Useful Until You Aren't

Eric Swalwell was elected to Congress in 2012 from a district southeast of Oakland at the age of 31 just six years after graduating from law school.

He was considered a protege of Nancy Pelosi who appointed Swalwell to the prestigious House Intelligence Committee in just his second term.

During Donald Trump's first term Swalwell became popular with the mainstream media who would have him on often to criticize the President.

His position on the Intelligence Committee gave him credibility to amplify suggestions that Trump was in collusion with the Russians.

Swalwell repeatedly "suggested that Trump acted in Russia's interests or as a "Russian asset," challenging Trump to disprove the claims by releasing tax returns, detailing meetings with Vladimir Putin, or explaining financial ties to Russia."

Swalwell's star within the Democrat party rose due to his "attack dog" role regarding Trump.

After January 6, 2021, Swalwell was named by Pelosi to be one of the managers of the impeachment proceedings against Trump.

Swalwell had deep, deep ties with the Democrat establishment.

He ran for the Democrat Presidential nomination in 2024.

Swalwell was also running for Governor of California this year and was placing first or second among Democrats in polling for the upcoming primary. 

All of this was true despite the fact that it came to light in 2020 that Swalwell had been very close to a woman, Christine Fang, in the 2011-2015 period who turned out to be a Chinese intelligence agent.

Some even suggested that there might have been some type of romantic relationship involved as there is evidence that Fang was involved in "honeypot" operations with at least two other politicians.

Whether of not Swalwell had a sexual relationship with Fang, it has become very apparent over the last week that he was involved in a a number of sordid affairs with women over the years.

This is despite the fact that he is married with three young children under the age of 10.

It all broke out into the open with this story by CNN.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/10/us/eric-swalwell-sexual-misconduct-allegations-invs

Another woman went public earlier this week who said the Swalwell drugged and raped her in a hotel room and there are reports that more women are ready to come forward.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/woman-says-eric-swalwell-drugged-raped-choked-thought-died-rcna331693

It did not take long for Swalwell to drop out of the California Governor's race and his congressional seat was well.

Why did all of this come out now?

This is especially true as there have long been whispers about Swalwell's sordid relationships with women.

Politico reported that all of this had been talked about in D.C. for a long time.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/13/influencers-allegations-eric-swalwell-00869517

The broad contours of Swalwell’s alleged behavior, if not the specifics, did not come as a surprise to many working in and around politics, especially in Washington. The 45-year-old cable news darling and Trump antagonist had developed a reputation for unsavory and sometimes unwanted behavior toward women. Those warnings were shared in whisper networks but rarely traveled outside the circle of political insiders.

Apparently it was also well known in his hometown of Dublin, California going back to the time he was first elected to Congress.

However, this "journalist" was obviously not interested in investigating or reporting the real story.

 

That was the case even when Swalwell was pontificating on Capitol Hill about the importance of respecting and believing women.

Swalwell said "trust women, they will get it right".

Running for Governor he said he would not tolerate violence against women.

How about this one from Swalwell?  Yikes!

That tweet really did not age very well.

It is not hard to see why Swalwell decided to forget about his political career.

He apparently has much bigger concerns right now--among them how is he going to make a living and how is he going to stay our of prison?

However, the question remains why did this all came down now?

How could the fall of this rising star come so suddenly?

Swalwell was in Congress for 13 years. He ran for President. We are less than two months from the California gubernatorial primary.

Why was none of this voiced before?

The answer may lie in the polling we were seeing recently for the gubernatorial primary in California.

California switched to a non-partisan "jungle primary" contest in 2010 in which all contestants compete in a single primary with the top two vote getters moving on to face off in the general election.

It was designed with the idea of having two Democrats receiving the most votes in the primary and boxing out Republicans entirely from the general election.

Ironically, it was this process that allowed Swalwell to defeat a 40+ year Democrat incumbent when he first won office.

However, recent polls showed that the two Republican candidates were leading in the polls for the June primary as a crowded list of Democrats were diluting the party's votes.

A Berkeley IGS poll in mid-March revealed a possible worst-case scenario for the Democrats in California.

The "jungle primary" might result in two Republicans advancing to the general election with the Democrats completely frozen out.

This would guarantee a Republican governor would be elected in November.

Source: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2h95684f

There were simply too many Democrats in the race splitting the Democrat vote.

None of the candidates seemed to be willing to drop out on their own despite the five alarm fire that might engulf the Democrats in the nations's largest state.

However, who of the five leading Democrats do you try to force out?

It would be a bad look to try to force out the two Hispanics (Becerra and Villaraigosa) or the woman (Porter).

You also would not want to make billionaire Tom Steyer mad because Democrats need his money.

That leaves the young, white guy Swalwell. Not many Democrats care about this demographic.

I am sure Pelosi and others tried to convince Swalwell to step aside with future promises. 

However, this is a guy who already ran for President and is right at the top of the Democrats in the polls.

He has to have a pretty, big head by now.

Why would he step aside?

In the end, the Democrats do not abide anyone who does not play ball.

If there were whispers about Swalwell's antics the Democrat establishment KNEW FULL WELL the truth.

They had the goods on him. It gave them the power to do with him what they pleased.

Swalwell was taken out and a stern warning was also given to any other Democrats who might step out of line in the future.

This is how the Democrat party operates and how they can deliver 100% of the votes, 100% of the time.

No individual can be allowed to threaten the power of the party or the agenda they are pushing.

We saw the same thing with the coronation of Joe Biden in the 2020 Democrat primary to thwart Bernie Sanders from gaining the nomination.

It was repeated in 2024 when Biden was pushed out after his feebleness became so apparent in the debate with Trump.

Biden had to go to save the party and the agenda.

It is not dissimilar to the way the Mafia, a drug cartel or the Iranian regime operates.

Loyalty to the organization comes before everything else.

You are useful if you are attacking Trump and provide an example of a young, athletic looking guy that might appeal to young men and women voters.

Then all of a sudden it is clear to everyone you are nothing but a useful idiot.

There is only one thing that matters to the Democrat party.

It is about retaining their collective power for their own benefit.

Everything else is secondary to that. Most particularly, the people that are supposed to represent.

If Eric Swalwell did not know that before, he does now.

As for the rest of us, how can you trust anything that the Democrats tell us seeing this playbook used over and over again?

No Deal. What Now?

The negotiations between the United States and Iran concluded in Pakistan yesterday without any resolution for a permanent peace in the Middle East.

It is hard to see this as a surprise.

It is difficult to see Iran agreeing to hand over their nuclear material and agreeing to open the Strait of Hormuz.

Any leverage the Iranians have revolves around these two issues.

At the same time, it was impossible to believe that the United States would agree to any terms that did not include these two items.

What now?

Despite the lack of a permanent agreement the two week ceasefire between the two parties is still operative.

Will it hold?

Why did President Trump agree to the temporary ceasefire to begin with?

I believe there were several factors at play.

1. It provided Trump the opportunity to reset the engagement. It was intended to demonstrate that Trump could be reasonable and provide Iran the ability to do the same.

2. The fact that Iran would not budge on any of the major terms also provides the United States a higher moral ground if this goes to another stage.

3. At the same time, it gave U.S. forces the chance to take a breather and reload supplies and armaments for what comes next.

4. It also provided the U.S. the opportunity to see exactly who was left in the Iranian regime that could be considered to be in charge and able to make enforceable decisions.

5. It also gave time to other Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia to develop other routes around the Strait of Hormuz. One report I saw suggests that as much as 80% of the oil that normally ships through the Strait of Hormuz may now be available. 

6. Finally, it gave the United States time to gather support from other Middle Eastern countries, European and Asian countries affected by Iran's shutdown of the Hormuz Strait to rally to take control of the Strait and the flow of oil.

Trump stated yesterday that the United States will begin a naval blockade of all ships in and out of the Strait of Hormuz,

You can be sure that this is not being done without the consent of Saudi Arabia, Oman and other Middle Eastern oil producing nations who use the Strait.

They have clearly had enough of Iran's extremism and aggression.

This is being done to starve Iran of the revenues they desperately need to keep the regime alive.

It also will squeeze China which is a big buyer of Middle Eastern oil.

One report suggests that Saudi Arabia pushed Trump aggressively to finish the job with Iran.

It remains to be seen how this will end.

Iran is like a wounded and cornered animal.

The Islamists have little to live for if the regime totally collapses.

They have already shown they have little regard for human life, their Arab nations or anything else.

They have proven many times already over the last several months why one else was ever willing to confront the Iranian regime before Trump was willing to do so.

The only way that the United States will not prevail is if Trump and the United States people lack the political will to complete the mission,

It will not be easy seeing that most of our NATO allies have stood idly by and the Democrats and most of the mainstream media are rooting for Iran

Why would they root for a murderous regime that kills thousands of its own people, subjugates women and throws gays from rooftops?

Quite simply, they don't want Iran to lose if it means that Trump wins.

What now?

It likely is a test of wills.

The will of those with Trump Derangement Syndrome to put their hatred of Trump above the interests of world and national security.

The will of the Iranian regime to survive not matter the cost to their people and the world,

The political will of Trump and the American people.

Simply stated, there is a lot riding on the backbone and will of one man--Donald J. Trump--for this to turn out well for the United States and the world.

As I have observed before, you can't be great unless you are not afraid to be great.

That is what Donald Trump must decide on his own to answer the answer the question, What Now?

How Can I Become Rich?

"How can I become rich?"

That is a question I often hear from young people.

In my career I have had the good fortune to meet and know many wealthy and successful people. I have observed these people closely and I have also studied the available research on what separates the rich and successful from everyone else.

Despite the popular narrative, the wealthiest Americans are not living on trust funds that were handed to them along with a silver spoon when they were born. Most got rich by simply working hard for it. 

In fact, wealthy households contain on average more than four times as many full-time workers as do poor households---1.97 workers per rich household compared to .42  earners per poor household. The fact is that there are not many "idle rich" folks in this country.  There are, however, a lot of "idle poor".

If you don't believe it takes work to get to the top of the economic ladder just consider the differences in the traits between those that are wealthy and those that are poor in this research that compared the habits and traits of the two groups.  

Almost every one of these traits requires some work, effort or discipline on the part of the individual.  It does not necessarily occur naturally in the human condition.

Compare some of the personal traits of the wealthy (black bar) and the poor (white bar) in the charts below.

At the core of anyone that has achieved success is someone who sets goals for themselves.

Source: https://www.business-management-degree.net/popular-articles/wealthiest-people/

The rich also have good habits. They establish a routine in their life. They utilize their time wisely.  They are disciplined and work hard.

Source: https://www.business-management-degree.net/popular-articles/wealthiest-people/

They take care of their bodies and don't waste time.

Source: https://www.business-management-degree.net/popular-articles/wealthiest-people/

Source: https://www.business-management-degree.net/popular-articles/wealthiest-people/

If you work hard and use your time wisely it is difficult to not find success in life. As you can see above, the wealthy believe that good habits create opportunity. 84% of the wealthy hold that belief compared to just 4% of the poor. Is that just a coincidence?

You can be successful but that does not guarantee that you will be wealthy. There are many things in life that are rewarding that do not necessarily translate into increasing your financial net worth.

Becoming wealthy usually requires that you do at least two of these three things.

1. Get people working for you

2. Get your money working for you

3. Stay out of debt

Why is it difficult to become wealthy simply by your own labor and talents?

It is a question of time. We all only have so many hours in the day. We may be very productive but time is a finite resource. It is a limiting factor in utilizing our labor.

The amount that any one person is willing to pay another for their labor is also limited. For these reasons, it is hard to grow rich simply by your own individual labor.

Entertainers and professional athletes are exceptions to this rule. They are able to showcase their talents and labor to a broad audience and are able to get many, many people to pay them for it in the form of ticket prices or a media audience. However, each member of that audience is paying just a small price that gets leveraged with the size of the audience.

Inventors and authors are similarly advantaged. An invention that is used by millions of people or a best selling book creates large royalty payments that allow them to leverage their sole labor effort.

Most of us are not so fortunate. Therefore, if we are to become wealthy we have to leverage our time by getting other people to work for us whereby we gain a portion of their labor for our own benefit. Starting a business is the path that entrepreneurs follow to gain this advantage.

The other path is to simply work, save and invest and begin to get your money working for you through compound returns. As your money begins to work for you the need for you to labor to support yourself is reduced. If you can get enough money saved and invested you eventually do not have to labor at all. Your money does all the work to support your lifestyle.

It is hard to become wealthy carrying debt. Your lender may become wealthy. You will not. Borrowers are on the wrong side of compound returns. Getting compound returns to work for you is a path to riches. Paying interest on compounding debt leads to the poor house.

If you doubt any of this,  consider this chart that compares the percent of assets and liabilities held by the wealthiest 1%, next 9% and the remaining 90% compiled by Edward Wolff of New York University.

The top 1% has 63% of business equity (other people working for them), 55% of financial securities and 50% of stock & mutual funds (money working for them) but only have 5% of the debt (stay out of debt).

The bottom 90% has only 6% of business equity, 6% of financial securities, 9% of stocks & mutual funds but holds 74% of the debt. They also have 59% of the value of all personal residences. That may explain why the 2008-2010 period was so devastating for this group when housing prices collapsed in much of the country. It is also suggests that this risk could also form again---in particular if mortgage rates continue to go up.

This data conforms with a chart I put together a few years ago from IRS data (2013 tax data) comparing the sources of before-tax income based on the distribution by income groups (by quintiles plus the top 1%).

Notice that only 35% of the income of the Top 1% comes from labor income. 61% of their income is derived from business income (other people working for them) or investment income (their money working for them).

On the other hand, in the 3rd and 4th quintiles (the heart of the middle class), labor income makes up 66% of total income. Business and investment income are almost non-existent.

The rich become rich by building a business and/or saving and investing to get their money working for them. They also are careful in their use of debt.

Keep these lessons in mind if you want to become rich.

Use your time wisely.

Develop and maintain good habits.

Have a strong work ethic.

Get other people working for you or get your money working for you.

Be careful about debt.

That is how the rich become rich.

One More Shining Moment

Tonight is one of my favorite nights of the year as the Final Four concludes.

Sure, I will enjoy watching Connecticut and Michigan battle for the NCAA Div 1 basketball championship.

However, what I really enjoy is after the game when CBS (or TBS in even numbered years) puts together its annual rendition of "One Shining Moment". That is the montage of some of the great images of this year's NCAA tournament set to the music of the song, "One Shining Moment".

I just wish I did not have to stay up to nearly midnight to watch it.

It is hard to believe that One Shining Moment has been around for almost 40 years.

You can learn more in this video and story about how this great tradition came about. It is probably not surprising that the inspiration had its roots with a pretty girl and the song came to national prominence due to an old friendship and a little bit of luck.

The most interesting tidbit about the song is that CBS originally planned to use it after Super Bowl XXI in January, 1987. However, the game ran long and a new prime time show was debuting after the game so the video song montage was cancelled. CBS then decided to use the song after the national championship basketball game and the fan reaction was so positive it has been used ever since to conclude the broadcast.

That seems the way it was supposed to be as the song was written with basketball in mind to begin with. If it had been used with the Super Bowl perhaps it would have been "one and done."

The song's composer is David Barrett who wrote it in 1986 and who also sang the original rendition of the song that was used on CBS from 1987 to 1993 and again from 2000 to 2002. 

Luther Vandross, Teddy Pendergast and Jennifer Hudson have also done vocals of the song for the finale of the Final Four weekend over the years. They still use the original sound track of the song that was recorded in a small studio in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The fact that the song was originally recorded in Ann Arbor, Michigan might be a sign that this will be Michigan's year to claim the national championship. 

The song is great but it really is special due to the great editing done on the video montage piece by the CBS/TBS Sports production staff. It always concludes with images of that night's game. It must be a sight to see the staff put the finishing touches on the video in the minutes after the game.

The Luther Vandross recording has been used with the video since 2003 with the exception of 2010 and 2020 (when there was no Final Four tournament).

It is believed that his recording of the song was the last done by Vandross before his stroke and subsequent death.

2025 One Shining Moment sung by Luther Vandross

1999 sung by Teddy Pendergast. My personal favorite because it was the year my beloved Miami RedHawks made it to the Sweet Sixteen. Miami and its star forward, Wally Szczerbiak, got a lot of coverage in that year's version of "One Shining Moment." Look for Wally's big smile, Miami celebrating its big win against #6 ranked Utah to get to the Sweet Sixteen and Wally's dazzling spin move and dunk. You will also see a spectacular Miami cheerleader soaring and flipping into the air near the beginning of the video.

I am looking to see if Miami will get any love in this year's video after its 33-2 season and appearance in the Big Dance.

My bet is that the Miami swimming team in their Speedos might be One Shining Moment worthy.

1987 sung by David Barrett. The very first time the song aired and the start of a wonderful tradition. This was the year that Indiana won with the great shot by Keith Smart at the end. Watch closely and you can see Providence coach hugging his star player, Billy Donovan. Who knew that both of them would make so much more Final Four history? It is hard to believe that a a lot of players and cheerleaders in that video are almost eligible for Social Security.

If you really want to go deep into the rabbit hole with this you can view every One Shining Moment video here.

Thank you, David Barrett, Armen Keteyian, Doug Towey and a pretty waitress in East Lansing, Michigan that inspired it all.

This is David Barrett's website, www.oneshiningmoment.com

Here are the lyrics to the popular anthem:

The ball is tipped
and there you are
you're running for your life
you're a shooting star
And all the years
no one knows
just how hard you worked
but now it shows...
(in) ONE SHINING MOMENT, IT'S ALL ON THE LINE
ONE SHINING MOMENT, THERE FROZEN IN TIME
  
But time is short
and the road is long
in the blinking of an eye
ah that moment's gone
And when it's done
win or lose
you always did your best
cuz inside you knew...
(that) ONE SHINING MOMENT, YOU REACHED DEEP INSIDE
ONE SHINING MOMENT, YOU KNEW YOU WERE ALIVE
  
Feel the beat of your heart
feel the wind in your face
it's more than a contest
it's more than a race...

And when it's done
win or lose
you always did your best
cuz inside you knew...
(that) ONE SHINING MOMENT, YOU REACHED FOR THE SKY
ONE SHINING MOMENT, YOU KNEW
ONE SHINING MOMENT, YOU WERE WILLING TO TRY
ONE SHINING MOMENT....

Words & Music: David Barrett Hodges Song Supply/ASCAP

False Promises

Iran's President released a letter to the American people at the same time that President Trump was addressing the American people about the military action in Iran.

Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian stated that Iranians " harbor no enmity toward other nations, including the people of American." 

He must be ignoring the Iranian regime's constant demands about "Death To America" and for the elimination of Israel that have continually been made for the last 47 years.

Credit: https://eaworldview.com/2013/10/iran-analysis-death-america/

Iran's President is clearly ignoring the capture of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the taking of 52 American hostages in 1979 that were then held captive for 444 days shortly after the Islamists took power.  

“Iran… has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination.” 

He is also ignoring a long list of aggressive acts against the United States through proxies funded by Iran over the last 47 years.

1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing that killed 241 U.S. service members. That still is the highest single-day death total for the U.S.military since World War II.

1980's Lebanon Hostage Crisis. Iranian-backed Hezbollah systematically abducted and held a dozen Americans over several years and used them as leverage against the United States.

1980's Tanker War in which Iran attacked neutral and U.S. flagged oil tankers in international waters and laid mines in oil shipping lanes.

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing military housing complex in Saudi Arabia killing 19 U.S Air Force personnel and wounding hundreds.

2003-2011 Attacks on U.S Forces in Iraq through Shia militias using Iranian-supplied EFP's, IED's and rockets. The Pentagon estimates these Iranian proxies killed more than 600 U.S. troops and wounded thousands more.

2016 IRGC capture of two U.S. Navy riverine boats and 10 sailors in the Persian Gulf.

This is just a partial list of direct acts and does not includes the general funding of terror organizations throughout the Mideast over those 47 years.

Iran has also been the primary funding and weapons source of Hamas for most of that time as well as  being behind the attack on Israel of October 7, 2023.

The Iranian regime also recently perpetrated one of the worst cases of barbarity in recent history with the killing of an estimated 45,000 of their own citizens in January who led protests opposed to the theocratic authoritarian regime.

No aggression or domination?

Iran has been killing and dominating its own citizens.

The fact is that Iran has been a bad actor for almost 50 years.

One American President after another witnessed the chaos that Iran inflicted on the Middle East and all declared that Iran could not be permitted to have a nuclear weapon.

Donald Trump was the only one willing to step up and do something beyond talking about removing the threat.

Seeing Iran heaving missiles all over the Mideast and attempting to shut down the Hormuz Strait tells you everything you need to know about whether Iran has no enmity toward other nations.

The Iranian statement is a false promise on its face.

Israel and the United States have been in Iran's crosshairs for 47 years.

Others are now seeing it up close and personal.

This includes many of our NATO allies who now find their economies at risk due to Iran's actions to stop the flow of oil coming out of the Mideast and the discovery that Iran was hiding ballistic missiles capable of reaching many European capitals.

Of course, many of those NATO allies refused to assist the United States and Israel confront the Iranian threat.

Ever worse, NATO members such as the Spain, the U.K., Germany, France and Germany have been critical of the U.S. actions or have even taken steps to deny use of U.S. bases in their country or using their air space in offensive operations against Iran.

At the same time, these NATO allies have spent the last several years imploring and pressuring the United States to fund and support the Ukraine War because of the threat Russia's aggression posed to Europe.

It is easy to see why Trump is a little perturbed with our NATO allies.

They were not only unwilling to join the effort to neutralize Iran but actually were not allowing the United States to use U.S. bases in their own countries that the U.S established and has paid for over decades to defend them against Russia.

Has NATO become a one way street?

Is it also a false promise?

NATO can be used to defend and assist the Europeans.

However, if the United States asks for assistance no one is willing to step up and help?

Have the Europeans set the stage for the collapse of NATO in all of this?

Melissa Chen does an excellent job on X of articulating America's frustration with the European NATO members right now.

Source: https://x.com/MsMelChen/status/2039322644042977761

Let’s be real here. Europe has spent decades freeloading on American security. Even now, with every NATO member finally hitting the 2% GDP target in 2025.

But beyond the financial contributions, the real rupture is philosophical and the Iran crisis has shown a spotlight on it.

Europe worships process. Endless committees, consultations, and “predictability.” Macron actually calls it a virtue. For Trump, this is paralysis as his style is to articulate a threat, fix a target, and act. The Americans are men of conviction and purpose. Europe on the other hand lives by bureaucratic liturgy and in high-minded abstractions. 

Sure, Americans might make mistakes when acting. But Europe never considers what the costs of not acting actually are. 

Just look at how their nations are doing on various fronts, especially on the border crisis, and you see the same cancerous rot that undergirds their foreign policy approach play out domestically. It's the same problem on a different scale.

Iran is currently holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage, choking 20% of global oil and spiking prices past $100 a barrel. Meanwhile, the regime is bleeding from strikes, its nuclear ambitions are still alive despite degraded capability, and its proxies are firing missiles at allies and oil tankers. If this isn’t a clear and present danger to the global economy - of which Europe is a part - then I don’t know what is.

Yet when Washington asked to use European bases to finish the job - bases the US has defended for generations, the response was hesitation and hand-wringing. The US did strike from RAF Fairford, but only after warnings that British soil could become a “legitimate target.” 

If you cannot agree that a theocratic regime with eschatological ambitions who have shown no restraint in hitting out at Gulf countries and threatening the world’s energy jugular is an enemy worth confronting, then what, exactly, are we allies about?

Europe loves to preen about being tough on Russia. They issue condemnations and speeches and slap sanctions that hardly work to cripple the Russian economy. 

Now here was a chance to do something concrete: let the Americans use the bases they already pay for, help clear the Strait, and actually degrade the Iranian war machine that arms Moscow’s proxies. Trump didn’t ask for boots on the ground or any kind of more offensive action. All he wanted was permission to operate from the infrastructure America has underwritten for decades.

They couldn’t even manage that.

So can you blame the Americans for seeing NATO for what it is? A paper-tiger alliance that expects Washington to bleed and pay while Brussels and London convenes and deliberates.

If Europe refuses to treat Iran as the threat it is while happily letting American power keep the Strait open and the lights on, then the alliance is already dead. Trump is simply stating the obvious and the Americans are becoming very reluctant to subsidize the European delusion any longer.

What is really behind the European reluctance?

You can be sure that many of these governments are concerned about the large Muslim populations that have swarmed into their countries.

Taking on Iran or being too friendly to Israel now risks substantial domestic unrest they cannot afford.

There is a reason that Trump and Rubio have lost confidence that our historic European allies share the same values and principles that we do.

Can they be trusted allies in the future with our value systems diverging so substantially?

One of the most insightful and ironic posts I have seen recently on X is this one that observes how the Islamic world is divided when it comes to Iran.

Truly sad but true.

Beware false promises wherever they come from.

That also applies to Donald J. Trump.

If he can't subdue Iran and we don't see the oil markets stabilize he will pay a heavy price politically as will his legacy.

As I wrote in these pages at the beginning of the campaign, taking on Iran was the biggest of bets.

There was a reason that everyone else was willing to talk big but do nothing.

Winning that bet will fundamentally change the world.

It would be hard to not put Trump down as one the greatest Presidents of all time.

However, success is not assured. Any time you undergo military action there are second, third and fourth order effects that can occur.

Keep in mind what I wrote about all of this a month ago.

Great Presidents usually come about by facing great challenges. In many respects, the times make the man. It was certainly true with Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt.

Greatness does not follow when taking the easy road. It only graces those who are not afraid of the challenge on the hard road.

Success is never assured. Trump may fail bigly. However, he is not afraid to be great. 

That in itself is a rare commodity.

A lot will be determined about the legacy of Donald Trump in the next month.

The same can be said about Iran and NATO.

 

This and That---March 30, 2026 Edition

A few random observations, charts and factoids to provide some context on what is going on in the world.

Oh Canada!

In February I wrote about the significant economic problems facing Canada in a post titled "Our Northern Neighbor Headed South?" 

Following up on that post, a Bank of Canada analysis indicates that roughly 40% of those who would be in the top 1% of income earners in Canada, as well as 30%-50% of the next 9% of earners, have emigrated to the United States in recent years.

This brain drain may be a significant reason as to why Canada is lagging the United States so significantly in GDP growth the last five yesrs.

More analysis on Canada's lagging per capita GDP problem can be found in this recent article.

Link: https://thehub.ca/2026/03/20/why-canadas-gdp-per-capita-crisis-is-real-deepdive/

Moving On

The United States has seen a similar pattern of out migration over the last several years.

However, it is people and their incomes moving out of blue states and moving to red states according to recently released IRS data for the years between 2019 and 2023.

The 31 states that voted for Trump in the last election gained 3.2 million in population from people who moved from states that voted for Harris.

Those 3.2 million who moved into red states brought with them $254 billion in income. A like amount was taken from blue states.

Is this just a coincidence or do policies matter?

Hablas Espanol?

We have reached a point where the United States now ranks second I the  world for the population that speaks Spanish.

More speak Spanish in the United States today than in Spain.

El Salvador

El Salvador was one of the most dangerous countries in the world in 2015.

It had the highest murder rate in the world between 2015 and 2018.

The country was largely under gang control.

Nayid Bukele was elected President of El Salvador in 2019 and took on the gangs and started jailing the bad actors.

There were a lot of bad actors but it was still a small percentage of the totla population.

1% of the population was eventually incarcerated.

The skeptics said that you can't jail your way out of crime.

What has happened in El Salvador might suggest that may not be true when so much data indicates that only a small percent of the population commits most crime in a society.

El Salvador is now one of the safest countries in the world.

Bukele made a big bet that personal security and safety is the foundational layer of any successful society.

Without it, you have nothing---economic growth, tourism, investment---all is built on that foundation.

It is a lesson some big cities in the United States might want to consider.

New York City and Chicago

Speaking of big cities in the United States, this stat on homicides in New York City caught my eye.

In the first nine months of 2025 there were 358 shootings in New York City in which a Black or White person was involved.

356 of the shootings involved Blacks.

2 of the shootings involved Whites.

Meanwhile in Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson says that putting criminals in prison is racism and is immoral.

Link: https://x.com/ruswar/status/2037394216498905089

Since when did putting a CRIMINAL in prison become racist?

Criminals can be any race.

Did Bukele worry about the race of the gang members in El Salvador?

Could there be a much different way of approaching things as between Chicago and El Salvador?

Who might have the better approach based on 2025 data?

El Salvador    1.19 homicides per 100,000

Chicago         14.6 homicides per 100,000

Who would have thought a decade ago that it would be safer to walk the streets of El Salvador than America's two largest cities?

No Hope For Homelessness?

Over the last several years it seems that there has been more and more attention paid in our major cities to the homeless problem.

There were an estimated 770,000 homeless people in the United States in 2024.

The number of homeless people rose significantly since the 2021-2022 period.

Source: https://www.consumershield.com/

Is it just a coincidence that the number of homeless increased at the same time that Joe Biden and the Democrats opened the borders and allowed millions of immigrants to enter the country?

Take a look at how net international migration into the United States surged in the Biden years.

Source: https://cis.org/Report/ForeignBorn-Number-and-Share-US-Population-AllTime-Highs-January-2025

A principal factor in homelessness is related to housing affordability.

The massive increase in housing costs and apartment rents that followed the mass influx of millions of people in such a short period of time undoubtedly fueled the homelessness situation.

It is also not a coincidence that California and New York are the two states that have the largest homelessness problem.

Source: Source: https://www.consumershield.com/

Both California and New York have adopted statewide sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants as well as having some of the highest housing costs in the nation.

What is most shocking is the amount of money that is being spent on homelessness by some major sanctuary cities.

San Francisco is spending $102,000 annually on each homeless person in the city.

Portland $95,000.

New York City $82,000.

Los Angeles $62,000.

For context, the average American makes $67,000 per year.

However, that person has to pay for their housing and also the taxes that are supporting these homeless programs.

How is it that cities like New York City, San Francisco and Portland are paying much more for their typical homeless person than their average tax paying workers are earning each year?

It makes absolutely no sense.

Just as shocking is the increase in per capita spending on homelessness since 2019.

How is it possible to spend this much money and the problem has gotten worse?

Consider what has gone on in New York City.

Total spending has increased from $102 million in 2019 to $368 million in 2025.

Per capita spending increased from $28,000 to $82,000.

However, the unsheltered homeless population in the city increased by 26%,

 

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani wants to spend more in 2026 to "solve" the problem. 

City Hall is projecting that nearly $97,000 per homeless person will be spent this year.

What is going on?

The New York Post had the same question and recently published an editorial on the subject.

It’s certain that almost none of the $81,000 actually benefits these street people: Outreach workers get paid to count the “unsheltered” and to try coaxing them into shelter or arranging some kind of housing they’ll accept. 

This is just one particularly damning example of how New York’s nonprofit-industrial complex has morphed the city’s multibillion-dollar outlays in the name of fighting homelessness into a jobs program that simply pretends to manage it.

It sounds almost identical to what Elon Musk's DOGE team found regarding a lot of federal spending on programs with sympathetic objectives.

Most of the money is spent enriching the people managing the programs.

Very little actually gets to those who need it.

You get a sense of that by seeing how much the executives of some of the nonprofits who are "managing" the homeless programs in New York City are making.

Of course, what incentive is there to actually solve the problem and get people off the streets if the flow of money stops?

California Governor Newsom built his political career on the promise he was going to end chronic homelessness.

When he was Mayor-elect of San Francisco in 2003 he announced a 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness. He stated that it was his No.1 priority as Mayor.

Source: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Newsom-details-plan-for-homeless-Mayor-elect-2509363.php

Little was different seven years later when Newsom left San Francisco's mayor's office to become Lt. Governor of California.

When Newsom became Governor he similarly pledged to solve chronic homelessness at the state level.

Newsom allocated $24 billion in local and non-profit (sound familiar?) grants to address the problem right after he took office.

All of that money hasn't done anything.

In fact, the homeless problem in California is worse than ever.

 

Source: https://www.independent.org/article/2025/05/27/newsom-legacy-homelessness/

Governor Newsom also believes he has all the answers to run for President in 2028.

In fact, recent polls in California show that Newsom is far ahead of the Democrat field for the nomination in that state.

Source: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/democratic-primary/2028/california

It seems that Democrat voters do not care much about a candidate's record and results as long as say they tell you they are going to do something about a problem.

Just as baffling is to see Democrats like Newsom and Mamdani fail to make the connection between open borders, sanctuary states and cities and the problem of homelessness.  They also continue to throw millions to enrich their friends and allies at nonprofits with no accountability for results.

In the meantime, the homelessness problem persists despite the fact that it is staining their cities and destroying their budgets .

I can only conclude that there is no hope for homelessness until there is a change in the mindset of Democrats about the causes of the problem and reforming the incentive structure that perpetuates it with the "nonprofits" who profit from the homeless.

Balancing Rights and Responsibilities

"Things tend to work out best when people have to live with the consequences of their own behavior"

or said another way

"Things tend to work out poorly when the consequences of our actions spill over onto other people"

This is probably one of the most insightful statements that I have ever seen. When I first read it I copied it and put this simple principle up on the wall to be reminded of it every day.

However, as simple and obvious as it is, it is amazing how often we ignore what is really one of the most important principles of economics.

I saw this statement in a book by Steven E. Landsburg who teaches economics at the University of Rochester who goes on to say,

Whether you're blowing leaves or discarding litter, having children or having sex, saving or spending, smoking or drinking, setting fires or reporting them-your actions have costs and benefits.  As long as you feel all the costs and benefits, you'll tend to get the quantity right.

You'll drop the right number of banana peels, or have the right number of children, or choose the right number of sex partners. But, if you feel only the benefits while someone else feels the costs, you'll tend to overindulge.  And conversely, if you feel only the costs while someone else feels the benefits, you'll under indulge.

It makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

You know how it works. 

When you are out to dinner with friends and you have agreed to split the check equally, do you order the $10 dessert?  Of course you do.  Your skinny friend who does not like desserts is going to pay part of your cost. You win. He loses. Your friend also stops going to dinner with the group in the future.  He is tired of the decisions of others spilling over on him.

The bottom line is that spillovers cause bad outcomes.  If someone wants to pollute their own swimming pool, feel free. However, when the sludge spills over the edge of the pool and into the community stream that we all share they should be prepared to pay for the damage.

In my view one of the biggest problems we have in the country today is our inability to draw the line between rights and freedoms on the one hand and consequences and costs on the other.  Where do individual rights end and where does the the public interest begin?

First, we have too often ignored the primary principle that people should have to live with the consequences of their own behavior.  You fail to take advantage of the free public education that everyone has access to in this country and can't get a job.  That's ok, we have welfare assistance.  

You have a child out of wedlock. That's ok, we will give you money to pay for the child. 

You buy a flat screen tv rather than health care insurance.  That's ok, just go to the emergency room and someone else will pay your medical bill. 

You took out a gigantic student loan to pay for college and don't want to pay it back? That's ok, will we forgive it.

At the same time, each of these actions is spilling over onto other people who were attempting to live their life responsibly without infringing on others. The person who studied and went to school, married, had children and bought healthcare insurance rather than the flat screen tv ends up paying these bills as well as their own.

A great example involves whether someone riding on a motorcycle should be required to wear a helmet. I'm all for giving someone the freedom to feel the wind blowing through their hair.  However, what happens when they are in an accident and suffer brain damage and need medical care for the next thirty years?  

Who is going to pay for that?  If it is me through my health care premiums or higher taxes I don't feel quite the same about that person's individual rights and freedom as I did before.

We have been living in an era over the last generation where individualism has reigned supreme in the United States.  Respect for the individual and their rights has been preeminent over the collective good in most instances.  It has been more about ME than WE.  

A good example are the federal court decisions over the last 15 years that have invalidated state laws  requiring welfare recipients to take a drug test before they can qualify for public assistance.  The courts have ruled that broad-based and "suspicionless" drug test requirements for welfare benefits are an "unreasonable search".  You can only require drug testing if there is reasonable suspicion they are on drugs.

Bear in mind that the majority of private sector employees today cannot get a job without submitting to a pre-employment drug test.

How does any of this make sense?  In effect, we know that most of the people in the private sector are clean, drug free and paying taxes.  However, those people are not allowed to even ask whether the people they are supporting have even a chance of getting off welfare at some point in the future.?

After all, if you can't pass a drug test, you most likely are not going to get a job and get off welfare since it is a condition of pre-employment with the majority of employers.

Contrast this with some of the laws in the country of Singapore.  You can be arrested for not flushing the toilet in a public restroom or spitting anywhere.  They don't want germs spreading and spilling over on other people. It is also illegal to sell chewing gum in Singapore.  Who wants to walk down the street and look at all that gum on the sidewalk because someone just threw it down with no regard to the public good? Take a look down on any sidewalk in a major city in the United States and you will see what I mean.

Credit:  TheCityReview.com

Where do we draw the line?  What is the proper balance between liberty and tyranny that balances individual rights and the public interest?  

We saw this conflict come together in a big way during the Covid pandemic. However, in that case, tyranny quickly took over with vaccine mandates, mandatory masking, school closings and all the rest.

It might have made sense if there had a true scientific basis for all it. However, as I wrote over and over again in these pages, more often than not there was no basis to override personal rights to the extent it was done in the name of the public interest.

All of this takes on added significance in an era of AI and surveillance cameras wherever you look.

In Australia, cameras at street corners peer into vehicles to determine whether your seat belt is on or you  are in contact with your cell phone.

A seat belt that is attached but not properly fit over your shoulder brings a $500 fine in the mail. 

A cell phone in your lap costs you a $1,200 fine even if you were not using it.

These are real examples I heard in a recent visit to Australia.

Have the Aussies taken it too far?

I think balancing rights and responsibilities will be a major question of the next decade in the United States. It is at the core of many of our big issues today.  Gun rights.  Drug Legalization. Immigration. Abortion. Health Care. Welfare.

Religious freedom is one of the bedrock rights in the United States.

However, does that give Muslims the right to blast the Islamic call to prayer over loudspeakers in New York City?

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab3_MOeF7U4

Or Muslims taking over Times Square to pray?

Source: https://www.bssnews.net/news-flash/178084

Is this a religious observance or a political statement?

Our largest failing over the last half century in this country is not coupling individual rights with individual responsibility.  You simply cannot have a well functioning society where these two are not in alignment. There have to be clear incentives for people to do the right things and even clearer disincentives to prevent people from doing the wrong things.

William Strauss and Neil Howe predicted in their book, The Fourth Turning, that the 2020's would usher in a new cycle in which public interest would be on the ascendancy and special interests and individualism would wane.  

They predicted more calls for personal responsibility and civic duty.  Conformity with core values would become more important.   

Perhaps this will lead to better alignment between individual rights and responsibility.  Unfortunately, the lessons of history often tell us this only comes about when society has got its back to the wall and it does not have much choice.  You either have got to focus on WE or there will be no ME left.

In the meantime, I only ask for two things.  If you are a fellow citizen, don't spillover on me.  If you are the government, don't tread on me.  If we can get both of these right, we are all going to be ok.

Wiil Birthright Citizenship Survive The Supreme Court?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments about the birthright citizenship question this Spring with a decision by the end of the Summer.

Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trumps-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship/

President Trump signed an executive order on his first day of his second term changing the policy of providing birthright citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents and those whose parents are here on temporary visas. These babies are popularly referred to as "anchor babies".

President Trump's order was quickly challenged in federal court by 22 Democrat-led states and several civil rights organizations. This undoubtedly was no surprise to Trump. However, it set the stage for this important issue to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The birthright citizenship question has never been directly confronted by the Supreme Court on the issue of the children of illegal immigrants . Trump's order did not apply to babies born to immigrants who are lawful permanent residents.

Is is also important to note that the Trump order only applies to future anchor babies. It does not attempt to strip citizenship from past anchor babies.

This is an issue I wrote about in these pages ten years ago entitled, "An Anchor Around Our Necks" detailing the compounding costs of birthright citizenship.

This was before Donald Trump even started making headlines about the issue when he first ran for President in 2016.

Let's take a deeper look at the issue of birthright citizenship and the legal issues that will be before the Supreme Court. 

Will birthright citizenship survive the Supreme Court?

Many take it for granted the U.S. Constitution allows anyone born on U.S. soil the privileges of citizenship.

However, if you look deeply at the issue you can see that it is not quite that clear cut.

The United States is decidedly in a distinct minority in providing citizenship this way. Among developed countries, Canada is the only other country in the world to provide birthright citizenship.

In fact, the trend in recent years has been to eliminate birthright citizenship. Ireland was the last European Union country to eliminate it in 2005. France did away with it in 1993. The UK in 1983.

Australia (1986) and New Zealand (2006) are other countries that eliminated birthright citizenship in recent years.

The common narrative repeated by many is that birthright citizen is a fundamental right for anyone born in the United States provided by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

Therefore, it can only be eliminated by constitutional amendment. However, as stated above, this question has never been directly decided by the Supreme Court.

What does the 14th Amendment actually say which was originally enacted to insure that slaves would be recognized as citizens?

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added)

That seems fairly clear except for the words I underlined above..."and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Is a child born in the United States to parents who are illegal immigrants "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when those parents are unlawfully present in our country?

This is the foundational argument behind Trump's executive order. His argument is that the 14th Amendment does not automatically confer birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. These individuals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as they are citizens of other countries.

Even if one believes that Trump cannot do this through executive order many believe that Congress has the right to define what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. It has already been accepted that this means that children born to foreign diplomats do not gain U.S. birthright citizenship nor do members of certain Indian tribes.

If the birth of a child in the United States to parents who are members of an Indian tribe who were also born in the United States are not U.S. citizens based on a reading of the 14th amendment how is it far-fetched to conclude that a child born to two illegal immigrants is automatically a U.S. citizen by birth?

I would further argue that the very actions of the federal government in not enforcing the immigration laws means that illegal immigrants that are here have effectively not been "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by the consistent failure of our government to enforce the country's jurisdictional borders. 

How can an illegal immigrant be considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of our country if they are here illegally but our government is doing nothing about it?

The Center for Immigration Studies did a study in 2018 that estimated 300,000 children were born in the United States that year to mothers who are illegal immigrants. To put that in perspective, that is about 1 out of every 12 births in this country!

It is hard to believe that the numbers are not higher today especially considering the surge of illegals into the country over the last four years.

As a result of the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution each of these children are considered to be United States citizens.

500,000 additional children were born to legal immigrants. It should be noted that children born to legal permanent immigrants would still be considered U.S. citizens under the Trump order in that they "are subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Taken together, births to immigrants made up about 20% of all U.S. births in 2018 according to that study.

This overall estimate would seem to be accurate today in that the foreign-born population is now 15.6% of the U.S population (a higher percentage that it has ever been). In that this immigrant population is younger and has generally higher fertility rates than the native population it follows that about 20% of all births in any year are to immigrants.

Source: https://cis.org/Report/ForeignBorn-Population-Grew-51-Million-Last-Two-Years

U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are also eligible to sponsor the immigration of family members once they come of age. At 18, an “anchor baby” can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own. At full majority age at 21, he or she can sponsor parents and siblings under our "chain migration" laws.

Can you imagine anyone who voted for the 14th Amendment in 1866 at the federal or state level thinking that we would be conferring citizenship to this many as a result of this provision?

Or to even consider the fact that people could transport themselves within a day from any point in the world to the United States?

Michael Anton of the Claremont Institute wrote what I have found to be the best overall argument for why citizenship birthright should be ended. He has extensively researched the legislative history behind the 14th Amendment deliberations in 1866.

It seems that those who wrote and voted on the 14th Amendment had no intention that they would be conferring birthright citizenship on anyone whose parents were unlawfully in the United States.

It is also not debatable that the American people were never brought into the conversation as Anton observes.

The American people did not willingly, knowingly, or politically adopt birthright citizenship. They were maneuvered into it by the Left and by the Left-allied judiciary. They’ve never debated it or voted on it. They’ve simply been told that it’s required by the Constitution.

What is in the legislative history to support the view that birthright citizenship was never intended by the 14th Amendment?

Senator Jacob Howard was one of the authors of the 14th Amendment and specifically offered the amendment language that added the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is his explanation of the reasons for that language and its import.

This suggests that to acquire birthright citizenship a person has to be born within the limits of the United States and be fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

This was made even clearer by the clarifying comment of Senator Johnson of Maryland during the debate about the 14th Amendment.

Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States. (emphasis added)

Of course, the slaves that were the primary focus of the 14th Amendment met both of these requirements. They had been born in the United States and they were not subject to the sovereign authority of any other country. 

In my mind the most persuasive argument that the 14th Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship is understanding the reasons that the citizenship clause was included therein to begin with.

Earlier in 1866 Congress had passed into law "The Civil Rights Act of 1866"  in order to define citizenship and affirm that all citizens are equally protected under the law. Of course, this was primarily intended to make clear that slaves were citizens and had all the rights of any other citizens.

However, Congress became concerned that the law could be overturned sometime in the future or that it could be declared unconstitutional on the basis that there was no authority for Congress to confer particular rights to all citizens rather just outlawing discrimination.

Therefore, the leading proponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 proposed the 14th Amendment with the intention of eliminating all doubts about the law's constitutionality.

As a result, the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment parallels the citizenship language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Equal Protection Clause parallels nondiscrimination language in the 1866 Act.

Of note, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, who is sometimes referred to as the "Father of the 14th Amendment", stated that the Citizenship Clause in the 1866 Civil Rights Act was meant to require that someone not only be born in the United States but also not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereign.

I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..

I also doubt that Senators Howard, Johnson and Representative Bingham or others at that time could have envisioned a time in which Chinese, Russian, Mexican or Honduran women would come to the United States and have a child that would be a U.S. citizen.

That child could then as a U.S. citizen at age 21 sponsor their parents and siblings to become U.S. citizens under our "chain migration" policies.

It sets in motion a compounding effect that increases exponentially over time.

What is "chain migration"?

Under the United States’ current immigration system, most migrants receive a green card simply because they are the relative of an earlier migrant, not because of what they can contribute to American society. 

This creates a “chain” of immigrants who can then sponsor other immigrants in the same manner. These, in turn, may sponsor more immigrants, and so on.

As more and more immigrants are admitted to the United States, the population eligible to sponsor their relatives for green cards increases exponentially. This means that every time one immigrant is admitted, the door is opened to many more.

Do you think that those who wrote the 14th Amendment could ever imagine we would have Chinese billionaires fathering hundreds of children using IVF in order to provide U.S. citizenship?

Source: The Wall Street Journal

 

Chinese billionaires are using American surrogates to create “mega-families” of more than 100 children.

Wealthy businessmen have effectively used lax US surrogacy laws to create breeding programmes with the intention of creating an “unstoppable family dynasty”, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Nathan Zhang, the founder of IVF USA, a network of fertility clinics in the US and Mexico, said some of his “crazy rich” Chinese clients wanted hundreds of American-born babies.

As long as birthright citizenship is continued it will be a magnet for illegal immigration, birth tourism and schemes like we are seeing with rich Chinese men. It incentivizes people from all over the world to break our laws to come here. The longer the practice continues the more illegal immigration we are likely to get.

If we are ever to get meaningful immigration reform it is necessary to cease providing birthright citizenship or it will undermine almost anything else we do.

Trump deserves credit for having the courage and personal constitution to be willing to elevate this issue to public debate. It is an issue that deserves public scrutiny and discussion. Whether it goes anywhere in the near term will be determined by the United State Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court is unwilling to end the policy, it may require a constitutional amendment which will be next to impossible to achieve in the short term considering the current political divide in the country.

However, the fact remains that until birthright citizenship is terminated, a wall is built to staunch the flow of illegals, and strict enforcement policies are adhered to, it will continue to be difficult to reach the goal of the sensible and sustainable immigration reform the United States desperately needs.