More Free Money!

by Ralph Bristol, Feb. 22, 2026 - Politicians don’t need much of an excuse to send out “free money” to voters, and the Supreme Court ruling Friday that nullified more than $100 billion in collected tariffs has members of Congress, and others, licking their chops. 

There’s no way to know how much extra you or I have paid, but a couple of organizations, the Tax Foundation and Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have come up with numbers ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 per family.  California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker have demanded refunds of at least $1,700 per household for their residents. 

While there are multiple studies that show American importers and consumers have borne roughly 90% of the burden of the IEEPA tariffs, which the court struck down in its 6-3 decision Friday, none of the studies break down how much was passed on from the importers to the consumer. 

Legally, the refunds are owed to the thousands of importers who have filed suit and thousands more who will apply for the refunds because of the decision.  Consumers are not owed a refund as a result of the decision. Importers are. Consumers are not. 

That doesn’t mean consumers – well, some consumers – won’t be the beneficiaries of the ruling.  Even before the ruling, President Trump was talking about sending out $2,000 refunds to consumers of “moderate income.”  Congress will no doubt want in on that, although Democrats and Republicans will spin the refund differently to match their own agendas.

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.

Top Stories

A Disgusting, Disgraceful Fascist Flourish

Hanging Donald Trump’s photo on the nerve center of federal law enforcement is a disgusting, disgraceful fascist flourish, an official admission that the department now belongs to the president’s cult of personality. - Nick Catoggio, The Dispatch, Feb.21, 2026

Top Stories

A Political Movement Defined by What it Hates will Eventually Love Power

by Rod Williams, Feb. 21, 2026- As I have watched the Republican Party and major elements of the conservative movement abandon every principle that once expoused, I have been dismayed and disappointed and often felt betrayed. I have pondered how it could have happened. In the editorial below, I think Diogo Costa provides the answer.

Diogo Costa

by Diogo Costa, President, Foundation for Economic Education, Feb. 21, 2026 - A political movement defined by what it hates will eventually love power, because power is the easiest way to punish what it hates.

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs last week, ruling 6–3 that he had exceeded his authority. The principle at stake, that government power must be constrained by law, that no president is above the constitutional structure, was for decades a constitutive commitment of American conservatism. From Goldwater to Reagan to the Tea Party, there was an entire intellectual project built on it. And for decades the antagonistic energy pointed the same way, as conservatives defended separation of powers against Obama’s executive orders, against every expansion of presidential authority that served progressive ends.

Then the executive power became theirs. Now, the president calls the justices who went against his tariffs “fools and lap dogs,” “unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.” But “disloyal to our Constitution” no longer meant what it once meant. It meant disloyal to the president. The Constitution was no longer invoked as a principle, but as a loyalty test. Many of those now denouncing the ruling once championed free trade and warned against executive overreach as foundational conservative commitments. The principle did not change. The power did. And those for whom the principle had never been anchored in anything deeper than opposition followed the power.

Every political movement contains two orientations. One is constitutive: it knows what it stands for. For classical liberals, this means individual freedom, voluntary exchange, human dignity, institutional pluralism, the dispersed knowledge no central authority can replicate. The other orientation is antagonistic: it knows what it stands against. The enemy might be as real as socialism, identitarianism, progressive overreach, bureaucratic capture… but opposition becomes the organizing center of the project. This is not to say that antagonism is a corruption of politics. Every political movement pushes against something: from abolitionism to economic liberal reforms. The question is which orientation is load-bearing: the constitutive or the antagonistic. When the two point in the same direction, they feel like a single commitment. But when they pull apart, each person follows whichever thread runs deeper.

Free speech shows this kind of drift. The ACLU progressive in the 1990s defends the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, because the principle protects everyone or it protects no one. But she is also energized by what free speech does for her people: it shields civil rights organizers, anti-war protesters, marginalized voices. Then the voices demanding protection become conservative speakers and heterodox academics. She does not announce that she has abandoned free speech. She redefines it. Speech becomes harm, silence becomes safety. Now take the anti-woke conservative in 2018, rallying to free speech against deplatforming and campus speech codes. He may even understand the constitutive case. But he is also energized by what the fight does for his side. Then his side gained access to institutional power, and censorship became available as a tool rather than endured as a grievance. All of a sudden, he becomes in favor of the restrictions to speech he once denounced. He does not announce that he has abandoned free speech, either. He redefines it. Neither experienced the drift as betrayal. It felt like fulfillment.

Richard Hanania recently argued that American libertarianism has fractured into two camps: an elite wing of economists and policy scholars, and a populist wing of conspiratorial influencers and authoritarian fellow-travelers. There’s something to this distinction. But Hanania treats it as a sorting into fixed categories. On the one hand, the serious people who were always classical liberals, on the other, the contrarian vice-signalers who never were. I think this misses an important part of the story. Or, it misses the story. The fracture is not a revelation of who people always were. It is the result of a drift, a story told by its mechanism.

Plenty of well-educated people made the drift. They didn’t become stupid. But antagonism has its own logic, and that logic eventually overrides whatever ideology it inhabits. The process is not a simple switch from principled to unprincipled. It is a drift. Most people hold both constitutive and antagonistic commitments simultaneously, in varying degrees of alignment. In certain moments, the two converge almost perfectly. But contexts change. Enemies shift. The political field rearranges itself. And the constitutive and antagonistic begin to pull apart. When these no longer align, they must choose which to follow. The choice is made incrementally, through a thousand small decisions about which audience to address, which outrage to amplify, which coalition to prioritize. To invoke Kubrick, they have learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.

The case for liberty does not merely announce itself. The principles of a free society must be taught in a way that forms constitutive commitment, not merely reactive opposition. This is what the best educational institutions in the classical liberal tradition have always understood. The goal is not to produce people who are against the state or the left or any particular enemy. The goal is to produce people who understand what freedom generates, people who grasp the discovery processes that emerge when individuals and institutions are free to experiment, fail, learn, and cooperate.

Community matters, but not merely as a coalition, which is the trap Hanania falls into when he suggests that libertarians court intellectual elites on the left. If the problem is that alliance politics subordinates principle to tribal loyalty, the answer cannot be a different tribe. Community matters as a condition of formation: relationships of intellectual trust where someone further along can hold your attention on what is actually happening before you reach for a theory about it. This kind of community does not require partisan affiliation. It requires a shared commitment to seeing clearly.

A political movement defined by what it hates will eventually love power, because power is the easiest way to punish what it hates. Antagonism will always give you a rush and a reason to forgive your own side’s coercion as soon as it becomes available. Alliances can flip. Principles can be redefined. The only durable antidote is formation: communities of intellectual trust that train attention, that teach people to recognize the quiet miracles of liberty, and that make the constraints of law feel like guardians rather than obstacles. This is not a political project. It is an educational one.

Top Stories

The Supreme Court Keeps the Taxing Power with Congress

The Editors, National Review, Feb 21, 2026 - Donald Trump is the duly elected president, and whatever one thinks of the wisdom of his views of trade and tariff policy, he is entitled to exercise the full powers of the presidency. What he is not entitled to do is exercise the full powers of Congress — ....

That, and only that, is the rebuke a 6–3 Supreme Court delivered to the president Friday morning. .. he can’t keep imposing tariffs under the “emergency” powers granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). ... An emergency that is permanent and worldwide is a power so unlimited, it is hard with a straight face to believe any Congress would grant it — ...

Presidents may well have broad emergency powers to impose tariffs and trade embargoes during wartime. ... But Trump’s own solicitor general conceded that the Trump tariffs at issue rested only on IEEPA, not on war powers. As Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion acridly noted: “The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.” ...

The Court was faithful to the same principles it repeatedly cited to constrain Biden on student loans, the eviction moratorium, the workplace vaccine mandate, and carbon emission rules. That means the Court is doing its job — which is why progressives hate it. The right should not sing from that hymnal. (read it all)

Top Stories

The Supreme Court’s Demonstration of Independence

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, Feb. 21, 2026 -The editorial pages are predictably filled this morning with opinions about the Supreme Court ruling against President Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. The most important point of the editorials are references to the court’s independence. 

Washington Post: One narrative about this Supreme Court is that it is subservient to Trump. Now the court has frustrated his signature initiative. Last year it also blocked his deportations without due process to El Salvador and ruled against his deployment of the National Guard in Illinois.  This decision was too close, but it underscores that the Supreme Court remains independent. The separation of powers held. If only Congress would also fulfill its role as forcefully.

Wall Street Journal: The tariff law ruling also gives the lie to the Democratic charge that the current Court is a rubber stamp for Mr. Trump. The Court has now shown it is willing to block abuses of executive power by Presidents of both parties. This is exactly what the Constitution calls on the Justices to do.

The court’s demonstration of independence won’t stop Democrats from claiming otherwise the next time it rules in Trump’s favor, just like their rulings for him in the past didn’t stop Trump from saying he is “ashamed” of the justices who ruled against him this time. 

People don’t like to lose, and politicians tend to be disingenuous in their losses. They have a First Amendment right to be so, but those of us who purport to be watchdogs of the government have an obligation to acknowledge when one of the branches of government does it job the way the Constitution mandates, regardless of our positions on the underlying policies in question. 

The last three presidents have, even more than most before them, tried to expand the powers of the executive branch. They met little opposition from a largely dysfunctional Congress.   It has been up to others to challenge the president’s attempts at extra-constitutional powers and they have not always been successful, but the court has repeatedly ruled against presidents of both major political parties in cases that could have opened the door to a runaway autocracy, marking the end of the great American experiment. 

The U.S. Constitution has been the basis of experiments with various forms of democracy around the world. Our founders created a model that has been copied by every country that has tried to choose a democratic form of republic over an autocracy or a theocracy.  The main ingredient of that model is a separation of powers that gives most of the important policy-making powers to Congress, a big, diverse, body of representatives of the people who are charged with the duty of taking multiple, divergent, opposing opinions on critical issues and forming policy and laws by which we all must live.   

It was a difficult job when we were a less diverse country.  It has become a nearly impossible job in the 21st century, when our diversity has rendered our Congress dysfunctional.  Not only can Republicans and Democrats not agree on anything, but neither Republicans nor Democrats are anything like a unified body, so even a one-party Congress has trouble passing any significant legislation, adding to the frustration of presidents, who respond by trying even harder to expand the powers of the executive branch. 

Who can blame them?  

The Supreme Court – that’s who – because it’s their job – and at least one branch of government is still largely doing the job it was established to do.  And so, to them, today, I say “thank you.”

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. 

Top Stories

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs. YES!!

by Rod Williams, Feb. 20, 2026- I feel like celebrating and rejoicing. Today, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3, striking down President Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The majority decision, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that Trump did not have the authority to impose the tariffs.

This is fantastic news. These tariffs were clearly unconstitutional. Only Congress can raise taxes. Article 1, Section 7  says, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." That is pretty clear. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the U.S. President to regulate or prohibit international commerce and freeze foreign assets after declaring a national emergency in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. It does not mention tariffs.

Not only were the Trump Tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act uncontitutional but they were also economically foolish. Trump consistently said foreigners pay the tariffs. That is just blatantly false. I am not sure if Trump is just a compulsive liar or if he is a total economic illiterate who really believes false things. Either way, he was wrong. The tariffs are paid by the importer and, like any other business cost, are passed along to the consumer. The only way the consumer does not end up paying the full cost of the tariffs is if the exporters are willing to make less money by lowering their cost, or the importers are willing to make less money by not passing on the full amount of the tariffs. While companies can rationally decide to eat the cost of a tax increase, profit margins are small on almost everything, and the amount of a tax the seller can eat is limited. On a mix of imports, 90% to 100% of the cost was passed on to consumers.  As of 2026, increased tariffs are estimated to cost the average U.S. household over $1,300 annually. 

Not only were the Trump Tariffs unconstitutional and economically foolish and costly to the American consumer, but they also had the opposite effect of returning manufacturing to America and creating good-paying American jobs. While some sectors did increase manufacturing in the US to avoid the tariffs, other producers fled the United States to avoid paying the import tax on the components that go into the products they produce.  Data shows a net negative impact on manufacturing employment, with reports of over 70,000 jobs lost in the sector between April and December 2025. 

Another negative to Trump Tariffs was the chaos they produced. A foreign leader could make Trump feel disrespected by doing something like putting out an advertisement showing President Ronald Reagan speaking on the benefits of free trade, or a foreign leader could speak out against US policy to annex Greenland at some international conference, and Trump would throw a temper tantrum and increase the tariffs on imports from that country. The Trump Tariffs were on again-off again, often making it difficult for producers to set prices or make decisions.

When the case was first heard, I read and listened to some of the proceedings, and based on the justices' questioning, I was almost certain the Court would rule the way it eventually did and find the tariffs unconstitutional.  The Court waited so long to issue this ruling, however, that I was beginning to think the Court might rule the other way. While the Court should, in my view, consider only the merits of a legal matter before them, justices do live in the real world, and I feared that they may reason that if they ruled against the tariffs, then the revenue collected by the tariffs would have to be refunded and this would create chaos. I am always pleased when the Courts uphold the Constitution, regardless of the chaos or public opinion. 

So what now? It is too early to know. Importers may sue for a return of the tax they paid the government. If they successfully earn the right to a refund, will the refund be passed on to consumers who ultimately paid the tax, or will importers pocket the money? How will the government deal with the hole this shoots in revenue projections? How will Trump respond? Not all of the tariffs are unconstitutional. Some were collected under a different authority. Those will remain in effect, and Trump may impose some of these same tariffs under different authorities. To impose most of the tariffs, Trump will have to go to Congress for authorization. 

Republicans have long been the party of free trade. Free enterprise and free trade have been bedrock Republican positions. Of course, we have witnessed that most Republicans will put loyalty to Trump above principles. However, legislating a trade war will be too far for some Republicans to go. While they could not muster the courage to oppose and call out Trump for his tariff policy, all they had to do to please Trump was be passive and let it happen. It is one thing to passively accept a bad policy and another to positively enact it. To pass new tariffs would mean holding Republican feet to the fire. If no Democrats vote with Republicans for additional tariff authority, it only takes two Republican votes against new tariffs for them to fail.  Also, Trump's poll numbers are falling, and Republican willingness to stand up to Trump seems to have an inverse relationship to Trump's popularity.  I suspect the weaker Trump becomes, the more Republicans will develop a backbone. The timing for this decision seems right. The wait was worth it. 

Top Stories

New Trump administration order could lead to the detention of thousands of legal refugees

Associated Press, Feb. 19, 2026 - The Trump administration has issued a sweeping new order that couldlead to the arrest of tens of thousands of refugees who are lawfully in the United States but do not yet have permanent residency, overturning years of legal and immigration safeguards.

A memo filed by the Department of Homeland Security ahead of a Thursday federal court hearing in Minnesota says refugees applying for green cards must return to federal custody one year after they were admitted to the U.S. for review of their applications.

DHS “may maintain custody for the duration of the inspection and examination process,” said the memo, which was filed Wednesday.

Advocacy and resettlement groups slammed the order, which will likely face legal challenges and could sow confusion and fear among the nearly 200,000 refugees who came to the United States during the Biden administration. .....

“Mandating detention would lead to an illogical result,” Tunheim wrote, since refugees can’t even apply for green cards until they’ve been in the U.S. for a year. The government’s interpretation, he said, means nearly all refugees would face detention unless immigration officials conducted their review at exactly the one-year mark, (read more)

Rod's Comment: Just when you think Trump can not get any worse, he does. Not that I have really been thinking he could not get any worse. I think he can. He can get much worse. This inhumane policy, if it stands, will condemn many who fled tyranny to be returned to the country they fled, and many will no doubt be executed. Many will be returned to countries they fled, which are in the midst of civil wars or to failing states where gangs control the streets. Shameful! 

Top Stories

The Senate and the Loss of “Mixed Government”

Michael Dioguardi

by Michael Dioguardi,  Mises Institute, 02/19/2026 - Most serious writing that advocates repeal of the 17th Amendment was published more than a decade ago. At the time, libertarian and constitutionalist circles showed modest interest in restoring Senate selection to state legislatures. That discussion never matured into a sustained reform effort, and it eventually faded.

The reason is not difficult to identify. Critics of the 17th Amendment have persuasively argued that direct election has nationalized the Senate and weakened federalism. What they have not convincingly shown is that repeal alone would solve the problems that led to the amendment’s adoption in 1913. Those problems included legislative deadlock, prolonged vacancies, and corruption in the selection process. Opponents of repeal continue to cite these failures as decisive objections, and they remain largely unanswered.

As a result, the debate has settled into a false choice. Defenders of the status quo accept a Senate that functions as a second House of Representatives—driven by national parties, donors, and media attention. Advocates of repeal argue for a return to legislative selection without fully explaining how the defects of the earlier system would be avoided. Neither position offers a structural solution capable of restoring the Senate’s original constitutional role.

This impasse explains why repeal efforts have stalled. The case against the 17th Amendment has been made repeatedly, but it has not displaced the arguments used to justify it in the first place. Any serious reform must therefore move beyond repeal and address the institutional design of the Senate itself.

Revisiting the 17th Amendment remains urgent. Federal authority has continued to centralize since its adoption, and state governments increasingly function as administrative arms of national policy. If the Senate is to serve as a meaningful check within the constitutional system, it must once again represent a distinct source of political authority. That requires, not restoration alone, but redesign.

The question is not why this debate once mattered, but why it matters now. We are witnessing the devolution of the Senate before our eyes. Senators increasingly function as national political actors, responsive to party leadership, donors, and media incentives rather than to state governments as institutions. This is not an accident of personality or politics. It is the predictable result of a structural change.

The Senate and Mixed Government

The case against the 17th Amendment begins not with nostalgia, but with constitutional theory. The Founders designed the American republic as a mixed government. Liberty would be preserved not by elections alone, but by a collision of authorities drawn from different sources. Bicameralism was central to this design. The House and the Senate were meant to represent different interests, answer to different constituencies, and operate on different incentives. Only through this separation could each restrain the other.

The House of Representatives was built to reflect popular opinion; its members were elected directly by the people, served short terms, and were expected to respond quickly to shifts in public sentiment. The Senate was designed to do the opposite. Senators were chosen by state legislatures to represent the states as political bodies within the federal system. This was not an accident of convenience; it was a deliberate attempt to anchor federal power in the institutional interests of the states themselves.

During the Constitutional Convention, several delegates warned that drawing both chambers from the same source would collapse this balance. Elbridge Gerry outlined the available options with clarity. Selection by the House would create dependency. Selection by the executive risked consolidating authority. Direct election would leave no effective check against majority impulses. If both chambers answered to the same electorate, they would reflect the same passions and interests, and the safeguards of bicameralism would be lost.

John Dickinson made the positive case for legislative selection. He argued that the Senate should arise from state governments in order to create a collision of authorities between state and national power. This arrangement would bind the federal government to the continued agency of the states, preserving federalism as a living structure rather than a parchment promise. Dickinson emphasized that the Senate was to be a point of connection, not separation, between the states and the national government.

This structure gave the Senate a distinct role. It was not merely a smaller House with longer terms, it was a chamber rooted in institutional representation rather than mass democracy. Senators had incentives to defend state prerogatives, resist national overreach, and slow legislation that threatened the balance between local and centralized authority. The result was a genuine check, not only on the House, but on the growth of federal power itself.

The 17th Amendment dismantled this arrangement. By shifting Senate elections to the same popular electorate that selects the House, it erased the institutional distinction between the two chambers. The Senate became nationalized—its members now compete for party leadership, donor coalitions, and national media attention rather than accountability to state governments. The chamber still moves more slowly than the House, but it no longer represents a different source of authority.

Modern constitutional analysis has acknowledged this shift. The National Constitution Center notes that the amendment increased similarity between House and Senate constituencies and altered the original function of bicameralism. What was once a structural restraint on centralized power became a second venue for the same political pressures.

This loss helps explain why federal mandates now so easily override state priorities. When both chambers draw legitimacy from the same mass electorate, there is little incentive to defend the institutional role of the states. Federalism becomes rhetorical rather than operational.

For these reasons, simple repeal of the 17th Amendment is insufficient. The original problem was not merely who voted for senators, but how institutional diversity was preserved within the federal legislature. Any serious reform must restore that diversity. The Senate must once again arise from a different foundation than the House. Without that distinction, bicameralism cannot perform its intended function as a vital pillar of limited government.

A Proposed Amendment

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of three senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for terms of six years, with a power reserved to a two-thirds majority of each legislature to recall its senators, or any of them.

Except in trials of impeachment, each state shall cast one vote in the Senate, to be determined by the majority of its senators. In the event the senators fail to agree, the vote of that state shall not be counted. In trials of impeachment, each senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided equally into three classes, each class composed of one member of each state delegation so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

Conclusion: Institutions Designed to Restrain Power

The 17th Amendment did more than alter the method of Senate selection. It collapsed the Senate into the same political universe as the House of Representatives. By drawing both chambers from the same source of authority, it weakened bicameralism, eroded mixed government, and removed an essential institutional check on centralization, a danger long recognized in classical theories of divided power.

Repeal alone cannot repair this damage. It would restore a flawed mechanism without addressing the deeper problem of how states are represented within the national legislature. A successful reform must restore the Senate’s federal character while correcting the defects that once justified reform in the first place.

The proposed amendment does exactly that. By restoring legislative selection, treating each state delegation as a unit, and requiring unified state voting, it reestablishes the Senate as a council of governments rather than a national popular assembly. Treating each state delegation as a single voting unit restores the Senate as a body of governments rather than individuals, while preserving internal deliberation within each state delegation. Staggered terms ensure that changes in state legislative composition are reflected gradually, allowing state interests to evolve over time without producing abrupt reversals in federal policy. Accountability is returned to state governments without recreating the paralysis of the late nineteenth century.

This structure also produces broader institutional benefits. It reduces the nationalization of Senate offices, weakens the incentive to politicize judicial appointments, and reinforces the separation of powers by reintroducing meaningful institutional conflict into federal lawmaking. These outcomes are not incidental; they are the direct result of restoring distinct sources of authority within the constitutional framework.

The choice, then, is not between repeal and retention. It is between continuing a system that has hollowed out federalism and adopting a reform that restores the Senate’s original function. A constitutional republic requires more than popular elections. It requires institutions designed to restrain power by dividing it and by drawing authority from distinct political sources. This proposal offers a step toward restoring that balance.

Michael Dioguardi is a residential property manager and independent blogger writing under the title Seeker of Liberty. Drawing on years of dedicated study of the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, landmark court decisions, and Austrian School economics, he analyzes contemporary challenges to individual liberty, institutional accountability, and economic stability.

His blog, Seeker of Liberty, explores a wide range of topics including critiques of federal agencies like the FBI, the institutional risks of unconstrained sovereign credit, and bold proposals for constitutional and criminal justice reform.

Michael resides in Nashville, TN.

Top Stories

AOC is Just Not Ready for Primtime

by Rod Williams, Feb. 17, 2026 - The next presidential election is almost three years away, so no one who knows what the political landscape will look like at that time. Unless by that time, some Republican emerges who never was a Trump sycophant and cheerleader and who, between now and that election, becomes a Trump critic, I will most likely not be voting for the Republican candidate. I will certainly not vote for Donald Trump Jr., Marco Rubio, or JD Vance. There could emerge a Republican figure I could support but I don't see one yet. I would look favorably upon Congressman Thomas Massie should he become a candidate, but I would have to learn more about his policies. I like that he has stood up to Trump in getting the Epstein files released. I can't think of any other Republicans I could support  at this time.

This position leaves me open to voting for a Democrat again, having reluctantly cast my first-ever vote for a Democrat presidential nominee in 2024 when I voted for Kamala Harris.  At this time, I am very impressed by Senator Mark Kelly. I hope he becomes a candidate, and I look forward to learning more about him. While I might reluctantly again vote for a Democrat in order to vote against a JD Vance or another Trumpinista Republican, if the Dem is a woke lefty, I may just sit out the election. 

If we survive the next three years of Donald Trump, and America remains a democracy, I am not going to breathe a big sigh of relief if Democrats regain control of the White House and Congress. I have my doubts that a Democrat-controlled government would relinquish the power that Trump has amassed and appropriated. I fear Democrats would simply use the power for different ends. Nevertheless, my disgust with Trump and his cowardly enablers leaves me at this time predisposed to vote for a Democrat. 

The worst thing, in my view, that Democrats could do to ensure a JD Vance or some other Trumpian candidate is elected to succeed Trump, is to nominate someone from the progressive wing of the party- a woke Democratic Socialist; someone like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  

Monday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went to the annual Munich Security Conference in Germany. Attending the conference and rubbing elbows with world leaders and diplomats is the type of thing one does to raise one's profile and to give oneself some foreign policy credentials. AOC said she is attended, “not because I’m running for president,” amid speculation that she could pursue the 2028 Democratic nomination.

She proved herself not ready to lead. Appearing on panels discussing foreign policy and in interviews, she stumbled, giving incoherent, confusing answers to questions. She gave wishy washy answers to questions about the US defending Taiwan, and she did not give her wishy washy answers with grace and finesse. She certainly did not appear confident. She appeared afraid that any answer she gave would offend someone. 

Here are excerpts of some of what she had to say:

This answer she gave in response to a question about the US commitment to defending Taiwan:

Um, you know, I think that this is such a, you know, I think that this is a um — this is, of course, a, um, very long-standing, um, policy of the United States. And I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point, and we want to make sure that we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation — and for that question to even arise.

And:

What we are seeking is a return to a rules-based order that eliminates the hypocrisies around when too often in the West we look the other way for inconvenient populations, to act out these paradoxes.

 What does that last one even mean?

While in Munich, she also advocated a wealth tax policy and again called Israeli action in Palestine "genocide." And she said, "We have to have a working class-centered politics if we are going to succeed, and also if we are going to stave off the scourges of authoritarianism." That doesn't tell me much, but it does raise concern. I often think that the political spectrum is horseshoe-shaped, and Trump and his nationalist populist are one end of the horseshoe, and AOC and the woke Democratic Socialist are the other end. If the 20208 contest should be AOC versus JD Vance, I will be a no-show. 

Watch the above video to sample her attempt to communicate something and to appear serious and moderate while taking care not to offend her extremist base. 

For more on her Munick performance, see this link, this link, this one, and this one. 

Top Stories

The Harwood Salon Presents Veronique de Rugy Addressing, "The High Price of Debt: The Economic and Social Costs of Fiscal Drift.'

 

Join us in Nashville for an event with Veronique de Rugy, George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. 

America’s mounting government debt is often met with public calm, even indifference. But that calm is dangerously misplaced.

In this talk, Veronique de Rugy will examine the economic and social costs of rising government debt and explain how debt crises unfold in advanced economies. Drawing on real-world examples, she will unpack both the visible and unseen consequences of sustained fiscal drift, including its impact on long-term economic growth.

The discussion will explore what slower growth means not only for national wealth, but also for social cohesion and political stability. Finally, the talk will address why Congress is running out of excuses, how fiscal space can disappear faster than expected, and why the next economic shock could expose just how fragile the current moment truly is.

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.

Registration Required. Free Admission. 

Agenda 

6:00 PM – 6:30 PM – Networking

6:30 PM – 7:15 PM – Presentation by Dr. Veronique de Rugy

7:15 PM – 7:30 PM – Q&A

About the Speaker

Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist. Her primary research interests include the US economy, the federal budget, taxation, tax competition, and cronyism. Her popular weekly columns address economic issues ranging from lessons on creating sustainable economic growth to the implications of government tax and fiscal policies. She has testified numerous times in front of Congress on the effects of fiscal stimulus, debt and deficits, and regulation on the economy.

De Rugy is the author of a weekly opinion column for the Creators Syndicate, writes regular columns for Reason magazine, and she blogs about economics at National Review Online’s The Corner. Her charts, articles, and commentary have been featured in a wide range of media outlets, including the Reality Check segment on Bloomberg Television’s Street Smart, the New York Times’ Room for Debate, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CNN International, Stossel, 20/20, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, and Fox News. In 2015, she was named in Politico Magazine’s Guide to the Top 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American Politics.

Previously, de Rugy has been a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, and a research fellow at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Before moving to the United States, she oversaw academic programs in France for the Institute for Humane Studies Europe. She received her MA in economics from the Paris Dauphine University and her PhD in economics from the Panthéon-Sorbonne University.

Top Stories

ICE to Open Second Tennessee Immigrant Detention Center in Lebanon

CoreCivic  West Tennessee Detention Facility in Mason, Tenn. 

by Anita Wadhwani, Tennessee Outlook, February 13, 2026 -  Immigration and Customs Enforcement has purchased a facility in Lebanon, Tenn. to detain immigrants, a spokesperson said. It will be the second immigrant detention facility in Tennessee; CoreCivic operates the West Tennessee Detention Facility in Mason, Tenn. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has purchased a facility in Lebanon to house detained immigrants, an agency spokesperson said Friday.

No details about the size, scope, purchase price or street address of the facility in Lebanon, about 30 miles east of Nashville, were immediately made available Friday, and news of the purchase took state and local officials by surprise. 

Wilson County Mayor Randall Hutto said he had heard no information about the plans to build a detention center in the county and asked for contact information to reach ICE in order to learn more. The Wilson County Assessor of Property has no record of a final purchase.

State Sen. Mark Pody and state Rep. Clark Boyd, who represent the area, said they were unaware of the plans.

The Lebanon facility will be part of the agency’s now-expanding  network of “well-structured detention facilities meeting our regular detention standards,” the ICE spokesperson said in an email to the Lookout. The facility will be Tennessee’s second detention center for immigrants. A once-shuttered federal prison in Mason, Tenn. was repurposed as the West Tennessee Detention Facility to house detained immigrants last fall. 

The Mason facility, operated by Nashville-based private prison contractor CoreCivic, housed a daily average of 243 men on non-criminal charges, 31 men with criminal charges and one female detainee facing no criminal charges between the facility’s reopening in fall 2025 and Jan. 22, according to rolling data maintained by ICE. The majority of detainees had no previous criminal convictions.

In a nod to the potential size of the Lebanon facility, the ICE spokesperson provided estimates on economic benefits to the surrounding community:

“The Lebanon facility and its construction are expected to bring 7,216 jobs to the area and would contribute $829.5 million to GDP. It’s also projected to bring in more than $167.8 million in tax revenue,” the spokesperson wrote. 

ICE plans to spend $38.3 billion to acquire warehouses across the country and turn them into large-scale immigrant detention centers holding tens of thousands of people awaiting deportation or immigration hearings, the Washington Post reported Friday.

Asked Friday about plans to house immigrants in former warehouses in Tennessee, the ICE spokesperson said “these will not be warehouses.”

In addition to the jobs and taxes generated by the facility in Lebanon, the spokesperson said the “economic benefits don’t even take into account that removing criminals from the streets makes communities safe for businesses and customers.” The spokesperson included a series of mug shots of immigrants accused of violent crimes who have been detained in Tennessee. 

Top Stories

Donald Trump’s Plan to Subvert the Midterms Is Already Under Way

by Rod Williams, Feb. 14, 2026- I am convinced that Donald Trump intends to steal the midterms.  In an essay I wrote recently, I laid out five ways in which I believe Donald Trump would try to do so. You can read that essay, "It is Happening: Trump Says Republicans Should ‘Take Over’ Voting ‘In At Least 15 Places,’" at this link.

The December issue of The Atlantic, which I am just now getting around to reading, has an article by David A. Graham entitled The Coming Election Mayhem, The article lays out a plausible and detailed plan for how Trump could steal the election. The article was written in Oct. 28, 2025. We are further along the path Graham lays out now than we were when he wrote the article.

The lengthy article is well worth reading and I am reposting portions of it here. It is behind a paywall and one may not access the complete article and I usually try to respect fair use policies so I will not repost the complete article, but If you can access it, it is worth reading.

 While I am almost certain that Trump will try to steal the election, I do not think it is necessarily destined to succeed. Our institutions are still strong, and we are still a nation of laws. For it not to succeed, people need to stand up and not be intimidated. Companies, Universities, local governments, civil society, and journalists need to be bold and fearless in standing up to Trump. There needs to be an army of lawyers ready to take Trump to court and seek injunctions. And, Democrats need to win the midterm by a margin so big that the election is too big to steal.

Midterms almost always favor the party out of power, and Republicans are facing a strong headwind and are likely to lose the midterm unless Democrats screw this up. The worst thing Democrats could do facilitate Trump's plan to steal the election is to nominate woke left-wing nut jobs like they did in the recent Tennessee 7th Congressional election. To win too big to steal, Democrats need to vote in the primaries and nominate candidates who don't repulse normal people. 

Here are portions of the article:

The Coming Election Mayhem

by David A. Graham, The Atlantic, Oct. 28, 2025 - Imagine for a moment that it’s late on Election Day, November 3, 2026. Republicans have kept their majority in the Senate, but too many House races are still uncalled to tell who has won that chamber. Control seems like it will come down to two districts in Maricopa County, Arizona. ICE agents and National Guardsmen have been deployed there since that summer, ostensibly in response to criminal immigrants, though crime has been dropping for several years. The county is almost one-third Hispanic or Latino. Voting-rights advocates say the armed presence has depressed turnout, but nonetheless, the races are close. By that evening, the Republican candidates have small leads, but thousands of mail and provisional ballots remain uncounted.

Donald Trump calls the press into the Oval Office and announces that the GOP has held the House—but he warns that Democrats will try to steal the election, and announces plans to send a legal team to Arizona to root out fraud. He spends the rest of the night posting threats and allegations on Truth Social. In the morning, Republican lawyers file to stop vote counting, arguing that any votes counted after Election Day are illegal under federal law. Attorney General Pam Bondi sends a letter to Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state, and the county board of supervisors, instructing them to retain all documents and warning that the Department of Justice may intervene if it suspects anything untoward. On X, FBI Director Kash Patel reposts false rumors about fraud and announces plans to lead a group of agents to Phoenix. Meanwhile, Democratic candidates have pulled ahead in both races by Wednesday afternoon, but the margin is just 143 votes in the Eighth District, with many votes still not tallied.

By now, conservative outlets are running wall-to-wall coverage alleging fraud, offering tales of immigrants being bused to voting locations and accusing Democrats of treason. MAGA has learned its lesson since 2020, and Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell are nowhere near the cameras. Instead, administration officials like Bondi are the face of the allegations on TV. Behind the scenes, Trump is making phone calls. He’s unable to reach any county supervisors, whose lawyers have warned them not to speak with him, but he gets through to the county recorder, a MAGA loyalist elected as part of the backlash to the 2020 election. No one knows quite what is said—the call isn’t taped—but when Trump hangs up, he posts that the county has agreed to hand over control of voting machines to the Department of Homeland Security.

Fontes and the board of supervisors rush to court to block the move, and a judge quickly grants an injunction. But Trump declares a national emergency that he says supersedes the order; helicopters are en route from a Marine air base in Yuma to take control of the voting machines. By the time Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who is assigned to hear emergency matters from Arizona, issues an order blocking this, Marines have already commandeered ballots and machines. Patel, having just arrived in Phoenix, holds a press conference and announces, without providing evidence, that votes have been tampered with. He proclaims the Republican candidates the winners.

Despite Marines on the street, small but fierce protests erupt in Phoenix and elsewhere; Trump uses them as a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act and announces “martial law in Democrat-run cities.” Who actually won the election can never be determined—the Marines and Patel have broken the chain of custody, as well as some of the machines themselves—but the state names the two Democrats as winners. House Republicans reject Arizona’s certification and instead seat the GOP candidates. Trump’s allies keep the House in a profoundly illegitimate election rejected by many Americans.

This is just one possible scenario. Is it too pessimistic? Perhaps. But at this stage of the election cycle in 2019, no one expected a crowd of Trump supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. No one expected the president himself to explicitly lend his support to their efforts to “Stop the Steal.” Certainly no one expected that there would be calls to hang the vice president for his refusal to subvert the democratic process. If anything, when it comes to 2026, I worry more about the limits of my imagination than about the hazards of speculation.

..... I. Laying the Groundwork ... II. Changing the Rules ...

III. Election Day ... The administration could try to get around the ban on troops at polling places in a few ways. Cleta Mitchell, a conservative lawyer who was involved in “Stop the Steal” efforts in 2020 and remains influential in the White House, suggested in September that Trump could use emergency powers. “The chief executive is limited in his role with regard to elections, except where there is a threat to the national sovereignty of the United States,” she said on a conservative talk show. “I think maybe the president is thinking that he will exercise some emergency powers to protect the federal elections going forward.” Trump might allege foreign interference in the elections ... One possibility is that he could invoke the Insurrection Act, as he has repeatedly threatened to do, by claiming it is necessary to enforce federal law or protect voters’ constitutional rights. ...

IV. After Election Day ... As soon as the polls close, Trump and other Republicans will try to stop the counting of votes. ... If all of that fails, Republicans could attempt to refuse to seat Democrats who are elected. 

Top Stories