Incoming Feed Items

For decades, legacy conservatives have sent mixed signals about family life. On one hand, they have emphasized family values and spoken about the family as the “cornerstone of society.” On the other hand, to distinguish themselves from the feminist Left, legacy conservatives have created a leaner formulation that emphasizes choice. This focus accommodates the supposed gains of second-wave feminism, allowing legacy conservatives to bypass seemingly lost causes and avoid accusations of wanting to “turn back the clock.” They want an agenda that caters to both conservative girlbosses and full-time mothers—a coalition that winks at having no favorites. Rather than acknowledging the obvious tension of trying to be a full-time mom and a full-time employee at the same time, legacy conservatives have spent decades telling women that they can have it all—motherhood, career, both, or neither—whatever their hearts desire.

This logic has long dominated institutional legacy conservative thinking. Single women, even if they hate a family-first worldview, must be courted, or at least not antagonized. Even organizations that promote the traditional family usually apologize for their benighted traditionalism—“It’s a free country,” “Family life is not for everyone,” “Some of our best employees are career women,” or “We support feminism, but oppose abortion.”

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.

Cloak and Docket | The Roundtable Ep. 314

In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American people, find our account running, under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era. We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tell us.

— Abraham Lincoln January 27, 1838

Independent economic think tank Prosper Australia has slammed threats from Elon Musk’s SpaceX to withhold satellite-based mobile services from Australia unless it is handed valuable public spectrum access for free. “Let’s be clear: Australia’s airwaves are a public resource, not a bargaining chip for billionaires,” said Rayna Fahey, Executive Director at Prosper Australia. “If SpaceX […]

On this episode of Follow the Money, Senator David Pocock and Dr Richard Denniss join Leanne Minshull to discuss the case for a 25 per cent gas export tax, why Australians currently get so little in return for the country’s finite resources, and how the gas industry wields power in parliament.

This episode was recorded live at the Australia Institute’s Politics in the Pub event on Wednesday 15 April. Subscribe now to find out about more live events from the Australia Institute.

Guest: David Pocock, Independent Senator for the Australia Capital Territory // @davidpocock

Guest: Richard Denniss, co-Chief Executive Officer, the Australia Institute // @richarddenniss

Host: Leanne Minshull, co-Chief Executive Officer, the Australia Institute // @leanneminshull

Host: Glenn Connley, Senior Media Advisor, the Australia Institute // @glennconnley

Show notes:

In March, Americans witnessed just how broken our naturalization process has become. Within the span of just 11 days, the nation experienced four terrorist attacks: mass shootings at a Texas bar and at Old Dominion University in Virginia, an attempted bombing in New York City, and an assault on a synagogue in Michigan.

The terrorists in Texas, Virginia, and Michigan were naturalized U.S. citizens. And the New York City bombers were the children of naturalized citizens.

In response to inquiries about these incidents, a spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reiterated that it “has a zero-tolerance policy for anyone who lies or misrepresents themselves during the naturalization process.”

That zero-tolerance policy is the right approach, but these recent attacks point to a stark reality: our naturalization process has erroneously granted the priceless privilege of American citizenship to foreigners who never accepted America, never embraced our values, and never intended to live as loyal members of our national community.

Naturalization is a long-standing, time-honored American tradition. But it is not a clerical formality or a routine application for benefits. Citizenship is not a property interest—it’s a covenant.

Evolution and Future of Money in Canada: Implications for the Digital Age, Legal and Regulatory Perspective


More “Announcement
Reminder: Money in the Digital Age – online workshop tomorrow (Apr. 22)”

Prosper Australia has rejected calls for new tax breaks and subsidies for developers in Geelong’s CBD, warning that such measures would shift private risk onto taxpayers without addressing the root cause of stalled development. “Governments should not be in the business of propping up private development projects,” said Rayna Fahey, Prosper Australia Executive Director, today. […]

Cross-posted from Fresh Economic Thinking By Cameron Murray I explain how a scaled variable royalty does the job of a super-profits tax while avoiding the accounting trickery in order to share risk and get a better public return from resources. Have you heard that Norway taxes their gas at 78% of profits, but Australia’s offshore gas pays […]

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

At the last minute, Iran agreed on Monday to participate in negotiations with the United States in Islamabad, Pakistan. The fragile ceasefire agreement between the two countries ends on Wednesday. Following the US attack on and seizure of an Iranian cargo ship in the Sea of Oman on Saturday, and contradictory tweets by President Trump in recent days, Iran was understandably hesitant to engage in further discussions with the US. There are additional obstacles to a successful resolution of the US-Israeli war on Iran to consider.

New Australia Institute research published today shows that the Japanese Government makes more revenue taxing its imports of Australian gas than the Australian Government makes from the export of our gas.

Key findings:

• Japan has imposed a tax on oil and gas imports since 1978, expanding the tax to cover coal in 2003.
• Over the last five years, Japan’s energy import tax has delivered an average of AUD $8 billion per year to the Japanese Government.
• On average, every year, $1.8 billion of Japan’s energy import tax comes from gas imports, substantially more than the $1.4 billion raised by the Australian Government’s Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT).

“It’s hard to believe how badly Australians have been ripped off by gas export companies,” said Dr Richard Denniss, co-CEO of the Australia Institute.

“Japan, a country with no gas, oil or coal reserves of its own collected almost $40 billion over the last five years while the Australian PRRT provided only $7 billion to Australians.

“Not only has Australia been literally giving more than half of the gas we export away for free, we now learn that the same Japanese Government that is opposed to us putting a tax on our gas and coal exports, has been raking in billions of dollars per year via their own tax on gas and coal imports.

On this episode of After America, nuclear policy expert Jon B Wolfsthal and Dr Emma Shortis discuss the US-Iran negotiations, the risks of this conflict metastasising, and how Trump is continuing to break down the guardrails around the use of nuclear weapons.

This episode was recorded on Friday 17 April.

The latest Vantage Point essay, Rich Kid Poor Kid: The Battle for Public Education by Jane Caro, is available now for $19.95. Use the code ‘PODVP’ at checkout to get free shipping.

Guest: Jon B Wolfsthal, US Nuclear Policy Fellow, PAX sapiens // @jonatomic

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

Show notes:

Shorter America: The consequences of not caring; The enemy of your enemy is not your friend; Visions for the future by Emma Shortis, The Point (April 2026)

What Is the Iran Nuclear Deal?, Council on Foreign Relations

Why did the National Park Service regularly denigrate the events of 1776 prior to the Trump Administration? In the Claremont Review of Books’ 25th anniversary issue, Jeffrey Anderson describes a visit to Independence National Historical Park, situated in the heart of old Philadelphia and run by the National Park Service. Congress created Independence Park for the purpose of “preserving” historic sites associated with “the American Revolution and the founding and growth of the United States,” as Anderson notes.

Anderson found an overwhelming emphasis on slavery and race—25 of 30 signs at the park’s President’s House, where George Washington and John Adams lived during part of their presidencies, “focus on slavery or race relations.” He writes that Washington and other founders “stand accused” of “‘injustice’” and “‘immorality.’” The first U.S. president’s “actions [are] characterized as ‘deplorable,’ ‘profoundly disturbing,’ and as having ‘mocked the nation’s pretense to be a beacon of liberty.’”

How did this situation come to pass?

For decades, the relationship between the United States and the Vatican has played a vital role in promoting individual liberties, religious freedom, and resisting authoritarianism in the West. This partnership, forged by then-President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, helped hasten the dissolution of the Soviet Union and contributed to the liberation of millions from Communism’s grip.

When aligned, America and Rome have exercised a formidable moral and geopolitical influence, representing the best of Western civilization. Yet the current feud between them, as historian Paul Kengor suggests, potentially presents a new cold war that could have deep ramifications for the future of free government.

While tension between political leaders and pontiffs is nothing new in world history, open hostility risks undermining cooperation at a moment when it is badly needed. The path back to stability—and to the renewal of Western civilization—will require both Trump and Leo to draw from the lessons of the past.

Round One

For Trump, who is lobbing derogatory insults at the Holy Father, history offers a clear warning: conflicts with the papacy rarely end well for political leaders.

Private credit and private equity are suddenly everywhere in the headlines, and if you're taking those headlines at face value, the picture looks apocalyptic. I think those fears are significantly overstated — and it really comes down to one critical distinction that almost nobody in mainstream macro-financial media is getting right.

That distinction is the difference between endogenous money — the actual money-creation engine of the banking system — and what private credit is actually doing, which is something fundamentally different.

In this post, we'll walk through exactly what happens on the balance sheets when a private credit transaction takes place versus when bank credit creates endogenous money. Once you see the mechanics side-by-side, it becomes obvious why private credit stress, while real and painful for investors directly exposed, is not the kind of systemic threat that 2008 was — and why the real thing to watch isn't the private credit headlines at all.

On 12 October 1929, James Scullin led the Labor Party to what was then its largest ever majority. It was unfortunate timing. Over the 1920s Australian governments had become the largest borrowers on the London money markets. In 1925, the United Kingdom returned to the gold standard. And then on October 24, just twelve days after winning its record breaking majority, Wall Street collapsed.

Looking back, this period became a textbook example of what not to do in economic policy. Scrambling to make good on our debts to London, Australian governments desperately tried to balance their books, only to plunge the country deeper and deeper into depression.

Labor faced a difficult set of circumstances. Australia’s identity was bound to the UK. Our defence strategy and economic strategy were effectively subordinate to the UK’s. Labor was also eager to demonstrate its economic credibility. And the dominant economic thinking said the books must be balanced.

In 1931 Labor was wiped out. It had already split internally through the pressures created by the Depression. Federal Treasurer Ted Theodore argued for a new economic orthodoxy, based on what at the time seemed like the radical teachings of John Maynard Keynes. NSW Premier Jack Lang rejected paying London banks over the livelihoods of NSW workers. Both were ignored and Lang was eventually dismissed by the Governor, leading a group of Labor MPs in a split.