Jts5665

The U.S. Constitution defines only one criminal act, treason, and does so in such a way as to deliberately restrict its use against political opponents. While it is not easy to convict an American of treason, as recently as 2006 a grand jury indictment for treason came down on an American for participating in al-Qaeda propaganda videos. The accused was killed in a drone strike so we will never know how his prosecution would have gone down. Since the 1950s, though, prosecutors have usually found it easier to prosecute people for other crimes with less stringent evidential requirements.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

In one of the cases stemming from Aaron Burr’s attempt to carve a new country out of some Western states and territories, called Ex parte Bollman (1807), John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), argued that conspiracy alone did not constitute treason. “There must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose,” he wrote, “to constitute a levying of war.” The assembly must also try to effect the “treasonable purpose … by force.” During Burr’s trial, Marshall maintained a strict construction of the “two Witnesses to the same overt Act,” virtually ensuring the former vice president’s acquittal.

Over one million Confederate officers and soldiers clearly committed treason during the Civil War but President Abraham Lincoln was preparing a pardon plan before his assassination. In May 1865 his successor, Andrew Johnson, pragmatically granted all but top confederate leaders and some bad guys general amnesty if they took an oath to the United States and promised to uphold slave emancipation decrees. A more stringent approach would have been administratively and economically costly and perhaps provoked desperate Southerners to keep fighting.

In Cramer v. United States (1945), SCOTUS ruled that to be convicted of treason short of waging war, an American has to “adhere” to the country’s enemies AND (not or) give them “aid and comfort.” That meant proving both action and intent but a handful of prosecutions nevertheless succeeded. In one, Haupt v. United States (1947), a father who had helped his saboteur son was successfully prosecuted because he had given his son an automobile and lodgings (aid) and had made comments sympathetic to Nazi Germany (adherence).

About the same time, the eccentric Jenkintown, Pennsylvania-bred poet Ezra Pound (1885-1972) was imprisoned on charges of treason for the hundreds of pro-Mussolini radio broadcasts he made in Italy during World War II. Declared mentally incompetent for trial, he languished in a DC psychiatric hospital prison from 1945 until his discharge in 1958. He returned to Italy, where he made contradictory claims about his views until his death from natural causes.

But it was the Rosenberg case that rendered treason largely moot. After evidence surfaced that Ethel (1915-1953) and Julius Rosenberg (1918-1953) had given atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets, they were convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917, not for treason. Despite a public outcry for clemency and claims that the treason clause’s strict evidentiary standards should apply to all traitorous acts regardless of their legal appellation, they were duly executed. Ever since, prosecutors have almost always indicted traitors for related felonies that are easier to prove in court.

So even if General Mark Milley actually did what he is accused of doing — telling the Chinese that he would warn them of a US attack, calling secret meetings of top military brass, and such — it wasn’t treason. He may have broken other laws or military protocols but he did not command troops in the field against the government and while he adhered to China in a sense, he did not aid it. Most importantly, China technically has not been our enemy since the Korean Armistice Agreement of 1953.

What if though, hypothetically speaking, some major government official were to commit treason and not only admit to the widely-witnessed act but proclaim it a success? Something crazy, like cooperating with an enemy actively harboring other enemies by giving it intelligence on stranded American citizens and allies and gifting the enemies military equipment? Even if it proved economical to leave some heavy, low-valued military items behind, what if key components that should have been spiked or removed and destroyed were left intact, along with rifles, night goggles, and other light, high-cost equipment that could have been shipped home or sold to allies?

Some jurists seem to think a formal declaration of war against the enemy is a necessary condition for a treason charge to be brought. The Civil War and the 2006 indictment mentioned above, however, suggest that de facto war is sufficient if evidenced by military spending and leadership claims of fighting a “rebellion” or a “war on terror” and suspending civil liberties in ways thought justifiable only during wartime, as with the suspension of habeas corpus or passage of the so-called Patriot Act.

Readers might recall that many mass media outlets accused former President Donald J. Trump of treason for something or other. That might have stemmed from OMBS (orange man bad syndrome) but it could also have been to protect themselves from indictment for “misprision of treason,” which makes it illegal if anyone “owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State.”

All Americans had better tell POTUS or a judge right quick that they may have witnessed treason during the Afghanistan debacle or we may all need amnesty for misprision of treason! I would have done so already if I knew for sure who was calling the shots in Washington. Thankfully, there appears to be no “misprision of misprision of treason” so Americans are under no legal obligation to rat out the entire White House and Pentagon.

Seriously folks, we have too many laws and will continue to have too many until we impose a cost on our rulers for keeping them around. A law against treason is one thing but a law requiring Americans to understand the law against treason, to be on the lookout for treasonous acts, and to report any immediately is a law too far, even if it is fun to think about so many of our leaders going to prison for misprision.

“What opportunity costs were factored into your study?”

“None.”

This exchange recently took place during a virtual presentation of an economic impact study arguing that failure to approve a $20 billion transportation plan for the Charlotte, North Carolina metropolitan area would cost “up to 126,100 unrealized jobs, $10.1 billion in lost wages, $28.0 billion in economic outputs and $3.0 billion in tax revenue by 2050.”

In posing that question, Huntersville resident Eric Rowell had asked presenters the very question that’s usually overlooked in these sorts of things. But as founder of the Charlotte chapter of the Bastiat Society, Rowell had insight many listeners didn’t. He understood about “what is not seen” — that productive capital isn’t forcibly moved from Peter to Paul without harm to Peter’s plans and the people Peter would have done business with. He also realized that these discussions often go along the lines of telling Peter what great things Paul is going to do for himself and Peter and his pals, too, and leaving it at that.

Around the country, local city councils and county boards of commissioners look for ways to revitalize their areas. Not often enough, however, do they consider making marginal changes of proven effect — reducing taxes, eliminating restrictive zoning and other regulations, ridding themselves of protectionism, crony back-scratchery, and so forth. Such policies would allow local entrepreneurs to thrive and would serve as warm invitations to others. They would build up the local economy based on their own talents and perceptions of market needs.

This growth would be widespread and gradual, however, not particular, and therefore not visible enough to give credit to the politicians. There are no ribbon-cutting ceremonies when the local grocer adds a shift, no photo ops when a local dressmaker opens a new strip-mall boutique, and no proclamations when a local restaurateur opts for a second location.

So their dreams run big. If only we had a big sports stadium, or a civic center, or a public festival, or a new transportation system, then we would reap big tourism and grow faster. People will flock to us because of this new thing. They cannot be faulted for believing their communities are winsome. It’s a trait you’d prefer in a community leader.

Trouble comes when developers of the new thing show up with a hefty “economic impact” study of the project. Often it will be based on proprietary input/output modeling software, billed as so easy to use that no economist is needed, and it will certainly look comprehensive. It will purport to consider not only the project’s direct economic impact, but also its indirect and induced impacts — i.e., not only how much money will be spent directly on the project, but how much of that spending will be respent in the area and how much new, complementary economic activity the area will accrue.

This study will feature pages and pages of numbers no one wants to read, but the executive summary will suffice: the thing will boost the community beyond council members and commissioners’ wildest dreams. They wouldn’t want to stand in the way of dream growth, would they?

But if the developers have their hands on such a sure-fire money maker, why are they taking it to local elected officials? After all, in the parable of the hidden treasure, Jesus didn’t say that the man who found the treasure covered it up and alerted the local council to share in the bounty. Instead, he bought the field it was in and was glad to do so.

Developers getting significant tax funding for the project is a sure-fire way to protect themselves from big losses. Purchasing an economic impact study is rational rent-seeking behavior.

Economist Roy Cordato warned about these off-the-rack studies in his March 2017 report entitled “Economic Impact Studies: The Missing Ingredient Is Economics.” Cordato wrote:

These studies all have several things in common. First, they typically use proprietary, off-the-shelf models with acronym names like IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning), CUM (Capacity Utilization Model), or REMI (Regional Economic Model, Inc.). Rights to use the models are purchased by professional consulting firms who are hired by the interest groups to do the studies. Furthermore, seldom do those who actually perform the studies have formal training in economics. Instead their expertise is in using one or more of the aforementioned proprietary models. And finally, all of these studies ignore basic principles of economics and, as a result, do not meaningfully measure what they claim to be measuring—the economic impact of the public policies and projects that they are assessing.

Citing a discussion of one such model, Cordato pointed out that the methodology rules out even the “possibility that a new project could cause a net reduction in income, output, or employment … . The ‘unseen’ of opportunity costs go unexamined and therefore unaccounted for.”

Cordato also critiqued the idea of the “multiplier” intrinsic to economic impact modeling:

The idea is that, as the initial spending works its way through all the interconnections among and between industries included in the I-O tables, its impact is multiplied. The multiplier is a number by which the initial spending is multiplied to generate the final “economic” impact. … It is through this multiplier process that a dollar spent on a project may, at least within the context of the model, end up “contributing” many more times to “output, earnings, and employment.”

A safer assumption is that the multiplier is less than one and closer to zero. Otherwise, it means that politicians and special interests have better ideas for the use of your resources than you do — a reliably fatuous, self-serving proposition.

A further problem with the multiplier is, as Cordato pointed out, that “these studies ignore the first principle of production theory, taught in every first-year microeconomics class — the law of diminishing returns.”

For Charlotte, the plan with no admitted opportunity costs featured impressive multipliers. Every aspect would generate positive impacts, up to 2.0 to 2.7 times the original investment. Even spending $100 million on sidewalks would result in up to $240 million in economic impact.

An amusing anecdote along these lines can be found in a 2001 Journal of Travel Research paper by John L. Crompton, Seokho Lee, and Thomas J. Shuster. Asked by city officials to project the economic impact of a 10-day festival boasting over 60 different events, one of the authors returned with an estimated impact of $16 million.

The officials “vigorously contested the results, arguing they were much too low.” Two weeks earlier, they had been told that a three-day professional rodeo event would result in nearly $30 million of economic impact.

“How can we possibly accept that this festival lasting for 10 days and embracing over 60 events had a smaller economic impact than a single 3-day rodeo event?” they asked.

The author requested and received a copy of the rodeo presentation, then took its erroneous assumptions and applied it to his own analysis of the 10-day festival. He therefore projected an economic impact not of $16 million, but “more than $321 million.” So by embracing rather than exposing what he called “abuses in economic impact analyses,” he was able to project for city officials an “economic impact” about twenty times greater than before.

The final irony of the Charlotte transportation plan is that investigative reporting revealed that the plan’s cost was actually going to be 167% to 250% higher than originally projected. Stated cost projections given to Charlotte city council members were between $8 billion and $12 billion. By obtaining internal emails among city officials, WBTV reporter David Hodges uncovered June 22 that they were actually projecting it at $20 billion.

The fact that discovering this higher expense took investigative reporting instead of it being shouted from the rooftops shows that the project’s “everybody wins” multiplier effects aren’t credible. It’s being regarded as bad news that the project will cost much more than advertised.If that spending were truly expected to bring in much greater returns than the amount the public was made to spend on it, then more than expected spending would be good news. Good reporting helps people because they intuitively understand cost overruns are bad. What would also help people are more council members and commissioners who know to ask about what is not seen: opportunity costs.

Socialist comrade AOC might be one of the most successful capitalists of all time:

In Upstate New York, thirty Lewis County General Hospital health clinicians resigned rather than take the mandated Covid shot. Six of those who resigned worked in the maternity unit; the hospital shut down the maternity unit until new nurses who are vaccinated can be recruited.

Other essential services may be curtailed, as 73 percent of unvaccinated clinicians have yet to decide if they will quit rather than be vaccinated. Recruitment of new nurses will not be easy, since thousands of job openings for nurses in Upstate New York are unfilled.

Are these unvaccinated nurses and other healthcare professionals the “true enemy,” as one Democratic consultant called them? In the region served by the hospital, do families soon to experience the birth of a child feel safer now that some of their formerly trusted healthcare professionals have been purged? Are some of their patients wondering why these healthcare professionals would sacrifice their careers?

Illiberal mandates violate bodily autonomy and arguably worsen health outcomes. So, why are President Biden’s advisors pushing them? Do Biden and his advisors sincerely believe mandates will end the pandemic? If so, James Harrigan explains well the logical absurdity of mandates. Or are they consolidating power by exploiting human nature and borrowing a page from the totalitarian playbook to exacerbate tribal differences?

To understand the psychological roots of tribal fractures, let’s begin with a story not about vaccine mandates.

Larry David’s Contempt

Larry David and Alan Dershowitz were close friends for 25 years until Dershowitz became one of Trump’s impeachment lawyers. In August, Dershowitz was having a cup of coffee with friends on the porch of a Martha’s Vineyard general store. David arrived and started screaming at his former friend.

Dershowitz: “We can still talk, Larry.”

David: “No. No. We really can’t. I saw you. I saw you with your arm around [former Trump Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo! It’s disgusting!”

Dershowitz: “He’s my former student [at Harvard Law]. I greet all of my former students that way. I can’t greet my former students?”

David: “It’s disgusting. Your whole enclave — it’s disgusting. You’re disgusting!”

This was not a publicity stunt for the next season of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

If you have ever watched Curb, you know feelings of disgust run through many episodes. Larry is being called disgusting, or he is calling someone or something disgusting. In art, Larry never beats his tormentors.

Larry David is 74 years old, yet like many of us, he hasn’t learned not to toss his psychological trash on the side of the road. The overwhelming sense of disgust that Larry feels for Alan is in Larry’s mind. Angrily denouncing Alan won’t solve Larry’s problem. Larry can project the idea of disgust onto Alan, but the more he projects, the more he strengthens the idea of disgust in his mind. The more Larry projects, the more he wallows in his psychological trash.

Projection is our futile attempt to absolve ourselves of responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors by denying what exists in us while finding the same qualities in other people. Dershowitz was merely a symbol for how David sees himself. In The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey wrote, “We see the world, not as it is, but as we are.”

Of course, Larry’s attempt to project is universal. What we block from our awareness, what we don’t acknowledge, we seek to hurl out. Projection never works; our psychological trash does not magically leave our mind when we demonize others. Larry may have felt a temporary catharsis, but he was losing, not gaining, psychological freedom. David’s psychological freedom comes from his decision to acknowledge his mind is the causative agent of his experience of reality.

Importantly, politicians will exploit the human weakness to project. Using propaganda, they aim to drum into our minds scapegoats onto whom to project what we do not want to acknowledge in ourselves. Individuals who are psychologically free will be less susceptible to totalitarian propaganda.

Totalitarian Movements

In The True Believer, social philosopher Eric Hoffer observed: “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually, the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil.”

Hoffer recounts that before the “Final Solution,” “when Hitler was asked whether he thought the Jew must be destroyed, he demurred, “We should have then to invent him. It is essential to have a tangible enemy, not merely an abstract one.”

Hoffer continued with the story of “a Japanese mission that arrived in Berlin in 1932 to study the National Socialist movement.” Journalist Frederick Voigt asked “a member of the mission what he thought of the movement. The visiting delegate replied, ‘It is magnificent. I wish we could have something like it in Japan, only we can’t, because we haven’t got any Jews.’”

Hoffer found, “It is perhaps true that the insight and shrewdness of the men who know how to set a mass movement in motion, or how to keep one going, manifest themselves as much in knowing how to pick a worthy enemy as in knowing what doctrine to embrace and what program to adopt.”

Nazis argued that Jews were vermin that spread disease. If you thought that most Germans saw through the propaganda and merely went along because they were intimidated, you would be wrong. German doctors claimed, “that Jews were especially responsible for outbreaks of typhus.” They “published essays claiming that Jewish people’s supposedly ‘low cultural level’ and ‘uncleanliness’ were to blame.”

Yesterday’s “low cultural level” has morphed into labeling the unvaccinated and those not in step with Covid policy as “anti-science,” who manifest villainous disregard for the safety of others.

After the invasion of Poland, “German public health officials…repeatedly urged occupation authorities to isolate Jews further from the rest of the population and deny them access to medicine.”

Anti-Semitism was not required to support the Nazis. In my essay, Safety is Found in Principles, Not Lies I tell this story:

In his book They Thought They Were Free, (Milton) Mayer tells the story of how ordinary Germans—“we little people” as they referred to themselves—became Nazis. Mayer befriended these former Nazis and also examined the historical record to verify their stories. 

Consider policeman Willy Hofmeister. Mayer relates the story of how in 1938, Hofmeister was assigned the job of rounding up Jewish males “for their own protection.” Hofmeister was no Nazi thug; he was polite and respectful as he carried out his officious but deadly deeds.

As Hofmeister was taking into custody one Jewish man, he recalled being asked why the town synagogue was blown up that day. He answered, “They blew it up as a safety measure.”

Today, medical professionals are being terminated as a safety measure. No doubt, some readers will be outraged by this historical comparison. Willy Hoffmeister was not aware of his mental blinders; similarly blinders block awareness of many today.  

Of course, not all policymakers advocating mandates have totalitarian goals, yet their good intentions don’t matter. Illiberal means will lead to destructive ends.

In the face of widespread illiberalism, if we are resigned to thinking there is little we can do, we will get the politicians we deserve. Yet, there is much we can do; understanding psychological freedom undoes the error of projection.

Watch Your Fear Response

Fear drives the primitive part of the brain, the amygdala. In his book, The Fundamentalist Mind, Steven Larsen writes, “If you wish to induce a state of compliance in your would-be-constituency it is clearly an advantage to frighten them. First, induce the amygdaloid fear response and then offer them a loaded choice: be saved or be damned.” To deploy coercive power totalitarians need your fear.

Take Back Your Projections

Hoffer explained how totalitarians use “a sense of grievance” to drive people to submit to authority. Grievances will arise in your mind, but you don’t need to hold on to them. Totalitarians can only exploit the hate in your mind that you cultivate. For a moment, forget about more significant societal issues and get personal: Take back your personal projections. Learn from Larry David’s mistake. If you remain unaware of your projections, politicians will exploit your grievances.  

Don’t Intellectually Bully People

No matter what side of an issue you are on, don’t make arguments that begin with “There is no other way,” “All sensible people know,” and the like.

Larry Cosme, the president of the nonpartisan and pro-vax Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association offered this guidance: “[Biden’s] executive order villainizes employees for reasonable concerns and hesitancies and inserts the federal government into individual medical decisions. People should not be made to feel uncomfortable for making a reasonable medical choice.”

See The Humanity in Others

As Hoffer explained, when we don’t see the humanity in others, we provide oxygen to authoritarians. Oppose authoritarianism by seeing the humanity in everyone you meet.

The Vienna-born philosopher Martin Buber fled Germany after Hitler came to power. In his best-known work, I and Thou, Buber observed that we see the world in one of two fundamental ways: “I-Thou” or “I-It.” Seeing others as important as one’s self is the “I-Thou” way. Through the “I-It” lens, others are seen as lesser objects who help us or are obstacles that get in our way.

Watch your mind as you “I-It” your way through the day. The supermarket clerk who moves slower than you would like, the customer service representative not solving your problem, the driver who cuts you off on the highway; watch how your mind turns them into “its.” Awareness of your thinking patterns helps you make different choices.

Take Responsibility

Hoffer wrote, “There is no telling to what extremes of cruelty and ruthlessness a man will go when he is freed from the fears, hesitations, doubts and the vague stirrings of decency that go with individual judgment.” Hoffer continued,

“When we lose our individual independence in the corporateness of a mass movement, we find a new freedom—freedom to hate, bully, lie, torture, murder and betray without shame and remorse. Herein undoubtedly lies part of the attractiveness of a mass movement. We find there the “right to dishonour,” which according to Dostoyevsky has an irresistible fascination.”

Hoffer taught there are high personal and societal costs when individuals renounce personal responsibility.

Respect the Extended Order

In his book The Fatal Conceit, Friedrich Hayek explored the extended order, an order that is the product of voluntary, human cooperation and not a designed order based on coercion. Hayek wrote, “Our civilization depends, not only for its origin but also for its preservation, on what can be precisely described only as the extended order of human cooperation, an order more commonly, if somewhat misleadingly, known as capitalism.”

Jonah Goldberg has observed, “The market system is so good at getting people—from all over the world—to work together that we barely notice how much we’re cooperating.”

The residents of Upstate New York now have fewer medical options. They are noticing the impact of less human cooperation, as controls undermine the rights of individuals to make personal medical decisions.  

Most of us would perish without the extended order; the few survivors would revert to a primitive existence. Today, notice how much you depend on human cooperation for fully stocked supermarkets, UPS and FedEx deliveries, the internet, electricity, and on and on.

Totalitarians reduce human cooperation. Don’t be a cheerleader for their illiberal schemes. Cultivate your psychological freedom to be less susceptible to totalitarian propaganda. As human cooperation decreases and hatred increases, you too, not just the people the mandates are directed against, will suffer. The oxygen of capitalism is cooperation. The oxygen of totalitarians is hatred for differences.

The post DoD Wants to Know Why Small Businesses Can’t Get Contracts appeared first on The Bongino Report.

OUTSIDE THE BOX: Why the US should offer to buy France’s submarines for Vietnam.

These submarines would provide outsize value to the U.S. and broader international security interests were they built for Vietnam. The Shortfin Barracudas would be very quiet and a major threat to the People’s Liberation Army Navy.

Vietnam remains in the control of a communist authoritarian government. That said, its people enjoy a degree of freedom and a heavily capitalist-influenced economy. In 2021, Vietnam is defined by a strong export market and a young, internationally connected population. This population is also hostile toward China — angered by Beijing’s arrogant claim that the South China Sea is its own private swimming pool and angered more by Beijing’s not-so-veiled expectation that Vietnam exists as its feudal state.

I actually love this idea. It boxes in China, undoes much of the diplomatic damage done by Biden’s ham-handed announcement of the AUKUS agreement, and is something no one would have expected, especially the Chinese.

It’s such a good idea that I predict it will never happen.

SARAH HOYT’S SHOCKED FACE MIGHT HAVE TO BE PERMANENTLY RETIRED: AOC’s ‘Tax The Rich’ Gown Designer Is A Tax Scofflaw.

OUR INCESTUOUS ELITE: Judge in case of anti-Trump mudslinger is married to attorney for ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page. “Officials say Judge Christopher Cooper’s ties to leading Democrats and key figure in discredited Trump-Russia probe should disqualify him from case of Michael Sussmann, lawyer who fed anti-Trump dirt to FBI while hiding connection to Hillary Clinton campaign.”

STEVEN MALANGA: Heaping on the SALT. Democrats press Biden to reinstate a tax break for the wealthy.

COLOR ME SUSPICIOUS: Powell orders ethics review after Fed presidents disclosed multimillion-dollar investments.

Do I believe that the Fed presidents have conflicts? Probably. But do I think this is coming out now to provide an excuse for a purge and replacement with loyal henchment? Yes, yes I do.

Nothing to see here, just the largest teachers union in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania eagerly promoting a workshop the premise of which is that we need to silence an entire racial group.

AIRBRUSHING IS NOW THE NORM IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION: Emory newspaper edits 20-year-old article written by Biden nominee.

If you think historical quotes are “harmful,” well, you’re both utterly unqualified to do journalism, and perfectly suited to fit in with the people who are doing it now.

I was told that the Biden administration would be hard on the genocidal Chinese regime.

EVERYTHING IS GOING SWIMMINGLY: Thousands of Migrants Huddle in Squalid Conditions Under Texas Bridge: The temporary camp in Del Rio has grown with staggering speed in recent days during a massive surge in migration that has overwhelmed the authorities.

To be fair, the authorities at the top want us to be overwhelmed. Still it’s bad:

Thousands of migrants were crowded under a bridge outside the border community of Del Rio on Thursday, part of a massive surge in migration across the Rio Grande this week that has overwhelmed the authorities and caused significant delays in processing the arrivals.

The U.S. Border Patrol said that more than 9,000 migrants, mostly from Haiti, were being held in a temporary staging area under the Del Rio International Bridge as agents worked as quickly as they could to process them.

The temporary camp has grown with staggering speed in recent days, from just a few hundred people earlier in the week. The authorities and city officials said they expected thousands more to cross the ankle-deep river between Mexico and Del Rio in coming days.

But hey, no coverage, no problem: FAA grounds Fox News drones near where thousands of migrants are sheltering under a bridge. That’s an abuse of authority, by all appearances. “The FAA’s website said the temporary flight restriction (TFR) over the Del Rio Port of Entry and the International Bridge was put in place for ‘special security reasons,’ but did not elaborate.”

Trying to secure the Biden Administration from the consequences of its disastrous policies is certainly special.

'This seems at first glance like a pretty serious attack on the ability to report,' says journalist Glenn Greenwald

Okay, here's a story that's got "Indiana" written all over it:

If you haven't been keeping up with the fact that rapper Nicki Minaj is now the symbol for freedom of liberty and medical self-determination, head over here.

MEANWHILE BIDEN WANTS TO RUN THE UNITED STATES ON WINDMILLS: Experimental reactor could hand China the holy grail of nuclear energy. “China is due to fire up an experimental nuclear reactor this month that could revolutionise the atomic energy industry. The reactor is fuelled by thorium, a weakly radioactive element, instead of uranium. If successful it could deliver safer and cheaper nuclear energy, helping the country to reduce its carbon footprint. It will use molten salt rather than water as the coolant and its by-products are less suitable for weaponisation.”

THE FBI IS LOOKING EVEN WORSE THAN USUAL TODAY:

BOMBSHELL: FBI Scandal Over Sexually Abused Gymnasts Rises to Criminal Level, Says Inspector General.

Flashback: FBI Is Stonewalling Congressional Oversight On Hunter Biden.

Virtually no one in Washington even pretends to be concerned about federal spending and deficits anymore. The Biden administration is going wild as the U.S. nears the debt-to-GDP record set after World War II.

Under President George W. Bush he and Congress increased domestic outlays faster than during Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society.” President Barack Obama spread bailouts far and wide and won congressional approval for a vast expansion of federal health care benefits. President Donald Trump enthusiastically pushed the welfare/warfare state.

Now President Biden is following his predecessor while outdoing all of them. There were trillions in Covid-19 relief even though the economy was already recovering. A proposal for trillions in “infrastructure” spending, much for non-infrastructure purposes. And trillions more for a social services splurge. Despite opposition from progressives, Biden even proposed an increase in military expenditures. Moreover, by lowballing estimates for Pentagon programs popular on Capitol Hill he invited legislators to add extra cash. 

Current outlays are wildly out of control even without passage of the president’s latest budget-busting spending proposals. In its latest analysis the Congressional Budget Office concluded: 

“CBO projects a federal budget deficit of $3.0 trillion in 2021 as the economic disruption caused by the 2020–2021 coronavirus pandemic and the legislation enacted in response continue to boost the deficit (which was large by historical standards even before the pandemic). At 13.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the deficit in 2021 would be the second largest since 1945, exceeded only by the 14.9 percent shortfall recorded last year.”

There is no peacetime equivalent for today’s debt levels. CBO detailed the fiscal explosion: 

“Increased spending and decreased revenues associated with the pandemic and ensuing recession boosted federal debt held by the public to 100 percent of GDP in 2020, up from 79 percent at the end of 2019. Federal debt held by the public is projected to total 102 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year. By historical standards, that amount of debt is very large. Over the past 50 years, debt has averaged 44 percent of GDP. It has exceeded 102 percent of GDP in only two years in U.S. history—1945 and 1946, when debt reached 104 percent and 106 percent of GDP, respectively, following the surge in federal spending as a result of World War II.”

Biden wants to raise taxes, yet CBO forthrightly acknowledged that the increased red ink results from rising spending, not decreasing revenues. Indeed, taxes are high historically:

“Outlays in 2021 are projected to total 31 percent of GDP—the second highest that they have been in any year since 1945, behind only outlays in 2020. In CBO’s projections, outlays decline in the near term, falling below 21 percent of GDP in 2024, and then rise, reaching 23 percent of GDP in 2031; outlays remain above their 50-year average for the entire projection period. Revenues hover around 18 percent of GDP, just above their historical average.”

Sadly, these figures look good compared to the longer term. The coming fiscal tsunami accompanying America’s aging population threatens to sweep all before it. No politician wants to address the problem, but no deus ex machina will magically deliver America from the coming budget crisis. 

Over the coming decade the CBO expects Uncle Sam to run cumulative deficits of $12 trillion and bring the national debt to $36 trillion. However, everything will get much worse whenever the era of cheap borrowing ends. The agency warned:

“Initially, the effects of those lower interest rates more than offset the effects of the projected increase in federal debt. As a result, net outlays for interest in CBO’s projections decline from 1.5 percent of GDP in 2021 to 1.2 percent in 2023. Thereafter, rising rates and the projected increases in federal debt cause net outlays for interest measured as a share of the economy to more than double after 2023 in CBO’s projections. In 2031, such outlays reach 2.7 percent of GDP—0.7 percentage points higher than their 50-year average.”

Obviously, the economic assumptions upon which the CBO bases its figures are uncertain. Moreover, much depends upon decisions of future presidents and Congresses. Unfortunately, there is little reason to expect greater fiscal probity from Uncle Sam. If interest rates rise, legislators might be less likely to treat spending as a free lunch. But decades of wild overspending would already be embedded in the budget. And if rates rocket upward, another financial crisis might impend.

Moreover, there is no politically easy way to cut outlays. Today domestic discretionary spending—parks, salaries, grants, and such—runs about a sixth of total outlays. Even after Covid-19 outlays have run their course, Congress could zero out discretionary expenditures and be left with an ever-growing deficit. The real money is in five areas: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, interest, and the military.

Tackling the first two would entail a bitter battle against an expanding population of elders who believe they have paid for their benefits. Medicaid already is stretched, paying doctors so little to cover health care for the poor that many beneficiaries lack primary physicians and instead go to emergency rooms for most care. Interest payments could be cut only by repudiating federal debt, which would make it impossible for the U.S. to borrow (a benefit, actually, but not in Washington’s view!). 

Which leaves the military. It already is a target of progressives. For instance, Lindsay Koshgarian of the National Priorities Project argued: 

“As the Afghanistan War finally winds down, this should be a huge opportunity to dial back 20 years of military spending growth and make important investments in jobs, families, and public health. Instead, the president’s budget request takes what should be a ‘peace dividend’ from the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and squanders it on costly weapons and military bloat.”

Although it might pain some on the Right to admit, she is correct about the case for “dialing back” military expenditures. Pentagon outlays should be cut substantially.

Washingtonians talk about “defense,” but it has been decades since the so-called Department of Defense did much to protect America. Twenty years ago America was attacked for the first time since World War II (the Japanese occupied the Aleutian Islands of Attu and Kiska and launched some balloon bombs against the West Coast) and before that the War of 1812 (the many Indian conflicts and Civil War were essentially internal conflicts). Since the U.S. military was not prepared for domestic defense Congress created an entirely new agency, the Department of Homeland Security, to protect America.

Foreign and defense policies are intensely practical. Often complicated trade-offs are inevitable. However, the starting point should be that America is one of the most secure nations on earth. It has large oceans east and west and Pacific neighbors north and south. Which means an invasion is almost impossible. The last time a land conflict seemed plausible was during the Civil War when Great Britain controlled Canada and France claimed the Mexican throne.

Since then the only notable military threat facing the U.S. comes from nuclear-tipped missiles. Just Russia has a force comparable to America’s. China, though expanding its arsenal, remains far behind. The 20^th anniversary of 9/11 highlights the threat of terrorism, but though an awful crime such attacks do not pose an existential threat to America. And the last two decades have demonstrated that bombing, invading, and occupying other nations is the worst response to terrorism. Doing so is likely to create more terrorists at great human and financial cost. Narrower and cooperative counterterrorism initiatives are far more likely to succeed than attempting nation-building around the globe.

Most of what the U.S. does today militarily is protect allies and less official “friends and partners,” as well as states pretending to be the foregoing (Saudi Arabia, for one). There are times such a policy might make sense, such as immediately after World War II, when NATO was envisioned as a temporary shield against the Soviet Union until Western Europe recovered economically. Dwight D. Eisenhower, NATO’s first supreme commander and later president, insisted that the U.S. should not act like “a modern Rome guarding the far frontiers with our legions.” Rather, he desired to help “these people regain their confidence and get on their own military feet.” And that should have happened long ago, yet America still has its divisions patrolling Europe—and many other lands.

The shock of Afghanistan’s collapse offers a good opportunity to rethink U.S. foreign policy, which is where decisions on military outlays are effectively made. That is, military spending is the price of one’s foreign policy. The more one wants to do in the world, the more manpower and materiel one needs. Hence the need to spend more. Nuclear weapons are relatively cheap, compared to manifold armored divisions, air wings, carrier groups, and expeditionary forces.

The starting point for U.S. defense policy is ground forces to protect American territory. Given the lack of any serious military threat, the active-duty army should be small, with a well-trained reserve to offer the possibility of rapid expansion in an emergency. A strong missile force and missile defense, substantial air and naval power, and possibly new space capabilities are necessary to keep away any enemies. Such a military wouldn’t be cheap but would not be nearly as expensive as today’s globe-spanning force with America’s defense essentially its last priority.

Beyond the defense of U.S. territory Washington has an interest in sustaining navigational freedom. That justifies a larger navy, but America should work in partnership with other nations. Europe and Japan have sizable modern navies; South Korea, among other friends, is augmenting its force. Today threats to open seas are small—China, as the world’s greatest trading power, would be vulnerable to retaliation if it sought to close off waters in the Asia-Pacific.

Much of the world interests the U.S. but little of the world matters much to the global superpower. Latin America is well within Washington’s sphere of influence. Africa’s biggest security threats are internal, not external, and Beijing ‘s overtures often have not been warmly received. 

The Middle East no longer is important to America, which is now the world’s leading energy exporter. Anyway, nuclear-armed Israel and the Persian Gulf states, along with Egypt and possibly Turkey, are more than enough to balance against Iran, which poses no meaningful threat to America. Afghanistan and Central Asia are problems which belong to nearby big powers—Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Iran. The U.S. shouldn’t have fought a 20-year war to bring democracy to the region and has no reason to return in the future.

America has reason to prevent a hostile power from gaining control of the Eurasian landmass. However, the Cold War is over. Europe has vast economic and population advantages—around 11-1 and 3-1, respectively—over Russia and should be responsible for its own defense. There is no need for continued American military subsidies for the continent, though a withdrawal should be phased, giving European governments time to adjust. 

The only plausibly serious threat is China, but world domination is well beyond its power. The People’s Republic of China borders 14 nations, four of which have been involved in war (India, Koreas, Vietnam, Russia). The PRC also fought its island neighbor Japan. Just as the PRC can use anti-access/area denial technologies against America, its neighbors can do so against it.

Beijing primarily poses an economic challenge to America, which is best met by the U.S. reforming itself—improving economic policy, educational quality, and more. Washington also should make clear that its allies are principally responsible for their own defense. If Tokyo fears the possibility of Chinese aggression, why does it still spend just one percent of its GDP on the military? South Korea has about 50 times the economic strength and twice the population of North Korea and needs no help to protect itself. Washington should act as an offshore balancer, concerned about the independence of friendly states (which Beijing has not threatened, other than Taiwan, which it sees as part of China) but not their peripheral interests, such as island ownership, today’s only potential source of conflict with the PRC.

Obviously, there remains room for argument over details, including exactly what force structure would be necessary to implement such a foreign policy. However, the armed forces would be markedly smaller than today. Ending the defense dole for Europe and the Middle East would be major steps forward. Limiting any military commitment to Asia also would be critical. Indeed, avoiding war with China absent an existential threat to the U.S. would be a vital national interest. Defending America is easy; projecting power nearly 8,000 miles away not so much, which would be an invitation to defeat.

U.S. policymakers should address the incoming tsunami of elder-related spending. Regaining fiscal control also requires cutting nonessential outlays everywhere, including the military. Washington should stop trying to run the world and concentrate on defending Americans. The U.S. would be safer- and save money in the process.

You've probably heard about monoclonal antibodies—a therapeutic treatment that has been highly successful at treating COVID-19. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for instance, aggressively championed the procedure in his state, which saw such promising results that even Dr. Anthony Fauci came out strongly in support of it.

OF COURSE THEY KNEW: Internal Facebook Data Shows Company Has Known for Years That Instagram Harms Teens.

THE FBI IS TERRIBLE AT ITS JOB: Star Gymnasts Give Senators an Unsparing Account of FBI’s Failures in Nassar Investigation.

In a litany of reports and documents, the four women who appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday have for years been referred to by initials or numbers: “Athlete B,” “Gymnast 1”, “Athlete A,” “Gymnast 3.”

On Wednesday, the women—elite gymnasts Simone Biles, McKayla Maroney, Maggie Nichols and Aly Raisman—gave U.S. senators an emotional and unsparing account of how the Federal Bureau of Investigation, USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee failed to investigate or act when they emerged as potential victims of sexual assault by former national team doctor Larry Nassar.

“I can imagine no place that I would be less comfortable right now than sitting here in front of you, sharing these comments,” said Biles, one of the most decorated gymnasts in her sport’s history. She then paused in tears, before adding: “To be clear, I blame Larry Nassar but I also blame an entire system that enabled and perpetrated his abuse.” . . .

Some gymnasts’ lawyers have demanded separate action against the FBI. Raisman also called for other action by Congress in strengthening anti-abuse measures, and in particular, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, the main body charged with responding to abuse reports in amateur sports.

The women repeatedly aimed their anger at both the FBI and the sports organizations under whose banners they won world and Olympic titles. Their remarks drew outrage from both Democratic and Republican senators, much of it aimed at the FBI.

We need mass firings.

More: US Olympic gymnasts slam Nassar investigation, allege FBI ‘turned a blind eye,’ falsified report.

Authorities in China recently demolished over a dozen massive buildings in one fell swoop, bringing down 15 skyscrapers in the city of Kunming in the country's Yunnan province.

CLAWING BACK HEALTH CARE: Gov’t moves to go back on rule allowing Medicare to cover ‘breakthrough’ devices.

The federal agency that operates Medicare is officially going back on a rule change it finalized earlier this year under former President Donald Trump that would have allowed the health program to cover the costs of “breakthrough” medical devices.

In January, before President Joe Biden took office, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services moved to implement the rule change as a measure to give American seniors quicker access to “innovative” medical devices.

The rule was part of the agency’s “Unleashing Innovation and Patients Over Paperwork” initiative.

Now they’ve decided to reorient their priorities.

People these days take face masks very seriously, to the point that some of them are literally willing to throw you in prison if you don't comply with the new mask world order:

Researchers this month declared that much-debated map of the U.S. that some had claimed was drawn by Vikings prior to Columbus's journey here, is unquestionably a forgery:

The post NBA Won’t Enforce Vaccine Mandates On Players, Will Blue Cities Let Them Play? appeared first on The Bongino Report.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMERICA’S TOP GENERAL AND A CHINESE SPY? “Milley went so far as to pledge he would alert his counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, stressing the rapport they’d established through a backchannel. ‘General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.'”

If true, this explains a lot about the decisions our “leaders” have been making lately.