“The protection that the framers wrote into our Constitution was not a general right to privacy. Rather, it was a specific warrant requirement for specific records — the same records that federal agencies can now reach through administrative subpoenas that require no judge’s signature. This is because of two key and relatively recent Supreme Court decisions. U.S. v. Miller in 1976 and Smith v. Maryland in 1979 replaced the Fourth Amendment’s requirement with a doctrine the Founders never intended. They established that information voluntarily shared with a third party loses Fourth Amendment protection.” (06/17/26)
Source: The American Conservative
by Eldar Mamedov
“The threat of war had preserved American leverage, and the waging of war destroyed it. So long as the prospect of the use of force remained ambiguous, Iran had to hedge. Once force was actually applied and failed to produce decisive results, Tehran learned that the United States could not achieve its maximalist objectives militarily. That knowledge permanently shifted the bargaining dynamic. But this outcome need not be seen as catastrophic. It can instead produce a realistic reassessment of American presence and partnerships in the Middle East.” (06/17/26)
“Simon Kuper is 56 now. His first memory of a World Cup, if not his first-ever vivid memory — for many of us who grew up outside the United States, the two are often the same — was the 1978 final between the Netherlands and Argentina. ‘I recall that night as vividly as almost anything else in my childhood,’ he writes in World Cup Fever. ‘A World Cup is like Proust’s Madeleine. Each new World Cup reminds you of past World Cups, and the people you watched them with.’ The book is a history of the World Cup through a few dozen madeleines. For Americans, it’s as good a guide as any to a tournament of paradoxes, this too-big-to-fail quadrennial festival of corruption, cheating, profiteering, nationalist chauvinism, and mostly crappy soccer that nevertheless can hypnotize and transport to a utopia of competition as idealized and convincing as Pelé’s deification of the sport as ‘the beautiful game.'” (06/17/26)
Source: Foundation for Economic Education
by Cláudia Ascensão Nunes
“When a government grants a monopoly in certain industries, it is protecting itself from competition it cannot control. The cost of that decision always falls on the people who depend on services that become more expensive, slower, and less innovative by decree. This is exactly what the European Commission proposed on June 3, 2026, this time applied to the digital infrastructure that supports hospitals, universities, public administrations, and businesses across Europe. It is called the Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA), and it is the centerpiece of the Tech Sovereignty Package. The logic behind it is protectionist: restrict who can compete, and guarantee market share for alternatives selected by the state.” (06/17/26)
“As Israeli officials lash out against a preliminary deal to end the war in Iran, President Donald Trump is returning the favor. ‘I’m not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon,’ Trump said Tuesday. ‘Israel would have been blown up a long time ago had I not gotten involved.’ The comments represent a nadir in U.S.-Israel relations under Trump. The dispute is fundamental. Trump is determined to end the war with Iran, and Iran has made clear that a peace deal is only possible if Israel halts its operations against Hezbollah, an Iranian ally, in Lebanon. … Israel, for its part, believes its interests are best served by continued war with both Hezbollah and Iran, and it’s insisting that it won’t be bound by the terms of any deal negotiated between Tehran and Washington alone.” (06/17/26)
“When the state is so big and intrusive that people need its permission to do everything from building a house to merging businesses, it’s easy for the lines to blur between conversations in which government officials merely voice preferences and those in which they twist arms to get their way. That creates room for partisans to defend ‘jawboning’ — government bullying of private parties to do what officials won’t or can’t do themselves — as nothing more than casual chats. The best way to handle jawboning is to strip government of power so it has little coercive leverage, and we should always work to do just that. Another good approach, embodied in legislation cosponsored by Sens. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) and Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), is to make it easier to monitor government communications with private parties and to punish officials who cross the line.” (06/17/26)
“I recently attended a webinar sponsored by the Working Families Party, entitled Winning Back the Working Class. Everyone attending seemed to share the view that the working class has drifted away from the Democratic Party and that Democrats must change their messaging in order to win these voters back and prevail against MAGA Republicans. The presenters provided sophisticated polling analyses, looking closely at the issues that matter most to working-class voters and what turns them off about the Democratic Party. The bottom line was that the Democrats needed to put forward a strong, progressive economic-populist agenda. While I share the desire to derail MAGA in the coming elections, I find the ‘winning back’ framework problematic. For starters, why do Democrats need to be convinced that a progressive economic platform should be adopted?” (06/17/26)
“Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) greeted the news that Elon Musk had become a trillionaire by — what else? — touting a plan to raise federal spending and taxes. Musk ‘pays the same amount into Social Security as someone making $184,500,’ Sanders tweeted. He said his bill would ‘end that absurdity,’ eliminate the program’s shortfall for 75 years and pay for an expansion of Social Security benefits. … Sanders’s idea is terrible. It would be a much larger and more harmful tax increase than its supporters let on and would further warp the federal government’s already perverse spending priorities. … The tax cap is there to keep benefits related to contributions. Musk won’t pay any more than someone making $184,500, but he also won’t get a bigger check than that person.” (06/17/26)
Source: Karl Dickey’s Freedom Vanguard
by Karl Dickey
“Not many people paid attention, but the 2026 Florida legislative session took an unusual turn with regard to AI regulation. The main issue isn’t whether AI should be regulated, but whether that should happen at the state or national level, or not at all. In Florida, lawmakers rejected Governor DeSantis’[s] ‘AI Bill of Rights.’ The Florida Senate supported DeSantis, but the House did not. When it comes to the Internet, how can a state control how its citizens use certain websites, especially when people can easily circumvent the rules? And I would posit that, even if one were in favor of regulating AI, we do not even know which regulation would be most prudent without inhibiting its positive impact on society. So far, it seems most regulatory proposals I have seen around the country, including in Florida, have been alarmist, reactionary, and driven by emotion rather than objective reasoning.” (06/17/26)
“Frustration with high costs has made younger generations more receptive to claims that wealth requires exploitation. But envy-driven attacks only limit our future opportunities.” (06/17/26)
