So much for the liberty that so many generations fought and died for.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/liberty
liberty
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

Should we be surprised that an incompetent government makes the process more difficult when the intent from Congress was to make it easier? Of course not. It is government, and our respect for it continues to plummet, despite thinking that our respect has hit rock bottom each time this kind of mess-up occurs.

The unacceptable part is not that Australia is getting business that should belong to the United States, it is that the United States government is so incompetent that it fails to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and thus neither to our posterity. It is supposed to be government of the people, by the people, and for the people, yet We the People cannot get the service that the government is supposed to provide, the service that so many generations fought and died for and that we pay taxes for.

Lincoln’s government seems to have perished from the earth.

It is quite another thing for Britain’s government to screw its people and its companies. Brittons are subjects of the king, and there may even be an ancient law that allows him to literally screw his people: Droit du seigneur. So when the crown causes Virgin Orbit to go out of business, it is OK, because it is allowed for the crown to screw over an American company.

Wait.

American company? The king cannot do that. Only the American government gets to screw Americans. That is how Droit du seigneur supposedly works. So, Britain does not get to screw Virgin Orbit (oh — I just got the imagery in my head. Sorry everyone.), only the American government is allowed to,* and only the American government gets to screw the young Varda. At least, not without the permission of the American sovereign.
________________
* I’m in full-on rant mode, and it is way too early in the morning for it, but my coffee has kicked in, I am bouncing off the walls and oversharing as well as creating run-on sentences, and I am about to use a Star Trek reference that comes from a dictionary, so I am pretty stoked to write this footnote.

My text editor is trying to tell me that I cannot end a sentence or phrase with a preposition, but I hold that the English language is the English language, not the Latin language. The reason that English language scholars tell us that we cannot split infinitives and cannot end sentences with prepositions is that this is not done in Latin. Latin’s infinitives are a single word, thus they cannot be split with an adjective or any other word. However, this is English, and I am willing to gladly split infinitives whenever it is called for, or even if I just plain old want to. I’m an American, dammit, and freedom of speech (and writing) is not only my God given right, it is supposedly protected by an incompetent, greedy government that refuses to do its job.

From my computer’s dictionary:
There is a traditional view, as set forth by the 17th-century poet and dramatist John Dryden, that it is incorrect to put a preposition at the end of a sentence, as in where do you come from? or she’s not a writer I’ve ever come across. The rule was formulated on the basis that, since in Latin a preposition cannot come after the word it governs or is linked with, the same should be true of English. What this rule fails to take into account is that English is not like Latin in this respect, and in many cases (particularly in questions and with phrasal verbs) the attempt to move the preposition produces awkward, unnatural-sounding results. Winston Churchill famously objected to the rule, saying “This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.” In standard English the placing of a preposition at the end of a sentence is widely accepted, provided the use sounds natural and the meaning is clear.

and

Is it wrong to use a split infinitive, separating the infinitive marker to from the verb? If so, then these statements are grammatically incorrect: you have to really watch him; to boldly go where no one has gone before. Writers who long ago insisted that English could be modeled on Latin created the “rule” that the English infinitive must not be split: to clearly state violates this rule; one must say to state clearly. But the Latin infinitive is one word (e.g., amare, ‘to love’) and cannot be split, so the rule is not firmly grounded, and treating two English words as one can lead to awkward, stilted sentences. In particular, the placing of an adverb in English is extremely important in giving the appropriate emphasis. Consider, for example, the “corrected” forms of the previous examples: you really have to watch him; to go boldly where no one has gone before. The original, intended emphasis of each statement has been changed, and for no other reason than to satisfy an essentially unreasonable rule. Some traditionalists may continue to hold up the split infinitive as an error, but in standard English, the principle of allowing split infinitives is broadly accepted as both normal and useful.

Jeff Wright: You do not understand my position in the least. New space can’t go abroad in almost all cases, and I am tired of that being the go-to position of so many. In this case however I agree, Varda is making the right call.

Note however that Varda has much greater flexiblity that a rocket company, which essentially builds missiles.