Source: Rutherford Institute
by John & Nisha Whitehead
“In the wake of the reported assassination attempt on President Trump, the Trump administration has wasted no time advancing a dangerous narrative: that criticism of the president — especially criticism labeling him authoritarian or fascist — is not just wrong, but responsible for violence. The implication is as chilling as it is unconstitutional: if you criticize the government too harshly, you may be to blame for what happens next. Taken to its logical conclusion, the government’s argument is this: criticism fuels anger, and anger leads to violence against the Trump administration. Which means the solution, in the government’s eyes, is simple: silence the criticism — but only when it is leveled at the Trump administration.” (04/28/26)
Source: Los Angeles Times
by Alex Padilla & Brian Lemek
“More than 158 million Americans cast a ballot in the 2024 election, and nearly one in three did so by mail. Nothing about that should be controversial because voting by mail is safe, secure and deeply rooted in American history. On March 31, just days after casting his own ballot by mail in a Florida special election, President Trump signed an executive order attacking vote by mail and absentee voting nationwide. … Immediately after Trump’s executive order was announced, more than 20 states and multiple organizations challenged it in court. They are right to do so, and we believe these states will prevail for the same reason the courts rejected the president’s earlier attempts to seize authority over our elections. Because the Constitution is clear: States and Congress set the rules for federal elections — not the president.” (04/28/26)
“The Right keeps waiting for the Weather Underground to shoot at President Trump. Not literally, not the specific organization — Bill Ayers is a comfortably retired professor in his 80s — but the type: the black-masked antifa supersoldier; the DSA chapter secretary with a tote bag full of Marx, oat milk, and bolt cutters; the blue-haired radical with a ‘Fuck ICE’ bicep tattoo; the leader of a trans gun club called ‘Trigger Warning.’ But we keep getting a very different type of would-be assassin: not the antifa militant from central casting, nor even the Proud Boy thug — but the deranged centrist. … ‘Centrist terrorism’ is, of course, not a serious analytical category. Yet neither, in these cases, is the bogeyman trumpeted on the Right as ‘radical leftist terrorism.'” (04/28/26)
“‘Debate’ almost never corresponds to mappable arguments. The simplest ‘solve debate’ proposal is the argument map. Some technology helps people decompose arguments into premises and conclusions, then lets skeptics point out where the premises are wrong, or where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. But almost no real argument works that way. Even in the best-case scenario, where an argument almost works that way, it doesn’t really work that way. Suppose you’re having an argument about COVID lockdowns. Someone says ‘lockdowns hurt the economy.’ Now you’re stuck in a giant fight about whether that claim is true (answer: compared to the counterfactual, certain kinds of lockdown measures hurt certain economic indicators in certain situations). But even if it is true, so what? What conclusion can you draw from that premise?” (04/28/26)
“German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said that America is being ‘humiliated’ by Iran: ‘The Iranians are obviously very skilled at negotiating, or rather, very skillful at not negotiating, letting the Americans travel to Islamabad and then leave again without any result,’ he said. The only issue with this argument is that Donald Trump is such an erratic lunatic that arguably no real negotiation has ever taken place and may not actually be possible. Principally what Trump has done is post random nonsense online. Among Tuesday’s posts was one in which he claimed that ‘Iran has just informed us that they are in a ‘State of Collapse.’ They want us to ‘Open the Hormuz Strait,’ as soon as possible.’ This did not happen. It is what it is, and it’s not going to get better so long as Trump remains president.” (04/29/26)
“Just as there is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program, there is often nothing as permanent as a temporary moratorium. California knows this all too well. The state’s nuclear moratorium was signed into law 50 years ago as part of a 1976 amendment to the Warren-Alquist Act and has remained in effect ever since. The time is ripe for the removal of this nonsensical ban.” 904/28/26)
“Last weekend my Institute for Peace and Prosperity hosted another conference here on the Texas Gulf Coast. Not only did we have a full house attending the conference – which is in a way the most important thing – but in this era of profound disappointment and disillusionment, we struck a note of optimism thankfully due to our wonderful line-up of speakers. The main topic of the conference, titled ‘War is Back on the Menu,’ was of course the disastrous decision by the Trump Administration to launch an unprovoked war against Iran – both last June and again on February 28th.” (04/28/26)
“‘Gun control’ had chance after chance after chance to prove it could thwart Allen’s plans. And. It. Didn’t. Whoa … violent criminals don’t obey ‘gun control’ laws and private venue gun rules any more than they obey other kinds of laws and rules? Whodathunkit? It’s not that the laws and rules aren’t adequately enforced. The only way to reliably prevent Allen from traveling from LA to DC with guns would have been to force him to travel on foot and buck naked … after which he’d have almost certainly been able to buy a gun on the street if he wanted one.” (04/28/26)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Wanjiru Njoya
“Supreme Court rulings are significant not only for their decision on who wins, but also for their reasoning. A victory for common sense may sometimes be pyrrhic if it benefits the party who wins the dispute but relies on reasoning that erodes individual liberty in the longer term. In that context, while the outcome in the recent case of Chiles v. Salazar, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (decided March 31, 2026) was welcomed, the emphasis it placed on ‘viewpoint discrimination’ is unfortunate. It is one more step down the road to conceptualizing free speech as an application of the non-discrimination principle, rather than as an emanation of individual liberty.” (04/28/26)
