Back in June, I attended the first “No Kings” rally in Gainesville, Florida, On October 18, I attended the second.

Positive differences:

While crowd estimates always vary, this rally definitely turned more people out than the last one. Part of that might have to do with University of Florida students having been home for the summer in June, but back in class now. Then again, this was also football homecoming weekend at UF, so “No Kings” was only the SECOND-biggest event in town. At both events, the crowd age definitely trended much older than “college kids.”

This event also seemed more heavily focused than the first on opposition to the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda and its military misadventures (both direct and by proxy, both abroad and with occupations of American cities at home). Not only are those issues where I tend to agree with most of the “No Kings” crowd, but they’re also more germane to the theme.

Negative similarities:

The first “No Kings” rally, I wrote then, was largely a Democratic “campaign event for the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Those of who oppose Trump but aren’t Democrats came along for the ride. Our support was co-opted whether we liked it or not.”

If anything, the second event took on an even more “vote — and by the way, vote Democrat” tone.

Despite the increased and welcome focus on Trump’s foreign military misadventures and domestic martial law moves, there was still plenty of “Yes Kings” signage and sloganeering.

One speaker, believe it or not, even devoted a minute or two to praising Joe Biden’s (and before him, Donald Trump’s) COVID-19 monarchical pretensions and decrying the “No Kings” protesters of that era … many of whom, unfortunately, reverted to their own prior “Yes Kings” advocacy on January 20, 2025.

Quite a few of the protesters seemed upset by the current “government shutdown,” and intent on recovering “their” government funding for … well, insert pretty much any activity here and I saw it supported.

And, of course, I heard a lot of talk about “democracy,” which in American practice tends to resemble monarchy on steroids. As Mather Byles asked in 1773,  “Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?” We’re not going to vote our way out of this mess.

The rally was a good time with a positive vibe, and I’m glad to see Americans coming together in opposition to one tyrant.

But until and unless we start coming together in opposition to tyranny itself — the state per se — and in support of liberty for all, the only question is how much more kingly and despotic our next ruler will get than the previous one got.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder last month, a rush to canonize — and demonize — the conservative influencer was only to be expected. A very public assassination, especially one with political overtones, naturally dominates multiple news cycles, offering a convenient platform for everyone to flaunt both their best and worst character traits.

More than a month later, though, certain people seem determined to keep the emotion-fest going well beyond its natural shelf life, dancing in Charlie Kirk’s blood to score political points with their political bases (or, perhaps, bosses).

Among those people, it seems, are US secretary of state Marco Rubio and/or the government employees he supervises.

The US State Department “continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk,” it boasts in a post on X.

The thread offers a  list of unnamed people saying mean things about Kirk, each followed by the pompous pronouncement: “Visa revoked.”

Yes, even in the middle of a “government shutdown,”  the State Department apparently has staff and resources available to:

1. Monitor social media for negative opinions about ONE GUY;
2. Determine whether the people expressing those opinions are abroad or in the US;
3. If the latter, determine whether those people are US citizens/residents or visitors; and
4. If the latter, revoke their visas.

I can’t help but think we’ve found a good place for Donald Trump to implement those permanent “Reductions In Force” he recently promised as a “shutdown”  measure (unfortunately, a federal court has those layoffs on hold via temporary restraining order).

Charlie Kirk’s murder, like all murders, was an evil and ugly thing. We don’t all agree on that … but we should.

That he was murdered for his political opinions and his political speech should move us to more zealously guard everyone’s rights to political opinions and political speech, whether we agree those opinions and that speech or not. “Everyone” includes holders of, and applicants for, visas to visit the United States.

The desire to turn Charlie Kirk into a national saint, or a “good riddance” poster boy, isn’t a basis upon which we should allow Marco Rubio to condition the issuance, non-issuance, or revocation, of visas.

Rubio’s job, as an executive branch secretary, is to execute laws passed by Congress, and the Constitution forbids Congress to make laws “abridging the freedom of speech” … of anyone. There’s not, nor should there be, a “visa holders’ opinions of Charlie Kirk” exception.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“During the 2024 presidential election,”  Maurie Backman wrote at Moneywise in March, “farming-dependent counties overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump. Almost 78% endorsed his most recent presidential run …”

Even two months into Trump’s second presidency, farmers had cause to regret their decision.

His closure of USAID knocked out billions of dollars in farm product sales, as well as loans and grants.

Then came the “Liberation Day” tariffs — taxing American buyers of foreign goods, in response to which many other countries’ governments imposed “retaliatory” tariffs on their citizens’ purchase of American foods or simply cut off those purchases … especially China, and especially soybeans, which I’ll come back to.

By mid-May, farmers were plowing under crops in some areas because Trump’s immigration crackdown meant many of the migrant laborers farmers depend on to harvest those crops had either been abducted/deported, or else refused to work in locations where they most feared abduction/deportation.

Trump’s solution? He wants to use tariff revenue to cut billions of dollars in welfare checks to the farmers he’s putting out of business. So all of us non-farmers are paying outrageous taxes, folded into outrageous prices, so that the farmers can get paid for NOT selling us food at non-outrageous prices.

Trump should have a ghost-writer ghost-write a sequel to his old ghost-written book focusing on his trade policies. Proposed title: “The Art of the No Good, Very Bad, Crack-Addled Raw Deal.”

It gets worse. Now the Trump administration has decided to bail out Argentina’s Javier Milei to the tune of $20 billion in “liquidity support” for his country’s volatile currency.

Argentine farmers grow lots of soybeans. Argentine farmers also export lots of soybeans.

Chinese customers buy lots of soybeans. They used to buy lots of soybeans grown by US farmers. Now they buy soybeans grown by Argentine farmers instead.

Oh, did I mention that one reason Milei needs a bailout is that he recently lowered the export tax on (and therefore his government’s revenues from) Argentine soybeans?

So now you and I get to pay MORE taxes and HIGHER prices so that American farmers get a bailout, Javier Milei gets a bailout, and Argentine farmers can sell more soybeans to Chinese customers at LOWER prices and pay LOWER taxes.

Insult, meet injury.

As Barack Obama used to say, “elections have consequences.”

All of the above are consequences of electing a senile narcissist who previously took six businesses, including casinos — which are  pretty much licenses to print money — into bankruptcy.

One major problem with democracy as a political principle is that when a plurality of voters makes a stupid decision, everyone else ends up paying the price. And Trump is certainly earning his place as a poster boy for that particular problem.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY