Trump, Tucker, Megan, Alex and Candace

by JIM GERAGHTY, National Review, Morning Jolt, April 10, 2026 - The president of the United States would like you to know that he no longer thinks highly of Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones:

They’re stupid people, they know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it, too! Look at their past, look at their record. They don’t have what it takes, and they never did! They’ve all been thrown off Television, lost their Shows, and aren’t even invited on TV because nobody cares about them, they’re NUT JOBS, TROUBLEMAKERS, and will say anything necessary for some “free” and cheap publicity. Now they think they get some “clicks” because they have Third Rate Podcasts, but nobody’s talking about them, and their views are the opposite of MAGA. . . .

.... Alex Jones being a nut job is . . . not really a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention in the past . . . oh, couple decades or so? I suspect you have known this for so long, you can’t even remember if there was ever a time when you didn’t think Jones was crazy. (There apparently was a time when some people saw him as nutty but amusing and harmless; Jones makes a cameo appearance as a street preacher in the 2001 Richard Linklater animated film Waking Life; Linklater said years later that at the time, Jones was just a funny-crazy public-access TV host in Austin, Texas.)

And yet, unlike our president, I suspect you’ve never agreed to appear on his program. If Trump is irked that someone that he deems a “nut job” and “troublemaker” has the profile that he does . . . well, Mr. President, you helped elevate him. (We should also note that many mainstream media programs, convinced that they were rebutting and refuting Jones’s views also ended up unwittingly elevating him along the way.)

The rapid rise of Candace Owens reflected the fact that the conservative movement desperately wants to see more young people, minorities, and women join the movement, and thus many conservatives get extremely excited whenever a young minority woman comes along and appears to be saying the right things. Alas, the warning signs about Owens were there from the start. Way back in 2019, addressing an event in London, she offered an . . . unorthodox interpretation of World War II:

Whenever we say nationalism, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. . . . He was a national socialist. But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine. The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German.

That is . . . not really the core problem with Hitler. To paraphrase the late and dearly missed Norm Macdonald, I think the worst part was all the genocide, not the “dreams outside of Germany.” Yes, the annexation of other nations was quite bad and makes the list, but I suspect that when going through “the problems with Hitler,” you must work your way down a long list of horrible large-scale crimes against humanity until you get to Hitler’s yearning for linguistic conformity.

You know who concluded, “I’ve studied a lot of history, plus I had family that was there, I don’t think Hitler was a good guy”? Alex Jones.

In the years since, Owens did not get any saner, nor is there much evidence that she’s learned much since her denunciation of Hitler as a globalist. And yet, once again, President Trump agreed to an interview with her and helped elevate her profile.

As for Tucker Carlson, the question “What happened to Carlson?” has been echoing around the right-of-center world for years. Many speculate that what we have seen in recent years reflects the real, probably long-repressed Carlson, unconstrained by cable news television show producers, editors, network lawyers, corporate programming heads, and so on.

There’s no one around to tell Carlson, “Hey, a softball interview with Nick Fuentes isn’t such a good idea,” or “No, the U.S. should not have allied with Hitler during World War II,” or “No, Winston Churchill was not the chief villain during World War II,” nor is the standard of living of Russians better than that of Americans.

...Anyway, Carlson has interviewed Trump many times, both on his Fox News program and at least three times on his post-Fox podcast. Once again, Trump is fuming about a media personality that he helped elevate. Trump even had Carlson speak at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

Megyn Kelly . . . eh, I guess I can’t make fun of anyone who’s ever appeared on her program, as I myself appeared a bunch of times, in better, saner days. I don’t know why she’s going on about Mark Levin’s genitalia. I am sure that Levin is quite angry with Kelly, and vice versa. I do not think that Levin would like to have Kelly killed, as she recently asserted.

. ...  if President Trump is really that upset that he constantly feels betrayed by individuals who he thought were his allies and friends . . . maybe he needs to be more discerning in who he considers allies and friends.

Top Stories

Megan Kelly Turns on Trump:

by Rod Williams, April 9, 2026- Megan Kelly is another pundit who has turned on Trump for his threat to commit genocide against Iran. 

Like Tucker, she is a significant voice in Trump world. The hardcore Trump cult members will never be persuaded that Trump is wrong about anything. Those without a bad case of Trump Devotion Syndrome or Trump Delusion Syndrome may be persuadable. They are much more likely to be persuaded by Tucker Carlson or Megan Kelly than by someone like Rachel Maddow or other lefty pundit. This podcast needs to be shared. 

Top Stories

Tucker Carlson Turns on Trump in Powerful Denunciation of Trump's Easter F-bomb-Laden Rant.

by Rod Williams, April 9, 2026 - I am happy to see war among MAGA. When the most horrible people turn on each other, it gives me joy. 

Unless one purposely avoids knowing what goes on in the world, one probably knows about Trump's profanity-laden Easter Truth Social post in which he dropped the F-bomb, threatened war crimes, and praised Allah.

Trump's Easter post certainly was offensive. I, however, have kind of become numb to the offensive things Trump says and does, and can no longer be shocked. 

If I had woken up this morning and learned Trump had dropped a nuclear bomb on Iran, I would be outraged, fearful, sad, and would experience other emotions, but would not be shocked. 

If, as we approach the mid-term elections, Trump declares that several American cities are in a state of insurrection and therefore we must suspend the elections, I would be alarmed and outraged but would not be shocked. 

Given Trump's coup attempt, his abusive use of the pardon power, his crooked business dealings, his trampling of the Constitution, denial of due process, sending innocent people to torture prisons, his continuing cover up of the Epstein files, his threats to use force to annex portions of allied countries, and his unleashing of armed paramilitary thugs to murder protestors on the streets of American cities, Trump's Easter rant was not the most outrageous or offensive thing he has ever done. 

Given all that Trump has done that is offensive, I am somewhat surprised that the Trump F-bomb Easter post is the thing that causes elements of his coalition to turn on him. Candace Owens has turned on Trump. Marjorie Taylor Green had already turned on Trump but found the Easter F-bomb post particularly offensive. Alex Jones has turned on Trump over that post and the war, and a bunch of other MAGA influencers have done so.

Some of those who turned on Trump are so marginalized that I think they are irrelevant. You have to really be on the far edge of the political spectrum to care what conspiracy theorist Alex Jones thinks. It was Alex Jones who alleged the Sandy Hook school shooting was a red flag operation and the dead children were really actors. I doubt Alex Jones influence ranges far beyond the weirdest of people

As for Marjorie Taylor Greene, she is out of office and slipping into irrelevance. While I am glad to see her turn on Trump, she seems to have a screw loose and may be crazier than Trump. After she attributed California wildfires to Jewish space lasers, I think her credibility has been diminished. Some of the other MAGA influencers who have turned on Trump have little influence.  

Candace Owens is a major public figure and she has turned o n Trump. However, if you have followed her fixation on the Charlie Kirk assassination, she has woven such a complicated tale that she seems unhinged. Her conspiracy theory involves the French Foreign Legion, Kirk's widow Erica, the Jews, Israel, an Egyptian military contractor, Calvary Church, the CIA, other people in Turning Point USA, and various others. I can't keep track. I assume people still watch her for the entertainment value, but I suspect the number of people she actually influences is quite limited. 

Tucker turning on Trump is different. It is significant. Tucker Carlson is the most influential pundit in America.  Neither the big legacy newspapers, 60 Minutes, PBS Newshour, This Week, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNow, CNN, nor Fox have the reach of Tucker Carlson. Also, Tucker has been one of Trump's most vocal supporters. Sure, Calson is a propagandist for Putin and platforms neo-Nazis, but most of the time, he sounds reasonable. He spreads conspiracy theories, but for the most part, he sounds rational. Of course, there was the claim by Carlson that he was physically attacked and "mauled" by a demon while sleeping in his bed, leaving him with bleeding claw marks on his ribs and shoulder. Other than this "demonic encounter," Carlson sounds relatively sane.

Carlson turning on Trump should matter. I wonder if it will. I wonder how much. Many Trump loyalists are like cult members who will follow the leader anywhere. They will do a 180 on free trade, on the importance of alliances, on support for the First Amendment, and will excuse immoral behavior that they once would have condemned. Many have "drank the Kool-Aid." Others, I suspect, however, still have a modicum of human decency and can still reason. Maybe some of those will be persuaded by Tucker Carlson's arguments. 

Tucker Carlson's denunciation of Trump is powerful. It needs to be shared.

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Bill Requiring Citizenship Database Checks for Voter Registration Heads to Governor’s Desk

 The bill would require verification of citizenship status in Tennessee at the point of voter registration through a federal database with reports of high error rates

by Anita Wadhwani, Tennessee Lookout, April 7, 2026 - A bill authorizing county election administrators to verify Tennessee voters’ immigration status through a federal database is on its way to the governor’s desk after Senate Republicans on Monday voted to approve the measure. 

The bill (SB2204/HB2185) by Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson of Franklin and House Leader William Lamberth of Sumner County, both Republicans, is dependent on whether the United States Department of Homeland Security makes the data available to state election officials via a secure web service known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).

Current law already requires voters to attest to their citizenship status when registering to vote: the state then verifies citizenship using state and federal data sources.

Johnson said the bill was intended to intercept potentially fraudulent registration at the point of voter registration.

“This bill would allow election officials to use SAVE data during the initial application review,” Johnson said. 

Sen. Raumesh Akbari, a Memphis Democrat, cited high error rates that have occurred in verifying citizenship status through the SAVE system in the past.

The system is routinely used to verify citizenship eligibility for a variety of public services with a low error rate. But in states such as Texas, which has deployed the SAVE checks for voter registration, some county election officials mistakenly flagged voters as noncitizens upwards at high rates, up to 14% of the time, according to reporting by Pro Publica and the Texas Tribune.

 Johnson said existing election law already provides potential voters denied registration with an appeals process.

“You can bring appropriate documentation for consideration by the election administrator, election coordinator, so all of those provisions will remain in place,” Johnson said. “So someone is falsely deemed to be ineligible to vote under this system, they would have a mechanism to appeal and provide the necessary documentation,” he said. 

The bill, already in the House, was passed on a party-line 27-6 vote Monday in the Senate. 

If signed into law by Gov. Bill Lee, the bill’s implementation would remain contingent on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security working with Tennessee’s election officials to “create a secure, electronic portal through which each county administrator of elections may access information” by 2028 to verify citizenship status.

Separately the similarly-named federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act would require states such as Tennessee to create mechanisms to verify immigration status upon voter registration. The measure, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year, requires voters to provide proof of citizenship at the point of voter registration. The U.S. Senate has yet to take up a vote on the measure. 

#

For more on this topic, see:

NPR: Trump's SAVE tool is looking for noncitizen voters. But it's flagging U.S. citizens too
The Brennan Center for Justice: Homeland Security’s “SAVE” Program Exacerbates Risks to Voters

Wikipedia: Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements

UPI: Trump's election order, SAVE Act, rely on 'flawed' system

Top Stories

Thank You for Reading and Sharing

My blog reached a new level of viewership. It exceeded one million views in the last thirty days. Thank you for reading and sharing. 

Top Stories

Hegseth Removes Army Chief in Latest Purge of Military’s Top Ranks

by Marcus Weisgerber and Michael R. Gordon, Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2026 - Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ousted the Army’s top general Thursday, the latest top military leader removed in a Pentagon that has seen a purge of its top ranks under the Trump administration.

Gen. Randy George’s departure was announced by the Pentagon, which provided no reason for his removal. The Army chief of staff normally serves four years, and George, who gave no indication he had been preparing to retire, assumed his post in September 2023.

A defense official confirmed that Hegseth asked George to retire early. ... Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Adm. Linda Fagan, commandant of the Coast Guard, and Gen. Timothy Haugh, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency, were also removed from their positions under the Trump administration.

Top Stories

Rep. Ogles Says Immigrants Bring Crime to US, Rip Off Taxpayers—What are the Facts?

 

Top Stories

Liberation Day Was One Year Ago: Did the President’s Tariff Promises Happen?

by Erica York, Emily Kraschel, The Tax Foundation, published March 30, 2026 - A year ago on April 2, President Trump charted a new course for US trade, calling it “Liberation Day.” The president said his idea was simple: the US would charge the same tariffs as our trading partners. With this new regime in place, Trump made a host of promises:

1. These tariffs would mark the day “American industry was reborn.”
2. They would “make Americans wealthy.”
3. Reciprocal tariffs would “bring in trillions and trillions of dollars to pay down America’s debt.”
4. “Jobs and factories,” he claimed, “will come roaring back.”
5. The new production enabled by the tariffs would “lower prices for consumers.”

At the height of the trade war—including the “Liberation Day” and other tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), plus sector-specific tariffs imposed under Section 232 authorities—the tariff rates were the highest since 1911, constituting a $3.2 trillion tax hike over a decade.

One year later, the evidence shows the tariffs were not reciprocal, did not generate the promised investment boom, raised less revenue than projected, and contributed to higher prices.

Were the Tariffs Reciprocal?

Recalling how the Liberation Day tariffs were calculated and imposed under IEEPA shows they were not reciprocal.

While the president said his idea was simple—apply the same tariffs to trade partners that they apply to us—the tariffs actually imposed were a far stretch from that. They were not based on observed foreign trade barriers or tariff schedules. Instead, the United States Trade Representative’s office converted each country’s bilateral goods trade balance into a synthetic tariff rate with a 10 percent minimum. Because bilateral goods trade balances do not measure trade barriers, the resulting tariffs had no relationship with other countries’ trade barriers.

And those tariffs changed many, many times between the April 2 announcement and February 2026, when the Supreme Court ruled the authority under which Trump imposed them did not authorize tariffs.

The first major change came just days after the Liberation Day speech in a back-and-forth escalation with China that took the US tariff rate to 125 percent for a month while the country-specific rates on other trading partners were delayed. During that period, the US applied tariff rate reached 21.5 percent under the combination of the IEEPA tariffs (baseline tariffs and higher country-specific tariffs) and Section 232 sector-specific tariffs.

In the months that followed, US tariff policy changed more than 50 times, spanning rate increases, rate decreases, new product exemptions, and new product inclusions. After multiple sets of exemptions, by the end of 2025, the IEEPA tariffs affected just 42 percent of US imports, and the applied tariff rate had fallen from its high of 21.5 percent to 13.6 percent before the Supreme Court ruling. Rather than ask whether the predictions made when tariffs were at their peak levels came to pass, the relevant question is whether the tariffs, as they were actually imposed, achieved the administration’s stated goals.

US Tariffs Changed More Than 50 Times Under Trump, Peaking at 21.5%

Did Investment and Jobs Pour into the United States?

The data does not support claims of a large investment surge. During his Liberation Day remarks, President Trump claimed the US would see a rebirth of industries, with jobs and investment pouring into the United States. He claimed the US had already seen $6 trillion of investment and would see even more by year’s end. Throughout the year, he has claimed up to $18 trillion in new foreign investment into the United States.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) into the United States has seen no such dramatic spikes. In 2025, FDI totaled $288.4 billion—more than an order of magnitude smaller than President Trump’s claims. Total FDI in 2025 was below the prior 10 years’ average of $320.7 billion and lower than the annual totals in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 ($405.5 billion, $338.4 billion, $297.4 billion, and $292.3 billion, respectively).

While various firms and countries have pledged, sometimes vaguely, to increase US investment, so far, those investments have not shown up in broad macroeconomic statistics. Aggregate FDI flows have remained within a typical range rather than exhibiting a sharp increase.

Neither has employment in the manufacturing sector reversed the trend. Manufacturing employment has continued to decline after Liberation Day, declining by 89,000 jobs between April 2025 and February 2026. The decline is broadly consistent with pre-existing trends.

The volatility in both rates and coverage created significant policy uncertainty, which likely weighed on investment and hiring decisions.

Foreign Direct Investment Has Not Spiked as Trump Claimed

Did the Tariffs Make the Federal Government Wealthier?

Tariffs increased federal revenue, but fell far short of the Trump administration’s claims and did not pay down the national debt.

President Trump asserted that in the 1880s, when tariffs were high, the US was proportionately the wealthiest it had ever been: at that time, the federal government ran large budget surpluses because taxes generated more revenue for the government than it spent. President Trump often refers to the Congressional Commissions of that day, which were tasked with addressing the budgetary surpluses. They did so by increasing government spending, which proved unpopular in the 1890s.

While tariffs were the main source of federal revenue then, total spending was an order of magnitude lower, averaging under 3 percent of GDP rather than roughly 23 percent of GDP in 2025. The taxes that funded the federal government of the 1880s mathematically cannot raise enough revenue to fund the federal government today.

President Trump predicted tariffs would “direct hundreds of billions of dollars and even trillions of dollars into our Treasury to strengthen our economy and pay down debt.” And his advisors, such as Peter Navarro, estimated that the new tariffs would bring in $600 billion a year.

The Liberation Day tariffs undoubtedly raised taxes for the US Treasury—but far short of what the Trump administration predicted. Before the Court ruled against the IEEPA tariffs in February, they generated approximately $166 billion in tariff payments. Altogether, tariffs brought in $264 billion in customs duties from January through December 2025, accounting for 4.9 percent of total tax receipts for the calendar year. The net revenue generated by the tariffs is less, because tariffs mechanically reduce how much revenue is raised by income and payroll taxes. Though the tariffs increased tax revenues while they were in effect, federal debt has continued to grow under President Trump.

Did Tariffs Affect Prices and Employment?

Tariffs raised prices and weighed on economic activity, contrary to claims that they would be paid by foreign countries, lower consumer costs, and boost economic activity.

President Trump and his advisors have repeatedly asserted that Americans would not have to pay the tariffs, and the president even suggested that under the tariffs, “more production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers.”

Tariffs are taxes on imports legally paid by the importer, and economically paid by a combination of imports, downstream businesses, final consumers, and foreign sellers. By raising the cost of imported goods, tariffs increase relative prices and can also lead domestic producers to raise prices in response. Tariffs can also affect employment in the short run as firms may lay off workers (or slow hiring) to hold employment costs (including the new taxes) fixed.  

While research is still ongoing into both the price and employment effects of the tariffs in 2025, the findings so far are contrary to President Trump’s claims. The new tariffs have passed through to the US economy, lifting prices for importers and retail consumers and weighing down hiring.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has attributed much of the remaining inflation to tariffs, explaining in a recent press conference: “These elevated readings largely reflect inflation in the goods sector, which has been boosted by the effects of tariffs.”

Research from the Pricing Lab at Harvard estimates that through October 2025, tariff pass-through to retail prices reached 24 percent, contributing a cumulative 0.76 percentage points to Consumer Price Index inflation. Prices for imported goods and for domestic substitutes have both risen. Initial research from the Kansas City Fed suggests (albeit with high levels of uncertainty) that tariffs likely reduced employment growth in 2025.

Additional research from the Federal Reserve found that rather than a sudden, one-time price hike after the tariffs were imposed, price pressure developed gradually and retailers slowly adjusted prices over time. The same uncertainty that held back investment and hiring may have also been an important factor limiting retail-level pass-through in 2025.

Conclusion

One year after Liberation Day, the evidence does not support the administration’s central claims about how tariffs were supposed to benefit the American economy. The tariffs were not reciprocal, did not produce a surge in investment or manufacturing employment, generated less revenue than projected, did not pay down the national debt, and contributed to higher prices and weaker economic activity. As policymakers consider future tariff actions under alternative authorities, these outcomes provide important context for evaluating the likely economic effects of continued trade restrictions.

Top Stories

Nashville anchored Tennessee's population growth in 2025

by Rod Williams, April 1, 2026- Axios Nashville reports that Davidson County remained the fastest-growing county in Tennessee in 2005, according to new U. S. Census data. This growth represents a 1.3% increase year over year.  This growth was powered primarily by domestic migration. However, that level of domestic migration is declining, while at the same time, there has been a sharp decrease in international migration attributed to President Trump's crackdown on immigration. Davidson County had a population boost of 14,102 from international migration in 2024. In 2025, that number fell 58%, to 5,887.

Davidson County added nearly 9,300 new residents in 2025, according to the Census numbers. That's the highest raw total among all of Tennessee's 95 counties by a solid margin.  The surrounding suburban counties have been growing at an even higher rate for years.  Rutherford, Wilson, Williamson and Sumner counties were all in the state's top 10 for population growth from 2024 to 2025.

The Axios article says that seemingly every major challenge — and opportunity — facing Nashville right now traces back to its propulsive growth: skyrocketing home prices, traffic snarls, eye-popping tax bills, transformative construction projects, innovation, new corporations and big-ticket jobs.

I am gung-ho for Nashville and love this city and would not want to live anywhere else. However, I am actually pleased to see Nashville's growth slow. I wish it had slowed about twenty years ago. I liked Nashville better when you could go someplace and find a parking space on the street and when you did not have to use a QC code and your cell phone to park. 

I know Nashville has a vibrancy that many cities lack, and the growth has brought a slew of fine dining establishments. Nashville is a top-tier culinary destination, boasting several Michelin-starred restaurants. I will probably never eat in one of them. However, part of this growth has brought about a slew of ethnic restaurants. One has a choice of Pho places, sushi restaurants, Thai, Kurdish and Turkish, Ethiopian, Persian, Greek, lots of Mexican, other Latin American restaurants, and various others. It you are adventurous, there are some real dining bargains to be had.   I like that. The cultural diversity has made Nashville more interesting, also. I enjoy the Festival of Cultures, Cinco de Mayo events, Chinese New Year events, St. Patrick's Day parade, and all of the neighborhood festivals. Without growth, we would not have all of this. 

Nashville has attracted a lot of high-income jobs. However, it seems that those jobs are most often filled by new people who follow the jobs to Nashville. I am not sure those high-paying jobs helped many existing Nashvillians. Of course, all of these people moving here and earning the big bucks does generate economic growth. People are building houses, cleaning houses, working in the many restaurants, and providing all of the other services that those making the big bucks need. But it seems the highest wage earners are people who moved to Nashville and not existing Nashvillians.

Along with the new high-paying jobs came more expensive housing, leaving many Nashvillians unable to afford to live here. It is simple economics. When you have a young couple, each earning a six-figure income, they can pay more for a home and that bids up the price of all homes.

Metro Nashville Davidson County Public School Enrollment

I find it interesting that as Nashville has been growing at a rate of about 1.3% per year, our student enrollment in public schools has been dropping. That could be because the people moving to Nashville are young, childless couples, or because those who can afford to send their children to private schools do so, or a combination of factors, but I find that interesting and think it is worthy of research. I have not done the research, but I would suspect that young families are moving to the suburban counties where schools are better, there is less crime, and housing is a little less expensive, and one can have a yard. Nashville gets the hip, affluent, childish couples and single adults; the suburbs get the families.  

Maybe it is just an impression and not based on data, but I have a feeling that many of those moving to Nashville are not forming deep connections to our city. I suspect they cast votes for Democrats just because that is what hip people do, but don't really care that much about how the city is governed. They don't really care about the quality of our schools and don't mind paying higher taxes, because they can afford it. I suspect they do not feel a deep connection to the city. I think many of the newcommers find things like stock car racing, flea markets, and meat-and-three dinners an embarrassment. The new Nashville is hip and prefers expensive coffee shops and soccer to flea markets and meat and three diners.

While Nashville has problems, it is not as crime-ridden and dysfunctional as many other Democrat led cites, but it continues to become less affordable, and the tax burden continues to rise. Maybe I am just an old man yearning for the good old days, but I don't think so. I think there is something to be said for slow and steady, familiarity, and modest, adaptable change, preserving the personality of a community, and being able to find a place to park. I wish we had pulled up the drawbridge about twenty years ago. Slowing growth is fine with me. 

Top Stories

Ogles meets with sanctioned Russian State Duma delegation in DC

 Leading the delegation is Vyacheslav Nikonov, grandson of Stalin’s Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who drew lines in the 1939 pact that divided Eastern Europe between Nazi Germany and the USSR.

by Vivian Jones, The Tennessean, March 27, 2026- U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles was among the five members of Congress organized by U.S. Rep Anna Paulina Luna who met with a delegation of sanctioned Russian State Duma officials visiting Washington on March 26.

The meeting came despite sanctions imposed by Washington in light of Moscow’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

... “We will continue to foster this dialogue and push for peace in support of this admins push for peace, as well as economic opportunity,” Ogles wrote.

Nikonov has described Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine as “truly a holy war” and “a metaphysical clash between the forces of good and evil.” (link)

Top Stories

What I Saw at the Revolution: No Kings, March 28, 2026

 

by Rod Williams, March 28, 2026- I almost talked myself out of going to the "No Kings" rally today. I

just wasn't feeling it. I have attended all three previous big anti-Trump rallies that have taken place here in Nashville. The first one was also organized by Indivisible also, but they had not yet adopted the "No Kings" label, and it was called "Hands Off Our Democracy" and was held in Centennial Park at Musicians Corner back in April 2025. I then attended the one on the Bi-Centennial Mall in June 2025, and the most recent one before today's, held on the big hill on the North side of the Capitol in October 2025. 

I don't know why I was not feeling the desire to do today's rally. I guess it is partly been-there-done-that, and maybe a feeling that it is kind of pointless. I am not sure how much impact these really have. When I attended the prior rallies, I felt a passion for showing my displeasure at Trump's authoritarianism, and things are much worse now. When I attended the other three anti-Trump rallies, Trump's paramilitary thugs had not murdered citizens on the streets of our cities yet, and yet my passion to show my displeasure at Trump was greater then than now. Attending those rallies felt cathartic. I didn't feel that need today. I guess I am getting numb or used to what is happening. 

Maybe one reason I almost did not attend is that my family, who are to my left politically, skipped this rally. If those who have always supported liberal causes are not making this a priority, why should I? I did end up attending, however, reasoning that a smaller turnout will send a signal that the public is just accepting Trump's authoritarianism and the wind is out of the sails of the opposition. I attended more out of a sense that I should than a desire or need. 

Before attending my first anti-Trump rally, I was apprehensive about rallying with a bunch of leftists. I feared the vibe would be left-wing with displays of anti-Americanism. It was not. Sure, there were some signs I disagreed with supporting liberal causes, but for the most part, the messaging was pro-democracy and pro-decency. I did not feel terribly out of place.

Today's vibe was much different than the other three events. Upon arriving at the site, a pro-trans chant was taking place. Now, I am pretty tolerant of deviancy as long as it is consensual and doesn't involve children. If Trump's paramilitary force was actually picking up and imprisoning trans people without due process, I might would join the chant, but that is not the case, and I did not plan to attend a pro-trans event.

The next thing that grabbed my attention was a large Communist banner with hammer and sickle. There were also some Democratic Socialists of America banners and Antifa Banners.  Now, I recognize that any mass political movement is going to have some oddballs and fringe people. However, I recall my Tea Party days and other political events I have attended.  If at any of those events, a group would have had a swastika banner, they would have been denounced from the stage and would have been asked to leave. I accept that a mass political movement has to be "big tent," but I don't want to be in a tent big enough for Nazis or Communists. 

The speeches from the stage were not just a renunciation of Trump's authoritarianism and corruption but calls for universal health care and denunciation of income inequality and rich people, and corporations, and other messages that I do not agree with. One of the speeches was a partisan campaign speech by Jerri Green, Democratic Party candidate for Governor. I don't know if the speeches at the other rallies were as partisan liberal as these or not. At the other three rallies, they had terrible sound systems with small speakers, and I really could not hear the speeches. At today's rally, there were nice large speakers and one could hear clearly. It would have been better if I could not have heard the speeches. 

It was impossible for me to judge the size of the crowd. The event was held in the amphitheater bowl in the park formerly known as Cumberland, on the east side of the river between the Korean Veterans Blvd. bridge and the John Seigenthaler Pedestrian Bridge. The site is not that large and people were not packed in tight, but there were a lot of people gathered on the pedestrian bridge and in the park area outside of the amphitheater. I don't know, but I would estimate the crowd was smaller than the last two rallies. 

I saw several Gadsen flags and I think a Gadsen Flag is appropriate to protest
Trump's authoritarianism. I talked to this couple. They were pretty non-political and
had never before attended a protest. 

After the speeches and group chants ended, the crowd was to march from the park formerly known as Cumberland, across the pedestrian bridge up Third Ave. to the Public Square Park in front of the courthouse. I am unsure if there were to be more rally activity at the end of the march or if the crowd was simply to disband once it reached the courthouse park. 

I thought maybe she was at the wrong protest and was supposed to 
be on lower Broadway, but there was a logic to her sign, but I can't
explain it. 

I almost called it a day, when the march began. I will not want to take part in activity that blocks streets or stops traffic, and I did not know what the plan was. Also, some were chanting "Whose Streets?" - "Our Streets!" I did go however; I joined the tail end of the march so I could abort if they were illegally blocking traffic. As it turns out, they were not taking the streets. The police had the street blocked off to accommodate the marchers. 

I followed the crowd as far as Broadway, then went up Broadway to A.J's, had one beer, listened to two good country songs by the band, then called it a day. I think I may have attended my last "No Kings" rally. 

?

Top Stories