Source: Foundation for Economic Education
by Cláudia Ascensão Nunes
“The European Union has just unveiled the so-called European Democracy Shield. The name, while promising, claims to ‘protect’ democracy on the basis of two pillars which, on principle, should raise concerns: combating ‘disinformation’ and ‘foreign interference.’ To that end, the EU will create a new European Centre for Democratic Resilience, intended to collect data from Member States on information manipulation; foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI); and phenomena classified as disinformation. The same package also includes a European network of independent fact-checkers and a European Digital Media Observatory, which will be endowed with monitoring and analytical capacities during elections or moments of crisis. Regarding free elections and the risk of foreign interference, the Commission additionally proposes to finance ‘independent journalism.’ The irony that journalism financed by political institutions can never be genuinely independent seems lost on the Commission.” (11/24/25)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Paulo Ferreira
“It is no secret that the demographic exodus from the Douro is widespread and will continue to plague the region, with declining birth rates and the lack of economic attractiveness for both workers and investors. It is little wonder, then, that people receive some of the lowest wages in the country. Port wine is the heart and soul of the nation’s wine sector, yet the laws regulating it end up harming, rather than benefiting, small wine producers …. We do not possess property; it is regulated by the IVDP, established in 1933. Owners are not only prohibited from producing the wine of their choice but also from deciding the volume they produce, the price at which they can sell their products, the way they store and vinify according to protocols, and the list goes on.” (11/24/25)
“Cancellations, sometimes violent protests, behind-the-scenes censorship, and overt government threats to muzzle the media. Free speech is doing better in the U.S. than elsewhere in the world, but that doesn’t mean it’s doing well. It’s besieged by hostile politician and a shifting culture that is eroding the foundations of tolerance for dissent and an open marketplace of ideas. That has Americans worried, though even as they fret over the future of free speech a significant minority contribute to the problem.” (11/24/25)
“Liberal judges who decide not to jail violent career criminals and sadistic psychopaths ought to be held liable when the felons attack innocent citizens. Two horrendous, unprovoked attacks on helpless young women on public transit in recent weeks would never have happened if the legal system had done what it’s designed to do. Instead, BLM-inspired reparatory justice has endangered the most vulnerable among us — women, children, the elderly and disabled. We pay police and judges to keep evil and dangerous predators away from weak and defenseless innocents. Yet radical Democrats who have taken over blue cities are hellbent on a destructive ideological crusade to defund the police, close the jails and install obedient judges who side with the perpetrator over the victim.” (11/23/25)
Source: Bluegrass Institute
by Caleb O Brown & Colleen Hroncich
“Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman’s passionate case for guaranteeing preschool access for every 4-year-old in the state deserves scrutiny. The evidence for universal pre-K as an economic development strategy is far weaker than she suggests. Kentucky families deserve honesty about what this expensive and expansive program can – and cannot – deliver. Coleman omits the most rigorous recent research on the subject. Researchers from Vanderbilt University followed nearly 3,000 low-income children through sixth grade with alarming results: Children who attended Tennessee’s Voluntary Pre‑K (TN-VPK) program fared worse on a range of metrics compared with children who didn’t attend.” (11/24/25)
“For many years, I found my ideological and professional home at the Heritage Foundation. I first joined the organization in 1986 as a policy analyst and departed it in 2021, ending my 35-year tenure there as executive vice president. My years at Heritage taught me many things about how a think tank should — and perhaps equally importantly, should not — operate.” (11/24/25)
“Between the Trump-Putin meeting in Anchorage Alaska and the proposed Trump-Putin meeting in Budapest, the diplomatic track that the U.S. and Russia were on seemed to die. In October, Trump and Putin had a ‘very productive’ two hour phone call that led to a phone call between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov that was to lay the groundwork for a meeting between Trump and Putin in Budapest. But, by the time Rubio had hung up the phone, the Budapest meeting was off. … But then hints emerged that restarting talks may not be impossible.” (11/24/25)
“The data nerds among us were happy to finally get their September jobs report fix, even though these data are somewhat stale now. However, we still learned a few things about the state of the economy. Before saying what we learned, it’s worth a few words on what we didn’t learn but people are saying anyway. First and foremost, this was not a strong report in any real-world sense of the term. To be clear, the 119,000 jobs reported for the month was stronger than most analysts had expected, including me. But this hardly implies robust job growth. We averaged 170,000 jobs a month in 2024, so now we’re supposed to be celebrating a report showing job growth that is 70 percent of last year’s average?” (11/24/25)
Source: Responsible Statecraft
by Christopher Mott
“In foreign policy discourse, the phrase ‘the national interest’ gets used with an almost ubiquitous frequency, which could lead one to assume it is a strongly defined and absolute term. Most debates, particularly around changing course in diplomatic strategy or advocating for or against some kind of economic or military intervention, invoke the phrase as justification for their recommended path forward. But what is the national interest, really?” (11/24/25)
“In the past few months, the Trump administration has intensified its assault on political dissent. The September 25 release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, titled ‘Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,’ capitalized upon the shooting death of Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk and marked an alarming escalation in the regime’s suppression of political dissent in the name of national security. The NSPM-7 memorandum casts a wide net by identifying a wide swath of previously protected criticisms of American policy, capitalism, Christian nationalism, and fascism as potential threats to US security. This language reveals the government’s effort to construct a political category of terrorism so broad that it can encompass nearly any form of progressive or left-aligned civil society work.” (11/24/25)
