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.

The Vision and Genius of Elon Musk

Elon Musk had two gigantic dreams for his life when he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania 30 years ago.

He wanted to develop an electric car and he wanted to build a spaceship capable of traveling to Mars.

Elon Musk was one of the founders of PayPal and at a gathering of alums of the company after it had been sold in 2002 (Elon's share was $176 million ) one of the alums asked Elon what he was going to do next.

Musk answered straightaway.

"I'm going to colonize Mars. My mission in life is to make mankind a multi planetary civilization."

Musk came to that mission because he was concerned about the long-term survival and expansion of human consciousness. He wants to make humanity a multi-planetary species as a form of "life insurance" for civilization. 

Musk argues that Earth is vulnerable to catastrophic events—such as asteroid impacts, supervolcanoes, nuclear wars, pandemics, or other unforeseen disasters—that could wipe out all life. 

By creating a self-sustaining colony on Mars, humanity would have a backup, ensuring the "light of consciousness" persists even if Earth becomes uninhabitable. 

His former colleague remembers telling Musk he was "bananas" crazy as Musk sat in a pool cabana reading a tattered manual for a Russian rocket engine

Reid Hoffman, another PayPal veteran who ultimately founded NetFlix, after listening to Elon describe his plan to send rockets to Mars was puzzled, and asked him,

"How is that a business?"

Later Hoffman would realize that Musk didn't think that way.

"What I didn't appreciate is that Elon starts with a mission and later finds a way to backfill in order to make it work financially." That's what makes him a force of nature."

There is no better way to describe Musk than as a "force of nature".

Elon Musk went on to found SpaceX and started building rockets.

Source: https://www.boringcompany.com/projects#vl

That also led to the development of the communication satellites of Starlink which now has more than 9,400 operational satellites in orbit.

He also made Tesla the largest electric vehicle manufacturer in the world.

Across all vehicle models globally, the Tesla Model Y is the third biggest seller in the world.

Tesla Model Y

Musk also developed the autonomous driving technology used in the Tesla based on artificial intelligence rather than radar and sonar like other companies.

Every mile that is driven by Teslas around the world is making the technology better

Tesla also has a significant presence in solar panels.

Tesla has also become a leader in battery storage technology.

Tesla's Optimus division is also developing human-like robots that can do many functions and jobs that humans can do. He is using the same AI concepts for the robots that he did with his vehicles.

Elon Musk also founded The Boring Company that creates safe, fast-to-dig and low cost transportation, utility and freight tunnels.

One of the first projects is a Vegas Loop which will comprise 68 miles of transportation tunnels serving Las Vegas.

Source: https://www.boringcompany.com/projects#vl

I have written about Elon Musk several times in these pages over the years.

The most focused view was a blog post I wrote in December, 2023 after reading Walter Isascsson's biography of Musk.

I would highly recommend this book if you want to learn more about Musk.

I wrote this sentence to begin that blog post in 2023 and I have an even stronger belief in its truth than I did over two years ago.

When the definitive history of the early 21st Century is written I would be surprised if Elon Musk is not considered the most consequential person of this period.

When I wrote that I was thinking about all of the things that Musk was doing that were advancing our world.

Electric vehicles.

A reusable Rocket system capable of returning us to the Moon and, later, to Mars.

The Starlink communications network that could provide voice and internet connectivity anywhere on earth.

Solar power for homes and businesses.

Battery storage that could store the solar energy.

Humanoid robots that could handle all sorts of human functions and tasks.

Tunnel systems.

Each of these alone would advance human society forward enormously.

Collectively they can literally advance the human race beyond earth.

What I failed to realize until recently is that all of the things that Musk is doing have one thing in common.

They are all critical to establishing, maintaining and sustaining a human colony on Mars.

First, you need a rocket with the power and range to travel to Mars.

You need that rocket to be reusable as it will require thousands of trips to ferry the necessary supplies and materials to Mars to build and support a colony.

You need power on Mars-the most likely source of that power is solar.

It will be necessary to harness and store that power. You will need solar panels and battery storage.

Transportation on Mars will be necessary and the most obvious solution is for it to be electric vehicles powered by solar power.

It will be difficult to build roads on the Mars surface and the outside environment is harsh so tunnels might be a better method for transportation between key locations on the planet.

The harsh Mars climate will make it difficult for humans to operate. Robots would be a much better option to use for construction and other tasks at the Mars colony.

Until recently, it had not occurred to me that each of the business ventures and innovations above are all aligned to accomplish Musk's overriding mission in life---to establish a human colony on Mars.

That takes me back to Reid Hoffman's statement about Elon Musk with an even greater appreciation for his vision...and genius.

"What I didn't appreciate is that Elon starts with a mission and later finds a way to backfill in order to make it work financially." That's what makes him a force of nature."

Consider how many criticize Elon Musk for his wealth.

Do they understand that his wealth has only come about about as a consequence of backfilling behind his real mission?

He has become the world's wealthiest man not because he was a greedy capitalist but because he is concerned about the continuity of the human race.

That is the real genius of Elon Musk.

Take all of the above and then consider what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ("AOC") said about Musk last year.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5125508-ocasio-cortez-musk-one-of-the-most-unintelligent-billionaires-i-have-ever-met/

Really?

That should tell you everything you need to know about judgment and intellect of the darling of the American Left.

Choose wisely who you follow and trust.

Don't Bite The Hand That Feeds You

Few places in the United States (or the world) have prospered in the way that Seattle and the state of Washington have over the last 40 years.

Three gigantic corporations that are integral to almost everyone's daily lives were founded there.

Microsoft.

Starbucks.

Amazon.

Washington has the third highest GDP per capita of any state in the union only trailing New York and Massachusetts. 

Of course, nothing comes close to the District of Columbia on that score.

Almost all of it fueled by our tax dollars!

Real per capita GDP by state
Source: Statista.com

Real median income (2023$) in the state increased from $61,200 in 1985 to $97,500 in 2024---almost 60% over and above inflation.

A major factor that contributed to Washington's growth was the fact that the state had no income tax.

Howard Schultz and Jeff Bezos both relocated from New York to Washington to begin their entrepreneurial pursuits motivated in part by that no state income tax policy.

The lack of a state income tax has hardly hampered Washington's ability to generate revenues over the years.

In 1985, the state had $4.3 billion in annual revenues from state and local taxes.

In 2025, those tax revenues had grown to $41.6 billion.

However, it does not seem to matter how much money government collects.

They always need more.

That is particularly true in a liberal state like Washington.

Washington has not had a Republican governor since 1985.

Republicans have not been in control of both houses of the state legislature since 1996.

In 2021, the Democrats in Washington passed a law that taxed capital gains of over $250,000 at 7%.

Last year that was increased to 9.9% for capital gains over $1 million.

This week the Washington House approved an income tax of 9.9% on those with adjusted household incomes of more than $1 million  annually.

Source: https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2026/03/10/with-marathon-debate-and-heated-vote-wa-house-advances-income-tax/

This is in a state which voters have rejected income tax proposals 10 times in the last 90 years. 

An income tax was last rejected by voters in 2010 by an overwhelming margin of 64%-36%.

The need to obtain voter approval to implement an income tax in the past was based on previous rulings of the Supreme Court of Washington that a graduated state income tax was unconstitutional.

This is due to a provision in the state constitution that states that all property must be taxed uniformly.

The Court has ruled that income is property and therefore a graduated, progressive income tax that does not tax everyone is unconstitutional.

The capital gains tax enacted in 2021 was upheld because the Court ruled that it was an excise tax involving the privilege of selling selling or transferring a capital asset rather on the property or asset itself.

The Court ruled that selling a capital asset was a "voluntary" act.

The Democrats was emboldened to pursue the income tax legislatively, and bypass the voting public, with the hope that a liberal Supreme Court will overturn the prior precedent that goes back almost 100 years.

Will that Court also now hold that earning income is "voluntary"?

In the meantime, Jeff Bezos and Howard Schultz have seen enough and have abandoned the state they moved to in order to make their fortunes.

Bezos left the state for tax-free Florida in 2023 after the capital gains tax was enacted.

Schultz (coincidentally?) announced on LinkedIn this week that he has also moved to Florida.

Bill Gates is apparently still making Washington his principal residence for now but he has multiple homes and it would not require much for him to change his tax domicile.

What is particularly interesting in all of this is that Bezos, Schultz and Gates have all been large contributors to Democrats in both the state and national elections over the years.

You have to wonder if they have had any second thoughts about that?

There is also an old idiom that Democrats in the state might want to think about.

"Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

Washington became one of the wealthiest states in the union over the last 40 years because of entrepreneurs who started businesses in the state that created hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenues to Washington.

Their reward is for the state to take a massive bite out of their income and success?

You have to believe that there will also be a lot fewer entrepreneurs willing to take the risk of establishing new businesses in the state going forward.

What is also interesting is to see the divergence in state income tax rates across the nation over the last 25 years.

21 states (most being red states) have lowered state income tax rates.

6 states (including Washington if the new law is enacted) have increased income tax rates.

All six are Democrat led--D.C, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York and Washington.

Credit: https://x.com/JaredWalczak/status/2031738823512641688

Many states have accepted the fact that it is not wise to bite the hand that feeds you.

This has not sunk in for leftists in Washington and elsewhere.

They apparently will not be content until they take a bite out of everyone and everything.

Even if it ends up devouring them in the process when there is no one left to pay the bills.