Common Sense Shows Up

Posted on by

On Monday, Fox News posted an article about a new policy announced by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).

The article reports:

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced a new policy that would ban foreign nationals and non-citizens from accessing its loan services — a continuation of efforts to refocus federal resources to ventures that align with American prioritization.

“The Trump SBA is committed to driving economic growth and job creation for American citizens,” SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler said in a statement on Friday.

The requirement will apply to its Surety Bond and Microloan programs and is an expansion of changes made in February to the SBA’s 504 and 7(a) programs — loans for small businesses looking to finance working capital, equipment or acquisitions. Those earlier reforms prohibited SBA loans from going to businesses that are partially or wholly owned by foreign nationals.

Not only is this common sense, I suspect that the policy is totally the same as all other nations of the world.

The article concludes:

SBA framed its policy change as a way to protect its limited resources and loan capital.

“With our lending authority capped annually by Congress and amid record demand for access to capital, our responsibility is clear: the limited resource of SBA financing must prioritize American citizens who are building businesses and creating jobs here at home,” Loeffler said.

The expanded policy will go into effect 30 days after the agency’s announcement.

If your resources are limited, you tend to feed your own children first.

Ignorance Or Simply Supporting The Narrative?

Posted on by

On Sunday, Breitbart posted an article about Senator Mark Warner’s recent comments about America’s attack on Iran.

The article reports:

Warner said, “Americans are paying $122 million a day extra in gas coming right out of their pockets, that, combined with the declining job numbers, that combined with the stock market crashing, going into this war without I don’t feel like the appropriate preparation or having made the case the American public, I think we’ve got a lot of explaining to do. We don’t know how long Iran will last. The notion and I heard the general earlier, I think we are attiring some of their forces, but we still don’t know whether those ballistic missiles are being totally eliminated or they’re just being hidden. And my fear is that we are running down on the munitions that intercepts the missiles.”

He added, “I really do feel like when we’ve got America’s interest, when we’ve got dead service members, that we’ve not made the case, that the President has not made the case, that this was an imminent threat, and we don’t know where this is going to end up, I think on a war of choice, I think he chose the wrong time. And frankly, one of the things that I would point out, the president said to the Iranian people to rise up. What happens if 200,000 Iranians protest in Tehran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard then massacres 20, 30, 40,000 of them? Will we have an obligation then to put troops on the ground?”

There are a few things to remember here. Iran stated in the negotiations preceding the war that under no circumstances would it end its nuclear enrichment program. Do you really want people who have been shouting ‘death to America’ for 47 years to have a nuclear weapon? Israel has already discovered a nuclear site that had not been previously destroyed. How much damage to American troops has Iran done in the past 47 years? Who is the world’s greatest funder of terror around the world? In a world where terrorism is no longer confined to one area of the globe, did America and Israel have a choice other than to go now–before Iran had an atomic bomb and a delivery system?

The Act And The Attitude

Posted on by

On Saturday, The New York Post reported that two homemade explosive devices were tossed outside Gracie Mansion Saturday. There were two competing protests going on there at the time–one against the war in Iran and one supporting the Iranian regime.

The article reports:

Counter protester Emir Balat, 18, lit and threw the first device into the crosswalk of East 87th Street and East End Avenue, where it struck a barrier and later extinguished itself, police said.

The second person, who has been tentatively identified as 19-year-old Ibrahim Nikk, allegedly handed the device to Balat, authorities said.

Balat is alleged to have lit a second improvised explosive which he dropped on while running on East End Avenue between East 86th and East 87th Street.

…Mayor Mamdani’s Press Secretary, Joe Calvello, put out a statement late Saturday that said: “The ‘Crusade Against Islamification’ gathering held outside Gracie Mansion today by Jake Lang, a vile white supremacist, was despicable and Islamophobic.  

“Thankfully, the Mayor and the First Lady are both safe, though the events are a stark reminder of the threats they both face regularly. 

“The Mayor has spoken with Police Commissioner Tisch, and the NYPD is actively investigating the protest, counter-protest, and suspicious devices discovered outside Gracie Mansion.”

The NYPD, meanwhile, said the devices did not explode or detonate.

Video circulating on X showed the moment one device was thrown towards Lang.

Lang said he fled New York City for Long Island after the incident.

Wait a minute. Regardless of what you think of Lang, he does have the right to protest, and he was protesting in a non-violent manner. The people who threw the explosive devices were not protesting legally as soon as they threw the bombs. Notice that the Mayor is quick to condemn Lang–not mentioning who threw the devices.

On March 9th, The New York Post posted an article about the people who threw the explosive devices.

The article reports:

One of the accused terrorists busted for lobbing explosive devices near Gracie Mansion flashed a sick salute honoring ISIS as he was led in shackles from a police precinct Monday.

Emir Balat, 18, was seen holding up his right index finger — a universal salute for the terror group — and grinning at the press while being led by a cop and an FBI agent.

How many people have we allowed into America who believe it is justified to murder innocent civilians?

The Media Mocks A Really Good Idea

Posted on by

In the age of smart phones and people addicted to them, we have lost the art of inter-generational communication. How many people under the age of 30 can communicate with anyone over the age of 50? One of the reasons we have lost this art is that we have given up eating dinner as a family. In the age of dinosaurs when I was raising my children, we made every effort to have dinner together every night. As the children got older, that was more of a challenge–high school sports, part-time jobs, etc., but we still made the effort. Our children’s friends were sometimes invited also. There were discussions about school, work, events in the neighborhood, etc. The topics didn’t really matter–what mattered was that everyone was included and everyone was heard.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has suggested that bringing back eating dinner together as a family would help strengthen our families and communities. I agree.

On March 9th, Townhall posted an article about this idea.

The article reports:

It’s honestly amazing what some outlets will say just to get a headline.

Secretary Kennedy recently gave a speech about families eating meals together and strengthening their communities — and The Daily Beast somehow turned that into “RFK Jr. Gives Bonkers ‘Anti-Demons’ Health Advice.”

Wish I was kidding. Apparently, encouraging people to spend time with their families is now controversial.

Secretary Kennedy’s message about the strength of community and the importance of sharing meals together should surprise absolutely no one. Like much of his and President Trump’s platform, it’s rooted in something (seemingly) fairly radical these days: common sense.

But common sense doesn’t generate clicks like outrage does. Because let’s be honest for a moment here…

It’s not bonkers to say we’re in a cultural — even spiritual — battle right now.

It’s not bonkers to say that spending more time with your community is good for your health.

It’s not bonkers to want kids spending less time glued to their phones and more time interacting with actual humans.

And it’s certainly not bonkers to suggest that families sitting down to eat together might actually matter. In fact, the research backs it up.

He also mentions that a lot of us need to learn how to cook. That might be true also.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. RFK, Jr., has some good ideas.

The First Casualty Of War Is Truth

Posted on by

There is a post going around X claiming that Esmail Qaani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, had been shot by the IRGC because he was discovered to be an Israeli spy. Later it was reported that he was safe in Israel. Too stunning to be true, apparently. It now looks like this was a false rumor that existed only on Twitter.

However, for a time there was a CIA spy in the IRGC. Reza Kahlili wrote the book A Time To Betray about growing up in Iran during the time of the Shah and being part of the revolution because he thought it would bring freedom. He was quickly disillusioned and eventually went to work for the CIA as a member of the IRGC. He was removed from the country before he was discovered. Obviously, Reza Kahlili is not his real name, and when he is interviewed, his voice is disguised and he is not shown.

For insight into how Iran became the country it was under Muslim rule, I strongly recommend the book.

Trying To Protect Americans

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Epoch Times reported that the U.S. House of Representatives had passed a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by a vote of 221–209. Four Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for it.

The article reports:

The vote came just hours after Senate Democrats again blocked a vote on legislation to fund the DHS, extending the shutdown of the agency.

The tally was 51–45.

A March 5 procedural vote to advance a full-year DHS spending bill failed to reach the 60-vote threshold it needed to move forward. A previous attempt was blocked on Feb. 24, although it garnered the support of Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).
The votes came as President Donald Trump announced on March 5 that he is replacing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.). Noem is set to fill a newly created position called special envoy for the shield of the Americas. The president released the news shortly before the vote concluded.

This is not the time to shut down the DHS. We had four years of open borders under President Biden, and we have no idea who is in the country or why. This is the time for a more robust DHS.

The article reports:

The shutdown affects only part of the DHS because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection are funded through 2029 under Trump’s sweeping reconciliation package passed in 2025. Congress has approved the remaining 11 appropriations bills, funding roughly 96 percent of the federal government.

Agencies affected include the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Coast Guard.

According to figures released by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), roughly 120,000 DHS employees are currently working without pay. About 95 percent of TSA employees are working without pay during the shutdown, while roughly two-thirds of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s workforce has been furloughed.

The bill would provide $5.7 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, an $873 million increase over fiscal year 2025 levels, excluding $26.37 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund.

It allocates $3.25 billion to the Secret Service, including $44 million for security planning related to major upcoming events such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup, America250 celebrations, and the 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympics.

The legislation would also provide $7.96 billion for the TSA, including $300 million for checkpoint screening systems, funding for exit-lane staffing, law enforcement officer and canine reimbursement programs, and $13.9 million to reimburse airports for installing explosive detection systems.

All Congressmen and Representatives should have their salaries docked any time any part of the government is shut down. Shutting down domestic security at a time when the country is at war should be regarded as treason.

An Interesting Place To Draw The Line

Posted on by

On March 6th, Issues & Insights posted an article about Bernie Sanders’ new tax idea–tax the billionaires–they shouldn’t even exist. Okay, billionaires have a lot of money, much of it made in the technology field, but Bernie Sanders has a lot of money too, all of it made while he was a public servant.

The article notes:

There are not quite 1,000 billionaires in the U.S. Roughly 200 of them are still in California, even after the departures of PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, and others who don’t wish to have their earned wealth seized by greedy hands and redistributed politically. It would take a while to drive them all to extinction, but it’s obvious that Sanders and the others who play the politics of envy would sadistically enjoy a painfully drawn-out eradication.

Naturally, they stake out a position based on morality, but if they get their way, they will do deep harm to the country. An advanced economy that has no billionaires is an economy that is in decline. Any economy that loses even a portion of its billionaires will suffer similarly.

Billionaires aren’t caricatures in board games. They are indispensable to prosperity, not just their own but that of all of us. They create wealth, generate jobs, add trillions in value to society, develop lifesaving innovations, efficiently allocate capital, fund charities and philanthropic causes, take risks few others would dare to, and send an immense amount of dollars to the U.S. Treasury (the top 1% of taxpayers were responsible for 40% of federal revenues).

And what has Sanders done? He’s built nothing and lives to tear down what others have produced. He stirs up resentment, rails against choice, has been trying to slay the oligarch dragons for more than three decades, and wants to force the country to join a commune that he designs and runs.

Maybe we were wrong. A single billionaire isn’t more valuable than a thousand Bernie Sanders. A single billionaire is more valuable than a million Bernie Sanders.

Just for laughs, let’s talk about Bernie Sanders’ wealth.

According to Gazette Direct:

Between 2009 and 2018, Sanders and his wife, Jane, reported a combined income of $4.7 million, largely fueled by his writing. His other books, such as The Speech: A Historic Filibuster on Corporate Greed and Where We Go from Here, added to his finances, with royalties ranging from $170,000 to $850,000 in peak years.

Real estate is another pillar of Sanders’ wealth. He and Jane own three properties. Their primary home is a four-bedroom house in Chittenden County, Vermont, purchased in 2009 for $405,000, now valued at around $440,000. They also own a townhouse in Washington, D.C., bought in 2007 for $488,999, which has appreciated to an estimated $685,000. Their vacation home, a lakeside cabin in Vermont, was acquired in 2016 for $575,000, a steal compared to its original listing price of $775,000. These properties, though mortgaged, contribute significantly to his assets.

Notice that Bernie Sanders is going after billionaires–not millionaires (because he is one). Somehow socialists always want other peoples’ money while keeping their own.

When Someone Doesn’t Follow The Script

Posted on by

One of the rules for trial lawyers is never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to. Generally, the left-wing media also follows that rule, but sometimes they get answers they are not prepared for.

On March 6th, Townhall reported on one example of a very quick ‘cut to commercial’:

Kian Tajbakhsh appeared on CNN last night to discuss the Iranian operation. It wasn’t confrontational like Scott Jennings, Kevin O’Leary, or Ben Ferguson; he simply presented facts. He should know, as a former political prisoner. We discussed how liberals are trying to frame Operation Epic Fury as a new endless war, but it’s not new: Iran has considered itself at war with the United States since the Iranian Revolution. Tajbakhsh was present when officials stated this—we’ve been at war with the Islamic Republic since 1979.

This is the quote that caused a very quick cut to commercial:

TAJBAKHSH: “What happened with President Obama, I’ll just say this very quickly.”

“And I was in the State Department in the 2000s when we implored the Bush administration not to restrict the engagement with Iran simply to the nuclear file.”

“What happened with president Obama is that, for better or worse — and I’m not going to litigate that here — he decided that given the four big problems that have always been on American objectives with Iran, that is enrichment, ballistic missiles, proxies and democracy inside Iran, that he would put all the last three aside and focus only on the nuclear deal.”

“Now, I’m not going to say that was good or bad. I don’t think it was a great idea, but what we have seen and this is also maybe controversial and I think a lot of my liberal friends are going to hate me for this…”

“Is that unfortunately you can draw a straight line from the 2015 nuclear deal to October 7th.”

“I think that what the Trump administration is—”

PHILLIP: “We…we…we do have to go to a break here.”

TAJBAKHSH: “Okay.”

Thank you, President Trump, for putting an end to a terrorist state that unfortunately had the money to export its terrorism.

Protecting Americans On Our Highways

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Just the News posted an article about the Wyoming Highway Patrol’s crackdown on Commercial Drivers License holders who are here illegally and don’t speak or understand English.

The article reports:

High-profile fatal accidents on America’s highways involving semi-truck drivers with limited proficiency in English have led to a nationwide effort to crack down on the issuing of commercial driver’s licenses (CDL) to such drivers. 

Statistics that the Wyoming Highway Patrol released last week show how widespread the problem is. Out of 16,676 inspections on commercial vehicles in 2025, 676 resulted in violations where drivers failed the interview because they weren’t proficient in the English language. 

This was the eighth most frequent violation Wyoming officials cited drivers for, and these are the numbers for just one state. Recently, the Laramie County Sheriff’s Office in southern Wyoming, Cowboy State Daily reported, had a three-day operation in which 82 commercial trucks were stopped, and 32 illegal immigrants were arrested. 

The article notes:

The U.S. Department of Transportation announced this week it had begun targeting “CDL mills.” More than 550 training schools for CDLs were closed following 1,400 sting operations by 300 investigations in all states, according to The Center Square. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration found that many of the shuttered schools had no qualified instructors, used fake addresses, and provided inadequate training for things like transporting hazardous materials. 

Last month, the USDOT announced that all commercial driver’s license tests will be administered in English. 

The article concludes:

One well-regarded CDL school explains the dangers of big rig crashes on the highway. At 50 mph, the energy is almost three times greater than at 30 mph, and at that speed, in collisions with cars, the smaller vehicle is often crushed or pushed aside violently, leaving little chance for its occupants’ safety. 

But at 70 mph, the forces are overwhelming. Fatalities become the expected outcome, not the exception. At this speed, a truck crash is often indistinguishable from a demolition event, with energy levels beyond what crumple zones or airbags can counteract.

An 80,000-pound truck cruising down the interstate at 80 miles per hour may not be carrying 200 passengers as would an aircraft. But it can do a lot of damage, and accidents — especially at higher speeds — are more often than not deadly. 

How many unemployed Americans are capable of getting a CDL license and driving a truck? It seems as if we could find some.

With Friends Like These…

Posted on by

It has long been understood that the purpose of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was to bring American military might into the picture if Europe was attacked. There really wasn’t much point in bringing European military might into the picture if America was attacked because Europe doesn’t have a lot of military might. So America was the big brother ready to fight off the bully. Under President Trump, European nations have done better at paying their share of their defense, but generally America has footed the bill. You would think that they might appreciate the protection. Obviously, they do not.

On March 6th, Red State reported:

Does being an European “ally” of America even mean anything anymore? That’s a valid question after several NATO nations not only initially denied the use of their military bases during Operation Epic Fury, the ongoing attack on Iran, but also offered tacit support for the Islamic regime.

The article includes an X post that includes a statement from Spain’s Prime Minister:

Spain’s far-left Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez on the US and Israel military operation in Iran: “Today more than ever, it is essential to remember that one can be against a hateful regime and at the same time be against an unjustified, dangerous military intervention outside of international law. […] That is where Spain will be, and that is where I believe the whole of the European Union should be.”

The article notes:

Given Spain’s history over the last century or so, it wasn’t exactly surprising that they’d take the side of Islamic fascists over the country that pays for their defense. The Western European country once again fell woefully short of its NATO spending requirements in 2025 while continuing to expand its welfare state, a dynamic that has been allowed to exist for far too long.

You’d expect better from the United Kingdom, though. Well, at least up until fairly recently. After all, the Brits are supposedly America’s closest, most reliable ally. Yet, in a stunning move, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer denied the use of his country’s military bases for logistical support. Further, he refused to mobilize any forces for defensive operations in the weeks before Iran’s missile and drone barrages began.

That proved disastrous, with several Gulf allies lambasting Starmer for hanging them out to dry, even as hundreds of thousands of British nationals were coming under attack.

The article concludes:

I’m going to be frank. The United States can not have a “closest ally” that can’t even be counted on to provide defensive support from ballistic missiles because they are too busy arguing over the finer points of something as irrelevant as “international law.” At no point did the Trump administration ask Starmer to participate in the offensive attacks on Iran. All that was requested was help in suppressing the Islamic regime’s attacks on civilians. That the UK didn’t immediately oblige and instead spent days playing politics, even as the missiles fell, is a damning indictment of a once special relationship. 

Never mind that the Brits have allowed their once world-leading navy to waste away into a mostly dry-docked, ineffectual fleet. To the extent that they could even launch defensive assets, such as destroyers with anti-ballistic missile systems, that ability remains severely restricted. 

This isn’t complicated, in my view. If you’re a NATO nation that suckles at the teat of the American taxpayer for your defense needs while you blow all your money on social programs, there should be an expectation that you do the bare minimum when we ask for assistance. If that’s not going to happen, then it’s time to start reassessing some of these alliances. 

Western civilization is on its deathbed in Europe and England.

The Global Impact Of The Iran War

Posted on by

According to brics.br:

The BRICS is a group formed by eleven countries: Brasil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Iran. It serves as a political and diplomatic coordination forum for countries from the Global South and for coordination in the most diverse areas.

Basically, this is Russia and China’s attempt to move oil trade away from the U.S. dollar, and some of our ‘friends’ are playing both sides. Well, the war on Iran has had a serious negative impact on BRICS.

On Tuesday, The Conservative Treehouse reported:

Consider the severe economic body blows to China in the past 14 months.

♦ First blow, the Trump tariffs hit Beijing hardest. ♦ Second blow, the Beijing tentacle on the Panama Canal is severed.  ♦ Third blow, global tariff threats changed the risk dynamic for southeast Asia countries who acted as transnational shippers for China. ♦ Fourth blow, cheap sanctioned oil from Venezuela was cut-off. ♦ Now, the fifth blow; cheap, sanctioned Iranian oil is disrupted.

As noted by Politico: Following USA military strikes, “ships have begun to avoid the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Iran — a critical shipping lane for Gulf nations to export oil to Asia. China in 2025 received about half of its imported oil from the six Gulf countries that rely on the strait. Other large crude oil producers in the region — including Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates — transport almost all their crude exports through the geographic bottleneck.”

The article includes this chart from Politico:

The article notes:

With Iranian oil removed from the non-petro supply chain, the only remaining non-petro oil producer is Russia – who is simultaneously hit with a loss in military hardware support.  China may end up as a larger oil customer to Russia, but at what price and in what payment structure.

With global oil supplies in a state of flux, and with the USA in control of the oil flow from Venezuela, North America is certainly in the best position for minimal energy disruption.

Asia is heavily dependent on oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and the majority of Europe has already shut themselves off from Russian oil production, putting themselves in a position of dependency to the global markets.  The short-term ramifications of this oil disruption hit China, Southeast Asia, Japan and Europe particularly hard.

“OPEC+ countries affirmed on Sunday that they would boost oil production starting in April by 206,000 barrels daily — a modest increase intended to dampen the war’s effect on prices down the road. The majority of the increase would come from Saudi Arabia and Russia.” {SOURCE}

As usual, President Trump is playing chess while much of the world is playing checkers.

I Didn’t Pay To Be An Ally Of Iran

Posted on by

On March 5th, Hot Air posted an article about the changing alliances in the Middle East. There are a lot of reasons for those changes–economic, political, and reading the writing on the wall. In an effort to expand the war and apply pressure against Israel, Iran has attacked Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, and Iraq. Those attacks have not had the desired effect–in fact in many cases those countries have now quietly or openly aligned with Israel. I wonder if these countries are grateful that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.

The article reports:

Donald Trump is breaking the post-Cold War assumptions in foreign policy and rewriting the strategic rules. Campus radicals in America, and antisemitic professors and transnational elites are much more hostile to Israel than Saudi Arabia or even Qatar.

The international establishment can’t wrap its head around the new reality, nor the opportunities that the changes in strategic alliances promise.

Winning the Iran war, or whatever you want to call it, has the potential to reshape the Middle East for decades to come. Especially if the new Iranian regime is relatively moderate, as we can hope, if not expect, yet.

In the1970s the Middle East was divided between Arab states hostile to Israel and an alliance of Israel, Iran, and the United States. Since the Iranian revolution, the Arab states remained enemies with Iran, had reasonable relations with the US, and a mostly hostile peace with Israel.

Could we soon see a new alignment, with Israel, the Arab states, and even Iran coexisting well together?

We can hope.

The Abraham Accords were the beginning of this process. We could be looking at a peaceful Middle East. It has been a long time since that happened.

When Elected Officials Endanger Americans

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Legal Insurrection posted an article about Abdul Jalloh, an illegal immigrant accused of killing Stephanie Minter, 41, at a Virginia bus stop on February 23rd. Aside from the fact that he was in the country illegally, Abdul Jalloh had a record of violent crimes.

The article reports:

Mr. Jalloh has more than 40 past charges, and almost every case, Descano’s (Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano) office dropped those charges and released this illegal immigrant, violent offender, back into the community, and they had a warning from the police department.

The article concludes:

7News found Jalloh has more than 40 past charges in Fairfax County, ranging from rape to assault, and in almost every case, Descano’s office dropped the charges.

An email of a bond alert from August 2025 from a Fairfax County police employee to Assistant Chief Brooke Wright, which says Jalloh: has had over 100 involvements with FCPD over the years, resulting in multiple charges and arrests, spanning from theft to violent crimes against persons. JALLOH’s offenses began with domestic violence incidents and escalated to assaulting other victims and threats with weapons (knives). He has been involved in multiple stabbing incidents with victims identifying him as the offender in these cases. This year JALLOH has been the offender in a malicious wounding where he stabbed a man in May 2025, in which he received a bond on July 31, 2025— three weeks later, this incident occurred where he assaulted an older male and stomped his head into the ground.

I bet the police department lost its mind when Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger said she would not honor an ICE detainer for Jollah. She told DHS to get a judicial warrant.

*sigh*

ICE does not need a warrant unless a judge finds probable cause that a federal crime was committed.

I wonder if the people in Virginia regret their vote for governor yet. This is certainly a textbook case for deporting illegal aliens who commit crimes THE FIRST TIME they are arrested.

Changing Taxes For The Better

Posted on by

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed. It reads:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The idea of a permanent income tax was sold as something that would only affect the extremely rich and the average America would not be touched by it. Later that year Congress enacted the Revenue Act of 1913. The tax ranged from 1% on income exceeding $3,000 to 7% on incomes exceeding $500,000. Today, the rate of tax increases according to the amount of income–the more you make, the higher percentage you pay.

According to smartasset (2025 study):

The top 1% of earners across the U.S. earn an average of 19.5% of all income – sometimes garnering criticism from pundits and politicians – but pay 37% of total income taxes.

The way to balance the burden of taxes so that it would be shouldered equally would be tax consumption rather than income. Everyone would share the burden.

On March 4th, The Missouri Independent reported:

On a party-line vote, a Missouri House committee approved the bill putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow expanded sales tax to supplant income tax

A sales tax is a consumption tax.

The article notes:

The income tax generated about 65% of the state’s annual general revenue receipts in fiscal year 2025, which were $13.4 billion in the year that ended June 30. 

The proposal, if passed by the General Assembly, would go on the ballot in August or November. It would give lawmakers three years to expand the sales tax to “all goods and services” and eliminate exemptions to raise enough revenue to replace the income tax without having to seek another statewide vote. 

The current state sales tax is 3% for general revenue, plus 1.225% earmarked for public schools, conservation, state parks and soil conservation. Local option sales taxes add to the 4.225% total, and there are more than 50 locations in the state where the total sales tax is 11% or higher.

Matching the current revenue from the individual income tax without expanding the transactions that are taxed would require raising the state sales tax to nearly 13%.

The proposal would allow sales tax on motor fuel for the first time. It would also exempt revenue from sales tax on fuel from a constitutional provision dedicating all taxes on gasoline and diesel to highway needs.

Missourians will reject the plan, Democrats said during committee debate.

“They’re already worried about the current budget and the cost of living,” state Rep. Pattie Mansur, a Kansas City Democrat. “They’re concerned about essential programs that are being cut now. The building has been full of people the last couple of weeks worrying about this. No one is asking for the elimination of state income tax.”

Republicans responded by saying the proposal will test what voters want and make the legislature conform to that.

“This really does nothing but go to the voters and say, ‘Do you want to change the system and try a new approach’,” said House Speaker Jon Patterson, a Republican from Lee’s Summit who is sponsoring the proposal. 

With a consumption tax, there is no need for an Internal Revenue Service, and earnings received ‘under the table’ are taxed when they are spent. It also limits government control of taxpayer behavior. It will be interesting to watch the campaign on this issue.

Out Of Touch Again

Posted on by

The  Democrats are clutching their pearls over President Trump’s being part of the Israeli attack on Iran. When Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, she defended President Obama’s attack on Libya as constitutional. Now she is singing a different tune. Meanwhile, there are an awful lot of people in the world rejoicing at the death of a very evil leader.

On Tuesday, Behind the Black reported:

Without doubt there remain great risks and real constitutional issues involved the present military campaign by both the United States and Israel to destroy the Islamic leadership in Iran. First, it is almost impossible to force a change in power solely by air power. This has been tried numerous times, with little success. Killing the leaders of this terrorist Iranian government is a positive step, but it remains entirely unclear whether this war can produce a better government there.

Second, as much as there might be legal precedents that allow President Trump to initiate this action without direct congressional approval, it continues a dangerous trend ceding power away from Congress and to the presidency, in direct opposition to the intentions of the Founding Fathers in their writing of the Constitution. They very much were opposed to giving any president the power to start a war unilaterally.

Having stated the reasonable objections to this military action, however, we must now take a look at the two images to the right to see its immediate and very positive consequences. Both pictures are from videos of very spontaneous demonstrations on February 28, 2026 by Iranian refugees celebrating the American/Israeli attacks against Iran.

Did you ever think you would see the American, Iranian, and Israeli flag together at a celebration?

The article notes:

Moreover, these demonstrations took place in two Democratic Party strongholds, cities where pro-Hamas demonstrations have been routine, including rioting and violence against Jews and anyone who dared suggest Israel’s actions in Gaza might be justified.

Nor are these two demonstrations an exception. They have been the rule across the United States and Europe, as well as in Iran itself. The public — the ordinary people for whom governments are meant to serve — seem very much in favor of what President Trump and Netanyahu are doing in Iran. And they are expressing that support of both America and Israel quite unequivocally. If this doesn’t indicate to the world that Israel and the rest of the Middle East can live together in peace and mutual cooperation, nothing can.

This conclusion is further supported by the response by almost every Arab nation in the Middle East, most of whom started off quite willing to let the U.S. and Israel do this deed, with no opposition or with covert support. Now, because of Iran’s indiscriminate attacks on Arab nations, they have all publicly joined the war, allying themselves not with the Islamic nation of Iran but with the U.S. and Israel.

This is the path to freedom for the Persian people. They need our prayers.

Update On The War In Iran

Posted on by

Iran has been at war with America since 1979. We are now at war with them. This is an update on where we are. Note that the Kurds may play a role in the future of Iran. They have been America allies and have suffered under the Muslim tyrants that ran the Middle East for so many years. This war may loosen the grip of those tyrants.

On March 4th, Zero Hedge reported:

Here are the most critical developments unfolding in the US-Iran conflict: 

    • CIA working to arm Kurdish forces to spark uprising in Iran, sources say: CNN
    • State Department securing military aircraft, charter flights to get Americans out of Middle East
    • Iran International is claiming (unverified) Iran’s Assembly of Experts chose Mojtaba Khamenei as new Ayatollah under heavy IRGC pressure to ensure hardline continuity and regime stability after his father’s death
    • Drone hits CIA station in Saudi Arabia, also reportedly a consulate in Dubai. WaPo: A suspected Iranian drone attack hit the CIA’s station in Saudi Arabia in what would amount to a significant symbolic victory for the Islamic Republic as it lashes out at U.S. targets and personnel across the Middle East.
    • IAEA’s Grossi says there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb; Iran’s large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched Uranium and refusal to grant IAEA full access are cause for serious concern
    • Trump Weighs Backing Militias to Dislodge Iran’s Regime. Future insurgency fragmentation and Iraq-style nightmare coming to Iran?
    • Trump tries to articular war justification: says if we have a little high oil prices, could be for a little while, but they will drop, and could even be below the levels before, but that he ‘had to’ act or else Iran would have ‘used nukes’. Claims Israel didn’t force America’s hand. Admits leadership vacuum.
    • US to offer military protection to ships/insurance in the Strait of Hormuz 
    • The Pentagon has released Operation Epic Fury’s objectives; 1- Demilitarization of Iran: destruction of its missile forces, production facilities, and naval fleet 2- Elimination of the terrorist regime 3- Protection of the United States from current and future threats 4-  Ensuring that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons
    • UAE mulling joining US-Israel attack on Iran, and the Saudis too, to stop Iranian missile and drone strikes on their countries.

Please follow the link above for more information.

Doing The Right Thing After Being Told Not To

Posted on by

On Monday, Hot Air posted an article about Vinny Martorano, a young reporter who covers Austin, Texas. He was out and about covering the protests and rallies in Austin after the attack on Iran.

The article reports:

He’s just about ready to go when his cameraman hands him a phone with a message from the station bosses, telling him to cool his jets on the ‘Yay, Trump‘ crowd coverage.

‘They don’t want us focusing on that,‘ says the cameraman, and it is hard to make out over the racket of the voices behind him.

WELL, I AM

The article concludes:

What a sad commentary on the state of the media that this one young man’s honest adherence to the essence of reporting the truth of the story in front of him is just a gobsmacker in this day and age.

A reporting job for a major affiliate in a larger market like Austin is a plum opportunity, and to buck the bosses to tell the truth?

To show THE UNADORNED, UNEDITED TRUTH instead of massaging the sensitivities of the pervading ideology?

I’m sorry – that is beyond spectacular.

Maybe it’s because he went to a mid-major like Ball State (yes, I read his bio) that he’s kept his innate integrity. 

Whatever it is, his parents raised what used to simply be known as a ‘good man’ – the same ‘good men’ who are now as rare as Sasquatch sightings in his profession.

I don’t know what will happen once word of this hits the bosses, or if they’ve already ripped him a new one for his report.

All I know is that the media could use more Vinnies on-air and a whole lot less of the national CBS reporters.

I’ll lay you dollars to donuts they do the exact opposite.

Vinny has a future in alternative media. It remains to be seen if he has a future with CBS.

Looking At The Big Picture

Posted on by

Despite what his enemies tell us, President Trump is a very smart man. The backing of the Israeli attack on Iran is a major step toward American national security because of its impact on China’s fuel supply. President Trump may have just prevented an Chinese attack on Taiwan.

On March 3, Red State reported:

President Donald Trump’s latest attack on Iran takes a big economic bite out of one of America’s chief rivals: China.

Over the span of two months, the Trump administration has removed the leaders of two countries that both shared China as their most important crude oil customer. Although China buys oil from nations all across the Middle East, Iran was second only to Saudi Arabia as its supplier last year, according to a POLITICO analysis of data provided by market research firm Kpler.

Almost all of Iran’s exported oil, and more than half of Venezuela’s, went last year to China, which remained one of the only purchasers of goods from the two heavily sanctioned nations. The two countries combined represented some 17 percent of China’s overall oil purchases — a meaningful share for the world’s largest importer of crude oil.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Saturday said it was “highly concerned” by the attacks on Iran and called for an end to the war. The squeeze on China’s energy supply also comes just weeks before Trump is slated to hold a summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

…Iran has a single use beyond supplying cut-rate oil to China’s economy, that is to provide a distraction to the U.S. Iranian operations effectively handed us defeats in two wars. Iranian explosive-formed penetrators killed hundreds of American soldiers and Marines. Iran’s sponsorship of Lebanese Hezbollah and the Houthis has created conflict and disrupted international trade. In case of a real war, a nuclear-armed Iran could create a massive distraction to any U.S. effort in the Indo-Pacific and put the Suez Canal as well as Gulf oil fields at risk.

We are in the early stage of a rollback of Chinese influence. From an oil perspective, Venezuela and Iran account for 17 percent of China’s oil imports. Not much you say. Making up that oil volume at below-market rates is difficult. Add to that the fact that the supply of Russian oil smuggled by “dark fleet” tankers is also coming to an end. President Trump and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi have agreed that India will stop buying bootleg Russian oil. In fact, only three weeks ago, India seized a tanker carrying Russian oil; Indian Coast Guard Seizes Three Sanctioned ‘Dark Fleet’ Tankers Carrying Illegal Iranian Oil…to India – RedState. This has caused a significant disruption in the supply of Russian oil to China.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The implications of the fall of the current government of Iran are wide-ranging.

History Repeating Itself

Posted on by

On March 3, Real Clear Politics posted an article about some of the history between Iran and Israel. Remember, Iran is not an Arab country–it is Persian, and Israel and Persia have a history. Israel is currently celebrating the feast of Purim, where Queen Esther prevented the genocide of the Jewish population in Persia.

The article reports:

The joint United States and Israeli strikes on Feb. 28, 2026, did more than destroy military infrastructure. They decapitated the ideological command center of a regime that has spent four decades promising Israel’s annihilation and financing America’s enemies. The death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei marks the most consequential blow to state-sponsored terror in modern history.

It revives a question Jewish thinkers have wrestled with for centuries: When does confronting evil move from a strategic option to a moral obligation?

The Torah’s final commandment provides the frame. “Remember what Amalek did to you … you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget.” The mandate sounds ruthless because it addresses something ruthless: a force that attacks the vulnerable without provocation and defines itself through destruction.

Maimonides did not treat Amalek as a racial category. He treated it as conditional. If Amalek accepted basic moral law, it survived. If it persisted in predatory evil, it forfeited its claim to endure. Amalek therefore describes not bloodline, but ideology – a governing doctrine that sacralizes annihilation.

The article notes:

The timing could not resonate more clearly. Purim begins as the Iranian regime loses its supreme leader. The Megillah names its villain precisely: Haman the Agagite, traced to Agag, king of Amalek. Scripture signals continuity. Hatred survives defeat. It reappears when it acquires power.

October 7 exposed that continuity in blood. Hamas did not act spontaneously. It operated within an architecture financed, armed, trained, and strategically directed by Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The massacre of civilians – deliberate, theatrical, ecstatic – reflected doctrine, not desperation. It was a demonstration of what the regime believes is holy.

Iran built the machinery that made it possible.

The article concludes:

Amalek returns whenever annihilation joins theology to weapons and funding. Purim does not mark vengeance. It marks survival – the moment when a people recognized genocidal intent before it matured beyond containment.

This year, as the Megillah recounts the fall of Haman the Agagite, the final mitzvah reminds us that confronting predatory ideology cannot wait until encirclement completes itself.

The obligation lies in refusing to mistake declared annihilation for diplomacy – and in acting before the next decree becomes irreversible.

Many people in America and around the world are tired of diplomacy that simply feeds the other guy to the alligator. It’s time to destroy the alligator.

Remove the Filibuster?

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D. 

There is a legitimate controversy brewing about the U.S. Senate so-called filibuster rule that requires legislation by the Senate to be approved by 60 out of the 100 senators. This is not the rule in the House of Representatives, where a majority of at least one vote is necessary. Some people argue that requiring 60 votes makes it very difficult to pass legislation since in most cases one political party does not have enough senators to meet the filibuster threshold of 60, and therefore the minority is able to block the majority.  Let’s take a look at the issues involved.

First of all, it should be noted that the U.S. Constitution does not require 60 votes out of 100 to pass legislation; it requires only a simple majority of one. The term filibuster refers to the process of a senator taking the floor to speak and continuing in order to block a vote on pending legislation by “talking the bill to death.” In 1841, then senator Henry Clay threatened to introduce a process by which debate could be ended and thereby, forcing a vote. He was not successful. It was not until 1917, that the Senate passed a “cloture “ rule that allowed the Senate to terminate debate with a three-fifths majority of 67. That rule was modified in 1975 to require only 60 votes for cloture. Filibusters over the years have been used to block legislation that most of the people in the country supported, for example, civil rights legislation in the 1950s and1960s. Now they do not even have to stand up and speak for hours; all they have to do is threaten to do it!

As noted above, the filibuster rule allows the minority to block action by the majority. A glaring example today is the “SAVE” Act that is being blocked in the Senate by Democrats. That bill would require all voters in federal elections to show a photo ID and verification of citizenship, which polls show is supported by over 80% of Americans regardless of party affiliation. Herein lies the essential problem where the will of the majority of people is being blocked by the minority political party thereby denying the right of the people to control their government. The recent extended shutdown of the entire federal government for over 40 days by the Democrats is another example. I believe it is fair to argue that a political party winning the Presidency, the majority in the House, and the Senate has demonstrated that the majority of citizens support their platform and should be able to implement the changes voted for by the people. This is what government of the people, for the people and by the people, looks like.

The Democrats have stated that if they win all the branches of government they would add the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as States giving them four more senators; expand the Supreme Court to twelve allowing them to appoint three more socialists to the court; and grant citizenship to all illegal aliens. If this occurs, it will be next to impossible for the conservative majority of people in this country to reassert control over the federal government. Given this stated goal and the country’s fight against a Marxist takeover, it seems clear that we must ensure that the issues of the Republican Party to support this country, especially on its 250th anniversary, are implemented through legislation not just executive orders by President Trump. For example, removing the filibuster would allow the Congress to give President Trump the authority to implement tariffs that are essential to fair trade with other countries. The entire Trump agenda is in jeopardy if it is not confirmed by Congress. Otherwise, the next Democrat President can open the borders, reinstate climate change policies that are neither necessary or helpful, weaken the military, and increase taxes.

I do not believe that the majority of people in this country want this to happen. The filibuster rule must be eliminated; the sooner the better.

Why Senators Should Study Economics

Posted on by

On March 2nd, The Washington Free Beacon posted an article detailing a tax proposal by Senator Bernie Sanders, socialist of Vermont, and Representative Ro Khanna.

The article reports:

Sen. Bernie Sanders, socialist of Vermont, and Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California best known for trafficking in Epstein-related conspiracy theories, are pushing legislation that would impose a new 5 percent annual wealth tax on billionaires and use the revenue to give money to everyone earning less than $150,000 a year.

The bill, which the politicians are calling the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act, would raise $4.4 trillion over a decade, according to a letter from Emanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, economists at the University of California, Berkeley, that was released by the leftist politicians.

At some point, someone needs to tell Senator Sanders and Representative Khanna that the problem is not the income–the problem is the spending. Americans have learned in the past year that the amount of fraud in government programs is staggering. Congress needs to focus on ending the fraud–not demanding more money.

The article concludes:

It’s easy to understand why Sanders and Khanna would want to tax those fortunes away—they would get to spend the money themselves and use it to diminish the power of forces that constrain unlimited government power. Why the Times wants to pile on in the campaign by French economists and socialist politicians against the non-Sulzberger rich is a separate question.

One billionaire wealth pool that Sanders and Khanna and the Times‘s intrepid investigative journalists don’t seem eager to shine a light on is the New York Times Company itself, whose stock today traded at a price above $81 a share, a record. Leave it to the people with inherited sixth-generation family control of a company with a $12.4 billion enterprise value and political agenda-setting power that, if sharply diminished, remains significant to sound a panicky alarm about the creation of new fortunes.

The funniest thing about the Times billionaire article is the undertone of old-money horror at the arrivistes. “The number of U.S. billionaires jumped 50 percent by some estimates between 2017 and 2025, to more than 900 people,” the Times frets, fulminating about “stunning velocity” and the “colossal leap.” At pro-growth widely read news websites, we call that the American dream of upward mobility and opportunity. Celebrate it rather than complain about it.

When you tax something, you get less of it. A wealth tax will eventually result in less wealth.

A Question That Needs An Answer

Posted on by

On Sunday, Just the News posted an article titled, “Did Founding Framers intend for the Census to count Illegal aliens? Courts could soon decide.” This is an important question because it impacts the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The article reports:

Historical evidence suggests the framers did not intend for illegal immigrants to be counted for apportionment. A new lawsuit filed by the State of Missouri urges the Census Bureau to return to that original understanding.

The Constitution’s text 

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires an “actual enumeration” of the population for purposes of congressional representation. The Fourteenth Amendment later clarified that this enumeration must count the “whole number of persons” residing in each state.

The Constitution, however, has never been interpreted to require counting every individual physically present within a state on census day. For example, no cases have contended that the Census Bureau must count temporary visitors, such as foreign tourists or short-term travelers. 

While there is broad agreement that the phrase “whole number of persons” does not require a literal counting of every individual physically present in a state at a given moment, there is disagreement over whether it requires the Census Bureau to include illegal immigrants.

For much of American history, whether illegal immigrants should be included in the census was a purely academic question. For nearly a century after the nation’s founding, there were few meaningful federal restrictions on immigration. Congress did not enact the first statute excluding certain classes of immigrants until 1875. Numerical limits on immigration were not imposed until the Immigration Act of 1921, and unauthorized entry across the border was not criminalized until 1929. 

Because lawful immigration was relatively accessible, illegal immigration remained limited for much of the nation’s early history.

The article concludes:

The framers’ and early Congresses’ repeated use of the term “inhabitant” is significant. In eighteenth- and nineteenth-century legal usage, the term was closely associated with the concept of domicile—a fixed, lawful, and enduring residence. That concept stands in sharp contrast to transient presence or unlawful entry, suggesting that the Constitution’s original understanding of apportionment was tied to lawful, settled membership in a political community.

Will the Supreme Court decide?

Missouri’s lawsuit may finally force a definitive answer. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the justices may be asked to determine whether the Constitution permits counting illegal aliens for purposes of apportionment. Missouri has asked for expedited resolution of its case.

The census should be limited to citizens–the people who have skin in the game.

Was It Legal?

Posted on by

On Saturday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the legality of President Trump’s attack on Iran. John Hinderaker is one of the founders of Power Line Blog. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and Harvard Law School. He worked as a lawyer in Minnesota before he retired. He is currently President of the Center of the American Experiment, a think tank headquartered in Minnesota.

The article at Power Line Blog states:

Seemingly with one voice, Democrats have denounced the administration’s attack on Iran as “illegal” and “unconstitutional.” But the Democrats’ views on legality vary wildly, depending on who is in the White House. My friend Ilan Wurman, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, points out the obvious parallel between Iran and Libya:

The article includes excerpts from the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel that concluded Obama’s air strikes on Libya were legal. Please follow the above link to the article for further details.

The article concludes:

The Democrats’ assertions about the law–they don’t actually make arguments–are frivolous.

Unlike Ilan, I don’t take “international law” seriously, and I give zero credence to the United Nations. The job of the President is to defend American national security, period. And I would add that Iran posed approximately a million times more danger to our security than did Libya.

Iran has been at war with us since 1979. It was time for us to return the favor.