by Rod Williams, July 10, 2026 -Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti yesterday joined a bipartisan coalition of 49 attorneys general in urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt stronger safeguards that would make it harder for scammers to obtain legitimate telephone numbers and use them to target consumers.
I approve. I routinely get phone calls and text messages informing me of the "Social Security grocery allowance.' I usually hang up before they can make their pitch. The number is a 615 area code. I will block the number and then the next day, I will get another call, again from a 615 area code, but a different number. It is annoying and frustrating. I have reached the point to where I almost never answer a call from an unknown number. I could be missing legitimate calls.
There is no official “Social Security grocery allowance” issued by the Social Security Administration. The benefit they try to tell me about is usually a $900 or $2,700 annual food allowance. Sometimes, I will play along and let the caller waste his time and ask question if I am in a good mood and have nothing else to do. This is not a Social Security program. Instead, it’s a supplemental benefit offered by some Medicare Advantage Part C insurance plans.
Another call I sometimes get is from someone asking me if I still have back pain. Since I am old, I guess they assume a lot of old people have back pain. I don't. I think this is a Medicare scam. If I stay on the line, they will transfer me to a doctor to diagnose me over the phone. I never let the call go that long, but I have learned I am entitled to a back brace, and they will send it to me at no cost. These calls are almost always from someone with a lilting Indian accent.
I hope the coalition of attorneys general can succeed in stopping these scam calls. The coalition filed comments supporting proposed FCC rules that would help prevent criminals from exploiting legitimate phone numbers to carry out robocall and text message scams.
"Scammers are constantly changing tactics to stay one step ahead, and we have to be just as relentless in protecting consumers," said Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. "Cracking down on illegal spoofing made a real difference, but now bad actors are exploiting legitimate phone numbers to gain consumers' trust. These commonsense reforms will make it harder for scammers to operate and easier for law enforcement to track them down and hold them accountable."
In a press release, Skrmetti said Americans received an estimated 29.6 billion scam robocalls and text messages last year and lost nearly $2 billion to these schemes.
To better protect consumers, the bipartisan coalition is urging the FCC to:
Require companies that purchase and resell North American phone numbers to meet stronger certification standards and disclose how and to whom numbers are assigned.
Require regular reporting on the sale and use of phone numbers so law enforcement can trace illegal robocalls to their source and hold companies throughout the call chain accountable.
Require applicants seeking access to phone numbers to certify they will not use them to facilitate illegal robocalls.
Prevent the sale of phone numbers to entities that are not connected to a legitimate calling or texting service.
Prohibit "number cycling," the practice of rapidly rotating through large blocks of phone numbers to evade spam detection tools.
Restrict the availability of trial phone numbers that scammers can exploit to carry out fraudulent schemes.
by Rod Williams, July 9, 2026 - Following the Supreme Court's ruling upholding birthright citizenship, there has been a lot of talk of somehow overturning it. Of course, as everyone knows, legislation cannot amend the Constitution and the Constitution is hard to amend, as it should be. To propose a Constitutional amendment requires a joint resolution of Congress, getting the approval of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then the proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, which is 38 of the states. That is not going to happen in order to overturn birthright citizenship.
The other way to amend the Constitution is by a Constitutional Convention. If two-thirds of state legislatures formally request it, Congress must call a convention to propose amendments. This method has never been used. It is not going to happen to overturn birthright citizenship.
That the Constitution is difficult to amend does not mean Congress is powerless to address the perceived problems with birthright citizenship. One of the greatest concerns about birthright citizenship is "birth tourism," in which expectant mothers travel on tourist visas during the later stages of pregnancy to give birth on American soil. Upon birth, the child receives a birth certificate and citizenship.
Representative Andy Ogles
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has estimated 20,000 to 26,000 births per year may result from birth tourism. Other estimates put the number lower. Even at the high number, that is less than 1% of annual births, but that is a lot of people. I am among those who find this concerning. The practice is concentrated among wealthy nationals from China, Russia, and a few from other countries. A whole industry has built up around facilitating this desire to give birth in America with trip planning and birthing centers.
It is not hard to imagine children born in the US and raised in China, being sent back to the US for nefarious purposes when they become adults. Nor is it hard to imagine Russian oligarchs desiring to have a child with American citizenship to help facilitate expanding their business holdings in America. I favor legislation to curtail the practice of birth tourism.
Both Representative Andy Ogles and Senator Marsha Blackburn have introduced legislation to address the issue, but are taking different approaches. Congressman Ogles has introduced the "Anchors Away Act," which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act's definition of who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of birthright citizenship. Under his proposal, a child born in the United States would automatically receive citizenship only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident or an active-duty member of the U.S. armed forces. This act attempts to address the whole issue of birthright citizenship instead of focusing on birth tourism. This would almost certainly be struck down. It is as contrary to the 14th Amendment as was Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. I think even Trump loyalists would see this as a simple act of defiance and a waste of time.
Sen. Blackburn's bill is focused simply on "birth tourism." The proposed legislation, titled the “Ban Birth Tourism Act,” would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit foreign nationals from obtaining tourist visas for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States. It would still allow individuals seeking legitimate medical care related to a problem with childbirth to visit the US for childbirth if U.S. citizenship for the child is not the primary purpose of their travel.
While Ogles' proposal seeks to change how federal law defines eligibility for birthright citizenship, Blackburn's bill focuses on restricting the use of temporary visas by individuals traveling to the United States for the primary purpose of giving birth. Blackburn's bill makes sense and deserves careful consideration; Ogles bill needs to never see the light of day.
From Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, July 7, 2027
- The freedom to criticize law enforcement without fear of punishment is an essential right in the United States. But officials at the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement don't seem to understand this.
Just ask David Streever. Following ICE's January crackdown in Minnesota, Streever wrote an angry email to the then-head of ICE, condemning him and calling him a "monstrous human being."
The government's response?
Showing up at Streever's front door with a "WARNING NOTICE" that explained, on official federal stationery from ICE and DHS, that "YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW" for sending his email to the ICE director.
Since Streever wasn't home at the time, agents went one step further and tracked him down at the hotel where he was staying during a trip with his 7-year-old daughter. A federal agent showed up at the front desk, leaving a hotel clerk a business card to give to Streever. Two agents also repeatedly called Streever's phone, leaving anonymous voicemails identifying themselves only as "Homeland Security Investigations."
This type of behavior sounds more like it belongs in an authoritarian police state than in the United States of America.
That's why FIRE just filed a federal lawsuit to challenge ICE's efforts to scare Streever and others into silence — and remind other government officials that such behavior is un-American, unconstitutional, and unacceptable in a free society.
Streever's criticism of ICE contained only fully protected speech, and nothing that could constitutionally justify ICE's "knock it off" threats. And it came nowhere close to an unlawful threat of violence, as the notice and subsequent ICE comments suggested. The fact that it took five months for the government to take this drastic action provides further proof that Streever presented no threat.
Simply put, the only threat here is the one DHS and ICE officials pose to Streever's First Amendment freedoms — and those of his fellow Americans. That's why FIRE is fighting it.
With our lawsuit, we're sending a message to government officials everywhere: respect the First Amendment, or be prepared to see us in court.
FIRE
P.S. This work is only possible thanks to generous donors like you. Thank you for all you do to help FIRE protect the First Amendment. Your Donations Make a Difference
Rod's Comment:
As we watch the Trump administration trample the Constitution and advance its authoritarian agenda, it is important that we who support classical liberal values, including free speech, stand up for our values and rights. Fire does an excellent job of doing that. They have long been defending free speech, whether the attack comes from the left or the right. FIRE is one of the organizations I support with my charitable giving. Please follow the link and make a donation.
by Rod Williams, July 5, 2026 - Early voting in the August 6th primary election begins Friday, July 17th. That is soon.
In the Governor's race, I will not vote for Marsha Blackman. I used to like her. I have voted for her in the past. However, in Trump's second term, she has gone out of her way to be a suck-up to Trump. I am less forgiving of Blackburn's Trump sycophant status than I am of some other Republican suck-ups. The reason I am less forgiving of Blackburn is that she knows better. Some people, like Andy Ogles, for instance, were never principled or very bright; Marsha was; she has no excuse.
A vote for John Rose in the Governor's race, was his to lose, and he has lost it. I did not know much about John Rose before the race started, but from what I did know, I was favorably impressed. As the leading opponent of Blackburn, I was inclined to vote for him. Then, however, the ads started, and he has tried to wrap himself in the Trump mantle. In almost every ad, he praises Trump and says things like, "Trump is a CEO, and I'm a CEO ...." The only way I would vote for Rose is if Trump endorses Blackburn. I like seeing Trump-endorsed candidates lose.
The other Republican candidate for governor is Monty Fritts. I would never ever consider voting for him under any circumstances. He is much to the right of other candidates on gun rights, opposes school choice, and advocates a ban on the practice of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or "other pagan religions" in the state of Tennessee. He has also said he would criminalize sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex. He opposes allowing rape victims access to the morning-after pill. He advocates the death penalty for women who get an abortion, and he has called for the execution of the parents of trans children who allow their child to undergo hormone therapy.
There are some other Republicans on the ballot, and I know nothing about them. I have voted for names on the ballot before, when knowing nothing about the candidate, but I am hesitant to do that; one could be voting for a Nazi or a serial killer.
I could vote in the Democratic primary. Despite being an exile from the Republican Party, I still think of myself as a Republican. The only times I have voted in a Democratic primary were in local elections in Nashville when the winner of the Democratic primary was going to win the seat. In most cases, Republicans did not even put forth candidates. I knew the people running and cared who was going to be the county clerk, the register of deeds, the trustee, the sheriff, etc. Now that I am no longer at home in the Party of Trump, I could be persuaded to vote for a Democrat, but Democrats do not stand a chance in Tennessee. A Democrat has not won a statewide office in Tennessee since 2006, when Gov. Phil Bredesen won reelection to a second term.
Six candidates have filed for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, with Memphis Councilmember Jerri Green considered the frontrunner in that primary. I have not seen a single ad for Jerri Green and know little about her. From what little I do know, she seems to be pragmatic and is not a Democratic Socialist. I assume she will win the primary, and then I will take a closer look at Jerri Green and her opponent, which will most likely be Marsha Blackburn or John Rose.
I thought about just not voting. There is nothing wrong with simply not voting when there is no one to vote for, except that when a large number of people don't vote, it is interpreted as apathy rather than disgust. I vote every time the polls are open. I plan to vote, although I have no one to vote for.
So for now, I will vote in the Republican primary. I wish the ballot had a "none of the above" choice. I would vote for "none of the above." Since we do not have that choice, I plan to write in my own name. If you vote, I urge you to write in your own name, or your spouse's name, or your dad's, or your mother's name, or write in my name: Rod Williams.
by The Editors, National Review, July 3, 2026 - Criticism comes, rightly, with the territory of being a Supreme Court justice. Hysteria shouldn’t.
With the conclusion of the 2025–26 Supreme Court term and Donald Trump’s defeat on birthright citizenship, we have been treated to another round of abuse from right-leaning commentators directed toward Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The immediate trigger of their ire is Barrett’s joining the Trump v. Barbara majority (along with Chief Justice John Roberts and, on the outcome, Justice Brett Kavanaugh) striking down Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
... It’s the intemperate vitriol of these attacks, and their utter lack of perspective, that appalls us. Critics brand Barrett a traitor, a DEI hire, and a left-winger who has doomed the country. They complain that she makes poor decisions because she is a woman and a mother of adopted children from Haiti.
... the predictable, faithful rule of written law is a positive end in itself, and a pillar of the good society. If judges are to be loyal to a party or impose their own preferred ends, they may as well be elected
... aside from her devotion to process and methodology, it is hard to find a pattern of issues in the cases where Barrett breaks with conservative outcomes, (read it all)
The Justices are doing a job worthy of America’s 250th.
by The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2026 - What is this Supreme Court’s project? ... Read the Justices, and it becomes clear they are focused on the Constitution and the law. They are protecting ordered liberty, correcting deviations from the Founders’ design, and taking the Bill of Rights seriously. ...
... The separation of powers is fundamental to the Constitution, ... The Justices are also ruling against Presidents who try unilaterally to impose policies ... When the Justices strike down executive overreach, they’re upholding the Constitution. ... The Court’s effort to re-separate legislative and executive powers is constitutionally correct. ... The Second Amendment means the government can’t disarm casual marijuana users (U.S. v. Hemani) or ban firearms by default (Wolford v. Lopez). ... America has a “colorblind Constitution,” as the Court said in a brief unsigned opinion, after its decision removing race from partisan redistricting ...
... Originalism is a method, not a party line, and nobody will like every decision. (read it all)
by Rod Williams, June 2, 2026- This is a great video telling the Nashville story. It covers the founding up until the present day.
I love this city. There is no other place I would rather live. I have lived here most of my adult life, and I have embraced all the city has to offer. I lived in Nashville for about five years in the early seventies and then work took me away, and I lived in upper East Tennessee for about six years before retuning.
During that first stay in Nashville and then for about six or so years after returning to Nashville, I was a "honky tonk hero." I am not a musician nor a songwriter, but I was a super fan. I was one of those guys you see wearing a cowboy hat and boots whose hobby is immersing himself in the music scene. I went to live music events, including following bands that played small bars, and usually I would go to two or three writers' nights a week. I was here when the outlaw movement happened in Nashville and saw a lot of people who went on to become famous and kind of got to know some of them. I attended almost all of the Charlie Daniels' Jam events. I learned how to crash the parties during the annual D J conventions. The D J convention was the precursor to Fan Fair and the CMA Fest. During the convention, I would take a couple days off from work and go to parties and receptions and see lots of live music. The concerts were for the benefit of Country Music D J's and the record labels would all host big concerts with almost all of their roster of artists. They pulled out all stops. I love being part of that Nashville.
In addition to the music side of Nashville, I experienced a lot else the city had to offer. Except for the winter months, there was always some kind of community festival, either commemorating a historic event, a season, a holiday, a food, or a particular neighborhood. This being Nashville, almost any event for any purpose would have live music. I took in as many of the festivals and special events as I could.
Being the State capital, there was an energy and a vibe the city had that was exciting. During my time away from Nashville, I returned for about four months as a college student and served as an intern working for the State legislature. That gave me an insight into State government, and I developed a greater appreciation of our state and Nashville.
In 1980 I ran for a seat on the Metro Council and won. This was before there were term limits, when there was very little turnover in the Council, and there were fewer opportunities to serve. Serving in the Metro Council certainly curtailed my hanging out in bars and my hobby of immersing myself in the music scene. I served on the Council for ten years. If you take the job seriously, it takes all of your time that is not devoted to earning a living. I took the job seriously. I was very engaged in the business of the city and tried to have an impact. Being one of the few conservatives on the Council and being one of the youngest members to ever serve in the body, I felt I had to be better informed and better prepared than most of my colleagues. I served on the Planning Committee of the Council, which is one of the more demanding committee assignments. My stint in the Council made me more vested in Nashville. I still follow closely what happens in local government.
After leaving the Council, I worked for a community-based organization that had several missions, but most of my work involved working with low-income people and helping them become homeowners. The work was rewarding, and in this capacity I worked with other non-profit organizations, service providers, funders, churches, and government. This kept me engaged with the city and was another tie to the city that others may not experience.
I have seen Nashville change a lot over the years. There was a period in the seventies and early eighties when Lower Broadway was only home to about four bars, and the main businesses were pawn shops, furniture stores and adult book stores. It was pretty seedy back then. In 2020, the Ryman reopened and new life was breathed into the area, and Lower Broadway began to grow and grew to become the madhouse it is now.
A lot of people who live here like to trash-talk Nashville. I am not one of them. Nashville has changed but it is still Nashville. There are dozens of bars frequented by tourists where the band is playing someone else's music and trying to sound just like the original, but if you look, there are still venues where new bands develop and where writers try out new material. If you want to experience Nashville off Broadway, I suggest Dee's Country Lounge, Santa's Pub, or the Idle Hour. I am an old man now and don't have the desire to hang out in bars anymore, and music, while still important to me is not my main interest anymore, so I don't know all the places where music is being created, but I know there are still lots of places where aspiring songwriters and performers hone their craft.
While many say they hate Lower Broad, I don't. It can be overwhelming at times. A few times a year, I still hit Lower Broad. I don't mind the crowds and the bachelorette parties. I like seeing people have a good time and enjoy themselves, and I am happy they are doing it my town.
In some ways, Nashville has gotten better. The influx of emigrants has brought a slew of ethnic eateries, and I enjoy discovering new places to eat. Nashville has several five-star Michelin restaurants, not that I have eaten in any of them, but I am glad they are here. Nashville has a much more cosmopolitan feel than it used to, and I don't mind. There are more high-paying jobs, and recent college graduates do not have to move somewhere else to have a good career.
On the other hand, the growth has made housing unaffordable for many young people. Of course, some of that is a national issue, but Nashville's growth has priced many people out of the market. I wish growth had been slower and would slow down. I guess the thing I like least about the new Nashville is the traffic and the lack of parking. There was a time as recent as fifteen years ago or so when Nashvillians would brag that we were a "fifteen-minute city," - you could reach any destination in fifteen minutes. Now, rush hour runs from about 3 PM in the evening to about 6:30 PM. If there is a big sporting event ending and several big conventions in town coming to an end, the drive to the airport, which is about 8 miles east of downtown, making it roughly a 15–25-minute drive under normal traffic conditions, can take an hour or longer. There have been occasions when traffic has been paralyzed, and people have been stuck on the interstate for much longer periods.
There was a time when parking was cheap, and there were parking spaces. I even knew some free parking spaces. Not anymore. I hate having to pull out my phone, use a QR code, put in my license plate number, and then put in a credit card number. Maybe it is because I am old and slow to adapt, but sometimes I may want to go somewhere, but because parking is a hassle and expensive, I won't go.
The change in Nashville has its pluses and its minuses, however, this is still a great city with a soul, but please don't move here.
by Rod Williams, June, 30, 2026 - The Supreme Court has ruled as I expected, upholding birthright citizenship. The language is clear and unmistakable: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This has been adjudicated at least on three occasions, and the "subject to the Jurisdiction," which some were hanging their hats on to void birthright citizenship, had been settled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. I would have been shocked if the Supreme Court had voted to overturn the 14th Amendment's meaning. I am surprised that the court ruling was narrowly decided.
Some argue that the 14th Amendment was meant solely to make citizens of former slaves. That is obviously not true. It was recognized that the 14th Amendment would make citizens of the children born in America to non-citizens at the time the Amendment was adopted.
For an understanding of the Court's ruling and the logic of that ruling, see the following.
Supreme Court Affirms Original Meaning of Birthright Citizenship, Strikes Down Trump's Executive Order
by Damon Root, Reason, 6-30-2026 - When the 14th Amendment was introduced in the U.S. Senate in 1866, the first senator to speak out in opposition to it was a Pennsylvania Republican named Edgar Cowan. He objected in part because the Citizenship Clause of the proposed amendment would make American citizens out of the U.S.-born children of unwelcome immigrants. "Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?" Cowan asked. And what about the "Gypsies" that he claimed were present in his own state? "These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society," he declared. Yet the 14th Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship would cover them, too. "If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right," Cowan said, "then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous."
Cowan's objections were answered by another Republican senator, John Conness of California. "I beg my honorable friend from Pennsylvania to give himself no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California or on the Pacific coast," Conness said. "We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others." (read it all)
Birthright Citizenship: The Majority Opinion
by Dan McLaughlin, National Revied, June 30, 2026 - Given the stakes and the extensive body of scholarship on the citizenship clause, the 26-page majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts in Trump v. Barbara is surprisingly brisk. On the question of the constitutional scope of birthright citizenship, only Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Roberts and the Court’s three liberals.
Subjects of the King
Roberts began with English common law, under which birth within the king’s dominions made one a subject owing duties of allegiance, but with exceptions for those born in “discrete areas within his kingdom that were temporarily outside his control. . . . And the same held true for ambassadors (and their families), who were considered—by a fiction of extraterritoriality—to remain on foreign soil and thus ‘under the ligeance’ of their home country.” This extended even to the children of “gypsies” (today known as Roma or Romani) who were legally banned from the country. (read more)
by Rod Williams, June 29, 2026- This is an outrage. Government should not use eminent domain to take someone's property just because public opinion does not support what the owner wants to do with their property. I would bet that the owner will sue and win, unless the city so overpays for the property that the owner is happy to take the money and build elsewhere. Either way this will cost the city dearly.
by Rod Williams, June 29, 2026 - I am certainly not an expert on data centers, and if I were presented with evidence that they were dangerous or detrimental to people's health in some way, I could favor more regulation. However, it appears to me that opposition to data centers is being driven by fear more than facts. That is what Clint Brewer argued recently on The Michael Patrick Leahy Show.
If you are one who follows local news and politics in Nashville, you probably know Clint Brewer. He has worked as a journalist with several Nashville publications over the years and has served in government. He is now in public relations, so he very well may have a teck company as a client. That being said, that does not negate the essence of his argument. I am posting excerpts from an article in the Nashville Star where Clint makes his case.
It seems to me that a lot of people fear AI. Maybe robots will take over. Maybe AI will put most people out of a job. This fear of technological change, it seems, leads to opposition to data centers.
There is a large data center being proposed near the Nashville Zoo that has generated a lot of opposition. One argument I hear made in opposition to that data center is that data centers are noisy and emit a high hum. I would like to know just how bad that is. Many people live near interstates or busy roads, as do I. Others live in neighborhoods with the airport flight path over their house. People still buy homes near interstates and beneath the airport flight path. They get used to the noise. The proposed data center site near the Nashville Zoo is appropriately zoned for this use. It is not as if the data center was seeking a rezoning and trying to put the data center in a residential neighborhood. I would need to be persuaded that the noise is a danger to the mental health or hearing of residents near the center before I would be persuaded that this is a reason to stop the development. Is the data center more of a nuisance than what could otherwise be built on this commercially zoned property?
Another argument one hears in opposition to data centers is that data centers use a lot of water and electricity. Having served on the Planning Committee of the Council and having otherwise observed zoning battles for years, opponents of a new development always fall back on the argument that infrastructure does not support the new development. Sometimes it is the capacity of the local school, or the water system, or the wastewater system, or the roads. I am never persuaded by these arguments. A utility, a school system, or a city does not build excess capacity and just wait for it to be used. Demand for the schools, roads, or utilities bumps up against existing supply, and then new capacity is created, and this repeats over and over as long as there is new demand.
I could be persuaded that data centers are bad for certain places, but I am not persuaded yet. I assume if the land is zoned to allow a data center, then a data center should be allowed. For those who think a data center should not be permitted anywhere ever, please turn in your cell phone and get off the computer.
by Kaitlin Housler, Nashville Star, June 29, 2026 - ... Brewer acknowledged that resistance stems from multiple concerns, including apprehension about AI and preserving rural communities.
“It’s a complicated mix of fear of AI taking people’s jobs, coupled with… and rightfully… people in rural areas wanting to keep them rural,” he said. “If you look at where data centers go, disproportionately they go to rural areas.”
... Brewer noted how many communities have responded by imposing restrictions before fully evaluating the industry’s long-term benefits.
“I think there are many states and counties and communities reflexively putting a moratorium on them,” Brewer said. “I think it’s bad for the country overall. We desperately need data centers.”
He argued that data centers are essential to the nation’s technological future and its competition with China.
... Brewer also rejected the notion that data centers fail to generate lasting employment.
“Data centers do create jobs not just in the construction phase, but there will be a long-term legacy sector for maintaining them, servicing them. It is not a jobless endeavor,” he said.
... “I think the utility companies across the South have done a terrific job ramping up production to accommodate data centers,” Brewer said.
Brewer pointed to neighboring states as examples of governments embracing artificial intelligence and related infrastructure.
“Mississippi’s all in… Arkansas,” he said. “They’re incorporating them into their power grid plan. They’re incorporating artificial intelligence into making state government more efficient. There’s some real forward-looking things happening in some parts of the South.”
... the issue has created an unusual political coalition.
“It’s one of those weird places politically where, if you think of politics as traditionally a spectrum with a right on the one end, left on the other end, this is one of those issues where the right and the left come in the back door behind the spectrum and get together,” Brewer said.
According to Brewer, that alliance combines “pro-rural populism coupled with progressive anti-Americanism and anti-growth and anti-industrialization.” (read it all)
by Rod Williams, June 26, 2026- Can you believe this?
What you are seeing is a mailer sent out by a Young Republican in Maury County. If you think "Young Republican" means naive young people and want to excuse this, don't be deceived. One is a Young Republican up until age 40.
I know some of my liberal friends will believe this; they always thought the Republican Party was fascist and weird, but I know this is not normal. This is not what Republicans have always been like; this is what the Republican Party has become since Donald Trump was elected.
Of course, there have always been nut-jobs and conspiracy theorists in the Republican Party. When you have a two-party system like ours, the nutjobs make up part of each coalition.
Not all the crazies are Republicans, of course. There have always been some Democrats who believed some crazy stuff and advocated nutty things like unilateral disarmament, defund the police, borders are racist, trans women are women, and many seem ignorant of economics. So, I am not saying it is only Republicans who are crazy, but crazy Republicans are now mainstream Republicans. What would have once been rejected and denounced and marginalized is now mainstream.
I am old, but not old enough to remember when it happened, but in the late fifties and early sixties, many chapters of the Republican Party had been taken over by the John Birch Society. If you only had a surface knowledge of the JBS, they seemed like normal but very conservative people. If you scratched the surface, you discovered they were really weird. They believed in a grand conspiracy. Not only was the government controlled by Communists, but Communism was just part of a bigger conspiracy that had been pulling the strings of world events since the Enlightenment. The world was controlled by a cabal of people called "the insiders." The insiders were also the Illuminati or something like that, and the insiders included the Rothschilds, the Council of Foreign Relations, the United Nations, and many others. Around 1962, led by National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr., the JBS was marginalized and denounced, and the organization's power waned, almost disappearing.
Getting rid of the JBS, of course, did not mean the end of nuttiness in the Republican Party. There were always a few right-wing militia types and fringe groups that attached themselves to the Republican Party, but they were routinely denounced and marginalized.
I think following the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, the Party became more comfortable with the crazies in their ranks. It became acceptable to be bigoted toward all Muslims and take a stand that freedom of religion did not apply to Muslim. Of course, President George W. Bush and other leaders and respected conservative journalists consistently advocated for our Constitutional liberties, but there was a Republican insurgency that welcomed the enemies of Constitutional liberties, and many were ready to receive a message that 9-11 was somehow an inside job.
Due, I think, to the rise of talk radio and then the modern internet and social media, there was a democratization of opinion. Whereas in the past one's reach with a bombastic tone or crazy theories was limited, in the new media environment, everyone had a megaphone, and there were plenty of people ready to listen and believe the loudest, most shrill voice and the one who could offer the simplest explanations to complex problems.
The rise of the TEA party movement further provided fertile ground for the growth of crazy ideas and dangerous ideologies. I was very much part of the TEA party movement. I attended the rallies. I favor lower taxes and a less intrusive government. However, as the movement grew, it attracted more and more fringe types, and they were tolerated. Being radical became the norm. The nerdy scholarly Republican and the Country Club Chamber of Commerce Republican were being replaced by the rabble rouser.
I was very involved in Republican Party politics around 2012, when a new hysteria swept through the Republican Party. It has pretty much disappeared now, but starting about 2012, concern over something called "Agenda 21" swept through Republican and conservative circles. Agenda 21 was a United Nations study that essentially warned of the threat of global warming and laid out what should be done about it. Agenda 21 amounted to nothing. It was just the opinion of the authors of the study. It was not a treaty nor even a resolution of the United Nations. Many Republicans, including people I knew and had worked with on campaigns, thought this was a serious plan to kill 98% of the world's population, and it involved killing us all with aspartame and fluoride. People really believed this crap. Everything from programs to have shady sidewalks, to reintroducing wolves into the wild, was denounced as part of the Agenda 21 agenda. If you think I am making this stuff up, follow this link. I covered this nonsense at the time.
And then came Donald Trump and the doors were swung wide open to the rabble rouser and the nutjob. I attended CPAC in 2015 and Donald Trump was not even invited to speak. CPAC, was for serious conservatives. What was once a gatekeeper to what was acceptable conservatism is now simply a part of the Trump machine. My, how things have changed.
Look at the list of points of the Austin mailer: The Great Replacement theory is a debunked white nationalist, far-right conspiracy theory that white people are deliberately being replaced by non-white peoples through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white people. Immigrants who come here as refugees fleeing oppression or simply for a better way of life are called invaders. Religious liberty is rejected and Austin Lee would ban two of the world's major religions. Antisemitism is expressed, and men should be in charge. This is nuts. This is fascist. This is authoritarianism. This is un-American. Unfortunately, people who advocate these positions feel at home in the Republican Party.
As the author of A Disgruntled Republican I often post items which I think may be of interest to the conservative, Republican, libertarian or the greater community. Posting of a press release or an announcement of an event does not necessarily indicate an endorsement. Rod
Posts
