You Are Being Lied to; It is Not Due to the Reappraisal That Your Property Taxes Increased.

by Rod Williams, Sept. 8, 2026- So many people blame their increase in property taxes on the most recent reappraisal. Most of the time, that is simply not why your property taxes went up. 

The regular property reappraisal is for the purpose of equalization. Take for example, that you live in an established neighborhood of older, established homes. Assume lots of homes in your neighborhood get added on to, beautified, freshly painted and updated, and you do not do that to your home. You should not be paying the same taxes as your neighbor. The reappraisal values your home at market value, so the neighbor who improved their home pays more property taxes than you do.

Or, consider that you live in a home of a certain age, size, and condition in one part of town and your friend lives in a similar home in another part of town. Assume that since the last appraisal, your friend's neighborhood has become very trendy and more expensive. He should pay more taxes than you do because his property is more valuable, even though he did nothing to make it more valuable. 

After the reappraisal, your property should go up in value only if it has increased more than the average home. It should go down if it increases less in value than the average home. This is the law. The Tennessee Certified Tax Rate process is designed to ensure “truth-in-taxation” following a county-wide reappraisal. The process ensures the amount of total taxes collected for a county remains the same after a reappraisal, even if the combined value of all property in the county rose or fell following the reappraisal. Let me quote the law:

TN Code § 67-5-1701 (2025)

(a) (1) Upon a general reappraisal of property as determined by the state board of equalization, the county assessor of property shall certify to the governing bodies of the county and of each municipality within the county the total assessed value of taxable property within the jurisdiction of each governing body.

(2) The assessor shall also furnish each governing body an estimate of the total assessed value of all new construction and improvements not included on the previous assessment roll and the assessed value of deletions from the previous assessment roll.

(3) Exclusive of such new construction, improvements and deletions, each governing body, in the event of a general reappraisal as determined by the state board, shall determine and certify a tax rate which will provide the same ad valorem revenue for that jurisdiction as was levied during the previous year.

(4) For the purpose of calculating the certified rate, the governing body shall use the taxable value appearing on the roll exclusive of taxable value of properties appearing for the first time on the assessment roll. The governing body may also exclude from the taxable value appearing on the roll:

(A) The taxable value of properties subject to tax increment financing provisions adopted by the governing body pursuant to title 13, chapter 20, part 2; and

(B) The taxable value of properties within an area for which an economic impact plan has been approved by the governing body pursuant to § 7-53-312 or § 7-53-314.

(5) In calculating the certified tax rate, the governing body of the county or municipality may adjust the calculation, according to a method approved by the state board of equalization, to reflect extraordinary assessment changes anticipated from appeals to the state or local boards of equalization. The state board of equalization shall order recapture of an excessive adjustment in the following year if the certified tax rate is found to have been overstated due to overestimation of the appeals adjustment, and in these cases the jurisdiction may exceed the recapture rate only after public hearing.

So, why do most of us get a tax increase after a reappraisal? This is what normally happens. Following the finalization of the mass reappraisal, the new certified tax rate is calculated. Since property values increase, the new certified tax rate, which is lower than the current tax rate, is passed by the Council. Then, in almost all cases, the very next order of business is to pass a bill establishing a new tax rate that is higher than the certified tax rate that the Council has just passed. The Metro Council has chosen to set tax rates above the state‑required “revenue‑neutral” level.

Politicians who just raised your taxes will blame the tax increase on the reappraisal. They know better. They may also defend the increase in taxes by saying the tax rate is lower than last year's tax rate. That is irrelevant; they raised your taxes. What I would like to see happen is for a state law to be passed prohibiting a local government from raising the tax rates in a year in which the certified tax rate is adopted. That would be real "truth-in taxation."

The Pamphleteer has created a tax calculator tool that shows you how much of any tax increase you may have experienced is due to the reappraisal and how much is due to the city choosing to raise taxes. Below are the results for my home. Notice that the reappraisal would have lowered my tax bill by $157. Instead, I had a property tax increase of $825, all due to the Council's new tax rate. 

To use this handy tool, follow this link. 

Your property tax went up

+$825

per year · +$69/mo · +21% vs 2024

What moved your bill

Reappraisalthe Assessor

−$157

Rate hikeCouncil, to fund the budget

+$983

Your increase is entirely the Council's rate hike — the reappraisal alone would have lowered your bill.

Top Stories

Beacon Poll Finds 51% of Tennessee Voters Disapprove of President Trump's Job Performace

 Beacon, September 3, 2026- Today, we released the latest installment of the Beacon Poll, a statewide
survey of 1,200 Tennessee voters featuring questions about voters’ views on artificial intelligence, data centers, and the forthcoming November general election.

Senator Marsha Blackburn starts out with a commanding 21-point advantage over Democrat Jerri Green in the race for governor, 55% to 34% among likely voters. Blackburn’s big lead comes after a hard-fought and divisive Republican primary against Congressman John Rose and state Rep. Monty Fritts that left some bruised feelings within the party, but any lingering divisions have not yet dented her standing heading into November.

In a surprising twist, President Trump’s job approval in deep-red Tennessee has gone underwater for the first time since Beacon began polling the state in 2023, with just 48% of voters approving of his job performance and 51% disapproving (-3%).

Top Stories

Knox and Hamilton Counties Continue Scrutiny of Flock Cameras

by Kim Jarrett, The Center Square, Sept 6, 2026 - Two Tennessee counties have taken action on automated license plate readers as questions of privacy and efficacy continue. 

Former Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs signed a bill this week that would ban Flock cameras in his last action as mayor. 

Hamilton County, Tenn., Sheriff Austin Garrett said his department is pausing the use of Flock License Plate Recognition and Motorola License Plate Recognition. Chattanooga is the county seat. 

"The primary factor is the tremendous concern regarding public data and potential misuse of what is captured," Garrett said in a statement posted on social media. "Within the HCSO program, your Sheriff’s Office oversees approximately 70 cameras across Hamilton County."

Garrett asked state and federal leaders to begin a conversation about the technology. 

U.S. Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Eric Burlison, R-Mo., are. They introduced the FLOCK OFF Act, which bans the use of taxpayer money for the technology. 

"The federal government shouldn’t provide 'security' grants to cities and police departments that have gone beyond the pale and turned their communities into a version of 1984," Massie said in a statement.

Flock Safety has defended the use of automated license plate readers, which are now synonymous with the company's name. 

"In 2025, we estimate Flock technology supported more than one million public safety investigations, assisted in 20% of solved cases in jurisdictions that partner with Flock, and helped locate more than 10,000 missing people," the company said in a July email to The Center Square.  "Rather than banning a critical public safety tool, Congress should consider strong, clear safeguards that ensure accountability, oversight, and responsible use are enshrined in law. We do not have to choose between protecting privacy and giving law enforcement the tools it needs to keep communities safe. We can – and should – do both."

A database from the Institute of Justice shows 203 reports of reported abuse of the automated license plate readers as of Sept. 4. The incidents range from the arrests of law enforcement officers who have used the technology in some cases to stalk romantic partners to innocent people being held at gunpoint by police because the camera misread a license plate. 

Law enforcement agencies are defending the use of the cameras, saying they are a tool for capturing criminals.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said use of automated license plate reader technology from Georgia helped the agency find a 1-year-old child taken from Tennessee.

"ALPR information has helped the bureau and its partner agencies locate missing and endangered children and vulnerable adults, identify vehicles associated with wanted fugitives, and develop leads in investigations involving violent crime, drug trafficking, and organized criminal activity," the agency said in a statement.

Christopher Ingraham, an investigative reporter for the Institute for Justice, said in an interview with The Center Square that the fundamental question is whether the crimes would have been solved without the cameras.

"We don't know," Ingraham said. "The thing that I get concerned about is our law enforcement agencies crediting a camera with the entire case when it's really just a small piece of a case."

Rod's Comment: 

I am concerned about the increased loss of privacy. I find it concerning that the government can read the license plate of every car passing through an intersection and follow a car with a network of cameras. 

Much of the loss of privacy is because we voluntarily surrender it. We choose to use a feature on our phones that can know our location at all times. The use of facial recognition software is coming. Facial recognition has already been perfected. There will be a temptation to use it. In a mass protest, the technology is already available that would allow the government to be able to identify everyone in attendance, unless they hid their face. 

Some argue, "I am not doing anything wrong, so I don't care if the government searches my home, or surveils me, or intercepts my email." I do not agree. I find a surveillance state a threat to liberty. I do not want to live in a Big Brother state. I concede that if we were all watched and followed all the time and we no longer had protections against unreasonable search and seizure, it would reduce crime. I am not willing to pay that price for crime reduction.

There may be places and circumstances where license plate readers can be justified, but guardrails on their use need to be in place, and their use should be limited. I welcome the pushback against Flock cameras.

Top Stories

Rep. Andy Ogles Says Jelly Roll’s Shift to Donald Trump Criticism May Be a Side Effect of Ozempic

 

by Rod Williams, Sept. 5, 2026 - Pretty soon we won't have Andy Ogles to keep us entertained. He will fade from the scene. Here is one more piece of Andy Ogles jackassery before he goes.  At least in this piece of jackassery, he let it be known that he was joking. See the story at this link. 

Top Stories

Congress Did Not “steal” From Social Security

 by Rod Williams, Sept. 4, 2026 -  It is so frustrating to see the same memes or read comments about Security that are simply false. They pop up in my Facebook feed again and again. In talking to people, I hear them repeat lies about what is wrong with Social Security.

People will say that if we would cut out the waste, fraud, and abuse, the problem with Social Securityy would be solved. No doubt there is someone somewhere who is getting Social Security who is not entitled to it. But cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse would not solve Social Security's problem. The waste, fraud, and abuse is insignificant. I am for catching as many cheaters as we can find, but that is not what is wrong with Social Security.

Sometimes people get more specific and say what is wrong with Social Security is all of the illegal immigrants getting Social Security. Illegal immigrants in the United States are ineligible to receive Social Security retirement, disability, or survivor benefits. There are a handful of non-citizens, such as green card holders, who do qualify for Social Security, but they are also paying into the system. Their participation in Social Security is no more of a drain on the system than anyone else. Illegal immigrants who are working and using a fake Social Security card actually help the system. They pay in and never receive Social Security benefits.

One of the biggest lies about Social Security is that the reason it is going broke is that the government borrowed from Social Security and left the trust fund with worthless IOU's, or simple claims that Congress stole from Social Security. Absolutely untrue.

When Social Security collects more in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits, the excess is invested in Treasury bonds issued specifically for the trust fund. The cash from these bond purchases flows into the Treasury’s general fund, which can be used for any federal purpose. 

What do people think happens to money that is in the Trust Fund? Do they think it just sits untouched in a vault or is under someone's mattress?  We should be glad that it is drawing a little bit of interest. That is the way the system works.  In fact, it is a legal requirement, and it’s the same thing that happens when any investor buys U.S. government bonds.  When the trust fund redeems its bonds, the Treasury pays the principal and interest from general revenues. Because these bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, the bonds are legally obligated to be honored. People take what is rational and legally required and somehow turn it into the claim that the government stole from Social Security.  Congress does not “steal” from Social Security. Surplus revenues are legally invested in Treasury bonds earning interest.

What is wrong with Social Security is demographics. People are living longer, and because people are having fewer children, there are fewer people paying into the system. Social Security is a transfer program. When you pay Social Security taxes, that money does not go into an account with your name on it. When you pay your Social Security taxes, it goes right out the door to pay someone else's current benefit. It has always been that way. Any excess of what is received over what is paid out goes into the Trust Fund, but most of the benefits one receives is money that someone else is paying in.

Social Security is in trouble, with the trust fund projected to be depleted by late 2032. When it is depleted, benefits will be cut by about 22%. I suspect Congress will not allow that to happen and will pay the Social Security deficit out of the General Fund, which means borrowing with Treasury bonds sold on the open market or by borrowing from the Federal Reserve. Issuing more debt will hasten the day of reckoning for running up massive debt. Borrowing from the Federal Reserve is "printing money," is inflationary, and reduces the purchasing power of the dollar.

Some things could be done to put Social Security on a sounder footing. I have explored these elsewhere in posts on this blog. All solutions have consequences and a downside. Solutions should be explored and debated. Unfortunately, any talk of reform is met with images of pushing grandma in a wheelchair over a cliff. 

What does not help address the future of Social Security is repeatedly telling people that the reason there is a problem is that Congress stole the money. 

.

Top Stories

Invoking the 25th Amendment Will Not Remove President Trump From Office

by Rod Williams, Sept. 3, 2026- I see a lot of memes and even comments by politicians and pundits saying it is time to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove the President from office. Even the governor of California and Democrat members of Congress have said this. They are all wrong. The 25th Amendment was not designed for a cabinet palace coup. The 25th does not work that way. 

Let me be clear: I think Trump is a traitorous, crooked, authoritarian, ignorant buffoon, bully, and jerk. I think he is unfit for office. I would like him to be removed from office, and I wouldn't weep if he came to the end of his time on earth due to natural causes. So, I want him gone. However, it cannot be done by the use of the 25th Amendment. 

This was explained in an article in National Review today. Below is an excerpt:

 And yet, even though they’re right about the president’s character and behavior, the chorus of situational constitutionalists calling for Trump’s removal are nonetheless barking up the wrong tree now. They are wrong about the 25th Amendment, and particularly wrong to claim that the situation we are in is exactly what the amendment is for. It most certainly is not intended for such circumstances, and it in fact could not be used in them, whatever you think of Donald Trump.

The article then explains what prompted the 25th Amendment, what it does, and why it is not an effective tool for removing a president from office for any reason other than the president being "unable" to do the job.  If the Cabinet invokes the 25th, and the President objects, he can then go to Congress and contest his removal. His removal would still have to be resolved by Congress. Keeping the vice president in power as acting president over the president’s objection would require two-thirds votes in both houses. This is a higher threshold in Congress than impeachment and removal, which require a simple majority in the House and two-thirds only in the Senate.

Also, the President cannot be removed from office by invoking the 25th because he renamed Lake Ontario, or because he rounded up illegal and some legal immigrants, and the occasional American citizen, and sent them to hellhole countries or to torture prisons. He can't be removed by invoking the 25th because he threatened to take Greenland or picked a stupid trade war with Canada.  He can't be removed because he is a crook. The 25th cannot be invoked because of a policy dispute or stupid offensive behavior. It can only be used to remove a president if the president is 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.'

Below is the full text of the 25th Amendment. Read section IV carefully. I have underlined some important provisions. 

25th Amendment

Section 1

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

 Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Top Stories

Professor who Parodied University 'Land Acknowledgment' Wins $600K Settlement

University of Washington Professor Stuart Reges

by FIRE, September 3, 2026 -The University of Washington paid $600,000 after punishing Professor
Stuart Reges for parodying a university-approved “land acknowledgment” in his syllabus.

The payout comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held administrators liable under the First Amendment for retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.

Today’s settlement concludes the legal battle that began with a 2022 lawsuit by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression on Reges’s behalf. Besides the monetary settlement, the agreement stipulates that the university cannot take any further action against Reges. While Reges’s appeal was pending, UW also rescinded and replaced the vague antiharassment policy used to punish the professor for his speech.

“I am deeply grateful to FIRE for this legal victory which will remind public universities that they are obligated to respect the First Amendment rights of their students, faculty, and staff,” said Reges. “More importantly, I hope that my protest can help reverse a decade-long trend towards ideological conformity in academia and help to convince them that instead of ‘protecting’ students from controversial ideas, they should be helping them to learn how to cope with disagreement. Only then can we heal the deep divisions that confront us today.”

It has become increasingly common in academia to encourage statements that formally recognize indigenous ties to the land. In December 2021, Reges criticized land acknowledgment statements in an email to faculty, and the next month he parodied UW’s model statement in his syllabus: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.” Reges’s statement was a nod to John Locke’s philosophical theory that property rights are established by labor, and a response to the Computer Science department’s recommendation that professors include the UW’s model statement in their syllabi. Reges objected to the political nature of the UW’s model statement and sought to demonstrate that there are competing views on the value of land acknowledgments.

#

Rod's Commentary

by Rod Williams, Sept. 3, 2026- I have followed this case for a while. I think land acknowledgements are silly, performative exercises in virtue signaling, so when I first heard of this professor refusing to play the game, it grabbed my attention. 

After Professor Reges parodied the silly land acknowledgement, the University really went after him. University officials directed IT staff to remove the parody statement from Reges’s syllabus without his consent. They created a “shadow” or competing section of his course taught by another professor, allowing students to transfer into it. A lengthy investigation was opened under a vague anti-harassment policy that could be applied to any conduct deemed “unacceptable or inappropriate.” The investigation lasted about a year and found Reges had “likely violated” the policy, though no formal sanction was issued.  During the investigation, Reges was denied a merit pay increase.  Administrators warned him that repeating the parody in future syllabi could trigger further disciplinary measures. I hope the professor enjoys his $600,000. It should have been more.  

We are going through a period in which the greatest threat to free speech is coming from the Trump administration. That is, of course, not the norm. For decades now, the woke left has been punishing and curtailing free speech, from punishing people for "misgendering" to punishing anything deemed "hate speech," to banning speech that hurts someone's feelings, to refusing to let conservative speakers speak on campus and allowing students to shout down speakers. 

There was a time when illiberal liberals shut down conservatives on the public airwaves by requiring "fairness" and equal time. Thankfully, that is gone.  We can now be glad that illiberal conservatives do not have those tools of suppression in their toolbox. 

To preserve free speech, we must protect it from those who attack it from either the left or the right. We should value free speech as a principle and a right. I fear we are in an age where many are okay with trampling free speech as long as it is their side doing the trampling. 

Top Stories

Rep. Tim Burchett: "I Guess I'm Backward and Poor."

by Rod Williams, Set 1, 2026 - I am still undecided on data centers. I stay well informed, but I have not seen any balanced, factual, dispassionate discussion of them. It seems everyone who has something to say about them is pushing a narrative. I want to know, just how loud is the hum they admit? Is it worse than living near a busy interstate? Do data centers really use a lot of water, and if they do, does it raise water rates for everyone else? I have the same questions about electricity. When it comes to water and electricity, are there solutions to these problems, if this is in fact a problem?

When it comes to the large controversial data center proposed for property near the zoo, I adamantly oppose the government using eminent domain to take the property. I favor property rights and think eminent domain should only be used for things like widening a roadway or building a school, but only when an exhaustive effort to find a willing seller fails. Mayor O’Connell filed eminent domain legislation to acquire the zoo site for public use, including a health center and fire station. This was purely designed to stop the data center. This is a targeted taking attempt, not a legitimate use of eminent domain. The Metro Council has also passed a moratorium on data centers to stop the one near the zoo.

The company building the data center is not gracefully withdrawing from the fight; they are fighting back. They assert that they are already vested in the property and they have received their permits and are in compliance with existing zoning requirements and other requirements in place at the time, and have already spent money to build it. If this goes to court, I suspect Metro will pay DC Blox millions to compensate them for their loss. To stop this approved development will cost Nashville taxpayers a pretty penny.

A petition against the zoo site data center surpassed 360,000 signatures. I am sure that when someone approaches the average person and says, "There is a proposal to build a data center near the zoo, and it will cause anxiety for the elephants. Will you sign our petition to stop it," that many will sign without thinking. I have been a part of petition drives, and people will sign anything. Simply getting a large number of people to sign a petition should not carry the day. Even if a majority oppose it, that does not mean it should be stopped. We, including companies and other entities, have rights, not subject to the opinion of a large number of people or a majority of the people. DC Blox had a right to build the data center, and then that right was taken away. 

Fights like the one is Nashville are taking place all over the country. I think that people fear AI and the AI future, as perhaps they should, and opposing data centers is a way to express that fear. I think the opposition to data centers is more of a concern about AI than the actual facility of a data center. Data centers will be built, if not in the US, then in China. Stopping a data center in Nashville is not going to slow AI. However, if data centers are not built in the US, it disadvantages the US and helps China. 

President Trump has weighed in on data centers, and for once I tend to think the President is right. I wish he would be more diplomatic in the way he says things, but that is not the Trump way. 

President Trump has lashed out at communities that are protesting data centers, suggesting that residents who oppose them must prefer to be “backwards and poor.” “The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign.”

Representative Tim Burchett of Knoxville has been a Trump cheerleader and also, from time to time, says some cringe-worthy, embarrassing things. He also promotes various conspiracy theories. I do not have a favorable opinion of Tim Burchett. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see Tim Burchett push back against Donald Trump on the data center issue, despite thinking Donald Trump is more right than Burchett, even if I think Donald Trump expresses things crudely. I guess I just like to see two people I don't like disagree. 

Top Stories

FIRE Just Won a Huge First Amendment Victory.

by Rod Williams, Aug. 31, 2026- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has just won an important free-speech case. Here are the details from FIRE.

A federal court ruled on Friday that the provisions Secretary of State Marco Rubio used in an attempt to deport legal noncitizens for their speech are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment.

FIRE challenged the provisions in 2025, which grant the federal government unchecked power to censor under this administration, and others to follow. The ruling affirms a bedrock constitutional principle: The government cannot punish people for protected speech simply because officials dislike their views. 

We are thrilled by the result, and by the judge's clear ruling. She noted, "The language of the Amendment makes clear that it is not the government that gives freedom of speech to the people. Instead, that freedom is imbued in the people, and 'Congress shall make no law' to abridge it."

To be clear, FIRE takes no position on immigration, and this ruling does not say that the government must admit anyone, issue anyone a visa, or grant anyone citizenship. It says that once a person is lawfully here, the government cannot deport them because they engaged in protected speech.

That's for good reason. Imagine two protesters at a public park — one a citizen and one a legally-present student on a visa. Should one face deportation for holding the exact same sign? 

At FIRE, we defend free speech on principle — no matter who is in power, whose speech is under attack, or the politics involved. That's what it means to defend the First Amendment, and thanks to your support, it's a fight we can take on and win.

I am pleased to see this ruling and also agree that free speech should be defended on principle, no matter who is in power. The Trump administration has been violating freedom of speech rights and other of our constitutional liberties since the first Trump term but has stepped up its war on free speech since the start of Trump II.

I know some Trump supporters will denounce FIRE as a liberal organization for taking a stand for free speech and bringing suit against the Trump administration. In today's political discourse, Trump supporters give a knee-jerk label of "liberal" to anyone who stands up against Trump. They routinely denounce the courts and judges as "liberal" any time they rule against Trump, even if the judge was an appointee of Bush or Reagan.

FIRE is a nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought. Its mission is to protect freedom of speech, academic freedom, due process, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and religious liberty across the United States.

 
Originally founded in 1999 as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, FIRE focused on defending free speech and freedom of religion on college campuses. At the time, it was the rights of conservative professors and students who were most often defended by FIRE.  Wokeness was rampant, and illiberal liberals tried to ban conservative groups from campus, prevent conservative voices from being heard on campus, and impose speech codes and ban speech with which they disagreed by labeling it "hate speech." Because FIRE was most often defending the free-speech rights of conservatives, the organization was considered a conservative organization. Of course, when they began opposing Trump's illiberal policies, Trumpinistas started calling them a liberal organization. FIRE has been a consistent defender of liberty; it is Trump "conservatives" who have changed their views. 

In 2022, FIRE expanded its scope to advocate for free speech throughout society, changing its name to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. I have been a long-time supporter of FIRE.  To learn more about the organization, follow this link. If you support their mission, please consider making a donation. 

Top Stories

Trump Missed an Opportunity. He Needs New Material.

by Rod Williams, August 28, 2026- What is wrong with Trump? He lacks imagination. He is getting stale. He needs new material. He is doing reruns. 

The Gulf of Mexico he renamed the Gulf of America. That was a good punchline one time. To do the same material but apply it to a lake seems kind of tired, lazy, and lame.

Instead of renaming Lake Ontario, Lake America, he should go big and name it "Lake Trump. That would really show those annoying Canadians who won't get in line, surrender their sovereignty, and apply to become the 51st state. That would even annoy all Americans not loyal to Trump, even more than naming it Lake America.

We know Trump likes his name on everything from Bibles to sneakers, so why did he not propose naming Lake Ontario, Lake Trump?

I even think he could do even better than that. Why go halfway? While renaming Lake Ontario, Lake Trump, while he is at it, he could have renamed all the Great Lakes. They could be Lake Trump I, Lake Trump II, Lake Trump III, Lake Trump IV, and Lake Trump V. 

Well, that may confuse some of his supporters, so maybe Lake Trump 1, Lake Trump 2, Lake Trump 3, and so on.  

Of course, he could even top that. How about Lake Donald, Lake Eric, Lake Tiffany, Lake Ivanka, and Lake Barron?

Top Stories

America’s is Facing an Economic Nightmare. It is Past Time to Get Serious. The Party is Over.

by Rod Williams, Aug. 26, 2026 - For decades, people, mostly Republicans, have expressed concern about the growing national debt. They were right to be concerned, but since the disasters never came true, people stopped being alarmed.  I think it was the "Chicken Little," or the "boy who cried wolf" effect.

So, why is this time more concerning than all of the other times people expressed concern about the national debt? Because, as predicted, out-of-control debt increases at a faster and faster pace, and now we are seeing the beginning of the predicted effects.

Consider a household that has a budget shortage one month. Maybe someone did not get the overtime they expected, or they purchased something they didn't have the cash to pay for. At first, the additional credit card bill is small. But then, in addition to all their other bills, they have to pay that small credit card bill every month, and any month when expenses exceed income, they just put more of their bills on the credit card. Also, it gets easier and easier to forget about delayed gratification, and the household buys things when they need or want them, instead of waiting. Soon, they have no choice but to put more daily expenses on the credit card because the credit card bill is now as large as their car payment or even their house payment. 

In the case of the household, when the borrower reaches the credit card limit and without the ability to borrow more, the borrower has to file for bankruptcy. Of course, the US is not a household, and a sovereign nation has more tools in its toolbox than a household. The US is not facing bankruptcy yet, nor are we going to default on our debt in the immediate future. However, our debt causes us to put more debt on the credit card each month. 

The "Penn Wharton Budget Model" is a highly respected program associated with the University of Pennsylvania and provides nonpartisan, research-based estimates and analysis on the fiscal impact of public policy. It predicts that on the current trajectory, the government will have no choice but to default on its debt within 20 years.

For fiscal year 2025, the U.S. federal government ran a deficit of about $1.78 trillion. It spent $7.01 trillion and collected $5.23 trillion in revenue. The US will have an even bigger deficit this year. The U.S. government will pay $1 trillion in interest payments to current debt holders. And like the household that reaches the point where the credit card bill is larger than the car payment, the US interest on the debt exceeds the Defense budget or any other departmental budgets.  Interest payments are now the third-largest spending item in the budget behind Social Security and Medicare. This is not sustainable.

Also, we are at a point where the interest we pay on the debt is variable and beyond our control. It is such a large part of the budget that it could rise rapidly even if, somehow, we balanced a budget. As a recent article in National Review pointed out;

An enormous baseline debt also makes interest rates the most dangerous variable on future spending. Although projections assume that rates remain moderate forever, a single percentage-point increase would be the fiscal equivalent of adding a second military. And, as debt accumulates and financial markets grow wary, higher interest rates become all the more likely.

A concerning trend is that other nations are dumping US debt. We have been able to ignore our large debt for so long because we were the world's reserve currency. Other countries wanted to buy our debt. We remain the world's reserve currency, but there are troubling signs that this is changing. Other countries' currencies are becoming attractive.  Japan and China have been dumping dollars, and other nations are diversifying from holding almost all dollars in their reserve portfolio to holding dollars, other currencies, and gold. 

Another disturbing trend is that the US is issuing more short-term debt and buying up long-term debt. Doubts are growing about the US economic stability, and holders of our debt are reluctant to buy long-term debt. The yield the US pays on bonds is easing up. 

In addition to people feeling less secure holding U.S. debt than before, the U.S. is competing with technology companies for money. For example, Meta’s investment‑grade bonds currently offer yields well above the U.S. Treasury 30-year yields. Both are rated in the high‑grade category by credit rating agencies, with the US bonds having only a modest edge. To compete for investors, we have to raise the yield on US debt instruments. This has an impact on the cost of the American consumer. Things like credit card rates, car loans, home loans and student loans are all tied to the interest rates paid on bonds.

One way of looking at the size of the debt is to look at the debt as a percent of GDP. Gross Domestic Product, of course, is the value of all economic activity in a country in a given year. The GDP-to-debt ratio is now, 130.6%. That is the highest it has ever been. Ten years ago, it was 99.5%. 

Some, will say we have nothing to worry about, and we could fix our problem if we withdrew from the world and reduced our military spending, or if we heavily tax the trillionaires or made the rich "pay their fair share," or if we stopped illegal immigration or if we got rid of waste, fraud, and abuse.  None of those positions address the issue. These are simply solutions that do not solve the problem. The size of the military and how progressive the income tax should are debatable points. However, they do not solve the problem of an out-of-control debt spiral. A massive reduction in our defense spending could lead to costly wars, and confiscatory taxation could lead to less economic growth. Illegal immigration is an insignificant contributor to the budget woes, and I am not sure it even adds to the national debt. Some studies show that the illegal immigration we have experienced has actually been an economic plus.  We should always strive to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, but doing so won't solve the problem of deficits and debt.

People who offer simple, easy solutions are living in la-la land. The problem is larger than they think, and when the government takes any single action, one cannot hold the other variables constant. 

I do not think there is nothing we can do, but it will not be easy. I do not think any president or Congress can pay off the debt in four years or eight years. I don't want to hear a candidate promise that. Maybe in 1981, when the debt to GDP was only 31.1% that would have been believable, or maybe as late as 2001 when it was 54.5%, but not now. What we can do is stop cutting taxes and increasing spending. We need to stop adding to the problem. 

It is not that some strategic tax policy, including tax cuts, cannot sometimes spur economic growth, and not that new spending may occasionally be needed to fix certain problems, but basically, we need an austerity budget. Unfortunately, Democrats are talking about more large social spending programs, such as Medicare for all and national childcare and free college for all.  We simply cannot afford more major spending programs, but almost every Democrat running for office is pledging support for Medicare for all and some of the other costly programs.

We need leaders who will tell the American people that we are facing a crisis and are going to have to feel some pain for a while. While I don't think there is any quick fix, we can bend the curve and avoid a disaster, but not if we continue with business as usual and continue to use tax cuts and more spending as the bait to get elected. 

Top Stories

You Cannot Blame the Debt Crisis on Joe Biden

Kevin D. Williamson

 by Kevin D. Williamson, The Dispatch, Aug. 24, 2026 - “We inherited this debt bomb from the Biden administration,” J.D. Vance, vice president and knee-walking sycophant, insisted during an appearance on a Newsmax program where someone called Carl Higbie pretends to be a journalist. “American taxpayers are getting fleeced because of the very high debt charges … very high debt charges that started under the Biden administration. This is a crisis that we inherited. … The issue that we’ve had under the Biden administration and what we’re still kind of dealing with is that the debt was growing faster than American GDP.” 

.... The economy in fact grew more quickly than the debt did during Biden’s term in office: When Joe Biden entered office (Q1 2021), debt was 124 percent of GDP; when Biden left office (Q1 2025), debt was down to 121 percent of GDP. Joe Biden had more cause than Donald Trump has to make Vance’s kind of complaint about his successor: When Donald Trump first entered office (Q1 2017), debt was only 103 percent of GDP; by Q2 2020, debt was 133 percent of GDP, and while debt pressure eased somewhat in the COVID recovery, it was 124 percent of GDP when Trump left office. But even before the dramatic COVID spike, debt-to-GDP was headed the wrong way during the first Trump administration. And it is headed the wrong way now: Debt was 121 percent of GDP when Trump took office the second time around and is about 126 percent today according to the latest estimates. Some of those numbers can be blamed on COVID, but much of it is just the usual stupid spending and cowardly tax policy. 

Vance’s argument is, of course, dishonest: This is J.D. Vance we are talking about—of course it is dishonest. Vance is a man without integrity who serves men who hold honesty and honor in contempt, and he is nothing if not servile when it comes to his masters. But Vance’s argument is also a stupid one, which maybe also should go without saying. American pundits’ and partisans’ favorite party game is pin-the-debt-on-the-president, but the power to collect taxes, appropriate spending, and borrow money belongs to Congress, not to the president. Republican members of Congress voted for a great deal of spending while Biden was president. They had voted for a great deal of spending, and for tax cuts, during the first Trump administration, too. And then Republicans put together a gigantic—and gigantically irresponsible—spending package in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, for which not one single solitary Democrat in Congress cast a vote. The Trump bill added as much as $4.7 trillion to the debt through spending, through tax cuts, and, according to analysts at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, by contributing to higher interest rates on U.S. government debt—i.e., it is one cause of those “very high debt changes” that Vance is caterwauling about. 

The Democrats have been no great shakes when it comes to fiscal probity. But to try to pretend that our current fiscal situation—entitlement and discretionary spending, the tax code, interest rates—is the result of Democratic actions taken during the Biden administration is beyond dishonest.

Kevin D. Williamson is national correspondent at The Dispatch and is based in Virginia. Prior to joining the company in 2022, he spent 15 years as a writer and editor at National Review, worked as the theater critic at the New Criterion, and had a long career in local newspapers. He is also a writer in residence at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Top Stories