The best in his mind.

"It’s a collaboration album..."

Culture discovery.

Channelling his influence.

Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence (DNI), is deploying the Director’s Initiatives Group (DIG) to investigate weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community. While investigating the CIA, NSA, and such, the DIG sleuths should take a hard look at the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), established in the 1950s to prevent infectious diseases from arriving on American soil. Events in recent years give the people cause to wonder. Investigating the US ‘Health’ Agencies Dr. Nancy Messonnier, longtime director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), began her career in 1995 as an Epidemic Intelligence Service officer in the National Center for Infectious Diseases (NCID). In early 2020, Dr. Messonnier was the government’s first spokesperson on COVID and conducted a series of telebriefings not shown to the public. (RELATED: Never Forget What They Did to Us Five Years Ago) The CDC official warned that a “novel coronavirus” had emerged from the “Wuhan market” and the highly contagious new virus would “gain a foothold” in the United States. Many people would be infected, and there was “no immunity.” (RELATED: How COVID Mania Inspired the Events of January 6) In her Jan. 24 briefing, Dr. Messonnier told reporters, “CDC has a team that’s been in China for many years where we work closely with the Department of Health in China.” Some reporters were curious about people traveling to the United States from Wuhan, but in her Feb. 5 briefing, Dr. Messonnier said, “That’s something I’m not at liberty to talk about today.” The EIS veteran, a captain in the Public Health Service, did not reveal who was laying down the rules, but some realities were already apparent. The intrepid “disease detectives” of the EIS failed to prevent the COVID virus from arriving on American soil. That supplies the DIG detectives with a long list of questions. Dr. Messonnier shows up in a 2013 EIS conference report revealing that 12 new EIS officers were citizens of other nations, including the People’s Republic of China. Which nation’s interests do the Chinese EIS officers represent? Were any PRC nationals on the CDC “team” working with China for many years? Who were the EIS officers on the ground in China in late 2019 and early 2020? What do they know about the origin of the COVID virus, and the way it was vectored to America and the world? Who was the government official barring Dr. Messonnier from discussing travel from Wuhan? How did Dr. Messonnier’s briefings differ from China’s talking points? In 2021, the EIS veteran suddenly retired, and CDC director Rochelle Walensky proclaimed her a “true hero.” What had Dr. Messonnier done that was truly heroic? Was it related to the COVID pandemic? Why did she suddenly retire? And so on. (RELATED: Dr. Fauci Doubles Down) Dr. Messonnier gave way to Dr. Anthony Fauci, longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Dr. Fauci, who claimed to represent science, contended that COVID arose naturally in the wild and branded reports of a lab origin as a “conspiracy theory.” On his way out of the White House, Joe Biden pardoned Dr. Fauci without naming any crime he might have committed. (RELATED: Standing Up for Bureaucracy Is Not Standing Up for Science) On the other hand, Biden announced no pardon for Fauci allies such as former NIH acting director Lawrence Tabak, who admitted that the NIH funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Biden announced no pardon for former Galveston National Laboratory (GNL) director James Leduc, who signed secret agreements with three Chinese labs, including the WIV, giving China the power to destroy files, materials, and equipment. (RELATED: Dr. Anthony Fauci: What Exactly Did Biden Pardon?) Joe Biden announced no pardon for Dr. Nancy Messonnier, who wasn’t at liberty to talk about those giving the orders. The revamped CDC, HHS, and NIH, now under Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, might probe the Fauci allies for matters that might interest the Department of Justice. So should the DIG task force, without diverting attention from the CIA. Fortunately, the secret agency has already provided a confession of sorts. (RELATED: Bhattacharya Did Not Follow the COVID Herd) Investigating US ‘Intelligence’ In 2020, former CIA director John Brennan published Undaunted: My Fight Against America’s Enemies, at Home and Abroad. Brennan charts the CIA’s failure to prevent the massive attack of Sept. 11, 2001, and the subtitle confirms the agency’s pivot to domestic politics. In 2023, former CIA analyst John Gentry published Neutering the CIA: Why US Intelligence Versus Trump has Long-Term Consequences. As Gentry explained, the forces that triggered the attack on Trump “remain intact, available for reactivation in the event of another serious candidacy by Trump or the election of another Republican president.” These realities confirm the belief of Angelo Codevilla, a former Naval intelligence officer, staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and author of Informing Statecraft: Intelligence for a New Century. In 2020, a year before he passed away, Codevilla contended that the CIA is “not very good at what it is supposed to be doing” and had become another partisan bureaucracy. The remedy was to “Abolish FISA, Reform FBI and Break Up CIA.” Another key CIA veteran, whom Codevilla respected, had thoughts on the CIA, too. During WWII, James Angleton ran counterintelligence for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), forerunner of the CIA, which he joined at the outset in 1947. In 1954, the agency made him head of counterintelligence, a strategic function the CIA steadily downgraded. In a June 6, 1975, session of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence, Angleton testified that CIA counterintelligence was “very very poor” and had set back the agency 20 years. Sen. Howard Baker wanted to know how Angleton would rehabilitate the CIA. “My feeling is that the agency has to go through the purgatory, these fires that no man would put out,” Angleton told the committee. “My view is, the bigger the fires, the better. So my view is, let it all come out, and let people take the consequences.” That was decades before the CIA failed to stop 9/11 and shifted to domestic politics, where it has no mandate. The DIG task force has good reason to stoke the fires, let it all come out, and let people take the consequences — whatever their titles, salaries, and reputations. To paraphrase Milan Kundera, the struggle against unaccountable government is the struggle of memory against forgetting. READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: Militarizing Misery: LA Enlists NeverTrumper in Recovery Effort Karen Bass Fails to ‘Build Back Better’ HHS Terminates California’s ‘Wasteful’ DEI Grants Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. The post Tulsi’s Task Force: From the CIA to EIS and Beyond appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

For well over a century, Harvard was considered the crown jewel of American education. Presidents came from its halls, and Nobel laureates filled its lecture rooms. It was the kind of place that turned ambition into achievement and ambition into legacy. It symbolized something enduring: excellence, discipline, and elite leadership. The very name carried an air of unimpeachable credibility. Those days are gone. Long gone. What was once a training ground for future statesmen and scientists has become a bloated, self-satisfied bureaucracy. Harvard’s leaders now prioritize activism over academics, show greater loyalty to foreign interests than their own government, and are more focused on preserving a brand than protecting the country that created it. If in doubt, consider Harvard’s outright defiance of the Trump administration’s call to rein in campus activism, antisemitism, and ideological extremism. The response from the administration was swift: a freeze on more than $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in contracts. If Harvard doesn’t comply, nearly $9 billion could be on the line. (RELATED: The Appalling Tunnels Beneath Our Universities) To be clear, this isn’t about banning speech. It’s about stopping publicly funded institutions from becoming playgrounds for ideologues and safe havens for extremism. But Harvard doesn’t see it that way. In a performative statement, President Alan Garber waxed lyrical about “groundbreaking innovations” and “the health and well-being of millions.” He framed federal oversight as an existential threat to progress. In reality, it’s the only thing keeping elite institutions honest. Dr. Graber is fully aware of this, of course, but he won’t admit it. (RELATED: Higher Education’s 7 Deadly Sins) What Harvard’s headmaster failed to mention is that his university continues to accept huge amounts of money from hostile foreign powers — most notably, China. The Harvard China Fund, the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, and the Harvard-Yenching Institute are all deeply entangled with China’s academic and political machinery. Fudan University, one of Harvard’s long-standing partners, literally rewrote its charter to prioritize Communist Party loyalty. To be clear, this isn’t speculation; it’s documented policy. Harvard knows this, and Dr. Graber knows this, but the unhealthy relationship continues anyway. That decision is a middle finger to America. When a university willingly partners with institutions openly aligned with authoritarian governance, while resisting oversight from its own democratic government, it reveals a set of values completely out of step with national interests. Sadly, this is a pattern that extends far beyond Harvard. According to a recent report by Americans for Public Trust (APT), a nonpartisan watchdog group that investigates how money and influence shape public institutions, U.S. universities have quietly raked in over $60 billion in foreign gifts and contracts in just the past few years. That’s a lot of money. In fact, one could, and possibly should, call it a pipeline. Nearly $20 billion of that money went straight into the vaults of elite institutions like Yale, Stanford, MIT, and yes, Harvard. Even more troubling, close to $800 million came directly from countries openly hostile to the United States, including Russia, Venezuela, Qatar, and, of course, China. Some call this philanthropy. Other people, perhaps a bit more plugged into reality, would call it infiltration. It’s soft-power warfare in its purest form. These foreign “donations” don’t come for free; they come with numerous strings. The money pouring in, greenlit by authoritarian regimes, comes with influence, access, and leverage. Is it really any wonder, then, that so many elite universities now seem utterly out of sync with American values? They’re not being shaped by the country they serve. They’re being shaped by the powers that don’t. (RELATED: Is China Weaponizing Christianity to Divide America?) This is why Harvard’s betrayal matters most. If America is the shining city on a hill, Harvard was meant to be its citadel, the pinnacle of its intellectual promise. It was supposed to train the next generation of American leaders, not roll out the red carpet for adversaries seeking to harm the country from within. While Harvard parades itself as the gatekeeper of progress, it’s quietly mortgaging its soul to the highest bidder, even if that bidder wants to undercut American sovereignty and pilfer advanced research with potential military applications. The real threat isn’t that Harvard might lose funding. The real threat is that the American people keep pretending it still deserves it. This isn’t about punishing one school. It’s about ending a culture of entitlement, a toxic belief that some institutions are simply too historic, too well-connected, or too smug to be held accountable. They’re not. And they shouldn’t be. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: The Duchess of Duplicity: Meghan Markle’s Latest Hustle Jon Hamm and the Death of TV Masculinity Is Larry Fink High? BlackRock CEO Sells Bitcoin Fantasy The post The Fall of Harvard: How America’s Oldest University Became Its Most Expensive Liability appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The American alcohol industry could be one of the biggest losers of the trade war with Canada and Europe. It’s also hitting areas of the country that voted Republican in droves during the 2024 election. Whiskey has become big bucks in America. The industry contributed around $200 billion in economic activity in America, according to a 2022 study by Tourism Economics. But trouble not merely looms on the horizon; thanks to tariffs, it is already lurking behind vats, barrels, and in corporate accounting spreadsheets. (RELATED: Tariffs, Cars, and the Whiskey War) The first thing that troubles America’s alcohol makers about tariffs is this: Many distillers and brewers are already being hit with higher prices for ingredients, packaging, and more. (RELATED: The Whiskey World War) In Ohio, where the Trump–Vance ticket won by more than ten points, Garrett Hickey, the owner of Streetside Brewery, is already facing a 4.5 percent hike in pricing for aluminum cans. He says, “There is zero chance” his craft brewery is the only one facing increased packaging costs. Hickey does not want to pass the cost on to his customers, but says, “Very few businesses will simply eat this cost, and if they do, that will have a downward effect on wages, benefits, potential pay increases and so on.” The most frustrating part for Hickey is that Ohioans — and Americans — are still recovering from Biden-era inflation. “This is creating a lot of pain and stress,” he said. Also in Ohio, Matt Cole, brewmaster at Fat Head’s Brewery, is concerned about the 25 percent tariff on goods including imported steel and aluminum from Canada and Mexico. Cole says, “It’s going to cost the industry a substantial amount of money,” calling tariffs that could run on for months or years, “crippling.” Meanwhile, in red Texas, alcohol makers have said they’re prepared to see bottle and wine cask prices increase due to the potential tariffs. Those items are imported into the U.S. from places like Italy, Mexico, Canada, and China. Not to mention the botanicals, like Italian juniper, some distillers infuse into their product. “Many wine and spirits categories, such as Tequila and Bourbon, are designated as distinctive products that can only be produced in certain geographical regions around the world,” warned the Toasts not Tariffs Coalition, a group of 52 associations representing the U.S. alcohol industry and related industries. In blue Virginia, other problems have arisen. Bill Butcher, founder of Port City Brewing in Alexandria, Virginia, says that the aluminum tariffs that took effect on March 12 have caused a shift from cans to bottles, but the uptick in demand for bottles has left his brewery unable to source them. Butcher says, “Our bottle supplier is cutting us off at the end of the month.” Butcher also frets about the impact of tariffs on pricing for barley and malt. Butcher says the malt he acquires from Canada is of unparalleled high quality. He anticipates tariffs forcing the price of a pint of beer up, and driving customer demand down. “Are people still going to come here and pay $12 a pint instead of $8?” he asks. “Our business will slow down.” But even for brewers and distillers not already facing these challenges, uncertainty over tariff policy hangs like a sword of Damocles over their heads. Because administration policy can change daily or even hourly, it forces them to consider the worst-case scenario while hoping for the best. (RELATED: The ‘Most Bad’ Option: Trump’s Tariff Uncertainties) The worst case, predictably, has involved retaliatory actions from other countries targeted with tariffs. After the administration threatened tariffs on Canadian imports last month, Canada decided to pull American-made whiskey from store shelves. That move raised anxiety levels in Kentucky, where distilleries contributed $9 billion in economic and tourism activity according to the Kentucky Distillers’ Association (KDA). Trump won Kentucky by almost 31 percent in 2024. (RELATED: Tariffs, a Solution in Search of a Problem) “That is worse than a tariff itself, because you’re not even given a chance to compete,” said Eric Gregory, president of Kentucky Distillers’ Association, last month during a Bourbonomics event in Louisville. For Fawn Weaver, founder and CEO of Uncle Nearest Inc., the priority is protecting the company’s bottom line, no matter what. “That’s my responsibility, and I take it seriously,” she said in a statement. While Weaver clearly takes an “if you can’t control it, try not to worry about it too much” attitude, she noted in an interview that tariffs could impact how Uncle Nearest operates and “how we move, how we market, and potentially how we price.” Economists aren’t surprised that the alcohol industry is talking about price hikes. “Tariffs are a tax,” said Ryan Young, a senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “They make food, housing, cars, and clothing less affordable.” (RELATED: Taxes by Another Name) Young adds that American consumers responding to higher prices without pay hikes by doing the obvious thing — cutting costs — will ultimately cost American jobs. “All these little decisions might cost a job here and a job there in seemingly random industries,” declared Young. “Tariffs caused them, but good luck tracing it back to the source.” This is despite the fact that the administration claims the tariffs are about saving American jobs. The White House cited a Coalition for a Prosperous America commentary that claimed steel tariffs created over 4,000 jobs. But Young said that’s ignoring job losses in other industries that use steel. He said the auto, construction, and appliance-making industries lost 75,000 jobs from the tariffs. Back to spirits and beer, while some domestic alcohol makers have expressed optimism that people craving a drop of the good stuff will explore American-made products, it’s no guarantee. And even if they do, that is unlikely to save the administration from the political death sentence that is higher consumer prices. “It was voter concern about high prices that got Trump elected,” said Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative at National Taxpayers Union. “If Americans see tariffs drive up the cost of food and clothing or cause a big decline in the stock market, there will be no need to argue against the tariffs, because everyone will feel their impact.” The higher prices and market disruption already being borne by distillers and brewers — to say nothing of economists and policy experts’ warnings — should be a flashing red light for the administration. Tariffs could easily come back to bite Republicans in the midterms good intentions be damned. Taylor Millard is a writer in Alexandria, Virginia. His work has featured in the Spectator, Washington Examiner, Inside Sources, and other publications. READ MORE: Tariffs, Cars, and the Whiskey War The Whiskey World War The post Happy Hour May No Longer Be So Happy appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

This orange juice has the same acidity as a cheetah’s stomach while digesting another cheetah. I can’t start the day like this. The coffee burns. It burns a lot. The cup burns. Just touching it, I’ve lost the fingerprints on three fingers of my right hand. If someone decides to murder me now, the forensics team will have to identify me by my ID card. And after seeing that particular photo of my face, they’re just as likely to celebrate the murder instead of investigating it. Someone’s filled in the crossword in the bar’s newspaper. And they did it wrong. The capital of Sweden isn’t “stockings” but “Stockholm.” And in Spain, the highest authority isn’t “Daddy Yankee” but “King of Spain.” And they just won’t shut up. The ladies on the terrace won’t shut up. One says things like “tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.” The other replies, “tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.” A third joins in, saying, “By the way, tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.” The waiter brings their tea and pastries and chimes in, “Excuse me, ladies, the tea. Tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.” The whole terrace stands up and erupts in a chaotic chant: “tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.” Ah, the rich variety of globalized conversation. It could be even more tedious. At least they’re not talking about tariffs. The timid ray of sun piercing the trees brings me no solace. In the distance, the monotonous drill of traffic. The coffee’s still scalding. And there’s a cyclist arguing with a sports car driver at the light: “Big car, small brain!” My head’s going to explode if they keep yelling. The car guy shouts even louder at the cyclist: “Big brain, small car!” Any moment now, they’ll quote Nietzsche right before throwing punches. Nihilists don’t believe in anything anymore. A young woman, glued to TikTok, crosses the terrace in a trance and crashes into my table. I saw it coming when she aimed her damned torpedoes at the military base of my latte. “Watch where you’re going!” I should say, but she’s wearing neon headphones the size of a space shuttle. It’d be easier to hold a séance and yell at her ancestors than talk to her. Anyway, she’s already vanished down the boulevard. She’s limping slightly. I’m not happy about it, but I’m not wasting any tears either. Eight-oh-five. A bold, cheerful little bird sings from atop a streetlamp. They must’ve promised it a pension. As a writer, I feel more and more like a sparrow. Whistle, fly, and lay eggs. The street cleaners no longer sweep the sidewalks at night but at dawn. The city breeze loses its charm when there’s a guy blasting a pressure hose three feet away. He’s yelling at the guy with the other hose. They’re saying something like, “Tariffs, tariffs, sheriffs.” The sidewalk’s spotless. Can’t say the same for my suit. I should stuff it in a bag and send it to the mayor so she can foot the dry-cleaning bill. The coffee’s now too cold. The waiter won’t come to take my payment. He’s decided it’s more important to audit the bar’s last century of receipts than to look up and grab my bill fluttering on the counter. Orphaned and alone. I’ll be late for work. I don’t know who to blame. I can’t start the day like this, and I can feel Jordan Peterson breathing down my neck telling me to stop whining, quit looking for scapegoats, and make my damn bed. I light a cigarette. My last act of rebellion against postmodernism. I scan the end of the promenade. I look at the sky, and it’s pleasant. I close the newspaper. Today could be a great day. A crowd approaches from the opposite direction, blocking the avenue. They’re chanting slogans. They’re hurling insults through a megaphone with impeccable diction. They’re yelling way too much. I hate the right to protest with all my soul. I stop walking. They’re closing in, shrinking my space. I rummage through my jacket pockets for a paracetamol. My pounding headache might have something to do with last night’s rum-fueled happiness. The blister pack’s empty. The noisy crowd advances with their crude far-left slogans. I consider lifting a manhole cover with my teeth and getting to my office via the sewers. But rats squeal too. I rule it out. My watch tells me I’ll be late if I don’t start running now. I look ahead. I take a deep breath and, with determination, stay perfectly still. The waiter yells at me for leaving without paying. I shrug. The protesters set off firecrackers and bang pots. The shock gives the bird on the streetlamp a heart attack, and its lifeless body plummets into one of the ladies’ teacups. Outraged, she interrupts the discussion, abruptly changing the topic: “Tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.” Everyone nods. I loathe the dull, uncritical public discourse that dominates 2025. Eight-ten. I remain motionless, at breakneck speed. Today could be a good day. The sky’s pretty. I’ll walk into the meeting late but quoting some wild, sociopathic line from H.L. Mencken. Life is for those who take risks. READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: Looking Back to Where the Sky Silences Us When the Days of Love Begin Diary Entry for a Perfect Spring Day The post The Joy of Living: Starting the Day Wrong Is in Your Hands appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Ten Commandments Warning,” editorial cartoon by Yogi Love for The American Spectator on April 15, 2025. The post Ten Commandments Warning appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

What happened to America’s pioneering spirit? According to a new Pew Research report published this month, Silicon Valley tech experts are more confident than the general public that AI will benefit future Americans. Yet, the same report reveals that neither experts nor everyday citizens believe the government will go far enough in regulating the novel AI industry. When did the government become the industry referee? In fact, tech innovators have long professed this pro-regulation attitude towards AI. After OpenAI’s ChatGPT model went viral in 2022, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman went to Washington, D.C., and begged Congress to make his life significantly harder. Altman publicly pleaded for federal regulation to tame his own product and his own company. (RELATED: Is China Pulling Ahead on AI?) It’s puzzling that Sam Altman, by all measures a highly agentic Silicon Valley tech founder, thought himself incapable of controlling a device of his own design. But Altman is not unique. His instinct toward regulation reflects a fundamental shift in American life — we substituted swaggering American self-reliance for regulation. We’ve entered a new age where many Americans are more comfortable relying on a paternal federal government than relying on themselves. (RELATED: Removing Export Rules on AI Should Be a Priority for the Trump Administration) The American frontier has always excelled because of a uniquely American ideal of rugged individualism. These frontiers came in three distinct eras: the Founding Frontier, the Western Frontier, and the Technological Frontier. The Founding Frontier was tamed by persecuted religious groups who made dangerous passage to a completely new and deeply hostile world, with nothing but each other to rely on. As the East became too crowded, the Western Frontier emerged, once again, tamed by adventurers forced westward. Then came the Technological Frontier, fostered by Henry Ford through to Steve Jobs, inspiring the best and brightest to build things their own way. Somewhere in the past few decades, the most famous Technological Frontierists turned their back on the ideals that got them there in the first place. Mark Zuckerberg is our perfect case study. He was a “move fast and break things” debutant in Silicon Valley who saw his own technology topple totalitarian regimes in the Arab Spring. Less than a decade later, he bent the knee to Congress and described social media regulation as “inevitable.” Fast forward to today, and Sam Altman’s trip to Congress is dismaying, but not entirely surprising. What changed? In times of crisis, it’s only natural for people to look to an institution for help. For most of human existence, people turned to religion. Famines and droughts in Meso-America were answered by Pagan priests conducting human sacrifice to reclaim their god’s favor. The Black Death granted carte blanche to the Catholic Church, leading to ruthless persecution across the European Continent. (RELATED: Christianity, Inc.: The Rise of Silicon Valley’s False Prophets) It’s not just institutions that thrive in crisis, but strongmen. Napoleon, Julius Caesar, and Adolf Hitler all came to power during times of great domestic crisis. When FDR promised to wrestle America out of the Great Depression, he hijacked the human desire for strong institutions away from conventional religion, forging a new faith in the federal government. Faith in government turned to reliance on the federal government during the next major economic crisis in 2008, when the Bush and Obama administrations jointly blamed the free market instead of their own heavy-handed government intervention. By blaming the free market, then bailing out big banks, Americans became comfortable with the idea that gains should remain with private companies, but losses should be shared across the population in the form of bail out packages. Sam Altman encapsulates this idea perfectly. He shifted his own company from non-profit to for-profit, while also insisting that the federal government must act to prevent Open AI from developing too quickly. In other words, the gains stay with Altman, but the losses could be blamed on the broader American public for not pressuring our representatives in Congress to restrict AI development. Imagine if regulators had placed a speed restriction on Henry Ford’s Model T; such a move could have prevented significant technological advancements that improved society and helped us win a world war. AI is no different. The technology might not be good enough to approach the guardrails yet, but who knows what significant innovations might be prevented by overbearing regulation. If Altman is truly as scared of his technology as he appears, he has the power to set those limits himself. But by forfeiting that power to the government, he jeopardizes the potential of the whole enterprise. On the American frontier, sometimes things don’t work. Sometimes people fail, and sometimes people get hurt. We used to applaud failure and pain as an opportunity to grow, and that uniquely American perseverance pushed us to the moon and back. Now our Frontiersmen hide behind the government, abdicating responsibility for what they have created and giving up the chance to improve and grow. If we want to continue leading global innovation, we must hold ourselves and our innovators to higher standards of self-reliance, remembering that the American Frontiers were founded and settled away from the prying eyes of government, not right under its nose. Davis Van Inwegen is a contributor for Young Voices, a third-year law student at Wake Forest University School of Law, and an incoming litigation fellow at Pacific Legal Foundation. Follow him on X @bigdave1789. READ MORE: Andrew Breitbart, Mark Zuckerberg, and the Two-Way Politics-Culture Street Republicans Should Reject European-Style Tech Policy The post Self-Reliance: The Lost Trail of Silicon Valley appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.