“The Grinch is stealing hundreds of billions of dollars of welfare benefits from America’s needy, and Democrats couldn’t care less. The broadening scandal in Minnesota, where Somali criminals allegedly stole more than a billion dollars in taxpayer funds under the indulgent eyes of Democrat Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison and other state officials, is the tip of the iceberg. All around the country, there is growing evidence that programs meant to serve the poor, the hungry and the homeless have been scammed; rather than investigate the frauds and prosecute those responsible, Democrats denounce efforts by those trying to stop the theft.” (12/16/25)
“The news this last weekend show that the end of 2025 is no better than the rest of the year. We aren’t talking about the traditional holiday wars on what decorations can be put where, and what people can use as greetings for the season. Or even what songs can be sung or broadcast. Nope, we are talking about shooting, knifing, and other ways of killing people.” (12/15/25)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Ryan McMaken
“A common myth about American history is the one in which a handful of so-called ‘founding fathers’ in the 1780s declared that America would create a ‘wall of separation’ between religious institutions and government institutions. After that, the First Amendment to the US constitution was instrumental in ensuring that religious institutions would be totally separate from American political institutions. Or so the story goes. Much of this myth is premised on the idea that the spread of religious freedom in America was a top-down process. … it is not at all the case that the First Amendment was central to the process of disestablishment — the process of abolishing the ‘official’ churches who held favored positions within most state governments. Rather, this process was carried out overwhelmingly in the state legislatures — and some of this was done before the First Amendment was even written.” (12/15/25)
“Politicians and policy experts like to talk about the ‘root causes’ of crime, homelessness, poverty, rising prices and other problems. If they want to understand the root cause of political polarization, they might want to consider the whole picture and look in the mirror. In a book published 40 years ago, economist and political philosopher Anthony de Jasay (1925-2019) proposed an explanation that did not receive the attention it deserved. … In de Jasay’s view, politics is necessarily polarizing. It is just a matter of degree. The larger the scope of the state (the entire apparatus of government), the more politics you have. And more politics leads to more polarization.” (12/15/25)
“Kathryn Bigelow’s gripping film A House of Dynamite vividly depicts the contradictions and failings of U.S. nuclear weapons strategy in 2025. In the film, no one knows where a single intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) aimed at Chicago is coming from. No one can shoot it down. Senior civilian bureaucrats and military officers race around in search of an impossible solution. The clock keeps ticking to 19 minutes before impact. The U.S. president, the man with his finger on the button, is torn by conflicting options. Do we retaliate? Against whom? How can we avoid escalating to apocalyptic nuclear war? Ten million people are condemned to die from the detonation of this mystery missile.” (12/16/25)
“Placing marijuana in Schedule III would not legalize recreational use, and it would allow medical use only if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved specific cannabis-based products as prescription drugs. Producing and distributing marijuana, even in compliance with state law, would still be federal crimes, albeit subject to somewhat less severe penalties. Reclassifying marijuana nevertheless would be a financial boon to state-licensed marijuana businesses, relieving them of a disability that results in staggeringly high effective income tax rates. It also would make medical research easier by eliminating federal restrictions that are specific to Schedule I.” (12/15/25)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Douglas E French
“Donald Trump told Politico’s Dasha Burns that he gives the US economy an A+++++. He posted on Truth Social, ‘When will I get credit for having created, with No Inflation, perhaps the Greatest Economy in the History of our Country?’ Herbert Hoover had the same view back in 1930. In his book 1929, Andrew Ross Sorkin points out that Hoover used every press conference to convince people the post crash economy was better than people thought. … Hoover said the very high 16 percent unemployment rate was deceptive. Trump would have called it a ‘hoax,’ as he calls continued price inflation a hoax. Jimmy Carter telling us to turn down our thermostats comes to mind when Trump says kids don’t need 37 pencils or 37 dolls for Christmas.” (12/15/25)
“My personal definition of libertarianism for over a decade has been that liberty is the core principle, and on every issue, you put liberty first, grounded in individualism, private property rights, and the NAP. Though I probably need to update my definition slightly. Dave Smith’s definition of libertarianism, put roughly, is self-ownership, private property rights, and the non-aggression principle (NAP) — the idea that no one may initiate force against another person or their property. He describes this as a philosophically consistent foundation that avoids circular reasoning, emphasizing that libertarianism rejects government as a monopoly on the use of force. So why is he advocating for socialist state borders and mass deportations if this is an initiation of force against another person, which is part of his own definition of libertarianism — and thus goes against it?” (12/15/25)
“Rules for Radicals, published in 1971, was intended as a tactical guide for organizers to challenge adversaries and entrenched power structures. Aimed initially at the disenfranchised, educated elites and their children picked up the manual and ran with it. Its tactics include psychological warfare, relentless pressure, and turning adversaries’ strengths against them through dissembling and distortion. For decades, the American Left adopted Alinsky’s playbook with zeal …. the American Left beat Alinsky’s rules to death. And this led to a spectacular backfire in 2024. … The ultimate irony? The Right co-opted Alinsky, using his rules against the Left. Figures like Donald Trump employed ridicule, personalization, and constant pressure to portray progressives as radicals, turning the playbook against them. The Right even started to think of themselves as both victors and victims. But just as the Right figured out how to do it, it flamed out.” (12/15/25)
Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by Jacob G Hornberger
“A popular belief among statists is that a powerful military equals a powerful nation. Actually, it’s the opposite. A powerful military equals a weak nation, and a weak military equals a powerful nation. The Americans who founded the United States understood this principle well. They were fiercely opposed to a powerful military, which they referred to as a ‘standing army.’ So did their successors, for some 150 years. From 1789, when the Constitution went into effect, through most of the 19th century, through the early part of the 20th century, our American ancestors had a system of government that entailed a small and weak military force. The result was the most powerful nation in history.” (12/15/25)
