Opening:

• “I’ve been trying to be healthy, so I bought a fitness watch. It’s great—my watch tells me I’m active, then it immediately tells me I’ve also reached a dangerous level of procrastination. It’s basically a tiny, judgmental coach that buzzes you awake with a polite, disappointed sigh.”

Set-up with surreal twist:

• “Last week I went to a coffee shop that wasn’t just experimental—it was existential. The barista asks, ‘What’s your order?’ I say, ‘Coffee, please.’ He says, ‘What kind?’ I say, ‘Normal.’ He hands me a black hole in a cup and says, ‘That’ll be $4.99.’ I ask, ‘What does it do?’ He replies, ‘It absorbs your will to finish your sentence.’”

Surreal visual gag:

• “In the same cafe, a playlist starts playing on the ceiling. The songs are all about shelf life. A croissant croons, ‘I’m best eaten fresh… or as a very crunchy memory.’ The napkins form a choir: ‘We fold, therefore we are.’”

Beat with audience interaction:

• “You ever notice appliances in other people’s homes have opinions? My toaster keeps whispering, ‘Bro, you already burned it once this morning. It’s not a fan of drama.’ I said, ‘I’m the one who bought you, you ungrateful crumb!’ The toaster replied, ‘At least I didn’t raise a smoke alarm about it.’”

Escalation:

• “I tried meditation apps, but they kept turning into infomercials. A calm voice would say, ‘Breathe in… breathe out… Now, buy a multiplier pack of breathing lessons.’ It’s less mindfulness and more ‘mind-full of upsell.’”

Surreal closer:

• “I went to a pet store that sells imaginary pets. I adopted a procrastinating dragon. It’s great—every time I say, ‘We’ll train today,’ it sighs, ‘We’ll train tomorrow,’ then it burps a tiny raincloud that waters my to-do list into a puddle. Now I have a dragon that gives me excuses in a smoky, half-charmed way: ‘Yes, I can breathe fire—just not until it’s on sale.’”

Quick punchy taglines you can remix:

• “If reality had a reset button, it’d be stuck in a closet with the batteries.”
• “My calendar is a psychic that only predicts the things I didn’t want to do.”
• “My suitcase is a quantum object: every trip exists and not until I pack it.”

The Constitution is designed to check the power grabs of reckless men. Will Congress and the Courts defend the rule of law against an increasingly lawless executive branch?

Jason Sorens •

September 9, 2025

 “I don’t give a sh*t what you call it.”

So wrote Vice President J.D. Vance in response to journalist Brian Krassenstein, who questioned Vance’s assertion that assassinating suspected drug smugglers with missile strikes is “the highest and best use of our military.” Krassenstein called killing civilians without due process “a war crime.”

Public profanity and crude insults are the stock-in-trade of politicians left and right now. Political consultants, I’m sure, tell their bosses it makes them sound strong. Red meat for the base, one small symptom of our late-republic degeneracy.

To be fair, the words “due process” are triggering to the Trump Administration. Vance himself earlier defended abrogating due process to speed up deportations. President Trump answered, “I don’t know,” when asked if he agreed with Marco Rubio that presidents must respect constitutional guarantees of due process.

The Trump Administration is taking precedents set by Barack Obama to a new level. As President, Obama developed a “kill list” beginning in 2010 in consultation with CIA chief John Brennan. He ultimately ordered the assassination of thousands of suspected Islamists, including American citizens, with drone strikes. Disturbingly, many of these drone strikes killed innocent people, including Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who had himself earlier been killed by drone strike. The strike on Abdulrahman was admitted to have been a mistake.

Obama and Brennan never disclosed who was targeted for assassination or why, and the courts dismissed challenges to the list on the grounds of standing. Only those targeted for elimination, the opinion in the al-Awlaki case held, had standing to challenge it. Needless to say, people targeted for assassination were not eager to travel to the US to challenge their assassination order in open court. The Obama Administration’s legal theory held that the targeted individuals were on an active battlefield — but they also defined the active battlefield to include virtually the entire Middle East.

The Trump Administration is now further relaxing limits on the presidential assassination power, justifying blowing up a boat of suspected drug smugglers on the grounds that the White House has declared drug cartels and gangs to be “foreign terrorist organizations.” Just as with al-Awlaki on Obama’s kill list, there is no recourse for anyone the White House considers to be affiliated with one of these “terrorist” groups and thus fair game for killing.

Daily economic insight in your mailbox.

What makes the Trump Administration’s assertion of power more alarming is the fact that they also consider asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to constitute a literal “invasion” in the legal sense. It doesn’t take an expert logician to see that this administration’s position implies it would be lawful — and beyond judicial review — to employ federal agents to kill anyone suspected of entering the country illegally.

Obama could at least claim the authority to order the killings of foreign combatants under the congressionally enacted Authorization for Use of Military Force against al-Qaeda. The legal authority claimed by the Trump Administration for extrajudicially executing suspected drug traffickers is, believe it or not, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the same law it uses as authority for its sweeping tariff war against the world, despite the fact that it doesn’t mention tariffs or the power to kill.

In the second Trump term, we are getting a clear picture of an administration dedicated to punching holes in the rule of law. Since the Magna Carta, the Anglo-American legal tradition has held that the sovereign is subject to the law, a principle that amounts to words without substance if the law permits the sovereign to forfeit the lives, liberties, and properties of his subjects by simple command.

The framers of the American Constitution understood that the rule of law is not self-executing. The survival of the rule of law requires tight constraints on the executive branch. Congress and the judiciary must sanction the executive when he gets out of line. States must place roadblocks in the way of a federal government that tramples our rights.

I don’t so much blame Trump or Vance for trying to take power. Trump often behaves like a petulant child who doesn’t understand why he can’t always get what he wants. Vance has consistently chosen political power over principle, embracing positions that betray the very values he once claimed to defend. The genius of the Constitution is supposed to be that the ambition of each branch of government checks the power-grabs of evil men.

So I blame cowardice in Congress and the courts, if these assaults on the rule of law manage to go through. If vague legislation authorizes sweeping executive emergency powers, then we no longer live in a constitutional republic, but an elective dictatorship.

Obama set the precedents for presidential lawlessness; now Trump is exploiting them. It’s not difficult to see where this trajectory is heading.

JASON SORENS Jason Sorens, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow at AIER. He is also Principal Investigator on the New Hampshire Zoning Atlas. Jason was formerly the director of the Center for Ethics in Society at Saint Anselm College. He has researched and written more than 20 peer‐​reviewed journal articles, a book for McGill‐​Queens University Press titled Secessionism, and a biennially revised book for the Cato Institute, Freedom in the 50 States (with William Ruger).

His research is focused on housing policy and land-use regulation, U.S. state politics, fiscal federalism, and movements for regional autonomy and independence around the world. He has taught at Yale, Dartmouth, and the University at Buffalo and twice won awards for best teaching in his department. He lives in Amherst, New Hampshire.

  —  President Donald Trump has canceled trade negotiations with Canada over what he called a “fake” ad that featured parts of an anti-tariff speech delivered by conservative hero and former President Ronald Reagan. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute also said the ad misrepresented the former president’s words.

It wasn’t fake. It was edited. But Reagan really did spend a five-minute speech – an April 25, 1987, national radio address that the Reagan Library has published on YouTube – to rail against tariffs. It was a full-throated expression of support for free and fair trade.

The ad, purchased by the government of Ontario and broadcast on major US television networks, aired clips of the address, delivered from Camp David, where Reagan was soon to meet the prime minister of Japan at a time when American attitudes toward Japan were hardening. In the recent past, Japanese companies like Toyota and Sony had flooded America’s market with high quality but inexpensive cars and electronics, harming the business of great American brands, including General Motors and RCA.

Shortly before delivering the radio address, Reagan had placed higher tariffs on various Japanese products in retaliation for the influx of cheap Japanese semiconductors to America. He had some harsh words for Japan – not included in the ad – criticizing it in terms that resembled Trump’s frequent trade missives.

“We had clear evidence that Japanese companies were engaging in unfair trade practices that violated an agreement between Japan and the United States,” Reagan said. “We expect our trading partners to live up to their agreements.”

Reagan said he would remove the tariffs only when there was evidence Japan was treating American businesses and workers fairly – also seemingly channeling one of Trump’s go-to lines.

But Reagan was clear: He was “loath” to place trade barriers on Japan and believed high tariffs were damaging to American workers and the economy. He noted that economists widely believe that high tariffs of the Smoot-Hawley era had exacerbated the Great Depression, which he and others of his generation lived through – a painful memory that, he said, remained “deep and searing.”

The bulk of Reagan’s address – and the part the ad drew from most heavily – was his description of why advanced economies had largely abandoned tariffs as an economic tool by the time he became president: They increase domestic companies’ reliance on government intervention, they reduce competition, they kick off trade wars that lead to more tariffs, they raise prices and they ultimately lead to job losses.

Reagan then criticized the Democratic-controlled Congress for proposing legislation that could place more trade barriers on other countries. And despite “certain select cases like the Japanese semiconductors,” Reagan said his administration had embraced free trade.

It’s not clear why Trump called the ad “fake,” but his Truth Social post included a critical message about the ad posted online by The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute. It said the ad campaign used “selective audio and video of President Ronald Reagan” and “misrepresents the Presidential Radio Address.” The foundation didn’t say what it believed to be misrepresented.

The Ronald Reagan Foundation & Institute also claimed the government of Ontario didn’t seek permission to use or edit Reagan’s speech, although it’s not clear it was legally required to. The foundation said it was reviewing its legal options and encouraged people to watch the unedited speech.

The ad has run many times during high-profile events, including during the American League Championship series that featured the Toronto Blue Jays. Starting Friday night, the Ontario-based team will play in the World Series – a great source of national pride for Canadians.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford in a speech on October 14 said his government had placed the ad on virtually every major US network because he wanted to “take Ronald Reagan’s words and let’s blast it to the American people.”

“That ad, it’s not a nasty ad,” Ford said. “It’s very factual. And coming from a person like Ronald Reagan, every Republican is going to identify that voice.”

“He was just the best president America has ever seen in my opinion,” Ford, a conservative politician, said.

The "ice maker" represents the pathways to peace in the middle east in the contingency of a ceasefire and remediation of the warzone and repatriation of displaced peoples. Please tailor a concrete, step-by-step plan with metrics, a quick diagnostic checklist, and a messaging template for stakeholders.

[AI RESPONSE] 

Got it. I’ll tailor a concrete, step-by-step plan for the “ice maker” metaphor—the pathways to peace in the Middle East in the contingency of a ceasefire, warzone remediation, and repatriation of displaced peoples. The plan includes: a prioritized sequence of actions with metrics, a quick diagnostic checklist, and a stakeholder messaging template.

1. Step-by-step plan with metrics

Phase 0: Set the foundation (0–2 weeks)

• Objective: Establish legitimacy, secure a verifiable ceasefire framework, and align stakeholders on a common set of humanitarian priorities.
• Actions:
  1. Convene an international, cross-stakeholder ceasefire mini-summit to agree on a 4-pillar framework: humanitarian access, security assurances, governance/sovereign legitimacy, and refugee/displacement solutions.
  2. Establish an on-the-ground monitoring cell with impartial observers (UN, ICRC, regional partners).
  3. Publish a public casualty and damages baseline with independent verification.
• Metrics:
  • Ceasefire compliance rate (verified incidents per week).
  • Number of humanitarian corridors opened and kilograms of aid delivered per week.
  • Baseline casualty data published within 7 days.
  • Observer deployment and reporting cadence established (daily/weekly).

Phase 1: Immediate ceasefire stabilization and humanitarian access (2–8 weeks)

• Objective: Stabilize hot spots, enable safe corridors, and begin humanitarian rehabilitation.
• Actions:
  1. Expand and sanction multiple, protected humanitarian corridors with guaranteed ceasefire perimeters.
  2. Deploy rapid needs assessments for displaced populations; identify immediate shelter, water, food, and medical needs.
  3. Initiate a formal displacement registration and a rights-respecting repatriation framework, including temporary protected status if needed.
• Metrics:
  • Percentage of critical humanitarian needs met (water, food, shelter, medical) within 30 days.
  • Number of displaced people registered and verified for assistance.
  • Time-to-delivery metric for essential medicines (target: within 72 hours from request).
  • Ceasefire violation incidents reduced month-over-month (MOM).
• Deliverables:
  • Public corridors status reports; joint humanitarian appeal and resource plan.

Phase 2: Zone remediation and security normalization (8–24 weeks)

• Objective: Rehabilitate war-damaged infrastructure; reestablish safe civilian life; demobilize armed threats in a verifiable way.
• Actions:
  1. Launch targeted demining, rubble removal, and critical infrastructure repair (water, power, health facilities).
  2. Establish a demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration (DDR) pathway for non-state armed groups, with verified handover of weapons and guard duty shifts to civilian-led security.
  3. Initiate community-led security councils to oversee local dispute resolution and protect civil rights.
• Metrics:
  • Percentage of critical infrastructure repaired (water, power, health facilities) with independent verification.
  • Number of weapons surrendered and verified in DDR process.
  • Time-to-restoration of essential services (target: 90% restored within 12 weeks of remediation start).
  • Number of local security councils formed and active (monthly meeting cadence).
• Deliverables:
  • Independent DDR verification reports; infrastructure safety clearance certificates.

Phase 3: Governance stabilization and repatriation framework (24–52 weeks)

• Objective: Establish credible, inclusive governance structures; facilitate safe, voluntary repatriation with protection and livelihoods.
• Actions:
  1. Stand up a transitional governance arrangement with clear authority, budgets, and anti-corruption safeguards; ensure meaningful civilian participation.
  2. Implement a repatriation protocol: voluntary return with security guarantees, housing, neighbors, and livelihood support (jobs, education, healthcare).
  3. Develop a durable settlement roadmap with milestones for elections, rule-of-law reform, and security-sector reform.
• Metrics:
  • Transitional governance budget published and audited quarterly.
  • Number of displaced persons returning with verified safeguards (housing, health, education enrollment).
  • Rule-of-law reform milestones achieved (new anti-corruption framework, judiciary training, case backlog reductions).
  • Election readiness index and timeline.
• Deliverables:
  • Governance charter; repatriation and durable settlement roadmap; accountability and transparency reports.

Phase 4: Consolidation and resilience (52 weeks+)

• Objective: Sustain peace, prevent relapse, and build resilience in institutions and communities.
• Actions:
  1. Integrate DDR beneficiaries into local governance and civil service pathways; ongoing security sector reform with civilian oversight.
  2. Establish long-term humanitarian financing mechanisms and reconstruction funds with transparent governance rules.
  3. Implement durable regional diplomacy to address root causes (economic opportunity, safe movement