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

Nearly two weeks into the latest production of Shutdown Theater — a theatrical performance in which the US government doesn’t actually “shut down,” but some “non-essential” functions do — we’re still seeing the usual Blame The Other Party rhetoric from Republicans and Democrats alike.

My opinion has always been that the better strategy, for either party, is to claim ownership of, rather than bemoan, these shutdowns.

Instead of the same tiresome “those mean ol’ Republicans/Democrats won’t play nice” sympathy pleas, go with positional strength: “Darn right we shut some things down — we’re in control here and those things will come back after, and ONLY after, the Democrats/Republicans give us what we demand.”

In this case, the guy I’d expect to take that latter line,  the guy who would benefit most from doing so, is US president Donald Trump. Two reasons why:

First, there’s zero doubt whose shutdown this is.

The Republicans control the White House.

The Republicans control the US House of Representatives.

The Republicans control the Senate, and as recently as last month, they’ve shown they’re willing to use the “nuclear option” to get things done by majority, instead of super-majority, vote.

The US government is (partially and cosmetically) shut down because the Republicans want it that way. The shutdown will end when the Republicans want it to end. It’s theirs. They own it.

They (especially Trump) would look a lot better leaning into that ownership than they sound with their 24/7 whining about the Democrats.

Second, Trump is actually doing some good things with the shutdown — things that accentuate the “ownership” angle if he’d just claim that angle.

First, the White House is questioning whether furloughed government employees are entitled to “back pay” when the shutdown ends and they return to their offices.

That seems to be a legal question, but in the private sector, it’s not a question at all. If a factory shuts down and lays off its workers, those workers don’t get paid then or later, because they’re um, NOT WORKING. They can file for unemployment benefits, or they can just wait the shutdown out while living on their savings, or they can go find other jobs, but they don’t get retroactive paid vacations for the layoff period. Why should government employees be treated any differently?

Second, the Trump administration has begun “Reduction In Force” cuts to the government employee population.

Not temporary “shutdown” layoffs with guaranteed recall, but rather “going forward, this agency can get by with a staff of 400, not 500 … best wishes for your future in the private sector!” More than 4,000 government employees have already received RIF notices.

That’s some good stuff — and where political optics are concerned, bragging about it makes more sense than trying to shift blame for it.

I’d rather the US government shut down for real, and for good — but if Trump can use this partial, temporary shutdown to trim some fat and nix the “back pay” scam, that’s better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

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