Hitler Loving Young Republicans.

 

by Rod Williams, Oct.16, 2025- I find the recently leaked racist and Hitler-praising text exchange between Young Republican leaders disgusting. There is no way to put a good spin on it. 

I remember when I was in high school, in response to a lame joke, one would say, "That is about as funny as a truckload of dead babies." That is pretty offensive, but we thought it was funny. Also, I know that smartass kids, mostly boys, I assume, will try to outdo each other in being gross and offensive. One could assume there is some of that going on here, but the people on this text chain are not high school boys.  Don't let the name Young Republicans fool you. Young Republicans is the Republican organization for Republicans between the age of 18 and 40. College Republicans is a separate organization. 

The people in this text chain were not just random young nobody Republicans. People on the chat chain that included the offensive texts are leaders of the Young Republicans and some are influential people. They include the vice chair of the Kansas Young Republicans, the former chair and current vice chair of the New York Young Republicans and others. Michael Bartels is one of the people in the chat. He serves as a senior adviser in the office of general counsel within the U.S. Small Business Administration. Others hold positions within the party or government.

The people they are jokingly talking about sending to the gas chamber are other Republicans. The participants in the chat are Trumpy Republicans talking about wrestling control of the national Young Republican organization away from more normie Republicans.

Do I think these people really want to send people to the gas chamber and that they really love Hitler? No, I don't. I am appalled, however, that it is considered acceptable or cool or funny to talk about sending people to the gas chamber and to say, "I love Hitler."  I am appalled that this is the culture of today's Republican Party.  I think out of 2900 pages of text over an eighth-month period, some people said some really stupid and really disgusting things. However, they were speaking in a group chat where that type of thing is not found alarming and is not immediately denounced. Do I think the people who posted the offensive text should be removed from positions of leadership in the Republican Party, and their statements should be condemned? Absolutely.

Some are being punished, and the YR's texting these things are being denounced.  Peter Giunta is the one who posted the "I love Hitler" comment. He was chief of staff to New York Assemblyman Mike Reilly but has now been fired due to that post. The Kansas Republican Party disbanded the Kansas Young Republicans. The Young Republican National Federation said on X it's "appalled by the vile and inexcusable language revealed" in the report. "Such behavior is disgraceful, unbecoming of any Republican, and stands in direct opposition to the values our movement represents." 

To read more about this, see: 

‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat - POLITICO. 
Young Republicans demand racist chat leaders resign, Kansas GOP group disbands

Top Stories

Jack Johnson's Boots and Jeans, BBQ and Beans, Sunday Oct. 19.

 

Top Stories

Hatcher to Challenge Ogles in GOP Primary for 5th Congressional District

Charlie Hatcher. (Credit: Erik Schelzig)

From AI Overview of Charlie Hatcher, Oct. 14, 2025-As of October 2025, Charlie Hatcher is a Republican candidate for Tennessee's 5th Congressional District and the former Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. 

Political career

Congressional run: Hatcher announced on October 14, 2025, that he would challenge incumbent U.S. Representative Andy Ogles in the Republican primary for the 5th Congressional District.

Agriculture Commissioner: Hatcher served as Tennessee's 38th Commissioner of Agriculture from January 2019 until September 30, 2025. He was appointed by Governor Bill Lee and was one of his initial cabinet selections.

State Veterinarian: Prior to his appointment as Commissioner, Hatcher was the state veterinarian for the Tennessee Department of Agriculture for ten years. 

Background and personal life

Veterinarian: Hatcher earned his Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine from the University of Tennessee in 1984. He also founded Rock-N-Country Veterinary Services in College Grove in 1993, a practice now managed by his daughter, Jennifer.

Family Farm: He is a fifth-generation Tennessee farmer whose family has operated a farm in Williamson County since 1831.

Hatcher Family Dairy: He and his family are well-known in the dairy industry for the Hatcher Family Dairy, which began bottling its own milk in 2007. His son, Charles, currently serves as the business's president. 

Top Stories

Harwood Salon (formerly The Bastiat Society) Presents Dr. Ryan Yonk on The China Dilemma, Wed. Oct. 13

 

From Harwood Salon - Join us on Wednesday, October 15, at 6 p.m. CT for an event with Dr. Ryan Yonk, Director of Education and Senior Research Fellow at AIER.

Dr. Ryan Yonk explores the complexities of U.S.-China relations through the lens of public choice theory. Drawing on his personal experiences in China and insights from his book, Yonk challenges conventional international relations models that treat China as a monolithic actor. Instead, he argues that understanding individual motivations—particularly those of Chinese leaders like Xi Jinping—is key to predicting behavior and crafting smarter foreign policy. Yonk emphasizes that economic liberalization in China stemmed from internal pressures, not Western influence, and that nationalism now serves to maintain regime power.

📍Location: Hilton Garden Inn Nashville Brentwood, 217 Centerview Dr, Brentwood, TN 37027

Registration is required to attend and seats are limited. Register now!

REGISTER HERE

Harwood Salons - Nashville is made possible through the generosity of supporters like you. We encourage you to become a member or make a donation to support the American Institute for Economic Research and ensure the continuation of these important events. All donations are tax-deductible and directly contribute to sustaining Harwood Salons - Nashville.

Membership Options: 
Sustaining Members: $100/yr
Founding Members: $500 (One-time)
1933 Club Members: $1,000/yr

If you would like to donate or become a member of Harwood Salons - Nashville, follow this link.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Sincerely,

Jim

Jim Lordeman, Harwood Salons Ambassador
Harwood Salons - Nashville
nashville@aier.org

Top Stories

Trump’s ‘Domestic Terrorism ’Memo Chillingly Targets People by Ideology

by Adam Goldstein, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, October 1, 2025 - On Thursday, the White House published a presidential memo — technically, a national security presidential memorandum — outlining its upcoming efforts to combat political violence.

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a heightened attention to political violence makes sense. But this memo doesn’t focus on actual violence. It includes frequent references to constitutionally protected speech and ideas. 

While there are quite a few pieces of this order that set off alarm bells, a few of the phrases struck me as especially troubling. Here they are. 

'anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity'

The memo says: 

There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” [ . . . ] Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.

This is the most troubling passage in the memo, and there’s stiff competition for that title. This is the White House directly identifying beliefs, pointing the finger at them, and saying, “These are the suspicious people we need to watch.” In America, we shouldn’t target people for their ideologies. We should target them for their actions, full stop. 

Recent Democratic administrations have engaged in the same guilt-by-association tactics. During the Obama administration, the IRS targeted nonprofit groups with the words “Tea Party” or “Patriots” in their names, identifying groups by ideology and punishing them by subjecting them to extra processes. And its explanation was that this was just a “shortcut” — other organizations with similar profiles had violated IRS rules, so they jumped to targeting groups that used similar words.

In 2023, the FBI distributed an internal memo linking “ethnically motivated violent extremists” to traditional Catholic ideology, a call for viewpoint-based targeting that was only exposed by a whistleblower and oversight from Congress. In 2022, an internal FBI memo linked the Gadsden flag and other patriotic symbols to violent extremism. And while such links do exist, and it makes sense for law enforcement to identify them, it also risks sweeping up ordinary Americans.

It may well be that some people who engage in politically motivated violence have anti-American beliefs, oppose the traditional family, or dislike organized religion. They should be prosecuted. And if there’s evidence of conspiracy or concrete steps toward violence, that may warrant an investigation. But we cannot start investigating other people simply because they happen to share those beliefs. Doing so would open the door to investigations of any political movement or ideology if any one of its adherents happened to engage in violence. 

'…designation as a ‘domestic terrorist organization’'

The memo also says:

[T]he Attorney General may recommend that any group or entity whose members are engaged in activities meeting the definition of “domestic terrorism” in 18 U.S.C. 2331(5) merits designation as a “domestic terrorist organization.”

Designating something a domestic terrorist organization sounds like a parallel to the process we use for identifying foreign terrorist organizations (FTO). That process was created by Congress in a statute. Being designated as an FTO triggers a number of legal effects, enabling the government to seize assets, revoke visas, bar entry of non-citizens, and prosecute people who provide any direct help to the organization. Congress has the ability to block or revoke FTO designation, and organizations themselves are entitled to judicial review of the decision to include them on a list.

There is no such process for designating a domestic terrorist organization. In fact, the “domestic terrorist organization” definition proposed here has no legal safeguards and no clear significance. It’s completely made up. It seems an organization so designated will receive extra scrutiny from the federal government until it pleases the attorney general to remove them from the list. Donors, speakers, employees, and members of these organizations will all have their speech chilled for as long as the executive branch sees fit. 

It’s hard not to compare this to the Hollywood blacklist during McCarthyism. There were, in fact, real Russian spies elsewhere in America, many of them motivated by their ideological commitment to communism. Some of them were passing nuclear secrets to our rival in the middle of a nuclear arms race, the stakes of which were, potentially, catastrophic beyond all human imagination. Many people on the blacklist did have ties to communism or communist sympathies, as well. But putting people on a list because the government didn’t like their politics violated the freedoms we claimed to be protecting. 

'...politically motivated terrorist acts such as organized doxing…'

“Organized doxing” is a strange phrase. 

Doxing (or doxxing) is generally defined as publishing private information that makes someone online personally identifiable. It’s also legal in most places, as long as the information was lawfully obtained and isn’t otherwise part of harassment or incitement efforts. Whether you think that’s bad or not, I don’t know that organizing the effort makes it worse. If someone posts your personal information online, your first question isn’t likely to be, “How many people were involved and what was their political purpose?”

However distasteful it might be in context, doxing is protected speech unless it violates some other existing law. After all, doxing describes much of the basic activity of news media, where otherwise unknown information is found and published, and frequently, that information is personally identifiable. That’s especially true when the “doxing” the government is upset about is information related to public employees in the course of their duties, such as the location of ICE agents.

A missive from the most powerful man in the world carries so much force that it is, inevitably, a blunt instrument. When the president uses his pen to take aim at anything, it will cause a chilling effect.

The administration itself has arguably been encouraging coordinated doxing efforts to identify people who said cruel things in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. When the vice president calls on the public to contact the employers of people who made unkind statements, and there have been groups soliciting submissions of those statements to catalog them, it would take exceptional care on the part of any future participants to avoid their efforts turning into doxing. 

If organized doxing is a politically motivated terrorist act when an NGO encourages it, but it’s legal when the White House encourages it, the current administration should remember that it will be leaving that loaded gun on the desk of the next president — who may define “permissible doxing” much differently. 

'Investigate institutional and individual funders, and officers and employees of organizations…'

The memo directs that the National Joint Terrorism Task Force and its local offices shall investigate “institutional and individual funders, and officers and employees of organizations, that are responsible for, sponsor, or otherwise aid and abet the principal actors engaging in” political violence, intimidation, or obstruction of the rule of law. 

To aid or abet criminal conduct requires knowledge of the conduct. To the extent officers and employees of organizations are knowingly breaking the law, I’d like to think that law enforcement is investigating them anyway. It’s been a few decades since I took criminal law, but I’m pretty sure “investigate people who know they’re breaking the law” was on the first page of the outline. Same with people who are “responsible for” it. 

So what this memo is adding, then, is to investigate “institutional and individual funders” who “sponsor” the organizations that aid the principal actors engaged in political violence. That reading is also reflected in a call for the use of financial surveillance tools. It’s also consistent with a Justice Department push to investigate a group tied to billionaire investor and Democratic megadonor George Soros.

If there is evidence that a donor was knowingly funding violence, they should be investigated, but the administration hasn’t actually shown such evidence. They simply assert there is a vast conspiracy on the left — going all the way up to its highest echelons — to fund and foment political violence, and so a sprawling investigation of the president’s ideological and political opponents is justified. 

We have already seen orders like this get misused

A missive from the most powerful man in the world carries so much force that it is, inevitably, a blunt instrument. When the president uses his pen to take aim at anything, it will cause a chilling effect.

For example, when President Trump issued an executive order on gender ideology that prohibited federal funding to programs that suggest gender is a spectrum, Texas A&M cancelled an annual drag show and the National Endowment for the Arts reviewed applications for their consistency with the order. Neither of these outcomes were obvious on the face of the order. 

What will the overreactions to this new memo look like? Donors ending their support because they don’t want to risk an investigation? Groups being denied bank loans or leases because they’re on a government list with no way to appeal that determination? Activists going underground because they want to challenge an orthodoxy, hiding their opinions from the places where they would otherwise be challenged in the marketplace of ideas? 

If this is the plan to save American values, what’s the plan to destroy them look like?

FIRE is one of the organizations that I support with my charitable giving. To learn more about the organization follow this link. 

Top Stories

Happy Columbus Day!

 

Top Stories

Tennessee is the Fifth Highest Ranked State for Fiscal Health

by Rod Williams, Oct. 13, 2025- Truth in Accounting has just released its sixteenth annual State of the States report. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the fiscal health of each state. TIA examines a state's assets and liabilities.   When states do not have enough money to pay their bills, TIA takes the money needed to pay bills (the shortfall) and divides it by the estimated number of state taxpayers. They call the resulting number a Taxpayer Burden.  Conversely, a Taxpayer Surplus is the amount of money left over after all of a state’s bills are paid, divided by the estimated number of taxpayers in the state.  TIA ranks the states based on these numbers. States with a surplus are called "sunshine states," and states with a taxpayer burden are called "sinkhole states." Tennessee always ranks well. This year, Tennessee is the fifth-highest-ranked 

Sunshine State. To see the full report, follow this link. 

Top Stories

CM Jenny Welsch withdraws Her Resolution Denouncing Acts of the United States and Isreal.

by Rod Williams, Oct 12, 2025 - At the last Council meeting in the face of opposition, CM Jenny Welsch withdrew her resolution denouncing the United States and Israel. I am pleased. It is my view that the Council should not engage in debate about national and international issues on the Council floor. The local governing body should restrict itself to local governance.  These resolutions take valuable time away from the business of local government and are divisive for no apparent reason. A memorial resolution is just a statement of the opinion of the Metro Council. It accomplished nothing and I doubt anyone anywhere else really cares what the Metro Council thinks. 

The above video is of the full Council meeting of Oct. 9, 2025. To see the public comments period where the resolutions "denouncing all acts of the United States Government and the State of Israel that contribute to a continuation of the genocide of the Palestinian people" is discussed, go to time stamp 11:27. Notice that the first speaker is wearing a Party for Socialism and Liberation t-shirt. I am not sure that helps his cause. The second speaker is a Nashville member of the Jewish community who reports on how Council Member Jenny Welsch cavalierly brushed off her concern about the threat to Jews in Nashville. 

To see CM Welsh's motion to withdraw, where she unsuccessfully tries to make a speech on the merits of her resolution, go to time stamp 1:58:52. It is not stated in the meeting, but the rules committee voted for an indefinite deferral of the resolution. To read the text of the resolution, follow this link.

Below is the reporting on this resolution from The Pamphleteer. 

The Metro Council wasted time on resolutions at last night's meeting

From Megan Podsiedlik. The Pamphleteer, Oct. 10, 2025 - The meeting kicked off with a colorful public comment period during which the majority of speakers mentioned Councilmember Ginny Welsch’s resolution denouncing “all acts of the U.S. Government and the State of Israel that contribute to a continuation of the genocide of the Palestinian people.” When it finally came to the floor for discussion among council members, Welsch decided to withdraw the legislation with a brief explanation. 

“I withdraw this resolution today and hope that the cease fire reached today will bring an end to the horrors of the war in Gaza,” Welsch stated, before hopping onto her soapbox—a move her colleagues didn’t appreciate. The sponsor was eventually cut short while explaining how evil manifests and flourishes in the world.

“The rules call for an explanation of the withdrawal,” Councilmember Tom Cash pointed out. “And I really feel like this is going beyond that.” Both he and Councilmember Jason Spain cited the council rule regarding withdrawal. As a result, Vice Mayor Angie Henderson asked Welsch to “wrap it up,” preventing her from taking further advantage of the fact that she would be the only one allowed to speak on the resolution topic. 

Where Welsch’s resolution caused divisiveness with its explicit language asking the council to condemn specific geopolitical topics, a resolution more inclusively condemning political violence of all kinds passed with a wide range of bipartisan sponsors. During discussion, it suddenly dawned on Councilmember Zulfat Suara that all these types of resolutions may be more performative than useful. 

“This is a good resolution, but unfortunately, it's just words,” said Suara. “What I have seen oftentimes is that we say things to make ourselves feel better, but we don't follow it with action. Political violence is bad—should never happen, but there are factors that lead to it that even some of us may not know that we're contributing to.”

Suara proceeded to use the rest of her time encouraging council members to listen to Palestinian advocates and not just “stand up for one group.” She also said that the body could pass more than just “fluff” and “be more than just words” by… using their words to condemn things more consistently. Seems she lost her own thread.

Top Stories

A Victory for the Right to Earn a Living in Tennessee

by Adam Shelton, The Goldwater Institute, September 25, 2025 - In another victory for the right to earn a living, the Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot deny admission of a highly qualified attorney to the Tennessee Bar just because he went to law school in another country. The decision vindicates the principle, rooted in the Tennessee Constitution, that the state cannot create arbitrary barriers to honest work and adds to the Goldwater Institute’s record of defending economic liberty.

That principle was tested in the case of Bishoy Fam, a Texas attorney who became the target of the state’s licensing bureaucracy for obtaining a law degree outside of the United States. Government bureaucrats have no business stopping qualified professionals like Fam from doing their jobs. But as the Goldwater Institute and the Beacon Center of Tennessee noted in a brief supporting Bishoy’s constitutional right to earn a living, that’s exactly what the government did. Thankfully, the state Supreme Court put an end to this injustice.

Bishoy is a highly qualified lawyer who earned his law degree from Edinburgh Law School in Scotland and a master of law degree from Southern Methodist University in Texas. He scored high enough on the Uniform Bar Exam to qualify for admission in Tennessee, and he is already licensed to practice law in Texas.  But when Bishoy attempted to become licensed in Tennessee, the state’s Board of Law Examiners denied him permission.

The reason: the board failed to take Bishoy’s full education into account. It also ignored any serious consideration of whether denying Fam the right to practice law in Tennessee was necessary to protect the state’s residents.

Bishoy has both a constitutional and a statutory right to earn a living—a right that applies to everyone, even those entering highly-regulated fields like the legal profession.

Ensuring that lawyers are well educated is an important consideration. But the state cannot do so in a way that arbitrarily excludes individuals who received their legal education in a foreign country. Rather, the state must make an individualized determination that weighs all of an applicant’s credentials and considers the requirements of the Tennessee Constitution and the state’s Right to Earn a Living Act.

The Tennessee Constitution protects the right to earn a living through a “law of the land” clause, which dates all the way back to 1215 and the Magna Carta. By 1796, when the state adopted its first Constitution, it was well understood that this clause protected the right to earn a living and was broad enough to make government-granted monopolies legally dubious, because they interfered with that right. The state’s Supreme Court recognized this principle well into the 20th century, even going so far as to call it a fundamental right.

Additionally, Tennessee’s Right to Earn a Living Act, much like the Arizona Right to Earn a Living Act developed by Goldwater, provides a framework for how licensing agencies should go about making such determinations. The Act reaffirms that Tennesseans have a fundamental right to earn a living and explains that the government cannot interfere with this right unless it is demonstrably necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the people.

This is not the first time this has happened in Tennessee. Three years ago, the Board denied another qualified applicant, Violaine Panasci, admission to the Tennessee Bar. Goldwater filed a brief in support of her as well. She, like Bishoy, was granted the right to practice by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Bishoy’s victory is notable, but it shouldn’t have been necessary. Government agencies— especially the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners—should take the Supreme Court’s consistent decisions on this matter and stop raising barriers that keep qualified professionals from doing their jobs.

You can read the brief here.

Adam Shelton is a Staff Attorney at the Goldwater Institute.

Top Stories

But, Does Nashville Really Need 90,000 New Housing Units by 2034? Will More Units Solve the Problem?

by The Pamphleteer, Oct. 9, 2025- Chris Remke takes a pickaxe to Metro's claim that we need 90,000 new housing units by 2034. As Chris reveals, the city's Unified Housing Strategy vastly overestimates population growth over the next ten years and thus, anticipated housing needs.

The UHS projection anticipates an additional 175,000 people moving to Nashville between 2020 and 2034 – that comes out to 12,500 residents moving to town per year. In actuality, over the past four years, the city has added only 13,621 residents, which translates to approximately 3,205 residents per year.

Read the whole story from Chris below and finish it over on his Substack.

✰   ✰   ✰

Nashville’s housing debate has turned into a numbers game. Big projections, big promises, and bigger development pipelines dominate the conversation. Yet behind the spreadsheets and zoning maps lies a much simpler truth: the supply is there — the affordability is not.

For fifteen years, the city has chased the idea that if we build enough market-rate housing, affordability will follow. That theory, once plausible, now collapses under its own data. The Unified Housing Strategy (UHS) and the Housing & Infrastructure Study (H&I) — the two cornerstone planning documents guiding Metro’s decisions — do not tell the same story. In fact, they reveal the gap at the center of Nashville’s housing crisis.

Nashville is still shell-shocked from a decade of runaway growth. The roads, schools, and storm drains tell the story better than any policy brief. People see it, feel it, and no longer buy the idea that “more growth will fix what growth broke.” Until Metro leaders face the reality that the problem is not a shortage of rooftops but a shortage of affordability and infrastructure, the public will keep tuning them out. Voters have learned the difference between building a city and just building on one — and they are done being told that the cure for congestion, displacement, and rising costs is simply to build more of the same.  (Continue Reading)

Top Stories

Here's The Deal on Health Care subsidies

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, Facebook, Oct. 10, 2025- Republicans and Democrats are negotiating an amendment to the enhanced Obamacare subsidies as a condition of reopening the government. 

The Wall Street Journal reports: 

• Informal discussions have centered on extending enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies temporarily, but with new guardrails meant to trim aid for higher-income families. One cutoff point that has been discussed among Democrats: limiting the subsidies to households at or below $200,000 of income, rather than leaving the benefit uncapped.

• Sen. Angus King (I., Maine), who caucuses with the Democrats, has dubbed his approach the “two and two”—a two-year extension of the subsidy capped at $200,000 of income. Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.) said that a cap would be hard to implement this year, but that discussions were occurring about reducing the subsidy by limiting the benefit to people earning above a certain percentage of the federal poverty line, with some members aiming for the $200,000 cap.

It’s not clear whether they mean they would cap it for an individual earning $200,000 or a family (a married couple) earning $200,000.  

Initially, Obamacare cut off the premium tax credits (subsidies for health insurance premiums) at 400% of FPL.  The “enhanced” credits eliminated that ceiling and increased the subsidies for all the other levels. 

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have apparently agreed to find a new income ceiling to receive the credits and extend them for two more years.  I’ve heard nothing about changes to the other income levels.

The original Obamacare premium tax credits covered 75% or the population that was not receiving Medicaid, Medicare, or employer-sponsored insurance, all of which are subsidized by taxpayers.  The enhanced subsidies covered 100% of the population.  Initially, eligible people were required to get it, and fined if they didn’t. Republicans reduced the fine to $0 in the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, so while it’s technically still mandatory, there’s no penalty for not getting it. 

The enhancement also reduced the effective premium for those at 300-400% of FPL from 9.83% of their income to 8.5%, leaving those above 400% of FPL at 8.5%. 

If you are single and make $200,000, 8.5% of your income is $17,000 ($1,416/month).  That’s far above the unsubsidized cost of a Silver Plan ($500-$650/month) and about the same as the average unsubsidized Silver Plan for a family ($1,500-$1,700/month).  So, it seems like the argument is much ado about not much, but the enhancement also lowered the premiums for those making less than 400% of FPL.   Here’s the comparison.

FPL Range Original ACA (Pre-2021) Enhanced ARPA/IRA (2021–2025)

100–133% 2.07% of income 0% of income

133–150% 3.10–4.14% 0–2%

150–200% 4.14–6.52% 2–4%

200–250% 6.52–8.33% 4–6%

250–300% 8.33–9.83% 6–8.5%

300–400% 9.83% flat (cap) 8.5% flat (cap)

>400% No subsidy Capped at 8.5% of income (new eligibility)

The estimated total cost of the enhanced subsidies is $450 billion over 10 years.

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He was one of the less provocative and bombastic of conservative radio personalities, more thoughtful and grounded in conservative ideas. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Rod's Addendum: For more on this topic, see, Who Gets Healthcare Subsidies Under the Affordable Care Act - WSJ, and Obamacare Will Survive This Election—The Fight Will Be About Paying for It - WSJ

Top Stories

BREAKING: Federal judge grants Illinois restraining order against Trump for Guard deployment

By Jim Talamonti | The Center Square 23 mins ago - A federal judge has granted the state of Illinois’ request for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Trump administration and the U.S. Army from deploying the National Guard in Illinois.

The city of Chicago joined the state in the lawsuit, which was announced Monday morning by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.

Judge April Perry made the ruling from the bench Thursday at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in downtown Chicago.

Perry said not even the most ardent Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, believed one state’s militia could be sent to another state for political retribution.

Christopher Wells, division chief of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, said there is no rebellion in Illinois to justify the deployment of federal troops.

“War and insurrection are heavy words, and the people who wrote the Constitution did not use them lightly,” Wells said in his opening remarks.

Wells cited the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Operation Midway Blitz and argued that federal immigration law is being enforced in Illinois.

“So where is the problem?” Wells asked.

Wells said the the administration has shown animus toward Illinois and the court should restore constitutional balance.

“What the president has done to Illinois is illegal and lawless,” Wells argued.

U.S. Deputy Attorney General Eric Hamilton said the court should deny the state’s motion. Hamilton referred to recent protests at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview and said one “agitator” ripped the beard off the face of an officer, guns were found with two protesters and an improvised explosive device was found at the facility.

Hamilton said “cartels and gangs” placed a $10,000 bounty on a Customs and Border Protection chief.

“In the last week, immigration enforcement vehicles have been rammed by other vehicles at least twice,” Hamilton continued.

Hamilton said it is enough for there to be “danger of a rebellion” and not an actual rebellion for the president to deploy federalized National Guard troops.

“This deployment is lawful,” Hamilton said.

Hamilton said the federal government offered Gov. J.B. Pritzker the opportunity to deploy the Illinois National Guard and keep army troops in Illinois under the governor’s command.

“That offer remains open to Gov. Pritzker today,” Hamilton said.

Perry granted attorneys for both sides three extra minutes of opening arguments after they exceeded the allotted time she provided.

The judge asked Hamilton about the number of National Guard troops to be deployed, which was currently set at about 200 from Texas and 300 from Illinois, but Hamilton did not say there was any maximum number.

Perry asked if the troops could be deployed outside Cook County anywhere in Illinois.

“It could be,” Hamilton answered.

Perry said the court had not received a request for additional federal protection at the Dirksen federal building on Friday.

Perry asked Hamilton for a distinction between the National Guard and law enforcement.

“The Guard are not authorized to carry out arrests or anything like that,” Hamilton said, adding that the troops could “temporarily detain.”

The judge asked if the Guard could engage in traffic control or “brandish weapons” in the street.

“I don’t have information to provide on that,” Hamilton said.

“Are they allowed to pursue individuals or vehicles?” Perry asked.

“I don’t recall anything like that,” Hamilton replied.

“Will they be solving crime in Chicago?” Perry asked.

“Certainly, to an extent. The mission is a federally protective one,” Hamilton said, citing the violence aimed at immigration enforcement officers.

Hamilton said the Guard deployment was not intended to solve all crime in Chicago.

“This is a federal protective mission,” Hamilton said.

Perry said there is a disconnect between the federal government’s court filings and Trump’s public statements.

“The president is entitled to great deference here,” Hamilton argued.

The judge said she understood that the president was entitled to deference but she was troubled by which specific actions the Guard would employ to “solve crime.”

“Even plaintiffs agree that there has been violence,” Hamilton said.

Perry cited the arrest of two protesters with guns who faced charges that were later dropped and said people exercising their Second Amendment right was not evidence of criminality.

The judge suggested that, under Hamilton’s arguments, any nonviolent protest could be considered a rebellion and any federal agency that needs “an assist” could get National Guard deployment.

The judge said the case might be different if the administration only argued for Guard deployment at federal property and in support of federal immigration enforcement.

“I am very much struggling to figure out where this would ever stop,” Perry said.

The judge referred to potential issues with “peaceful protesters” several times and questioned whether “petty acts of vandalism” were preventing federal officials from enforcing the law.

Perry then questioned Wells and asked if he believed the president could take 500 soldiers from Naval Station Great Lakes and send them down to Broadview?

“We have a significant line between state and local law enforcement and the military,” Wells said.

Wells discussed public virtues and said the Trump administration had a “terrifying” pattern of conduct.

Wells said the president did have power and was using it.

“This court can check that power,” Wells said.

In his concluding remarks, Hamilton argued that the current situation represents an unusual threat to federal personnel and property.

“The president’s judgment is unreviewable,” Hamilton said.

The deputy attorney general cited “deference to the president” multiple times.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker spoke earlier Wednesday and expressed confidence the judge would rule in favor of his state.

“So imagine what the social media will look like when National Guard troops are having to turn around and turn tail and head back to Texas when they’re ordered to do so. I think they should take notice that is exactly what will happen,” Pritzker asserted.

Earlier Wednesday, Pritzker said Trump and his attorneys made court filings to try to make federal deployments look legal.

“They’re saying it’s about protecting a facility. They’re saying it’s about protecting ICE officers, agents. The president repeatedly, even after all the claims that this is about protecting facilities and people, because he started with he wants to deploy people because of crime,” Pritzker said.

Trump also spoke Wednesday and thanked Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

“Governor Abbott, he gave us 400 troops without even a question. We have other governors likewise doing what has to be done, because they know we have to confront crime,” the president said.

Trump questioned why the governor would want to block the National Guard deployment.

“I don’t understand why Pritzker’s trying to protect people that are really bad,” Trump said.

U.S. Army Major General Niave Knell of U.S. Northern Command stated in a court filing late Wednesday that there were approximately 200 federalized National Guard personnel in Illinois. Knell stated that the scope of the National Guard activities would be in response to requests by federal government agents and agencies only when they are related to the protection of federal personnel performing official functions.

Knell said there was a request the Department of Homeland Security for protection support at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview. The second request was from the Federal Protective Service to support protection at the federal courthouse in Friday, Oct. 10, due to “two high-profile cases” involving DHS activities and personnel.

On Thursday morning, Virginia M. Kendall, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, released a statement saying that the U.S. Marshals Service has jurisdiction over interior and exterior security at the Dirksen courthouse.

“While the Federal Protective Service has authority in most federal buildings, the United States Marshals Service has that primary responsibility at the Dirksen Courthouse. I trust and rely upon the men and women of the United States Marshals Service and the Court Security Officers to provide security at the Dirksen Courthouse; this includes the perimeter of the building. At no point did I, nor did the Building Security Committee, authorize or request the National Guard's assistance to secure the Dirksen Courthouse,” the judge stated.

U.S. Northern Command announced Wednesday evening, the Texas National Guard are employed in the greater Chicago area. 

"Approximately 200 soldiers from various units of the Texas National Guard and approximately 300 soldiers from various units of the Illinois National Guard were activated into a Title 10 status and have arrived in the greater Chicago area," the agency said. 

The guardsmen were mobilized for an initial period of 60 days.

The village of Broadview said approximately 45 Texas National Guard soldiers arrived Wednesday evening.

"During their patrols, Broadview police officers observed the vans parked in the rear of 2000 25th Ave and all of the guards were sleeping," a statement from the village said. "We let them sleep undisturbed. We hope that they will extend the same courtesy in the coming days to Broadview residents who deserve a good night’s sleep, too. #TiredTexans.”

Illinois State Police said in a statement their unified command with local, county and state emergency management and law enforcement is separate from the activities of the National Guard. ISP had previously announced then unified command's focus last week. 

"In addition to protecting the safety and rights of people peacefully expressing their views, these measures will also ensure that third parties that need access to the facility – including attorneys and legal representatives, people bringing medicine to detainees, and representatives from foreign consulates – will maintain clear points of access to the facility," ISP said Oct. 3.  

Rod's Comment: I'm pleased. 

Top Stories