Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Joshua Mawhorter
“While not entirely consistent in every respect, the Declaration of Independence — as an act of secession — can be understood as one of the earliest major challenges to centralized, modern, sovereign authority within the emerging nation-state system. Although it created new states rather than abolishing state power itself, it decentralized and imposed limits upon British imperial sovereignty through an appeal to self-government and national self-determination. To their great credit, Locke and Jefferson both affirmed pre-political natural rights, that the only legitimate role of government is to protect those rights, and that rights remain rights and crimes remain crimes whether one is a private individual or a state elite.” (05/22/26)
“Exactly one year and six days ago, the Prospect posted a piece I’d just written about Colorado’s Jared Polis, under the headline ‘The Democrats’ One and Only Union-Busting Governor’. As of a couple weeks ago, that headline is no longer accurate. Polis is still a union-buster and even more out of sync with Colorado Democrats, who’ve just formally censured him for complying with President Trump’s demand to commute the sentence of Tina Peters …. But Polis no longer holds that ‘one and only’ status when it comes to Democratic governors who bust unions. Two weeks ago, Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger did just that by vetoing a bill that would have given Virginia’s public-sector workers the right to bargain collectively.” [editor’s note: So now she has lied to ALL sectors in that state; can an impeachment be far behind? – SAT] (05/25/26)
“European powers frequently justified conquest by claiming that they were bringing civilization, Christianity, and economic improvement to the peoples they conquered. Smith rejected this narrative. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith described the ‘savage injustice’ of European colonial expansion, conquest and exploitation rather than benevolent improvement. Instead of imposing progress through force, Smith envisioned an alternative based on voluntary exchange and mutual gains from trade. The meeting of different societies, he argued, could have produced enormous benefits if it had occurred through peaceful commerce rather than coercion. The crucial issue for Smith and Easterly was not simply whether development increased material output but whether it respected the autonomy of individuals and communities.” (05/22/26)
Source: Foundation for Economic Education
by Andrew Lilico
“It sounds so simple. If consumers are suffering because prices are going up, then forbid that. Who could object, beyond greedy firms profiteering by pushing prices up? … If the government caps the prices of supermarket products, that will make those products unprofitable for the supermarket to stock and also mean that consumers have to pay less for them than their economic value, the consequence being that they will sell out and not be available. Why would I, as a consumer, want key products to be unavailable in supermarkets?” (05/21/26)
“Donald Trump is now an unpopular president. Some of this dissatisfaction is due to the war in Iran. Some of it springs from the unanticipated speed, chaos, and perceived brutality of several of his administration’s actions over the past year and a half. But a significant part of his political problem has a straightforward economic explanation: Everything feels expensive, and his tariffs are a major reason why. If the president wants to help himself and his party ahead of this year’s midterm elections, the most effective thing he can do is eliminate the tariffs. The evidence in favor of this move is overwhelming, and it comes from his own tenure.” (05/21/26)
“I’d love to see Barack Obama charged with, tried for, and convicted of crimes that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt he’s guilty of. For example: Obama ordered the murders of at least two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and his son, Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (Donald Trump later ordered the murder of eight-year-old Nawar Anwar al-Awlaki, also a US citizen). Obama also illegally took the US to war in Libya, never even seeking the constitutionally required declaration of war. For those crimes, and many others, I’d very much like to see Obama face legal consequences. But there’s a problem with the idea …” (05/21/26)
“Critics of the May 2026 summit between President Trump and Xi Jinping, president of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), widely condemned the outcome as being long on pomp and ceremony but short on meaningful substantive results. They noted that most of the agreements reached, especially on trade and other economic issues, were either preliminary or relatively minor. There was a virtual consensus among the opinion-shaping elites that Trump had secured no major concessions on either his commercial or his security objectives. In other words, the outcome of the summit was rather bland and boring. That criticism may be true, but in international affairs boring is usually good.” (05/21/26)
“Washington, Beijing, and Brussels are all moving toward state-managed commerce and geopolitical trade blocs. The recent US-China summit accelerates the shift.” (05/21/26)
“Americans are contending with almost daily shifts in how the Trump administration characterizes the war-slash-ceasefire with Iran that began Feb. 28. Yet just as important to this current Middle East struggle is a series of resolutions proposed in Congress to either end the conflict or seek approval by lawmakers to continue it. On Tuesday – in its eighth such vote since strikes against Iran began – the Senate advanced a measure to debate a requirement of the 1973 War Powers Resolution that a president obtain congressional approval within 60 days of starting a conflict. The House is expected to vote shortly on a similar measure for the fourth time.” [editor’s note: None of these resolutions are necessary — absent a declaration of war, the war is illegal, full stop – TLK] (05/20/26)
