Get ready for the recommendations. The post Lucy Dacus’ essential reading list: “I didn’t want it to be over” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The U.S. government has taken a 10 percent interest in Intel which used to be the primary manufacturer of computer chips in the U.S. The government is now reportedly the largest shareholder in Intel. The Trump administration is now looking at whether other defense contractors should be partly — or wholly — owned by the government. This is a tremendously bad idea. The Trump administration should be concentrating on rebuilding our military, which it isn’t doing. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that the Trump administration is having a “monstrous discussion” about taking a stake in defense companies. He said that Lockheed Martin is “basically an arm of the U.S. government,” and asked, “What’s the economics of that? I’m going to leave it to my secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense.” Wow. Lutnick is defaulting in his job because it’s his responsibility — along with the secretaries of the Treasury and Defense — who should be shouting that the ownership of defense contractors should never be the government’s business. That’s true because the free market isn’t designed that way. Government bureaucrats aren’t responsible to shareholders or, in literal terms, anyone else. They are non-independent actors who look out for the bureaucracies that they are a part of. Among bureaucrats there is no thought of the free market though they happily take control of whatever they can. Shareholders can be relied on to look after their own interests in a growing or shrinking market. The market for computer chips — semiconductors to the trade — is rapidly evolving because nations and commercial interests are driving computers to artificial intelligence (AI). They haven’t reached that point yet. No computer functions as a human brain can. And maybe AI should never be reached, as we learned from the “Terminator” movies where the AI took over the world and declared humanity superfluous. China and several other nations are driving their research to achieve real AI as soon as it can. I’ve looked at both Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and George Gilder’s Wealth and Poverty. Neither says that the government should take control of defense contractors or any other types of businesses. Conservative economics, going back 250 years, prohibits government control of industry. Seizing — even buying — the means of production is not consistent with freedom. For Trump to take a 10 percent interest in Intel — be it a bailout or something more likely to take control of Intel’s business — is precisely the wrong thing to do. We should have learned that from the British nationalization of their steel industry. That happened in 1949 and 1967, both times reversed by conservative governments. The Keir Starmer regime — again, a hyper-liberal government — re-imposed nationalization in 2025 because China had taken control of it. That, too, will be reversed by a conservative government if one is even possible in the UK at this point. Intel’s fall from market dominance was caused by several factors, not the least of which is cheaper labor in Taiwan whose TSMC now dominates the chip market. Its chips are greatly faster than anything made in the U.S. Our defense capabilities are now mostly dependent on Taiwanese chips. Intel now outsources its most advanced chips to TSMC. China has promised to take Taiwan by force if necessary by 2027. What can we do to save the U.S. chip industry? In 2022, under the Biden administration, the “CHIPS Act” was meant to provide needed assistance to U.S. chip companies and gave power to government agencies to “help.” Trump has traded that support for Intel for the 10 percent ownership of Intel. What could possibly go wrong? This is where Murphy’s Law takes effect, especially if it spreads to other companies and industries. Government is unable to make market decisions especially where the survival of an industry is at stake. Can government make better decisions as to what products to manufacture or how best to predict the evolution of those products? No. We might fancy a takeover of the chip industry by DARPA — the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — but that too would be a mistake. Independent research and development accomplished by industry is a more reliable factor. Two war stories illustrate this. Years ago, when I worked for Lockheed, I was told the history of stealth by its inventor, the late great Ben Rich who was the boss of the Lockheed Skunk Works which built classified aircraft. He told me that the CIA used to send him translations of Russian mathematical journals. Ben said that one Sunday morning, when he was reading one such translation, he stumbled across an article by a Russian mathematician who claimed to have a formula that would determine the radar cross-section of any object. As Ben said, he spilled his coffee, dropped his cigarette on the carpet,and called his team into action. The result was the first stealth aircraft, the F-117. When I served in the Pentagon during the First Gulf War, DARPA was under the nominal control of our office. The director, Vic Reis, stopped by my office on his way to then-secretary of defense’s Dick Cheney’s office. He told me that General Schwarzkopf had sent an urgent message to Cheney complaining that, on the first day of the war, several of our armored vehicles had been hit by friendly fire because of the dense sand storms. In Vic Reis’s hands was the solution. It was a coffee can shaped object that produced a powerful infra-red signal flashing “good guy” to any aircraft above. The prototype had been produced in just one day. It attached to the friendly vehicle and saved a lot of lives. That’s what U.S. industry was capable of then. It should be relied on to do more of the same now. Lockheed-Martin is, as Lutnick said, basically an arm of the U.S. government. Is it next on the list for a government takeover? The Trump administration should be concentrating on rebuilding our military, which it isn’t doing. As I’ve written before, the Navy needs more and better ships and the Air Force is older and less ready to fight than it has ever been. It’s time to rebuild our military. The initiative to rebuild shipbuilding by relying on South Korean shipyards is only a part of it. Our warfighters need the best and most advanced weaponry possible. That will take tens of billions — maybe hundreds of billions — of dollars to accomplish. Changing ownership of industries to government control is not going to do that. READ MORE from Jed Babbin: The Bolton Searches Putin’s War Proceeds The Arab League and Gaza

On a chilly Monday morning in September, James Bond approached the SIS building in Albert’s Embankment. He’d been coming to this bland grey cube for 30 years and he still missed the gothic stone tower of Century House. Which far better reflected the second oldest profession for servants of Her — His — Majesty’s Secret Service. “No wonder our conference meetings resemble a Sojo bar happy hour.” Bond swallowed as he often did when mentally revising the famous term for his employer. For most of his career, the late Queen had been a glorious symbol of the Crown, bearing it with grace, dignity, and Christian strength. The image of her while in the farthest, tightest spots around the world always gave Bond a lift — and the impetus to carry out some rather sordid assignments. The current monarch was a twit and an empty royal suit, Bond thought, more concerned with climate change and cultural diversity than defending the Faith or the country. The Islamic call to prayer held recently at Windsor Castle still vexed Bond. He got on splendidly with many Muslims — like his ill-fated Turkish Intelligence friend Ali Kerim Bey — but he deplored seeing them take over the royal seat of kings even for an hour. He knew too many who had a more permanent stay in mind, along with a fanatical hatred for British and Western values. Entering M’s outer office, Bond’s former cheer at the sight of Miss Moneypenny took the now customary blow. The fetching, frisky, and feminine secretary wore an indistinct grey pants suit with a white blouse and little makeup, making their once enjoyable flirtation more of a conscious effort. Bond accepted the challenge for all mankind and forayed once more unto the breach. “Good morning, Moneypenny. Are you going undercover too?” “Undercover, James?” Miss Moneypenny asked with a smile that belied her outfit. “As a cold misandrist rather than the volcanic siren I admire.” Miss Moneypenny smiled again. “Service policy,” she said. “To discourage sexist straight white male agents like you. Fortunately, you’re the last one in the Double-0s.” “The last sexist?” “And straight white male.” “No wonder our conference meetings resemble a Sojo bar happy hour.” “How would you know about that?” “Professional secret, Moneypenny,” said Bond. “Strictly need to know.” Miss Moneypenny laughed. The red light over M’s office door turned green. Bond went through it. The real M made Judi Dench seem like a Bond Girl, Bond thought. This prompted his reflection on the films based on the books that fictionalized his exploits. Before the Hollywood Left corrupted them. While the early movies exaggerated his physical prowess, the original actor was far closer to him than the asexual mope who last portrayed him. He hadn’t agonized over Vesper Lynd for 20 hours, let alone 20 years. His recollection of Vesper’s beauty vanished in the presence of M’s frizzy hair, aggressive glasses, and dour expression. “Delicate mission for you, Double-O-Seven,” M said. “Requiring your license to kill.” “Blofeld, I hope.” “Far more powerful, and dangerous to the nation.” “That’s a high bar, ma’am,” said Bond. “Target?” “Elon Musk.” It took all of Bond’s discipline to project calmness. “There must be some mistake,” he said. “The order comes from high above my level.” “Musk’s a hero. He saved free speech in America, thus America itself. Without him, the previous administration and its lapdog media would have quashed all exposure of its plots and the President’s mental infirmity. Donald Trump would never have been elec — ” M’s worried expression inspired Bond. “But of course,” he said. “Musk has turned his full attention to our side of the Pond. Downing Street is doing what the Biden Democrats dreamed of — arresting people for social media posts critical of its policies. Such as burying the rape of 70,000 girls last year by Muslim immigrants in England and Wales. The Metropolitan Police are conducting raids reminiscent of the Stasi. And Musk is rallying the opposition — the British people — with a little help from the White House.” “I read a recent post by him on X,” continued Bond. “Went something like, ‘The sniveling cowards who allowed the mass rape of little girls in Britain are still in power … for now.’ Clearly, he intends to change that. No wonder your masters want to stop him.” “You have your orders, Double-O-Seven.” “And I disrespectfully resign,” said Bond, adding, “Ma’am.” Walking on the Thames Path ten minutes later, Bond felt much as he had in East Berlin. His mobile rang. He noted the ID and took the call. “Hello, Felix,” he said. “This may be our last chat. But there’s something you should know.” READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Disney’s Lost Boys The Winter of Our Contentment The Empire Strikes Out on Canada

The Republican Congress returns from summer vacation on Tuesday, just after Labor Day. And not a moment too soon! President Donald J. Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill is now part of the U.S. Code. Its tax cuts, border-security funds, deregulatory language, pro-energy provisions, and much more should fuel safety and prosperity for years. But there is much more to do. Republicans on Capitol Hill should take Trump’s relevant EOs to date, staple them together, and pass them as the Orders into Statutes Act of 2025. Republicans must remember this: Controlling the GOP House, Senate, and White House is not a permanent condition — at least not yet. Dazed and confused Democrats seem as far from retaking power as they have for decades. The midterm elections are scheduled for November 3, 2026 — light years away in politics. Who knows what plot twist could hand Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D – New York) the House speaker’s gavel or restore Chuck Schumer (D-New York) as Senate majority leader. Before anything so unthinkable unfolds, the GOP should use its levers of power to unleash a conveyor belt of bills that advance the America First agenda as well as other measures that conservatives have advocated since Bill Buckley was a boy. Here is a handy to-do list: Zero Rights for Illegal Aliens It seems unclear whether those who invade America with neither passports nor permission have any rights in this society. Consider “Maryland dad” Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. This illegal alien broke into this country. No one invited him. He breached the border in 2011 and, according to two federal proceedings, is a member of MS-13, the ultra-violent Salvadoran prison gang. All indications are that he is a human smuggler, wife beater, and child pornographer. Despite these sparkling credentials, Abrego-Garcia is like malaria. He never completely goes away. The second he is deported, legal briefs fly, black robes leap from closets, and one federal judge or other hops onto his bench to declare that Abrego-Garcia’s “rights” have been violated. The jurist orders yet another hearing, and this thug gets to stay in America, at taxpayers’ expense, for another month or three. Illegal aliens, criminal and otherwise, routinely exploit ambiguities in the law to assert a host of “rights,” always ignoring the fact that these people are as entitled to stay here as a home invader trying to occupy one’s guest room: Zero. So, the GOP Congress should pass a simple law: While legal immigrants, with passports and visas, will continue to enjoy a variety of rights and privileges, illegal aliens have no rights whatsoever, other than to be sent home, from whence they came, as swiftly as possible. One exception: In a case of mistaken identity (e.g., “You seek an illegal alien named Elio B. Gomez. I am a Green Card holder named Elio D. Gomez”), the aggrieved party should be able to prove his legal status. Aside from that, a new federal law should specify, at long last, that illegal aliens have zero rights in America, other than to request help to get the hell out. No Illegal Aliens in the Census The GOP Congress should make it abundantly clear that from 2025 hence, illegal aliens will not be counted in any Census. The Census should enumerate American citizens and legal immigrants. Those who penetrated America’s frontiers or overstayed their welcomes should not be included in the national, state, county, and local population totals that govern reapportionment and the allocation of federal resources. Period. Secure Election Integrity Republicans should adopt comprehensive election reforms that would deprive Democrats of their corrupt election-theft tools. Such a measure would apply to federal elections and ban mass-mail-in ballots, limit absentee ballots to those who — what a concept! — will be absent from the polls on Election Day, and end Election Quarter and return to Election Day (if necessary, a national holiday or voting over an entire weekend). This bill also would require voter ID, mandate clean voter rolls devoid of relocated and deceased voters, disqualify any ballot that arrives after polls close, and limit voting exclusively to U.S. citizens. These changes should shift the quality of U.S. elections from equatorial to First World. DOGE Into Dollars The Republican Congress should work closely with the Department of Government Efficiency to create a bill called Doge into Dollars. This would take every penny of budget savings identified by DOGE and turn it into statutes, budget language, and other vehicles that would make these fiscal reductions permanent. This could save taxpayers up to $205 billion up front and potentially billions more thereafter. Codify President Trump’s Executive Orders Similarly, President Donald J. Trump’s stacks of executive orders could be reversed on January 20, 2029, if, say, Governor Gavin Newsom (D-California) or entrepreneur Mark Cuban is in the Oval Office rather than Vice President JD Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio. So, Republicans on Capitol Hill should take Trump’s relevant EOs to date, staple them together, and pass them as the Orders into Statutes Act of 2025. It is much tougher to undo a federal law than to sign the death certificate for an executive order, which a Democrat president could do in about five seconds. Republicans should deny Democrats that chance. No More Rule by Autopen Speaking of executive orders, Republicans should require presidents to use their own hands to sign anything that would have the force of law. Using an autopen to sign a letter congratulating the Ames, Iowa, 4-H Club for its jumbo hogs is one thing. Executive orders, pardons, vetoes, and approvals of bills all must be signed, personally, by the president. This measure would earn unanimous GOP support. Democrats would squirm: A “Yes” vote would reinforce the case against President Joe Biden who is suspected of yielding his authority to two Autopen machines. Whether Biden had any idea what was signed in his name is an ongoing mystery. A “No” vote would put Democrats on the record for letting machines serve as president. This would be a bad look for Democrats. Adopt the HOT Tax Republicans should remove one arrow from the Left’s quiver and snap it loudly in half. Wealthy Leftists, such as Abigail Disney and über-hypocrite Warren Buffet, say they want to pay higher taxes … therefore Congress should hike taxes across the board. Disney and her ilk have every right to crave steeper tax bills. But they have no right to stick their guilty fingers into other Americans’ wallets. The Higher Optional  Tax or HOT Tax would be a simple box added to every IRS tax return — individual income, capital gains, corporate, death, etc. It would state: “If you believe that your federal tax rate on this form is too low, please enter whatever higher tax rate you wish to pay. Multiply your taxable income by that rate, enter that amount here, and send it to the IRS.” The HOT Tax would let bleeding hearts like Disney and her rich friends expiate their guilt while leaving other taxpayers unscathed. Without this arrow, Democrats no longer could use “these billionaires want to pay higher taxes” as an excuse to fleece Americans across the board. Parliamentary Hygiene The GOP needs to stop playing nice with Democrats and, instead, govern as ruthlessly as they do, when they are in command. It is inexcusable that Republicans still let the Congressional Budget Office evaluate tax and spending bills via Keynesian static scoring rather than supply-side dynamic scoring. The result? The CBO’s price tags on tax-cut bills always emerge higher than their actual, real-world cost. The CBO ignores the fact that tax reductions “lose” money at first. They then generate higher revenues due to faster economic growth. Smaller slices of bigger pies lead to more total pie. The House Ways & Means Committee reported last February that the Trump/GOP Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has yielded $502 billion in federal revenues more than CBO estimated when TCJA was enacted in 2017. Republicans have every right and all the power to instruct the CBO to abandon the discredited static scoring methods and immediately adopt far more accurate, real-world dynamic scoring. Economists who comply should carry on. Those who resist should be sacked. This is not cute or a game. This is basic leadership, which is the least that a majority of American voters expect from their GOP Congress. Likewise, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough nixed a host of conservative reforms from the One Big Beautiful Bill. Among them, border-security provisions  and Medicaid-savings proposals. If MacDonough is a nice lady, Senate Republican Leader John Thune of South Dakota should invite her to his next Christmas party. However, this appointee of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the notorious and late former Democrat leader, no longer should derail one vital conservative reform after another. The Senate Republican majority should thank McDonough for her service, throw her a lovely farewell lunch, and then replace her with a Senate parliamentarian who will find free-market and limited-government initiatives worthy of inclusion under reconciliation rules. In that connection, some of these measures could pass the House and withstand a filibuster by Senate Democrats. If so, fine. However, if any of this requires use of the reconciliation process, to adopt a comprehensive bill by a simple majority, rather than 60 votes, then Republicans should proceed at once with SOBBB — the Son of One Big Beautiful Bill! READ MORE from Deroy Murdock: Trump’s Secret Weapon Deserves a World Record Make the Census Great Again: Stop Counting Illegal Aliens ​Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor.

As social media companies begin to navigate the patchwork of age verification laws in parts of the United States, people in Great Britain are dealing with the frustrating reality of those diktats. The Online Safety Act (OSA) requires all websites to make sure users are over the age of 18. The sites have to use facial recognition, ID scans, digital identity wallets, or bank documents to confirm someone’s identity, instead of the usual box-ticking exercises that Americans check when they visit certain sites. Kids Online Safety Act … empowers government bureaucrats to determine what is and is not “harmful” for kids. It’s a little odd considering that Britons aged 16 will be able to vote in the next national election. Some platforms attempted to comply with OSA to avoid the £18 million penalty ($24.3 million). X defaulted all UK users to sensitive content filter mode until their age could be determined. Google announced it would use a combination of “human review and automated processes” to determine harmful content. Reddit hired the company Persona for age verification through the use of either a selfie or a copy of someone’s government ID. Other websites, such as Wikipedia, decided to limit access for UK users. The age verification measures meant people were blocked from viewing Goya’s famous piece Saturn Devouring His Son, information on men’s fashion, a Conservative MP’s speech on rape gangs, gender neutral toilets, King Richard the Lionheart, and — ironically — the OSA itself. Instead of accepting OSA and the lack of Internet availability, the British fought back. Days after the regulation went into effect, 530,000 UK citizens signed an online petition demanding the law be repealed. Parliament will debate a potential repeal this fall. The Government has vowed to keep OSA in place because of concern about “small platforms that host harmful content,” promising a “sensible approach to enforcement.” Other Brits turned to technology — specifically VPNs or Virtual Private Networks — to breach the online blockade. VPNs allow users to access blocked websites and content by concealing IP addresses and locations. The BBC reported VPN makers saw massive spikes in downloads from various app stores, including an 1,800 percent download spike for a Swiss privacy tech firm. This use of VPNs didn’t go over well with OSA backers. The Age Verification Providers Association called on websites to start checking to see if someone was using a VPN to access their sites. The group recommended social media sites see if someone was following or interacting with UK-based accounts and if their time zone matched the UK. But Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner for England, called for VPNs to start age verification. “It’s absolutely a loophole that needs closing and that’s one of my major recommendations,” she told BBC Newsnight. De Souza’s hope is that VPNs will be required to put together “highly effective age assurances to stop underage users from accessing pornography.” She cited a report her office put out claiming children are seeing different violence and so-called “harmful material” before they are “old enough to understand what they are seeing.” She won’t get her wish. The British government has said VPNs will not be banned because they’re tools for adults. The push to expand OSA didn’t stop at VPNs. Its defenders turned increasingly combative, branding opponents as enablers of abuse. Labour MP Peter Kyle likened Reform UK MP Nigel Farage to Jimmy Savile, a pedophile TV presenter who assaulted kids before social media was invented. “If Jimmy Savile were alive today he’d be perpetrating his crimes online, and Nigel Farage is saying he’s on their side,” he told Sky News. After Farage, rightly, demanded an apology, Kyle doubled down. “If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that,” Kyle wrote on social media. If you’ve read this far and concluded that this is solely a British politics story, think again. There’s a reason that Farage is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on September 3 about the “European threats to American free speech and innovation,” including the Online Safety Act. That reason is that a piece of U.S. federal legislation is being considered that would copycat the Online Safety Act. So, there’s an effort afoot to import this sort of dysfunction and big government to the U.S. Worryingly, the legislation in question is bipartisan, which makes it more likely to pass, and therefore more troubling. U.S. Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) unveiled the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) in May. It moves the U.S. closer to an age-verification type regime like that in the U.K., and also empowers government bureaucrats to determine what is and is not “harmful” for kids. It’s easy to see how progressives, especially, could use it to throttle conservative speech and pushing leftist-ideology-compliant content under the guise of “protecting the children.” Blackburn and Blumenthal call KOSA an important piece of legislation to prevent children from seeing things like drugs, alcohol, or pornography online. Blackburn blamed Big Tech for not listening to parental concerns about social media. “I’ve heard too many heartbreaking stories to count from parents who have lost a child because these companies have refused to make their platforms safer by default.” That is directly counter to the view taken by social conservatives, especially. Last year, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) said that KOSA “will facilitate digital censorship of culturally conservative views, and even appears to create a new iteration of the Biden Disinformation Board whose makeup also happens to look like it will be determined by applying DEI principles and possibly staffed by regulators hand-picked by Randi Weingarten and the AFT — the exact people who caused so much damage to children during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Meanwhile, allies of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) have pointed out KOSA could easily be used by Democrats to hammer pro-lifers, and pro-life messages, online. There is also the matter of data protection and cybersecurity. “In the age of constant cyberattacks and privacy threats, the government shouldn’t be looking to make the situation worse,” said Shoshana Weissmann, Digital Director and Fellow at R Street Institute, Washington, DC-based free market think tank. Weissmann believes the only way politicians will change their minds is if they’re presented with evidence that age-verification laws don’t work and can lead to data breaches, identity theft, and public dissatisfaction. “[They’re] only going to be convinced when they see the negative effects more broadly,” she said. It remains to be seen if KOSA will make it to President Donald Trump’s desk. The U.S. Senate passed KOSA by a 91-3 vote last year. However, it went nowhere in the U.S. House, and the House Judiciary Committee hearing could make the path even steeper. In the meantime, multiple lawsuits have been filed over state-based age-verification laws. While the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be wanting the suits to make their way through the court system before making any sort of decision, there’s evidence suggesting justices will find the KOSA-like laws unconstitutional. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote August 14 that Mississippi’s age-verification law “would likely violate … First Amendment rights under this Court’s precedents.” In other words, while the UK may be stuck with OSA for the long-haul — at least while Labour is in power — age-verification in the U.S. could be tossed in the legislative landfill where it belongs. READ MORE: Mexico Escapes the Tariff: Happy Cinco de Mayo! Happy Hour May No Longer Be So Happy

Labor Day falls on September 1st this year, traditionally marking the unofficial end of summer. Although the first celebratory parade was held in New York City on September 5, 1882, and states began proclaiming an official day off in 1887 (Oregon led the way, designating the first Saturday in June as the commemorative date), the first Monday of September did not become a federal holiday until President Grover Cleveland signed it into law in 1894. In modern America, many workers are capitalists owing to their investments in employer-sponsored or individual 401(k) pension plans. The late 1880s were a time of labor agitation, unrest, and work stoppages. Labor’s grievances exploded on May Day 1886, after the predecessor of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) called for a nationwide strike demanding shorter workdays, safer working conditions, and higher pay. The hoped-for peaceful protest turned violent in Chicago’s Haymarket Square when police mobilized to control the crowd. Seven police officers and four protestors were killed when someone threw a bomb; dozens more were injured. The 1880s and 1890s also witnessed the emergence of large “trusts” (holding companies) in meatpacking, petroleum refining, sugar, tobacco, and even matches, among other American industries. Although attacked for being monopolies, owing to their sheer sizes, the new organizations and the “robber barons” at their helms took advantage of the economies of scale by expanding the production of consumer goods. The prices charged by those industries fell faster than the economy-wide deflation then underway, ushering in a decade or more of growth and prosperity, known ever since as the Gilded Age. The events sketched above took place in the shadow of Karl Marx. The first volume of Das Kapital was published in 1867. (Two largely unread additional volumes, edited by Frederick Engels, Marx’s coauthor on The Manifesto of the Communist Party, would appear posthumously.) Marx, of course, saw the economic world as influenced by class conflict between the working proletariat and the more commercially minded bourgeoisie. The latter supposedly exploits the former by paying workers less than they contribute to the production process. Marx, like many social thinkers before the “marginal revolution” of the late nineteenth century — pioneered by William Stanley Jevons and Carl Menger — based their analyses on the labor theory of value. That theory incorrectly claims that the exchange value of any good or service (its price) fully reflects the amount of labor needed to produce it. Most economists now understand that the demand for labor and other generic inputs (land, physical capital) is derived from the demand for the goods those inputs help create. Inputs alone do not determine value; the amounts consumers are willing to pay must be considered. If that were not true, a painting I produce would sell for more than a Rembrandt because it takes me significantly more time and effort to complete a portrait of a person no one else would recognize. Despite the harsh critiques by mainstream economists of Marx’s turgid writings and the failures of every economic system that has tried to implement his ideas, the unending conflict between labor (the exploited class) and capitalists (the exploiters) he predicted still influences U.S. labor policies, at least since the New Deal, and is now seeing a revival among some young people and politicians. That influence is evident in fears that workers will lose jobs to robots and that advances in artificial intelligence, especially artificial general intelligence, will make humans obsolete. However, no machine can or ever will replace the creativity of the human mind. Increases in the stock of capital (plant and equipment, computers, and the like) raise labor productivity. At the margin, rising labor productivity leads to higher, not lower, wages. Technological advances do change the kinds of labor skills that employers demand, eliminating much of the repetitive, mind-numbing workplace drudgery that worried even Adam Smith. Higher minimum wages, when not justified by productivity increases, price less skilled workers out of the labor market. Minimum wages of $16 or $20 per hour help explain why your restaurant’s “server” is a tablet instead of a person, why you scan barcodes and pay for items yourself at the grocery or big box store, and why you are forced to interact online with a seemingly braindead chatbot for answers to questions about product features or performance issues. Stagnant productivity leads to William Baumol’s cost disease in education and other labor-intensive sectors, where essentially the same production methods have been used for decades. Capitalists take risks to provide the tools that combine with labor in the production process. Despite its importance, Marx did not develop a theory of capital accumulation or technological change, nor did he explain how, when state ownership of the means of production “inevitably” replaces private ownership, the existing capital stock would be maintained or how new capital would be mobilized at the end of the old capital’s useful life. In modern America, many workers are capitalists owing to their investments in employer-sponsored or individual 401(k) pension plans. Treating the members of the two groups as distinct, monolithic, and continuously at odds with one another is a form of identity politics meant to be divisive. The hallmark of market processes — and the reason for their success in promoting progress and prosperity — is voluntary cooperation, not conflict or coercion. Marxism instead promotes unproductive class warfare between owners and employees, as well as between unionized and non-union workers. So, fire up the grill, take the day off, and celebrate “labor.” But take a minute to recognize the Marxist origins of the holiday and ask yourself why we don’t have a “Capital Day.” READ MORE from William F. Shugart: Tilting at Antitrust Windmills: Department of Justice Sues Apple Charles Dickens Teaches Washington Elites How to Budget Recession Reinforcing Job Creation William F. Shughart II, distinguished research advisor of the Independent Institute, is J. Fish Smith Professor in Public Choice at Utah State University’s Jon M. Huntsman School of Business.

The Trump administration recently announced that it would convert federal subsidies for Intel into equity, giving Washington roughly a 10 percent stake in the chip giant. The decision sparked an immediate uproar. Critics called it “socialism,” warning that government ownership of private firms would sap efficiency and weaken American competitiveness. Yet this line of attack carries a deep irony. The most fearsome and disruptive companies on the global stage today are not champions of free markets at all. They are Chinese firms—nurtured, protected, and commanded by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Their power does not come in spite of state intervention but because of it. China’s ruling Party has effectively turned the entire nation into a single giant corporation, with itself as the controlling shareholder. Markets vs. Hierarchies — or Property vs. Human Rights? Economists have long debated whether economies function best through markets — the “invisible hand” of prices — or through hierarchies—the “visible hand” of authority and command. Classical theory says that state intervention leads to inefficiency and decline. If America tries to mimic China, Inc., it risks ending up with the worst of both worlds: bureaucratic inefficiency and distorted markets. But China has exploded that assumption. The CCP manages the economy as if it were a corporate empire, with the Politburo as its board and Xi Jinping as its CEO. State-owned firms are subsidiaries, private firms are joint-ventures with the CCP holding de facto controlling shares, and foreign firms are merely franchisees of China, Inc. And most profoundly, ordinary Chinese citizens are not treated as free individuals but as “employees” of China, Inc., expected to obey commands without question. This shows why the real issue is not just property rights but human rights. Even if the U.S. government bought stakes in every company, it could never treat Americans like robots or demand absolute obedience from firms. America’s constitutional framework and civic culture prevent it. China’s model is not about ownership — it is about political control over human beings. China’s Paradox: Exploitation at Home, Competitiveness Abroad China’s “national corporation” model runs on two tracks: Strategic industries are protected and promoted. In the industries of energy, finance, telecom, defense, and transport, the CCP shields chosen firms from bankruptcy, pours in subsidies, blocks foreign competitors, and mobilizes state organs to provide everything from propaganda to espionage support. Once nurtured to scale, these firms are unleashed abroad to undercut global rivals. Non-strategic industries are left to brutal competition. In sectors deemed unimportant, the state provides no safety net. Thousands of firms fight it out in the domestic market, with little regulation and no social insurance. This “involution” produces survivors that are hyper-efficient, hardened by cutthroat rivalry, and ready to conquer foreign markets. The result is paradoxical. At home, Chinese firms are exploited by the CCP and workers are poorly paid. Yet abroad, they are terrifyingly competitive and profitable. With the state absorbing risk and tilting the field, they can dump products below cost, wage endless price wars, and expand recklessly. So when critics claim that Trump’s Intel stake will undermine America’s competitiveness, the obvious question is: If state intervention always produces inefficiency, why is the world so afraid of Chinese firms? Case Studies: China’s Corporate Leviathans CRRC (China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation). China’s high-speed rail sector once had two firms — China North Rail and China South Rail — fiercely competing at home. The CCP invited Japanese, German, and French companies to enter joint ventures, extracting their technology. Once the know-how was absorbed, Beijing forced a merger of North and South into the behemoth CRRC. Today, CRRC dominates global high-speed rail exports, leaving its Japanese, German, and French teachers in the dust. CATL (Contemporary Amperex Technology Ltd.). The electric-vehicle battery giant began as a private start-up but rose on the back of all-encompassing state support: land grants, cheap capital, preferential regulations, and tax breaks. Beijing locked the domestic EV industry into uniform standards that funneled business toward CATL. The result: in a single decade, CATL captured over one-third of the global EV battery market, overtaking Japanese and Korean incumbents. Other examples tell the same story: Huawei, sustained by subsidies and shielded at home, remains a global force in 5G despite U.S. sanctions. Solar panels, where massive subsidies drove European and American competitors into collapse within a decade. Steel and shipbuilding, where Chinese overcapacity, kept alive by state aid, pushed global prices below cost and bankrupted competitors abroad. All these cases illustrate the same dynamic: the CCP has used its “low human rights advantage” and China, Inc. to turn Chinese firms into predatory champions abroad. America’s Limits: Trump Cannot Run the U.S. Like China The United States simply cannot replicate this system. Trump may talk about running America like a business, but he is bound by the Constitution, Congress, courts, media, and elections. U.S. industrial policy is temporary and tactical — whether tariffs, subsidies, or supply-chain reshoring incentives. Any of these can be reversed by legislation, lawsuits, or elections. No American president can embed political commissars in corporate boards or treat the public as state employees. Trump’s Intel stake is less central planning than a businessman’s bet: buy in, watch the stock rise, and deliver returns to taxpayers. It is not an attempt — nor could it be — to turn Intel into a political arm of Washington. The Global Trend — and Its Perils Competition today is no longer simply between firms but increasingly between states acting through firms. Many democracies already hold stakes in national champions: France, Germany, Norway, Singapore, Japan. In crises, governments step in, as Washington did in 2008 with General Motors and the banks. I once argued that democracies should pressure the CCP to abandon the China, Inc. model, which distorts markets and destabilizes the global economy. But that call has not gained any significant traction. Beijing’s model has already reshaped the playing field. Democracies no longer dare to confront it. Instead, they are drifting toward imitation — dabbling in subsidies and ownership of their own. That is the danger. If America tries to mimic China, Inc., it risks ending up with the worst of both worlds: bureaucratic inefficiency and distorted markets, without China’s ruthless, state-backed competitiveness. In that scenario, America forfeits its strengths while failing to match Beijing’s. READ MORE from Shaomin Li: The True Nature of the Chinese Communist Party: A Global Threat China’s ‘Low Human Rights’ Advantage Shaomin Li is a professor of international business at Old Dominion University.

As if the world needed any more evidence of Palestinian terrorist organizations’ esteem for human life — whether it’s at the hand of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or the many other militant groups who have operated in the region for decades — the world received it on August 1, 2025. Hamas released a new propaganda video of Evyatar David, kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, 2023 during the Nova music festival near Kibbutz Re’im, just three miles from the Gaza border. Most sources believe only 20 hostages being held there are still alive. The deceased bodies of another 30 remain in the hands of Hamas. The new video gives a first-hand view of Evyatar’s current living quarters — a gray covered mattress inside a narrow concrete tunnel, barely wide enough to hold his body. Three white sheets of paper hang on the wall, each showing hand-drawn calendars. In the square boxes, one can make out the meals he logs for each day: no meal, lentils, beans, and, chillingly, “don’t know” — all repeated for various days of the months. After reciting various criticisms of the Israeli government, almost certainly dictated to him by his captors, Evyatar is forced to dig what he says he believes will be his own grave, in the dirt floor of the narrow tunnel. The problem with trying to reconcile the video with the suffering of the Palestinian people, and moreover, with the overwhelming media narratives that the suffering comes at the hand of the Israeli military, who are blocking food distribution, is the voice of the Palestinian population itself. Hamas has been starving its own people for decades, since it won a landslide legislative election victory in 2006, yet most of the Palestinian public continues to support the militant group’s leadership. This is one reason that the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority has not been able to extend its governance from the West Bank, to include the Gaza strip and thus control all of the Palestinian territories. The massive tunnel network lying underneath Gaza and parts of bordering Israel proper, were built with resources intended for the Palestinian public’s infrastructure — its housing, schools, hospitals, places of worship, and businesses. The food that does somehow make its way in always seems to reach the Hamas leadership, ensuring their families’ dinner tables are always full. This is not only evident from the video of Evyatar, where a well-fed arm, twice the thickness of Evyatar’s arm, hands him a can of beans in one part of the August 1 propaganda video. Numerous released hostages from October 7 have testified that their captors sat in adjacent rooms to them, feasting on the grand meals. Similarly, many released hostages tell of the Palestinian family homes in which they were held captive, where the children taunted them with food. Yet, the Palestinian people have voted over and over again for Hamas and other militant groups to govern them. A 2023 Birzeit University poll showed that over 80 percent of Palestinians supported one of various militant terrorist groups. A 2024 Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) poll showed that only 7 percent of Palestinians in Gaza blamed Hamas for their suffering, while 71 percent supported the events of October 7. A poll later in 2024 saw the support drop to 57 percent, and even further to 39 percent.  But while the numbers fluctuated, Hamas still remained the most popular group of choice to govern. Stunningly, almost 90 percent of the Palestinian public polled in 2025 by PCPSR did not believe that Hamas committed the October 7 acts, many of which the world has seen on video. So, Israel is left to again fight a war on two fronts — one on the ground, and another in the media. And despite the all too convenient narrative that the international community tries to push through its airwaves, no Israeli leader — yet — is so foolish as to allow Hamas to remain in power as part of any deal to end the war. But this leaves the remaining hostages in precarious position. As their value as bargaining chips continues to decrease with every hostage that either dies or is released, what action will Israel and the U.S. take to force Hamas’s hand? What alternatives do they have to extract the hostages? Most sources believe only 20 hostages being held there are still alive. The deceased bodies of another 30 remain in the hands of Hamas. Israel’s Arab neighbors are beginning to call on the terrorist group to release the hostages, disarm, and end the war. Meanwhile, the world waits for the next move from Israel and the U.S. And Christians and Jews pray together that this twenty-first century Auschwitz reenactment ends quickly. READ MORE: The Fiction of ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory’ Made Israel a Pariah Build, Bibi, Build Middle East Peace: The Days After the Day After Andy Niggemann is a freelance journalist who specializes in geopolitics and religion with particular emphasis on the Middle East, the Eastern Mediterranean, Germany, and Israel. He received his PhD from the University of Cambridge. He is the author of Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career and numerous articles in academic and popular publications including Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the Federalist.

I generally don’t like drawing attention to members of the Catholic hierarchy whom I know well, because I prefer their actions and words speak for themselves. But I must say something publicly about the exemplary pastoral leadership of His Excellency Bernard A. Hebda in the wake of a horrific mass shooting that took place in his archdiocese on Wednesday. Only a divine voice can deliver that message, and only a pastor attuned to that voice in daily prayer can channel that voice. Having known Archbishop Hebda for many years — as a seminary formator, a colleague at the Holy See, as my Ordinary in the Diocese of Gaylord, and as a dear friend — I am not surprised at his courage and faith. The people of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, I trust, need no further convincing of how blessed they are to have such a devoted shepherd. But all of us, Catholic or not, have something to learn from his reaction to this unspeakable evil. For even in the throes of the immediate confusion and sorrow surrounding the attack, His Excellency made two corrections that were crucial for facing this unspeakable horror head on and the finding strength to carry on. I realize Mayor Jacob Frey was distraught and angry at the “unthinkable tragedy” (as Chief of Police, Brian O’Hara, put it) that had just taken place in his city. It’s virtually impossible to come up with appropriate words in such a moment. But, as the city’s leader, Mayor Frey should have thought twice before saying, “Don’t just say this is about thoughts and prayers right now,” because I would be absolutely shocked if anyone who offered him and his city thoughts and prayers really thought that it was only “about” that. Everybody knows it’s about infinitely more, and everybody knows the families and community are reeling from unspeakable grief. My heart aches deeply for the school’s principal Matt DeBoer. We cannot credit him enough for the preparedness he instilled in his teachers, staff, and students for such an unimaginable assault. Again, the fact that Mr. DeBoer could stand up and say anything in the aftermath of the crime attests to his strong leadership. So, because he’s not a politician, I completely excuse him for saying that “there’s nothing about today that can fill us with hope.” I know what he meant deep down, and, had he the time, I am sure he would have phrased his message more carefully. Mr. DeBoer was referring to the school’s decision to highlight Jeremiah’s prophecy in chapter 29, verse 11: “For I know well the plans I have in mind for you … plans for your welfare and not for woe, so as to give you a future of hope.” He obviously meant that a 23-year-old arming himself with three guns and spraying bullets at innocent children and elderly Mass attendees was not in the plans of God, and he was right. But then Archbishop Hebda steps up to the microphone. Never one to think of himself first, he acknowledges Principal DeBoer, Chief of Police O’Hara, and Mayor Frey, as well as pastor Father Dennis Zehren and Deacon Kevin Conneely. Then he has the courage to say: “I would never want to correct a principal, but Principal DeBoer said it wasn’t so clear where the source of hope would be. Brothers and Sisters, we have to be men and women of hope. Already, I’ve been receiving messages from all over our country promising prayers — and I think it’s the ‘prayers of the feet’ as well, Principal. That is for me a source of hope, just as we see families stepping forward to help those who have been impacted by this terrible tragedy. I’m very grateful that Principal DeBoer spoke about prayer.” Then, as if on cue, the parish church bells actually start ringing. He continues: “The bell in a Catholic church is always a call to prayer. So, it’s a reminder for us to be praying. And we have to recognize that it is through prayer and through the prayer of the feet — through that action — that we can indeed make a difference. That has to be the source of our hope.” The Archbishop then shared a personal message of condolence, prayers, and the Apostolic Blessing of Pope Leo XIV, which, understandably, received more attention in the media than Hebda’s own words that I transcribed above. Having written countless messages like the one His Holiness sent to the Archbishop and his flock, I can attest to the meticulous care given to their composition. But Hebda was speaking extemporaneously and from his heart, and we must never forget that he, not the pope, is the archdiocese’s primary pastor. So, in just a few sentences, he gently corrected Mayor Frey’s malapropos underestimation of the thoughts and prayers coming in from around the globe, and Principal DeBoer’s misplaced suggestion that the tragedy was a hopeless situation. One of the great frustrations I had working at the Holy See was watching one opportunity after another pass by when the Church and her leaders could have said something different from the rest of the world. The temptation is to simply repeat what any government leader, non-governmental organization, or social-media celebrity could say, the only difference being a slight Gospel spin. But this strategy is insulting to the Gospel message. The Gospel is not a mere amplification of the human voice. It’s the divine voice breaking through when the human voice has nothing to say. A human voice cannot say that even amid hideous violence there is room for prayer. A human voice cannot say that even amid ghastly evil there is room for hope. Only a divine voice can deliver that message, and only a pastor attuned to that voice in daily prayer can channel that voice. Archbishop Bernard A. Hebda is one such pastor. READ MORE from Daniel B. Gallagher: Georgia’s Effort to Protect Children on Social Media Even in Death, Pope Francis Still Works to Bring Peace English Is Now the Official Language of the USA. Should We Care?

When President Trump signed his August 25th executive order setting guidelines under which burning an American flag can be prosecuted, we quickly learned how ignorant his critics are about the constitutional and cultural implications of desecrating this revered national symbol. Indeed, it appears that very few of these people actually read the President’s EO. It does not, as most Democrats and alleged experts insist, violate the 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning is protected speech under the First Amendment. How did the country arrive at a place in which a flag for which countless Americans have … died can be routinely desecrated without punishment while burning a flag that symbolizes mere sexual preference can land you in prison? The crucial passage on that point reads as follows: “My Administration will act to restore respect and sanctity to the American Flag and prosecute those who incite violence or otherwise violate our laws while desecrating this symbol of our country, to the fullest extent permissible under any available authority.” In other words, Trump’s executive order authorizes the Department of Justice and local authorities to take action against any person who violates “applicable, content-neutral laws” while burning or otherwise desecrating the American flag. And flag burning is almost always accompanied by violations of existing laws. If someone sets a flag — or anything else — ablaze in the street or in a public park, they can be arrested for violating open burning restrictions or even arson. Anyone causing property damage while burning a flag can be prosecuted, particularly if the destruction occurs on private or restricted government property. Finally, if a flag burning is conducted in a manner intended to incite violence or that amounts to “fighting words,” the perpetrator is subject to arrest. Trump’s critics are not merely ignorant about the implications of his EO, they are transparently hypocritical. The very people who denounce prosecuting those who burn the American flag insist that anyone who burns a so-called pride flag must be severely punished. As this is being typed, a man is serving a 15-year prison sentence for that very offence. As recently as June of this year, a group of teens ranging from 16 to 18-years-old were arrested for causing damage to “pride flags” and defacing “rainbow crosswalks” in Atlanta. NBC News reports: Two 18-year-olds and a 17-year-old from Dallas, Georgia, were taken into custody, in addition to a 16-year-old from Taylorsville. Police said all four were also charged with obstruction, criminal damage to property, conspiracy, and prowling … Georgia’s hate crime law, passed in 2020, allows a court to impose additional prison time or fines when a judge or jury finds that a crime was motivated by the victim’s race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. Such arrests are by no means unusual where symbols of LGBTQ+ communities are concerned. Yet arrests for the increasing number of American flags that are publicly burned are all but unheard of. One exception involves a self-identified veteran named Jay Carey, who decided to exercise his right to 15 minutes of fame by setting an American flag aflame in Lafayette Park. He was arrested for lighting a fire on federal property, not for burning the flag. Yet the corporate media have portrayed him as a social justice warrior speaking truth to power. Newsweek ran a particularly nauseating story in which they describe him thus: “Carey served in the Army for more than 20 years, and was deployed to Kuwait, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan before retiring as a Sergeant First Class. As well as a Bronze Star, he received numerous medals including two Meritorious Service Medals, eight Army Commendation Medals, and six Army Achievement Medals.” In an interview with Newsweek he said that his stunt “surely riled the president.” He then described what inspired his act of derring-do: I saw on some social media feeds during lunch that Trump had signed an executive order outlawing the burning of the U.S. flag, which is a direct violation of our First Amendment rights within the Constitution. He doesn’t have the right to do that. Presidents don’t make law, and Congress will make no law that infringes upon our rights in accordance with the First Amendment. So I realized that I needed to, that day, go and burn a flag in front of the White House to have the biggest impact. Carey’s service to the country is to be commended, of course, yet it is blindingly obvious that he hasn’t read Trump’s EO as closely as he perused the sagacious effusions he found on social media. As to the “courage” he displayed in Lafayette Park, it would be interesting to see what would happen if he cruised over to Adams Morgan or Dupont Circle and ostentatiously set a Pride flag on fire. It isn’t illegal to do so if he owns the flag, yet it’s extremely unlikely that he would be applauded by the residents or lionized by the corporate media. Indeed, it’s likely that he would end up facing charges for inciting a riot or, at the very least, committing a hate crime. This brings us to the burning question alluded to above: How did the country arrive at a place in which a flag for which countless Americans have fought and died can be routinely desecrated without punishment while burning a flag that symbolizes mere sexual preference can land you in prison for well over a decade? The answer is elusive, but it’s hard to argue that it’s a healthy development. Trump seems to get that. READ MORE from David Catron: Karma Comes Calling for John Bolton Will Newsom Rig His Redistricting Referendum? How James Carville Would ‘Save Democracy’