R Magic Brow

Return to sender. That's the message two Republican lawmakers have regarding the Biden's administration's $3 billon contract for 55,000 electric postal trucks. 'I am defunding this billion-dollar boondoggle to stamp out waste in Washington. Tax dollars should always be treated with first-class priority.' That's enough to replace a quarter of the USPS fleet. So far, the Wisconsin-based defense contractor Oshkosh has delivered a whopping 93 vehicles. At at that rate, they should be done by the time we open the first post office on Mars. Par for the course for any government EV initiative. As are the reported cost overruns. Fortunately, we've entered the DOGE age. And two members of the caucus — Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Representative Michael Cloud (R-Texas) — are demanding your money back with the "Return to Sender Act." The act seeks to rescind the entirety of the $3 billion, allocated under the Biden administration’s 2022 “Inflation Reduction Act.”ATTN: Kamala That's the same IRA Kamala Harris loved to brag about on the 2024 campaign trail. After all, she cast the tiebreaking Senate vote to pass it. And now she doesn't mind admitting that the whole thing is really just a backdoor enactment of the Green New Deal, which pushes for a massive shift to zero-emission transport. The agreement with Oshkosh called for an initial order of 50,000 electric delivery trucks over a three-year period that started in 2022, meaning they’re way behind schedule, with less than 0.2% delivered by late 2024. And here we thought EVs were more efficient. “Biden’s EV postal fleet is lost in the mail," said Ernst, who is also DOGE Caucus chair. "The order needs to be canceled with the unspent money returned to sender, the taxpayers. I am defunding this billion-dollar boondoggle to stamp out waste in Washington. Tax dollars should always be treated with first-class priority.” Cloud echoed these sentiments, highlighting reports suggesting that the price per truck has jumped from $55,000 to over $70,000. 'We don't know how' Oshkosh is believed to be struggling with the production of the electric Postal Service vehicles, with insiders claiming the contractor is uncertain it can build the trucks effectively under the terms of the former Biden government’s contract. Furthermore, rising costs have compounded the project’s delays. The Washington Post reported that Oshkosh’s CEO expressed satisfaction with the project’s status, stating the company is “really happy where we are.” However, internal sources revealed challenges, with one individual commenting, “We don’t know how to build a damn truck.”Mail bomb A USPS spokesperson defended the initiative, stating that fleet modernization is central to the Postal Service's “Delivering for America” plan — a 2021 strategy to revamp the struggling USPS with new tech and a greener fleet to meet federal emission cuts by 2030. The USPS reiterated the commitment to environmentally sustainable vehicles, aligning with financial and operational considerations, and affirmed that deliveries of new vehicles remain on schedule. As the “Return to Sender Act” progresses, it will serve as a focal point for discussions on fiscal responsibility and the role of oversight in government-funded initiatives. This fight isn’t just about mail trucks — it’s a test case for whether Biden-era green spending can survive a new wave of Republican oversight, especially with the 2026 midterms looming.

This week, Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, announced his organization’s support for President Trump’s trade policy. That includes backing Trump’s use of tariff threats to secure better trade deals with foreign nations.The announcement reflects a broader shift underway at Heritage. Once a pillar of the conservative establishment, the think tank has moved toward a more populist, "America First" approach that challenges the traditional Republican consensus on trade.We are a nation, not just a market. The only test that matters is whether a policy puts Americans first.Predictably, critics from the old guard — such as Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz — emerged from their irrelevant holes to denounce Heritage for its betrayal of “conservative principles.” But these men, who haven’t conserved a blessed thing, have lost sight of a foundational truth: Economies should serve nations — not the other way around.In theory, free trade eliminates barriers to the flow of goods and services across borders. The promise is that open markets lead to greater competition, more efficiency, and lower prices for all. British economist David Ricardo developed the idea of comparative advantage to support this model, arguing that trade benefits both countries when each focuses on what it produces most efficiently.As scholar Neema Parvini has noted, however, Ricardo’s theory rested on key assumptions — most notably that labor and capital would remain largely fixed. That assumption no longer holds.Ricardo never imagined a world where illegal immigration surged across borders or where corporations moved profits overseas to build factories in lower-cost countries. In fact, he warned against detaching economic decisions from national loyalty.Ricardo believed a man’s attachment to his country would lead him to accept smaller profits at home rather than seek higher returns abroad. He viewed that sense of national loyalty as a natural barrier against global capital flight — and a necessary one. It would be a tragedy, he warned, if that bond ever broke.The economist most often cited by free trade absolutists understood that theoretical models only work when grounded in reality. In Ricardo’s view, trade made sense only if individuals valued their nations more than the pursuit of maximum profit.In an ideal world, workers and corporations would prioritize national loyalty over global opportunity, and all countries would reduce trade barriers. But we do not live in that world.Many nations — even U.S. allies — routinely use tariffs and subsidies to give their domestic industries an edge. They do this while benefiting from a global trading system that operates securely and reliably, largely at America’s expense.These countries act unapologetically in their national interest. The United States should do the same.Free trade is not a moral imperative or an inherent good. It is an economic policy rooted in a theory about how trade functions. Those who promote it without question often ignore both the historical context in which Ricardo developed the theory and the realities of today’s global economy.If free trade benefits the American people, we should pursue it. If it does not, we should adopt a policy that does.Political theorist Russell Kirk argued that conservatism should never become ideological. Its first obligation is to the well-being of a particular people. Conservatism isn't about abstract ideals or academic formulas — it’s about preserving a way of life, grounded in real communities and traditions.Those who champion theory over lived experience are not conservatives. They are ideologues cloaked in the language of the right, often more interested in intellectual posturing than in preserving American life.This is why rigid, neoconservative approaches to trade have so often failed. They claim to “conserve,” but in practice, they have eroded the very institutions and livelihoods they were meant to protect.These ideas have been tested — and failed. For decades, the United States has acted as the only major economy fully committed to ideological free trade. The results have been disastrous.Other nations talk about free trade but act in their own interest. They impose tariffs, protect key industries, and prioritize their citizens. They live in the real world — not in an academic simulation. It’s long past time for the United States to do the same.Economists and other academics play an important role in society, but — as the COVID-19 catastrophe made clear — they should not have the final say in public policy. Experts offer valuable insights, but their knowledge often applies narrowly to specific fields. They tend to struggle when asked to apply that knowledge in broader, real-world contexts.That’s why nations are governed by statesmen, not scientists or economists.An economist may point out that producing antibiotics in China reduces costs. But that same economist cannot weigh the national risk if China, the sole supplier, becomes the source of a disease that only those now-imported antibiotics can treat. In that scenario, no amount of economic efficiency will save American lives.Shifting U.S. trade policy to protect American interests does not betray conservative principles — it affirms them. The first duty of conservatism is to preserve the American people and their way of life.Conservatives should adopt economic policies that serve that goal, but we must never treat those policies as ends in themselves. The economy is a tool, not a purpose.Neoconservatives may mourn the loss of ideological purity, but their abstractions should not define national policy. We are a nation, not just a market. The only test that matters is whether a policy puts Americans first.

On Valentine's Day this year, 26-year-old conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair posted on X that she had given birth to Elon Musk’s 13th child five months prior. A whirlwind of drama immediately followed with Elon allegedly ignoring St. Clair and refusing to acknowledge the child. A few days later, St. Clair submitted two petitions to the New York Supreme Court: a paternity petition to legally establish Musk as the father of her son and a custody petition seeking sole legal and physical custody. Neither petition has been granted. Fast-forward a couple of months, and now the drama is even messier. Yesterday, St. Clair was spotted outside her Manhattan apartment handing over the keys to her black Tesla Model S to a representative from Carvana, an online auto sales company. She told a Daily Mail reporter that she was selling the $100,000 vehicle because Elon Musk had cut her child support by 60%. "I need to make up for the 60% cut that Elon made to our son's child support," she said. Musk, responding to an X post by Laura Loomer, in which she called St. Clair a “gold digger,” said, “I don’t know if the child is mine or not, but am not against finding out. No court order is needed. Despite not knowing for sure, I have given Ashley $2.5M and am sending her $500k/year." Which narrative is closer to the truth? Is Musk an absent, penny-pinching father? Or is Ashley St. Clair really just a gold digger? Pat Gray wades into the public scandal. “He’s given her $2.5 million and $500K a year. I’m sorry, if you can’t get by on that, I can’t help you. I mean, that’s more than enough child support,” he says. “Unleashed” producer Kris Kruz points out that the Tesla St. Clair sold, as well as the Manhattan apartment she’s living in, were both paid for by Musk. What Elon needs to do, says Pat, is just take the paternity test to find out if all this headache is even necessary. To hear more of the panel’s commentary and see some of the back and forth between St. Clair and Musk, watch the clip above. Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

"Top Gun" is Tom Cruise's movie, but Maverick never could have soared without Lieutenant Tom "Iceman" Kazansky goading him on. The same could be said of the film's decades-in-the-making sequel: Without Val Kilmer reprising his role, "Top Gun: Maverick" wouldn't have flown so high. 'I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "... I drank what?"' The 2022 film proved to be Kilmer's last. Robbed of the ability to speak by throat cancer, Kilmer still managed to summon that old chemistry with Cruise. Rivals turned friends, but still marked by their differences: the tightly controlled perfectionist vs. the showboating risk-taker. The Iceman goeth Observe the two men's careers, and you notice that the roles are reversed. Cruise is the meticulous planner, unwilling to leave the slightest detail to chance. His sheer discipline has helped him remain not just one of the last standing '80s stars but one of the last viable movie stars, period. As for Kilmer ... he initially didn't want the Iceman role and tried to sabotage his audition. He got the part anyway. Bigger parts followed, and he played them with memorable, unpredictable intensity. But in the process he developed a reputation for being "difficult" on set, with multiple directors vowing never to work with him again. He was finished as a leading man long before he got sick. No matter. Yes, Kilmer is famous for playing Batman and Jim Morrison, but the tributes in the wake of Kilmer's death at 65 this week suggest that his most beloved work was done in smaller roles: Doc Holliday in "Tombstone," Robert De Niro's partner in crime in "Heat," a kind of guardian angel Elvis in "True Romance." All fine choices. But as long as we're assembling the Kilmer canon, I'd like to submit his top-billed performances in two movies that have since fallen into semi-obscurity: 1985's "Real Genius" and 2004's "Spartan." A wisecracking 'Genius' They couldn't be more different. "Real Genius" is a classic '80s slobs vs. snobs comedy, following in the footsteps of "Animal House" and "Caddyshack." The difference is that the "slobs" are all elite-level brainiacs, way smarter than you or me. And that's a good thing. "Compared to you, most people have the IQ of a carrot," one character tells another. This is not a movie that finds measuring intelligence "problematic." It's also not a movie to sacrifice wit for shock, despite its requisite raunchiness. As the movie's prodigy turned slacker hero, Kilmer wanders through the film with a winning nonchalance, getting off wisecracks that sound positively Marx brothers-esque compared to today's potty-mouthed dreck. "So if there's anything I can do for you — or, more to the point, to you — just let me know." "I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, '... I drank what?'" And this endearingly hokey response to a professor's demand that he "see more of you around the lab": "Fine. I'll gain weight." Kilmer makes it work. A 'Spartan' action hero The actor employs his laid-back cool to altogether different effect in "Spartan," a global thriller with the claustrophobic intimacy of a play by David Mamet — who did in fact write and direct this one. Kilmer plays Scott, a brutally efficient Secret Service agent enlisted to find the president's daughter, kidnapped by sex traffickers. A big part of the movie's pleasure is Mamet's script; he allows the characters to pursue their mission without the kind of dumbed-down, expository dialogue that is usually inserted for the benefit of the audience. The result is that we're constantly straining to catch up to these professionals, fittingly played by unpretentious, seasoned pros like William H. Macy and Ed O'Neill, as they do their jobs. As the plot thickens and betrayals emerge, their confusion begins to mirror ours. One thing that movies seem to have forgotten today is the art of suspense. The calm before the storm is just as important as the storm itself. Here Kilmer radiates calm; his measured yet charismatic performance keeps us hooked. And he still manages a few good zingers amid the oblique Mametian philosophizing. When a colleague offers his name, Kilmer cracks, "Do I need to know that? If I want camaraderie, I'll join the Masons."