“Liberated from a dictatorship 14 months ago, Syrians are struggling to unify their pivotal Middle East country. One example was an attack last month by the new government on an ethnic Kurdish area. A negotiated settlement has since calmed the region – a small step toward democracy – but it has also brought a fresh focus on an old problem: What to do with the former fighters of the Islamic State group and their families? While ISIS forces were decisively defeated in 2019 through a multinational effort, northeastern Syria is still home to pockets of former fighters – and more than 20 prison camps administered until now by Kurdish forces with U.S. support. Some governments and analysts worry that these camps are potential hotbeds for fomenting continued radicalism. Many of the estimated 50,000 prisoners are family members of ISIS fighters from Syria and Iraq.” (02/06/25)
“Federal immigration agents have abducted Eustaquio Orozco Verdusco, a workers’ rights organizer well known in Minnesota for fighting wage theft and labor trafficking. His attorney and son say he is currently held at the Cibola County Correctional Center in New Mexico, run by CoreCivic, one of the largest private prison companies in the United States. For the first time, his family is going to the press as community support for his release is swelling. All we care about is having him back with us, at home in Minnesota,’ his son, Gerardo Orozco Guzman, told me. ’That’s all we want.’ Our interview followed a judge’s ruling in the District Court of Minnesota on Wednesday that denied and dismissed Orozco Verdusco’s habeas corpus petition challenging his unlawful detention.” (02/06/25)
“Be vigilant, be imaginative, but also remember that everything Trump is doing to impose restrictive voting measures is backfiring on Republicans, just like his previous efforts.” (02/06/26)
Source: The American Conservative
by Ted Galen Carpenter
“Accusations have burgeoned that President Donald Trump is determined to destroy the ‘rules-based international order’ established after World War II. Some of his actions certainly resemble old-style, 19th century imperialism. His initial demand that Denmark sell Greenland to the United States fits that description. One could readily envision previous presidents such as Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, or William McKinley making a similar move for U.S. territorial aggrandizement. Trump is a rather unashamed imperialist, willing to use threats or even military force to bully other nations. However, despite the recent surge in warnings around the world (especially in Europe) that his actions are wrecking an effective, rules-based international system, that allegation is unfounded. The so-called rules-based system that the United States and its Western allies established has always been fraudulent and self-serving.” (02/06/26)
“There are, of course, outstanding issues in the Epstein files that need to be addressed — people who committed crimes in legal terms, people who engaged in morally reprehensible behavior, and people who themselves are not individually guilty but who condoned what was happening. The Epstein files are not about individual guilt or innocence; they are about the nature of collective power. And when, within that collectivity, elites abused sexual, financial, legal, political, and even intellectual power without shame and with impunity, one has to wonder whether the Roman historians were onto something: They envisioned empires collapsing when elites could no longer restrain themselves in any aspect of their lives. An elite so needy, greedy, and now so vulnerable can hardly be trusted to exercise good judgment.” (02/05/26)
“Trump’s recent Wall Street Journal piece is not just a defense of tariffs. It is a claim of intellectual discovery in economics. He argues, in effect, that the vast majority of experts have been looking at tariffs backward, and that his critics keep repeating a superstition: tariffs are a tax on Americans. In his telling, tariffs are a way to make foreigners pay, raise revenue, boost domestic production, and still keep inflation tame. If Trump remains fixated on the Nobel Peace Prize, he is aiming at the wrong category. His real ambition, at least on the page, is the science of economics. Even though he did not explicitly state his discoveries, we can infer the economic laws he implied and name them in his honor.” (02/05/26)
Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by Jacob G Hornberger
“Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s attacks against U.S. Senator Mark Kelly constitute a fascinating and very revealing insight into the national-security-state way of life. Hegseth is upset with Kelly, along with five other members of Congress, for participating in a video that reminded U.S. soldiers of their duty to refuse to obey illegal orders. … Kelly and the others did not say to U.S. soldiers: ‘You have the right to disobey orders.’ If he had said that, I could easily understand why Hegseth would be upset. But that’s not what they said. They said that U.S. soldiers have the right — and the duty — to refuse to obey illegal orders. The difference between those two admonitions is day and night. What Kelly and the others stated is the absolute truth.” (02/05/26)
Source: Orange County Register
by Veronique de Rugy
“When government grows to dominate ever-larger shares of the economy, and when politicians refuse to be responsible about what they spend, there’s a predictable next move: Insist that the problem is ‘the rich’ not paying enough. Never mind that high earners already shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Never mind that relying on a small and mobile group of people for the bulk of your revenue makes public finances more volatile, not more stable. No, once spending is treated as untouchable and restraint as politically impossible, it’s only a matter of time before politics demands more, more, more. More taxes and more distortion. This helps explain why wild new forms of wealth taxes are popping up.” (02/05/26)
“Yes, the party in power historically tends to lose congressional seats in midterm elections. Sometimes a few, sometimes more. Beyond that obvious likelihood, trying to predict the mood of the electorate nine months out is a fool’s errand. I can, however, confidently predict how much will change as a direct result of the elections’ outcomes, whatever those outcomes may be: Not much.” (02/05/26)
