Source: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
by Angel Eduardo
“The First Amendment was ratified in 1791, guaranteeing that Congress shall make no law abridging our freedom to speak, publish, assemble, worship, and petition the government. But as anyone with a passing knowledge of our history knows, the fight was far from over then. In fact, it was only just beginning — and Philadelphia was ground zero for much of it.” (07/01/26)
“Pete Buttigieg and his family should never have endured a malicious false report that brought police and Child Protective Services to their home, temporarily separated him from his young children, and forced his family through a needless ordeal. Authorities quickly determined the allegations were baseless. The bipartisan condemnation that followed was appropriate. Political leaders from across the country spoke with one voice. Commentators expressed outrage. The message was unmistakable: there are lines that should never be crossed. They were right. But watching the response unfold left me asking a question I have carried since my daughter Katie was killed. Why does our political class know exactly how to respond when one of its own is harmed, yet struggle to summon the same moral urgency when ordinary Americans are actually buried?” (07/01/26)
“If I were a socialist, I’d be desperate to deny that the Nazis were socialists. Why? Well, it’s bad enough that: * The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics turned out to be a nightmarish totalitarian despotism, a dystopia of mass slavery and mass murder. * The USSR, by conquest and imitation, spawned dozens of additional nightmarish totalitarian despotisms. * These despotisms included the jaw-dropping hellscape of Maoist China, the world’s most populous country at the time. Yet as long as Nazi Germany was not socialist or even anti-socialist, the socialist can find solace in the fact that the Soviet Union was the primary agent in the defeat of an even more nightmarish totalitarian despotism.” (07/01/26)
“Among the slew of decisions being released in the days before the United States Supreme Court adjourns for the summer, two focus on the key issue of presidential or executive power. Each ruling relates specifically to a U.S. president’s ability to remove officeholders in agencies established under acts of Congress. In Trump v. Slaughter, the court ruled 6-3 that the president can fire at will the heads or staff of independent regulatory agencies (in this case, the Federal Trade Commission). In Trump v. Cook, however, the court determined 5-4 that the president could not fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board without cause or due process. On the surface, the two rulings seem to be in opposition to each other. Yet both underscore a defining characteristic of American democracy – the delicate yet shifting equilibrium among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches that underpins the business of governing.” (06/30/26)
Source: Independent Institute
by Daniel Sánchez-Piñol
“The California Billionaire Tax Act has qualified for the November 2026 ballot, promising a massive cash windfall for the state. Proponents confidently declare that it will yield around $100 billion. On paper the calculation seems a no-brainer. If you take the net worth of California’s billionaires from the Forbes list at the beginning of the year, roughly $2 trillion, and apply the proposed one-time 5 percent wealth tax, you land right around $100 billion. However, while the arithmetic is straightforward, the economics are shaky. A foundational principle of economics is that individuals respond to incentives. Apply this principle to California’s wealth tax scheme and a different picture emerges.” (07/01/26)
“President Donald Trump used red-scare rhetoric to denounce the progressive winners in New York’s Democratic primary last week as ‘godless communists’. Rather than explaining that the progressives are not communists in the vein of the Soviet Union or communist China but social democrats in the vein of Scandinavia, a group of so-called ‘moderate’ Democratic politicians piled on to Trump’s red-baiting. Two days after the primaries, this group of 15 corporate Democrats (let’s just call them what they are) attacked the winning Democrats in an open letter drafted by Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York proclaiming, ‘we are capitalist, not socialist’. In an interview with the New York Times, Suozzi added ‘that message from Tuesday is not the message that I embrace’.” (07/01/26)
“One Nation Conservatives emphasize the paternalistic, socially cohesive, and pragmatic virtues of ‘Old England,’ in opposition to reforming free-marketeers and socialists alike, as a British version of centrism. They are the ones Margaret Thatcher called ‘wets,’ though even Thatcher’s ‘sons’ were affected by their force. When Miliband spoke of ‘One Nation’ in a Blue Labour voice, then-Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron launched his own version of Disraelian politics in the form of the ‘Big Society,’ which turned out to be, as the British would say, a damp squib. More recently, One Nation Conservatism has been pitched as an alternative to populism, though Brexit and Reform leader (and one-time Thatcherite) Nigel Farage appears now to have a stronger appeal with the working class, perhaps thanks to his echoing of Disraelian themes.” (07/01/26)
“Last week, two federal agents went to David Streever’s home in Rochester, New York, to warn him over a strongly worded email he sent to then-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) interim director Todd Lyons, according to Michelle Breidenbach of the Post-Standard. As such missives often do, Streever’s email evokes the Nazis, telling Lyons: ‘You are a monstrous human being and will go down in history as America’s Reinhard Heydrich, the butcher.’ It goes on to excoriate him over the protesters killed by federal agents in Minnesota and predicts, ‘you will torment yourself until your last day on Earth.’ The email is harsh. But at no point is it threatening. It’s the sort of message that public figures of all sorts receive and discard every day. Except that federal officials seem to be emulating the thin-skinned current president’s attitude towards criticism.” (07/01/26)
Source: Foundation for Economic Education
by Cláudia Ascensão Nunes
“In 1990, Belgian footballer Jean Marc Bosman saw his contract expire and discovered something he did not expect: although he was no longer under contract, RC Liège still controlled his future. He had found a team in France willing to sign him, but Liège demanded a transfer fee the French club could not afford. Bosman had no contract, no salary, and no real way out. In practice, he remained tied to the club. His case would go on to change the football market and European sport forever. Across European football, a transfer system allowed clubs to retain control over players even after their contracts had ended. A player could be prevented from joining a new employer unless a transfer fee was paid, even when no contractual obligation remained. … Bosman challenged this system in court, and in 1995, the European Court of Justice ruled in his favor.” (07/01/26)
“The Supreme Court ruling that upholds states’ rights to ban transgender athletes from competing in girls and women’ sports provoked wailing from the usual suspects. New York Attorney General Letitia James denounced what she called ‘cruel and discriminatory laws targeting the trans community’, and accused the court of deciding to continue on a ‘dangerous and harmful path’. Oh, please.” (06/30/26)
