Elon Musk may very well be one of the largest beneficiaries of America’s generous system of corporate subsidization. Between his two companies—SpaceX and Tesla--Musk has received nearly $9 billion in taxpayer-funded federal subsidies. And that doesn’t even take into account the billions of dollars provided in the form of government contracts. All in all, the United States government has invested far more money into SpaceX and Tesla than Elon Musk ever could, and his businesses are all the better for it. But are his results any better for it? 
 
One might suspect that the federal government has done more than enough to ensure Musk’s success. (Talk about picking winners and losers.) You would be forgiven for expecting Musk to at least be grateful for all those American taxpayer dollars given to him. A few people might even hope that Musk would begin the process of transitioning away from federal subsidization and move toward market profitability as most businesses must in order to survive. But that few would be sorely mistaken. Elon’s appetite for federal dollars is more voracious than ever, and he has shown he will go to great lengths to get what he wants, even if that means suing the government itself. (After all, a taxpayer dollar given is an investment dollar Elon didn’t have to procure. And private-sector expectations of return on investment is considerably different than that of the government.) 
 
On May 17, SpaceX, Musk’s private aerospace company, filed a lawsuit against the federal government, protesting their contract bidding process. Details surrounding the litigation are difficult to come by since SpaceX requested that any information regarding the suit be kept private. Nevertheless, journalists have pointed out that the lawsuit coincides with a government aerospace program called the Launch Service Agreement (LSA). And given that the United States Air Force is currently moving forward with contract bids for the LSA project, the Launch Service Agreement’s bidding process is almost certainly the subject of the lawsuit.  
 
But why would Musk decide to sue the federal government over an ongoing project like the Launch Service Agreement? It certainly would appear that it’s because Musk feels entitled to the federal dollars the program provides. In October 2018, despite being the odds-on favorite to be awarded an LSA contract, SpaceX was not selected to participate in the program’s initial phase. SpaceX – in true “give me what I want” style - decried the decision and lobbied Congress to alter the Air Force’s selection—to little success. Its previous attempts having proved unfruitful, SpaceX is apparently redoubling its efforts to remain on the federal government’s dole. 
 
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Musk has sued the federal government to get what he wants. SpaceX has filed numerous lawsuits against the United States in the past. Most recently, Musk initiated a separate 2019 suit protesting NASA’s decision to award a $150 million contract to the company’s foremost competitor. Within the official protest, Musk asserted that SpaceX deserved to be chosen because – according to Musk - it was the superior option.  
 
However, the argument for SpaceX’s superiority is becoming harder to make as the company is struggling to perform. Recently, Musk’s aerospace firm suffered a catastrophic setback when its Crew Dragon shuttle exploded during testing. The mishap spooked both the U.S. military and NASA, creating the potential for serious delays of America’s crewed spaceflight to the moon. That severe failure, coupled with the Crew Dragon’s inadequate parachute testing results, have raised serious concerns about SpaceX’s viability as an aerospace contractor moving forward.  
 
SpaceX’s performance regarding the Launch Service Agreement was no better. When discussing SpaceX’s LSA bid, Musk openly admitted that his company missed the mark by presenting a subpar proposal. According to Musk himself, SpaceX was not selected to receive an LSA contract because its performance wasn’t up to snuff. But did that deter SpaceX from suing? Of course not. Musk’s desire to secure federal funding was apparently too strong to do anything but fight for money that his company doesn’t deserve.  
 
Despite Musk’s purported hunger for government contracts and subsidies, the American taxpayer owes him nothing. The United States has already provided Musk’s companies with ample funding. But it seems like Musk’s aerospace firm, in particular, is determined to squander the opportunities and good will it was given. By attempting to force itself into the Launch Service Agreement, SpaceX is only highlighting its worst qualities: a penchant towards entitlement in the face of failure and unwavering reliance on federal money. Neither of which do a reliable government contractor make.  ​

What would you say if I told you that there was a roaming gang of teenagers attacking people – with hammers - in Minneapolis near the East Bank Light Rail station last Friday (May 17th 2019)? What would you say if I told you that the victims of those attacks were – according to a witness – people who “looked like they had money or were white”? Would you be surprised? Would you ask why you haven’t heard about it on CNN or any number of other national “news” outlets? What if I then told you that this gang of eight to ten teens were Somali? Would that raise more questions for you, or would it answer questions for you? 
    My first question would be “Why is a group of eight to ten teenagers attacking people with hammers and other blunt objects at a train station so close to the University of Minnesota not dominating the current news cycle?” The answer is of course “Protect the narrative.” Sadly, we live in an age where most media outlets are more concerned with doing their part in the grand social engineering project than they are with actually informing you. So, protect the narrative. 
   The next question would be “Was this racially motivated?” The answer – protect the narrative. We have been told by the race hustlers and the MSM that only white, conservatives can be racist. We have been told that only “institutional racism” is real racism thereby allowing people on the left to ignore the actual definition of the word racism while they insist on using the word to silence or demonize those who might disagree with them on some socio-political topic. The account of the witness who said that they seemed to be “attacking anyone who looked like they had money or were white” sure sounds like race was a factor; but asking the question opens the door to challenging the narrative. 
   My next question would be “Why should the fact that these teenagers are Somali effect news coverage?” The answer - protect the narrative. Many Americans have been asking for immigration and asylum reforms and enforcement, but we have been told by politicians – and the media – that everything is fine. There isn’t anything wrong with how things are being done now unless you’re racist and in that case everyone else should ignore you. If the media were to cover this story it might raise questions about the need for reforms, some people might try to use this story to promote the idea of stricter enforcement of current laws. Talking about violent and or criminal immigrants or refugees opens the door to challenging the narrative. 
   Rep. Ilhan Omar, who herself is a refugee from Somali, represents this district which is sometimes referred to as Little Mogadishu. Omar has been caught-up in controversies involving anti-Semitic statements, siding with terrorist warlords in regard to the 1993 Mogadishu raid that most Americans know from Black Hawk Down fame, and even called the 9/11 attacks an event where “some people did something.” Omar seems the perfect choice to represent Little Mogadishu and such an attack on random travelers seems more in line with Mogadishu than with an American city like Minneapolis; leading to my next questions “Is this a cultural issue?” and “Has Ilhan Omar’s statements – without any consequences from her fellow Democrats – further emboldened people like these teens to act in this fashion?” But we have been told that all cultures are of equal value and that diversity for the sake of diversity is of greater value than our cultural norms (like following the law, not randomly attacking people on the street, etc.). Asking these questions opens the door to challenging the narrative.    
   The MSM has a vested interest in protecting the narrative at this point because of how long that they have been peddling the talking points of the leftist agenda. There are so many different parts of the narrative that are exposed to scrutiny in this one news story. Reporting on this one might lead to the few people left that still trust them to begin questioning the trustworthiness of the mainstream media that has been telling everyone for so long that there is nothing to worry about. The only option to protect the narrative is too ignore this one … at least until they figure out how to spin it.  
Hat tips to Elizabeth Vaughn of Red State, Matt Vespa of Townhall, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, and Alpha News MN for their part in doing the job that the rest of the media won’t do. (Here is the Minneapolis Police Department dispatch audio.) ​

The Elon Musk empire is in trouble.
​
The State of Oregon recently clawed back a whopping $13 million from Elon Musk’s Tesla – the end-product of a long-running investigation into whether the company, formally known as SolarCity, intentionally hiked the cost of its solar panels by over 100% to qualify for higher tax credits.
But that’s not all: The Wall Street Journal also reported that the FBI recently began a criminal probe into Tesla’s Model 3 production numbers, with former employees receiving subpoenas and testimony requests.

Not to mention how Musk had to step down as chairman of Tesla this summer after the Securities and Exchange Commission required the company to install a new CEO for at least the next three years as part of a deal settling civil fraud charges over Musk’s Aug. 7 tweets about taking the company private and having “funding secured” at $420 a share. The company and Musk also agreed to pay a combined $40 million in civil fines as part of the deal.
This purported fraud is not the behavior becoming a CEO who claims to argue against subsidies and even begs the feds to get rid of some. It more closely resembles the subsidy-grabbing snake oil salesman persona that many in the media find him to carry. Because of the compelling substantiation that the apparent fraud of both cases provides to this narrative, bureaucrats and politicians would be wise to scrutinize more closely not only Tesla but Musk’s other government-subsidized companies and ideas as well.
After all, there are still unanswered questions about SpaceX, Musk’s aerospace company, that taxpayers deserve to have answered.
A NASA audit from this year unveiled that it ballooned its prices similar to how SolarCity did before its fraud settlement, increasing the cost of government launches by 50% despite already being locked into a government contract based on that old pricing.
What was the underlying reason for this drastic increase? Paul Martin, the inspector general who reported the price increases, wrote that SpaceX claimed it’s because they have “a better understanding of the costs involved after several years of experience with cargo resupply missions.” However, when considering all these new fraud investigations into the Musk empire, how can we be so sure? Can we really take the word of a Musk company at face value?
It’s possible that the reason for these price hikes is far more troubling and that Martin’s personal biases have skewed the findings of his report. According to Frontiers of Freedoms’ George Landrith, the inspector general has “repeatedly and publicly praised SpaceX while refusing to investigate any of the illegalities or irregularities,” leading NASA employees to conclude “that he and others were working to advantage a favorite crony of the [Obama] administration.”
While seemingly rigging the deck to help SpaceX, Martin has also appeared to put the gauntlet down on Musk’s competitors forcefully. This month, he released a sharp critique of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), blaming “management, technical, and infrastructure issues” for cost overruns. Some believe that Martin’s SLS calculations were sharply overestimated and that costs exceeding projections should be expected when building a rocket of this scope. But these points are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What matters here is the seeming double standards in Martin’s handling of government contractors.
In sharp contrast to his active engagement of the SLS, it doesn’t appear that Martin looked heavily into the reason for SpaceX’s 50% price increases or asked any hard questions. He merely mentioned it in passing in a general audit concerning NASA’s CRS contracts, unspecific to SpaceX. This is unacceptable and needs to change.
A little sunlight’s never hurt anyone. The recent criminal fraud probes into Musk’s empire coming from everywhere from the DOJ, FBI, and SEC should serve as a wake-up call, highlighting the need to more thoroughly investigate all of the CEO’s companies on an expedited basis.
Given the NASA IG’s seemingly biased record and the ostensibly deceitful and illegal reasons for past Musk price hikes, this effort should start with examining SpaceX’s cost upticks and assessing the motives and reasons behind them – information that’s been kept in the dark for far too long.
The taxpayers deserve nothing less than full transparency.

The simple answer is no. However, the question of whether our current system of “birthright” citizenship is constitutionally legal is a very different question. We presently confer citizenship on anyone, regardless of parent’s legal status in the country, who is born in the U.S. or its territories. But is that Constitutional?
President Trump’s comments to Axios on HBO has led to a media frenzy on the topic, with reporting that shows a general lack of understanding of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the history behind it. Examples ranging from The New York Post’s statement, “President Donald Trump says he wants to order the end of the constitutional right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born in the United States.” to the conservative National Review’s claim, “At first glance, the amendment’s language appears straightforward: All persons born in the United States are citizens — leading to the conclusion that if Trump and his allies want to change birthright citizenship, they’re going to have to amend the Constitution.”. Both outlet’s reporting insinuating that merely being born here grants you citizenship via the Constitution, but Constitutional scholars disagree on that point.
First, let’s look at the Constitution for the definition of citizen. Throughout the main body of the U.S. Constitution, there is no legal definition or qualifications of citizenship. In fact, there was no national birthright rule within the States before 1866. The reason being that before 1866 the authority to distinguish alien from citizen was solely in the power of the States. After the Revolution, much of the pre-existing common law under English rule, including the concept of natural born allegiance (birthright citizenship of the day), was largely rejected by the States. The general rule was that children born to transient aliens or temporary visitors remained alien. Early states also required of aliens who desired to become residents of the State to first renounce any allegiances to other governments and pledge their allegiance solely to the State.
The Constitution didn’t include a definition for citizenship until the addition of the 14th Amendment. Best known for the concept of “equal protection of the laws”, the 14th Amendment is one of the Reconstruction Amendments, intended to aid in the rebuilding of the nation after the American Civil war and in this case, it was meant to establish former slaves as citizens. Section one of the amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The first sentence of section one clearly defines the requirement to be a citizen. But, there are many pro-illegal alien activists who want to debate (or flat out ignore) the meaning of the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. To best understand the meaning, as with all other parts of the Constitution, is to look at the language used and the debate leading to the framing of the amendment. During the debates of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns about such topics as including Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Also, Sen. Fessenden, co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee, raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country (an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine) and of course, the question of Indians. It is a common mischaracterization of the debates to say that Senators Trumbull, Cowan and Conness suggested both the Civil Rights Bill and the 14th Amendment would make children born to Chinese or Mongolian parent’s citizens regardless of the legal status of the parents. This conclusion is incorrect because they were in fact, discussing whether “race” of the parents should play a role. They were not suggesting that location of birth alone should be the sole requirement of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Historical context in place, it is clear that the framers of the 14th Amendment thought, debated, and intended for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to be a pivotal part of the requirement for citizenship. And while some have challenged the meaning of the phrase it should have been settled when in the case of Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment the court said that the meaning of the phrase as must be used in it’s “operational meaning”, which is to say how the Framers of the Amendment meant it.  Sen. Trumbull, one of the two primary framers of the 14th, “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
In our current system, precedent often stands until challenged to a higher court and then overturned. This is true even when courts rule in a fashion that is not in line with the Constitution. Also true is the fact that sometimes even the SCOTUS will offer an opinion that is more in line with social activism than with originalist constitutional philosophy. “Birthright citizenship” is a matter that has fallen into the realm of precedent based on 8 U.S. Code § 1401, and either intentional or unintentional interpretation of the 14th Amendment. In order to clarify the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Congress has passed laws but the one thing most Americans can agree on is that no law can edit, amend, or overrule the Constitution; only a new amendment can do that.
If you look at the question of “birthright” citizenship from an “originalist” viewpoint it is clear that the children of diplomats, tourists, and illegal aliens who are born in the U.S. are not eligible for citizenship. Decades of precedent have been granting citizenship to large numbers of children who are not qualified by the standard of the 14th Amendment. Only a new hearing in federal court, going all the way to the SCOTUS can correct this issue.
Can President Trump end this practice with just an executive order? No. But issuing an executive order on the matter might just be the easiest way to fast-track the question to the “Highest Court in the Land” and hopefully ending the practice of just giving away one of the most precious things that exist in this world, citizenship in the United States of America.

Did I get your attention? As the group of people marching from Honduras to the U.S. border gets closer, we will probably start seeing many headlines like this. Each is meant to tug at your heart over the terrible conditions that these people are fleeing; or expose the heartlessness of Donald Trump and all Republicans because they are mean and say things like “national security,” “border enforcement” and “vetting process.” And hey, look at that… all of this just in time for the mid-term elections… what a coincidence.
At this moment, about 7,000 people is marching through Mexico on their way to the United States where they are planning to request refugee status. (The number shot up after they managed to cross into Mexico.) This “March of the Migrant,” as it’s being called, started in Honduras on Saturday, October 13th with about 1,300 people. They crossed the border of Guatemala on Monday, October 15th after a short standoff with police in riot gear and then they more than doubled in size. Mexico was unable to stop them despite their declared intentions of doing exactly that. They enlisting the aid of the U.N. to process the so-called asylum seekers. President Trump has vowed to use the U.S. military to close the U.S. border to prevent the illegal entry and is referring to this “March” as a national emergency. This began just days after Vice President Pence met with the leader of Honduras, President Juan Orlando Hernandez, in an effort to reduce the recent up-tick in illegal migration from there to the United States.
Since the mass migration began, President Trump has said that, the United States has strongly informed the President of Honduras that if the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, no more money or aid will be given to them, effective immediately!
The leftist in the U.S. media and American politics are ready to turn the page on their failed take-down of Justice Kavanaugh. They believe that they can win on the issue of illegal border crossers (after they run the topic through the P.C. spin machine and start calling them undocumented or asylum seekers). So, it seems reasonable to see this as a political stunt rather than a “desperate attempt to find a better life.”
But for those of those who are just a little left of center and may be considering joining the #walkaway movement here are a few things to ponder. (If you are even the least bit conservative you will most likely already have thought about these things.) Here in the U.S., Democrats, and leftist make political hay by painting this as a humanitarian issue. They “care” about the people so desperate for a better life that they are willing to break our laws to get here. But if they really cared about these people, then they should want a policy that would do the most good for the most people.
We, as a nation, should not have policies that promote endangering of people, especially children, promotes human trafficking, or puts U.S. citizens at risk by failing to vet people wanting to enter our nation. Instead, we should seek to promote personal safety, economic security, and law and order in all nations. What does the most good for the most people, promoting safety or the endangering of lives? The trip to and across the U.S. border is dangerous. The lives of each person making this journey (normally) are placed at risk as they face harsh conditions, lack of basic resources i.e. food, water, protection from the elements, and the general actions of so-called Coyotes (which we know on multiple occasions have led to rape, murder, and abandonment leading to death).
What does the most good for the most people, stopping human trafficking or encouraging it? This is a twofold issue. Part one, as long as people believe that they can live in “sanctuary” in the States, they will believe that it is worth the costs (and risks) to hire people to smuggle them across the border. If the people survive the trip, which is not a guarantee, they often end up owing those who smuggled them in more than they could pay up front, so they must work off that debt either in near slave-like conditions or by engaging in illicit activities like prostitution, drugs, etc.
Part two, children are being used as tools at the border to appear more sympathetic. Due to the practice of “Catch and Release” (not terminology I would have selected, but it’s what we call it), you are far more likely to be processed then turned loose if you have a child with you. This has led to an industry of buying children to be used for this purpose. Poor people, who often have multiple children, are offered what to them is a large sum of money and told that the child would be brought to the United States where they can have a life of sunshine and rainbows. Believing that this may be the best opportunity for their child and knowing that they will have more money than they are likely to see in their lifetimes otherwise, they sell their kids. (Our current policies encourage this.) So much for the leftist battle-cry of being for the children.
What does the most good for the most people, letting people illegally cross our border or helping to improve conditions in Central and South America (in their home)? It is human nature to look for the easy out. If you have a choice between a “hard way” that might not work and an “easy way” which would mean just going somewhere else, then it’s easy to see why a good many might choose just to pick up and seek greener pastures. However, the economies and corruption of governments in Central and South America cannot be repaired if no one is going to fight to fix things. That fight will be hard and possibly dangerous for some, but in the end, if they won’t fight for their homes then who will? If they all run away, then they need to leave will not end until they have all made their way out. The problem doesn’t get solved; it just becomes someone else’s problem.
What does the most good for the most people, knowing who is entering our country or just opening the gates? This a question that reaches past just those moving this way from the south but all who seek to enter our nation. Not everyone who wants to come here is simply looking for a safer life. Many are criminals seeking to escape justice at home or to expand their “territory” looking to make American citizens their victims. And with an eye toward Donald Trump’s executive order for a travel restriction (the media insisted on calling it a travel ban), not everyone seeking asylum is who they say they are.
The reason for immigration laws in the first place is to provide a way of verifying that the people coming here are people that we would want here. While most people looking to get away from violence at home may very well be exactly who they claim to be, we know for a fact that some are not. Some of those people are the very perpetrators of the violence the others are seeking to escape. If we don’t do a better job of vetting people wanting to come into the United States, then we have done no favors to the innocents we have allowed in because the violence of MS-13 or Islamic terrorists will have followed them. (Not to mention the fact that we have put American citizens at greater risk if the borders are just left open.)
The solutions to the problems that these people face at home are not simple ones. In fact, for some, it may very well take more than a generation to fix. But a good first step is for the United States to put into place policies that will discourage coming here, putting themselves at risk and feeding human trafficking as well as other illegal actions, to seek an easier path. We should be encouraging them to take the path that (is harder but does the most good) leads them to fight for their homes, fixing their issues, and finding peace and prosperity.
One last thing to ponder before I wrap up. Even if you read this and still believe that we should open the gates wide for all to come in without regard, I would ask you to consider this before voting this November (or ever again). Who really cares more about the people seeking a better life, those who want to see these mass migrants be safe and have fulfilling lives in their home countries or the politicians who want nothing more than to use them as a political prop?

Life is different for a billionaire.
A few years before Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos bought a second home in Washington, D.C., he made a more important purchase: the local newspaper, the venerable Washington Post. This $250 million investment was a smart move for Bezos, as it guarantees Amazon will enjoy good press coverage in his new town. No reporter wants to write negative stories about the person who signs the paycheck.
Perhaps that’s why it has taken so long for the Post to zero in on a developing story: The Pentagon’s eagerness to hand Amazon Web Services a $10 billion exclusive contract to handle the military’s cloud computing needs. It’s been unfolding for months.
“Some technology companies think the Defense Department favors Amazon, which won a $600 million cloud contract with the Central Intelligence Agency in 2013 and, to date, has the highest levels of security clearances for its cloud infrastructure,” Bloomberg reported on October 4.
Outside-the-Beltway magazine Vanity Fair was even more direct. “[T]he deal appeared to be rigged in favor of a single provider: Amazon. According to insiders familiar with the 1,375-page request for proposal, the language contains a host of technical stipulations that only Amazon can meet, making it hard for other leading cloud-services providers to win—or even apply for—the contract,” May Jeong wrote in August.
The Post has been getting scooped on its home turf. A fact that should embarrass any journalist, even if they were looking to “play softball” with the boss’s other business interests. Especially considering what’s at stake.
However, it is finally noticing the story. The coverage began with an interview with the Pentagon’s Chief Information Officer, Dana Deasy. “I’m here for a very specific purpose. I want to help the Defense Department put the best long-term technology in place,” he told the Post. That, of course, is what all Americans want.
The Pentagon absolutely should use cloud computing, just as companies in the private sector already do. But it should use several cloud providers, just as companies in the private sector already do. Cloud computing has led to the development of block-chain, which in turn has proven to the private sector that information can be securely stored in a fashion that can prevent catastrophic data loss from a single data breach. The concept of compartmentalizing classified information in the physical world is not a new one to the Pentagon, or our intelligence agencies for that matter, so why the disconnect when it comes to cyberspace?   
“In the interview, Deasy was adamant that awarding the contract to a single company was in the Pentagon’s best interests and would give it a better chance of success to build a cloud system capable of serving the entire department,” the Post reports.
But this isn’t an airplane or a submarine, where there is only a single company with the know-how to build the project; there are plenty of cloud providers who could handle a chunk of the business. Also, the companies that build weapons systems for the Pentagon need exclusive contracts; it’s not as if they could sell those systems elsewhere. However, AWS has plenty of places it can sell cloud computing if it loses part of the military contract. There are no shortage of buyers in the public and private sectors.
The Post story goes on to add that the exclusive contract “comes as Amazon is moving aggressively to expand its business with the federal government, seeking to remake the $100 billion federal IT market just as it did commercial retail.”
You don’t say. Well, that’s actually exactly what we should be worried about. Amazon is crushing all competition in retail, and that’s leading to job losses at other retailers, including Macy’s and Sears. The U.S. government doesn’t need to help AWS control the cloud environment any more than the company already does.
“The key to competitive markets is that no one entity has too much control of the marketplace,” Amazon critic Scott Galloway points out to the New York Post. He’s an author and professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business. Galloway has called for breaking up Amazon. That might be taking things too far. But giving AWS an exclusive 10-year deal to control the Pentagon’s information is too far in the opposite direction.
The Pentagon needs to reconsider its single-source contract. Using different clouds to handle different data would keep it safer and would be less expensive over the long term. And the Washington Post needs to reconsider its role in covering federal spending. Its readers count on it to keep the military honest. That means reporting on big wasteful deals, even if they benefit its owner.

   I am guessing by now that you have heard about the young American couple who had decided to take a year-long bike trip around the world. Jay Austin was a vegan who worked for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Lauren Geoghegan was a vegetarian who worked in the Georgetown University admissions office. Both were 29 years old and they decided to quit their jobs last year in order to make their trip.  
  I think it would be fair to say that these two young idealists lived in a bubble. They had convinced themselves that evil was a “make-believe concept”. Austin in his personal wrote “I’ve grown tired of spending the best hours of my day in front of a glowing rectangle, of coloring the best years of my life in swaths of grey and beige. I’ve missed too many sunsets while my back was turned. Too many thunderstorms went unwatched, too many gentle breezes unnoticed.” A romantic notion, one that a lot of people can admire his willingness to follow through on. But the refusal to believe that there are bad people out in the world who will do bad things to you without the need for you to provoke them was a tragically naïve belief that cost him and Lauren Geoghegan their lives.  
   Their trip went on for 369 days, taking them from the southernmost tip of Africa in Capetown, South Africa, to Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Egypt, Morocco, Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and finally Tajikistan, where their journey ended when they were murdered along with two other cyclists, one from Switzerland and the other from the Netherlands. Five men exited a car and stabbed the bicyclists to death. ISIS claimed responsibility in print and then followed up with a video showing the five attackers pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.   
   I am also guessing that by now you have heard about the Jihadi training camp in New Mexico where children were being trained to carry out school shootings. There are a lot of disturbing details that are still emerging from this news story. Details like the fact that the children in the compound were armed and ready to engage law enforcement until one of the adults told them to stand down. Details like a deceased 3-year-old disabled boy found at the compound died from being denied his medication and lost his life during an Islamic prayer session to expel the demons they believed were inside him.  Details like one of the children saying that they believed the deceased boy would resurrect in about four months and inform the compound residents of their specific targets. He mentioned law enforcement personnel, educational institutions, financial institutions and banks as potential targets.   
   As shocking as it was for some to discover that a camp like this was operating in the United States, (it was no surprise at all for others that have been warning of such compounds for years) as shocking as the many details that continue to surface about the people who were involved and what they were doing there, there was nothing that could have prepared any of us for what happened when the people running this compound got in front of Judge Sarah Backus. Judge Backus released four of the five adults to house arrest and on a $20,000 "signature bond," which means they just have to sign a document promising to return to court when it is time for trial. If they do not show up to court, then they will face arrest and be required to pay $20,000 as a penalty. Judge Backus also ruled they must reside in “acceptable” living conditions, wear ankle monitors, cannot have firearms, cannot leave the country and can only see their children during supervised visits.  
   How did the judge come to this ruling? Well, the defense attorney for the arrested extremists claimed they were the victims of discrimination because they are Muslims and black. The defense argued that there was no strong evidence of a specific terrorist plot, only aspirations. And the judge agreed that not having a specific plan somehow makes them less dangerous. Backus also made mention of the fact that four of the five had no criminal record (the fifth was a fugitive with an outstanding warrant in Georgia). The guns at the compound were acquired legally and even though the children stood ready to, they did not resist law enforcement. (I would argue at this point that none of that accounts for the child abuse and the death of the three-year-old but that’s just me.)  
    Judge Sarah Backus is a San Francisco transplant to New Mexico. She has a history of issuing low bail to violent offenders. This has led many to speculate that she was motivated more by a social justice activist mindset than from upholding her oath to render justice and protect the public. Given the evidence that was presented and the testimony of law enforcement at the hearing, one could be forgiven for letting the thought cross your mind that she was indeed acting as a SJW rather than an officer of the court. It certainly appears as if the rules of Political Correctness trumped the law.  
   There is evil in the world. There are people prepared to carry out acts of evil. Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan didn’t deserve to be murdered. Members of ISIS committed this act of evil and then bragged about it. The people living at the compound in New Mexico shared a belief that many ISIS members would call an “extremist cult”. Those people are now (house arrest or not) out of custody and free to commit an act of violence should their “true target” be revealed with little chance of stopping it until it’s too late. I am left pondering; which is more evil, the attacks the jihadist in New Mexico were training to carry out, or the release of clearly dangerous people in the name of Political Correctness? I just pray that no innocent person pays a price for this judge’s lapse in judgment. 

​   Imagine that you work in an office building. Now imagine that outside of this office building there is a large, very angry crowd that has gathered protesting what they believe to be the policy of the President. Still imagining, you work for a government agency that is at the heart of the policy in question, not a field agent but you work for the agency, and that large, very angry crowd has some folks in it that are menacing and appear to be violent. At this point, you call 911 Emergency Service because all you want to do is go home at the end of the workday. You wait for the police, but no one shows up. You call again, still no one to serve and protect. What would you do?
   If you worked in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices in Portland, Oregon you have already had to answer that question. But not as a hypothetical because it happened during the, sometimes violent, week-long demonstrations in front of their offices. Employees were trapped by the so-called Occupy ICE protests which consisted of many pro-illegal alien folks with a little Antifa sprinkled in for good measure. At least two, documented, 911 calls were placed by the ICE employees but the police either refused or were not allowed to respond.
   Portland, Oregon Mayor Ted Wheeler is at the heart of the issue. The mayor has put in place a policy that forbids Portland law enforcement agencies from assisting any ICE employees while at or away from work. Mayor Wheeler is so strongly committed to the left’s “Resistance” of all things Donald Trump that he is perfectly willing to let citizens of his city who happen to be federal employees to fend for themselves against misguided mobs. (Another great example of virtue signaling in the absence of any real virtue.)
    The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, a union representing ICE employees, has written a cease-and-desist letter to Mayor Wheeler, asking him to ensure the police enforce the law equally and protect innocent people. The letter says, “Your current policy forbidding Portland law enforcement agencies from assisting employees of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency who request law enforcement assistance while at or away from work is a violation of the United States Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.” However, at this point, there is little indication that the mayor is planning on making any changes to his policy. I’m afraid that it will take litigation to remedy any of this, and I’m further afraid that more people will be injured (or worse) before it’s done.
   Before I go any further I want to make clear that I am not being critical of law enforcement in this case. The men and women in blue, no matter what city or town they work in, do a very hard job in very often tough circumstances. The policy of the mayor makes it impossible for the police of Portland to do their job in this case. There may very well be some officers that believe as the mayor does, but I doubt seriously that there are law enforcement personnel out there who want to see lawlessness on their streets. The failing here is Mayor Wheeler’s need to “stick it to Trump”.
   For those of you who are angry at President Trump for his border policy, I’d like to point out that the separation of children from adults being detained for illegally crossing our border is not actually his policy and never was it. It was a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during the Obama administration that made it necessary. Obama did the exact same thing after that ruling and struggled to execute it. (And in this occasion, this isn’t meant to be a knock-on Obama as government, regardless of who’s in charge often has difficulty working well on the fly.) If you are angry about Trump’s policy for any other reason, then you are just mad that he is attempting to enforce the law and that is not worthy of a rebuttal.
   For those of you who are caught up in the “Abolish ICE” hysteria, I wonder how many of you know what it is that ICE really does on a day to day basis. I think many of you who fall under that category may be simply following others and have no real idea about this federal agency and what it does. I would simply ask you to learn more about ICE from independent sources and then if you still feel the same, I’d love to know why. Unless you are a terrorist or an illegal alien you have no need to fear them. ICE works to make your communities safer.
   And for those of you who are “for the children”, I’d like to point out that many of the children being brought across our border as a legal prop are not with their parents, or family members of any kind when detained. At this moment there is a thriving human trafficking business in Central and South America that is built on the premise of using children to help provide legal cover for anyone caught illegally entering our country. These children are subjected to harsh conditions, dangerous travel, and often end up working on ranches and farms in slave-like conditions or in the sex trade if they if they cross unimpeded or sometimes even if they are detained but are then released to “family members” already in the States. Shouldn’t we have policies and laws that are enforced that discourage and tries to end this horrific practice? If you really are “for the children”.
   The real problem in the news story about Portland’s ICE office being under siege isn’t the police who didn’t answer the call, and it isn’t the mob or the violence carried out by members of Antifa in that mob, although those are big problems. The real problem is that the mayor of Portland encouraged lawlessness in the city he has sworn to serve. Wheeler’s policy allowed for innocent people to be endangered simply because he doesn’t like who they are working for, the federal government and in Wheeler’s mind Donald Trump. People who are literally working to enforce U.S. laws were allowed to be targeted by domestic terrorist (Antifa) in the name of others who are, by definition, criminals (illegal aliens). That is the real problem here.

​   The political debate over universal health care is not a new argument. In recent history alone we have the examples of Hillary Care, a program that was being developed by Hillary Clinton while she was the First Lady that never came close to being implemented; Romney Care, the plan signed into law for the state of Massachusetts while Mitt Romney was governor that cost the state millions of tax-payer dollars with health outcomes that are still debated to this day if there was improvement; and most recently Obama Care, also know in some circles as the Un-Affordable Health Care Act, which required the Democrats to change the rules of Congress in order to force the stepping stone to single-payer system upon the American people.
   The Affordable Care Act was written in a fashion that made it unsustainable. Many, like myself, believe this was done intentionally with the purpose being that it would lead to the American people demanding a fix and the federal government would then swoop in and save the day with full-fledged socialized medicine (or another step closer to it, at the very least). Regardless of if you believe it intentional or not, it is clear that, due to the continuous rising of premiums for less than adequate coverage and the IRS keeping what would have been otherwise income tax refunds to help cover the costs of “Marketplace” policies, Obama Care as it was written and implemented was doomed to fail. (As many conservative voiced warned.)
   The newest call by far-left politicians to push for is being championed by “Democratic Socialist” Sen. Bernie Sanders in what he calls “Medicare For All”. It was first pushed by the Vermont Socialist during his bid to become the Democratic Presidential nominee. His plan is to extend the current Medicare program, which already has some finical issues, to cover everyone. There are a few problems with that plan, chief among them and easily provable to even the most stubborn of advocate would be the cost.
   A new study was recently released by George Mason’s Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning policy center, that states it would cost the U.S. government $32.6 trillion over the course of the next ten years to make “Medicare For All”happen. To cover the new burden to the American tax-payers of extending Medicare benefits to the entire population would require a massive tax increase. This conclusion also aligns with a similar analysis performed by the Urban Institute. While many so-called Progressive politicians from both sides of the aisle believe that more government is always the answer no matter what the question may be would have no problems with raising our taxes, most of them also seem to believe that all of the money is theirs and we are lucky they let us keep any of it so I don’t think that they are the best judges of what is appropriate for our tax rate. But according to this study, the government could double all corporate and individual income taxes and it would still lack the required revenue to fund the program.
   Now Sanders, who has long advocated a universal health care system, impugned the study’s credibility, citing the funding the Mercatus Center receives from the Koch Brothers.  “If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all, and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States cannot do the same,” Sanders said in a statement. “This grossly misleading and biased report is the Koch Brothers response to the growing support in our country for a ‘Medicare for all’ program.” It is important to note that Sanders said this even though his office has not performed a cost analyst of their own on the plan he has championed. And his criticism of the study over the Koch Brothers doesn’t explain the findings of Urban Institute.  I would also point out a “misleading” thing in his statement.
   Sanders said that these other nations “achieve better health outcomes” than we do. I would love to know what standard Sen. Sanders is using to make that statement. When it comes to quality of service or wait times to be seen the current system here in the States far exceeds the norms in the nations that have socialized their national health care. The innovations in care and technology are at the cutting-edge here which improves outcomes as well. Whatever standard the Senator is using, all you have to do is ponder the question of why do those who can afford to travel to the U.S. from the U.K. and Canada come here for care when it would be provided at home. Why spend so much more for an outcome that is not as good?   
   It appears that the idea of “Medicare for all” is becoming something of a litmus test for 2020 presidential hopefuls for the Democratic party. Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and other notable Democrats have expressed their support for the plan despite none of them having any good ideas about how to pay for it without vague comments about the wealthy paying their “fair share”. (Strange how the party that claims to be for the people is always quick to grow the government and increase the power of government in everyone’s life.) But why is it so important, as it has been for decades now, in the minds of some for the government to take full control of our healthcare? They will tell you it is because of the lack of access to care for the poor or the expense but is that it?
   The reason someone like myself questions the intentions of those politicians who push for socialized medicine is because we have seen what happens in countries that nationalize their health care. We have seen the long waits for needed care that in some cases are not delivered because those in need pass away before they can be treated (yes, it is very rare but it does happen). We have seen the failures of our own VA system which is not that dissimilar from the U.K. system. We have seen the availability of some treatments limited or restricted because of cost or lack of innovation. We have seen medical decisions taken out of the hands of doctors, nurses and the patients themselves and placed firmly in the hands of bureaucrats whose job it is to do cost analysis with no concern for the human being on the other side of that analysis.
   I know that the utopian dream has it’s appeal when you don’t think too long about the details. But socializing medicine is a wrong move for America. We need to be focused on finding ways of reducing the cost of providing health care without slowing innovation and without turning our healthcare workers into government employees. We need to promote growth in our economy to the point where all our citizens are better able to afford their own care. We should never have an American Charlie Gard.
   Charlie Gard, for those who have already forgotten, was the infant boy from London, born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. The British healthcare system threw in the towel and decided that there was nothing left to do but watch the baby die. His story gained international attention when his parents tried to remove Charley from the country to seek experimental treatments paid for by private donations from around the world. Both Italy and the United States even tried to bestow citizenship on young Charley in an effort to get him out of the British system, to no avail.
   In the end, Charley Gard would most likely died regardless. But what harm would there have been in trying to save the child? What harm would have come in advancing the medical science that would have come from the data gathered during the treatment, getting us closer to a cure? The harm my friend was in challenging the state and it’s power over you and your children. The harm was in thinking that you as a parent would have more say over your child than the government, as Christopher Gard and Constance Yates found out the hard way as the whole world watched.
   America is based on individual liberty for all. Freedom cannot thrive when the government has that much power over it’s citizens. Socializing anything is contrary to the very spirit of this nation. I know that I will be criticized for the examples I used here as being “worse case scenarios” but if it can happen once then it will happen again; don’t let it be here.
      “Medicare For All” is a socialist idea that, if implemented, will bankrupt our nation. Bernie, Cory, Kamala stop trying to turn America into Venezuela while making empty promises of free stuff. Stop trying to buy votes from people who don’t understand how economies work. Nothing is ever free and there are far worse prices to pay other than money.

​   The founding of our Republic begins with the story of a group of people who sought to leave England in order to freely practice their religion. The persecution that they faced was so bad that the idea of facing the harsh wilderness was a welcome one, so they would have the freedom to worship as they choose. This fact was never far from the front of our Founding Fathers’ minds as evidenced by the 1st Amendment.
   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Founders thought that some rights were so important that they decided to enshrine them in what we call the Bill of Rights and chief among them were Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, the right to peaceably assemble (protest). But as important as those rights are to Americans, then and now, the Framers put Freedom of Religion ahead of everything else. They never forgot that it was a quest for religious liberty that is at the very heart of this nation.
   In the many years since our Republic’s creation our government and our military have established ceremonies and traditions many of which use symbolism to represent values, principles, and the people. Given that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, it is not surprising that Christian symbols made their way into many of these traditions. The Cross, open prayer in the name of Jesus, and quoting the Bible are not unusual practices during many of these ceremonies and traditions.
   One such tradition is the “Missing Man Table” at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. According to the National League of POW/MIA Families the “Missing Man Table” is a memorial recognizing soldiers absent from a dining hall because they are prisoners of war or missing in action. And as reported by Life Site News, "Every element serves a symbolic purpose, from the table’s round shape symbolizing 'everlasting concern' to a Bible representing 'strength gained through faith to sustain us and those lost from our country, founded as one nation under God.” To many of us, this would be a thoughtful, meaningful way to honor and to remember those who chose to serve the nation but have not come home. Many of us would respect the symbolism and understand that this isn’t about us, it’s about those listed as POW or MIA and their families desperately hoping that someday they may yet come home.
   However, in our current age, there will always be someone who wants to make everything about them and how they feel. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) claimed that 31 active-duty airmen of varying faiths and denominations stationed at F.E. Warren contacted them in May to oppose the Bible being part of their dining hall’s “Missing Man Table”. The number of objectors rose to 36 by the end of June. After an investigation of the complaint, Col. Stacy Jo Huser announced that a generic "book of faith" will replace the Bible. "Our chaplains are purchasing a generic ‘book of faith’ and will let me know when that book is expected to arrive," Huser told MRFF. "Until it arrives, I’ve asked them to rotate the book placed on the table (rotate it through various faiths)”. Huser also said that this generic book will have "spiritual writings and prayers from the five DoD Chaplain-appointed faith groups and a sixth set of blank pages to represent those who find solace by other means."
  
   A generic book of faith? Solace by other means? What Col. Huser calls a generic book of faith I call a book of no faith at all. A book filled with “spiritual writings” from five faith groups recognized by the DoD Chaplain is a book of spiritual philosophy, not faith. By sharing small parts of these various writings, you are left as fulfilled as reading the blank pages that are to be included. This generic book is exactly that, plain, bland, and devoid of what makes any religious text from any faith worth reading, the power of the word.
        The Military Religious Freedom Foundation claims that their mission is “to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment”. After reading articles at the website (https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/), seeing what they call victories, even their use of the phrase “Establishment Clause” I tend to believe that they are more like the Freedom From Religion Foundation than a group dedicated to protecting religious liberties for anyone. Their goal appears to be the eradication of Christianity within the Armed Services in the name of “protecting” people of other faiths. If the MRFF was truly on the mission they claim then they would have the same obligation to protect the Christians to the same extent as any other faith not dismiss them in favor of others.
   Forget for the moment that the “Establishment Clause” doesn’t mean what leftist politicians and activist judges have twisted it to what they want it to mean. Forget that an outside Foundation has put undue pressure on military command officers in a P.R. fashion. Give the MRFF and Col. Huser the benefit of the doubt and say that they only have the best intentions, which they very well may have. (Although we know where the road paved with good intentions leads to don’t we?) This still comes down to one simple thing. It’s not about the people on base.
   The “Missing Man Table” is about those who are currently classified as POW/MIA. This is a memorial established with the aid of the National League of POW/MIA Families and has been in place for far longer than any of the current airman at F.E. Warren have been stationed there. The Bible was chosen for a reason and it wasn’t to establish a religion for the base, it was to express faith, which the true meaning of the “Establishment Clause” protects. (Remember the part that says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?”) The people who created this memorial have the right to use the Bible as their symbol of faith. And if this is offensive to fewer than 40 members of a staff that numbers over 3,000 then that is unfortunate, but they are not being forced to practice or participate in a faith other than their own so their rights to religious liberty are not being infringed. Their delicate sensibilities do not entitle them to infringe upon the rights of others. If it bothers you that much, don’t look at it, stay as far from it as you can and remember that nowhere in the Constitution is there a clause to protect your feelings. Besides, the proper application of Freedom of Speech pretty much guarantees that you will be offended at some point, so suck it up buttercup. You’re in the Air Force for crying out loud, someday it might be you who is POW/MIA. On THAT day, then it will be about you.