Almost like the lab manufactured pathogen ‘getting loose’ wasn’t a bug, but a feature

Social Security Gets Major $205-Billion Boost After COVID Deaths

So many Americans died of COVID-19 during the pandemic that the Social Security program received a boost of $205 billion, according to a new report by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Why It Matters

The new report from NBER sheds light on the way the pandemic affected the Social Security program, which is currently facing a looming insolvency crisis.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which President Donald Trump has put in charge of shrinking the size of the federal government, has promised to pursue a trillion dollars in cuts across many programs and departments of the federal government, with a specific focus on uncovering fraud and wasteful spending.

This operation, Trump said, will include the Social Security program, which sends benefit payments to more than 70 million Americans.

What To Know

Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NBER—a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization—found that excess deaths among individuals aged 25 and older between 2020 and 2023 led to a reduction in Social Security future retirement payments of $294 billion.

Excess deaths refers to those in a given time frame over the number that might have been expected considering historic data in a so-called average year. According to the CDC, the U.S. reported over 1.7 million excess deaths between 2020 and 2023.

The reduction in future Social Security benefits caused by these excess deaths was then recalculated by NBER to $205 billion considering the consequent decrease in future payroll tax flows and higher payments to surviving spouses and children.

“Our analysis suggests a slight improvement in Social Security’s financial health due to excess deaths, driven primarily by the premature death of people who would have received retirement benefits,” reads the NBER report.

Continue reading “”

Let’s Go Privateering! An old idea gets new enthusiasm.

Time to go a’privateering?

We’ve heard a bit about letters of marque and reprisal recently. Sen. Mike Lee has proposed bringing back letters of marque in a thread on X, suggesting them as a tool for going after Mexican drug cartels. Erik Prince, who founded Blackwater, the private security company (it’s rude to call them “mercenaries”) has also weighed in in favor of this approach. My own Congressman, Tim Burchett (R-TN) has introduced legislation allowing the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal against cartels, the Cartel Marque and Reprisal Reauthorization Act of 2025, co-sponsored with Rep. Mark Messmer, (R-IN). (The full text of the bill is here.)

This isn’t a new idea, really. Letters of marque and reprisal date back centuries; and even in this century there have been proposals to use them again, particularly after 9/11 when they were proposed, particularly by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) as a way of going after terrorists. More recently, people have proposed “Cyber Letters of Marque and Reprisal” to go after hackers.

Is there anything to these ideas, or do they just appeal to our swashbuckling side? Let’s talk.

Continue reading “”

May they  go into permanent vapor-lock.

Anti-Gunners Clutching Pearls Over Trump’s 2A Executive Order

The results of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s investigation into the Biden administration’s executive actions on guns and its defense of federal gn laws won’t be in for another couple of weeks, but anti-gun activists are already putting their own spin on what’s likely to emerge from her findings.

Brady’s Kris Brown spoke to to WGN-TV about the potential impact of Trump’s executive action, as well as some of the other moves we’ve seen from his administration, including the shuttering of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

“There is no possible rationale for closing that office, unless what you want to do is simply ignore that gun violence is the number one killer of our kids, and to me, that is horrific because it doesn’t,” Brown claimed, adding, “Not having the office does not change that. It only worsens it.”

Brown’s comments are, of course, absolute nonsense. The biggest rationale for ending the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is that it never really about reducing “gun violence”, but promoting gun control (and providing cushy federal jobs to anti-2A activists).

It’s silly for Brown to claim that scrapping the office means that either “gun violence” or violent crime will increase. Reported homicides were already trending down when Biden created the office in the fall of 2023, and there’s no evidence whatsoever that anything Biden did through executive actions led to a further drop in reported homicides around the country last year.

In addition to her bluster on Biden’s gun control office, Brown also tried to put her spin on the likely undoing of Biden’s executive actions on guns.

[Brown] said Biden-era reforms like background checks and restrictions on who can purchase weapons, helped to strengthen public safety. Undoing them, she said, has the potential to endanger public safety.

“We’re not a lawless nation, so there should be no reason, not to have laws that actually save lives,” Brown said. “In fact, laws like the Brady background check, which stands for a proposition that something like 97% of Americans agree with, that. If you go in to buy a firearm and you’re a convicted felon, you should be denied that firearm, right?”

Background checks on retail purchase of firearms won’t be going away as a result of Bondi’s examination of Biden’s EO’s, though we’ll hopefully see the formal rescinding of the ATF rule expanding who is “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, which was put in place with the goal of requiring almost every gun owner who offered a single firearm from their collection for sale to obtain a federal firearms license.

Brown failed to inform WGN or its viewers that the rule in question was already in legal jeopardy before Trump’s EO, along with the other attempts by ATF and the Biden administration to bypass Congress and enact new gun control laws in the guise of regulations. The Supreme Court has already struck down the bump stock ban imposed by the Trump administration, and they’re set to issue their ruling on the agency’s regulation treating unfinished frames and receivers as fully functional firearms later this spring. Legal challenges to the ATF’s rules on pistol stabilizing braces and forced reset triggers have also been largely successful in the lower courts, but those rules will hopefully be undone by Trump and Bondi in the months ahead.

I’m sure that Brown is legitimately bothered by the likely demise of the Biden-era regulations foisted on gun owners and the firearms industry, but I suspect that what really frosts her cookies is the fact that the gun control lobby has lost its influence on the White House. Gun control groups like Brady, Everytown, and Giffords had no better friend in Washington, D.C. than Biden himself, while Trump has promised to protect our Second Amendment rights while using the DOJ to target violent offenders. The anti-gunners no longer have their perch inside the executive branch, but that’s cause for celebration, not consternation, for those of us who reject the idea that fighting “gun violence” has to stop and end with targeting lawful gun owners and our right to keep and bear arms.

Mexican President Threatens Double-Down Lawfare to Cover for Cartels

By Larry Keane

Mexico has revealed there are no limits to the depths to which it will sink to threaten America’s law-abiding firearm industry and the Second Amendment. Mexico’s government continues to run interference for the narco-terrorist drug cartels that are fueling rampant murder and corruption in their own country. It is also a damning indictment on the nascent Mexican presidency’s entanglement with drug kingpins.

Mexico’s lawyers – supported by American gun control activist and lawyer Jonathan Lowy – will appear before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 4 to argue that their frivolous lawsuit should be allowed to proceed. That case – Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos – was petitioned to SCOTUS by the industry members who are being sued by Mexico. Mexico contends that U.S. firearm manufacturers are legally responsible for $10 billion in damages to compensate Mexico for costs it incurs when Mexican narco-terrorists illegally smuggle firearms into Mexico and criminally misuse them on their side of the border. Mexico is also asking a U.S. court to issue an injunction dictating how and which firearms Americans may purchase when exercising their Second Amendment rights in America. NSSF’s amicus brief filed in the case argues that Mexico’s lawsuit is prohibited by the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and lacks legal merit.

President Donald Trump, in announcing his executive order imposing a tariff on Mexican imports, said, “Mexican drug trafficking organizations have an intolerable alliance with the government of Mexico. The government of Mexico has afforded safe haven for the cartels to engage in the manufacturing and transportation of dangerous narcotics, which collectively have led to the overdose deaths of hundreds of thousands of American victims.”  President Trump issued an Executive Order the day he took office to kick start the process of designating the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.

This week, President Trump followed up that process with Secretary of State Marco Rubio officially declaring Tren de Aragua, MS-13, the Sinaloa Cartel, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, the United Cartels, the Gulf Cartel, the Northeast Cartel and the Michoacán Family as foreign terrorist organizations.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
In the unlikely event Mexico’s case is not dismissed, President Sheinbaum would do well to remember that discovery in civil litigation in America goes both ways

Trump Designating Cartels Terrorists Isn’t ‘Worrisome’ To Lawful U.S. Gun Manufacturers

The assertion that U.S. firearm manufacturers ‘sell arms to criminals’ is a flat-out lie.

President Donald Trump’s State Department has officially designated several murderous drug cartels, including Tren de Aragua and MS-13, as foreign terrorist organizations. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Juan Pablo Spinetto labeled that decision “worrying” while attempting to argue against the president’s move.

Never mind the thousands of lives lost every year to drug cartel violence in both Mexico and the United States. Pay no attention to the more than 250,000 American deaths since 2018 from illegal drug use by fentanyl smuggled into the United States from Mexico across a virtually open Biden-era border. Disregard that after four years of woeful inaction by an American president barely at the steering wheel, the new Trump administration is following through with the campaign promises he made to the American people to protect them from such violence. Spinetto has other concerns.

While describing to readers why, in his determination, President Trump’s move forward to label Mexican narco-terrorist drug cartels as international terrorist organizations would be “worrisome,” Spinetto takes an uninformed and bogus potshot at the lawful and highly-regulated U.S. firearm industry.

“The proposal to treat cartels as terrorists … adds significant collateral risks: Anyone who has contacts with narcos, knowingly or not, could be accused of collaborating with terrorists, from avocado producers in Michoacán that pay to stay alive to the US gun industry that has been selling arms to criminals,” Spinetto writes. The assertion that U.S. firearm manufacturers “sell arms to criminals” is a flat-out lie.

Mexico, of course, has no Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for its citizens and the one and only firearm retailer in the country is in the heart of Mexico City, located on a military base. Firearms legally exported from the United States to the Mexican military have gone through rigorous and thorough end-to-end security checks, attempting to ensure that American-made guns do not fall into the hands of anyone else, especially the cartels.

After all, there are documented reports of Mexican soldiers defecting to work for narco-terrorist drug cartels, bringing with them over 150,000 firearms stolen from Mexican armories. Virtually all of the firearms used by the Mexican drug cartels, on the other hand, are illicitly possessed illegal arms unlawfully smuggled into Mexico by a network of drug cartels, through theft or straight-up government corruption. These facts are well known. Spinetto knows all of this too, of course, but the facts are inconvenient for his argument.

Continue reading “”

BLUF: (YAY!)
The departure of Hicks was bemoaned by anti-gun activist groups such as Brady who characterized the sacking as “chilling.”

30 Senators Tell ATF to Get With Trump 2A Agenda as Agency’s Top Lawyer Canned

A group of 30 Republican lawmakers on Thursday “strongly encouraged” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to begin scrapping Biden-era anti-gun rules.

In a five-page letter to ATF Deputy Director Marvin G. Richardson— who has been leading the agency since the recent departure of the bureau’s avowedly anti-gun Director Steve Dettelbach– the senators urged the regulator to align its policies with “President Trump’s Second Amendment priorities” as laid out in his recent Executive Order.

Specifically, the letter calls on ATF officials to work with Attorney General Pam Bondi to quickly identify and rescind policies that allow “unlawful firearms regulations” to include the agency’s “Engaged in the Business,” “Pistol Brace,” and “Ghost Gun” rules as well as its “Zero Tolerance” policy under which ATF has revoked the licenses of FFLs over minor bookkeeping violations.

The senators said, “We urge you to immediately align ATF’s rules and policies with the President’s strong support for the Second Amendment.”

Further, the GOP lawmakers took aim at the agency’s huge cache of decades-old gun dealer records, urging ATF to destroy the reportedly hundreds of millions of ATF Form 4473 firearm transaction forms and allow FFLs to also destroy such records over 20 years old. The Biden administration had issued a rule that such records had to be maintained forever, creating what many argue is the foundation of a backdoor gun registry.

Continue reading “”

Massachusetts vs. the Second Amendment

In Massachusetts, a legal battle is unfolding that should resonate with every conservative who values the sanctity of the Second Amendment. Escher v. Mason isn’t just about firearms; it’s a litmus test for how we view adulthood, responsibility, and constitutional rights in contemporary America.

The Massachusetts law in question, House Bill 4885, strips legal adults aged 18 to 20 of their right to purchase, possess, or carry semiautomatic firearms and handguns. This isn’t merely overreach; it’s a direct assault on the clear text of the Second Amendment, which does not discriminate by age among “the people.” If we are to take our Constitution seriously, we must defend the rights of all citizens, not just those deemed “mature enough” by the state’s paternalistic gaze.

At the heart of this legal challenge lies a fundamental conservative principle: the inviolability of individual rights. The Founders did not carve exceptions into the Second Amendment for age. They understood that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, which is why 18-year-olds have been historically recognized as adults — capable of voting, joining the military, and, yes, bearing arms. The Militia Act of 1792, enacted shortly after the ratification of the Second Amendment, explicitly included 18-year-olds in the national defense, expecting them to be armed like their elders.

This historical precedent is not just a footnote but the bedrock upon which the plaintiffs in Escher v. Mason stand. They argue that there is no traditional basis for denying these rights to young adults. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and Bruen have made it abundantly clear that firearms “in common use” are constitutionally protected. Semiautomatic firearms and handguns are the dominant tools of self-defense in modern America. To deny these to a segment of the adult population is not only anachronistic but egregiously unconstitutional.

Continue reading “”