Search This Blog

Noble Gold

NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com


United States National Debt  
United States National Debt Per Person  
United States National Debt Per Household  
Total US Unfunded Liabilities  
Social Security Unfunded Liability  
Medicare Unfunded Liability  
Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability  
National Healthcare Unfunded Liability  
Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person  
Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household  
United States Population  
Share this site:

Copyright 1987-2024

(last updated 2024-08-09/Close of previous day debt was $35123327978028.47 )

Market Indices

Market News

Stocks HeatMap

Crypto Coins HeatMap

The Weather

Conservative News

powered by Surfing Waves

4/10/26

Pathetic Republicans Want Amnesty

 

U

Pathetic Republicans Want Amnesty:

Sponsor:Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27] (Introduced 07/15/2025)
Committees:House - Judiciary; Homeland Security; Ways and Means; Transportation and Infrastructure; Education and Workforce; Oversight and Government Reform; Armed Services
Latest Action:House - 07/15/2025 Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, Ways and Means, Transportation and Infrastructure, Education and Workforce, Oversight and Government Reform, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.  (All Actions)
Tracker: Tip

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

  1. Introduced
  2. Passed House
  3. Passed Senate
  4. To President
  5. Became Law


There are 20 House Republicans are presenting the DIGNITY ACT. They want to give ILLEGALS Amnesty if they have a job, been working, and haven't committed a crime. How are they 'working'? Where E-VERIFY? Once it starts it won't end. They claim we need ILLEGALS for the economy. They already broke 1 to 4 Immigration Laws.


Ronald Reagan got duped by the Democrats in the 80's over giving Amnesty to over 11 Million ILLEGALS in return for Funding for Border Security so another 11 Million wouldn't come in. The Democratic Congress back out. Reagan told his Chief of Staff it was the worst mistake he ever did. Before then the Dry Wall Industry in California was dominates by Black Men. The wages averaged $17/hr. When the ILLEGALS got amnesty they came in and worked for $9/hr. The Black Men said basically 'I can't work for that'. The rest is ongoing history.


I was a Logistics Officer in the Army...Beans, Bullets, Water, Supply Points, and Warehousing. Compton, CA is where much of the cargo coming from the Port of Los Angeles, which is actually in Long Beach. The shipping containers are trucked up the 710N Freeway to Compton. I was a Field Supervisor of a Security Company that manage the incoming and outgoing traffic at gates of the 5 warehouses we secured. The entire Security Company was basically Black. Usual for SOCAL. However, the warehouse workers were 98% Latino. So to be a Supervisor in any of those warehouses, regardless of experience, you HAD to speak Spanish. Once again, where is E-Verify?


When they dropped 20,000 Haitians in to Springfield, OH all of a sudden thousands of low paying meat packing jobs showed up that were being hidden from 'Citizens' the whole time. This is about Math and the Census and Cheap Labor.


NO TO AMNESTY. DEMOCRATS WILL TAKE AND RUN WITH IT. "DON'T TRUST IT" ~NWA [STRAIGHT OTTA COMPTON]


Another thing. The ILLEGALS started moving into Compton. When their Black neighbors left there house for a day or the weekend the ILLEGALS started fire bombing their homes as a way to force them out. As far as ILLEGALS go Black Americans are the lowest form of life. I have met Africans, Jamaicans, and even from St.Croix Virgin Islands.They all look down on US Blacks.

#Amnesty #Immigration #Illegals

4/9/26

THE FOOD LABEL IS LYING TO YOU

  


THE FOOD LABEL IS LYING TO YOU

TRUE STORY, I DID THE MATH:

Read The Food Label, But Have A Calculater


I, myself, examined many clients to make this statement. I hope it helps someone. In short, the food labels are lying to you. I included pics of 3 labels. They are in the smallest print for a reason.

I started reading food labels when I was a Personal/Fitness Trainer. In the beginning I was simply studying the protein, carbohydrates, fats, and cholesterol counts as well as the serving size. 

Speaking of serving size, if you buy a bag of chips there may be 2.5 servings in the bag, but the average person may eat the entire bag. Anyway, that is another story.

The labels give you the servings/mg per day based on the 'recommended' daily requirement based on the small print. This is why it's in small print. The food companies want you to eat more. They base those numbers on a 2,000 calorie a day diet. I circled  that info in red.

Here is WHAT I SAW ... When I was a Personal Trainer we had a device that recorded your RMR/Resting Metobolic Rate. Our clients breathed into it for 5 to 7 minutes. It gave us a for digit number. It measured how many calories your body burned a day at rest. When I side hustled Herbalife we were given a 'slide rule' that did the same thing. I noticed a correlation and another reason I knew GOD was real. In all of the tests the body weight was 10% of the Daily Resting Metobolic Rate!!! In other words, if you weigh 150lbs you eat 1500 calories a day, exercise 3 times a week and you stay they same. If you weigh 150lbs and want to lose weight, eat around 1300 calories a day and exercise around 3 to 4 days a week. If you weigh 150lbs and want to gain weight eat 1700 calories a day and workout at least 3 days a week.

What I am saying is this. The numbers on the label are based on a 2,000 calorie daily diet. Unless you weigh 200lbs that label won't apply to you unless you have a calculator or are good at math on the snap.

EVERY LABEL IN AMERICA HAS THE NUMBERS BASED ON A 2,000 CALORIE DIET

VISIT THE SITE

#Nutrition #Fitness #Diet


4/8/26

The Price at the Pump: How State Gas Taxes Shape What You Pay in All 50 States

 

The Price at the Pump: How State Gas Taxes Shape What You Pay in All 50 States


April 8, 2026

Every time a driver pulls up to a gas station, a significant portion of the price they pay is determined not by global oil markets, but by their state legislature. While the federal government adds a flat 18.4 cents to every gallon of gasoline, state taxes vary wildly from a low of just 9.0 cents in Alaska to a staggering 70.9 cents in California as of 2026. This patchwork of taxes explains why a gallon of gas can cost over $5.89 in one state while hovering around $3.27 in another.

This article provides a comprehensive breakdown of gas taxes in all 50 states and explains exactly how these taxes affect the final price you pay at the pump.

 ðŸ“Š The Full Ranking: State Gas Taxes From Highest to Lowest

The following table ranks every state’s gasoline tax and fee as of January 1, 2026. These figures represent state-imposed taxes only and do not include the 18.4 cent federal excise tax that every driver pays.

| Rank | State | Gas Tax (cents/gallon) | Rank | State | Gas Tax (cents/gallon) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | California | 70.9¢ | 26 | Nebraska | 33.0¢ |
| 2 | Illinois | 66.4¢ | 27 | Wisconsin | 33.0¢ |
| 3 | Pennsylvania | 57.7¢ | 28 | Idaho | 33.0¢ |
| 4 | Washington | 49.4¢ | 29 | Minnesota | 32.0¢ |
| 5 | New Jersey | 49.1¢ | 30 | Maine | 31.0¢ |
| 6 | Nevada | 47.8¢ | 31 | Vermont | 31.0¢ |
| 7 | Indiana | 47.4¢ | 32 | Alabama | 31.0¢ |
| 8 | Oregon | 47.1¢ | 33 | Iowa | 30.0¢ |
| 9 | Maryland | 47.0¢ | 34 | South Dakota | 30.0¢ |
| 10 | Hawaii | 45.4¢ | 35 | Missouri | 30.0¢ |
| 11 | Michigan | 45.3¢ | 36 | Colorado | 29.0¢ |
| 12 | Florida | 44.9¢ | 37 | South Carolina | 29.0¢ |
| 13 | Ohio | 44.7¢ | 38 | Massachusetts | 27.0¢ |
| 14 | Rhode Island | 41.4¢ | 39 | Tennessee | 27.0¢ |
| 15 | North Carolina | 41.0¢ | 40 | Kansas | 25.0¢ |
| 16 | Utah | 40.6¢ | 41 | Arkansas | 25.0¢ |
| 17 | Georgia | 40.3¢ | 42 | Connecticut | 25.0¢ |
| 18 | Iowa | 40.2¢ | 43 | New York | 25.0¢ |
| 19 | Connecticut | 40.1¢ | 44 | Wyoming | 24.0¢ |
| 20 | Texas | 40.0¢ | 45 | New Hampshire | 24.0¢ |
| 21 | Delaware | 40.0¢ | 46 | North Dakota | 23.0¢ |
| 22 | Massachusetts | 39.0¢ | 47 | Delaware | 23.0¢ |
| 23 | New York | 34.7¢ | 48 | Mississippi | 21.0¢ |
| 24 | West Virginia | 32.2¢ | 49 | Louisiana | 21.0¢ |
| 25 | Montana | 32.8¢ | 50 | Alaska | 9.0¢ |

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

The Dynamic Nature of State Gas Taxes

State gas taxes are far from static. Between January 2025 and January 2026, 26 states changed their gasoline taxes 19 raised them and 7 lowered them. These changes are driven by several mechanisms.

Indexed and Variable Taxes

Some states have moved away from fixed per-gallon rates and instead tie their taxes to external factors. Kentucky's gas tax, for example, is indexed to the average wholesale price of gasoline. When wholesale prices drop, the tax rate per gallon falls as well. This has led to a 12% decline in Kentucky's gas tax rate (from 27.8 cents to 26.4 cents) over two years, directly reducing Road Fund revenue by nearly 10%.

Connecticut employs a unique two-tax system: a 25 cent retail tax plus a petroleum products gross receipts tax of 8.81% on wholesale transactions. As wholesale prices rise, so does this tax—during the 2026 Iran war, this wholesale tax jumped from 17.6 cents to 24.9 cents per gallon in just 19 days.

Legislative Actions

Other states change taxes through direct legislative action. Michigan increased its gas tax by 5.2 cents per gallon between 2025 and 2026, while Washington raised its tax by 6.2 cents—one of the largest year-over-year increases.

How State Gas Taxes Affect Pump Prices

Understanding the relationship between state gas taxes and retail prices requires looking beyond simple addition. While taxes are a direct component of the final price, several factors mediate their impact.

The Direct Impact: Tax as a Price Component

The most straightforward effect is additive: when a state has a high gas tax, all else being equal, its pump prices will be higher. The numbers bear this out clearly:

- **California** (70.9¢ tax) pays an average of **$5.89 per gallon**
- **Oklahoma** (20¢ tax) pays an average of **$3.27 per gallon**
- **Texas** (20¢ tax) pays approximately **$3.82 per gallon**

However, the relationship is not perfectly linear. Washington has a 49.4¢ tax but pays $5.37 per gallon, while Pennsylvania has a higher 57.7¢ tax but pays just $4.08 per gallon. This demonstrates that taxes are only one piece of a complex pricing puzzle.

Other Factors That Influence Pump Prices

The U.S. Energy Information Administration identifies several additional factors that explain why gas prices vary between states:

Distance from Supply: Retail gasoline prices tend to be higher the further gasoline must be transported to the point of sale. This explains why **Hawaii**, despite a moderate 45.4¢ tax, pays $5.50 per gallon it must import all its fuel.

Environmental Programs: California requires a special "reformulated" gasoline blend that reduces air pollution but requires more processing steps and expensive blending components. This alone adds significant cost beyond the state's already-high taxes.

Supply Disruptions: Any event that slows or stops gasoline production can result in increased bidding for available supplies. The 2026 war with Iran has caused global oil prices to surge, with the national average jumping from $3.00 to $4.08 per gallon in just one month.

Retail Competition and Operating Costs: Prices are often highest in locations with fewer gas stations. Stations also retain about 10% of the retail price to cover operating costs such as transportation and labor.

The Complexity of Tax Holidays

When states suspend gas taxes, the savings don't always reach consumers as expected. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis learned this during previous tax holidays, noting: "I don't think the consumer really felt relief" because retailers may absorb the difference rather than passing it along.

Retail gas stations have charged consumers an average of 38 cents per gallon above wholesale prices over the past five years, with their profits after expenses often less than half that amount. When wholesale prices swing dramatically sometimes by the equivalent of around 40 cents per gallon in a single day the effect of a tax suspension can be lost in the noise of market volatility.

Where the Money Goes: Funding America's Roads

Gas taxes serve a crucial purpose: funding transportation infrastructure. The vast majority of revenue is constitutionally or statutorily dedicated to road and bridge projects.

Pennsylvania: Direct Municipal Funding

In  Pennsylvania, gas tax revenues flow directly to municipalities through a "liquid fuels" allocation system. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation recently issued more than $460 million to help local governments fund road and bridge projects, snow removal, and repaving. Since 2023, nearly $1.87 billion in gas tax money has been funneled to road and bridge projects, improving 19,525 miles of roadway and 1,757 bridges.

The allocation formula is based on population and miles of locally owned roads. To be eligible, a roadway must be formally adopted as a public street and meet specific dimension requirements.

Kentucky: Supporting Local Governments

Kentucky allocates 7.7% of its state gas tax revenues to the Municipal Road Aid program for city roads, funded at $54.3 million for the 2026-27 fiscal year. However, declining gas tax revenue due to lower wholesale prices and flat consumption has forced cuts—this represents a 22% decline from the previous biennium.

The Debate Over Gas Tax Holidays

As gas prices have surged past $4 per gallon nationally in 2026, policymakers have clashed over whether suspending gas taxes provides meaningful relief.

Georgia Takes Action

Georgia became the first state to act in the current crisis. Governor Brian Kemp signed a 60-day suspension of the state's gas tax on March 20, 2026, with the governor stating: "Because we budget conservatively, we can take steps like these that actually deliver on affordability issues for families in our state". Georgia is dipping into its budget surplus to replace the lost revenue.

Utah's Partial Approach

Utah took a different approach, trimming just 6 cents off its 38-cent-per-gallon fuel tax for six months beginning July 1, 2026.

States That Have Held Back

Other states remain skeptical. Maryland Democrats rejected Republican calls for a 30-day gas tax suspension, with Governor Wes Moore's spokesperson noting it would "blow a $100 million hole in our transportation budget while we're working to close Maryland's budget shortfall".

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster dismissed tax suspensions as a "sort of knee-jerk reaction," noting that the state's gas tax provides about $800 million yearly for infrastructure projects. "We'd like them all to be lower and lower," McMaster said, "but that's one we should not take any money out of".

California's Political Standoff

In California, where gas prices have reached $5.89 per gallon, Republican State Senator Tony Strickland proposed SB 1035 to suspend the state's climate programs and gas tax, estimating it would provide immediate savings of roughly $1.08 per gallon. However, the bill was shot down in committee. Democratic Senator Catherine Blakespear argued that the fees associated with climate programs about 38 cents per gallon help "the same people who are struggling with those high gas prices" through funding for disadvantaged communities.

The Future of Gas Taxes

The traditional gas tax model faces an existential threat. As vehicles become more fuel-efficient and electric vehicle adoption grows, drivers are buying fewer gallons of gas, reducing revenue even as road maintenance costs remain constant.

Pennsylvania officials have explicitly noted that "the traditional revenue streams that support local infrastructure are not keeping pace" with the shift toward EVs and alternative fuels. This challenge will likely define transportation funding debates for the next decade, forcing states to consider alternatives like road usage charges, increased vehicle registration fees for EVs, or broader tax reforms.

Understanding state gas taxes is essential for anyone wondering why prices vary so dramatically across state lines. While taxes are a significant factor accounting for nearly 20% of the price at the pump in many states they interact with global markets, local regulations, and retail competition to produce the final number on the sign. As the 2026 Iran war continues to roil global energy markets and state legislatures debate competing priorities, the gas tax remains one of the most visible and politically charged elements of America's transportation funding system.

#Gastax #gas #tax



The top secret CIA tool ‘Ghost Murmur’ used to save US airman downed in Iran by detecting his heartbeat

 


The top secret CIA tool ‘Ghost Murmur’ used to save US airman downed in Iran by detecting his heartbeat


#Iran #MiddleEast #Airforce

Gavin Newsom’s Empire of Fraud California has lost at least $180 billion to fraud, according to officials and experts.

 


Gavin Newsom’s Empire of Fraud

California has lost at least $180 billion to fraud, according to officials and experts.


#California #GavinNewsom #Fraud #JDVance

Rex Heuermann admits to killing 8 women in Gilgo Beach serial killings

 


What took him so long to plead guilty? He could have saved money to put on his BOOKS for the Moon Pies and Raman Noodles.

Rex Heuermann admits to killing 8 women in Gilgo Beach in changed plea hearing

#RexHeurmann #NewYork #LongIsland #Crime #Murder

Saturday Night Live Jokes Over A Trump Assassination



If you are upset over Trump's Easter Sunday Morning post laced with profanity to Iran, you should also be upset over Saturday Night Live laughing over wishing for his assassination on Saturday night before Easter Sunday.

#SNL #SaturdayNightLive #Trump #Assassination


If You Are One Of Those People All Twisted On The US Bombing A School In Iran:



If You Are One Of Those People All Twisted On The US Bombing A School In Iran:

If you fire rockets and missiles from a school that school gets bombed. In WWII you could have a sniper on a building and 5 Nuns hiding in the basement. They called in air support or artillery, leveled the building, and moved on. War is Hell, remember. Trump is solving a PROBLEM we have had for 47 years. Every President since Carter has Bitched and Moaned about Iran. Iran is responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of US Troops. They responsible for 241 deaths in Beruit, Lebanon in 1983. I suggest everyone go get a history BOOK, or something other than GOOGLE. Do that and then talk foreign policy. It amazes me that people that have never served in the Military think they know more than the Military.

When War is Hell: Deconstructing the Argument for Bombing a School in Iran

The digital battlefield of foreign policy is often littered with hyperbole, selective history, and raw emotion. A recent social media post, reacting to hypothetical or potential US military action in Iran, has ignited a firestorm of debate. The post, which argues that if militants fire rockets from a school, the bombing of that school is a justified military necessity, touches on the deepest questions of the laws of armed conflict, historical precedent, and the generational trauma of the Middle East.

To many, the logic seems brutally simple: "If you fire rockets and missiles from a school, that school gets bombed." To others, it is a dangerous oversimplification that ignores the value of innocent life, the laws of proportionality, and the long-term strategic costs of such actions. Let us dissect the argument, fact-check its historical claims, and explore whether the “school bombing” scenario is a legitimate act of war or a recipe for perpetual chaos.

The Core Argument: Military Necessity vs. Human Shields

The foundational claim of the post is that the responsibility for a school’s destruction lies solely with the combatants who misuse it. Under the Geneva Conventions, this is partially true. Using a civilian structure like a school, hospital, or place of worship for military purposes constitutes a war crime by the party doing the hiding. It strips that location of its protected status. Consequently, a military force has the right to target that location if it poses a legitimate threat.

The author invokes the grim axiom: "War is Hell." This phrase, popularized by General William Tecumseh Sherman, suggests that trying to fight a "civilized" war is a fools’ errand; the only objective is to break the enemy’s will as quickly as possible. In that context, a commander faced with rocket attacks from a school would likely prioritize neutralizing the threat over saving the building.

However, the law of armed conflict also requires proportionality. Even if a school is a legitimate target, the attacking force must weigh the military advantage gained against the "collateral damage" the death of innocent civilians, particularly children. If a single sniper is in a school, leveling the entire building with a 2,000-pound bomb is almost certainly illegal. If a battery of rockets is actively firing from the courtyard, the calculus changes. The post assumes the latter scenario, but real-world intelligence is rarely that clean.

The WWII Comparison: A Misleading Precedent

The author appeals to the moral clarity of World War II: "In WWII you could have a sniper on a building and 5 Nuns hiding in the basement. They called in air support or artillery, leveled the building, and moved on."

This is historically reductive. While it is true that Allied and Axis forces engaged in massive urban destruction (Dresden, Stalingrad, the bombing of Tokyo), these actions are now viewed by many military ethicists as atrocities or, at best, necessary evils of a total war. Furthermore, the author ignores that the post-WWII Nuremberg Principles explicitly outlawed the wanton destruction of cities and civilian infrastructure.

Moreover, the comparison fails to account for the information environment of the 21st century. In WWII, leveling a building in France or Germany did not instantly generate a viral video that recruits a thousand new insurgents. In the modern Middle East, the image of a bombed school is often more powerful than the rocket that came from its roof. The "move on" part of the WWII equation is impossible today because the political consequences linger for decades.

The Political Grievance: "47 Years of Bitching"

The post pivots sharply from military tactics to geopolitics, stating that Trump (presumably a reference to a future or hypothetical administration, as Trump is not currently in office during the writing of this article) is solving a problem the US has had since 1979: the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The author is correct that US-Iran animosity is a 47-year saga, beginning with the hostage crisis. They are also correct that Iran has blood on its hands. The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, which killed 241 US Marines, is attributed to Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed group. Furthermore, the Department of Defense has attributed over 600 US troop deaths in Iraq (2003-2011) to Iranian-supplied explosively formed penetrators (EFPs).

However, the leap from "Iran is responsible for American deaths" to "bombing a school in Iran is justified" requires a logical bridge the author does not provide. There is a vast spectrum of military action between diplomatic sanctions and destroying a civilian educational facility. The post conflates Iran's state sponsorship of terror with the tactical decision to level a specific building in a specific village.

The Ad Hominem Fallacy: "Get a History Book"

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the post is its closing salvo: "It amazes me that people that have never served in the Military think they know more than the Military."

This is an appeal to authority, and a selective one at that. The US military leadership itself has often argued against the very tactics the post endorses. During the Iraq War, Generals David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal famously restricted airstrikes on civilian structures, even those used by insurgents, because they understood that "kinetic" solutions (bombs) created more terrorists than they killed.

In fact, many of the loudest voices against the "bomb the school" mentality are retired military officers. Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, famously stated that the greatest threat to US national security was the national debt, not Iran, and that military action without diplomatic strategy was a failure of leadership.

The author tells readers to avoid "Google" and read books. Let us take that advice. In The Utility of Force, General Rupert Smith argues that modern war is no longer about destroying the enemy’s army but about shaping the will of the people. Bombing a school, even if legally justified, alienates the people. In On War, Clausewitz notes that war is a continuation of politics by other means. If bombing a school leads to the Iranian public rallying around a repressive regime (as has happened after every foreign strike on Iranian soil), then the political objective has failed, regardless of the military success.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Is there a scenario where a school used for military purposes must be bombed? Yes. If a commander has intelligence that a launch is imminent that will kill dozens of soldiers, and there is no other way to stop it, the commander is within their rights to call the strike. That is the tragedy of war.

However, the casual dismissal of those deaths the nuns in the basement, the children in the classroom as merely the cost of doing business is morally lazy. It assumes that the only two options are "do nothing" or "drop a bomb."

There is a third option: precision. There is the option of a ground raid using special forces to clear the building. There is the option of cutting off the fuel and food to the building so the militants leave. There is the option of non-kinetic warfare (jamming, cyber-attacks). All of these are riskier for the attacking force, which is why commanders sometimes prefer the bomb. But preferring the bomb does not make it right.

Conclusion: The Hell of Forever Wars

The author of the original post is correct that war is hell. But they miss the corollary: Occupying the rubble is worse. The United States has spent two decades and trillions of dollars fighting insurgencies born from the rubble of destroyed cities. The enemy’s goal is often to goad the US into overreacting to bomb a school, kill a family, and create a generation of orphans who will hate America.

If the US bombs a school in Iran, regardless of the rockets fired from it, the headline will not read "US Strikes Legitimate Military Target." It will read "US Bombs School." And for the next 47 years, Americans will pay the price for that image.

The author suggests we talk foreign policy after reading a history book. Let us do that. But let us read the whole book including the chapters on the bombing of the Marjah district in Afghanistan, the fall of Fallujah, and the rise of ISIS. Those chapters teach us that sometimes, the military knows how to win a firefight, but loses the war with every bomb dropped on a classroom.

War is hell. But stupidity in war is eternal.

#Iran #MiddleEast #Trump

Haitian man accused of killing Fort Myers woman with hammer, fueling immigration debate

 


Haitian man accused of killing Fort Myers woman with hammer, fueling immigration debate


Why Donald Trump Is The Right President To Deal With Iran


Why Donald Trump Is The Right President To Deal With Iran

Let’s get something straight, because this hasn’t been talked about enough. And I’m tired of seeing people grabbing headlines and posts that agree with their narrative instead of doing their own research. 


What’s happening right now in Iran is not Israel’s war. It’s not a Jewish vendetta, it’s not a Middle East skirmish that has nothing to do with the rest of us, and contrary to Tucker Carlson, it has nothing to do with Chabad. You need to know what’s actually going on.


Washington severed diplomatic ties with Iran under the Carter administration after Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage. That was 1979. 

Since then, EVERY administration, Carter, Reagan, Bush (senior), Clinton, Bush (junior), Obama, Biden, and Trump, has said that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. The White House recently documented 74 separate instances of Trump making that case, calling it “longstanding, bipartisan American policy.” This isn’t a new position. It isn’t a right-wing position. It’s what every administration has believed for half a century.

So why did it take until now? Because Iran kept moving the goalposts, and the world kept letting them.

By May 2025, the IAEA reported that Iran’s cache of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium had surged by roughly 50 percent in just three months, putting Tehran one step away from having enough material for ten nuclear weapons. 

That’s not some little vague threat. That’s a countdown. 

The head of U.S. Central Command testified that if Iran decided to sprint toward a nuclear weapon, it could produce enough weapons-grade material for a simple device in one week, and enough for ten weapons in three weeks. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it plainly: “They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons.” When you’ve built the engine, loaded the fuel, and pointed the car at the wall, it doesn’t matter much whether you’ve pressed the gas yet.

Iran spent years insisting its program was civilian. All the while, it was moving toward weapons capability. According to reporting sourced by the Institute for International Political Studies, Khamenei had authorized development of miniaturized nuclear warheads for ballistic missiles as recently as October 2025.


Now let’s talk about China, because this piece of the picture is pretty darn critical.

China is not a bystander in this story. Iran is central to Beijing’s entire overland trade and energy strategy. Iran sits at the heart of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the infrastructure network connecting East Asia to Europe through land-based transport and Persian Gulf energy routes. Without stable access through Iranian territory, Beijing’s supply chains have no viable alternative. Iran exported more than 520 million barrels of crude oil to China in 2025 alone. Only Saudi Arabia supplied more. China buys over 80 percent of Iran’s oil. This isn’t ideological solidarity. It’s a dependency that neither side wants disrupted.

Which brings us to the Strait of Hormuz.

Roughly 13 million barrels of oil per day moved through the Strait in 2025, about 31 percent of all seaborne crude in the world. 

About 45 percent of China’s oil imports pass through it. Iran has threatened to close it. And here’s what that threat actually produced: China is now in direct talks with Iran, pressing Tehran to allow crude oil and LNG vessels safe passage and to hold off on targeting tankers or key export hubs. When Beijing’s energy supply is on the line, the anti-American posturing has real limits.

Here’s what this all adds up to.

The United States didn’t stumble into this war because Israel asked nicely. It acted on a threat that five decades of American presidents acknowledged and mostly kicked down the road. 

Iran was weeks away, not years, from having the material needed for nuclear weapons. It had long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. bases and allies throughout the region. It had a weapons development program it had been lying about for years.

Calling this Israel’s war ignores fifty years of American policy, multiple rounds of failed diplomacy, and a nuclear program that was running out of road.

The world needed someone to act. The better question isn’t why it happened. It’s why it took this long.

#Trump #Iran #MiddleEast

4/7/26

See NASA’s Artemis II mission’s first incredible photos of the moon, Earth and a total solar eclipse



See NASA’s Artemis II mission’s first incredible photos of the moon, Earth and a total solar eclipse

The first images from NASA’s Artemis II mission’s lunar flyby were worth the wait


#NASA #MOON #ASTRONAUTS

What Is Really Going On In Iran

 


What Is Really Going On In Iran

Credits: https://www.facebook.com/share/1CVgRFnVpN/

"Let’s get something straight, because this hasn’t been talked about enough. And I’m tired of seeing people grabbing headlines and posts that agree with their narrative instead of doing their own research. 

What’s happening right now in Iran is not Israel’s war. It’s not a Jewish vendetta, it’s not a Middle East skirmish that has nothing to do with the rest of us, and contrary to Tucker Carlson, it has nothing to do with Chabad. You need to know what’s actually going on.

Washington severed diplomatic ties with Iran under the Carter administration after Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage. That was 1979. 

Since then, EVERY administration, Carter, Reagan, Bush (senior), Clinton, Bush (junior), Obama, Biden, and Trump, has said that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. The White House recently documented 74 separate instances of Trump making that case, calling it “longstanding, bipartisan American policy.” This isn’t a new position. It isn’t a right-wing position. It’s what every administration has believed for half a century.

So why did it take until now? Because Iran kept moving the goalposts, and the world kept letting them.

By May 2025, the IAEA reported that Iran’s cache of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium had surged by roughly 50 percent in just three months, putting Tehran one step away from having enough material for ten nuclear weapons. 

That’s not some little vague threat. That’s a countdown. 

The head of U.S. Central Command testified that if Iran decided to sprint toward a nuclear weapon, it could produce enough weapons-grade material for a simple device in one week, and enough for ten weapons in three weeks. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it plainly: “They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons.” When you’ve built the engine, loaded the fuel, and pointed the car at the wall, it doesn’t matter much whether you’ve pressed the gas yet.

Iran spent years insisting its program was civilian. All the while, it was moving toward weapons capability. According to reporting sourced by the Institute for International Political Studies, Khamenei had authorized development of miniaturized nuclear warheads for ballistic missiles as recently as October 2025.

Now let’s talk about China, because this piece of the picture is pretty darn critical.

China is not a bystander in this story. Iran is central to Beijing’s entire overland trade and energy strategy. Iran sits at the heart of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the infrastructure network connecting East Asia to Europe through land-based transport and Persian Gulf energy routes. Without stable access through Iranian territory, Beijing’s supply chains have no viable alternative. Iran exported more than 520 million barrels of crude oil to China in 2025 alone. Only Saudi Arabia supplied more. China buys over 80 percent of Iran’s oil. This isn’t ideological solidarity. It’s a dependency that neither side wants disrupted.

Which brings us to the Strait of Hormuz.

Roughly 13 million barrels of oil per day moved through the Strait in 2025, about 31 percent of all seaborne crude in the world. 

About 45 percent of China’s oil imports pass through it. Iran has threatened to close it. And here’s what that threat actually produced: China is now in direct talks with Iran, pressing Tehran to allow crude oil and LNG vessels safe passage and to hold off on targeting tankers or key export hubs. When Beijing’s energy supply is on the line, the anti-American posturing has real limits.

Here’s what this all adds up to.

The United States didn’t stumble into this war because Israel asked nicely. It acted on a threat that five decades of American presidents acknowledged and mostly kicked down the road. 

Iran was weeks away, not years, from having the material needed for nuclear weapons. It had long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. bases and allies throughout the region. It had a weapons development program it had been lying about for years.

Calling this Israel’s war ignores fifty years of American policy, multiple rounds of failed diplomacy, and a nuclear program that was running out of road.

The world needed someone to act. The better question isn’t why it happened. It’s why it took this long."

#Iran #MiddleEast #Israel #War


4/6/26

Photos From Space

powered by Surfing Waves
powered by Surfing Waves


#ISS #InternationalSpaceStation

Locate The International Space Station

powered by Surfing Waves
powered by Surfing Waves
powered by Surfing Waves
powered by Surfing Waves

Behind Enemy Lines: The Anatomy of a Pilot Ejection and the High-Stakes Rescue in Iran

 


Behind Enemy Lines: The Anatomy of a Pilot Ejection and the High-Stakes Rescue in Iran

The silence of a pilot’s cockpit can be shattered in an instant. In both combat and training, the decision to "punch out" is the last line of defense a violent, desperate transition from operating a multi-million dollar machine to fighting for personal survival. When an F-15E Strike Eagle was struck by Iranian air defenses on April 3, 2026, the two crew members onboard initiated a process that is meticulously planned yet terrifyingly chaotic: the Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) apparatus.

While training ejections trigger a robust safety net of medical and standby units, a combat ejection behind enemy lines initiates a full-scale military operation involving signals intelligence, special operations forces, and aerial fleets. The recent downing of the U.S. F-15E over Iran and the subsequent rescue of its two pilots offers a dramatic, real-world case study of how these protocols unfold when pilots find themselves "suit down" in hostile territory.

The "Handle": What Happens When a Pilot Ejects

The sequence begins in the cockpit. Whether due to a catastrophic mechanical failure during a training flight in Nevada or a surface-to-air missile strike over the Zagros Mountains, the pilot pulls the ejection "handle." In a Martin-Baker ejection seat, this ignites an explosive cartridge, hurling the crew member out of the aircraft at forces exceeding 12 Gs.

Upon separation, the parachute deploys, and a survival kit containing a raft, rations, and a radio is automatically released. Immediately, "Initiated" status is triggered. This is not merely a physical event; it is a digital scream. The pilot’s PRC-112 or similar survival radio automatically broadcasts a coded signal on the UHF band. Simultaneously, the aircraft’s downed data link transmits the ejection location to wingmen and command centers.

This triggers the "Resource and Alert" phase. In a training scenario, this alerts the base’s emergency response team the "Crab" team and dispatches a standby helicopter. However, in a combat scenario like Iran, it awakens the entire Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA). Resources are immediately re-tasked. Tankers loitering for bombing missions are redirected to fuel rescue helos. A-10 Warthogs or F-16s overhead transform into "Sandy" helicopters (the rescue escort) or "Guard" angels.

Within minutes of the April 3rd shoot-down, the CSAR machine was spinning up. The primary goal was to confirm the "Code Word" or "Authentication" from the survivor proving the voice on the radio was actually the American pilot, not an Iranian trap.

The Iran Mission: A Daring 24-Hour Ordeal

The shoot-down of the F-15E "Strike Eagle" marked the first official loss of a U.S. aircraft over Iran since the conflict began. The jet, a dual-seat fighter, was struck by an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) air defense system. While both crew ejected, the situation devolved into a split-second race.

The pilot was recovered relatively quickly. However, the Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) the second crew member was stranded in the treacherous mountains of southern Iran. For more than 24 hours, he evaded capture. Iranian forces mobilized rapidly, reportedly placing a bounty on the pilot and urging local civilians to search the hills. Armed only with a pistol and his survival training, the airman used the rugged terrain to stay hidden while whispering coordinates into his radio.

President Donald Trump later described the operation to retrieve him as "one of the most daring Search and Rescue Operations in U.S. History".

The Rescue: "Heavy Firefight" and Abandoned Airports

The rescue was not a simple pick-up. It was a combined arms operation involving Navy SEAL Team 6 and an armada of support aircraft. U.S. intelligence worked to jam Iranian communications while the rescue package consisting of helicopters and fighter escorts penetrated deep into Iranian airspace.

According to reports from The New York Times and military sources, the extraction triggered a "heavy firefight". As the rescue helicopters attempted to land to retrieve the stranded airman, they engaged with Iranian ground forces who had been closing in on the pilot’s location.

The chaos did not end there. As the ground team secured the injured pilot, two U.S. transport planes that had landed at a remote, abandoned airport in Isfahan to facilitate the extraction suffered mechanical failures. Unable to take off, the aircraft became liabilities. To prevent the advanced technology and sensitive materials from falling into Iranian hands, U.S. forces made the tactical decision to destroy their own planes with airstrikes, extracting the personnel on three new aircraft sent in during the operation.

Competing Narratives: Success vs. Cost

The aftermath of the rescue highlights the fog of war. The United States declared the mission an unequivocal success. President Trump confirmed both pilots were recovered and, despite injuries, were "safe and sound." The second pilot, reportedly a colonel, had evaded a massive manhunt for over a day.

Iran, however, painted a different picture. Iranian military spokespersons claimed that while the U.S. might have gotten the pilot, the rescue mission itself was "completely foiled." Tehran released footage claiming to show the wreckage of multiple American aircraft, asserting that their air defenses had shot down two Black Hawk helicopters and a C-130 transport plane during the rescue attempt.

The U.S. has acknowledged the loss of the two transport planes but attributes their destruction to "friendly fire" (scuttling) rather than enemy action, and has not confirmed the loss of the Black Hawks in the same manner. Regardless of the exact ledger of destroyed equipment, the event underscores a brutal reality of pilot rescue: the recovery of one human life often comes at the staggering cost of millions of dollars in hardware and the risk of multiple aircrews.

Lessons Learned

The Iranian incident demonstrates how modern "Resources and Alerts" have evolved. It is no longer just about sending a helicopter; it is a symphony of electronic warfare, decoys, and ground special forces.

For the pilots who ejected, the "Suit Down" drill meant survival. The WSO reportedly used his survival, evasion, resistance, and escape (SERE) training to stay silent during the day and move only at night. He relied on a signal mirror and radio discipline rather than broadcasting non-stop.

In the end, the F-15E crew walked or rather, limped away. The incident serves as a stark reminder that for airmen, the ejection seat is not the end of the mission. It is the beginning of the longest, loneliest, and most dangerous leg of the flight.

#Iran #Pilots #War #Ejection

The Trump Accounts: A Conservative Blueprint for Generational Wealth and Financial Literacy

 


The Trump Accounts: A Conservative Blueprint for Generational Wealth and Financial Literacy


In an era where the American Dream increasingly feels under assault from both inflation and a rising tide of anti-capitalist sentiment emanating from our universities, the Trump Administration has enacted a policy that is as ambitious as it is elegantly simple. Officially created under the "big, beautiful bill" signed on July 4, 2025, the Trump Accounts represent the most significant shift in federal savings policy since the creation of the 401(k).

For decades, conservatives have argued that the best antidote to poverty is not welfare, but wealth-building. We have championed the idea that ownership having a literal stake in the economy transforms a citizen’s relationship with the state. The Trump Account is the fruition of that philosophy, scaled to a national level. It is not a handout; it is a seed a $1,000 seed of capitalism planted in the soil of every American child’s future.

Here is how they work, what they are invested in, and why this program is a direct rebuttal to the collectivist policies threatening our Republic.



How the Accounts Work: A Tax-Deferred Engine for the American Dream

At its core, a Trump Account is a tax-advantaged investment vehicle designed specifically for children under 18 who are U.S. citizens. Unlike the complex bureaucracy of traditional social programs, the mechanics of the Trump Account are straightforward and rooted in free-market principles.

The government provides a one-time federal seed contribution of $1,000 for every eligible child born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028. However, the program does not close its doors to older children; any citizen under 18 can have an account opened in their name, though without the initial seed deposit.

Once the account is active opened via IRS Form 4547 or through a soon-to-be-launched online portal families and employers can step in to contribute. Parents, grandparents, and even friends can deposit funds up to an annual limit of $5,000 per child. Crucially, employers are also empowered to contribute up to $2,500 tax-free, which does not count toward the employee’s taxable income.

This is the "All-Hands-on-Deck" approach that defines the MAGA economic ethos: the government provides the launchpad, but the community, the family, and the private sector provide the fuel. Major corporations like Charles Schwab, Intel, Uber, and JP Morgan have already announced plans to match employee contributions, signaling that Corporate America is buying into this vision of long-term family stability.

A "Lockbox" for Liberty

One of the primary criticisms from the establishment left is that the money is "locked up." To a conservative, this is a feature, not a bug. The funds are designed to grow untouched until the child turns 18. Once the child reaches adulthood, withdrawals for qualified expenditures such as purchasing a first home, paying for higher education or trade school, or starting a small business are permitted without penalty (though taxes still apply to the growth).

If the account holder decides to leave the money in place, it converts into a vehicle similar to a Traditional IRA, continuing to grow for retirement. This structure prevents the kind of reckless spending that often plagues government settlements or lawsuit payouts. It forces discipline. It teaches the virtue of delayed gratification.



The Investment Strategy: Ditching the "Woke" Wall Street

What sets the Trump Account apart from a standard savings bond is its aggressive, pro-growth investment strategy. The Biden administration favored low-yield savings accounts that lost value to inflation. The Trump Administration, under the leadership of Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould, is doing the opposite.

The default investment for these accounts is a diversified portfolio of low-cost U.S. stock index funds. Specifically, the funds are designed to mirror the long-term growth of the American economy. We are not investing in Chinese green energy scams or ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) funds that prioritize woke ideology over shareholder returns. We are investing in the raw productivity of the United States.

Comptroller Gould recently described the accounts as "a direct rebuttal to the philosophical and economic dead-ends of collectivist policies". He argues, correctly, that financial literacy requires "a foundational understanding of free-market principles, such as private property rights, risk and return, and the competitive forces that drive market innovation".

By putting a child’s money into the S&P 500, the government is teaching a generation about the power of capital allocation. They will learn that Microsoft, Apple, and American energy companies are not villains, but engines of prosperity.

The Power of Compounding: From $1,000 to Independence

Critics like Dave Ramsey have dismissed the accounts as a "political stunt" or a distraction from Roth IRAs and 529 plans. While Ramsey is a legend in personal finance, his take here misses the forest for the trees. Not every family has the financial literacy or the cash flow to set up a Roth IRA for a newborn. The Trump Account removes the barrier to entry.

Consider the math. According to White House projections based on historical S&P 500 averages (around 10%), the initial $1,000 seed grows to roughly $6,000 by the time the child turns 18 without the family adding a single penny. If a family contributes the maximum $5,000 annually, that same account could balloon to approximately $271,000 by the time the child reaches adulthood.

For a working-class family in Ohio or Pennsylvania, that sum is life-altering. It is the difference between renting and owning. It is the capital needed to start a landscaping business or a plumbing franchise.



A "Baby Bond" for the Right Reasons

It is worth noting the irony that the left hates this program so much. For years, progressive icons like Senator Cory Booker have pushed for "Baby Bonds" as a way to close the wealth gap. But their versions were always bogged down by government bureaucracy and means-testing. They wanted the state to control the money forever.

President Trump actually did it. He took the concept, stripped out the socialist management, and handed the keys to the private sector and the family unit.

One financial columnist, writing for the New Pittsburgh Courier, summed up the pragmatic conservative case perfectly. Despite admitting he does not like the President personally, he wrote: "We constantly complain that the government doesn’t provide tools for everyday people to build wealth. Now a tool exists... This isn’t about politics. This is about opportunity. This is about wealth-building".

Conclusion: A Nation of Shareholders

The detractors will continue to nitpick. They will argue that the wealthy benefit more (they always do, because they save more), or that $1,000 isn't enough in an era of high inflation. But conservatives recognize that perfection is the enemy of the good.

The Trump Accounts are not a replacement for strong parenting or hard work. They are a supplement a force multiplier for the American spirit. By seeding the market with millions of young investors, we are creating a nation of shareholders. We are raising a generation that will watch the stock market not with the envy of a socialist, but with the pride of an owner.

In the battle against the anti-capitalist ideology gripping our schools and media, the Trump Account is our artillery. It turns every newborn into a future capitalist. And that is how we will keep America the most prosperous nation on earth.

#Finances #Money #Trump #TrumpAccounts