There was a lot of seethe tonight but little to no cope, as MSNBC host Joy Reid and U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) commiserated over the defeat of fellow Squad member Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) in the Democratic Primary. And, as you’d reasonably expect, the first culprit of Bowman’s defeat is AIPAC. Which in the context of this primary and MSNBC’s coverage thereof, is clearly shorthand for “the Jews”. Watch as Reid opens the show with a lamentation for Bowman and the money that got dumped on his head: MSNBC THE REIDOUT 6/26/24 7:36 PM JOY REID: All week we have told you to keep an eye on the Democratic primary in New York's 16th Congressional District, which covers parts of Westchester County and the northeast Bronx. That is because the most expensive House primary, in not just this cycle but in U.S. history, was under way to unseat Squad congressman Jamaal Bowman, one of the fiercest critics of Israel in Congress. Those efforts were successful yesterday partly through the efforts of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, which not only $14 and a half million dollars to beat Bowman, but also recruited the winning candidate: moderate Westchester county Executive George Latimer. Bowman is not only the first incumbent Democrat to lose a primary this election cycle, but also the first member of the House’s progressive Squad to be ousted from power since the group formed after the 2018 elections. It was then that Reid brought on Rep. Pressley. It is then that Reid and Presslwy entered into the recitation of a varied assortment of calamities that contributed to Bowman’s defeat. First off, of course, was the money:  AYANNA PRESSLEY: I think this unprecedented sum of money, $20 million, we cannot allow special interests, dark money, super PACS, to buy congressional seats. It is a threat to our democracy. Reid then goes on to cite redistricting. Then the money again. Then Pressley pivots to Citizens United. Then racism. Of course, there had to be a mention of racism. And then back to the money. The dark money.  Realize where we are, and the full circle moment that this primary represents. I’m old enough to remember when General Wesley Clark was excoriated for suggesting that “New York money people” pushed for war with Iran. Everybody understood what “New York money people” meant and what that implied. And Clark was rightly raked for using what was perceived to be coded antisemitic language. The public discourse was different then. 2007 comes across as a quaint era nowadays. Fast forward to 2024 and you have people openly campaigning against AIPAC, which is code for “Jews”, and no one bats an eye. And this explains a lot of why Bowman lost, even if the cloistered MSNBC talent pool would rather not talk about that. What ultimately lost Bowman his seat is his strident antisemitism and his denial of Hamas’ use of rape as a weapon of war. That, and his boorish demeanor as a member of Congress. The truest thing he ever said was uttered during a House hallway argument with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) over gun legislation: “I was screaming before you even got here”. That, ultimately is what fueled the money that was spent against him. That, and the blatant antisemitism.  Good riddance.  

An excavation of a settlement from Late Antiquity in Irschen, southern Austria, has uncovered a rare carved ivory pyx (a small round container used to carry Communion wafers or holy relics) from the 6th century. There are only 40 examples of this type of pyx known to survive in the world, and this the first found in its original archaeological context in Austria. In the Roman Empire, this area was part of the province of Noricum, but with the decline of the Western Empire, constant raids from barbarian tribes drove people out of the urbanized centers to seek safety in more remote, defensible positions. What is now Irschen was founded as a small settlement on the top of the Burgbichl hill in the 5th century. The summit can only be accessed from the north side as all the other sides are too steep to climb, which provided a natural defense against raids. The accessible north side was protected by a massive wall 4.6 feet wide. The settlement was abandoned around 610 A.D. after the nearby Battle of Aguntum in which Slavic forces clash against the local Germain Baiuvarii peoples. The Slavs won and the region was closed off from its Roman-era contact with the Mediterranean and Christianity as the new settlers had their own gods and would not be converted for centuries. The memory of the settlement was lost, but there were topographical features that suggested the presence of a settlement on the summit. Archaeologists from the University of Innsbruck began excavating the hilltop in 2016 and soon found confirmation that it was indeed the site of a settlement from Late Antiquity. In the 2022 dig season, the team discovered a marble box measuring about 8 by 12 inches with a lid covering the top opening. It was unearthed under the altar in the side chapel of one of the two early Christian churches discovered on the hilltop. Inside the box were the fragmented remains of an ivory pyx intricately carved with Biblical figures. The scenes include the hand of god delivering the laws to Moses on Mount Sinai and a man on a biga (a two-horsed chariot) being pulled up to heaven by a hand that emerges from the clouds. Archaeologists believe this is a depiction of the ascension of Christ. If so, this is the first known depiction of Christ ascending on a biga. Since its discovery, the 1,500-year-old, very fragile ivory reliquary has been conserved at the University of Innsbruck. “Ivory, especially ivory stored on the ground like in the marble shrine, absorbs moisture from its surroundings and is very soft and easily damaged in this state. In addition, uncontrolled drying out can lead to shrinkage and cracks and thus to damage that can no longer be repaired,” says Ulrike Töchterle, head of the restoration workshop in Innsbruck. Over the past two years, she has now conserved the individual pieces of the ivory pyx to such an extent that they can be scientifically analysed. “Due to the very high humidity of 90 per cent in the marble shrine immediately after salvage, the risk of condensation and mould formation was very high, and the contents could not be allowed to dry out too quickly. This meant we had to ensure a very careful and prolonged drying process.” The larger parts are deformed, which is why the pyx can no longer be restored to its original state – however, the researchers are working on a 3D reconstruction. While the archaeologists initially assumed that the remains of a saint – i.e. a relic in the classic sense of the word – were also found in the marble box, the layering of the fragments found in the shrine indicates that the ivory pyx was already broken in late antiquity and was buried in the altar. “The pyx was presumably also seen as sacred and was treated as such because it was in contact with a relic. The archaeological and art-historical significance of the pyx cannot be denied,” emphasises Gerald Grabherr. Researchers are investigating the origin of the marble and of the ivory. Using stable isotope analysis, they should be able to discover where the elephant whose tusks were used came from. The metal hinges of the pyx and the adhesives used are also undergoing compositional analysis. Small fragments of wood inside the box are being examined to determine whether it was part of the pyx — a clasp, for example — of perhaps the holy relic it contained.  This documentary video (in German with English captions) is a detailed overview of the historical context of the settlement and its excavation, including the discovery of conservation of the pyx.

WASHINGTON — On Monday, CNN This Morning anchor Kasie Hunt kicked Trump National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt off the air after Leavitt criticized CNN stars Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, the moderators of Thursday night’s presidential debate. Afterward Hunt tweeted, “You come on my show, you respect my colleagues. Period. I don’t care what side of the aisle you stand on, as my track record clearly shows.” File that under: Can dish it out, but can’t take it. A few short years ago, the watch phrase among journalists was, “Let’s have a conversation.” Now it’s, “Shut up, man.” The episode presented unneeded evidence that big media have tilted so far to the left that anchors can’t even see that there’s another angle. I’m old-school. I believe the answer to speech with which I disagree — and I frequently disagree with former President Donald Trump’s statements — is more speech. Don’t muzzle. Talk back. Sadly, with Trump running for the White House again, network biggies see it as their job not to report — but to purge. And, by the way, as News Nation’s Dan Abrams showed with a montage of Tapper likening Trump to Hitler and otherwise slamming Trump, Leavitt had a point. It’s pretty clear that the most biased journalists are blind to their own agendas. On CBS Sunday, Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan interviewed former CIA Deputy Director, now CBS News senior national security contributor, Mike Morell about a piece he co-authored for Foreign Affairs, “The Terrorism Warning Lights Are Blinking Red Again — Echoes of the Run-Up to 9/11.” Problem: In October 2020, Morell was one of 51 members of the Intelligence Community who signed a letter that warned a New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” It turned out, the New York Post story was accurate and the “intelligence” community got it wrong. Morell’s point on Sunday is that Washington lacks a sense of “urgency” as recent events augur a terrorist attack. Sadly, after signing the laptop letter, Morell’s credibility is impaired. He’s the wrong messenger. Mark Corallo, who worked in the Department of Justice under then President George W. Bush, said of Morell, and other signers, “They are professional, highly trained liars. They are also Democrat party apparatchiks. They will stop at nothing to retain power.” As for Face the Nation’s decision to give Morell a pliant platform, Corallo told me, “What I used to believe was the last line of defense in this free republic has failed us — that would be the free press.” Anything goes with Big News, Corallo suspects, if the stunt damages Trump. Corallo has no doubt that the signers knew at the time that the letter was bogus, because the missive included a caveat — the 51 signers offered that they didn’t know for sure that the laptop emails were Russian mischief — but felt emboldened because “such an operation would be consistent with Russian objectives.” That’s how weasels talk. “They haven’t even dropped one rung on the status ladder,” a former member of the intelligence community groused to me. The fact that Morell is on network TV, when other former intelligence colleagues who didn’t make false claims about the laptop story don’t get a prestige perch or payday, she asked, “What does that teach everyone else?” To my source, Morell’s network gig at CBS looks like a “self-licking ice cream cone.” Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Two Big Media Mistakes This Week Already appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — President Joe Biden announced this week that 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act has successfully lowered the cost of 64 drugs for seniors who are enrolled in Medicare. His administration is chalking it up as a major victory as the president heads into Thursday’s debate with a campaign that’s focused on bread-and-butter economic and cost-of-living issues.  Americans are frustrated by high prescription drug costs, so this could provide him with a political win. However, the complexities of drug prices are such that few voters likely have a clue about that reform and its impact on prescription prices. The law allows “Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain high cost drugs, as well as capping how much people with Medicare Part D spend on prescription drugs per year,” per a report in the Hill. Pharmaceutical companies have pursued legal action challenging its provisions that allow Medicare to negotiate with them for price reductions. If the companies don’t give in to the lower prices, they must not only exit this government-subsidized market, but also pay an excise tax on the drugs they sell elsewhere. Politico succinctly summarized the dilemma in an analysis last year: The pharmaceutical industry thinks that this scheme is a charade. Facing a ruinous excise tax, drug companies say that they have no choice but to “negotiate” with CMS. Likewise, they’ll have to accept a cut-rate price because no company can possibly afford to withdraw from Medicare and Medicaid, which together account for 45 percent of the nation’s annual spending on prescription drugs. This isn’t a true negotiation; instead, as pharmaceutical company Merck argues, it’s “tantamount to extortion.” Whatever the legal merits of the argument — or the political calculations involved in the legislation — this fracas highlights the difficulties in providing competitive pressures in a marketplace that is dominated by the government. Price controls quash innovation, as companies reduce their investments in life-saving drugs if they aren’t able to get a sufficient return. However, taxpayers pay these subsidies, and it would be wrong, as a Reason Foundation researcher notes, to “allow private companies to extract as much money as they can from taxpayers.” There’s no easy free-market solution to this conundrum, but politicians interested in actually reducing drug costs without stifling research and development could — if they were more interested in useful policy than campaign talking points — pick the low-hanging fruit. One of the lowest branches involves the decidedly non-sexy and complex topic of patent reform. Simply put, the misuse of patents — monopoly rights the government grants to inventors — reduces innovation in this field (and others) and ultimately drives up the cost of medicine. The first problem of the patent system, argues Forbes’ Avik Roy, is that the government officials who grant them must rely on subjective criteria: “In no other sector of the economy is the possession of property so dependent upon the subjective judgment of unelected officials. Because prescription drugs are so expensive, the decision to issue patents for trivial modifications of a major prescription drug can lead to $114 billion in revenue for the manufacturer of that drug, directly at the expense of patients and taxpayers.” So while a 20-year monopoly might be justified for a significant drug development, it’s less so to grant it to “those that make minor tweaks to a manufacturing process, or attempt to patent the use of a drug for a disease closely related to the original one.” Fair points. My R Street Institute colleague, technology and innovation director Wayne Brough, reports that pharmaceutical companies are adept at gaming the system by employing “complex patent strategies … to keep competitors and low-cost generics out of the market for as long as possible to maximize the profits of blockbuster drugs.” In just one example involving the cancer drug Revlimid, he notes that the company “filed for an additional 206 patents on the drug — 117 of which were approved,” resulting in the drug’s price increasing “from $6,000 per month in 2002 to $24,000 per month in 2022, resulting in a total estimated cost of $45 billion for Americans.” Adjusted for inflation, that’s still a boost of 4.5 times the original cost. Obviously, companies need the financial incentive to invest in the development of such ground-breaking pharmaceuticals, but not by abusing patent thickets. Then there’s the problem with patent trolls. Investopedia says a “troll files patent claims without any intention of ever developing a product or service. The end result is bad faith infringement threats and licensing demands that require companies to spend a significant amount of money to settle these claims without any addition to the public good.” Unfortunately, current proposals would make the problem far worse by expanding patent eligibility, overturning court cases that narrowed patents and reducing competition by enabling companies to patent extremely broad and ill-defined concepts. The legislation doesn’t target the main problems: trolling, patent thickets (a web of multiple patents protecting a single product), “evergreening” (filing patents over minor changes to, say, the color or packaging of the drug), and “product hopping” (new patents for reformulations of old drugs). Granted, these are complex issues that resist easy solutions, but addressing them could do far more to limit drug-price inflation — and create fewer disincentives to innovation — than the current easy-button approach of price controls and government mandates. Then again, I can’t imagine any politician building a successful campaign around such reforms, which offers the most obvious explanation about why such ideas rarely move forward. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. The post Stop Playing Politics with Drug Pricing appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On June 20, the FBI raided the home of Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, carting away boxes of material. The purpose of the raid wasn’t clear, but it may have had something to do with Oakland’s recycler, California Waste Solutions, whose offices were also searched, along with the homes of CWS owners David and Andy Duong. On June 24, Mayor Thao proclaimed her innocence and blamed the raid on “right-wing forces.” In a city home to the Black Panther Museum, and with UC Berkeley close at hand, that claim had locals wondering whom Oakland’s Democrat mayor had in mind. The raid on the mayor’s home wasn’t the FBI’s first Bay Area bust, and the state has been a target-rich environment for decades. For example, in 2020, the FBI arrested San Francisco Department of Public Works boss Mohammed Nuru for public corruption and a long-running scheme involving multiple bribes and kickbacks. Many locals thought the arrest came years too late. Nuru got his start working for the mayoral campaign of Willie Brown, who hired Nuru as DPW boss. When excrement began piling up on city streets, Nuru spent $400,000 on a study claiming that San Francisco was virtually spotless. Conditions got worse under district attorney Chesa Boudin, who refused to prosecute public defecation. Nuru pleaded guilty to charges of defrauding the public of its right to his honest services, and in 2022 drew a sentence of seven years in prison. “Today’s sentence sends a clear message that public officials who abuse their power for personal gain will be punished,” said FBI special agent Sean Ragan. “Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers who perpetuate fraudulent schemes and the corrupt who launder and hide their illicit wealth.” Something similar was going on in the state capitol of Sacramento. In 2013, the FBI raided the offices of state Sen. Ron Calderon, Montebello Democrat, and the Latino Legislative Caucus. Calderon was found guilty on bribery charges and in 2016 sentenced to 42 months in federal prison. His brother Thomas Calderon drew 10 months for laundering bribe money through his company. “Former Senator Calderon repeatedly violated the trust of the voters by taking nearly $160,000 in bribes in exchange for abusing his position as an elected official,” said United States Attorney Eileen M. Decker. “The Calderons are now being punished for their roles in a bribery scheme that involved multiple forms of payments, as well as the attempted concealment of the scheme through money laundering and lies made to residents of his district. Politicians who violate their oaths by selling their offices will be discovered and will be prosecuted.” The Calderons should have seen it coming. Back in 1988, the FBI set up a fake shrimp company that offered bribes to lawmakers in return for support on legislation. One bill even made it to the desk of Gov. George Deukmejian, who vetoed the measure. The operation took down Sen. Joseph Montoya, Whittier Democrat, and Assembly Republican Leader Pat Nolan, who served two years in prison. The FBI also targeted Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and Assemblymember Gwen Moore, but the two Democrats never faced criminal charges. At this writing, the “right-wing forces” allegedly arrayed against Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao have not come to light, and the FBI has yet to announce charges. “I have done nothing wrong. I can tell you with confidence that this investigation is not about me,” the mayor claims. “I have not been charged with a crime, and I am confident that I will not be charged with a crime because I am innocent.” Time will tell. Meanwhile, the mayor faces a recall in November, and her city has recently come under fire on a different front. According to a recent WalletHub study, San Francisco is the worst-run city in the United States, followed closely by Oakland and Gulfport, Mississippi. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. The post FBI Raids Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

During and after this week’s presidential debate, we must look beyond rhetoric and personality to the core issues shaping America’s future. The most pressing is the unsustainable growth of government spending and ballooning national debt, which promises to rob Americans of wealth and living standards in the coming decades. Make no mistake, it’s a genuine crisis demanding immediate attention. Dealing with it responsibly should be the litmus test for presidential leadership. A recent Congressional Budget Office report paints a dire picture. Projected deficits have climbed alarmingly high, far exceeding previous estimates. The federal budget deficit is now projected to reach $1.9 trillion in 2024, about equal to a staggering 6.7 percent of annual GDP. More troubling still is the exponential growth in government spending compared to projections from just four years ago. Back in 2020, the CBO projected that federal outlays would reach $7.5 trillion by 2030. The latest report puts that number at $8.5 trillion — an additional $1 trillion in just four years. The projected deficit for 2030 also increased by roughly 25 percent, or $450 billion, in those four years. Meanwhile, projected debt accumulation grew by 20 percent. In 2020, the CBO projected that the federal debt held by the public would by 2030 reach $31.4 trillion. The latest report now puts that at $37.9 trillion. It will, however, grow another $10 trillion by 2034, to $47.8 trillion! Contrary to what you may have heard, this rapid expansion of government is more than a response to recent crises, though some of it does reflect the oversized response to COVID-19. More importantly, the expansion results from a fundamental shift in the size and scope of federal activities. Fiscal recklessness threatens the very foundations of our economic prosperity. As government expands, it crowds out private investment, stifles innovation, and places an ever-growing burden on future generations. The rising costs of debt service alone — projected to reach $1.7 trillion annually by 2034 — will consume an ever-larger share of our national resources, leaving less for critical investments in infrastructure, education and research. The costs of these interest payments, in turn, will be paid for by more borrowing. That will fuel inflation and make the Fed’s job harder. These are a few reasons why growing debt increases our vulnerability to economic shocks and geopolitical crises. It reduces our fiscal flexibility to respond to future recessions or national emergencies and potentially undermines the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. The candidate who truly grasps the gravity of this situation and proposes concrete, realistic steps to address it will demonstrate the leadership our nation now desperately needs. A serious president must commit to talking about this issue by examining every federal program and agency, eliminating redundancies and devolving appropriate responsibilities to state and local levels. More importantly, we need a thorough review of entitlement programs. Recent numbers from the Manhattan Institute’s Brian Riedl show things are on track to get much worse over the next 30 years, with accumulated deficits of $115 trillion, including Social Security and Medicare deficits of $124 trillion (the rest of the budget will produce a surplus of $9 trillion). Basically, Social Security and Medicare are the problem, and no candidate should be taken seriously if he continues to claim his administration won’t touch the programs, like both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have done. For long-term economic stability, we must have a credible plan to gradually reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio. This should include setting specific targets for deficit reduction over the next decade, implementing automatic spending reforms if fiscal targets are not met, and reforming the budget-making process. While not directly a fiscal measure, reducing the regulatory burden on businesses can spur economic growth and indirectly improve our fiscal position by increasing tax revenues without raising tax rates. As voters, we must demand that both candidates address these issues head-on during the campaign season. Vague promises and populist rhetoric are insufficient. We need detailed, actionable plans to put America on a sustainable fiscal path. The candidate who rises to this challenge — who has the courage to speak honestly about the tough choices ahead and the vision to chart a course toward fiscal sanity — will prove himself worthy of leading our nation. In these turbulent times, only by reining in the leviathan of government can we secure prosperity and liberty for future generations. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Let’s judge the candidates not by their charisma or their attacks on each other but by their commitment to doing what must be done. The future of our republic depends on it. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post True Test of Leadership: Fiscal Responsibility in the Presidential Debate appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Face to Face Against Trump, Will Biden Dare Repeat the Charlottesville Big Lie?

Fake Conservatives and Status Quo Parties Are Failing in Britain and Around the Globe

‘Trump Could Ruin The Economy’ and Other Liberal Lies

Should I Stay or Should I Go?