“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)
“Nearly 175 years later, Bastiat’s cautionary tale provides a window into the fallacy that lies at the heart of today’s trade war: the myth that destruction creates wealth – that breaking trade deals and global supply chains, like breaking windows, is a secret recipe for prosperity. Like the mayor in Bastiat’s tale, President Trump is a slick politician and a masterful spin artist. He’s exceptional at portraying his policy’s ‘success’ by focusing our attention squarely on its visible beneficiaries. That’s why he often unveils his latest tariffs in made-for-TV spectacles where he’s encircled by jubilant workers at revived factories that directly benefit from his protectionist policies. Thankfully, Bastiat’s parable exposes this clever marketing ploy for what it is: cheap sophistry.” (12/15/250
Source: Caitlin Johnstone, Rogue Journalist
by Caitlin Johnstone
“Two shooters attacked a Jewish Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach on Sunday, killing fifteen people and injuring dozens of others. Police report that the shooters were a father and his son; the father was killed by police, and the son was captured. The shooters appear to have been Muslim, but, much to the inconvenience of those who would like to use this incident to fan the flames of western Islamophobic hysteria, the man who selflessly risked his life to disarm one of them was also a Muslim father of two named Ahmed al-Ahmed. As usual we’re seeing a lot of speculation about false flags and psyops regarding this incident, but I prefer to hang back from such commentary until I’ve seen some solid evidence. I do have some thoughts about the public discourse we are seeing about the shooting right now, though.” (12/15/25)
“Last week, the U.S. Senate rejected two health care bills intended to resolve the impasse over COVID-19–era Affordable Care Act (ACA), a.k.a. Obamacare, subsidies and, to one extent or another, concerns over the cost of medical coverage. Both were blocked by the near impossibility of advancing anything in that body without 60 votes in support. The Democrat-sponsored legislation would have kicked the can down the road on Obamacare plans’ inherent flaws by extending ‘temporary’ subsidies for another three years. The Republican bill was a more serious effort that would bring some reform to the system by expanding Americans’ access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). But neither is going anywhere right now. Maybe that’s for the best. Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) proposes better legislation that expands Americans’ access to HSAs and to group health plans offered by all sorts of organizations across state lines.” (12/15/25)
“One of the great mysteries about the rise of populism, in both the United States and Europe, is why it has benefited the political right so much more than the left. For years, American progressives have been trying to get people worked up over rising rates of economic inequality, with the expectation that this anger could fuel greater support for the Democratic Party. Yet the electoral fruits of this effort have been pretty much nonexistent. … The problem stems from a failure to grasp the psychology underlying populism. Broadly speaking, populism today is a revolt against cognitive elites, not economic elites. Its centerpiece is the affirmation of common sense over the fancy theories favored by intellectuals. … Populism is popular because it speaks to voters in concrete terms and tells them that their first instincts — about economics and more — are correct.” (12/15/25)
Source: Brennan Center for Justice
by Michael Waldman
“The 2026 election will take place in a political system that is divided, discordant, flagrantly gerrymandered, and marked by widening racial discrimination. Thank Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the Supreme Court. And the supermajority of highly activist justices seems poised, even eager, to make things appreciably worse. In 2019, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court refused to adopt any standard to police partisan gerrymandering, and it even prevented federal courts from hearing that claim. Fast-forward through a census, six years of line-drawing, and a flurry of lawsuits, and predictably, our democracy has become much less fair. Redistricting is supposed to take place once a decade, after the census. In fact, that’s why the census is written into the Constitution. But earlier this year, Texas abruptly drew new congressional maps in a gambit to squeeze out five extra seats for Republicans.” (12/15/25)
