One man had a huge influence on the way Americans still spell today.

Watch to see why English ended up with two different spelling styles.

#WordHistory #OneMinuteWithB

Last year, the outgoing director of the FBI Christopher Wray said:

The Chinese government [has pre-positioned] on American civil critical infrastructure, to lie in wait on those networks, to be in a position to wreak havoc and inflict a real-world harm at a time and place of their choosing.

He listed water treatment plants, transportation systems, the electrical grid, natural gas pipelines, and telecommunications systems as the major concerns.

In layman’s terms, this means that Chinese hackers are already inside those systems and ready to turn them off if a war happens.

That is not the only scenario, they could use that leverage to deter U.S. government action. Which is to say, to blackmail the U.S. government. If China decides to invade Taiwan, the Chinese government could tell the U.S. president, “Feel free to stop us militarily, but, if you do, tens of millions of Americans will lose power, gas, water, cell service, and internet, and your major banks will stop working.” The best-case scenario is that Americans will lose access to everything for a day. For context, that is a fifth of our annual GDP growth. But that assumes the effects are contained to one day, and that traders will not stop investing out of fear of a repeat.

The worst-case—and likelier—scenario is that the crisis will overwhelm the U.S., state, and municipal governments, as well as the private sector, which will need coordination to secure and reboot their systems. That will take more than just a few days. Meanwhile, Americans will not be able to buy food, use power, work, or anything. Looting in the cities will begin, making the situation even worse. Remember the New Orleans riot after Hurricane Katrina? That will be everywhere.

China could use this leverage over the United States in many ways, from trade negotiations to war. Nobody is talking about it, and nobody wants to fix it.

Artificial intelligence is making this vulnerability worse. AI models have already shown capabilities to hack systems beyond what humans could have imagined. Here, Iran is not that much of a worry because it is impoverished and does not have advanced AI technology, meaning it lacks the knowledge, supercomputers, and necessary energy production to hack into U.S. systems. China does.

So we should ask ourselves: If Iran can penetrate American water facilities using humans, what can Chinese AI models do, and how can we stop them?

The U.S. government’s answer is, “Don’t worry, we could do it to them too.” As a rule, every time the government tells me not to worry, I get worried. I hope that we can do it to the Chinese—though I’m not sure that we can—but also, I’d rather not take the risk. Just because we can do it to them doesn’t mean that they won’t take the risk. I know there is a riot in our streets, but riots in Beijing will hardly make me feel better. We need to secure our country first.

Let us focus on government action.

The most important money governments can spend is on the security of their citizens, including securing critical infrastructure from hackers. This means that you should call and demand that your local and state representatives look into cyber vulnerabilities in your state and allocate the necessary resources to fix them. The federal government can also help by allocating money to states for this purpose.

Congress and the White House should do the same thing. Let’s face it: Politicians are not cyber-security experts. This means that Congress and the White House should appoint a commission to study our vulnerabilities and recommend action.

We might also need laws for major private institutions like banks and energy companies to meet cyber safety standards. This includes the state level for utility companies or regulation by state Corporate Commissions.

A major cyber attack on the United States could have a devastating effect nearly as bad as a nuclear war, and nobody is talking about it. Again, if Iran can do it, you can bet that China can too. But the good news is that, unlike a nuclear war, your local and state officials can do something about this. But they are hardly paying any attention.

The reason politicians are not doing anything about it is that they do not think that it can get them any votes. To change that narrative, call them and demand action. Or the next time you are at a town hall with a candidate or a legislator, ask them: After the attacks on the Minnesota water facilities, what is your plan to fix the cyber vulnerabilities in my state?

Now, let’s compare what Piker has said with what Democrats claim to believe.

Democrats: We are patriotic, and Republicans lie when they accuse us of not loving America.

Piker: America deserved 9/11.

Democrats: Believe all women, and sexual assault is evil and requires no context.

Piker: Rape is better if it happens to rich women.

Democrats: We are not pro-terrorists and support the military.

Piker: My favorite flag is the flag of Hezbollah that killed dozens of Marines.

Democrats: Bigotry and political violence are evil.

Piker: Jews deserve to be attacked for supporting Israel.

Democrats: We are pro-Ukraine.

Piker: Crimea belongs to Russia.

When people point to these comments and actions, Piker threatens to sue them—for quoting him with evidence!

And, as if all these were not terrible, he also abuses his dog.

This is the best the Democrats came up with! I am not going to lie. As a Republican, if a genie gave me a wish to make Democrats look bad, I’d think that asking for a guy like Piker would be too much.

The most famous case is the nominee for Senate in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, who even campaigned with Piker. Bernie Sanders has defended Piker. Progressive politicians like Ro Khanna, Summer Lee, and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez have gone on his show. Others like Summer Lee and Zohran Mamdani have campaigned with him. And no less than Barack Obama himself has joined his stream. These are just a few.

It gets worse. A few Democrats had the courage to attack Piker and warn that he is toxic, and Democratic activists and politicians attacked their fellow Democrats for that.

Piker is very popular among the Democratic activist base, which is why Democrats could not bring themselves to disassociate from him. For months, people like Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer were silent about him and refused to condemn him. Of course, journalists who demanded every member of the Republican Party denounce the neo-Nazi troll Nick Fuentes—most Republicans did—made no such request of the Democrats.

This has been going on for over a year, and Democrats could not bring themselves to condemn him until last week, when they finally found their courage after over a year. Better late than never, I guess.

But Americans should ask themselves an important question: How can you trust the Democrats when they promote such an evil person, who quite obviously hates America? Even if they claim that they did not know about this past comments, these remarks came to surface months ago, and Democrats still defended him or evaded the issue, maybe because they like and agree with him, or maybe because they are scared of the socialists college students.

Even if ignorance is the explanation, taking so long to condemn him is unacceptable. If they took so long to denounce him because they are upset to college kids, how can anyone trust them to stand up to China and Vladimir Putin?

But let’s be real. Piker is everything Democrats claim not to be, and yet, they embraced him for the sake of power because they thought Piker could help them get votes. And they are only distancing themselves from him now that they worry that he is going to cost them even more votes.

Which is to say, Democrats sacrificed every principle they claimed to have for the sake of going on Piker’s show and getting more votes. So let me ask: Did they believe all that stuff? Can we trust their words and convictions? Or will they sell out to the next evil guy they see for one more vote?

Democrats’ new talking point is that they do not want to make the midterms about Piker. I didn’t even know who Piker was, and I certainly didn’t want to make the midterms about him. Until Democrats introduced me to him and started campaigning with him. They made the race about Piker. I am just playing by their own rules.

Author and entrepreneur Boad Swanson discusses his book, Great Souled Men: Reclaiming Aristotle’s Vision for Building Character and Virtue. He explains Aristotle’s 12 virtues, the crisis facing young men, the influence of the modern manosphere and how youth sports have shifted from teamwork toward specialization and burnout.

Facebook: Boad Swanson
Instagram: @rboads
Website: GreatSouledMen.com
Book: Great Souled Men

B’s Crime Corner examines the August 6 North Dakota case involving a 22 year old mother accused of killing two of her children and attempting to kill a third. B and Sam discuss reported postpartum depression, warnings before the killings, nine criminal charges and similarities to the Lindsay Clancy case.

Political strategist, economist and Mergence Global CEO Cory J. Ruth discusses the appeal of MAGA and democratic socialism, information overload and rapid cultural change. He also explains the growing capabilities of government surveillance systems and the need for transparency. Ruth previews Double Click: What the Numbers Really Say About Black America, examining Black America as an emerging economic market.

Facebook: Cory Ruth
X: @coryjruth
Instagram: @officialcoryruth
Book: Double Click, coming February 2027

Congressman Dusty Johnson breaks down Washington dysfunction, the Farm Bill and why beef prices remain high. He also discusses President Trump and Canada, affordability, legal immigration, nuclear power and permitting reform, warning that America is falling behind other countries in building major infrastructure.

X: @RepDustyJohnson

Journalist and political analyst Max Klinger discusses his experience studying social sciences at Cambridge and what he sees as ideological capture inside academia. He examines activism presented as scholarship, its spread into K through 12 education, pressure on academics to conform and professors who have privately contacted him with similar concerns.

X: @MaxE2review
Substack: @maxthinks

Catch Breaking Battlegrounds live on 960 AM in Phoenix every Saturday at 9:00 AM, with full episodes and exclusive podcast-only segments dropping every Friday wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube.

Stay connected with Breaking Battlegrounds:

• Substack: https://substack.com/@breakingbattlegrounds
• Website: https://breakingbattlegrounds.vote
• News: https://breakingbattlegrounds.news
• X: @breaking_battle
• Instagram: @breakingbattlegrounds
• Facebook: Breaking Battlegrounds

If you enjoy the show, leave us a 5-star review and share it with a friend. Your support helps keep the podcast growing.

Breaking Battlegrounds is one of the top 2.5% most popular shows out of 3,779,399 podcasts globally. We interview policymakers, elected officials, and nationally and world-recognized reporters about the opportunities and hurdles facing the United States.

Book: Kennedy’s Coup: A White House Plot, a Saigon Murder, and America’s Descent into Vietnam

Want a free copy? DM us. The first 5 people to message us will receive a free copy of Jack Cheevers’ book.

Follow Myrka on Instagram:

Chuck and Seth take on some of the biggest issues facing the country, including the ongoing conflict with Iran, the effectiveness of economic sanctions, and the possible consequences of continued U.S. economic pressure on the Iranian regime. They also turn to America’s rapidly growing national debt, what Republicans should be doing to encourage stronger economic growth, and why Chuck believes fundamental tax reform needs to be part of the conversation.

The two also discuss trade, education, and the importance of having the right information and perspective when trying to make sense of complex political and economic issues.

Check out “National Debt, Trade, War, and Economic Actions” featuring Chuck Warren on The Seth Leibsohn Show, and listen to the full conversation wherever you get your podcasts.

Follow Noah on X: @NoahCRothman
Book: Blood and Progress: A Century of Left-Wing Violence

The scale of America’s economic influence is hard to put into perspective until you see the numbers.

Which stat surprised you most?

Source: @wealth on Instagram

Follow for more One Minute with B.

#Economy #OneMinuteWithB

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Chuck Warren and Sam Stone are joined by journalist Noah Rothman, Emmy Award-winning broadcaster Myrka Dellanos, author Jack Cheevers, and financial expert Gary Gygi. Plus, B’s Crime Corner investigates the Penn State cocaine ring and the infamous “Pablo Pledge Escobar” nickname tied to the case.

Noah Rothman kicks things off with the political backlash against AI data centers and why fear of rapid change is fueling the debate. He explains the growing battle over computing power, energy, and America’s race with China for AI dominance. Noah also examines Trump’s strategy in the Strait of Hormuz, pressure on Iran’s economy, and the potential for growing instability inside the regime.

Follow Noah on X: @NoahCRothman
Book: Blood and Progress: A Century of Left-Wing Violence

Then, B’s Crime Corner dives into the Penn State cocaine ring, where investigators uncovered an alleged fraternity-connected drug operation involving current and former students. The case includes digital payment apps, social media, and the nickname “Pablo Pledge Escobar.”

Next, Myrka Dellanos discusses socialism and communism through the personal story of her family’s escape from Cuba. She explains why younger generations can be attracted to radical politics, the influence of media messaging, and the importance of remembering what life under communist regimes actually looked like.

Follow Myrka on Instagram: @myrkadellanos
Myrka is an Emmy Award-winning journalist, author, professor of journalism and public speaking, and entrepreneur.

Jack Cheevers takes us back to the Kennedy administration and the decisions that pushed America deeper into Vietnam. He examines the 1963 coup against South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, the instability that followed, and why this turning point deserves greater attention.

Book: Kennedy’s Coup: A White House Plot, a Saigon Murder, and America’s Descent into Vietnam

Finally, Gary Gygi breaks down America’s $40 trillion national debt, the bond market, inflation, and rising borrowing costs. He explains why spending, entitlements, and long-term fiscal discipline could have major consequences for investors and the U.S. economy.

Follow Gary on X: @GaryGygi
Visit: gygicapital.com

Catch Breaking Battlegrounds live on 960 AM in Phoenix every Saturday at 9:00 AM, with full episodes and exclusive podcast-only segments dropping every Friday wherever you get your podcasts or watch on Youtube.

Stay connected with Breaking Battlegrounds:

• Substack: https://substack.com/@breakingbattlegrounds

• Website: https://breakingbattlegrounds.vote

• News: https://breakingbattlegrounds.news

• X: @breaking_battle

• Instagram: @breakingbattlegrounds

• Facebook: Breaking Battlegrounds

If you enjoy the show, please leave us a 5-star review and share it with a friend. Your support helps keep the podcast growing.

Breaking Battlegrounds is one of the top 2.5% most popular shows out of 3,779,399 podcasts globally. We interview policymakers, elected officials, and nationally and world-recognized reporters about the opportunities and hurdles the United States faces.

Northwestern’s Musical Museum brings live music to people with dementia and their caregivers, combining familiar songs with the stories behind them.

Researchers found improvements in mood, connection, and mental stimulation, while familiar music may help bring back deeply personal memories.

What is one song you could never forget?

Follow for more One Minute with B.

#DementiaResearch #MusicTherapy

Juan David Rojas joins the show to discuss climate politics and the political shift taking place across Latin America. Juan recalls watching Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth as an elementary school student in Florida and the fear created by some of the film’s predictions about hurricanes, flooding, and climate change. While acknowledging the broader concerns surrounding climate change, he argues that exaggerated predictions and partisan messaging can undermine public trust. Juan also explains why failed energy policies may be helping fuel a conservative resurgence across Latin America, particularly in oil-dependent nations where left-wing governments have attempted to rapidly move away from fossil fuels at significant economic cost.

Follow Juan David Rojas on X: @rojasrjuand

Next, Devan Patel joins Chuck and Sam for an in-depth conversation about the rapidly changing world of artificial intelligence. Patel examines how Americans can better educate themselves on AI, the philosophical dangers of transhumanism, and the growing push to use technology to overcome fundamental limits of human existence.

The conversation turns to one of the biggest questions facing policymakers: How much power should government have over AI? Patel argues for guardrails surrounding critical infrastructure, child safety, fraud, vulnerable populations, and emerging mental-health concerns while warning against government overreach, mass surveillance, privacy violations, and excessive corporate control.

Patel also discusses the United States’ technological rivalry with the Chinese Communist Party, arguing that America may need both formal and informal channels of communication with Beijing similar to U.S.-Soviet dialogue during the Cold War. He explains why American allies, global critical-mineral supplies, advanced semiconductor production, and international cooperation will all play major roles in the AI race.

The conversation explores Marc Andreessen’s accelerationism and Techno-Optimist Manifesto, antitrust concerns, corporate power, collective bargaining, lethal autonomous weapons, nuclear security, biotechnology risks, and whether the United States and China can find limited areas of cooperation before increasingly powerful AI systems become even harder to control.

Patel also warns about authoritarian surveillance technology spreading around the world and argues that churches and other faith institutions may have an important role to play in protecting civil society and establishing moral guardrails against technological overreach.

Learn more about Devan Patel: DevanPatel.com

Then, B’s Crime Corner examines the tragic case of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother and former labor and delivery nurse accused of killing her three young children in 2023. The segment looks at Clancy’s reported mental-health struggles following childbirth, the medications she had been prescribed, and the role postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis have played in the legal and public debate surrounding the case.

Finally, historian and educator Dr. Jody Edward Ginn joins the program to discuss the state of history education in America. Ginn argues that declining academic standards, ideological changes within higher education, and shifts in teacher-training programs have left too many classrooms without educators who possess deep subject-matter expertise. The conversation examines what that means for students learning American history — and what may be lost when ideology replaces rigorous historical scholarship.

Follow Dr. Jody Edward Ginn on X: @JEGHistorian and check out his website reclaimingtexashistory.com

Listen now to Breaking Battlegrounds, the radio show covering Arizona politics, campus unrest, election integrity, national campaigns, and the true crime cases everyone is talking about.

Catch Breaking Battlegrounds live on 960 AM in Phoenix every Saturday at 9:00 AM, with full episodes and exclusive podcast-only segments dropping every Friday wherever you get your podcasts or watch on Youtube.

Stay connected with Breaking Battlegrounds:

• Substack: https://substack.com/@breakingbattlegrounds

• Website: https://breakingbattlegrounds.vote

• News: https://breakingbattlegrounds.news

• X: https://x.com/breaking_battle

• Instagram: @breakingbattlegrounds

• Facebook: Breaking Battlegrounds

If you enjoy the show, please leave us a 5-star review and share it with a friend. Your support helps keep the podcast growing.

Breaking Battlegrounds is one of the top 2.5% most popular shows out of 3,779,399 podcasts globally. We interview policymakers, elected officials, and nationally and world-recognized reporters about the opportunities and hurdles the United States faces.

This obviously irritated and alarmed the press. Their families too. This was warranted. They felt this move unwittingly endangered the press and White House staff remaining on Air Force One. Basically according to reports, they felt they were decoys left as unwitting targets.

There is much to discuss regarding this bait and switch, but for today I want to share my personal experience with the Secret Service and how this incident and the resultant complaining again show how insufferable some in the press have become. It is always about them.

Many trips around the sun ago, I was in my twenties and doing volunteer advance work for then Vice President Quayle when he visited Utah. I will never forget what the lead Secret Service agent told all of us before Vice President Quayle’s arrival. As we stood in a line, he pointedly said that if an incident occurred (I am paraphrasing), our safety was not his or the other agents’ concern. Their only concern was protecting the Vice President.

I remember my colleagues and me being taken aback. They did not tell us this when they asked for volunteers. We just looked at each other and laughed. He was serious. After a momentary pause, we knew this was no joke. We shrugged and went about our assigned tasks.

This personal story in no way compares to the press pool on Air Force One on July 8, but I do not believe only the Secret Service let my fellow volunteers and me that day in on some unmentioned secret about protecting the President and Vice President.

Regarding the Turkey incident, the Washington Post reported:

Although each journalist acknowledged that any member of the press traveling with the president accepts some risk, they also thought they deserved more information about the potential perils of this particular flight.

“We never were provided any opportunity to consent to being used like this,” one journalist said. “We aren’t Air Force or Secret Service — we didn’t sign up for this job to put ourselves on the line to protect the president.”

I do not have all the facts. Based on my limited knowledge from news reports, if I were in charge I might have handled it differently. However, referencing the quote above, the traveling press accepts some risk. Actually it is more than “some risk” as my personal experience shows, you accept a lot of risk. Their job is to protect one person, one person only. The press should know this fact.

To sum it up, as Charles C. W. Cooke said on the National Review podcast “The Editors” this week:

“So Charlie, there’s this journalistic convention that Republicans and conservatives like to make fun of, which is the Republicans pounce phenomena. Republicans pounce, Republicans seize.

It’s functionally an effort by the press to avoid talking about the story. Instead, they talk about the reaction to the story, which isn’t really the story, but it’s a place of comfort. There have been so many strange reactions to this plane story that were talked about the reporters who are more angry about their own fates than Trump’s, why Trump took his staffers like Walt Nutter and Natalie Harp with him instead of Marco Rubio.

I don’t know if it’s all legitimate or not, but they’re looking past the headline, which is Iran is trying to kill the American president and got close enough to an operational plot that it freaked everyone out. Why isn’t everybody reacting to the story here and instead focusing on the reaction to the story?

Well, I’d amend your rubric slightly now. I think it is true very often that instead of talking about the story, the press likes to talk about the reaction to the story. But I think just as often, the press likes to talk about itself.

“And if there is a choice to be made between talking about the story, the reaction to the story, or themselves, most journalists pick themselves. Now, I’m not, of course, suggesting that it wouldn’t be rather alarming if having got back on Air Force One, I learned that the president had been taken off it for security reasons. But once again, the scale and tone of the whining is annoying.

And it shows us the immense self-regard that the press corps has, and can’t get past, and can’t be dissuaded from under any circumstances. This is not the story. This is a part of the story.

It’s the obvious and inevitable personal reaction of anyone who was involved themselves. But the purpose of a journalist is to exempt themselves. Which is why, if you look at the great war reporters, and I’m talking here not about those who are on the outskirts of a war, as here, but who were on the front lines, who landed on the beaches, if you will.

“You read those great stories, they do not say every second line, and of course I was in great danger, and of course the bullets whizzed by me, and of course the explosions were close to me, and of course I was scared, and of course I was hungry, and of course I was tired. Because the purpose of the job is to discuss questions of national importance and the subjects that the journalists were sent to cover. And they just can’t do it.”

“So it’s not that I begrudge personal feelings, or even a mention of those feelings, but as you say, what is it that CNN has talked about now for three days solid? The press, the press, the press, the press, the press. And I think this is because, and I grant that this is a bold claim, I think this is because ultimately the press believes that it is the most important institution in the United States.”

“We already know that journalists think that they are specifically protected by the Constitution. Not that the things that they do are, those things, of course, can be done by anyone, but that they are. I think they think they are not even an equal branch of government.”

“I think they think they are the branch of government. And we’re seeing it once again. It’s bad training, it’s bad for the country.”

“There’s nothing I can add to my existing condemnation of the journalistic class. But we’re once again seeing why its approval ratings are somewhere below syphilis.”

That sums it up pretty well. Thank goodness everyone was safe.

For years, the former Federal Reserve chairman reportedly spent up to two hours soaking in the bathtub while reading, thinking, and writing. What started as relief for back pain eventually became one of his favorite places to work.

Genius productivity hack or just a really long bath?

Follow for more One Minute with B.

#Productivity #MorningRoutine

DVDs once brought in billions, but today streaming subscriptions dominate home entertainment. And while audiences increasingly wait to watch from the couch, movies released in theaters still generate more attention than streaming-only films.

So what matters more now: the big-screen experience or convenience at home?

#Streaming #MovieTheaters

First, these leaks simply confirm what defense experts have been warning about. The Center for Strategic and International Studies published a report on April 21, warning that the United States had depleted more than half of some types of munitions. Here are the munitions we are running low of, according to the study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The Congressional Commission on National Defense Strategy published in its 2024 report that the United States was low on munitions, and restocking them would take enormous effort and time.

It is also not difficult, even for the layperson, to figure this out. Congress appropriates a budget every year, and it specifies money for each item. How much each unit approximately costs is a matter of public record, too. And then, the Central Command publishes statements about how many units it has depleted. All you need is to go back through each year’s budgets to see how many units of each munition type the U.S. government bought over the years, and how many it has depleted. You will have a reasonable estimate of how many we have left.

Journalists did not know about this because it was too much to ask of them to investigate a critical national security issue, rather than tweeting about President Donald Trump’s tweets. But Iran did its homework. It is not a coincidence that Iran’s whole strategy has been producing a lot of cheap missiles and drones until we run out of interceptors, so that they could then hit their targets. Which is how it ended up working.

How did we get here? It is not any one person’s fault, including Trump. This problem goes back decades. The first sin was when Bill Clinton’s Department of Defense told major defense contractors that they should go out of business because the Cold War was over. So all the major contractors merged, and the number went from 51 down to 5. As a result, each contractor today can just jack up the prices because the competition is so limited. To be fair to Clinton—something I do my best to avoid normally—no president after him tried to undo this, either.

The second problem is with the Pentagon. The Pentagon loves the most advanced tech, which is expensive. But as Ukraine and Iran have shown, you can also conduct a successful war with a lot of cheap stuff. Pentagon preferred a few awesome stuff, which we ran out of quickly. This includes the Pentagon bureaucracy and all the secretaries of defense who never told the bureaucracy to stop. Worse, most of them cheered it on.

Let me give you a few examples. In Fiscal Year 2025, Congress appropriated $405 million for Patriots and about $500 million for SM-3s. So we got 100 Patriots 17 SM-3s. We depleted a decade of each system’s production in six weeks to shoot down missiles and drones that cost a few thousand dollars per unit. I mean, even if money did grow on trees, that still would be too much!

Interceptors and even certain offensive munitions were first meant to be for specific operations, so that ground units could advance without being bombarded by enemy artillery. The problem is that, instead of being air defense for a larger strategy, the interceptors have nearly become the whole strategy.

The third offender is Congress. Successive sessions of Congress have voted for this. At the end of the day, Congress has the power of the purse, which means that it is ultimately Congress, not the Pentagon, that determines U.S. national defense strategy. The most the Pentagon can do is to recommend a budget and argue before Congress for its strategy, but the decision, ultimately, rests with Congress. But too many members of Congress are busy doing television hits instead of doing less important things like examining our military doctrine and holding the Pentagon accountable.

The United States has a dual political authority system: Both Congress and the president are the bosses of the military. During the Civil War, General Ulysses Grant was caught between Congress and President Lincoln, who were making opposite demands. He sided with Lincoln. Then, after the war, he was again caught between Congress and, this time, President Andrew Johnson, making opposite demands. This time, he sided with Congress. There was a simple reason: In wartime, the president gets the tiebreaker, and, in peacetime, Congress does.

We have been at peace for a long time, which means that Congress should have been the supreme voice in national defense. But it has not been. We are here because consecutive presidents, secretaries of defense, and Pentagon bureaucracy had the wrong idea for war fighting and acquisition, stuck in group thinking. But they got their way because nobody in Congress raised their hands and said they were being silly.

The only way to get out of this problem is for Congress to once again take its job seriously. The Constitution makes providing for national defense the primary role of the federal government, and it makes Congress the Article 1 branch. This means that Congress is the foremost party responsible for national defense. But the truth is that Congress has spent trillions of dollars and let the American people down by not second-guessing what it was being fed.

Does Trump bear the blame? Yes, as much as his predecessors over the past several decades, and he shares it with secretaries of defense over the same period. But he deserves much less blame than members of Congress who wrote the check. And now, they ought to write more checks to fix it. But they better do it soon, or we might as well save ourselves the trouble of losing a war and just offer the world to China on a silver plate.