“Bill Jamieson wrote a Sunday Telegraph story titled ‘Your starter for £1,000’ on 31 December 1995. It discussed the Adam Smith Institute proposal for ‘baby bonds’ or ‘Fortune Accounts.’ When the IPPR copied the idea in 1999, without reference to the ASI’s earlier publication, Jamieson directed them to his 1995 story and published the fact. A version of it was implemented by the Blair government. it was called the Child Trust Fund, launched in 2002 and scrapped in 2010. It would undoubtedly be a very popular policy, were it to be given another go in the way I outline. Each newborn child would have £1,000 put into an investment account in their name, but no withdrawals could be made until age 18. Money paid in by family or friends would be tax-free and contribute to its growth.” (05/08/26)
“No one disputes that the regime in Iran is awful. The government massacres its own people. Iran is a major state sponsor of terrorism and has been for decades. But the reality is that Trump is ad-libbing the war with Iran from day to day. After launching his attack against Iran on Feb. 28, Trump told an audience, ‘We’ve won.’ Yet here we are, 10 weeks later, with the Strait of Hormuz still closed, the regime still in power, the national average price of gas approaching $5 a gallon and jet fuel, airline ticket prices and baggage fees on the rise. Is this what Republicans are supposed to run on in the 2026 midterm elections?” (05/08/26)
Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by Jacob G Hornberger
“[W]ho has it right when it came to celebrating genuine freedom on the Fourth of July — Americans in 1875, who lived without income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, welfare, immigration controls and immigration police state, non-interventionism, a national-security state, drug war, public (i.e., government) schooling, and other statist programs — or Americans today, who live under all these statist systems?” (05/08/26)
Source: Caitlin Johnstone, Rogue Journalist
by Caitlin Johnstone
“The EU is looking to ban VPNs, arguing that the ban is necessary to police recent online age verification laws. Critics have been warning for years that these age restriction laws are being rolled out around the world to erase online anonymity and enable greater surveillance of the entire population, and they are looking more vindicated than ever today. This isn’t about protecting children from social media addiction and porn, it’s about expanding the western empire’s surveillance network. This happens as the FCC moves to require ID verification for every phone activation in the United States, claiming the push is about stopping robocalls but effectively ending another form of anonymous communication. It’s always been about being able to more closely monitor the behavior of the public to make sure nobody’s plotting a revolution.” (05/09/26)
“‘Thank God for Mississippi’ was something I heard a lot in my younger years, after moving to Arkansas. Friends from Alabama and Louisiana also know the saying well. Back then, Mississippi was ranked 50th in so many categories by which the states were measured against each other that the Magnolia State saved those inhabiting states near the bottom from occupying that un-coveted dead last place. This was still the case in 2005, when Mississippi ranked 50th in fourth-grade reading scores. In 2013, Mississippi students climbed one rung, to 49th. Then things started to change.” (05/08/26)
“In February, we reviewed the Senate landscape, noting at the time that it was too early to tell whether control of the chamber was up for grabs. Since then, thanks to Trump’s falling approval ratings, Republicans’ grasp of power in the Senate looks increasingly vulnerable. That’s not to say Republicans will lose the Senate. It’s more likely than not that they keep control of the chamber, but they may have a narrow majority.” (05/08/26)
“In recent years, a quietly radical idea has gained traction in certain environmental circles: stop having children. Some members of Extinction Rebellion in the UK have embraced an anti-natalist position, arguing that a shrinking human population is one of the most powerful levers available for reducing environmental damage. If fewer people exist, the thinking goes, then less energy gets consumed, fewer habitats get destroyed, and the planet gets a much-needed chance to breathe. It is an emotionally compelling argument. But is it actually true? The evidence suggests not. A growing body of research indicates that population decline, by itself, is a surprisingly weak instrument for environmental repair. The relationship between fewer people and a healthier planet is messier and far less automatic than anti-natalists tend to assume.” (05/10/26)
“Much of the current discourse on the Middle East remains fixated on the US midterm congressional elections this coming November. This vote, in particular, is being framed as a pivotal turning point for everything from the survival of Gaza and Lebanon to the future of Iran and beyond. To a large extent, one can understand why US corporate media is obsessed with this date. US political power is divided between two ruling parties, each deeply embedded in an intricate system of powerful political and economic elites. For these groups, election results are decisive in shaping the overall direction of the country, but more specifically, they determine the fortunes and misfortunes of a ruling class whose very fate is tied to the corridors of power. However, there is a distinct irony in this fixation.” (05/08/26)
“It is worth taking a moment to recall that there was a time — not all that long ago — when conservative institutions had real weight to throw around. Names like Paul Weyrich, Ed Feulner, James Dobson and Phyllis Schlafly weren’t just footnotes. They were powerhouses. Directly or indirectly, organizations like the Heritage Foundation, Concerned Women for America, the National Rifle Association, the Family Research Council — and numerous other groups I don’t have room to list — helped elect conservatives, hold politicians accountable, and generally set the terms of debate. Many of these groups are still around (in some cases, enjoying lavish offices), but are any of these organizations — or the conservative causes for which they advocate — better off today than they were before Trump came down the escalator? I don’t think so.” (05/08/26)
