September 22, 2025

HE PREACHED HATE:

Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’: The far-right commentator didn’t pull his punches when discussing his bigoted views on current events (Chris Stein, 9/11/25)

On immigration
America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 22 August 2025

The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024

The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024

On Islam
America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 30 April 2025

We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with western civilization.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 24 June 2025

Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.

– Charlie Kirk social media post, 8 September 2025

BREAKING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE IS PROGRESS:

Abundance Liberalism versus Adversarial Legalism (Thomas F. Burke & Jeb Barnes, Fall 2025, National Affairs)

For decades, liberals embraced lawsuits, legal rights, and judicial policymaking as means of driving social change and holding powerful interests to account. But recent years have seen second thoughts proliferate, especially among proponents of abundance liberalism, the movement to unleash the power of both government and the private sector to supply essential goods and services. Abundance liberals from Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson to Jennifer Pahlka have embraced law professor Nicholas Bagley’s argument from a 2019 article, “The Procedural Fetish,” that liberal-backed rules intended to make executive-branch policymaking more open, transparent, and accountable have become a major barrier to progressive change.

Bagley’s widely cited article showed how liberals’ unexamined dedication to “proceduralism” has handicapped state capacity. His examples come mostly from his specialty, administrative law, where major new initiatives must run a gauntlet of procedural hurdles, many of them erected by the left, before they can take effect. As Bagley noted, a long tradition of research in law and political science has examined and critiqued the effects of those hurdles, but this work is “absent entirely from the political conversation and relegated to the sidelines of the academic debate.”

We are all Gorsuchian now.

THE LEAST EFFICIENT SOCIALISTS:

U.S. Health Care: The Free-market Myth (Michael F. Cannon, Fall 2025, National Affairs)

Many critiques of U.S. health care begin with the assumption that, as The Economist put it, the United States is “one of the only developed countries where health care is mostly left to the free market.” Dr. David Blumenthal, a former advisor to President Barack Obama, told the New York Times in 2013 that in the United States, “we like to consider health care a free market.” That assumption gets the situation backward: In truth, among wealthy nations, the United States may have one of the least-free health-care markets.

In a free market, government would control 0% of health spending. Yet the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reports that in the United States, government controls 84% of health spending. In fact, government controls a larger share of health spending in the United States than in 27 out of 38 OECD-member nations, including the United Kingdom (83%) and Canada (73%), each of which has an explicitly socialized health-care system. When it comes to government control of health spending, the United States is closer to communist Cuba (89%) than the average OECD nation (75%).

Either a nationalized scheme or universal HSAs would yield a less expensive system with better outcomes.