When I was 7 or 8 years old we lived on a small farm in south willard, not far from the weber county line in Utah. We had 2 or 3 milk cows, one we miked for our use and dad would buy baby calves at auction to put with the other cows after they calved. We had Holstein cows and they produced enough milk to feed 3 or 4 calves. One of those cows just had her calf and dad went to the auction get some baby calves to put with her. But when he got home there was no baby calves, but there was a surprise. He had 2 little donkeys a brown one and a white one.

The Biblically correct name for a male Donkey Would be Jackass. And it Didn't take long to find out that our little jackass could also be The Figurative Jackass as well. Little did I know that our little Donkey would set the Stage for a valuable lesson. A lesson I have carried with me my whole life.

I have been watching all of the press coverage of the Artemis ll moon mission. I have to say I haven't been all that excited. I was the for the moon landing stuff in 1969. I mean I wasn't actually there but I watched it all. Looking back though It occurs to me that, to use an analogy, it was like going to space in a Model T ford. And now 57 years later It was like going to space in a Model A ford. Very little difference in the mode of travel. Fancier computers. So my thought is if we expect to, forget about the moon, colonize Mars. We are definitely going to change the mode of transportation Dramatically. Question is, Is there any technology on the horizon that has the potential to make that happen in the next 57 years?

My analogy was that we strap the astronauts to a giant rocket that could turn into a bomb at any second. And when they come back they have to fall from the sky at thousands of miles per hour and hope their parachutes will deploy and and allow the to splash down in the ocean somewhere, and hope someone will be there to pluck out the water. Seems like a very crude and ancient system.

Imagine you move to a beautiful island nation. You’re there for a year. You don't know the history of the founders, you haven't studied the customs, and frankly, you might move again in two years. But after just 12 months, you’re handed a ballot to choose the Prime Minister.

This isn't a "what-if." It’s the law in New Zealand. Today, we’re looking at what happens to a country when "residency" replaces "loyalty," and why the world is currently hitting a breaking point on the idea of "World Citizenship."

Let’s look at New Zealand—Exhibit A. His Issue has been making waves lately and points to a scary trend. Because non-citizens can vote after a year, the country has become a magnet for "passive wealth."

Wealthy individuals move in, buy up the housing, and vote for policies that protect their property values. They aren't starting businesses or welding in shops—they’re parking money. The result? The housing market is hot as a firecracker.

Native-born New Zealanders, the people with "skin in the game," can no longer afford to live there. So, they’re fleeing to Australia for better-paying jobs. When a country’s own people are replaced by high-wealth transients, do you still have a nation, or just a gated community with a flag? As the ACT party in NZ is arguing this election cycle: “Citizenship must mean something.”

Roughly 66,000 New Zealand citizens left the country in the last 12 months, with over 60% of them heading to Australia.

That could be our future without the Save America Act or similar legislation.

In California this month, investigators uncovered a massive "ghost fleet"—hundreds of businesses registered with the state using "Golden IDs." These aren't just stolen Social Security numbers; they belong to people who have left the country, meaning the "owner" of the company doesn't even know it exists, and they aren't around to check the mail when the debt collectors Come Calling.

We're looking at the numbers from the GAO—which estimate that fraud is now effectively the sixth-largest "agency" in the federal government. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars. We’re also going to look at why your local Secretary of State might legally be forbidden from double-checking who is actually filing those papers.

Accountability Office—the GAO—the federal government is losing between $233 billion and $521 billion every single year to fraud.

Think about that. At the high end, we are losing half a trillion dollars a year. That is more than the entire budget for the Department of Homeland Security. It’s roughly 3% to 7% of every dollar the federal government spends. And that’s just confirmed fraud. If you look at "improper payments"—money sent to the wrong person or in the wrong amount—the total since 2003 is a staggering $2.8 trillion

A recent Forbes article from April 5, 2026 challenges some the facts in my Energy Hostage Podcasts 1 & 2. According to the Writer I am misinformed. Well let's find out, Here is his words.

A widespread myth in energy circles is that U.S. refineries are “unable” to process the light, sweet crude produced by the shale boom. The claim tends to surface whenever gasoline prices rise or energy independence becomes a talking point. The argument is usually that the U.S. is producing record volumes of oil, yet still imports crude because its refineries were built for heavier foreign barrels.

It’s a compelling narrative, but it’s mostly wrong.

Let’s look at the real economics on the ground I just paid $4.30 / gal. For gas today. Two months ago I paid $2.28/gal. That is a 89% increase. That’s the ransom we pay for being held hostage to the middle east when we don’t have to be.

The economics for the oil companies is 50 or 60 Billion dollars in additional profits. We pay a ransom while they make huge profits. And He called it economical. It’s a matter of prospective I guess.

He doesn't dispute the fact the we still import millions of barrels a day from the middle east, but he claims in his words,

U.S. refineries can and do process shale crude every day. The issue isn’t technical capability. It’s economics.

Understanding that distinction is critical, because it explains why the U.S. simultaneously exports large volumes of crude oil while continuing to import it, and why that system works far more efficiently than it appears at first glance.

Stick with here to find out if it is really economical or efficient or which party it might be both of those things.

"Welcome back. In Part 1, we looked at the ships. We looked at the missiles in the Strait of Hormuz. But today, we’re looking at the ledger. Because while the physical blockade is 7,000 miles away, the financial blockade is happening right at your local gas station. Today, we follow the money.” Those who give it and those who receive it.

"You might think your state capital is a safe distance from the $450 million circus in D.C. It isn't. In fact, it’s often cheaper—and more effective—for Big Oil to buy a state senator than a U.S. Senator. From Sacramento to Austin to Santa Fe, the industry is dropping over $120 million a year to make sure that no matter what happens in Washington, the rules in your backyard stay written in their favor. They aren't just lobbying for 'energy'; they are lobbying to make sure you have no choice but to pay their price.”

Since Texas manages its own lands (the "Permanent School Fund"), their numbers are separate and massive. In 2024/2025, the industry paid a record $27.3 billion in state and local taxes and royalties in Texas alone.

• The "Name Names" Context: While $27 billion sounds like a lot, remember that the Texas oil and gas industry’s direct Gross Regional Product exceeded $366 billion in that same period. They are paying roughly 7.5% of their regional product in taxes and royalties—while you likely pay a higher effective tax rate on your personal income

The Smell Test

• We’re Being told that we are energy independent. We see the oil rigs in Texas, the pumps in Utah. Yet, a drone strike in the Strait of Hormuz 7,000 miles away just added $2.00 to your gallon of gas. If we have the oil, why are we paying A ransom To the middle east? Something doesn't smell right, and today, we're going to follow that scent and see where it leads.My Thoughts on this whole Mess.
  • The oil and gas leases that our government makes available to oil companies represent an asset of the American people. Any and all assets belonging to us should benefit us first. Allowing companies to make a profit as well, makes the whole thing work. We should never allow them to sell our top grade stuff overseas for huge profits (of which we do not benefit) and then import cheap junk oil and make us pay premium price at the pump. And the when we have a conflict in the middle east we have to pay even more when our oil is not at risk. Our assets should always be for the benefit of us first. Not to make astronomical profits for big business.
  • What if we were refining our own oil, here is the "black and white" comparison to show the estimated difference. We would have to spend 30-40 Billion Dollars and it will take time to re-tool the refineries. We would also have to eliminate the jones act or get some new ships to carry the oil. But True energy independence would definitely be worth it.The idea of being free from the dependance on the middle east and all the wars and disruptions That’s pretty damn good too.

Historically, most of the world follows one of two legal principles:

• Jus Soli (Right of Soil): You are a citizen because you were born on the land. (Common in the Americas).
• Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood): You are a citizen because your parents are. (Common in Europe and Asia).

What’s changing in 2026: The "unrestricted" versions of these are disappearing.

• In Europe: Almost no country offers unconditional birthright citizenship anymore. France, Germany, and the UK all now require parents to have lived there for several years before a child is born to get automatic citizenship.
• Ireland was the last holdout in Europe; they ended unconditional birthright citizenship in 2005.
• New Zealand and Australia also ended it in the 1980s and 2000s, moving to "conditional" systems where at least one parent must be a permanent resident.

However, they both reflect a move toward "Contractual Citizenship." Instead of citizenship being an permanent, iron-clad status, the government is treating it more like a membership:

I see it like this. If you were born here to parents who were and are loyal citizens, then your citizenship should not be questioned. But, if you come here otherwise, you should have to go through proper channels to become a citizen and it is not unreasonable to require a probationary period.

I believe that every egg that is fertilized and implants properly in the uterus, has the potential for greatness. I mean we never know which one of them might be the next Albert Einstein, or Mozart, or someone great from all walks of life

If we take the worldwide abortion statistics from the last 40 years and apply the statistical distribution of "greatness"—measured by careers in science, medicine, the arts, and peak intellectual achievement—we can create a quantitative "loss of human capital" projection.

1. Establishing the Raw Numbers

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Guttmacher Institute, there are approximately 73 million abortions per year globally. Looking back 40 years (1986–2026), the rate has fluctuated, but a conservative global average of ~55 million per year is often cited by researchers.

• Total Estimated Abortions (1986–2026): ~2.2 Billion

To put that in perspective, that is roughly 27% of the current total world population.

We are seeing shortages of Nurses and doctors in todays world because we wiped out those individuals that would have filled those positions. This is a global issue!!

The idea of a "stable Republic." The Founders (especially in Federalist No. 57) argued that the "Great Security" for a republic isn't just the parchment of the law, but the Civic Virtue of the people.

The Founders didn't just worry about a King; they worried about a "Demagogue"—a leader who gains power by appealing to the passions and prejudices of the people rather than their reason.

Abraham Lincoln famously warned that a republic like ours cannot be destroyed from the outside; it can only collapse from within.

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln

"A Republic is the only form of government that requires its citizens to be its own police. When we stop pledging our allegiance to the process and start pledging it to the person, we have already moved into the 'Aftermath' we are discussing here.”