Source: Rutherford Institute
by John & Nisha Whitehead
“In the wake of the reported assassination attempt on President Trump, the Trump administration has wasted no time advancing a dangerous narrative: that criticism of the president — especially criticism labeling him authoritarian or fascist — is not just wrong, but responsible for violence. The implication is as chilling as it is unconstitutional: if you criticize the government too harshly, you may be to blame for what happens next. Taken to its logical conclusion, the government’s argument is this: criticism fuels anger, and anger leads to violence against the Trump administration. Which means the solution, in the government’s eyes, is simple: silence the criticism — but only when it is leveled at the Trump administration.” (04/28/26)
Source: Los Angeles Times
by Alex Padilla & Brian Lemek
“More than 158 million Americans cast a ballot in the 2024 election, and nearly one in three did so by mail. Nothing about that should be controversial because voting by mail is safe, secure and deeply rooted in American history. On March 31, just days after casting his own ballot by mail in a Florida special election, President Trump signed an executive order attacking vote by mail and absentee voting nationwide. … Immediately after Trump’s executive order was announced, more than 20 states and multiple organizations challenged it in court. They are right to do so, and we believe these states will prevail for the same reason the courts rejected the president’s earlier attempts to seize authority over our elections. Because the Constitution is clear: States and Congress set the rules for federal elections — not the president.” (04/28/26)
“A South Korean appeals court on Wednesday sentenced ousted President Yoon Suk Yeol to seven years in prison for resisting arrest and bypassing a legitimate Cabinet meeting before his brief imposition of martial law in December 2024. The conviction for obstruction of justice and other charges comes on top of a life sentence he has already received on rebellion charges stemming from his baffling authoritarian push, which triggered the most serious crisis for the country’s democracy in decades. Judge Yoon Sung-sik of the Seoul High Court said the conservative former president sidestepped a legally mandated full Cabinet meeting before declaring martial law, falsified documents to conceal the lapse, and deployed security officials ‘like a private army’ to resist law enforcement efforts to arrest him in the weeks following his impeachment. Former President Yoon stood quietly as the verdict was delivered and made no comment.” (04/29/26)
“The Right keeps waiting for the Weather Underground to shoot at President Trump. Not literally, not the specific organization — Bill Ayers is a comfortably retired professor in his 80s — but the type: the black-masked antifa supersoldier; the DSA chapter secretary with a tote bag full of Marx, oat milk, and bolt cutters; the blue-haired radical with a ‘Fuck ICE’ bicep tattoo; the leader of a trans gun club called ‘Trigger Warning.’ But we keep getting a very different type of would-be assassin: not the antifa militant from central casting, nor even the Proud Boy thug — but the deranged centrist. … ‘Centrist terrorism’ is, of course, not a serious analytical category. Yet neither, in these cases, is the bogeyman trumpeted on the Right as ‘radical leftist terrorism.'” (04/28/26)
“‘Debate’ almost never corresponds to mappable arguments. The simplest ‘solve debate’ proposal is the argument map. Some technology helps people decompose arguments into premises and conclusions, then lets skeptics point out where the premises are wrong, or where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. But almost no real argument works that way. Even in the best-case scenario, where an argument almost works that way, it doesn’t really work that way. Suppose you’re having an argument about COVID lockdowns. Someone says ‘lockdowns hurt the economy.’ Now you’re stuck in a giant fight about whether that claim is true (answer: compared to the counterfactual, certain kinds of lockdown measures hurt certain economic indicators in certain situations). But even if it is true, so what? What conclusion can you draw from that premise?” (04/28/26)