“Last summer, a former student journalist asked the University of Michigan’s student paper The Michigan Daily to take down or anonymize an article they had written more than 10 years ago. The article mentioned their involvement in a movement calling for the school to divest from companies associated with the Israeli government. In the email, they explained that their partner was a green card holder, and they were about to travel abroad with their young child. They worried they would not be allowed back. … There’s a disturbing nationwide trend of student journalists making similar requests to avoid deportation or other repercussions for their protected speech.” (07/29/26)
“While Americans remain transfixed by the political circus—cheering for their preferred party, jeering at the opposition, obsessing over every manufactured outrage and waiting for the next spectacle—the Surveillance State continues its steady march forward. The government is watching. It watches where you go, whom you meet, where you worship, what medical offices you visit, what political rallies you attend, what protests you join, what books you read, what websites you visit and what causes you support. It watches through your phone, your car, your doorbell, your appliances, your purchases, your social media accounts and the cameras positioned along the roads you travel every day. This is how freedom dies in the digital police state: not always through dramatic declarations of martial law or soldiers stationed on every street corner, but through the gradual construction of a technological dragnet—an electronic concentration camp—so pervasive that privacy becomes impossible and anonymity becomes suspicious.” (07/29/26)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Conner McEleney
“Many progressives, such as Robert Reich and Kyle Kulinski, argue that the economy needs a universal basic income (UBI) to fix it. Their argument stems from the idea that UBI has no serious flaws, that many studies show success, and that it’s the moral thing to do. An example that these progressives would cite would be the Denver UBI experiment. The study had three groups of people. Group A had $1,000 per month, and Group B had $6,500 for the first month; the other months were $500. Group C had $50 a month. The study concluded that giving money improved their overall well-being. As the saying goes, it’s too good to be true; the results alone are exaggerated by UBI proponents.” (07/29/26)
Source: The Intercept
by Tom Engelhardt & Nick Turse
“Last week, almost a quarter century since Bush made the case for war in Iraq, a U.S. soldier was killed in an Iranian attack on an American base there. President Donald Trump was elected on a promise to say goodbye to all that. American-style wars of choice were going to be a thing of the past …. No one, I suspect, not even Trump, has the faintest idea why he did this, though maybe he felt left out of the club of forever-war makers, co-chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” (07/29/26)
Source: Christian Science Monitor
by the Editorial Board
“The increasing incarceration of women – often for minor, nonviolent offenses – carries a high human cost. There is a shift toward alternatives that balance accountability with the right of children to continued parental care.” (07/29/26)
“The government is charging Samuel Tunick for telling them a code that would erase all the data on his phone—after they tried to take it on false pretenses.” (07/29/26)
“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled 7-0 to protect the state’s hunting clubs from warrantless searches of their property. The Institute for Justice observes that the decision protects the right ‘to be secure on their land’ of all Pennsylvanians ‘and marks a final victory with no further appeal available.’ The decision is a big deal. For decades, courts have accepted the ‘open fields doctrine’ advanced in a 1924 U.S. Supreme Court decision. According to this rule — or rationalization — officials may conduct warrantless searches on any land beyond that which immediately surrounds a home. Even if the open-field land is clearly marked as private property.” (07/29/26)
“[US Senator Rand] Paul has exposed a side of Dr. Fauci that his admirers prefer not to see: the narcissism of a public official who became accustomed to applause, deference, and celebrity treatment. … Yes, Dr. Fauci has the emotional IQ of an eight-year-old, which would be only his problem if he didn’t use the coercive power of government to harm millions of Americans as well as destroy countless businesses. That is the personal vanity side of the story. The deeper problem is institutional: once government officials are treated as arbiters of scientific truth, dissent becomes a political offense rather than a normal part of inquiry. The issue was never only Fauci; it was the state power that allowed one official consensus to become compulsory.” (07/29/26)
“People who believe they have a right to not see or hear something they don’t like are one of the biggest roadblocks to liberty. They imagine they have a right to not be offended. This nonexistent right is more important to them than letting others use their own property as they wish. Offense is subjective. What offends you doesn’t offend others. Something about you offends someone. It sets a dangerous precedent to attack others based on what offends you. Being offended is a personal character problem, not a condition that creates a right to control someone else.” (07/29/26)
