Year: 2026

Socialism! You Have Nothing to Lose But Your Global Supply Chains

Those “chains” are a brace holding up the world.

That’s my adaptation of the infamous quote from The Communist Manifesto: You have nothing to lose but your chains! (or the actual translation: “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”)

A strong summary by weak AI:

The global supply chain is the most complex, voluntary, peaceable system of human cooperation ever (largely) undevised. No central planner ordered it into existence. Millions of individuals, pursuing their own ends, wove together a miraculous network that threads Indonesian rubber in your shoes and Chilean copper in your phone. That’s what price signals can do, undistorted. בן זומא ראה אוכלוסא על גב מעלה בהר הבית אמר ברוך חכם הרזים וברוך שברא כל אלו לשמשני.

Socialism doesn’t liberate this system. It destroys it. Less workers, less effective, worse social conditions. And history is unambiguous about the darkness that returns when market order collapses: not brotherhood, but scarcity. Not justice, but painful death.

USG Refuses To Cut Even the Easiest, Most Obvious Waste and Fraud…

Why They Won’t Even Fix the Easy Stuff

  • Posted on July 27, 2026

The Department of Transportation’s headquarters campus in Washington spans two complexes covering 1.8 million square feet across 11-acre of prime DC real estate.

In the private sector, such a trophy office property would fetch north of $1 billion per year in rental income.

Yet for the federal government, two-thirds of the space sits empty according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal government’s own internal watchdog.

This is based on real data; the GAO toured the department’s buildings last fall and counted the empty desks.

And this is far from an isolated case. Of the 189 government buildings around the country that were analyzed by the GAO, 168 were underutilized– with occupancy averaging just 37%.

One of the worst offenders is One Aviation Plaza in Queens, which sits at 13% occupancy.

Ironically, Congress actually set a MINIMUM standard for all government buildings to be at least 60% occupied. This is the law of the land in the United States, set by the 2023 USE IT Act.

So, Congress was surprisingly trying to make things more efficient and save taxpayer money– potentially billions each year. They passed a law. But the government doesn’t follow it.

The big consequence for the government violating its own law so far has been this GAO report. Nobody was fined, nobody was fired, and nothing was sold. Basically we got a PDF.

And all of that is just one category of waste at just one department. The bigger losses are to outright fraud.

In June, the Justice Department announced a record-setting healthcare fraud takedown: 455 defendants, the most ever charged in a single healthcare fraud operation, including 90 doctors and licensed medical professionals, all accused in schemes involving $6.5 billion in fraudulent claims.

Yet federal agents only managed to seize $182 million in cash and assets. No word on what happened to the other $6.3 billion.

By the government’s own accounting, federal agencies made close to $200 billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2025 alone… $24 billion more than the year before.

That’s money which should never have gone out the door, went out in the wrong amount, or can’t be documented.  And that was only across 64 programs at 15 agencies… a small fraction of the government’s total footprint.

This keeps happening for a simple reason: the federal government’s ~$7 trillion annual budget is too vast for anyone to keep track of… and no one is ever held accountable.

Bureaucrats who waste the money never get fired; in fact it is damn near impossible to fire a federal employee. And voters continue electing the same incompetent, crooked politicians to public office.

Even when there’s public outcry over obvious fraud, the legacy media closes ranks around their party and insists that voters are racist for criticizing “Learning Centers”.

None of this is free. The empty buildings, the stolen billions, the money nobody can track: it all gets paid for with borrowed money. And that deficit spending is what fuels inflation.

June’s Consumer Price Index came in at 3.5%. By the Fed’s own admission, inflation has now missed its 2% target for five years running.

And after all that failure, few in Washington will name the cause.

A lot of people blame oil, especially after the war with Iran sent crude above $126 a barrel. But oil has been all over the board for the last five years; it was under $60 a barrel just last fall. So why wasn’t inflation falling when oil was cheap?

Continue reading on Schiff Sovereign…

au contraire: If YOU DO Vote You Have No Right To Complain

Joseph “Yellow Kid” Weil, a prolific and successful swindler—he reportedly once talked the detective who was escorting him to prison into buying $30,000 in phony stock— here’s a collection of quotes in the same vein:

“Each of my victims had larceny in his heart. I never fleeced anyone who could not afford to pay my price for a lesson in honesty. A truly honest man would never have had my schemes.”

Weil wrote: “The desire to get something for nothing has been very costly to many people who have dealt with me and other con men. But I have found that this is the way it works. The average person, in my estimation, is ninety-nine percent animal and one percent human. The ninety-nine percent that is animal causes very little trouble. But the one percent that is human causes all our woes. When people learn – as I doubt they will – that they can’t get something for nothing, crime will diminish, and we shall live in greater harmony.”

“Sure, I am a con man, the best, but I’ve always taken from those who can afford the education. I always left them enough to survive. Never send them to the river – that was my motto.”

“They wanted something for nothing,” he once explained. “I gave them nothing for something.”

Hmm, why does this sound to me like a case against the existence of honest voters?

How Long Until the IDF Mutinies?

Let the IDF win

In talking with IDF soldiers, Jonathan Pollard hears opinions that should be carefully listened to by decision makers.

Jonathan Pollard  Aug 4, 2026, 8:00 AM (GMT+3)

Since the beginning of the war, I have had the privilege of speaking with many soldiers of all ranks who have fought against both Hamas and Hezbollah. Nearly all of them have expressed deep anger that the senior officers they believe were responsible for the “conceptzia” that preceded the October 7 massacre have not been held accountable for what they view as a catastrophic failure of leadership. Some of those officers, the soldiers pointed out with frustration, are even seeking elected office.

Even more troubling to them is their belief that neither the IDF’s High Command nor much of Israel’s political leadership is committed to achieving a decisive military victory. Instead, they argue, the objective has once again reverted to the pre-October 7 managing the threat rather than eliminating it.

Without exception, the soldiers I spoke with also criticized what they see as overly restrictive rules of engagement that unnecessarily endanger their lives. In their view, these policies stem either from concerns about international political pressure-particularly from the United States-or from placing excessive emphasis on the welfare of enemy civilians at the expense of Israel’s own troops, who are not a far-removed army, but everyone’s husband, fathers and sons. Many argued that the IDF’s “Purity of Arms” doctrine should be replaced or substantially revised to better reflect both Jewish ethical values and sound principles of modern warfare.

When I asked soldiers about the recent disciplinary problems reported within the Givati Brigade, many responded by noting what they saw as a double standard. They recalled that, during the controversy surrounding the government’s judicial reform proposals, Air Force reservists publicly threatened to suspend their volunteer service. In their view, few-if any-of those reservists faced meaningful disciplinary consequences. Whether one agrees with that comparison or not, it reflects a widespread perception among many frontline soldiers that standards have not been applied equally.

The soldiers are especially frustrated that they continue to fight over territory for which their fathers bled decades ago. Why, they ask, was this land never annexed? Why were previous generations asked to sacrifice so much, only for successive governments to relinquish control of territory that later became a battleground once again?

I also learned not to raise the issue of haredi military exemptions. Few subjects provoke greater resentment among combat soldiers. Many believe the burden of national defense is being distributed unfairly. For my part, I find it difficult to understand why successive governments, including those led by Likud, have continued political arrangements that many Israelis believe undermine national cohesion and military readiness, but it looks as though that may be approaching a solution after the coming elections.

One soldier, a friend of mine, asked whether I thought the IDF could one day experience something resembling the French Army mutinies of 1917. It was a thought-provoking question. History reminds us that even the finest armies can reach a breaking point if soldiers conclude that their sacrifices are being squandered by poor leadership. It is therefore worth recalling what actually happened in France during the First World War.

The French mutinies of 1917 were not a wholesale collapse of the army. They consisted of widespread protests, refusals to participate in costly offensive operations, and incidents of desertion following the disastrous Nivelle Offensive. At their height, the unrest affected a large portion of France’s frontline infantry divisions.

Importantly, however, the soldiers did not abandon the defense of their country. They remained in their trenches and continued to repel German attacks. Their revolt was directed not against France, but against military leadership that they believed was employing disastrous tactics that produced horrific casualties with little strategic gain.

In other words, the mutinies were not driven by a desire for surrender or peace at any price. Rather, they reflected a demand for competent leadership, realistic strategy, and a doctrine capable of achieving victory without needless sacrifice.

Is the IDF on the verge of such an event? I do not believe so. However, many of the soldiers with whom I have spoken feel that unless senior military leadership is held accountable for past failures and meaningful reforms are implemented, frustration within the ranks will continue to grow. History teaches that there is only so much any army can ask of its soldiers before confidence in its leadership begins to erode.

Like the French soldiers of 1917, today’s combat troops are not asking for surrender. They are asking for leadership, doctrine, and strategy that they believe will enable them to defeat the enemy decisively without paying what they see as an unnecessary butcher’s bill in lives.

From Arutz Sheva (until they delete it…)