The rich are already paying their ‘fair share’ — and then some
Noble Gold
NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com
Share this site:
Copyright 1987-2024
| 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 |
Copyright 1987-2024
(last updated 2024-08-09/Close of previous day debt was $35123327978028.47 )
4/15/26
Has The Pope Abandoned The Unborn?
Has The Pope Abandoned The Unborn?
The Pope has had recent meetings with pro-abortion Illinois Democrats who have strong abortion voting records. He also met with Governor Pritzker before the Assisted Suicide Bill was signed. He seems to meet with Politicians more than SOULS/BABIES he has saved.
Has The Pope Abandoned The Unborn?
A Conservative Examination of Papal Priorities in a Time of Moral Crisis
For faithful Catholics and pro-life conservatives, the visual has become a source of deep unease and spiritual disorientation. There, in the marbled halls of the Vatican, stands the Vicar of Christ, smiling beside Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois a man whose political career is a monument not to the "sacredness of life" the Pope speaks of, but to the culture of death. The recent meeting between Pope Leo XIV and pro-abortion Illinois Democrats forces a question that once would have been unthinkable to utter: Has the Holy Father, in his pursuit of dialogue and political relevance, functionally abandoned the unborn?
To be clear, Catholic social teaching is not monolithic in its political application. It encompasses a broad defense of human dignity, from immigration to the death penalty. However, the Church has always maintained a hierarchy of moral concerns. Abortion is not merely one issue among many; it is the preeminent moral crisis of our time the direct, intentional killing of an innocent human being in the sanctuary of the womb. Yet, the optics and actions emanating from Rome in recent months suggest an administration far more comfortable cozying up to the architects of abortion expansion than defending the victims of it.
The Spectacle of the Pritzker Meeting
The meeting between Pope Leo and Governor Pritzker was not an abstract diplomatic nicety; it was a tacit legitimization of a radical pro-abortion record. Governor Pritzker has not merely voted "pro-choice"; he has built his national political brand on transforming Illinois into a sanctuary for abortion-on-demand. He signed sweeping legislation shielding abortionists from out-of-state prosecution, founded a non-profit specifically to export abortion rights to red states like Ohio and Arizona, and mandated that public universities stock abortion pills.
Yet, Governor Pritzker walked out of the Vatican with a photo-op he was eager to weaponize. He took to social media to praise the Pope for lifting his voice for "human life" a statement of staggering cognitive dissonance coming from a man whose policies ensure the legal termination of thousands of human lives annually. The Pope, for his part, later expressed "disappointment" that Pritzker signed an assisted suicide bill despite explicit papal pleas . But where is the righteous anger? Where is the prophetic condemnation akin to St. Ambrose barring the emperor from the church doors? Instead, the faithful are given a gentle, almost passive, sigh of disappointment while the governor uses the papal seal to sanitize his lethal record.
This pattern reflects a broader, troubling tendency in the current Vatican posture: a preference for soft diplomacy with the powerful over the prophetic defense of the powerless. The preborn cannot vote. They cannot fund campaigns or offer the Pope a platform on climate change. They offer nothing but their silent, desperate need for a voice. And when that voice is muffled by pleasantries with their oppressors, the flock is left to wonder if the Shepherd has mistaken the wolf for a colleague.
The Inescapable "Lesser Evil" Calculus
The defense often mounted by the Vatican and its defenders is one of "pastoral accompaniment" or a "consistent ethic of life." We are reminded that the Church cares about migrants and the poor. This is true and right. But this argument collapses under its own weight when examined against the political reality of the United States.
The Pope has been explicit that abortion is "homicide" and that science reveals all organs are present within the first month of conception . Yet, when guiding the American Catholic voter, the directive is to choose the "lesser evil" because both sides are "against life". While theologically accurate in the sense that no party perfectly aligns with the Gospel, this framing creates a catastrophic false equivalence in the minds of casual Catholic voters.
By equating restrictive immigration policy with the dismemberment of living babies in the womb, the Vatican elevates prudential policy disagreements to the level of intrinsic evil. This is a profound moral error with devastating political consequences. A Catholic can, in good faith, disagree on the prudential application of border quotas or welfare programs. One cannot, in good faith, support the legal framework that permits elective feticide. By blurring this line, the Vatican has handed a rhetorical shield to every "pro-choice Catholic" politician in the Democratic Party. They can now stand with the Pope on immigration or climate change while funding the abortion industry, claiming they are just another part of the Pope's "tapestry" of life issues .
Conservatives are left to watch this ecclesiastical confusion with a sense of betrayal. The same Church that rightly demands the state protect the poor and the stranger seems hesitant to demand the state protect the child in the womb from the abortionist's scalpel. It is a selective outrage, and it is costing lives.
Pastoral Sensitivity vs. Moral Clarity
The greatest internal conflict for conservative Catholics is not with the office of the Papacy, which we revere, but with a specific pastoral approach that has dominated recent pontificates. This approach emphasizes "tenderness" and fears being perceived as "condemning". While mercy is central to the Christian faith, mercy requires truth. One cannot be merciful toward a sin one refuses to name.
When the Pope states that pastors should "not go condemning, condemning" regarding politicians who promote abortion, he is not wrong about the demeanor of the heart . But he is dangerously close to removing the final guardrail against public scandal. If a politician publicly boasts of expanding abortion access while presenting themselves for Holy Communion, the Eucharist is being used not as medicine for the sinner, but as a badge of political identity. The shepherd who fails to guard the flock from this sacrilege and the public scandal it causes is not being pastoral; he is being derelict.
The American bishops have historically been a bulwark on this front, holding the line that abortion remains the "preeminent priority" . But they are undercut when the Holy See appears more eager to find common ground with the abortion lobby's champions than with the pro-life movement that stands in the rain outside the clinics.
Conclusion: A Call for Prophetic Witness
Has Pope Leo XIV abandoned the unborn? Theologically, no. The Church's teaching remains immutable; the Pope has affirmed abortion is murder. But in the theater of public witness, the silence is deafening, and the photo-ops are damning. When the Pope meets more frequently with politicians who champion abortion than he publicly prays for the souls of the babies those politicians condemn, the scales of priority appear fatally skewed.
The faithful do not demand that the Pope endorse a specific political party. We demand that he stop lending the moral authority of St. Peter's Chair to those who have blood on their hands. Governor Pritzker received a private audience and a public handshake. He then returned to Illinois and did exactly what the Pope asked him not to do signing bills that violate the sacredness of life and the Vatican response was essentially a shrug.
The unborn do not need the Pope to be a politician. They need him to be a father. They need a voice that thunders against the Herods of our age with the same clarity that echoed through the early Church, even if it costs him the invitation to the next White House state dinner. Until that voice returns, the question posed by the pews will linger, heavy with sorrow and confusion: Holy Father, if you will not condemn those who facilitate the killing, who will speak for those being killed?
#Pope #Abortion #Trump
God Is Good: Lebanon and Israel Hold First Peace Talks in Decades
God Is Good: Lebanon and Israel Hold First Peace Talks in Decades
A Historic Shift in a Troubled Region
For those who watch the Middle East with a weary eye, accustomed to its cycles of violence and the diplomatic intransigence of its actors, the news from Washington is nothing short of remarkable and for people of faith, a moment for reflection. As reported widely on April 14-15, 2026, representatives of Lebanon and Israel sat down at the State Department for the first direct diplomatic talks in decades . After years of proxy wars, Iranian interference, and the terror wrought by Hezbollah, the two nations are finally speaking face-to-face.
This is not merely a procedural meeting. It is a crack in a wall of hostility that has stood since 1948. For conservatives who believe in the sovereignty of nations and the right of Israel to exist without the daily threat of rocket fire, this development is a vindication of strength and clarity. And for those of us who see the hand of Providence in the affairs of men, the headline writes itself: God is good.
To understand the weight of this moment, one must look at the blood-soaked history that brought us here and recognize that this opening comes not from naive concessions, but from a position of Israeli and American strength.
The Long Shadow of 1982: How Iran Stole Lebanon
The modern tragedy of Lebanon is a story of a vibrant, diverse nation the "Switzerland of the Middle East"held hostage by a terrorist proxy. The relationship between Israel and Lebanon was not always destined to be one of open war, but the vacuum created by Lebanon's weak central government was filled by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In 1982, Israel launched "Operation Peace for Galilee," invading Lebanon to root out the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was using the country as a launching pad for attacks on northern Israeli communities. While the PLO was expelled, the Israeli presence inadvertently fertilized the ground for a far more dangerous enemy. With direct support from Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah the "Party of God" emerged from the Shiite community to fight the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon .
This was the original sin of the modern era. While Israel withdrew from the security zone in 2000 a move heralded as a victory for Hezbollah and a sign of Israeli retreat the group did not lay down its arms . Instead, it built a terror state-within-a-state. It constructed a massive rocket arsenal, dug cross-border attack tunnels, and amassed more firepower than many NATO armies, all while hiding behind Lebanese civilians.
The 2006 war, sparked by Hezbollah's cross-border raid and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, showcased this cynical strategy. Israeli airpower was forced to strike at launchers embedded in apartment blocks in Beirut's southern suburbs, a tragic necessity that the international community decried while ignoring Hezbollah's use of human shields .
The Illusion of the Lebanese State and the Iranian Occupation
From a conservative perspective, the central obstacle to peace has never been "occupation" or "border disputes" regarding a few meters of land at Shebaa Farms. The obstacle is that there is only one government in Lebanon that matters: Hezbollah. As Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar correctly identified this week, Lebanon is under "Iranian occupation". The negotiations in Washington are historic precisely because they expose this fault line.
The current Lebanese government, led by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, has come to the table not out of love for Israel, but out of sheer terror for their country's survival . After the events of October 2023 and the subsequent regional escalation culminating in direct strikes on Iran in early 2026, the mask has slipped. Lebanese leaders know that Hezbollah's decision to fire rockets into Israel on March 2 "in solidarity" with Tehran—is dragging their nation into the abyss . Beirut's elite are finally realizing that the Iranian project offers Lebanon nothing but rubble and poverty.
This is why the framework of the talks is so encouraging. The U.S. State Department statement made clear that the discussions aimed to move beyond a simple ceasefire and toward a "comprehensive peace deal" . Crucially, Israel expressed support for the disarmament of non-state armed groups and the dismantling of militant infrastructure . This is the only path forward. Peace cannot be made with a nation that allows a parallel military force to dictate its foreign policy.
Strength Begets Diplomacy
Conservatives must reject the liberal myth that this diplomatic opening is the result of "de-escalation" or "multilateral goodwill." It is the direct result of military pressure and the Trump administration's return to Maximum Pressure on Iran. The timeline is no coincidence. These talks are happening only after a series of devastating operational successes that have left Hezbollah reeling and exposed.
The targeted killing of Hassan Nasrallah in September 2024 and the systematic destruction of Hezbollah's command structure shattered the aura of invincibility the group cultivated for decades . Furthermore, the joint U.S.-Israeli action against Iran proper has forced Tehran to focus on internal survival, creating a window of opportunity for Lebanese patriots to reclaim their country . As analysts at The Times of Israel noted, without fundamental change in Tehran, a breakthrough in Lebanon is difficult but that change is now being forced by the credible threat of American and Israeli power .
The Lebanese government knows it cannot forcibly disarm Hezbollah in a civil war it is too weak. But by sitting down with Israel, they are making a geopolitical choice. They are signaling that the future of Lebanon lies with the West and with sovereign nation-states, not with the "Axis of Resistance." Hezbollah, naturally, has rejected the talks as a "humiliating surrender". They are correct it is the surrender of the idea that Lebanon must be a permanent hostage.
A Cautious Prayer for Peace
We must temper our expectations with realism. The path from these preliminary talks to a normalization agreement like the Abraham Accords is long and mined. Hezbollah still possesses tens of thousands of rockets. While the group has been militarily degraded and politically isolated with even its Christian and Sunni political rivals in Lebanon criminalizing its military activities it remains a violent mafia. As Israel's Ambassador Yechiel Leiter put it with a touch of optimism, the vision is a border where people cross "in business suits to conduct business or in bathing suits to go on vacation" . That is a worthy goal, but we are not there yet.
Israel's position is correct and just: No ceasefire without disarmament. A ceasefire that leaves Hezbollah's rockets intact is not peace; it is a pause for the enemy to reload. Israel has a sovereign right to ensure that its northern communities are safe from the nightmare of October 7th-style infiltration .Yet for the first time in many years, there is a glimmer of something other than war. This is a moment for prayer and clear-eyed support. We pray for the safety of the Israeli soldiers holding the line. We pray for the Lebanese people, who deserve to live free from the jackboot of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. And we pray that this "historic opportunity," as Secretary Rubio called it, is not squandered by the usual equivocations of the international bureaucracy.
The Middle East is realigning. The forces of civilization are on the march against the forces of barbarism. That Lebanon is even willing to sit at the table is proof that the tide is turning. For those who have stood with Israel and advocated for peace through strength for decades, this news from Washington is a welcome ray of light.
God is good. May He guide these talks toward a just and lasting peace.
#Lebanon #Israel #MiddleEast
The United States Is Only 6% Developed: Unpacking the Claim That the Government Owns the Rest
The United States Is Only 6% Developed: Unpacking the Claim That the Government Owns the Rest
The statistic flashes across social media feeds and talk radio segments with a tone of conspiratorial alarm: The United States is only 6% developed. Who is using the other 94%? Could it be the GOVERNMENT?! It's a claim designed to stoke indignation a suggestion that a sprawling, unaccountable bureaucracy is hoarding a continent while ordinary Americans struggle to find affordable housing or space to build.
But while the meme captures a genuine truth about the scale of federal land ownership in America, the numbers it relies on are a dramatic misreading of geography and policy. The federal government does indeed own an enormous amount of land roughly 28% of the nation but that land is not unused, nor is it a secret . The real story behind that "94%" reveals less about government hoarding and more about the geographical quirks of the American West, the difference between a parking lot and a national park, and the complex debate over what "developed" land actually means.
The Truth Beneath the Meme: Where the 28% Figure Comes From
Let's start by correcting the math. The federal government owns approximately 640 million acres of surface land within the United States. Given that the total land area of the 50 states is roughly 2.3 billion acres, this means the federal stake is just over a quarter of the country a far cry from 94%, but still a massive real estate portfolio.
This ownership is not a modern bureaucratic land grab. It is largely a historical artifact of westward expansion. As the United States acquired territory through the Louisiana Purchase, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and other acquisitions, the federal government became the default owner of vast tracts of land before private citizens settled them. Over the 19th century, much of this land was transferred out of federal hands through homesteading, railroad grants, and statehood agreements. But in the arid, mountainous West, large portions were never privatized because they were, quite simply, difficult to farm or settle.
Today, federal ownership is concentrated in 12 Western states. Nevada leads the nation, with the federal government managing over 80% of the land within state boundaries. In Alaska, the figure exceeds 60%, and in Utah and Idaho, it hovers around two-thirds. In contrast, states east of the Mississippi River tend to have federal ownership levels in the single digits often limited to military bases, national forests, and historic sites.
Who Actually Manages This Land?
The notion that the "government" is a monolithic entity locking away 640 million acres for nefarious purposes fades when you look at how the land is actually managed. The acreage is divided among four primary agencies, each with distinct missions mandated by Congress :
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages about 244 million acres, primarily in the West. This is the agency closest to the meme's caricature, but its land is far from unused. It is managed for "multiple use," which actively includes livestock grazing, oil and gas drilling, mining, and timber harvesting alongside recreation and conservation .
The U.S. Forest Service oversees 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands. These are working forests sources of timber, water, and recreation explicitly managed for sustained yield under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act .
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 89 million acres, primarily as wildlife refuges focused on conservation. While these lands have stricter protections, they also generate billions in economic activity through hunting, fishing, and ecotourism .
The National Park Service manages 80 million acres of the country's most iconic landscapes. These are preservation-first lands, but they also function as massive economic engines for gateway communities .
The remaining federal acreage belongs to the Department of Defense for military bases and training ranges. While the public can't picnic on an artillery range, these 27 million acres serve a clear national security function .
The Definition Problem: What Does "Developed" Mean?
The "6% developed" statistic most likely stems from a misinterpretation of urban land use data. Studies of land cover show that urban areas cities, suburbs, pavement, and buildings do indeed cover only about 3% to 6% of the contiguous United States. The rest is a mix of forests, cropland, pasture, wetlands, and open space.
The error lies in equating "non-urban" with "unused government land." A cornfield in Iowa is not "developed" in the urban sense, but it is private, productive agricultural land. Similarly, a national forest in Colorado is not developed with houses, but it is actively used for timber, grazing leases, and recreation infrastructure. To call the federal share "undeveloped" as a pejorative ignores that undevelopment is often the explicit legislative purpose we *want* Yellowstone to stay undeveloped, and that decision was made by elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats hoarding acres for themselves.
The Legitimate Debate: Housing and the Nevada Example
While the "94%" meme is statistically absurd, the frustration that fuels it is not entirely unfounded, particularly in states like Nevada. When 80% of a state is federally controlled, local governments and residents often feel a legitimate squeeze. As cities like Las Vegas grow, they literally bump against federal boundaries. This limits housing supply and drives up land costs, making housing less affordable for residents.
This has led to a growing, bipartisan push to release small portions of federal land for development. In Nevada, Governor Joe Lombardo has been vocal in asking Washington to release land for housing, and even Democrats like Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona have recently proposed evaluating federal lands for residential use in land-constrained Western regions . The argument is not to pave over national parks, but to adjust the boundaries at the urban-wildland interface to allow for logical, managed growth.
However, there is a strong counterargument rooted in conservation and long-term planning. Once federal land is sold to private interests, it is exceptionally difficult to reclaim for public use . Conservationists argue that selling off parcels near sensitive habitats can lead to fragmentation, wildfire risk, and the loss of ecosystems that clean water and support biodiversity. The debate, therefore, is not about government hoarding versus freedom it is a genuine policy tension between preservation, property rights, and affordable housing.
Conclusion: Government Land, Public Land
The claim that the government secretly controls 94% of America is a social media fiction built on a kernel of geographic truth. The government does own nearly a third of the nation's land, but almost all of it is in the West, and almost all of it is managed for specific, publicly mandated purposes from timber harvesting and cattle grazing to wildlife conservation and national defense.
The more interesting conversation is not about the size of the portfolio, but about its management. Should the boundaries drawn in the 19th century be adjusted for 21st-century housing needs? Can we balance energy extraction with recreation and conservation? These are complex questions of land use and public policy. They deserve a more nuanced discussion than an angry post about a 94% government hoax, because the land in question isn't the government's secret stash—it is, by law and by purpose, the public's land.
#land #realestate #USA #blm #usforestryservice
Democrats Knew About Swalwell
Democrats Knew About Swalwell
Swalwell:
Democrats cover up their own and eat their own in order to keep power, gain power, and lie to you. If you wonder why Democrats complain about the Epstein files, ask yourself why Democrats cover up sex crimes on their side. Swalwell was an asset for the January 6th Committee, but when it looked like his run for Governor of California all of a sudden HE HAD TO GO. They knew a long time ago what Swalwell was about.
#Swalwell #Democrats #California #rape #sexualassault #Congress
The Swalwell Reckoning: What Democrats Knew and When They Knew It
The political obituary of Representative Eric Swalwell writes itself in real time a California Democrat who rose to prominence as a telegenic Trump antagonist, served as a House impeachment manager, became a fixture on cable news panels, and positioned himself as the frontrunner to succeed Gavin Newsom as governor of the nation's most populous state. Then, in a matter of days, it all collapsed. Multiple women came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct spanning years. The House Ethics Committee opened an investigation. Democratic leadership including Nancy Pelosi and Hakeem Jeffries publicly called for him to end his gubernatorial campaign. Swalwell complied, first suspending his campaign and then announcing his resignation from Congress altogether .
For conservatives who have long observed the Democratic Party's selective application of moral standards, the Swalwell saga represents something more revealing than a single politician's downfall. It exposes the machinery of a party that protects its own until protection becomes politically untenable and then discards them without ceremony when power is threatened.
The Fang Connection: A Scandal in Plain Sight
Before the sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, Swalwell carried baggage that would have ended most political careers. In 2020, Axios reported that Swalwell had maintained a relationship with Christine Fang, a woman identified by U.S. counterintelligence officials as a suspected Chinese operative running an influence operation targeting California politicians. Fang reportedly bundled campaign contributions, attended fundraising events, and even recommended an intern who worked in Swalwell's congressional office.
The FBI briefed Swalwell about Fang in 2015 meaning Democratic leadership in the House knew, or should have known, that one of their rising stars had been compromised by a foreign intelligence operation. Yet Swalwell was not marginalized. He was elevated. He received plum assignments. He was named to the House Intelligence Committee, a position granting access to America's most sensitive secrets. He became a manager in Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, entrusted by Pelosi to make the constitutional case against a sitting president.
The question conservatives have asked for years is straightforward: If a Republican congressman had been caught in a relationship with a suspected Chinese spy, would Democratic leadership have rewarded him with Intelligence Committee membership and impeachment manager status? The answer requires no imagination. The same party that demanded Congressman Devin Nunes recuse himself from the Russia investigation and that spent years investigating Trump's every foreign contact saw no issue elevating a member with documented ties to a suspected Chinese influence operation.
The January 6th Connection
Swalwell's role on the January 6th Select Committee merits particular scrutiny in light of what we now know. The committee, which Democrats structured to exclude Republican members appointed by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, served as a made-for-television prosecution of Donald Trump and his supporters. Swalwell was among the most aggressive questioners, using his platform to paint the former president and his movement as existential threats to democracy.
What the American public was not told during those nationally televised hearings was that one of the committee's most visible members was simultaneously navigating with apparent assistance from his party's leadership serious questions about his own judgment and conduct. The Fang revelations were public knowledge by 2020. The sexual misconduct allegations, we now understand, involved conduct dating back to at least 2019. The woman who accused Swalwell of drugging and raping her described her encounter in harrowing detail at a press conference, claiming she was incapacitated and unable to consent.
Democrats made a calculated decision. Swalwell was useful. He was young, articulate, and unafraid of the cameras. He could be deployed against Trump and the MAGA movement. The baggage could be managed, ignored, or explained away as partisan attacks. The same media ecosystem that amplifies every allegation against Republican officials treated the Fang story as a minor curiosity rather than a national security concern warranting sustained investigation.
The California Calculation
What changed? Not the evidence. The Fang connection was documented years ago. The first sexual misconduct allegations were reportedly known to some in Democratic circles well before they became public. What changed was Swalwell's ambition.
A March 2026 poll showed Swalwell leading the crowded field to replace term-limited Gavin Newsom. California's jungle primary system in which the top two vote-getters advance regardless of party created a nightmare scenario for Democrats. With too many Democratic candidates splintering the electorate, Republicans stood a credible chance of securing both general election spots, locking Democrats out of the governor's mansion in a state where Donald Trump's approval rating hovers below 30 percent.
Suddenly, Swalwell was no longer an asset but a liability. The allegations that Democratic leadership had been content to overlook when Swalwell was merely a House backbencher and cable news surrogate became disqualifying when he threatened to cost the party the California governorship. Within days of the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN publishing detailed accounts from multiple women, Pelosi issued her carefully worded statement calling for the allegations to be "appropriately investigated with full transparency and accountability" outside the context of a gubernatorial campaign. The translation was unmistakable: we can no longer protect you, and you must go.
The Double Standard and the Epstein Parallel
The original post raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: "If you wonder why Democrats complain about the Epstein files, ask yourself why Democrats cover up sex crimes on their side." The comparison is not as strained as critics might suggest.
The Jeffrey Epstein case has become a conservative rallying point precisely because it exemplifies elite protection networks. Epstein's social circle included prominent Democrats and Republicans alike, but the aggressive pursuit of his client list and flight logs has come primarily from conservative media and Republican officials. Democrats, with notable exceptions, have shown considerably less enthusiasm for full disclosure.
The Swalwell case operates on the same principle at a smaller scale. Multiple women accused a powerful Democratic congressman of sexual misconduct ranging from inappropriate messages to rape. Democratic leadership knew about the Fang counterintelligence concerns for years. They likely knew or suspected more about Swalwell's personal conduct than they will ever acknowledge. Yet they protected him until the political calculus inverted.
Representative Ro Khanna, who initially defended Swalwell against what he called social media rumors, reversed course once the allegations gained media traction, declaring on Fox News that "what he did is sick and disgusting" and calling for investigations . Khanna's statement reveals the pattern: defend the party's own until defense becomes impossible, then pivot to outrage as though the information is new to you.
The Institutional Rot
The Swalwell affair is not merely about one politician's misconduct. It illuminates the institutional incentives that enable such behavior to persist. The Democratic Party like any political organization values power above principle. Members who deliver results receive protection. Members who threaten electoral outcomes get cut loose.
House Democratic leadership had multiple off-ramps with Swalwell. They could have removed him from the Intelligence Committee when the Fang story broke, as Republicans demanded in 2021. They could have insisted on a full Ethics Committee investigation years ago. They could have declined to feature him as an impeachment manager, sending the message that members with counterintelligence red flags should not be elevated to national platforms.
They chose none of these options. Instead, they waited until Swalwell's continued presence on the ticket endangered Democratic control of the California governorship. Only then did the dam break. Pelosi withdrew her protection. Jeffries called for a "swift investigation." Endorsements evaporated overnight .
What Conservatives Should Learn
The Swalwell episode offers several lessons for conservative observers of American politics.
First, it confirms that the media double standard conservatives have long alleged is real and consequential. The same outlets that would devote months of wall-to-wall coverage to allegations against a Republican congressman treated the Fang story as a one-day curiosity. When the sexual misconduct allegations finally forced their hand, the framing emphasized the implications for the California governor's race rather than the substance of the accusations against a powerful Democrat.
Second, it demonstrates that Democratic Party discipline is real but situational. The party can close ranks around a vulnerable member when that member serves an important function. It can also orchestrate a swift and decisive purge when that member becomes expendable. Swalwell experienced both realities within the span of a few years.
Third, it underscores the importance of institutional memory. The Fang counterintelligence concerns should have disqualified Swalwell from sensitive committee assignments regardless of partisan affiliation. That they did not reveals a party willing to subordinate national security to political convenience.
The Democratic Party that lectures Americans about believing women, about transparency, about accountability for sexual misconduct, protected Eric Swalwell until protecting him became more costly than discarding him. The women who came forward deserved to be heard years ago. The voters of California deserved to know about the Fang connection before Swalwell was entrusted with Intelligence Committee access. The American people deserved a January 6th Committee whose members were not carrying undisclosed baggage while prosecuting their political enemies.
None of that happened. And when conservatives point out the hypocrisy, they are not engaging in whataboutism. They are identifying a pattern that corrodes public trust in institutions. A party that selectively enforces standards based on political utility rather than principle has forfeited its claim to moral authority. Swalwell is gone, but the machine that protected him—and that will protect the next useful member until protection becomes inconvenient remains intact and operational.
4/14/26
Eric Swalwell investigated for alleged rape of Lonna Drewes, LA County Sheriff's Dept. says
Eric Swalwell investigated for alleged rape of Lonna Drewes, LA County Sheriff's Dept. says
- A new accuser of Rep. Eric Swalwell said she believed the California Democrat drugged her before choking and raping her in a West Hollywood hotel room in 2018.
- The woman, Lonna Drewes, spoke at a press conference in Los Angeles, where her attorney, Lisa Bloom, said she would file a police report detailing the accusations against Swalwell.
- The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said later that it had open an investigation of Drewes' claims.
- Swalwell on Monday said he was resigning his seat in Congress, a day after suspending his candidacy for California governor.
Pope Leo XIV Meets With Former Obama Adviser David Axelrod. Could He Meet With Former President Soon?
Another POPE comment:
If the Pope doesn't want to considered 'political' then would he meet with Obama's chief advisor, David Axelrod?
Pope Leo XIV Meets With Former Obama Adviser David Axelrod. Could He Meet With Former President Soon?
The meeting has many wondering if the pope might soon have a formal meeting with Obama himself.
4/13/26
OIL From The Middle East
OIL:
AMERICA is energy independent. We produce what they call 'SWEET' crude oil. Oil is uses for many things. Why we are connected is because OIL is priced and traded on a WORLD MARKET. WE can control our supply but not the world market. We have a Conflit with Iran, but we don't control the price of gas and oil.
When Biden was in office we had high gas prices. NO ONE COMPLAINED. Now everyone wants to cry and bitch because they don't understand the system.
SHUT UP!!! SHORT TERM PAIN FOR LONG TIME GAIN.
#Gas #Oil #Economy #Iran #Trump
The Price of Ignorance: Why Your Gas Pain Is a Patriotic Investment
In the modern American political landscape, few things expose the intellectual bankruptcy of the Left faster than the topic of gasoline prices. For four years under the Biden administration, Americans watched the price at the pump creep past four, then five, then six dollars a gallon. The response from the mainstream media, progressive pundits, and Democratic leadership was a collective shrug. We were told that “Putin’s price hike” was unavoidable. We were told that high energy costs were the moral price of “green transition.” We were told, in essence, to shut up and pay.
But now? Now the political winds have shifted. Now, as the United States reasserts its dominance in global energy markets and short-term volatility creates a pinch at the pump, the very same people who demanded our silence have turned into a cacophony of complainers. It is time for a dose of reality. It is time for conservatives to explain, once and for all, the difference between American production and global pricing. And most importantly, it is time to say to the whiners on both sides of the aisle: Shut up. Short-term pain is for long-term gain.
The Sweet Reality of American Energy Independence
Let’s start with a fact that seems lost on the average cable news viewer: America is energy independent. Today, the United States produces more crude oil than any country in history. We are blessed with an abundance of what the industry calls “sweet” crude oil—a low-sulfur, high-quality resource that is cheaper and cleaner to refine into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and the thousand other petrochemicals that make modern life possible.
From the Permian Basin in Texas to the Bakken formation in North Dakota, American ingenuity and fracking technology have unlocked a treasure trove of energy. We are not dependent on the whims of OPEC or the charity of the Saudi royal family. We drill. We pump. We refine. That is the good news.
But here is where the populist rage gets it wrong. Being energy independent does not mean we are price independent. Oil is not milk. It is not a loaf of bread sold exclusively at your local grocery store. Oil is a global commodity, priced and traded on a world market that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When a tanker leaves Houston, it doesn’t ask whether the buyer is patriotic. It asks who is paying the highest bid in Singapore, Rotterdam, or Dubai.
This is Economics 101, yet it remains a mystery to the average protestor holding a “I Did That” sticker. We can control our supply. President Trump’s “Drill, Baby, Drill” agenda proved that. But we cannot control the world market. When Iran a terrorist-sponsoring regime that chants “Death to America” starts a conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, global shipping insurance rates rise. When Russia rattles its saber in Ukraine, European buyers panic and bid up every available barrel. When OPEC+ cuts production to prop up prices, the ripple hits the pump in Ohio within two weeks.
You can have all the sweet crude in Texas, but if a war breaks out on the other side of the planet, you will feel it at the cash register. That is not a failure of American policy. That is a reality of global trade.
The Biden Hypocrisy and the Left’s Selective Amnesia
Let us revisit the recent past, because the national memory hole is deep. From 2021 to 2023, Joe Biden waged a war on American energy. He canceled the Keystone XL pipeline on day one. He halted new drilling leases on federal lands. He pressured banks to divest from fossil fuels. He flew to Saudi Arabia to literally beg OPEC to increase production groveling before the very regimes conservatives have always told you not to trust.
And what happened? Gas prices soared to record highs. Inflation, driven largely by energy costs, ate away the paychecks of working-class families. Yet, where was the outrage from the Left? Where were the cries for lower prices? They were silent. Worse, they celebrated. They told us high gas prices were good because they would force people to buy electric cars. They told us pain was the point.
Now, with a new administration focused on American energy dominance, we are seeing strategic adjustments. We are using the leverage of our production to negotiate peace, to weaken our enemies, and to restore rational trade. And yes, that comes with short-term volatility. Suddenly, the same people who told you to accept $5 gas for “democracy” are screaming bloody murder over a temporary spike.
You do not get to cheer for energy poverty under one president and then complain about market corrections under another. The conservative position is consistent: cheap, reliable, abundant energy is a national security imperative. But stability requires strength. And strength sometimes requires short-term sacrifice.
The Iran Conflict and the Illusion of Control
The current tensions in the Middle East are a perfect case study. The United States has a conflict with Iran not because we want war, but because the Islamic Republic has spent four decades building nuclear weapons, arming terrorists, and attacking our allies. Every responsible administration must confront this reality.
When we impose sanctions on Iranian oil to prevent them from funding Hezbollah and the Houthis, we take Iranian barrels off the world market. That reduced supply, even by a few percentage points, sends a shockwave through global pricing. When we strike back at Iranian proxies attacking our ships, tanker companies get nervous and raise their rates. When the world sees instability in the Persian Gulf, they hoard oil, driving up spot prices.
You cannot both demand that America stand up to the mullahs in Tehran and demand that gas prices never move. The world does not work that way. Every time a conservative president uses American energy as a geopolitical weapon to starve Russia’s war chest or to cut off Iran’s terror funding there is a cost. That cost shows up at the pump. It is the price of leadership.
Short-Term Pain, Long-Term Gain
So here is the conservative bottom line, and I say this with the respect of tough love: Stop complaining. If you are a conservative who is crying about gas prices today, you are playing into the enemy’s hands. The left wants you to panic. They want you to demand immediate government price controls, rationing, and a return to the failed green policies that made energy expensive in the first place.
Instead, understand the strategy. The “short-term pain” we are experiencing is the turbulence of decoupling from global market manipulation. It is the result of rebuilding American refinery capacity after years of regulatory assault. It is the necessary friction of forcing Europe to buy American LNG instead of Russian pipeline gas. It is the price of telling Iran that they cannot hold the world hostage.
Long-term gain is American energy supremacy. Long-term gain is a domestic manufacturing renaissance powered by cheap, abundant electricity and fuel. Long-term gain is watching our allies become energy-secure because of us, not in spite of us. Long-term gain is a world where the petrodollar remains strong and where the ayatollahs and autocrats have no leverage.
You cannot build that future without some pain. The greatest generations in American history understood this. They rationed gasoline during World War II not because there was a shortage, but because the fuel was needed for tanks and planes in Europe. They accepted sacrifice for victory. Today, we are not being asked to ration. We are being asked to pay a few extra dollars per fill-up while America restructures the global energy order in our favor.
That is a bargain.
Conclusion: Grow Up and Get On Board
The modern American conservative is supposed to be tough, resilient, and economically literate. Whining about gas prices while benefiting from the most energy-independent nation on earth is beneath us. We produced the sweet crude. We built the pipelines. We invented the fracking revolution. And now, we have a president willing to use that strength to crush our enemies and revive our economy.
So, to the fair-weather friends of energy independence: shut up. You cannot have cheap gas, no foreign entanglements, a strong military, and a clean environment all at once without trade-offs. The Biden years showed us the alternative weakness, begging, and $6 gas with nothing to show for it.
This is not a price crisis. This is a strategic investment. Pay the premium. Drive the truck. And thank God we live in a nation that drills its own destiny. Short-term pain for long-term gain is the conservative way. It always has been. Now act like it.
#oil #MiddleEast #Iran #Trump
THE REAL REASONS PEOPLE PREPARE – BEYOND THE PREPPER STEREOTYPE
SPP413: THE REAL REASONS PEOPLE PREPARE – BEYOND THE PREPPER STEREOTYPE
#Survival #Survival #Servivor #Prepping #Prepper #Canping
4/10/26
Pathetic Republicans Want Amnesty
Pathetic Republicans Want Amnesty:
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
#Nutrition #Fitness #Diet
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)