide

• $5,000,000,000 (EPA) - Funding green energy projects that reduce gas emissions and supporting green banks

• $2,000,000,000 (EPA) – Funding projects to decarbonize American housing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

• $382,000,000 (DOL) – Issuing fraudulent unemployment payments to tens of thousands of individuals, including those with birthdates in the future, infants, and people listed as 115 years old

• $312,000,000 (SBA) – Providing business loans for children 11 years old and under

• $59,000,000 (FEMA) – Supplying services and housing for illegal immigrants in New York City

• $46,500,000 (DOS) – Funding projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil

• $43,300,000 (USAID) – Supporting programs to build an inclusive and capable workforce, with a special emphasis on public health and climate change sectors in Egypt

• $35,900,000 (USAID) – Funding positive youth experience in Gaza

• $31,000,000 (USAID) – Supporting the transition to clean energy with energy supplies in Europe and Eurasia

• $26,300,000 (USAID) – Supporting higher education in Egypt

• $24,000,000 (USAID) – Promoting “resilient livelihoods” in Gaza

• $17,500,000 (USAID) - Supporting male circumcision and condom programs

• $17,300,000 (USAID) – Providing the Diversity and Inclusion Scholarship Program to students in Burma

• $13,200,000 (USAID) – Supporting biodiversity programs in Liberia

• $12,200,000 (DOL) – Promoting worker empowerment in South America

• $11,000,000 (USAID) – Producing the Middle Eastern version of Sesame Street in Iraq

• $10,300,000 (USAID) – Supporting male circumcision programs in Mozambique

• $9,000,000 (USAID) – Stolen humanitarian aid by Al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists

• $8,300,000 (USAID) – Building worker power for equity and justice

• $8,300,000 (USAID) – Funding USAID education on equity and inclusion

• $8,000,000 (EPA) – Funding an organization to address environmental and energy justice issues

• $6,200,000 (NIH) – Studying the effects of asthma on transgender individuals in the U.S.

• $6,000,000 (DOD) – Funding the University of Montana to “strengthen American democracy by bridging divides”

• $6,000,000 (DOD) – Funding a grant to decarbonize emissions from Navy ships

• $5,900,000 (NIH) – Funding for a TransHealthGUIDE for gender-diverse young adults

• $5,700,000 (DOS) – Supporting programs for LGBTQ+ individuals in Latin America and the Caribbean

• $5,200,000 (DOD) – Funding a grant to diversify the Navy

• $5,100,000 (NIH) – Testing the effects of cross-sex hormone therapy on transgender individuals in the U.S.

• $4,900,000 (USAID) – Funding youth programs with a focus on reproductive health and the intersection of youth and gender equity

• $4,700,000 (DOL) – Promoting international labor standards in Ecuador

• $4,000,000 (EPA) – Building a one-room museum inside the EPA

• $3,500,000 (DOD) – Supporting DEI groups through the Defense Human Resources Activity

• $3,300,000 (DOD) – Unionized health workers in the Department of Defense’s Defense Health Agency spent $3,300,000 and 87,000 hours doing union-related work instead of their federal jobs

• $2,900,000 (NIH) – Studying HIV prevention for transgender women and their male partners

• $2,500,000 (NIH) – Studying the impact of structural racism on the health of older gay men

• $2,500,000 (USAID) – Supporting green energy businesses in Vietnam

• $2,000,000 (USAID) – Supporting gender-affirming healthcare and LGBTQ+ advocacy in Guatemala

• $1,900,000 (DOD) – Providing holistic diversity, equity, and inclusion transformation and training for the Air Force

• $1,600,000 (NIH) – Testing the reproductive health of transgender individuals in the U.S.

• $1,600,000 (DOD) – Funding a University of Florida study on the “social and institutional detriments of vulnerability and resilience to climate hazards in [the] African Sahel.”

• $1,500,000 (USAID) – Promoting DEI business policies and LGBTQ+ entrepreneurship in Serbia

• $1,200,000 (USAID) – Funding choice, equity, and sustainability programs

• $910,000 (NIH) – Testing the effects of “gender-affirming” hormone therapy on the immune system in the U.S.

• $900,000 (IAF) – Supporting alpaca farming in Peru

• $755,000 (NIH) – Testing the effects of “gender-affirming” hormone therapy on bone development in the U.S.

• $731,000 (IAF) – Improving the commercial viability of mushroom and pea farming in Guatemala

• $677,000 (IAF) – Promoting fruit and jam sales in Honduras

• $600,000 (USDA) – Supporting a study on the menstrual cycles in transgender men

• $599,000 (NIH) – Testing the risk of breast cancer for transgender men in the U.S.

• $483,000 (IAF) – Supporting the production of artisanal salt in Ecuador

• $400,000 (DOS) – Supporting LGBTQ+ sensitivity trainings for police forces in Nigeria

• $374,000 (USDA) – Hiring a DEI onboarding specialist at the USDA

• $325,000 (HHS) – Adapting LGB+ teen pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys

• $323,000 (IAF) – Promoting cultural support for Venezuelan migrants in Brazil

• $300,000 (DOS) – Promoting acceptance for LGBTQ+ people in Botswana

• $298,000 (USDA) – Promoting international development for underrepresented communities

• $246,000 (USADF) _ Funding mango drying facilities in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire

• $239,000 (USADF) – Promoting pineapple juice in Benin

• $229,000 (USDA) – Hiring a Brazilian forest and gender consultant at the USDA

• $229,000 (USADF) – Funding the promotion of 100% organic shea butter in Burkina Faso

• $209,000 (DOS) – Funding an international study trip on LGBTQ+ advocacy

• $185,000 (DOS) – Promoting the empowerment of lesbian and bisexual women in Belize

• $99,500 (USADF) – Supporting increased production of yogurt in Uganda

• $84,000 (USADF) – Supporting a business incubator for spa and wellness entrepreneurs in Nigeria

• $70,000 (DOS) – Producing a DEI music event in Ireland

• $68,000 (DOS) – Funding dance class workshops in China

• $32,000 (DOS) – Creating an LGBTQ+ comic book in Peru

• $29,000 (USDA) – Hiring a Central American gender assessment consultant at the USDA

• $25,000 (DOS) – Funding a transgender opera in Colombia

And, fresh off the press is Senator Paul’s 2025 Festivus Report, topping a whopping $1,639,135,969,608 in government waste. This year’s report features…

• Tik Tok Therapy: Fighting Drugs with Influencers: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is spending $1.5 million on an “innovative multilevel strategy” to reduce drug use in ‘Latinx’ communities through celebrity influencer campaigns.

• Cartoon Climate Crusaders in Pakistan: The U.S. Department of State gave $244,252 to Stand for Peace in Islamabad to produce a television cartoon series that teaches kids in Pakistan how to fight climate change.

• Lights, Camera, Diplomacy?: The U.S. Department of State spent $1.5 million to promote American films, television shows, and video games abroad.

• Weight Loss by Wi-Fi: HHS is spending $1.9 million on a “hybrid mobile phone family intervention” designed to reduce childhood obesity among Latino families in Los Angeles County.

• More COVID Panic Theatre: HHS spent over $40 million on influencers to promote getting vaccinated against COVID-19 for racial and ethnic minority groups. • Doomscrolling Studies: HHS is giving $2.9 million to University of Michigan to study the effect of screen time on parent-child relationships.

• Make Vegetables More Inclusive: USDA spent $141,517 to create a ‘resilient and equitable’ local food network that prioritizes culturally relevant food for low-income LGBT people of color from the Bronx and Brooklyn.

• On the Operating Table: HHS spent $6.9 million using data to analyze and model trauma and surgery outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa.

• Woke U: HHS gave $3.3 million to Northwestern University so they can hire 15 people, erect “scientific neighborhoods,” install “safe space ambassadors,” and form endless committees to “dismantle systemic racism.”

• Bears, Drag Queens, and Bureaucracy: HHS spent $936,000 on marketing campaigns, advisory boards, and engagement strategies targeting niche subcultures in Los Angeles—specifically the “bear/cub,” “drag queen,” and “queer punk rock” scenes—about STD testing and treatment capacity.

• Saliva Swabs and Sandstorm: HHS spent $2.1 million for researchers to collect saliva samples and conduct surveys at EDM clubs and festivals in New York City about drug usage. • Pandemic Profiteering: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) gave EcoHealth Alliance $54 million to collect bat coronaviruses and transport them to Wuhan for gain-of-function experiments.

• Fauci’s Beagle Labs Live On: NIH extended funding for Dr. Fauci’s beagle experiments, costing taxpayers $13.8 million.

• Coked-Up Canines Redux: NIH spent $5,215,216 to dose dogs with cocaine. Again. • Ferrets on a Booze Binge: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) wasted over $1,079,360 teaching teenage ferrets to binge drink alcohol.

• Bird-Brained Spending in China: The Biden U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funded a $1 million collaboration to soup up bird flu viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s parent organization and a researcher affiliated with WIV.

• Press Start to Waste: The National Science Foundation (NSF) spent $497,200 on a “Video Game Challenge” for children.

• The Price is Wrong for Monkey Plinko: NSF and other federal agencies paid $14,643,280 to make monkeys play a “Price Is Right”-inspired video game.

• Marine Mammal Money Pit: The Department of Defense (DOD) is spending an estimated $77 million a year on an unnecessary dolphin training program that Congress won’t let end.

• Grants for Guatemalan Gender Bending: USAID squandered $2 million for “gender-affirming care,” activism, and influence campaigns in Guatemala. • Bug Buffets: NSF committed $2,494,321 to programs that promote insects as “food for humans.”

• Not the “BLT” You’re Thinking Of: DOD funded $2,818,462 in grants that have paid for aborted human fetal tissue to be implanted in humanized mice.

• $1.22 Trillion (and climbing) in Interest Payments: Americans shelled out $1.22 trillion in FY 2025 to cover the interest on Washington’s maxed-out tab.

• COVID Cash Grab: Schools received nearly $200 billion in COVID relief funds, which was wasted on things like rooms at Caesars Palace, renting out MLB stadiums, and ice cream trucks.

• The Final Frontier of Fiscal Folly: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) paid a $1.8 billion overage for a shuttle that was six years behind schedule and stranded astronauts in space.

• Billions for Chargers, Not Much to Charge: The Biden Department of Transportation (DOT) received $7.5 billion from Congress to fund electric vehicle charger stations nationwide, but only 68 charging stations are up and running.

• Migrant Money Grab: HHS blew through $22.6 billion on migrant programs that paid for things like furniture, car repairs and home down payments, as well as welfare for illegal immigrants.

• A Very Fed Season of Giving… to Wall Street and Foreign Banks: The Fed paid out $187 Billion in Interest on Reserve Balances (IORB) payments last year alone.

And so it goes…

All I want for Christmas is Limited Government!

We are living in historic times, and it feels like quite the cliff hanger. How will this story play out? How will historians write this history for future generations?

But now it is Christmas time, and time to rest and cherish this time to celebrate with family and friends and give thanks to God for God’s many blessings.

Enjoy your Christmas with your family and friends! Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we will die-t!

Thank You All so much for subscribing to Squandering Our American Inheritance. It means a lot to me that you want to read my scribblings, and I sure hope you all will stay along for the ride that 2026 promises to bring us.