The Highlights - Vol. 12
The latest compilation of news, politics, & culture
The British Government’s Iran Dilemma
“We now know that all the scorn that has been poured on missile defense over the years was perverse and wrong.”
ICYMI: Senate Judiciary Committee Savages Noem over Agency Spending, Personal Ties to DHS Contract Recipient
Republican Senator John Kennedy and Democratic Senator Peter Welch grilled Noem regarding a $220 million ad campaign featuring herself, as well as a $143 million no-bid contract awarded to a firm established just days before the deal.
WFB: ‘I’ve Waited 30 Years’: American Families of Iranian Terror Victims See Justice Served in US-Israeli Campaign
California’s Progressive Policies Have Regressive Effects
If you’ve ever wondered how Californians can possibly afford the state’s sky-high home prices, the answer is simple: they’re inheriting their homes. Inherited homes made up nearly one in five property transfers in California last year, more than double the rate across the rest of the US.
The Week by NR:
“Congress should have voted on this.”
“In times of war, the law falls silent.” There is practical wisdom in Cicero’s maxim: No American president has ever been stopped from going to war by the law or the courts. Once war begins, its legality becomes practically moot. But that does not mean that the question should not be asked—and in advance. Under our Constitution, only Congress can declare war. But many conflicts, particularly in recent years, have had no congressional authorization—even when they have, like the current fight in Iran, gone well beyond quick strikes against imminent threats that fit within the president’s Article II authority to act unilaterally. The better practice, as well as the wiser course politically, would be to seek such authorization. By failing to go that route, Trump further undermined Congress and denied the American people the debate they deserved on our war aims and justifications. The 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, enacted after the September 11 attacks, can arguably be stretched to cover the current assault on Iran, but the absurdity of using a 25-year-old blank check should be self-evident. Congress should have voted on this.
“Platner is not a secret Nazi; his connections to Jew-haters are right out in the open.”
Last year, Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner said in an interview, “I’m not a secret Nazi.” In his telling, while he was in the U.S. military, he accidentally got a tattoo of the Totenkopf, or death’s head, logo of the Nazi SS. He allegedly failed to recognize it as a Nazi symbol for 18 years. Yet acquaintances recall Platner’s calling his tattoo “my Totenkopf,” and his former political director claims that Platner told her that he had a tattoo that “could be problematic.” After the U.S. military operation against Iran began, Jewish Insider reported that Platner reposted a social media post from a “far-right conspiracy theorist well-known for viciously antisemitic commentary—before quickly deleting the statement.” Jewish Insider also reported that, in January, Platner sat for a lengthy online interview with Nate Cornacchia, another antisemitic conspiracy theorist. The Senate candidate has claimed to be “a longtime fan” of the host. Cornacchia has claimed that Charlie Kirk was assassinated because he changed his mind about supporting Israel, and that the global war on terror was conducted “on behest of Israel.” Platner is not a secret Nazi; his connections to Jew-haters are right out in the open.
“Wealth tax cannot work and would hurt Americans.”
The Washington Post writes: “Sanders wants to confiscate 5 percent of all assets every year from America’s billionaires, with the goal of stealing half their fortunes. He estimates, unrealistically, that this could raise $4.4 trillion over 10 years to fund a wish list of progressive fantasies, including something akin to a universal basic income and more government-managed health care.” The editorial highlights the problems with this proposal: a 5% tax on every asset would wipe out any gains in a normal year, force liquidation of illiquid assets, and require thousands of new bureaucrats to fight tax lawyers over valuations of wine collections, art, jewelry, and yachts. The Post points to a Cato analysis by Adam Michel: “For all the protestations about ‘fairness,’ the U.S. already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world.” Michel explains that the problems of such a progressive tax extend beyond the already wealthy, as “they make each additional hour of work or investment less rewarding, weakening incentives to work longer hours, take entrepreneurial risks, start new ventures, or invest in continuing education. Over time, these effects compound, slowing economic progress and material well-being for everyone.”