US Trade Deficit 11-30-25

The US Trade Deficit is the difference between what we Import from other countries minus what we Export to other countries.  The Trade Deficit is the result of “Offshoring” US Manufacturing and the US failure to produce what it consumes. 

In 1987, the US Trade Deficit was $152,119.1.  The US Trade Deficit ran into the $Trillions in 2021 and reach a high of $1,204,719.4 in 2024.

2017  $792,395.9

2018  $870,358.4

2019  $845,759.2 

2020  $901,481.8

2021  $1,070,771.8

2022  $1,167,084.9

2023  $1,056,317.2

2024  $1,204,719.4

2025  $889,315.4 January-August

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0015.html

Comments

Our current efforts to “Re-Shore” Manufacturing will lower our Imports and increase “Next Generation” Manufacturing jobs for US Citizens. Trump is using Tariffs to lower the US Trade Deficit and allow the US to produce more of what it consumes.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Iran Energy Exports 11-30-25

In 2025, Iran's oil exports have averaged around 1.7 million to 1.8 million barrels per day, peaking above

1.9 million bpd in September, and natural gas exports have declined in value and volume compared to the previous year.

 Oil exports have maintained high levels despite sanctions due to a combination of factors, including a "shadow fleet" of tankers and established buyers in China and other Asian markets. Natural gas exports have fallen due to factors like sanctions and regional tensions, though specific volume data is less consistent. 

Oil exports 

Average 2025 exports: Iran's oil exports averaged about 1.7 million to 1.8 million barrels per day during the first half of 2025, according to Financial Tribune and TradeImeX.

Peak performance: Exports surged to over1.9 million barrels per day in September 2025, the highest level in over six years.

Reasons for resilience: This sustained export level is attributed to a mature "shadow fleet" of tankers, ship-to-ship transfers, regional pipeline deals, and a strong buyer network, particularly in China. 

Natural gas exports 

2025 performance: Iran's natural gas exports have declined. For the first seven months of the Iranian year (March 21 to October 22, 2025), exports fell by about 24.8% in volume compared to the same period in 2024, reports Trend News Agency.

Contributing factors: Factors like sanctions, regional tensions, and the redirection of funds towards military spending are believed to have contributed to this decline.

Specific deliveries: Despite the overall decline, some specific deliveries have still occurred, such as a shipment of over 17,000 metric tons of Iranian LPG to Bangladesh in early 2025, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

In 2025, Iran's oil exports have averaged approximately 1.6 to 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd), primarily to China, despite ongoing international sanctions. Iran is currently not a significant exporter of natural gas via pipeline or as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), though it does export some Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). 

Oil Exports

Iran's oil exports in 2025 have shown resilience and even reached multi-year highs despite a complex geopolitical landscape, including US sanctions and regional tensions. 

Average Volume: Across the first three quarters of 2025, average daily crude and condensate exports have fluctuated, but generally remained in the range of 1.6 to 1.8 million bpd.

Recent Highs: In September 2025, exports surged to a high of over 1.9 million bpd, a level not seen since mid-2018.

Main Destination: The overwhelming majority (over 85%) of Iran's oil exports are sent to China, often via a "shadow fleet" of tankers that use techniques like ship-to-ship transfers to evade sanctions.

Sanctions Impact: The continued high export volumes underscore the effectiveness of Iran's methods for bypassing sanctions, though U.S. authorities have announced new measures targeting these networks in October and November 2025. Forecasts suggest exports could be pressured downwards if sanctions enforcement tightens under the new U.S. administration. 

Natural Gas Exports

Iran possesses some of the world's largest natural gas reserves but has limited export capacity due to underinvestment and sanctions. 

Pipeline Gas: Iran is a regional pipeline gas supplier, but it is not a major global exporter.

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+are+Iran%27s+oil+and+natural+gas+exports+in+2025

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Iran Energy Imports 11-30-25

In 2025, China is the primary buyer of Iranian oil, with other significant oil customers including the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. For natural gas, Turkey and Iraq are major importers, while Armenia and Turkmenistan have swap deals.  

Oil buyers

China: By far the largest buyer, purchasing over 90% of Iran's oil exports.

United Arab Emirates: A key customer, receiving a notable portion of Iranian oil.

Syria: Another important market, receiving a substantial amount of Iranian oil.

Iraq: A significant buyer of Iranian oil, which is shipped to its neighboring country.

Turkey: Serves as an important market for Iranian oil exports.

Other buyers: Include Venezuela, Malaysia, Oman, Lebanon, and Sri Lanka, which are also important markets for Iranian oil exports according to some data. 

Natural gas buyers

Turkey and Iraq: Major importers of Iranian natural gas.

Armenia and Turkmenistan: Have swap deals with Iran. 

In 2025, the primary buyer of Iran's oil is China, with smaller volumes going to a few other countries, often via a "shadow fleet" and deceptive shipping practices to evade international sanctions. Major natural gas importers include Turkey and Iraq.

Oil Purchasers

China is the dominant destination for Iranian crude oil and related petroleum products, often purchasing it at a discount. Reports from 2025 indicate that: 

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+countries+buy+oil+and+natural+gas+from+iran+2025

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Wind Turbine Cost 11-30-25

The cost to build and install a wind turbine in 2025 varies significantly by size, ranging from approximately $8,000 to $12,000 for a small residential 1.5 kW turbine to $2.6 to $4 million per turbine for a large, utility-scale 2-3 MW turbine. For medium-sized industrial turbines, costs can range from $3,000 to $8,000 per kW for a vertical-axis turbine or $1,200 to $1,800 per kW installed for large onshore projects.  

Residential and small-scale turbines

1.5 kW: Estimated $8,000 – $12,000 for installation on a small home.

5 kW: Estimated $20,000 – $40,000 for installation on a medium home.

10 kW: Estimated $50,000 – $80,000 for a large home or small farm.

Freestanding systems: Higher up-front costs, ranging from $50,000 to $80,000 for smaller systems, with higher maintenance expenses. 

Large-scale (utility-scale) turbines

Cost per turbine: $2.6 to $4 million per turbine.

Cost per megawatt (MW): Industry standard is around $1 to $1.25 million per MW of capacity for onshore installations.

Total project cost: Can be between $1,200 to $1,800 per kW installed. 

Factors that influence cost

Turbine size and type: Larger turbines cost more, but can be more cost-effective per kW. The type (e.g., horizontal vs. vertical axis) also affects price.

Installation complexity: Costs can increase based on the site's specific conditions and the need for a taller tower or more complex foundation.

Ancillary equipment: Additional costs for batteries ($6,000 to $13,000+) and charge controllers ($100 to $400+) can be significant.

Permitting and zoning: Local regulations and restrictions can add to the overall cost and timeline.

Site-specific factors: A site with better wind resources may make wind power a better investment than solar, even with higher upfront costs. 

The cost to build and install a wind turbine varies significantly by scale: 

Residential systems cost between $10,000 and $175,000 in total.

Commercial (onshore) turbines cost $2.6 million to $4 million each.

Offshore turbines can cost upwards of $20 million per turbine. 

Total costs for commercial projects are typically estimated at $1,200 to $1,800 per kilowatt (kW)

installed for onshore wind and $3,500 to $4,000 per kW installed for offshore wind farms. 

Key Cost Factors

The primary cost drivers for wind turbine projects go beyond just the turbine unit, which typically accounts for about 70% of the total project cost. 

Location and Accessibility: Remote or challenging terrain increases transportation and installation costs. Offshore locations require specialized equipment and vessels, leading to significantly higher costs.

Foundation and Site Prep: This involves site preparation (access roads, crane pads) and foundation work, which can vary dramatically based on soil conditions and turbine size.

Grid Connection: Connecting to the electrical grid requires substantial infrastructure investment, including wiring, transformers, substations, and transmission lines.

Permitting and Legal Fees: Regulatory compliance, environmental assessments, and legal fees can add significant costs to a project.

Operational and Maintenance (O&M): These are ongoing costs that include scheduled maintenance, unscheduled repairs, insurance, and land lease payment.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+does+a+wind+turbine+cost+to+build+and+install+2025

Comments

This is not a good deal. The cost of producing electricity with Wind and Solar has been quoted at 14 cents/kwh. The cost of producing electricity from Natural Gas is 2 cents/kwh. The cost of maintaining Wind and Solar makes them unaffordable.

Going off the grid can be accomplished by interfacing your electrical system to be controlled by your PC.  You need a program that will shut off your electricity to each electrical outlet. This eliminates the residual bleeding of amps.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

501C Status Update 11-29-25

The U.S. is not automatically removing the 501(c) status from non-profits across the board in 2025; rather, there are specific, long-standing rules for automatic revocation, and some recent political discussions and a new law have introduced other potential changes and considerations.  

Key Changes and Considerations in 2025

Automatic Revocation for Non-Filers: The primary way a non-profit automatically loses its tax-exempt status is by failing to file the required annual information returns (such as Form 990 or 990-EZ) with the IRS for three consecutive years. This is an existing rule, not a new one for 2025.

Political Targeting Concerns: Throughout 2025, there have been concerns and discussions within the government about potentially targeting the tax-exempt status of certain non-profits (e.g., environmental or immigrant rights groups) based on their activities or missions. However, the American Bar Association notes that federal tax exemption cannot be revoked by executive order alone and requires an individual, case-by-case IRS audit with opportunities for appeal.

New Legislation ("One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act"): A tax law signed in July 2025, Public Law 119-21, did not include provisions that would allow for the easy, broad removal of non-profit status based on an administration's discretion. An earlier version of the House bill had a provision that was removed by the Senate.

Changes for Churches: In July 2025, the IRS announced a policy change (following a lawsuit settlement) allowing churches and houses of worship to endorse or oppose political candidates from the pulpit without risking their 501(c)(3) status, provided it's not linked to financial contributions or use of church resources beyond normal communications. This does not apply to other types of 501(c)(3) organizations, which are still broadly prohibited from political campaign activity.

Increased Scrutiny and Penalties: Non-profits are facing increased scrutiny regarding compliance.

Excise Tax on Executive Pay: Effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025, a 21% excise tax on compensation over $1 million will expand to cover all highly compensated employees, not just the top five.

Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) Reporting Penalties: Starting January 1, 2025, the penalties for non-compliance with the Corporate Transparency Act's BOI reporting requirements increased significantly. While most 501(c)(3)s are exempt from this reporting, those that are not must comply. 

Non-profits should consult the IRS website or seek legal counsel to ensure ongoing compliance with all federal tax requirements. 

Reports and official actions in 2025 indicated that while there was no blanket removal of 501(c) status, specific categories of non-profits faced increased scrutiny and potential for revocation by the IRS, often in connection with political pressure. For instance, churches received more leeway for political speech, while other nonprofits were threatened with loss of status over perceived political activity. Legislative proposals and IRS actions also focused on specific issues, like reporting requirements for federal funds and activities deemed illegal. Organizations that fail to file required annual returns for three consecutive years continue to face automatic revocation of their tax-exempt status. 

Targeted threats and increased scrutiny 

Targeting specific types of organizations: In 2025, there were reports of political figures threatening the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status of specific types of organizations. Environmental rights groups, immigrant rights groups, and universities like Harvard were mentioned.

Executive orders and legislation: An executive order in early 2025 highlighted risks to nonprofit tax-exempt status by defining "substantial illegal purpose" in a way that some felt could be used to target specific types of organizations.

Targeting terror-supporting groups: House legislation was introduced in May 2025 that would allow the Treasury Secretary to revoke the tax-exempt status of organizations unilaterally determined to be "terrorist supporting". This was opposed by hundreds of nonprofits for its broad discretionary power.

Political endorsements for churches: In contrast, a July 2025 policy change by the IRS, though not a repeal of the Johnson Amendment, gave more freedom to churches regarding political endorsements during sermons, while maintaining prohibitions for other 501(c)(3) organizations. 

Existing reasons for removal

Non-filing: Organizations that fail to file their annual Form 990-series return for three consecutive years automatically have their tax-exempt status revoked. The IRS updates a monthly list of these automatic revocations.

Failure to meet operational test: In April 2025, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of an organization for failing to meet the operational test, citing insufficient engagement in charitable activities over several years. This ruling demonstrated the importance of active engagement in charitable activity to maintain status. 

Legal protections and pushback

Case-by-case audits: The American Bar Association noted in May 2025 that federal tax exemption cannot be revoked by executive order alone. IRS procedures require individual audits for each organization, with opportunities for defense and appeals.

State-level protection: In May 2025, New York State considered a bill to protect nonprofits from federal actions deemed illegal or improper.

Nonprofit advocacy: Organizations like the Council of Nonprofits and the Environmental Protection Network have issued statements throughout 2025 opposing political targeting of nonprofits and advocating for the independence of the sector. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+us+removing+501c+status+from+some+non-profits+in+2025

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

501C Nonprofits Registered 11-29-25

There are approximately 1.9 million registered nonprofit organizations in the U.S., a number that includes all 501(c) subsections. The most common type is the 501(c)(3), with over 1.4 million charitable, religious, and educational organizations registered as of 2023.  

Total nonprofits: Around 1.9 million registered nonprofit organizations are in the U.S.

Most common type: The 501(c)(3) category is the largest, with roughly 1.48 million organizations as of 2023.

Other 501(c) types: Other common categories include 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations (over 74,000) and 501(c)(6) business leagues (over 60,000). 

As of late 2024 and early 2025 data, there are approximately 1.9 million registered nonprofit organizations in the United States, which includes all types of 501(c) organizations. 

The most common category is 501(c)(3) organizations (charitable and religious organizations), which make up the vast majority with over 1.5 million recognized entities. The total number for all 501(c) types is around 1.8 to 1.9 million. 

Specific counts for some major 501(c) subsections (based on data from late 2023 and FY 2024 reports) are as follows:

501(c)(3) Charitable and religious organizations: ~1.5 million

501(c)(4) Social welfare organizations: ~73,500

501(c)(6) Business leagues: ~60,000

501(c)(7) Social and recreation clubs: ~47,300 

For more detailed statistics and data tools, you can explore resources from the IRS or the National Council of Nonprofits. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+501c+nonprofits+are+there+in+the+us+2025

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

501C Status Removals 11-29-25

The exact number of 501(c) nonprofits that had their status removed in 2025 is not yet available, as the IRS has not released official statistics for the year. However, thousands of organizations likely lost their status, as it is common for nonprofits to fail each year, and the IRS automatically revokes the tax-exempt status of organizations that fail to file required returns for three consecutive years.  

Annual attrition: Many nonprofits fail each year due to various issues, with some sources indicating that up to 50% fail within their first 12 months.

Automatic revocation: The IRS automatically revokes tax-exempt status for organizations that fail to file their required tax returns for three years in a row.

Data limitations: Specific, comprehensive statistics on status revocations for 2025 are not yet compiled or released by the IRS or other organizations. You may need to check official IRS sources or nonprofit industry reports for future updates. 

The exact number of 501(c) nonprofits whose status has been removed in 2025 is not a single, publicly aggregated figure, as revocations are an ongoing process, primarily due to failure to file required tax returns for three consecutive years. The IRS updates the Tax Exempt Organization Search database monthly with organizations whose status has been automatically revoked. 

How Revocations Occur

Automatic Revocation: The most common reason for the removal of tax-exempt status is the failure to file an annual Form 990-series return (or e-Postcard Form 990-N) for three consecutive years. The revocation is effective on the original filing due date of the third missed return.

Other Reasons: Status can also be revoked for other reasons, such as private inurement or engaging in prohibited political activity, though these are much less common and require an individual IRS audit process.

Political Pressure: While there have been political calls in 2025 to revoke the status of certain high-profile organizations (such as Harvard University), the IRS must follow established legal procedures for revocation, and executive orders cannot revoke status without due process. 

How to Check an Organization's Status

Because revocations happen continuously, the number changes daily. To determine the status of any specific organization, you can use the official IRS tools: 

Tax Exempt Organization Search (TEOS): This online tool allows you to search for organizations by name or Employer Identification Number (EIN). It includes a specific Auto-Revocation List database for organizations that have lost their status for non-filing.

Internal Revenue Bulletins (IRB): Official notices of 501(c)(3) revocations (those not due to automatic non-filing) are published in the IRB. You can use the search function with the relevant announcement number to find the official notice. 

For general statistics, organizations like the Urban Institute analyze IRS data in retrospect, but real-time, aggregate numbers for 2025 are not immediately available as a single published report.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+501c+nonprofits+have+had+their+status+removed+in+2025

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

501C Removal for Cause 11-29-25

The exact number of 501(c) organizations removed for specific instances of misconduct in the US in 2025 is not publicly available as the IRS does not typically release real-time, detailed statistics on revocations for cause as they happen. Revocations related to misconduct are rare and often result from in-depth audits and investigations.  

The majority of tax-exempt status revocations happen automatically by operation of law when an organization fails to file the required annual tax returns (Form 990-series) for three consecutive years. The IRS reports on these automatic revocations in bulk data on the Tax Exempt Organization Search tool. 

Reasons for Revocation by the IRS

While automatic failure to file is the most common reason for a revocation, the IRS can also revoke an organization's status for "misconduct" or "for cause" violations, which include, but are not limited to: 

Private Inurement: This occurs when an "insider" (such as a board member or officer) treats the nonprofit's earnings like a personal bank account.

Political Campaign Intervention: Using organizational resources to endorse or oppose political candidates is a major violation for 501(c)(3) organizations.

Excessive Lobbying: Spending a substantial amount of time and resources attempting to influence legislation can also lead to revocation.

Failure to Meet Operational Test: Not engaging in any charitable activities for several years, as demonstrated in a specific IRS private letter ruling in April 2025.

Illegal Activities: Engaging in activities that are illegal or contrary to public policy can lead to the loss of tax-exempt status. 

Organizations facing potential revocation for cause are entitled to an appeals process, which can make the final removal date unpredictable and not suitable for immediate annual reporting. For up-to-date information, the IRS publishes a list of organizations whose 501(c)(3) determinations have been revoked in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (IRB). 

While a specific total count of 501(c) organizations removed for misconduct in the U.S. in 2025 is not available, the IRS does provide lists of organizations whose tax-exempt status has been revoked. Revocation can occur for failing to file required annual returns for three consecutive years, not exclusively due to misconduct. 

Here are some key actions and points regarding non-profit misconduct and IRS enforcement in 2025:

IRS enforcement: In 2025, the IRS continued to update and enforce compliance with tax-exempt organization rules. The agency publishes monthly updates on its website, including a list of automatically revoked exemptions.

Executive orders: Executive orders and political memos in 2025 influenced how federal agencies, including the IRS, address non-profits. This included directives on investigating grant funds, countering terrorism, and scrutinizing certain tax laws.

Case studies and warnings: Specific instances of misconduct were highlighted, such as the case of Volunteers of America Southwest California, which was dismantled following reports of fraud. In December 2024, some tax-exempt NIL collectives were warned of "smarter enforcement" by the IRS.

Legislation and proposals: In 2025, new legislation and proposals also affected non-profits. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) revised the excise tax on university endowments and increased IRS funding for oversight. Proposals were also made regarding a bill that would allow the revocation of a non-profit's tax status for alleged ties to "terror," raising concerns about due process. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+501c+organizations+were+removed+for+misconduct+in+us+2025

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Your Government Needs Your Help 11-28-25

By Norb Leahy, February 1994, Georgia Medical Journal.

Dear Citizen, We hope you think that we in government are doing a good job.  We know that life isn't perfect and, therefore, we have made that our philosophy.  We are doing the best we can with the little money we have.  We have been busy worrying about our society.  That's our job.  We would like to share some of our concerns.  We are having some problems funding our criminal justice and education systems, and our environmental protection and health programs and could use more money.  Most of all, we want you as citizens to do your part by volunteering to help us implement our newest program ideas.

Our parole boards are having to let violent criminals out of jail because there aren't enough jail cells.  We would like for you to initiate a petition to increase your state and federal taxes so that we can set up a fund and study it and maybe build some more prisons in 10 or 20 years.  In the meantime, we are excited about using the money to start our new "adopt a felon" program, where you can adopt a released convict and keep him in your home and be the family he never had. 

Our immigration service is concerned that illegal immigrants are streaming across our borders and have given up trying to catch and deport them because they all claim political asylum.  We passed a law that prevents companies from hiring them, so some are selling drugs and the others are going on welfare.  We are currently planning an "adopt an illegal Immigrant" program so that you can keep one in your home and learn a second language and a different culture.

Some time ago, we let all of the crazy people out of the mental institutions because we were afraid that we were violating their civil rights and besides, we needed the money we spent to keep them there for other things.  We need a "crazy person neighborhood watch" program so that if these people wander into your neighborhood, we will know what they are doing.  Remember, we can't do anything unless they kill somebody, so if they do, make sure to call and let us know.

Our police officers are unable to stop the violent crime associated with drug gangs and crazy people.  Drugs flow freely over the border, and crazy people are everywhere.  We need money so we can hire 100,000 police officers who can get out into bad neighborhoods where these drug gangs and crazy people live so they can get to know them.

Our teachers are having to teach kids about safe sex, hand out condoms, check kids for weapons and teach classes in self-esteem, environmental protection, diversity, homosexuality, child abuse, and political correctness.  Consequently, we no longer have the time or money to teach them to read, write, or do math.  We would appreciate it if you could go over reading, writing, and math with your kids at home in your spare time.  We would like to avoid any further decline in their SAT scores.

Our nuclear production sites are a mess.  We can't clean them up.  This stuff could be leaking into your drinking water soon.  We need money to throw at this until somebody figures out what to do.

Our Medicare and Medicaid programs were a big success, and the demand for health care skyrocketed.  Giving free health care to old and poor people was much more expensive than we thought, and there's no end in sight.  We are continuing to spend much more on these programs than we take.  Rather than raise your taxes, we decided not to pay the providers what they charged.  These providers then raised their charges to make up for what we didn't pay.  Insurance premiums got so high that 37 million people didn't buy health insurance and really sick people couldn't get it.  Providers treated them anyway and raised their charges to make up for what they didn't pay.  Well, now we have to fix this mess and make everybody buy health Insurance.  We need your support to make these 37 million people pay premiums to the insurance companies.  It's an outrage.

On a more positive note, we want to share our excitement with you over some of the ideas we have to help families through government programs and create more non-manufacturing jobs.  We are excited about our health reform, foreign trade, and gun control initiatives as well as our plans to purchase more land.  We plan to issue everyone a national health card and a national ID card and perhaps give everyone a tattoo with their number on it for a small fee.  In addition, we are excited about our plans to help the former Soviet Union, South America, Africa, Asia, certainly all of the third world countries, and let's not forget about Europe.  I hope you are as excited as we are about our ideas for new programs, and we know you'll agree that increasing taxes, so that we can begin to cook up new things to try on our many problems and fund many worthy projects, is the answer.  We need to hire a lot more government employees, because you taxpayers will be demanding a lot more government services, and it's our job to see that you get them.   Warmest regards, Your Government

Source: Published in THE JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA Volume 84 FEBUARY 1994

Comments

This article I wrote in 1994 was “prophetic”. I publish this blog to make dead brain tissue live again.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

US Assimilation 11-28-25

Congress is currently stalled on comprehensive immigration reform, and debates around assimilation are highly polarized, with limited direct legislative action. While some specific bills have addressed certain aspects, a unified, comprehensive approach to immigrant assimilation issues has not been achieved due to deep political divisions.  

Key points regarding Congress and assimilation issues:

Political Stalemate: Comprehensive immigration reform has largely failed to pass Congress for decades. The issue remains a source of significant partisan conflict, often used as a political tool rather than a legislative priority for a grand compromise.

Focus on Border Security and Enforcement: Much of the current legislative energy in Congress and the executive branch is directed toward border enforcement, security, and related funding, often overshadowing discussions about post-arrival integration and assimilation.

Bipartisan Proposals: Bipartisan proposals like the "Dignity Act" of 2025 have been introduced, which include elements like a path to legal status for some undocumented immigrants and mandatory E-Verify. However, these compromise bills have struggled to gain enough support in the current political climate to be enacted into law.

Targeted Integration Efforts: Some specific, smaller-scale efforts have aimed to assist with integration. For example, the Immigrants in Nursing and Allied Health Act of 2022 aimed to reduce employment barriers for immigrant healthcare workers to alleviate U.S. workforce shortages. However, broader programs, like the Citizenship and Assimilation Grant Program, have faced funding cuts or political opposition in recent years.

Ideological Divisions over "Assimilation": The term "assimilation" itself is a point of contention. Some political figures use the term in the context of ensuring immigrants renounce foreign loyalties, while advocacy groups focus on removing social, economic, and political barriers to allow immigrants to contribute positively to society. This fundamental disagreement makes a unified legislative approach difficult. 

In summary, while specific proposals addressing components of integration exist, there is no single, active legislative effort in Congress that broadly and effectively addresses "assimilation issues" in a way that is likely to pass in the near future.

While comprehensive immigration reform remains a contentious issue, the U.S. Congress is currently engaged in debates and has introduced some bipartisan proposals that touch upon integration and "assimilation" indirectly, primarily within the context of border security and legal status pathways. There is no single, sweeping piece of legislation addressing "assimilation" as a primary, standalone issue that has been enacted into law. 

Key points regarding current congressional engagement:

Bipartisan Proposals: The most notable recent effort is the reintroduction of the Dignity Act (also known as the DIGNIDAD Act), a bipartisan bill that would offer a path to permanent legal status for certain undocumented immigrants in the U.S..

This legislation implicitly supports integration by providing a legal pathway, which allows immigrants to participate more fully in society and the economy, but its fate remains uncertain in the current political climate.

Focus on Workforce Integration: Individual representatives have introduced legislation aimed at specific workforce shortages, such as bills to reduce employment barriers for immigrant healthcare workers, which supports integration into the U.S. economy and addresses a practical need.

Historical Funding Cuts and Debates: Past administrations have seen debates over funding for specific integration programs. For example, during a prior administration, there was controversy over the decision to cut funding for the Citizenship and Assimilation Grant Program, a move that some members of Congress spoke out against. This highlights that support for specific assimilation initiatives exists within Congress, but it is a politically sensitive area.

Broader Immigration Reform Stalemate: Overall, significant, comprehensive immigration reform legislation has not been enacted in over a decade. The debate in Congress typically focuses more on border enforcement, asylum processing, and legal pathways rather than explicit "assimilation" or "Americanization" policies.

Diverse Perspectives: The concept of "assimilation" itself is a point of debate, with some viewing it as a necessary process for immigrant success and national cohesion, while others find the term outdated or problematic, preferring terms like "integration". The political discourse reflects these differing viewpoints. 

In summary, while there are ongoing legislative efforts that could facilitate immigrant integration, Congress has not "finally" or definitively addressed "assimilation issues" through a single, widely accepted law. Progress is incremental and often entangled with broader, highly partisan immigration debates.

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+us+congress+finally+addressing+assimilation+issues

Comments

Assimilation has been essential for every government over thousands of years. The Roman Empire failed because of overspending and resistance to assimilation. Inclusion of other cultures was short-lived beginning with Britton.

In the US, assimilation was achieved as the Second Generation of Immigrants inter-married with spouses whose parents were from different countries. Admission to the US required “sponsorship” by relatives with no government welfare. From 1800 to 1900, the US needed “Laborers” to build roads, canals, dams and railroads. Now we will need Engineers to On-Shore the Manufacturing Jobs we “exported” in the 1990s. 

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Muslim Assimilation Debate 11-28-25

Yes, a proposed Muslim-focused development near Dallas, Texas, known as "EPIC City," has been a major focus of an ongoing debate in 2025 regarding assimilation, religious freedom, and land use. 

The controversy has triggered significant political and public pushback, particularly from Texas state officials, and has led to legal challenges and new legislation.  

Key Details of the Debate in 2025

The Project: The East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC) proposed a large-scale, mixed-use development, "EPIC City," spanning over 400 acres in an unincorporated area near Josephine, Texas. The plan includes more than 1,000 homes, a mosque, a K-12 school, a senior living center, and retail spaces.

The Controversy: Opponents, including Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, have argued the development is an attempt to create a "Sharia compound" or "no-go zone" that would operate under Islamic law and exclude non-Muslims, thus posing a threat to the American way of life and subverting Texas laws. Developers have repeatedly denied these claims, stating it would be an open, non-discriminatory community and is years away from any actual construction.

State Actions:

Investigations: Multiple state agencies launched investigations into EPIC City for potential violations of fair housing laws, consumer protection statutes, and environmental regulations. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) ordered the halt of any construction due to a lack of required permits.

Legislation: Governor Abbott signed a new law, House Bill 4211, in September 2025, which prohibits residential developments from excluding residents based on religion and mandates that all disputes be resolved in state or federal courts (effectively banning religious tribunals like "Sharia courts" from governing a community).

Designations: In November 2025, Abbott declared the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood as "foreign terrorist organizations" and "transnational criminal organizations," seeking to ban them from owning land in Texas. CAIR has since filed a federal lawsuit against Abbott.

Federal Involvement: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) opened and later closed a civil rights investigation into the proposed development without filing any charges or lawsuits, after a settlement ensured the developer agreed to abide by the Texas Fair Housing Act. 

The debate highlights ongoing tensions between a community's right to develop faith-based living arrangements and concerns raised by state officials and some residents about a lack of assimilation and the potential for a separate legal system, despite the developers' assurances that they will adhere to all U.S. and Texas laws. 

Yes, a proposed Muslim-led development in North Texas known as "EPIC City" has triggered a significant public and political debate in 2025 around assimilation and "Sharia law". Texas officials have launched multiple investigations and passed new laws specifically in response to the project. 

Key Details of the Controversy (2025)

Project Description: Members of the East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC) proposed a 400-acre master-planned community near Josephine, an unincorporated area of Collin and Hunt counties. The plan includes around 1,000 homes, a mosque, school, retail space, and a community college. Developers state it is an open community welcoming people of all backgrounds.

Backlash and the Assimilation Debate: The project faced immediate and fervent condemnation, primarily from Texas Republican leaders, including Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton. Critics claimed the development was an attempt to create a "no-go zone" or "Sharia City" that would operate outside of U.S. law, raising fears about the community's assimilation into American society.

Official Investigations:

State Level: Governor Abbott ordered multiple state agencies to investigate, including the Texas Rangers, the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and the State Securities Board. The TWC has since closed its investigation into potential fair housing discrimination after a settlement was reached requiring fair housing training for the developer.

Federal Level: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also opened a civil rights investigation into the project following a request from U.S. Senator John Cornyn, though this investigation was closed in June 2025.

Legislative Action: In September 2025, Governor Abbott signed House Bill 4211 into law, which prevents property developments from excluding residents based on religion and mandates that disputes be resolved according to Texas law, effectively banning "Sharia Cities".

Developer's Stance: The developers have consistently denied claims of exclusivity or intent to impose Sharia law, stating they are years away from construction and have not yet filed for the necessary permits. They argue they are being targeted with "Islamophobic rhetoric" and "misinformation". 

The ongoing news in 2025 indicates that the controversy over this proposed community has indeed brought the debate on religious enclaves and assimilation to the forefront of Texas politics. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=are+planned+muslim+enclaves+in+texas+triggering+the+assimilation+debate+2025

Comments

This problem began in 2015, when the US and the EU resettled millions of Muslim Refugees.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Texas Redistricting 11-28-25

Alito lets Texas reinstate gerrymandered House map that could give GOP 5 more seats

Alito’s move allowing Texas officials to continue to prepare for primary elections under the new map 

Texas’ redrawn GOP-friendly congressional districts are back, for now.

Justice Samuel Alito temporarily restored the state’s new map — expected to net Republicans up to five seats in the 2026 midterms — while the Supreme Court weighs a lower court’s decision to toss that map altogether.

Alito’s move allowing Texas officials to continue to prepare for primary elections under the new map came just after the state asked the Supreme Court for an urgent ruling to revive the redistricting plan adopted at the urging of President Donald Trump.

The emergency appeal filed Friday evening urged the high court to put a hold on a lower court’s decision Tuesday that found racial considerations likely unconstitutionally tinged the new map.

Texas’ petition formally asked the justices to weigh in on a matter that could determine control of the House in next year’s midterm elections. A longer-term ruling by the high court restoring Texas’ new map would make Democrats’ path to retaking the majority more difficult.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and the lawmakers who approved the new map say the lower-court decision came “far too late in the day” — scrapping the new congressional boundaries would wreak havoc on an election that’s already underway, they say.

“The chaos caused by such an injunction is obvious: campaigning had already begun, candidates had already gathered signatures and filed applications to appear on the ballot under the 2025 map, and early voting for the March 3, 2026, primary was only 91 days away,” Texas Solicitor General William Peterson wrote.

Lawyers for Texas asked the Supreme Court to grant the longer-term stay by Dec. 1, just one week before the state’s filing deadline for congressional races.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, who authored the 2-1 majority decision throwing out Texas’ new congressional map, concluded that the inconvenience caused by reverting to an older map was outweighed by the prospect of requiring Texans to live under an unconstitutional racial gerrymander for two years. Though courts are guided by a longstanding principle to avoid making significant changes too close to an election cycle, that rule is amorphous, Brown noted, and there is still time for the state to reorient to the earlier map.

Texas’ appeal rejects the lower court’s finding that race-related considerations set the redistricting effort in motion.

“The State Defendants presented a specific, detailed, non-racial, unrebutted explanation for every single redistricting decision. … From the start, everyone recognized that the purpose of Texas’s redistricting effort was Republican political advantage,” Peterson wrote, noting that Trump repeatedly urged Texas and other GOP-leaning states to rejigger their 2026 maps.

“The district court erred by inferring bad faith and racial intent because the Texas Legislature’s map did not (through some hypothetical means) transform the only Democratic district in Austin — an exceptionally Democratic city — into a Republican stronghold,” Peterson added.

Texas’ attorneys also asked the high court to hear and reverse the earlier decision, but that is highly unlikely to happen in time for the coming year’s races, so the court’s action on the emergency stay request will likely dictate whether Texas’ changes take effect in 2026 or the previous map remains.

The emergency application went to Alito in the first instance because he oversees urgent matters arising in the 5th Circuit, which includes Texas. Alito, who is expected to refer the stay request to the full court, appeared to put it on a fast-track by giving the civil rights groups that sued to block the new map a deadline of 5 P.M. eastern time Monday to file a response.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/21/texas-supreme-court-map-case

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Supreme Court Evolution 11-27-25

The Supreme Court already considers economics and national security in its rulings, but whether it should evolve to place more emphasis on these factors is a subject of debate. While the Court is bound by constitutional interpretation and precedent, it has evolved to address new issues by considering their economic and national security implications and has also had to balance free speech rights with national interests and public order. The debate centers on the extent to which these factors should shape its legal reasoning, as well as the proper balance between judicial interpretation and other policy-making considerations.  

How the Court currently handles these issues

Economics: The Court frequently analyzes economic issues, though its role often involves deferring to expert agencies rather than substituting its own economic judgment. For example, the Court has issued decisions that have had significant economic consequences by altering labor laws, impacting the balance of power in the workplace, and shaping corporate governance.

National Security: National security is an inherent consideration in many cases that come before the Court, particularly those involving civil liberties. The Court has had to balance individual rights with the government's ability to protect the nation, a tension that can shape the interpretation of rights like freedom of speech.

Abuse of Free Speech: The Court has continuously grappled with the complexities of free speech, establishing a legal framework to distinguish protected speech from unprotected speech like incitement to violence. Landmark cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio have set a very high bar for when speech can be restricted, requiring it to be "inciting" "imminent lawless action". 

The debate over evolution

Arguments for evolution: Some argue that the Court needs to more directly incorporate economic and national security concerns to create a more practical and effective legal framework. They suggest that the Court's existing approach may not adequately address the complexities of modern issues like technology and global markets.

Arguments for restraint: Others argue that the Court's role is to interpret the Constitution based on precedent, not to act as a policymaker, and that focusing too heavily on economic or political factors could undermine the Court's legitimacy. They worry that giving too much weight to national security or economics could erode fundamental rights. 

The question of whether the Supreme Court should explicitly evolve beyond strict legal interpretation and precedent to formally include considerations of economics, national security, and citizen "abuse" of free speech is a subject of ongoing debate and touches on fundamental aspects of constitutional law and judicial philosophy. 

Current Approach

The Supreme Court currently addresses issues related to economics, national security, and free speech within the framework of existing law, the Constitution, and precedent. 

Economics: The Court rules on the constitutionality of economic legislation, typically deferring to the legislative branch in many areas since the New Deal era. Justices often employ various interpretive modes, including textualism, originalism, and pragmatism, which may involve weighing the practical consequences of interpretations, including economic impacts.

National Security: The Court has generally exercised judicial restraint in cases involving national security, often deferring to the executive branch's authority during times of crisis, while also upholding the judiciary's role in protecting individual rights. Landmark cases have balanced civil liberties against government security claims, demonstrating the Court's existing role in this area.

Citizen Abuse of Free Speech: The right to free speech is not absolute, and the Supreme Court has long established categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment (e.g., obscenity, true threats, incitement). The Court's function is to define the boundaries of protected speech through legal interpretation and precedent, distinguishing between protected expression and forms of "abuse" that can be legally limited by the government. 

Arguments for and Against Formalizing these Considerations

The idea of the Court formally evolving its mandate involves various viewpoints:

For Evolution (Pragmatism/Living Constitutionalism)
Against Evolution (Originalism/Textualism/Restraint)

Proponents argue that a "living Constitution" approach allows the document to remain relevant and responsive to new social, economic, and technological realities and values. This view suggests that judges should consider the real-world consequences and societal needs when interpreting the law, which would naturally encompass the complexities of modern economics, national security, and free speech issues.

Opponents argue that the Court's role is strictly to interpret the law and the Constitution based on its text and original meaning, not to function as a legislative body that weighs policy concerns like economics or national security in a vacuum. This perspective emphasizes judicial restraint, separation of powers, and the risk of the Court becoming an undemocratic, political institution if it ventures beyond legal interpretation into policy-making.

Ultimately, any changes to the fundamental role of the Supreme Court in the U.S. system of government would likely involve constitutional amendments or new rulings of the Court that overturn long-standing precedents, a process that is rare and subject to intense debate.

https://www.google.com/search?q=does+the+supreme+court+need+to+evolve+beyond+legal+interpretation+and+precedent+to+include+economics+and+national+security+and+citizen+abuse+of+free+speech

Comments

When the Supreme Court was asked about the legality of abortion, they asked Congress to pass a Law that defines the legal beginning of life and Congress never did. When they finally decided to punt the problem to the States, it triggered more State Initiatives. Now we have to determine how many State Initiatives need to be taken back to Federal Supremacy.

The return of Education to the States was a good decision.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Expanding Mental Health 11-27-25

Yes, there are lobbying efforts and legislative support for constructing and funding mental health facilities, though the specific goals and methods vary among groups. Some mental health advocates and organizations lobby for more comprehensive community-based services, while others support building or expanding inpatient facilities, often in response to issues like homelessness and the care of severely mentally ill individuals. This includes both a bipartisan movement for more institutionalization and legislative initiatives to build or renovate facilities.  

Arguments for increased institutionalization

Lack of comprehensive care: The closure of many mental hospitals in the mid-to-late 20th century, a process known as deinstitutionalization, has been linked to increased homelessness and incarceration among the mentally ill.

Support from some providers: Some psychiatrists and policy experts support modern, large-scale institutions as a solution for severe mental illness, particularly for those with nowhere else to go.

Legislative action: Some lawmakers have pushed for federal funding to create new inpatient beds and facilities. 

Arguments for community-based services

Focus on community care: Many mental health advocates argue that the focus should be on expanding community-based care and addressing structural factors like poverty and discrimination that affect mental health.

Avoiding past mistakes: Critics of institutionalization point to the historical abuses in large asylums and argue that modern approaches should prioritize individualized and community-based care.

Addressing funding disparities: Some organizations advocate for federal and state policies that ensure equitable access to mental health services for everyone, regardless of background. 

There is no evidence to suggest that mental health providers are lobbying for the construction of "insane asylums," which is an outdated term associated with historical abuses. The current focus of many mental health provider advocacy groups is on modernizing existing state psychiatric hospitals, increasing funding for community-based care, and expanding access to mental health services. This approach prioritizes less-restrictive care and aims to reverse the "transinstitutionalization" of mentally ill individuals from hospitals to jails and prisons. 

Efforts related to modern psychiatric care and funding:

State hospital projects: Some states are building or renovating state psychiatric facilities to provide modernized inpatient services, often driven by government initiatives rather than provider lobbying for "asylums".

Community-based care: Mental health advocates, including provider groups, have historically lobbied for and secured funding for community-based services that allow people to live more independently.

Alternative care models: Organizations advocate for and have secured funding for alternative models like peer respites, which are crisis programs run by people with lived mental health experience.

Addressing the "transinstitutionalization" problem: Many advocates and experts recognize that historical deinstitutionalization efforts, which closed many large psychiatric hospitals, failed to provide adequate community resources. This led to many individuals with serious mental illness ending up homeless or incarcerated. Modern efforts focus on improving the entire continuum of care.

Challenging outdated practices: Advocacy groups like the National Disability Rights Network monitor facilities, investigate abuses, and protect the rights of individuals with mental illness. 

Contrast with political rhetoric:

Misleading narratives: Certain political figures have used rhetoric calling for increased psychiatric confinement, while at the same time proposing cuts to funding for oversight and care, according to some analyses.

Political motivations: Some reports indicate that political leaders sometimes suggest building mental health institutions while cutting related funding, potentially to make it appear they are addressing mental health issues without fully addressing the systemic problems. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=are+mental+health+providers+lobbying+for+more+insane+asylum+construction

Comments

For Mental Illnesses that lack cures, treatment is too expensive and facilities function as “warehouses” to protect Alzheimer Patients and contain Homicidal Maniacs. These could be “Research Facilities”.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader