“The drama this week over the Trump administration Signal group chat about a strike on Houthis in Yemen in which The Atlantic Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently included has been popcorn-worthy, if you’re into that sort of thing. But beyond the resultant posturing between screw-up bureaucrats and pompous politicians, we learned something of value from the incident: Government officials use the popular encrypted messaging app because the intelligence community considers it secure. While the political class argues over the details, the rest of us should consider that an endorsement of this technology.” (03/28/25)
“Trump has proposed — and depending on the time of day — is actively planning to put large tariffs on aluminum imports (25% in the last version I saw). The implication is that there is some unfairness that has other countries producing a product we should be making domestically. Typically the argument is that the other governments are somehow subsidizing the product unfairly. Personally, I have never understood this argument — as a US consumer I am perfectly happy to have taxpayers of another country subsidize my purchases. It turns out aluminum is a great example to look at because it is very clear why it is produced where it is.” (03/28/25)
“For years, we’ve endured constitutional conservatives’ bloviating about the importance of protecting the sacred principles enshrined in our Constitution. Those include the separation of powers — legislative, executive and judicial checks on one another — and due process. Many of these hypocrites are defending the administration’s policies and bashing a judge for halting the hasty airlift of accused criminal aliens to a prison run by a banana-republic strongman — a directive the president promptly ignored. Perhaps most of these deportees are criminals and a threat (unlike peaceful Japanese residents who posed no threat whatsoever). They still deserve due process — their day in court, so to speak — to prove they have indeed violated the law. Constitutional conservatives of all people should understand that the government gets things wrong and individuals deserve protection from arbitrary actions by its agents.” (03/28/25)
Source: Common Dreams
by Edward Ahmed Mitchell & Ismail Allison
“If a worker consistently and completely fails at a job, he or she should not receive a promotion, a pay raise, or a pat on the back. Sooner or later, that worker should receive a termination notice. This is especially true of workers who engage in unethical behavior on the job. Almost any worker who violates office rules, defrauds their employer, or hurts their customers risks not only termination, but potential lawsuits and criminal charges. Yet a small sector of workers in our nation do not face such consequences for such mistakes or misconduct on the job. Some people, no matter how badly they fail at their job or how many disasters they create on their job, can keep their positions or even move on to even better jobs. Who are these special people who can ‘fail up’ again and again? Outgoing White House officials.” (03/29/25)
“Ludwig von Mises’s 1927 path-breaking work in political theory speaks to the current generations. In section 5 of his introduction to Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, Mises sounds impeccably relevant in describing how the opponents of liberalism and the market economy twist facts that are plainly before our eyes. You’ll see how he refuted the absurd claim that capitalism serves only a tiny privileged and exploitative group. The work of most thinkers passes away soon after they do. Not so with Ludwig von Mises. He began the section by acknowledging what should be obvious. Governments have always interfered with individual freedom, free enterprise, and free markets — in a word, capitalism — in substantial ways. Laissez faire has never been allowed. That does not prove it is impossible, only that people either did not understand the system or did not want its success demonstrated.” (03/28/25)
Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by Jacob G Hornberger
“I have a few real-life heroes, with Ron Paul sitting at the top of the list. Another of my real-life heroes is John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute. There are few people who are as fierce and competent defenders of civil liberties as John Whitehead. He not only understands the critical importance of civil liberties to a free society, he knows how to competently make the case for protecting civil liberties. Perhaps most important, every one of his articles and books exudes the deep passionate love of liberty that characterizes this man. I make it a point to read his weekly perspectives.” (03/28/25)
“We have seen entirely too much cowering and capitulation in the face of Trump’s threats: by the Paul Weiss law firm and Columbia University, by Meta and much of Silicon Valley, by Big Pharma and other industries, by mostly supine congressional Republicans, by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (in the eyes of many on the left [sic]), and by media outlets. But in a crisis, courage can be found in unexpected places. This is why it’s heartening to see some on the right (beyond the usual never-Trumpers) beginning to speak out about Trump’s overreach. We might be seeing the first cracks in MAGA unity, which Trump has maintained by threats and fear.” (03/28/25)
“Everywhere I go in America, when I tell people I’m from California, I get one of two reactions: ‘You need to get out of there — move to somewhere less crazy!’ Or: ‘Why do they keep voting for that [fill in your curse word of choice]?’ Well, here’s the good news: the answers to those two questions are now coming together in a beautiful and positive prospect — real political change in the Golden State. My answer to the first question is typically, ‘Why should we leave? This is my home! I’m raising my family here; I started a business here. Yes, our terrible government has turned everything into a disaster right now, but I love California. …’ Then combine that with how I’m now answering the second question, about why people still vote for the same old you-know-what: ‘Actually, they’re starting to vote differently.'” (03/28/25)
“Even if you’re sure you’re right, you’re supposed to acknowledge the possibility that critics are sincere unless there’s clear reason to believe otherwise. But Trump and his minions already have a totalitarian mindset, in which there is no such thing as legitimate skepticism of the Leader’s proclamations. Anyone who expresses doubt, whether it’s Larry Summers or the Wall Street Journal editorial page, must be a corrupt globalist, or a woke radical left-wing Marxist, or maybe both. Hey, Larry Summers isn’t really Jewish — he’s Palestinian. Do people in the business world still think Bessent is a sensible guy who will exert a stabilizing influence on Trump policies?” (03/28/25)
“It’s ‘bad-penny’ time in the Maine legislature, as in ‘back like a’: a bill threatening the privacy of political donors. LD951, introduced and foiled in the previous session, would force nonprofit organizations that take a position on policy measures ‘to not only report their donors, but their donors’ donors,’ which Philanthropy Roundtable compares to legislation in Arizona that did become law — a law now being challenged in court. Like Arizona’s law, LD951 would impose cumbersome regulations and steep fines while obstructing free speech and free association. The obviously intended result being for nonprofits to not take such positions.” (03/28/25)
