The difference between Democratic and Republican illiberalism

Trump’s aims often mirror the Biden administration’s. He’s just not as subtle about pursuing them.

by Jason Willick, Washington Post, September 25, 2025 - President Donald Trump wants his Justice Department to stretch the criminal law to target political opponents (such as New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI director James B. Comey). President Joe Biden’s Justice Department stretched the criminal law to target political opponents, including Trump himself.

Trump’s administration pressured a company (ABC) to suppress First Amendment-protected speech in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing. Biden’s administration pressured multiple companies (including Facebook and YouTube) to suppress First Amendment-protected speech during the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump’s supporters, when confronted with this administration’s depredations against civil liberty, often argue that Democrats did it first. The tit-for-tat debate is a dead end; this is all part of the same circling of the political drain. But it’s worth highlighting one systemic difference between the “liberal” version of political repression that occurred in the early 2020s and the populist version Trump is attempting now. The liberal version was veiled and superficially neutral, while the populist version is overt and undisguisedly political.

That makes the populist version more shocking. But it might also make it less effective in the long run. (read more)

Top Stories

Former Tennessee House speaker sentenced to three years in federal prison

Former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and his wife leave the Fred D.
Thompson Federal Courthouse in Nashville on Sept. 23, 2025 after Casada
was sentenced to three years in prison for his role in a corruption scheme.
(Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)

by Sam Stockard, Tennessee Outlook, September 23, 2025 - Six years after being bounced from the Tennessee House speakership, former Rep. Glen Casada was sentenced Tuesday to 36 months in prison for his role in a kickback scheme.

U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson meted out the punishment to Casada on 14 counts of fraud, bribery, theft, conspiracy and money laundering in connection with a shell company called Phoenix Solutions run by his former chief of staff, Cade Cothren, who was sentenced to 30 months last week.

Casada also must pay a $30,000 fine and remain on probation for one year once he serves his time. Defense attorneys said they will appeal the case to a higher court.

Federal prosecutors asked for a five-year sentencing and $50,000 fine, pointing out that when FBI agents confronted Casada, he lied about his involvement.

Attorneys for Casada and Cothren requested a mistrial during their four-week trial that stretched from mid-April into May after prosecutors inadvertently played an unredacted recording of an FBI interview with Casada that incriminated Cothren. They also sought a new trial just before sentencing, but Richardson denied the request.

Casada and Cothren were convicted of setting up the secret company that tapped into the state’s postage and printing program that provides House members $3,000 a year for constituent mailers. Casada and former Rep. Robin Smith, who pleaded guilty and testified against the pair, steered lawmakers’ business to Phoenix Solutions, which was secretly run by Cothren with the front name of “Matthew Phoenix.”

Casada’s attorneys argued Tuesday that he was merely trying to start a new business, Right Way Consulting, that caught the eye of federal investigators.

Richardson acquitted Casada and Cothren of three counts of fraudulently obtaining state property because the prosecution was unable to prove they were agents of the state.

Cothren resigned from his chief of staff post in early 2019 amid a racist and sexist texting scandal. Casada stepped down from the speaker’s post following a no-confidence vote spurred by heavy-handed leadership and the scandal surrounding Cothren. 

He remained in the General Assembly for one more term, though, when he got involved with Cothren and Smith in the Phoenix Solutions scheme. The trio tried to conceal Cothren’s identity because of his resignation and direct business to Phoenix Solutions. In turn, they received money from the business in the form of kickbacks, according to federal prosecutors.

Casada, a Republican, was first elected to the Tennessee Legislature in a 2001 special election after serving as a Williamson County commissioner. He rose through the ranks of House Leadership, serving as House Majority Leader — a role in which he raised money for and supported GOP candidates across the state — before his election as House Speaker in January 2019. After a no-confidence vote from the House Republican Caucus, he stepped down as speaker in August 2019, giving him the shortest tenure of a Tennessee House Speaker.

Casada’s legal team requested that Federal Judge Eli Richardson allow Casada to remain free on bond while his case goes to appeal. Failing approval from Richardson, Casada is slated to report to prison November 21.

Top Stories

It Didn't Start With Donald Trump. Presidents Have a Long History of Using the FCC to Silence Their Critics.

by William L. Anderson, Mises Wire, 09/25/2025 - The president was angry at the press, claiming that journalists were spreading “poisonous propaganda” about him. Using the Federal Communications Commission as a political weapon, he threatened the licenses of broadcast firms that employed people critical of him.

While Donald Trump likely is the first person to come to mind here, the opening sentences are not about him. They are, instead, about the spiritual standard bearer of the Democratic Party—Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Indeed, while president, FDR used the powers of his office to punish, bully, and intimidate print and broadcast journalists that dared to disagree with the New York patrician.

Roosevelt, unfortunately, did not simply engage in actions that violated the First Amendment to the Constitution, but he did so without shame, pushing the boundaries of what presidents could do when openly going against the letter and spirit of the law.

.... In the early 1960s, President Kennedy’s administration launched one of the most successful censorship campaigns in U.S. history. The subjects of Kennedy’s ire were conservative radio broadcasters, who constantly attacked the administration’s policy proposals. Worried about his reelection chances, Kennedy instructed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to target the offending broadcasters with tax audits and heightened regulatory scrutiny. Within a few years, this censorship campaign had driven conservative broadcasters off hundreds of radio stations; it would be more than a decade before the end of the Fairness Doctrine enabled the resurgence of political talk radio. ... The Kennedy administration used the IRS and the FCC, implementing the Fairness Doctrine as a weapon against the broadcasters. After JFK was assassinated, Lyndon B. Johnson continued his predecessor’s policies against broadcast opposition using the same federal agencies.

... Not surprisingly, Richard Nixon also declared war on the media, but was unsuccessful. Donald Trump wants to do the same, as we have seen with his moves against ABC and the Jimmy Kimmel show following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

And, not surprisingly, Trump’s moves have faced opposition in many quarters and correctly so. However, as bad as his actions might be, we should remember their context and the history of using federal agencies to attack political enemies. Like it or not, Democrats tend to be more successful, as we have seen in this article, because their actions are more likely to receive favorable legacy media coverage, given that Democrats tend to dominate the leadership of the academic and media sectors.

This does not change the underlying problem, however, which is that federal taxing and regulatory agencies are not and never have been politically neutral. These agencies do not need “reform,” but rather should be abolished altogether. (read it all)

Top Stories

Are the Wheels Coming Off the Trump Train?

by Rod  Williams, Sept 26, 2025- I get the feeling that people are beginning to walk away from the cult of Trump. I may be wrong; there have always been some conservatives who were never on board, and among those on board, there have, from time to time, been rumblings. This feels different. It is a trickle now, but I think the floodgates may open. 

When Jimmy Kimble got kicked off the air, we saw a significant number of conservatives take a stand for free speech. These were not just your normie Republicans or the Republicans who have long known Trump is a demagogue but go along with him to maintain their political standing. No, these were some of the super-Trumpers. These were the True Believers: People like Ted Cruz, Candice Owens, and Tucker Carlson. 

Conservatives have endorsed many things they would never have supported to stay on the Trump good side, such as government ownership of the means of production with the government acquiring a  10% ownership interest in Intel, and the supporting high tariffs. These and others required Trump supporters to abandon long-held beliefs. I don't know how they could twist themselves into such pretzels to justify these things, but they did. Abandoning free speech seems a bridge too far.

Conservatives have had to fight for free speech for generations. It is in their DNA.  I am old enough to remember when we had something called the Fairness Doctrine that required broadcasters to present both sides of an issue, and if a broadcaster did say something controversial, they had to invite someone with an opposing point of view to offer a rebuttal. As a result, broadcasters avoided controversy. Some religious radio stations even lost their lisence. Conservatives finally won the battle and the fairness doctrine was eventually abandoned. 

During the Covid-19 epidemic, the Biden administration pressured platforms like Facebook and YouTube to remove "misinformation." They bowed to pressure, and many Covid skeptics were deplatformed. Following the January 6th insurrection, Trump was suspended from Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat. How much of this was bowing to social pressure, simply doing what the platform owners thought was the right thing to do, or bowing to government pressure, I don't know, but it seemed an awful lot like censorship.

For years, conservatives fought for free speech when they were shouted down when trying to speak on college campuses, and when speakers were disinvited from speaking because their presence might rile students to commit violence, or it might hurt their feelings and cause trauma. Conservatives have pushed back. Universities often made life difficult for religious voices on campus, and constant vigilance and willingness to fight in the courts were necessary to preserve freedom of speech and freedom of religion for Christian students.

During Trump's inaugural address upon being sworn in for his second term, Trump made a pledge to restore freedom of expression, saying:

After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I also will sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America. 

Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents — something I know something about.  We will not allow that to happen.  It will not happen again.

Among the first batch of Executive Orders he signed was the RESTORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ENDING FEDERAL CENSORSHIP order. Conservatives applauded. Now, they are to accept that free speech only applies to speech that the president approves?

Not only was Kimmel kicked off the air due to Trump administration pressure, but more to come was promised. People like Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson know that when we again have a Democratic administration, they will be subject to censorship if government censorship becomes normalized.

In addition to the effort to get Jimmy Kimble kicked off the air, and promising to go after other critics and get them removed, Trump ruffled feathers when Pam Bondi said: 

There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society...We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

For years, the left labeled speech they did not like as "hate speech" and banned from campuses and other spheres of the public square, speech that some person in authority deemed hate speech. If one condemned abortion, or affirmative action, or illegal immigration, or DEI, or gay Pride celebrations, or opposed men playing in girls' sports, or excessive welfare programs, or varrious other points of view unpopular with the woke, the debate was silenced or an attempt was made to silence the debate by labeling those views as "hate speech.' Those on the right pushed back against this tactic of labeling opposing views as "hate speech." and argued that free speech included what some would lable hate speech. They said hate speech is free speach. Now, they were to be the ones in charge and lable speech they did not like as "hate speech," and criminalize such speech? 

Supporting free speech may be the most visible crack in MAGA, but there are dissenting voices over other recent Trump actions. Following Charlie Kirk's widow making her gracious, heartbreaking speech at Charlie Krik's funeral, where she said she forgave her husband's killer, Trump followed with a campaign-style speech where he said he hates his enemies and cannot wish his enemies well. That was tone-deaf, ill-timed, and offensive. I think it made many Trump supporters cringe.

Trump's use of the government to go after his political enemies and posting to Attorney General Pam Bondi on Truth Social to stop delaying and get with it on prosecuting his enemies was just too blatant for some.  He removed the last vestige of any fiction of an independent Justice Department. The president basically directed his people to indict a specific individual because he's angry at that person. Trump supporters have so far justified and ignored Trump's abuse of power. This one is hard to ignore or justify.

Of course, Trump's allowing Robert Kennedy to fire people with medical credentials and replace them with unqualified conspiracy theorists has generated pushback from some on Trump Team. And Trump's firing of people at the Bureau of Labor Statistics because Trump didn't like the data, has raised eyebrows.

And of course, the Epstein files are not going away. After years of Trump using the Epstein case as an example of the swamp he was going to drain, now he says there is no there, there. His supporters are not buying it.

Maybe I'm wrong. Trump supporters have not broken with Trump on the unprecedented corruption of his administration. They have not broken with Trump over his violation of the rule of law. Trump's poll numbers remain respectable. However, job creation is down, unemployment is rising, and inflation is creeping back up. Along about the first of the year, pre-tariff inventory will be exhausted and prices will increase at a quickening pace. Trump's approval rating on the economy will slip. Also, Trump seems to be getting more and more unhinged. When he threw a temper tantrum due to a malfunctioning elevator at the UN and threatened to bomb the United Nations, people noticed. I think that more and more people will see Trump do screwy things and say, "This is not right; this is not normal."

Like I said, I may be wrong, but I think this is different. I think the wheels are coming off the  Trump Train. 

Top Stories

Officials remind Tennesseans of new requirements for food benefits

by Kim Jarrett, The Center Square, Sept 25, 2025 - Some Tennesseans receiving benefits from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, could be required to work, the Tennessee Department of Human Resources said Monday.

The One Big Beautiful Bill implemented new work requirements for SNAP recipients who are between the ages of 18 and 65, who are not disabled and do not have children under the age of 14.

The requirements include working, volunteering or participating in a job training program, the department said. Able-bodied adults without dependents can only receive three months of SNAP benefits in a three-year period.

“We want to ensure Tennesseans who may be impacted by these federal changes are fully informed and prepared to make any necessary adjustments,” said Clarence H. Carter, commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Resources. “Our priority is to support our customers with the resources they need to comply with the updated requirements while maintaining access to vital nutrition assistance.”

The One Big Beautiful Bill also shifts some of the costs for the SNAP program to the state. The Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth estimated state costs could rise from $56.7 million to $165.3 million based on 2024's funding formula if their payment rate errors are higher than 6%.

The information was included in the department's budget request for fiscal year 2027. The department is looking for a way to reduce administrative errors.

"By reducing error rates and improving oversight, Tennessee can avoid costly federal penalties and ensure that benefits are delivered efficiently," the department said. "With the state assuming greater financial responsibility for the program, a strategic approach is necessary to prevent service disruptions and maintain confidence in its operations. Developing a comprehensive plan for this shift in financial responsibility will prepare the state for the upcoming changes, support responsible budgeting, strengthen program integrity, and reinforce the state’s commitment to accountable, results-driven governance."

Gov. Bill Lee recommended changes to the program in August that would ban some processed foods and carbonated drinks. SNAP recipients could use the benefits to purchase prepared foods like rotisserie and non-fried chicken. The governor requested a waiver from the federal government so the state could implement the changes.

Rod's Comment: 
Libs will call me heartless, and I know I am supposed to be an opponent of everything Trump proposes to be a member in good standing of the anti-Trump movement, but  I approve of these changes. 

To receive SNAP (also known as food stamps), able-bodied adults without dependents should be working, volunteering, or participating in a job training program. Additionally, there should be a disincentive for states to hand out food stamps indiscriminately; therefore, I approve of the revised funding formula. I also hope Gov. Lee's recommended ban on certain foods from being eligible for purchase with food stamps is approved. Already, alcoholic beverages cannot be purchased with food stamps; neither should Twinkies or Mountain Due. 

Top Stories

Tennessee Attorney General Joins Coalition of 26 States Opposing Bans on Plus-Ten Magazines

Jonathan Skrmetti

 Press release, Sept 23, 2025- Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti announced today that Tennessee has recently joined a group of 26 states urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn unconstitutional laws in Washington and California that ban the possession of common, plus-ten magazines by law-abiding gun owners. The coalition argues that these bans plainly violate the Second Amendment. 

The bans were challenged in two separate cases: Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, which was decided by the Washington Supreme Court, and Duncan v. Bonta, which was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The coalition argues that that these two rulings ignore the Second Amendment, disregard U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and reflect a broader trend of lower courts eroding constitutional protections. These magazines are protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned because they are essential firearm components in common, widespread use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

“Forty million law-abiding Americans own these magazines,” said Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. “Courts should not strip away their fundamental rights by pretending these necessary components are not protected by the Second Amendment.  Our Office is proud to partner with our sister states in defending the Constitution.”

Tennessee Attorney General Skrmetti joins the amicus briefs led by Montana and Idaho, alongside the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the Arizona Legislature.

Read Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington.

Read Duncan v. Bonta.

Top Stories

Jimmy Kimmel is Back! He Sets the Right Tone.

by Rod Williams, Sept. 24,2025- If you missed the Jimmy Kimmel monologue last night, here it is.

After having his show suspended and being off the air for about a week due to remarks made regarding the Charlie Kirk assassination, which some found offensive or insensitive, he was reinstated, and this is his return broadcast. 

I think he sets the right tone. He restated that political violence can not be condoned, and he condemns it. He thanked those who supported him and said he particularly appreciated those who disagreed with him but supported his right to free speech. He featured and quoted Senator Ted Cruz. He strongly condemns FCC Chairman Brendan Carr for telling an American company, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

I will not be watching Jimmy Kimmel. I stopped watching late-night variety shows years ago when they all became liberal shrills. I refuse to spend my time being insulted. I also did not find the humor very humorous. I think I stopped watching when Jay Leno went off the air. Also, there is a lot of choice now and I am not limited to one of three major networks.  I am not glad that Jimmy Kimmel is back on TV because I will be watching, but because his return is a victory for freedom of speech. 

Top Stories

Council Member Ginny Welsch Thinks Her Constituents are a Bunch of Racist and Are Selfish

Ginny Welsch

16th United, Sept. 22, 2025-  We, the members of 16th United, an advocacy group working to identify and articulate the priorities of the 16th District regarding growth, feel compelled to respond to comments made by Council Member Ginny Welsch on the Sept. 15 edition of the City Cast Nashville podcast.  

We are dismayed that Council Member Welsch – having been presented with data and first-person testimony from hundreds of community members about their hopes and concerns for District 16 as it grows – has resorted to insults and veiled accusations of racism. 

On City Cast Nashville, Council Member Welsch discussed with host Marie Cecile Anderson her proposal to rezone 620 acres of the 16th District. During this discussion, Ms. Welsch cited zoning as a historical tool for discrimination and implied that those who oppose her current rezoning 
efforts may be motivated by a desire to exclude others. She said: 

Right now, we kind of use zoning as a tool of exclusion. There's a very vocal segment 
of this city that wants to live in the past. I guess that's the only way that I could say it. They don't want anything to change. They want to pull up the ladder behind them. They hold 
on to single-family zoning that, if you know anything about zoning, you know that single-family zoning started from a very racist proposition. It was meant to be exclusionary. It was meant to keep the lower classes and minorities from, you know, living side by side with wealthier, lighter-skinned, whiter people.

It is regrettable that Ms. Welsch has decided to take a historical wrong in Nashville and apply it, in this 
context, to assume the worst of her constituents. Members of 16th United have canvassed every corner 
of the proposed rezone to bring residents into the process, making extra efforts to reach our Spanish-speaking neighbors. We have posted signs in Spanish next to Metro’s standard zoning signs, with QR 
codes to a website that has been regularly updated in Spanish, offered focus groups in Spanish, and 
engaged Nashville Noticias directly to help spread the word further. What similar efforts, if any, has 
Ms. Welsch made to engage this community? 

Furthermore, in our survey of hundreds of residents, 44% of respondents listed “preserving diversity” as a top priority. It is outrageous that volunteers asking basic questions about affordability, infrastructure and the tree canopy, and seeking broad engagement and participation using every tool at their disposal, would be labeled exclusionary and possibly worse, discriminatory, by their own council member. 

Ms. Welsch later characterized opponents of her bill as "selfish," "privileged," and "entitled." When asked what people need to hear to get on the same page, she responded: 

I think people need to hear that they're being selfish. They really are pulling the ladder up behind them. And they're being very privileged, because I think that people feel like they are holding on to something that they feel very entitled to, while others behind them are simply trying to get a foot on the rung.

Residents of the 16th District are not “entitled” or “privileged” – we are a working-class district with 
working-class concerns. And contrary to what Ms. Welsch said during her appearance on City Cast 
Nashville, there is no evidence of an "old guard" and a "new guard" with competing visions for the 
neighborhood; overwhelming majorities of residents, both new and generational, have shared the same 
priorities, which were presented to Ms. Welsch and the public at a community meeting on Aug. 21. We 
do not understand why Ms. Welsch seems unable or unwilling to truly listen to the community, as the 
Metro Planning Commission entreated her in disapproving her proposal on April 24. She has, in public 
remarks, repeatedly referred to a “community-driven” plan, now suggesting residents are quietly happy 
with her proposal. Data collected by multiple groups working independently states the opposite. 
Notably, Ms. Welsch has not hosted a single public forum about this topic since April and has yet 
to provide any evidence that her plan has broad or even mild support in any cross-section of our 
community. All available information says otherwise. 

Council Member Welsch's words on City Cast Nashville were demeaning and dismissive of the many 
concerns the community has proactively expressed to her. If she truly has the District's best interests at 
heart, as she claimed to on City Cast Nashville, Ms. Welsch will apologize and thoughtfully engage 
her constituents. 16th United remains committed to its goal of giving voice to our community through 
inclusive and constructive dialogue.

#

Excerpt from the interview, City Cast: 

HOST: What do people need to hear to get on the same page about this? 

GW: I think that people need to hear that they're being selfish. They really are pulling the 

ladder up behind them. And they're being very privileged, because I think that people feel 

like they are holding on to something that they feel very entitled to, while others behind 

them are simply trying to get a foot on the rung so that they can actually find housing and 

really establish roots and start building their life, including some wealth in their life. I feel 

like sometimes people treat the districts or even the city actually as if it's an HOA, as if they 

get to set up some arbitrary rules that they decide because they've been here longer, 

because there's always this idea that because I've been here longer, it means I gets to run 

things that it's like, but that's not really how that works. And the other people, the newer 

people here, they too have a right to grow the city and impact the city, and that will improve 

the city. The fear is always right that you're going to ruin the city, but you know, we're going 

to ruin it ourselves if we don't allow this to happen. Because as we all know, change 

happens whether we want it to happen or not. So we may as well be intentional about it 

and have some say in control. You know, like by doing zoning and putting in UDOs and 

things like that so that we can keep things in a certain line in the way that we want them, 

while allowing and acknowledging that new blood is going to come in and change is going 

to come. We can't be selfish and only think about ourselves and we can't live in the past. (link)

Top Stories

The Disaster Post.

W. H. Bernstein

by W. H. Bernstein, Facebook, Sept. 22, 2024- The US economy is headed for disaster.  OK, I said it.

We have several areas that are ripe for collapse.  Any one of them would be a major event but collectively they will be overwhelming.  Where to start?

The biggest bubble is of course the stock market.  Stocks are trading above levels even of the dot com boom.  In the last quarter profits were expected to grow by 5%.  They grew by 15% but stock prices grew by nearly double that.  None of that is sustainable.  And its the worst companies doing the best, mostly related to AI (more in a minute).  But strip out the top ten names from indexes and the market isn't up all that much.  One estimate says the market is over valued by 50%.  I believe it.

Crypto currency.  

I refer to this class as crapto currency for a reason.  It is literally nothing, and people are paying money for it.  The government passing of regulations on it has resulted in a gusher of new issues, with Trump and his sons feeding at the trough to the tune of $3B. The current value of the crypto market is over $4T.  For an asset that has value only because people think it has value.  It isn't like real estate, stocks, or gold, which have actual value, even if their nominal value far exceeds that.  When people stop believing crypto is a viable asset class, its price will go to zero.  That's $4T in assets wiped out, plus the collateral damage involving companies whose business depends on it.

Private credit.  

The private credit market is over $3T today.  Wall Street has been rushing to make this available to average investors, and Congress has passed legislation allowing it for retirement accounts.  What is "private credit"?  IT is lending outside the regular banking/brokerage system.  Why would a company want that? Because they can't get funding in the tradtional channels.  This is why private credit returns are higher than other types of lending.  If all of this sounds like sub prime lending from the early 2000s it's because it is.  And unlike sub prime lending, there isn't much in the way of assets underlying the loans.  So that will be $3T in assets up in smoke, plus the fallout to companies involved in it. Which includes banks and brokerages, btw.

AI related.  

Is AI going to change how we do things?  Certainly.  Is it going to be the gusher for corporate profits everyone is banking on?  Definitely not.  AI is this generation's internet, this generation's commercial airplanes.  Everyone knows it will change things, but it will never match the hype.  Currently a lot capital spending is going to build out data centers to handle all the computing resources necessary.  But once it becomes apparent they are over building--just as companies over built fiber networks not long ago--that spending will stop.

Agriculture.  

The US used to be a major exporter of things like soy beans. And China was our biggest market.  Thanks to lousy policies we will sell zero soybeans to China, which has sourced them to Brazil instead. Add in a labor shortage, thanks to lousy immigration policy and the Ag sector is looking bad.

Construction.  

Gee, what happens when you raise prices on basic construction material like steel and aluminum, raise prices on components that are imported, and gut your labor supply? Nothing good.  Slowing housing demand shows which way this market is going.

Auto.  

Same dynamic as construction.  Ford says they will pay out $2B in tariffs this year (so much for China paying it).  The EV market is not living up to its hype (see data centers above), and companies are cutting EV production, especially with the loss of the government subsidy.

Many recessions have started with weakness in housing, autos, and agriculture.  Now we have all three.

The signs are all there.  Average credit scores are dropping.  Average card balances are increasing, along with delinquencies.  Employers are hiring fewer people.

Meanwhile, the government continues to borrow at unsustainable levels, pushing inflation and squeezing consumers and businesses further.

Bill Bernstein, formerly of Nashville where he was owner of Eastside Gun Shop, now lives in Sumter, South Carolina. He is a scholar with a BA degree from Vanderbilt University and degrees in Classics from Corpus Christi College, Oxford, UNC-Chapel Hill, and University of Pennsylvania.

Top Stories

My Impression of the TN-07 Republican Nominees After Watching the Forum

by Rod Williams, Sept. 21, 2025- I am still undecided for whom I will vote in the primary for the Republican nominee for the 7th Congressional District special election to complete the term of Senator Mark Green, however, after watching the political forum posted above, held between eight of the candidates seeking the nomination, I am now leaning more strongly toward Matt Van Epps.

In a forum with eight candidates, it is challenging to walk away with much more than just an impression of the candidates.  It is hard to remember who said what.

My impression from watching the forum is that I would be most comfortable with Mattt Van Epps representing me. Mr. Epps is not Mr. Charisma and he does not have a flair for flowery rhetoric. He didn't quote the Federalist Papers or paint a picture of his family life. He is a common-sense, practical, kind of boring, kind of wonkish, normie conservative Republican.  He does not inflame passion. I kind of like that about him. While he naturally paid lip service to supporting Donald Trump, Epps did not repeat any Trump lies or float any conspiracy theories. 

My impression of the absolutely worst candidate is Steward Parks. He is the guy who participated in the January 6 insurrection and was imprisoned for his actions and then pardoned in President Trump's mass pardon of J6 insurrectionists. Parks repeats the lie of the stolen election and says his actions of January 6 were to stop a Communist takeover. He is truly a nut-job.

A close runner-up for the worst candidate is Tres Wittum, who said some nutty stuff and wants to repeal the 16th Amendment. Even if one may make a reasoned argument among friends about why we would have been better off if we had never passed the 16th Amendment, it is not the stuff of a campaign. He also advocates the repeal of the 17th Amendment. I think we might be better off if we did not have direct election of senators, but that battle was lost in 1913, and it is foolish to bring it up as part of a campaign. The issue is settled.  

Lee Reeves lost a point with me when he made a point of pledging to fight for an end to birthright citizenship. Also in response to a question about getting the economy going, he said mass deportation would improve the economy. Most economists think mass deportation will be detrimental to the economy and that immigrants contribute more than they drain. 

Jody Barrett lost a point with me when he answered a question about how to address the cost of living. He said the Federal Reserve should slash the interest rate. Due to the poor job growth numbers and increasing unemployment, it may be time to trim interest rates; however, reducing interest rates is likely to lead to greater inflation, not less. 

A question was asked about what the greatest threat to the country is, and Van Epps, Bulso, and some others gave serious answers and explained the threat from China. Some of the others said immigration or the deterioration of the family, and what is happening culturally. That question kind of separates the serious people from the others.

Some of the forum was wasted by asking questions with predictable answers. Of course, any Republican wants to save Social Security, and any Republican thinks the national debt is a serious issue. 

Questions I wanted answers to that were not asked are these: (1) Do you believe the Corona vaccine saved lives? (2) who won the 2020 election? (3) Are tariffs a tax on the American people? 

The correct answer to get my vote is yes, Biden, yes. 

If you are inclined to watch the video, you can watch it in 1.25 or 1.5 time and not lose content.

Top Stories