Top Stories
A right-leaning disgruntled Republican comments on the news of the day and any other thing he damn-well pleases.
Office of the Attorney General press release, June 18, 2025 -The United States Supreme Court today announced a landmark decision upholding Tennessee’s law restricting gender-transition interventions for minors and affirming the State's authority to protect kids from risky and unproven medical practices.
Tennessee’s lawmakers enacted the challenged legislation in response to a surge in the provision of puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries to minors with gender-identity issues. These medical interventions often result in permanent physical changes and have life-altering effects, including irreversible loss of fertility. Numerous health authorities have concluded that the risks of these interventions outweigh any possible benefit.
"In today's historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism," said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. "A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand. I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood."
As Chief Justice John Roberts writes in the 6-3 opinion of the Court: "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."
"The rapid and unexplained rise in the number of kids seeking these life-altering interventions, despite the lack of supporting evidence, calls for careful scrutiny from our elected leaders," Attorney General Skrmetti asserted. "This victory transcends politics. It's about real Tennessee kids facing real struggles. Families across our state and our nation deserve solutions based on science, not ideology. Today's landmark decision recognizes that the Constitution lets us fulfill society's highest calling - protecting our kids."
To read a copy of the Supreme Court decision, please click here.
by David Frum, The Atlantic, January 2025- In 2019, Trump delivered a Fourth of July address on the National Mall. The speech exulted in the fearsome lethality of the U.S. military, but Trump had little to say about American ideals or democratic institutions. Trump has never accepted that the United States is strengthened by its values and principles, by a reputation for trustworthiness and fair dealing. The U.S., to him, should command respect because it is the biggest and strongest bully on the block. When his friend Bill O’Reilly asked him in a 2017 interview about Vladimir Putin, Trump scoffed at the idea that there might be any moral difference between the U.S. and Russia. “You think our country’s so innocent?” (link)
In a midsummer interview, Trump demanded that Taiwan pay the United States directly for defense. “I don’t think we’re any different from an insurance policy,” he said. When the podcaster Joe Rogan asked Trump in October about protecting Taiwan, Trump answered in a more revealing way: “They want us to protect, and they want protection. They don’t pay us money for the protection, you know? The mob makes you pay money, right?”
- David Frum, Marauding Nation, The Atlantic, January 2025
Trump’s vision has no place for “mutual good” or “mutual advantage.” To him, every trade has a winner and a loser. One side’s success is the other side’s defeat. “We don’t beat China in trade,” he complained in the first Republican presidential-primary debate of 2015. “We don’t beat Japan … We can’t beat Mexico.” His deepest policy grievance is against those foreigners who sell desirable goods and services at an attractive price to willing American buyers.
- David Frum, Marauding Nation, The Atlantic
From The Davidson County Republican Party, June 17,2025-
Metro Council is planning another property tax hike and time is running out to stop it.
If you live in Davidson County, this matters. Rising costs are already squeezing families, renters, and homeowners. Now they want even more.
� Nashville Metro Courthouse
� Tuesday, June 17
� Arrive by 6PM – Meeting starts at 6:30PM
We need every concerned citizen in that room. To show up. To speak up. To remind council members that they work for the people and NOT special interests.
� NO NEW TAXES
� SHOW UP. SPEAK OUT.
� FIGHT FOR YOUR FUTURE
Rod's Comment: I would like to see an outpouring of opposition to the proposed tax increase, but it would have to be massive to make a difference. It would have to be so big, that members of the Council would work around the clock to create a new budget.
It is not simply a matter of persuading councilmembers to vote "no." The Council would have to develop and pass an alternative budget. If the Council does not pass a budget by June 30th, the mayor's budget becomes the city budget by default. Persuading a member of the Council to vote "no" on the budget is actually persuading them to cast a vote the effect of which is a vote for the mayor's budget. The only budget before the Council is the mayor's budget and the substitute budget developed by the Budget and Finance Committee. There is no chance one of those budgets will not be the budget of the city. The substitute budget could be tweaked and even have the price tag reduced, but it is highly unlikely to happen.
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, June 16, 2025- The House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) would add $3 trillion to the debt through Fiscal Year (FY) 2034 as written and $5 trillion if made permanent. Over the long run, it would add far more to the debt.
We estimate that by FY 2054 the bill would:
These estimates likely understate the fiscal impact of OBBBA, as they assume interest rates that are significantly lower than today’s levels and don’t account for OBBBA’s effects on growth and interest rates. Most modelers have found that after boosting near-term output, OBBBA would reduce long-term output and increase interest rates as a result of additional borrowing.
OBBBA Will Increase Long-Term Borrowing
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House-passed OBBBA would add roughly $3 trillion to the debt through 2034, including interest, boosting total deficits by 0.8 percent of GDP. Over 30 years, we estimate OBBBA would increase debt by over $15 trillion, boosting deficits by 1.0 percent of GDP.
Although new spending and tax cuts are smaller over the long run than in the early years, a number of offsets expire after 2034, while interest costs continue to accrue as a result of rising debt. We find the primary deficit impact of OBBBA would decline from a peak of 1.6 percent of GDP in 2027 to a low of 0.2 percent of GDP by 2031 before rising to 0.5 to 0.6 percent of GDP between 2035 and 2054. Interest costs will rise gradually to 0.6 percent of GDP by 2054. As a result, OBBBA as written would add about 1.2 percent of GDP to the deficit in 2054.
Most significantly, OBBBA sets numerous tax provisions to expire arbitrarily in 2028 or 2029, including temporary enhancements to the standard deduction and Child Tax Credit, tax exemption for tips and overtime, and various business tax breaks. OBBBA also includes significant one-time appropriations for defense, border security, and immigration enforcement, and it includes a number of offsets – mainly related to the delay of Biden Administration rules – that end after the budget window.
With all these provisions made permanent, the primary deficit impact of the bill would remain relatively stable at 1.2 to 1.3 percent of GDP per year over the long run. Meanwhile, interest costs will rise gradually to 1.2 percent of GDP by 2054. As a result, OBBBA with extensions would increase the deficit by 2.4 percent of GDP in 2054.
These estimates, if anything, likely understate the deficit impact of OBBBA. Long-term dynamic estimates from Penn Wharton Budget Model, Yale Budget Lab, and the Joint Committee on Taxation find that OBBBA would slow long-term economic growth and boost interest rates as a result of the higher debt. Assuming interest rates remain around their recent levels – either due to OBBBA or for other reasons – debt would be $55 trillion higher in 2054 under a permanent OBBBA, with more than $34 trillion of that increase due to OBBBA itself.
Deficits and Debt Will Surge under OBBBA
As a result of the additional $15 to $31 trillion of 30-year borrowing under OBBBA, debt levels will surge. CBO already projects debt to rise from 100 percent of GDP today to 154 percent by 2054 under current law. We estimate debt would further rise to 172 percent of GDP under OBBBA as written and 190 percent of GDP if OBBBA were made permanent.
Debt could rise even higher with heightened interest rates. If interest rates remain around their current levels while output grows as projected, debt would reach 218 percent of GDP assuming permanent OBBBA.
Interest costs alone are projected to grow from 3.2 percent of GDP in 2025 to 5.4 percent by 2054 under current law. Interest costs would climb further to 6.0 percent of GDP by 2054 under OBBBA as written, 6.6 percent under a permanent OBBBA, and 8.9 percent under a permanent OBBBA and current interest rates. Assuming permanent OBBBA and today’s interest rates, interest would consume half of all revenue by 2054.
Rod's Comment: For those of you not familiar with The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, it is a is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization committed to educating the public on issues with significant fiscal policy impact. The leadership of the organization includes some of the nation's leading budget experts, including many past heads of the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Government Accountability Office.
CRFB was founded in 1980. It is one of the organizations that has been on my giving list for many years. They have always been non-partisan but were sometimes referred to as a conservative organization, I assume because it used to be that conservatives were more concerned, or at least more outspoken in their concern, about fiscal responsibility than liberals and anyone questioning rising debt and deficit spending was considered a conservative. Critics of CRFB used to primarily be liberals, and champions of CRFB used to be conservatives. In this Trump era that is reversed.
The Trump critics of CRFB contend that the organizations predictions are inaccurate because they say Trump's policies are going to unleash rapid economic growth which will produce much more revenue that is forecast in CRFB models.
I think the Trump critics are wildly mistaken and see Trump tariff policies and uncertainties surrounding tariff policy and also Trump's immigration policies which will rob America of both low-end workers we need to keep the economy humming as well as high-end tech expertise and innovators necessary for innovation and growth. I think the Trump critics are living in a dream world and have faith and are deluding themselves.
me |
I had reservations about joining anti-Trump protests because I know I fundamentally disagree with the political position of most of those in attendance. I am sure the vast majority of those in attendance are Democrats and liberal and I am a traditional pre-Trump conservative Reaganite Republican. I feel however that Trump is such a threat to our democracy that it is necessary to swallow hard and join anyone who wants to stop Trump and stand up to his authoritarianism and his cruelty and insane policies.
It is kind of strange watching how conservatives have embraced Trump, but also how liberals are supporting some policies they would never have supported in more normal times, such as a strong foreign policy that supports a strong NATO and America's leadership role in the world, things like a balanced budget, resistance to an overreaching federal government, federalism, state's rights, constitutionalism, and free trade. The views I have always had, seem to be more prevalent on the left than the Trumpian right these days. Of course, I know that on many fundamentals I will always disagree with liberals. The shifting policy positions, however, can make your head spin. I think if we get past Trump and still have a democracy, both liberals and conservatives will revert to form. Who knows, however? There may be new alliances, and old political identities may fade, and there may be a reshuffled of the components that define the current political classifications.
As I said, I was apprehensive about attending this rally. However, after attending the April 5th "Hands Off Democracy" rally in Centennial Park, I felt more comfortable attending this one. While at yesterday's rally, there were a few class warfare signs, a few advocating a greater welfare state, and a few random signs advocating this or that particular cause with which I disagree, most were not things that were offensive. Most of the signs were on theme. There were a lot of anti-ICE signs, and, I would say, more pro-due process signs than anything else. I only saw maybe four or five people draped with or waving Mexican flags. I saw one pro-Palestinian sign.
There was a big drum circle in the center of the carillon. There were chants of, "No Justice; No Peace," and "The People United can Never be Defeated," and "This is What Democracy Looks Like." Couldn't do it. I may march with the libs but can't join their choir.
It was a fun event. I can see how some shallow people get caught up in activism. A big protest like this is simply fun. It is sort of like Mardi Gras without the alcohol, or a rock concert, or a sporting event. People dance and chant, dress in attention getting costumes, make clever signs, and enjoy comradery. Also, it makes people feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves and makes them feel like they are doing something meaningful. I don't think it makes much difference whether it is a pro-Trump rally or an anti-Trump rally, I think the components that make people drawn to movements are the same.My Family and friend at the event |
by Rod Williams, July 13, 2025- I drove by the protest at the Federal Courthouse this morning about 10:30. If the library garage at not been closed due to the recent fire that closed the garage, I would have stopped and got a closer look. I was stopped at the redlight at Church and 7th and with windows down observed the crowd. It was loud, but orderly. I did not see a police presence.
I had no intention of taking part in this protest. If I would have parked and got a closer look, I would have lingered across the street and observed. While I will protest Donald Trump's denial of due process and his authoritarian policies and tendencies, I am not interested protesting on behalf of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. My concern about this case has never been a defense of Garcia, but a defense of due process. While the charges against Garcia may be trumped up, I am willing to let justice run its course. The charges are serious. Also, the organizers of this protest are leftist. I don't want to march with a group led of radical leftist who I often find as offensive as I do Donald Trump.To stand up to Donald Trump's destruction of American democracy, we may have to rub shoulders with some unsavory characters. I plan on participating in the No Kings protest tomorrow. If I arrive and there are a lot of leftist sloganeering, and the preponderance of the signs and banners represent a leftist agenda, I will leave.
Often, when a lot is at stake, one has to ally themselves with people who are only slightly better than the primary opponent. In World War II, America allied itself with Communist movements and Communist Russia, although Communism is every bit as evil as Nazism. That uncomfortable alliance was necessary as Nazi Germany was the more immediate threat, During the Cold War, the US had to ally with some authoritarian regimes in order to prevent a Communism world-wide victory. I don't fault us for doing so. Politics can make strange bedfellows. Each of us must decide our comfort level in allying ourselves with people who under other circumstances we would oppose.
Below are other reports on the protest. The Pamphleteer is a publication I respect and trust and a source I read regularly.
Dispatch from a Protest
by Davis Hunt, The Pamphleteer, July 13, 2025- This morning, a group of journalists and activists gathered at the Fred Thompson Federal Courthouse to protest the detention of illegal alien Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Garcia is scheduled to be arraigned today on human trafficking charges.
The particulars of what the protests are about aren’t really important because all the same people who show up to protest, say, the state government thinking about forgoing federal education funds, show up. The Democratic Socialists of America were there. The Party for Socialism and Liberation was there. Etc. One big blob of protestors just vaguely venting anger.
I went to observe this morning for a minute. Aside from hearing chants like “Jesus would’ve been on our side” and witnessing an old lady with wild eyes bouncing around with an American flag, pausing in front of a passerby, and yelling, “Don’t be satisfied with the status quo because it’s broken,” the main thing that stuck was how journalists waddle around the periphery like cattle feeding at a fetid pond. Yes, I was there. I was among the journalists. I was the cow drinking from the fetid pond.
But let me tell you about the others. All the big names were there, including Footman Phil in all his glory. I couldn’t really tell what these journalists were doing. Kind of just hanging out, talking to each other, slowly wandering over to “areas of interest” to observe and jot notes, maybe hoping for some confrontation they could use to give the protest a narrative.
One incident that drew a host of journalists was when an old man approached a speaker and interrupted the proceedings. I couldn’t really tell what he was talking about, but his presence immediately drew a swarm of reporters who lolled their heads up from the pond, swatted the flies off their ass, and slowly gathered around the man with their cameras as he exited shouting.
Another peculiar thing was the UVOTN people wearing yellow vests and ear pieces patrolling the perimeter. As our disruptor left the scene, one of them paused in front of me. “He’s moving South on Seventh, South on Seventh,” he reported.
Peyton Pratt sued the city after he was charged more than $6,000 in fees when he expanded his residence, according to a release from the Beacon Center, which represented Pratt.
Nashville enacted the new fee structure for residents obtaining building permits in February 2024. The money from the fees was allocated to fund capital improvements in the city's stormwater system.
"Perhaps worse, Metro's stormwater capacity fee charges individuals on a per square-foot fee not just for impervious area that they're adding, but also for impervious area that has existed all along," the lawsuit said. "Thus, even though Mr. Pratt sought to add less than 2,500 square feet in impervious area, Metro charged him a stormwater capacity fee for over 8,000 square feet."
Impervious areas include roofs, streets, sidewalks and parking areas that are covered.
Nashville agreed to settle and pay back $1.4 million to residents who were charged the fees in order to obtain a permit. Pratt will also recoup his money and the Beacon Center will receive $5,000 in attorneys fees, according to the settlement.
A federal judge has to sign off on the agreement before it is final.
“This is a landmark agreement, not just for our client, but for all Tennesseans,” said Wen Fa, Beacon's vice president of legal affairs. “Tennesseans have long identified the lack of housing as a significant issue, so we're pleased that this proposed settlement clears the path for builders to make housing affordable by building more homes for Tennesseans."
The stormwater capacity fee ordinance did not generate the revenues expected prior to adoption, said Julie Oaks Smith, senior director of communications for Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell.
"Metro Water Services stopped collecting the charge and is in favor of repealing the ordinance,' Smith said. "As a result, it made sense to settle the case by refunding the fees that had been collected plus attorney fees."