Aaron Ludwig 🇺🇸

Counterracketeering Expert; Partner @Counxel; Criminal Law Professor @ASU; former Chief Prosecutor @ArizonaAG; former trial judge (pro tem)

[Hany Girgis @SanDiegoKnight]

🚨 NOW WE KNOW WHO STOPPED APPLYING FOR H-1Bs WHEN THEY GOT EXPENSIVE.

The employer-by-employer numbers are stunning.

After the $100,000 H-1B fee:

Infosys: 8,886 -> 759 (-91%)
TCS: 5,955 -> 284 (-95%)
HCL: 3,855 -> 387 (-90%)
IBM: 2,855 -> 126 (-96%)
Accenture: 1,324 -> 79 (-94%)
Tech Mahindra: 1,027 -> 43 (-96%)
Wipro: 985 -> 112 (-89%)

And then there’s Cognizant.

Cognizant had 3,752 registrations last year, but no FY2027 figure appears for it in the published table.

That’s notable because 93% of Cognizant’s initial H-1B petitions were consular, meaning the prospective workers were coming from outside the United States.

USCIS itself says companies with consular-heavy pipelines, specifically naming Infosys, TCS, Cognizant and HCL, saw registrations fall by the thousands.

These aren’t small declines.

Several are roughly 90% to 96%.

And many of the biggest drops occurred at companies where the overwhelming majority of initial H-1B petitions involved workers coming from overseas.

Yet the H-1B cap still filled.

So here’s the question I’ve been asking:

If these workers were truly impossible to find in America, why did demand from some of the largest H-1B employers collapse the moment importing them became dramatically more expensive?

https://t.co/Mun9tRhKTA

[Sean Davis @seanmdav]

Not really. Those of us who grew up before 9/11 remember what our country was like before our government responded to it by launching two of the dumbest wars in our history and then using the results of those wars to flood the West with the very kind of demonic inbred retards behind 9/11.

You can’t understand the rage we feel because you have no concept of what we lost as a people. It wasn’t just the violence of that day, which was horrific in itself. It wasn’t just watching people hurl themselves off of buildings on live television just to avoid being burned alive. It wasn’t just hearing the phone calls and voicemails from people who knew they would be dead within minutes. That would be more than enough to scar a generation.

But on top of that, we had to watch the best of us then get sent off to be blown up in wars our government had zero interest in winning. All while watching our country be flooded with people who were no different than the hijackers, and then being told we were racist for having a problem with that.

We grew up at the peak of peace and prosperity and cultural cohesion in the greatest country on earth. And we saw all of it thrown away after 9/11 because the people in charge of our country thought never-ending wars, infinity immigration, and surveillance of its own people was better than being called mean by people who already wanted us dead.

[Barnaby Breaks History 🇺🇸 @BarnabyHistory]

🇺🇸 The Boatlift That Was Bigger Than Dunkirk

At 10:45 a.m. on September 11, 2001, a Coast Guard lieutenant named Mike Day keyed a radio in New York Harbor and said the only sentence that mattered.

“All available boats. This is the United States Coast Guard. Anyone wanting to help with the evacuation of Lower Manhattan, report to Governors Island.”

The boats were already coming.

The bridges were closed. The tunnels were closed. The subways were dead. South of the towers, hundreds of thousands of people had nowhere left to walk. Some jumped into the Hudson. Some stood on seawalls that were never meant to be docks and waited for anything that floated.

Dunkirk took nine days to pull 338,226 Allied soldiers off a beach in 1940.

On 9/11, roughly 800 mariners on about 150 vessels moved as many as 500,000 civilians off Manhattan in about nine hours. Ferries. Tugs. Dinner boats. Pilot boats. Yachts. A retired fireboat. Rubber dinghies that held two people. The largest water evacuation in history.

NY Waterway did not wait for the official call. After the second plane hit, the whole fleet moved. Captain Rick Thornton nosed his ferry against a seawall that was not a slip and started taking people off. Some of them he pulled out of the river. His company alone carried about 158,000 people to Jersey City, Hoboken, Weehawken, Brooklyn, and Queens.

On a normal Tuesday they carried 34,000.

The Staten Island Ferry moved more than 50,000 people and came back the other way with water, bandages, and men who still had work to do in the dust.

The old fireboat John J. Harvey, already retired, tied up near the Museum of Jewish Heritage, took civilians off the seawall, then pumped water when the hydrants downtown died.

Lt. Day later admitted what the day required. “I broke more rules that day than probably I’ve enforced in my whole Coast Guard career.”

In raw numbers it was bigger than Dunkirk. No boat went down. By nightfall the southern tip of Manhattan had been emptied by people who were not on anyone’s list of heroes when the morning started.

They were tug captains. Ferry deckhands. Pilots. A lieutenant with a microphone. Ordinary boats answering one sentence.

All available boats.

[JOSH DUNLAP @JDunlap1974]

THIS IS WHY I'M WITH TRUMP TILL THE END.

THE PEOPLE'S PRESIDENT.

[Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋 @SharylAttkisson]

As I reported for CBS News in October 2009, the CDC quit testing for swine flu (H1N1) at a time when it was claiming an epidemic but knew (through initial state lab tests) that the vast majority of the "cases" weren't actually swine flu.

In fact, they weren't flu at all. See my attached chart.

In ordering a halt to tests, CDC instructed health officials to 'presume' any respiratory case was swine flu.

This artificially and vastly inflated the number of cases.

This kept the momentum to develop the emergency swine flu vaccine on a fast track-- that wasn't needed.

It's almost as if it were a run through for a Covid scenario.

I was tipped to all of this by insiders.

I had to FOI all 50 state's data to prove it when CDC refused to provide it to me on a timely basis.

Only after I broke this swine flu news did other media and "studies" acknowledge the lack of swine flu after all the hype.

Links in thread.

[L. David Fairchild @David_Fairchild]

This is very personal for me to share.

My biological mother was a stripper working at a club in downtown Seattle. My biological father was one of her clients. She became pregnant with me while struggling with addiction and used drugs throughout her pregnancy. When I was born, I was immediately taken to the ICU to detox and was eventually placed for adoption.

By God’s grace, I was adopted by two wonderful parents who loved me deeply. I was four months old when they picked me up from the orphanage, and they are the only parents I’ve ever known. I never grew up feeling like something was missing. I never felt some deep longing to find my biological parents. I had a mom and dad who loved me, cared for me, sacrificed for me, and gave me a wonderful home.

Years later, after I got married and we had our first child, my wife encouraged me to learn more about my biological history. If for no other reason, she thought it might be good for the sake of our daughter to know whether there was anything medically or genetically significant in my family history.

So I eventually submitted my DNA to Ancestry. Through that, I discovered a half brother, aunts, cousins, and eventually was put in contact with my biological mother.

We were able to meet.

And when I met her, I got to tell her something I’d wanted to tell her for as long as I could remember: thank you.

Thank you for giving me life.

I got to tell her about the wonderful parents who adopted me. I got to tell her that I’d had a good life. I got to tell her about my wife and my children. I wanted her to know that the baby she carried in the middle of all that chaos became a man with a family, a calling, people he loves, people who love him, and a life for which he is profoundly grateful.

I’ve never been angry with her. Never. Not once.

For years I told my wife and children that if my biological mother ever found me, I knew exactly what I would say. I wouldn’t condemn her. I wouldn’t demand explanations. I’d simply thank her for allowing me to live.

Because without that decision, I wouldn’t have the extraordinary wife I have today. I wouldn’t know the indescribable joy of my children. I wouldn’t have experienced the friendships, ministry, laughter, sorrow, beauty, failures, victories, and ordinary moments that have made up my life. There are people I love who wouldn’t know me, children who wouldn’t exist, and a story that never would’ve been written.

She gave me the chance to live it.

We still stay in contact. We speak every few months, and I genuinely enjoy hearing her stories and learning about her life. Since the day I met her, I’ve prayed that the Lord would bring her to Himself. I still pray that.

I share all of this because lately I’ve been thinking a great deal about the choices parents make. About life and death. About how much hangs in the balance of decisions made in moments of fear, desperation, darkness, or confusion.

And yes, I’ve been thinking about those three little children whose lives were taken by the very person entrusted with protecting them. It’s difficult for me not to think about my own story alongside theirs. Their lives mattered. Their futures mattered. Everything they might’ve become, everyone they might’ve loved, every ordinary Tuesday morning and Christmas morning and wedding and child and friendship that might’ve filled the decades ahead of them mattered.

And it makes me profoundly grateful that my mother chose differently.

So if there’s a mother or father reading this who’s in a dark place and wondering whether your presence matters, whether your decisions matter, or whether the people who depend on you would somehow be better off without you, please hear me: your choices matter more than you can see from where you’re standing.

Choose life.

Don’t make an irreversible decision in the middle of a season that will pass. Don’t allow a moment of darkness to make a permanent decision about a future you can’t yet see.

Trust the Lord. Ask for help.

[Iran International English @IranIntl_En]

Video obtained by Iran International, filmed aboard a nearby vessel, captures the US military's radio warnings to the Iranian oil tanker STARK 1 before it was struck near Kharg Island.
Three warnings are audible over the VHF channel. In the first, a US military aircraft tells the tanker: "Motor Tanker STARK 1, this is the United States military aircraft. I am preparing to fire at your stern. You have 3 minutes to clear the crew from the stern of your ship. Over."
The second cuts that to one minute. The third is final: "This was your final warning... get into your lifeboats and abandon the ship immediately."
Between the warnings, crew members can be heard talking in Persian and Urdu. One asks whether the captain and his deputy are at their posts. He is told the captain is still asleep.
Iranian media reported on Saturday morning that a tanker had been hit by US forces six miles off Kharg Island, without naming the vessel. STARK 1 was carrying Iranian oil and was first sanctioned by Washington in 2018.

[Ryan Dawson @RyLiberty]

Masculinity

[Old Salty Marine @BamaSaltyMarine]

My 15yr old granddaughter still hasn't emptied the dishwasher.

I asked her to do it four hours ago.

Now she's freaking out because she can't find her phone...

Which is on silent in the dishwasher.

Follow me for more amazing parenting tips….

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

A word about Lindsay Clancy's supporters, the Left, and the infernal Left-Right dynamic, which will never repair.

The Right will never message effectively, except to other people on the Right, about Lindsay Clancy and her supporters. Thus, the divide and enmity will only deepen.

I don't say this to blame the Right. It is certainly the Left who are in the wrong on this point, but the Left aren't just in the wrong; they're lost in the wrong. They have no hope of seeing it any other way, and I mean that. Only someone outside the Left has any hope of talking about the issue in a way that breaks through. That responsibility mostly falls to the Right, but the Right is only interested in talking to itself about the issue and morally preening for each other.

I've covered this about a thousand times over the last four years, so I don't really expect this to land either, but I feel like someone should say it. The punchline is that as long as the Right keeps talking to itself and morally preening for each other over these kinds of moral issues, this problem will keep getting worse.

The short version of a politer way to get to the point is to say that the Right doesn't understand the Left, so it cannot talk to or about the Left without the Left using it as justification to become worse, and the Right refuses to understand the Left. I don't mean they can't. I mean they won't. They simply refuse. They're too busy preening for each other by moralizing the Left instead. (And, yes, this is part of why I'm going back to using the third person plural (them), where I had been brought toward the first person plural (us), for talking about the Right.)

I'll try to do this in new words since the old words didn't get anywhere no matter how many times I said them. I don't think these will either, but I've got to try.

The Left's primary driver gets discussed a lot. People say envy, and there's no doubt about that being there. They say hatred, and that's prominently there too. They suggest pride, and that's part of the mix. None of these is actually foundational to the way the Left encounters the world, even if they're emotionally primary.

1. The Left sees the world in terms of being trapped in a world not of their choosing and not to their liking.

The envy flows directly from this feeling of being trapped in an unjust world. The world works for some people, just not people like them. Maybe it isn't them personally, but someone they can identify with.

The hatred flows directly from this same feeling, but with an extra piece. They hate the world not for being the way it is but for being kept the way it is. They hate the people who keep the world the way it is. Conservatives and "the Right" are usually tasked with exactly this, so the Left hates the Right.

The pride is connected to this same idea, again with a twist. The Left thinks it is above the world the way it is, and above the people who keep the world the way it is. So, they think they know better and are better. A lot follows from this pride that we would all recognize immediately.

But now we see an opening to the second point.

2. The Left sees the world not as necessarily bad but kept as bad by people who they believe benefit from the world being kept bad.

This means that the Left believes a better world is possible. A better world is a world where they don't feel trapped by a world they don't like, that doesn't suit "people like them" or with whom they identify. It isn't the world itself but people in the world who make the world the way it is. The Left hates those people and the system and society they maintain for themselves.

That is, the Left believes it is trapped by an all-pervasive system that keeps them trapped. The system has economic dimensions, political dimensions, social dimensions, and moral dimensions, all of which it believes are socially constructed and therefore mutable.

The world could be different, they think (often wrongly), but people who benefit from the existing status quo don't want it to be and won't let it. Thus, they suffer, or they see people with whom they identify suffering (in which case they suffer too, "empathy").

With regard to Lindsay Clancy supporters (and rather horrifying super pro-life advocacy), the Left primarily feels trapped in a moral system they believe is wrong and that is arbitrarily upheld by people who don't understand or care how it makes people like them, or those with whom they identify, suffer.

This is why the Right consistently talks about both of these issues incorrectly, effectively morally preening for each other on the issues while failing to make any headway with the Left and driving them to further extremes in (pathological, yes) reactance. The Right moralizes these issues, which is exactly what the Left feels like the trap is constructed out of. Thus, they feel more trapped, and act more like a rabid racoon in a trap.

I insist again in my well-earned pessimism: the Right will not do otherwise. In fact, it will refuse to do otherwise because doing otherwise would be a moral sin in its own moral game. It will refuse on principle to have a different conversation or even to dare to think differently or about the perspective the people they mostly rightly oppose might hold. This is going nowhere, but at least we can understand it, I guess.

3. The Left hates the system that traps them and the people who maintain it or benefit from it.

I know I already technically said this, but it's really important to drive home. Because the Left feels trapped by the system, whether crazy or not for that, they hate the system. They also hate the people who maintain the system. They will do anything against those people, including pushing even harder in the opposite direction of the system and its supporters and thinking it's good to do so.

Until you understand that the Left's entire worldview is constructed on a foundation of feeling like they are trapped in a world they do not like, which is arbitrarily established to the benefit of others who refuse to understand why they feel trapped and to change things so they feel less trapped, you don't understand the Left. (The high-minded here will recognize that they're in the mold of Rousseau, ultimately, thus Leftists.)

4. Moralizing makes it worse, not better, because the "trapped" feeling is made out of being moralized to.

When the Right moralizes about issues like abortion or the support they're giving Lindsay Clancy and the self-recognition they see of themselves in her (mostly in personal terror, by the way), they feel more trapped. They understand that the Right, who doesn't get it already, refuses to try to get it, doesn't want to get it, and wants to impose the exact problem they perceive upon them even harder.

I'm not saying they're right here. They aren't. I think they're insane, in fact, but their insanity is comprehensible and thus potentially curable.

What they see in the Lindsay Clancy situation (or abortion) is the possibility that something like that might come up in their lives and massively derail everything for them. They're terrified of it because they already feel the real stresses of life, particularly in these cases with regard to female fertility and the responsibilities and pressures of motherhood/parenthood. (I'm not saying this is a healthy way to look at it, again; I'm saying they are stuck seeing it this way.)

Therefore, they're terrified that, there, but for the grace of God go they, wherein horrors compound over their lives and ruin literally everything they care about (which isn't always just themselves), and they see and hear the Right saying, "You're God-damned right, you stupid, evil bitch." Say it as nicely as you want, guys. I'm telling you; that's what they hear.

They are telling you, badly, what they feel and what they think. They're telling you they're under pressures which are quite normal but that they don't feel equipped to handle. They feel, perhaps wrongly, though sometimes with strong points, that "the system" out there isn't adequate to catching them if they fall and might even be making the risks worse, perhaps for deeply cynical (and evil) reasons. They're telling you they know they're on the edge and don't have help.

You're telling them you don't care. You're telling them to get it together like you have it together. You're telling them their concerns are all crap and that their fears are expressions of evil and selfishness. You're increasing their (yes, pathological) feeling of being trapped.

They, in response, lash out, act out, exaggerate, scream, and do positively antisocial things in the opposite direction.

5. Psychological reactance is real, even if it's sometimes stupid.

Their reaction is based in a psychological phenomenon called "reactance." Reactance occurs when someone believes they are losing something they already have, particularly a right or a freedom they have and/or feel entitled to.

Leftists do not believe they are entitled to murder their own children, not even in abortion, except in extremely pathological and rare cases (which always make headlines).

Leftists believe they have a right to set the course for their own lives (not to create their own lives) and for that life to be generally good, comfortable, and happy.

They are mostly right and partly wrong about this, of course. They do have a right to set the course for their own lives, mostly. This is what Jefferson famously called the unalienable right of the "pursuit of happiness."

There are contingencies and realities, though, like female fertility and the demands of motherhood/parenthood. That is, there are responsibilities that shape that course. I'm not saying the Left is seeing this issue correctly. I don't think they are, in fact. I think they feel trapped by responsibilities are simply facts of life, not all of which are perfectly "equitable" in every way (e.g., fatherhood and motherhood are different in many ways, not identical, not "equitable").

Further, no one actually has a right to have a good, comfortable, happy life. That's an aspiration, a hope. A lot of people (including most of the young politically active conservatives who are swinging Woke Right for the same reason) get this confused. They think they have a "human right" to a good life, a comfortable life, an affordable life, a happy life, free this, free that, blah, blah, blah. They don't. They have the right to pursue those things mostly unhindered by state interference or the interference of powerful others.

While the Left gets this issue wrong in very important ways, this is where their pathological feeling of being trapped has a real foundation: the moralizing Right arguably does impinge upon their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness by telling them they have to live their lives in certain ways.

Now, the Right will surely jump on this and morally preen to each other over it because we're literally talking about filicide, killing one's own children. No one actually has a right to filicide, but the Left is so psychotic about it that they're asserting it. That is, this conversation has already gone way off the rails. Preen all you want. You're right, but you've lost the point in seizing the opportunity to lick your own moral feathers.

The psychological underpinning is the same, though. The Left, both when right and wrong about the details, perceives the unjust restriction of an inalienable right, so they are reacting with reactance.

People experiencing reactance will go to extremes to reassert their perceived right (right or wrong about them). They will, for example, assert that they don't just have the right but a more expansive version of the right than they really do. They will act crazy, even physically violent, personally destructively, or incredibly performatively (for clicks?) to reassert this expansion of their perceived right when acting in reactance.

The Right will morally preen for one another at this point and accuse them of being evil and desiring to do evil things, moralizing them further. I'd say it's performative, but honest to God I think they can't not. I think it's part of the psychological constitution of being on the Right to do this, just as much as I think it's part of the psychological constitution on the Left to do the other thing. Either way, it increases the feeling of being trapped, losing "rights," and reactance.

The way we "got here" is many cycles of this playing out over and over and over again between social conservatives on the Right and radical feminists on the Left. My personal belief is that the Right was probably too restrictive in some ways, but the feminist Left's toxic "trapped by reality" worldview was the driver of the problem. In any case, more or less since the 1950s, this cycle has been ratcheting up to where you see what you see with regard to women supporting Lindsay Clancy.

6. Can anything be done about it?

No.

Nothing can be done about this. The Left sees the world this way so deeply now that it's horrifying and batshit insane. The Right cannot help itself, and honestly has very few other options, but to morally preen for each other and moralize at the Left, increasing the problem.

The Right also firmly refuses to understand that the driver of the whole problem is that the Left feels trapped, sometimes in real ways and mostly in now deeply pathological ways. They would feel complicit in immorality to even admit the Left has a perspective that can be described in any terms other than rank evil. (Again, I don't think the Left's perspective is right or even valid, but it what it is and has some valid underpinnings that in theory could be approached and addressed in better ways.)

The Left will believe moralizing reinforces the trap they perceive to be their lives, and the Right will moralize about their reactions to feeling trapped. That's the cycle. That's the dynamic. Welcome to hell. Isn't the dialectic fun?

7. To repeat, the driver of this entire situation is that the Left feels trapped, unjustly by human-constructed systems, in a world that they hate and fear, which they did not choose, and which they believe could be escaped except for the Right.

That is, they're what I call "Sociognostics." Gnostics whose "spiritual" realm of control by a false evil power posing as the fundamental ground of all reality is sociality and society itself.

Until you understand this about them, there is no conversation that starts to unwind this problem and its profound dysfunction and increasing psychosis. There is only more of the dynamic at hand and an ever widening gyre against which the center cannot hold.

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

Hello @DanLamothe:

This is Tom Anderson here. I am the purveyor of the popular social media commentary account, “Cynical Publius.”

I am working on an article regarding the extreme lack of ethical behavior by modern American legacy media outlets such as your employer, the Washington Post.

The Washington Post recently published an article with your byline where the personally identifiable information (“PII”) of certain alleged service providers to the Department of War was publicly revealed. In a separate, private communication you stated that you had obtained all or some of that information via the “Pentagon system.” Since you are a private citizen who has no authorized access to such system, I can only assume that a federal employee (the “Leaker”) provided you with unauthorized access to data from such system.

I was hoping you could answer a few questions regarding this matter:

1. If you solicited such information from the Leaker, did you advise the Leaker that the unauthorized release of PII is potentially a criminal misdemeanor under 5 U.S.C. § 552a?

2. What is the Leaker’s identity? If there is no Leaker, how did you gain access to the "Pentagon system"?

3. Do you have any moral qualms over the popular journalistic practice of soliciting information from a federal employee that could potentially lead to his or her imprisonment?

4. Does your employer condone the practice of journalists soliciting criminal behavior from federal employees? Is this standard practice for the Washington Post?

5. Assuming the Leaker provided you with the unauthorized PII, did you pay the Leaker any money or otherwise make promises of remuneration in exchange for the information you obtained?

6. You have been a vocal opponent of the Pentagon limiting unaccompanied Pentagon access for journalists. One of the Pentagon’s stated reasons for this policy is to prevent journalists from soliciting criminal behavior from federal employees. Do you still oppose limiting unaccompanied journalist access to the Pentagon?

I would be most appreciative if you could provide answers to these questions, as well as any other comments you may have on the matter, by 4:00 pm Eastern today.

Best regards,
Tom Anderson

[Paulo Spitzbarth 🇧🇷🇩🇪🇮🇱 @PauloSpitzbarth]

🚨🇺🇸 CAR@LHO, QUE LAPADA! 🔥🔥🔥

CNN: “Este é um imigrante sem documentos...”

Miller: “Eles estavam aqui ILEGALMENTE?”

CNN: “Quero que esta seja uma discussão de boa-fé...”

Miller: “Quando você usa uma linguagem feita para ocultar a verdade, isso NÃO é boa-fé. Um ESTRANGEIRO ILEGAL é um ESTRANGEIRO ILEGAL. Eles não são ‘imigrantes sem documentos’.”

CNN: “Stephen, estamos tentando humanizar o debate...”

Miller: “Humanizar? Então vamos humanizar o Código Penal também. O assaltante de banco passa a ser ‘especialista em retirada sem agendamento prévio’. O estelionatário vira ‘empreendedor de narrativas financeiras alternativas’. O cara que entra na sua casa sem convite é só um ‘visitante com documentação pendente’. Que tal?”

CNN: “Isso é uma analogia grosseira.”

Miller: “Grosseira é fingir que a lei federal some porque a redação da CNN inventou um eufemismo mais fofo. ‘Sem documentos’ soa como alguém que esqueceu a carteira no Uber. Não. É alguém que cruzou a fronteira sem autorização, ficou, e agora a imprensa trata o estatuto jurídico como se fosse uma questão de estilo de escrita.”

CNN: “Mas muitos contribuem para a economia...”

Miller: “Ah, o argumento clássico: o crime deixa de ser crime se a pessoa lava prato ou constrói telhado. Pelo mesmo critério, o contrabandista de cigarro também ‘contribui’, gera emprego no transporte. Quer que a gente chame ele de ‘empreendedor logístico informal’? A CNN topa?”

CNN: “Você está polarizando.”

Miller: “Não. Eu estou recusando o dicionário de marketing. Vocês mudam a palavra, depois acusam quem usa o termo legal de ser ‘desumano’. É o truque mais velho do livro: primeiro suaviza o vocabulário, depois declara vitória moral. Os Estados Unidos já cansaram desse teatro. Chamem o que é. Ou admitam que o objetivo nunca foi clareza — foi controle da narrativa.”

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

Yeah I know this is going to cause controversy.

I just saw someone describe the USMC as "America's 911 force."

No disrespect to the Marine Corps which is an incredible fighting organization, but there is only ONE force in the United States' military arsenal that can immediately deploy an Infantry brigade combat team to ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD on an 18 hour sequence after the President makes the call (with the essential help of our friends in USAF Air Mobility Command, of course).

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@WhiteHouse 🚀🚀

[The White House @WhiteHouse]

BREAKING: President Donald J. Trump just signed an Executive Order establishing a new federal academy, THE UNITED STATES SPACE ACADEMY. 🚀🇺🇸

[Secretary Sean Duffy @SecDuffy]

🚨COMING SOON: NUCLEAR-POWERED CARGO SHIPS 🚨

@USDOT is working to fast-track construction of a new fleet of vessels to change the game and DOMINATE China 

THAT MEANS:
📦 MORE CARGO (no internal fuel tanks)
🚢 FASTER SHIPS (up to 75% faster crossings)
🌐 ZERO EMISSIONS (20 years of continuous power without refueling)

The first NUCLEAR-POWERED vessel is set to be built in 2028 🇺🇸

[Danny Penny @12Palehorse]

So that Americans will continue to win for generations to come. https://t.co/1kLyCAwvXg

[John Ʌ Konrad V @johnkonrad]

That would be the US Merchant Marine Academy model. Graduates all become licensed US Merchant Marine officers but can join any service after graduation.

The purpose is so you can recall them if war breaks out during a mariner shortage.

This makes a lot of sense for space. Gives you ready and trained officers in the event SpaceX makes a breakthrough and officer demand skyrockets overnight.

The only problem with this model is right now we have a war during a massive Mariner crisis and the services (including the Army which is barely engaged in Iran) refuse to release their Merchant Marine officers. And the officers don’t want to go because merchant ships are big floating targets and the work is strenuous. They also don’t want their Army careers sidetracked.

This is just one reason why I was thrilled when Trump and @SECNAV awarded Merchant Mariners assigned to the Ford Carrier Strike Group the Presidential Unit Citation.

For many years the Navy and even the US Merchant Marine reserve put everything on hold to surge into the desert to help the Army and Air Force. It’s time for the other services to reciprocate.

[joshua steinman (🇺🇸,🇺🇸) @JoshuaSteinman]

A great point about purpose. Reading the EO and seeing who POTUS tapped for the commission, I fully expect grads to have the OPTION to join the USAF/USSF/USN/NASA officer corps, but they won’t likely be required to.

[Morse Report @MorseReport]

🚨Recent satellite imagery suggests that the Department of War has conducted a covert dredging operation to open up a never-before-used shipping corridor through the Omani side of the Strait of Hormuz.

The corridor in question is an approximately 1,600-foot-wide waterway with a natural depth of about 93 feet, meaning that only a small amount of dredging would have been necessary to make it safe for VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carriers).

Worth noting, ships navigating this corridor remain completely outside the Iranian regime’s line of sight due to the Omani island of Jazirat Musandam and the curvature of the Earth.

Follow: @MorseReport