“Amid the fears and concerns about artificial intelligence and emerging online technologies, a statement by the founder of Christian Science – and of this publication – offers reassurance. Referencing the United States’ ringing Declaration of Independence, Mary Baker Eddy wrote, ‘God has endowed man with inalienable rights, among which are self-government, reason, and conscience’. With the promise and exercise of these innate rights, humanity is well placed to take on the challenges – and promise – of AI. Many religious leaders, as well as Silicon Valley innovators and analysts, are weighing in on the role of human creativity and intelligence, as well as workplace skills and relevance. Most recently, Pope Leo XIV delivered a major statement on faith and human progress in the age of AI, titled ‘Magnifica Humanitas’ (Magnificent Humanity).” (05/27/26)
“Most people involved in artificial intelligence can agree on one thing: AI is coming for your job. Anthropic’s CEO predicts Great Depression levels of unemployment in the next five years. Bill Gates says that within ten years humans won’t be needed ‘for most things’. Corporate leaders say AI-driven layoffs are already starting, with Intuit firing thousands just this week, citing AI. Businesses justify their huge investments in AI by committing to spending less on labor, and AI firms sell their products promising to help them do it. Regardless of whether AI is yet good enough to replace workers, their plan is clear: lay off millions of workers, justified by AI. One entity seems totally unaware: the United States government. The only major AI proposal advanced this Congress was a failed effort to prevent states from regulating the industry.” [editor’s note: Create jobs? As in WPA dig ditches and fill them in? If they’re going that route, maybe should just fund UBI that way as a safety net – SAT] (05/28/26)
Source: Rutherford Institute
by John & Nisha Whitehead
“Who is actually running the government? That is no longer a rhetorical question. As America’s war with Iran lurches from escalation to ceasefire to renewed threats of military force, Americans are being asked to trust that someone, somewhere, knows what they are doing. But who? The president who boasts one moment of imminent peace and threatens the next to ‘“finish the job?’ The Pentagon officials who insist the war is going according to plan? The vice president who has reportedly questioned whether the Defense Department is giving the president the full picture? The intelligence agencies, defense contractors, war planners, foreign allies, billionaire donors, political handlers and unelected power brokers who operate behind the curtain? This is the constitutional crisis hiding in plain sight.” (05/27/26)
“Over the course of his three presidential campaigns (2016, 2020, 2024), President Donald J. Trump promised an America First foreign policy — one that would see America pull back from postwar European security commitments, end the war in Ukraine, and keep the country out of the Middle East ‘forever wars’ that so beguiled (and then bedeviled) every US president for the past quarter of a century. Instead, as we head into the 2026 midterms, his record is, to a surprising degree, primarily one of continuity with the national security policies of his predecessors. In the context of foreign policy, Trump II might properly be seen as Bush-Cheney’s third term, such has been the influence of neoconservative personnel and ideas within his two non-contiguous administrations.” (05/27/26)
“Every time there’s an election — a religious ritual for those who believe in the imaginary authority of the state — the cheers and tears begin as soon as the votes are tallied. The reaction depends on whether the individual voter ends up on the winning or losing side. Either outcome means the state has won at the expense of liberty. Politics is designed to divide people into winners and losers, and the only way to truly win is to refuse to play.” (05/27/26)
Source: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
by David Volodzko
“In the spring of 1873, the U.S. postal inspector, a prudish Christian named Anthony Comstock, arrived in Washington carrying a box of dildos. There were also dirty books, naughty pictures, French playing cards, abortion pamphlets, ‘intermediate tegumentary coverings’ (condoms), and enough sexually explicit material to scandalize Congress into trying to legislate the Devil out of Americans. Comstock called the collection his ‘Chamber of Horrors’ and went around showing it to lawmakers like a traveling freak show. The performance worked. On March 3, President Ulysses S. Grant signed what became known as the Comstock Act, one of the most sweeping censorship laws in American history. … For the next four decades, Comstock stalked publishers, raided bookstores, and helped criminalize public discussion of sex in the United States.” (05/27/26)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Joshua Mawhorter
“Public goods theory is presented as scientific, value-free economic theory, however, it implicitly smuggles in normative presuppositions that lead to the conclusion that the modern nation-state, and the state alone, must provide certain essential goods and services, which legitimates the state and its actions as necessary and legitimate. Historically, many applications of public goods theory emerged less as neutral demonstrations of state necessity than as retrospective justifications for functions governments had already monopolized.” (05/27/26)
“For my six decades, the United States has been the dominant military power in the world. Yet, with China’s massive military buildup that is now an open question in Asia. Which is why failure to help Taiwan defeat a Chinese attack would destroy U.S. credibility there … and likely far beyond. So, how do we ever relinquish the badge of world’s policeman? One word: Allies.” [editor’s note: Three words — non-interventionist foreign policy – TLK] (05/27/26)
“It seems modern Democrats can’t object to Nazi-lovers inside the party. Massachusetts Rep. Jake Auchincloss just got major lefty backlash for calling Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner’s Nazi tatoo (and his pathetic excuses for it) ‘disqualifying.’ ‘I’ve been clear about Graham Platner. I find that tattoo and his commentary about it to be personally disqualifying,’ Auchincloss said Monday on CNN; ‘I hope Maine voters agree with me.’ That brought a storm of progressive social-media fury, accusing Auchincloss of wanting President Donald Trump to have a Republican Senate majority for his last two years in office. Saikat Chakrabarti, the former AOC staff chief now running to replace the retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi, called on Bay State Dems to oust Auchincloss in his coming primary; others demanded Jake get kicked out of the Democratic Party.” (05/26/26)
“Two years ago I published ‘The Philosophy of Conservatism’ as a series of essays on Conservatism and Conservatives. I divide it into small-c conservatism, which is a character trait, ‘a disposition averse from change,’ as Lord Hugh Cecil put it. The small-c conservatives oppose change because it is upsetting, and because the loss of the familiar is threatening. ‘Every change is an emblem of extinction,’ as Oakeshott expressed it. Large-C Conservatism is a political tradition, not a character trait. It recognizes that change happens because of new technology, new information and new ideas. But it wants change to come from below, organic, evolutionary and unplanned. It opposes imposed change, preconceived plans.” (05/27/26)
