Incoming Feed Items

Senator John Cornyn is in the fight of his life. In a throwback to the Tea Party primaries of the early 2010s, the senior senator from Texas (first elected in 2002) has been forced into a runoff for the first time in his career by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton, who was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives in 2023, managed to effectively tie Cornyn in the initial primary, with both receiving around 42% of the vote. While Cornyn is favored to win a runoff, particularly if President Donald Trump endorses him, it is by no means a sure thing.

Cornyn and his team may be wondering how they got to this point. They are not alone. Across the Western world, center-right individuals and parties are in deep trouble and seem unable to figure out why.

In Europe, the “respectable” center-right is a political dinosaur on its way to extinction. The German CDU is neck-and-neck (though more often than not, in second place) with the populist-right Alternative for Germany. Austria’s Freedom Party has been leading for the past three years, while Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy has led the country for over four. Poland’s right wing is dominated by two parties: a populist-right party and one that’s even further to the right. France and the United Kingdom have both seen their center-right parties decimated, replaced by the populist-right National Rally and Reform parties, respectively.

Donald Trump has saved the liberal international order—and with it the promise of American global leadership. The bombing of Iran’s regime is the latest sign that a revived order will reassert the fundamental principles of muscular liberalism that defined the post-World War II era. Critics have spent the last decade bewailing Trumpism as a threat to the post-war order. By now, however, it should be plain that they were wrong. The Trump Administration has rebuilt a system of effective deterrence against threats to international peace and security, and a grateful world will someday recognize his achievement.

Unlike Britain, our imperial tradition was born before, not after, our rise to national greatness. That means we never suffered the sclerosis of bureaucratic management in foreign affairs that eventually defeated the British Empire. George Washington helped himself to war-torn Indian lands after the Seven Years’ War. Andrew Jackson violated Spanish sovereignty to march on Florida during the War of 1812 because of Spain’s inability to control Indian and British abuses. John C. Frémont was a key actor when Mexican rule collapsed in California.

Our imperial tradition culminated in the construction of the liberal international order (LIO) after World War II, which was a substantive order, not a procedural one. The aim was to ensure peace and security, and to advance free and democratic societies. Whatever rules and procedures accrued from that order were subordinate to its substantive aims.

For almost half a century, American policymakers have been conditioned to look the other way when Iran has attacked America. The Iranian regime sees the United States as its main enemy—beneath contempt and worthy of death and destruction. President Trump views the threat of future Iranian attacks as existential, and believes that further delay is no longer acceptable. It is therefore a matter of life and death that he has taken military action in Iran.

President Trump has two objectives: to make sure Iran does not use nuclear ballistic missiles to attack the United States and to install a regime in Tehran favorable to U.S. interests. This will only happen when the current Iranian regime is defeated—and when they know they have been defeated.

Last summer’s Operation Desert Hammer did not change the Iranian regime’s mind that destroying America was their birthright. The Iranians must know that their policy of killing Americans has brought death and destruction, and that future killings will bring annihilation. Of this there can be no doubt.

The U.S. did not launch the airstrikes to liberate the Iranian people from the Islamic rule of the mullahs. Although President Trump is sympathetic to the Iranian people’s plight, the liberation of Iran is a job for the Iranian people. As it is, President Trump is trying to liberate the United States from the Deep State and its corrosive grip on our constitutional government.

Jamee Moudud & Katharina Pistor


More “Announcement
Podcast episodes on the legal roots of capitalism”

If folks in small cities and town can’t assemble and protest Republican Fascism, the U.S. will never be rid of it.

The above story appears online here.

Elinor is back but Greg is away, so Matt Grudnoff jumps in to talk about Australia’s absurd fossil fuel subsidies, fuel security in the wake of the US-Israel war on Iran, and why the AI bubble will probably burst, even if the technology turns out to be a win overall.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 12 March 2026.

What we owe the water: It’s time for a fossil fuel treaty by Kumi Naidoo, is available now for just $19.95. Use the code ‘PODVP’ at checkout to get free shipping.

You can also subscribe to the Vantage Point series to get four essays a year on some of the most pressing issues facing Australia and the world.

Host: Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist, the Australia Institute // @mattgrudnoff

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

As the U.S.-Israel and Iran War enters its second week, American and Israeli strategy becomes increasingly opaque, while Iran’s resolve hardens. Professor John Mearsheimer, a renowned voice in international politics, joins host Chris Hedges again on this episode of The Chris Hedges Report to spell out what can be expected from the conflict.

It has been a little over a week since U.S. military forces, acting pursuant to direct authorization from President Donald Trump as commander-in-chief, began a large attack, coordinated with Israeli military forces, on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Islamic Republic’s top leadership, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have been killed, its navy entirely destroyed, its air defense systems decimated, and much of its ability to counterattack severely (though unfortunately not entirely) undermined. Freedom-loving Iranians the world over, both inside and outside the country, have been exuberant at the prospect of restoring their beloved country to the ranks of respected, peaceful, and prosperous nation-states.

One would think that such a potentially transformative action would draw praise from both sides of the political aisle in the United States. Iran, after all, has been the leading state sponsor of terrorism ever since its current ruling junta took control in 1979. That’s 47 years of terrorist attacks against the United States (which it describes as the “Great Satan”), our key ally in the Middle East Israel (“Little Satan”), and others. And the Islamic Republic has made clear, repeatedly, that it intends to acquire nuclear weapons and to use them. A decisive effort to put an end to this ongoing threat is therefore long overdue and should be applauded.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Ayatollah 2: Electric Boogaloo | The Roundtable Ep. 308

The specter of regime change is haunting the Trump coalition.

Enthusiasts and critics of the U.S./Israeli-Iran War are arguing over its justification, desirability, and feasibility (or lack thereof) based in part on whether or not it is a war aimed at regime change. The Trump Administration has thus far phrased its public rationales for the war in terms of degrading Iran’s military capacities, eliminating its nuclear program, and ending its support for proxy terror groups—with a view to encouraging and enabling rather than directly effecting regime change. Trump concluded his February 28 announcement of Operation Epic Fury by addressing the Iranian people: “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.”

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been explicit for years, as well as in the opening days of Operation Roaring Lion, that regime change in Tehran is an Israeli goal. The Israeli Air Force seems to have taken the lead in the decapitation strikes against Iranian leadership, beginning with Ayatollah Khamenei, who was killed in the opening salvo of the war.

Here’s my crank theory. If you think about authoritarianism from a rhetorical/mobilizing passion perspective, rather than a political arrangement, policy agenda, or place on the fantastical left/right axis, then it’s most useful to define authoritarians as people who believe that the ideal world is one with a stable hierarchy of submission and domination. Authoritarians believe that the in-group is entitled to dominate others, and should not be held to the same standards as those “below” them on the hierarchy.

It finds domestic diesel, petrol, gas and electricity prices will all rise, which will push up the prices of a broad range of products and services almost immediately.

From a diplomatic point of view – as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney reminded us last week – Australia could use its influence as a ‘middle power’, with global influence and a close relationship to the US.

Key findings:

• Global energy prices will increase.
• Gas, electricity and petrol prices paid by Australian households will rise.
• Multinational gas companies exporting Australian gas will profit.
• Australian governments will raise very little extra revenue.

While Australia is not a major oil producer, it is the second biggest liquefied natural gas exporter in the world. Unlike other energy superpowers, Australia does not receive a significant tax or royalty benefit when prices rise. The situation is worse for Australian consumers, who will pay surging world prices for Australia’s own resources.

Note: I submitted a shorter version of this piece as an op-ed to the Santa Fe Mexican. I've been informed that rather than publish the submission, the news side of the paper plans to run a story "so people who are going to the [No Kings 3 events] in Santa Fe will know what do/where to go." That sort of coverage is certainly welcome but it doesn't speak to the unconstitutionality of the City of Santa Fe's codes and regulations pertaining to the use of streets and sidewalks for public assembly and political expression.

On March 28, people will gather in Santa Fe for No Kings 3, to celebrate and fight for constitutional democracy in the United States. They will exercise their First Amendment rights to assemble and freely express their views.

That is, they will if local government lets them. So far the City of Santa Fe isn't giving me much confidence.

As I quickly learned when I set out to get a street use permit for No Kings 3 in Santa Fe, the City's municipal ordinances and implementing regulations are a mess: vague, confusing, complex. They practically invite City officials and police to apply them unconstitutionally. Nevertheless, I hoped the City and its Police Department would resolve in practice the constitutional problems raised by the ordinances and regulations on their face. Unfortunately, the City and the Police took even more blatantly unconstitutional steps.

Around 30,000 people from Pacific Island nations and Timor Leste hold PALM visas, which allow them to work in Australia on a temporary basis, but widespread “disengagement” means thousands are left to survive in Australia without a formal visa.

Today, Welcoming Communities and the Mayoral Alliance for the Pacific will convene a forum at Australian Parliament House to call on the Commonwealth government to reform visa conditions to give workers genuine freedom to change employers, improve access to healthcare, and expand family-inclusion to build fairer, stronger communities.

Title: PALM Futures Forum: Community-centred Visa Reform

Time: 11:00am – 1:00pm

Location: Parliament House Canberra

Australia Institute research shows that the PALM scheme generates almost $1 billion in economic value, but less than $200 million ends up being remitted to the Pacific.

Quotes attributable to Aleem Ali, CEO of Welcoming Communities.

“Fair work should mean exactly that. Yet the PALM Scheme falls short for people from the Pacific working in our farms, factories and aged care homes.

“The PALM Futures Forum brings together workers, unions, employers, community members, researchers and policymakers to deliver better outcomes for everyone. The Forum seeks to shift the “Pacific Family” rhetoric into action and ensure that Pacific workers can access the same rights as their Australian colleagues.

On this episode of Follow the Money and After America, Dr Emma Shortis and Ebony Bennett discuss the illegal US-Israel war in Iran, the implications of the conflict for the Middle East, and why Australian personnel were on board an American nuclear-powered submarine when it sank an Iranian warship.

This episode was recorded on Tuesday 10 March.

What we owe the water: It’s time for a fossil fuel treaty by Kumi Naidoo is available now for just $19.95. Use the code ‘PODVP’ at checkout to get free shipping.

You can also subscribe to the Vantage Point series to get four essays a year on some of the most pressing issues facing Australia and the world.

Guest: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

It is often believed that the common-law rule of birthright citizenship was that mere birth on the sovereign’s soil was sufficient to create such citizenship. That is incorrect. Although that statement is an approximation of the rule that usually gets the correct result, the precise common-law rule was birth on the sovereign’s soil to parents under the sovereign’s protection.

That is how Sir Edward Coke described the rule in Calvin’s Case, the leading common-law decision from 1608. Aliens from friendly countries with permission to be in the realm were under the sovereign’s temporary protection and owed in exchange a temporary allegiance to the sovereign. They were, while in the realm, natural subjects of the king. That is why their children born in the realm were natural-born subjects. In contrast, the children born of invading soldiers were not birthright subjects “although born upon [the king’s] soil,” because they were not born “under the ligeance of a subject” or “under the protection of the king.” That is, a natural-born subject is one born to another subject, a subject who was under the protection of the king. Invaders did not count, but aliens were subjects of the king if they were under his protection and, in exchange, explicitly or implicitly, swore allegiance to him.