Top Stories
Monday, July 13, 2026
Sunday, July 12, 2026
If You Are Politically Homeless, Join Me for This Gathering on July 23th at TailGate Brewery
 |
| The July Meeting of Junto, Middle Tennessee |
by Rod Williams, July 12, 2026 - If you are exiled from the Republican party and do not feel at home in a Republican Party that has been hijacked by populist, grifters, con men, insurrectionists, nut-jobs, and white nationalists, political life can be quite lonely. That is me. I am a never-Trumper but I certainly do not feel at home in the Democrat Party. I am a classical liberal who still believes in limited government, the Constitution, and free enterprise. My values have not changed; the Republican Party has changed. If this also describes you, I encourage you to join me on Thursday, July 23, 2026, at TailGate Brewery Music Row at 6PM for a meeting of Junto Middle Tennessee.
Junto, which means "group" or "together", is informally associated with The Dispatch, an international online news organization started by Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes in 2019. Our particular Junto gathers thoughtful citizens who are somewhat politically homeless as they look around and see an erosion of classically liberal values in our two-party system. We gather, in-person, to engage in respectful discussion to connect and learn from each other.
Visit the Junto Facebook page to learn more or just show up.
Top Stories
Saturday, July 11, 2026
How is the Metro Council Addresssing Data Centers
by Rod Williams, July 11, 2026- The following is from the newsletter of Councilman Jeff Preptit, Metro Council District 25:
Legislative Update
BL2026-1391
This past week, Council considered and passed a number of bills aimed at addressing data centers in Nashville. Currently in Nashville, our zoning code is completely silent on, and does not address where data centers can be placed. Under our current code, a data center could be place on any parcel that is zoned for a commercial use. BL2026-1391, which I have co-sponsored, addresses this deficiency by placing strict regulations and conditions on where a data center could be place in Davidson County. In particular, this bill prohibits hyperscale data centers that are 500,000 square feet or more. If an entity wanted to build a hyperscale data center, under these regulations, they would be required to apply for a special exemption by the Board of Zoning Appeals, have a public hearing on the matter, and be subject to strict environmental and energy regulations. Additionally, the legislation places restrictions on small and medium scale data centers.
A small data center is defined as a data center of 20,0000 square feet in size or less and/or with a maximum utilization capacity of 5MW of electricity and which does not utilize a dedicated power substation. Under the bill currently, “No data center shall be permitted in a location that is less than 100 feet from a residential use, day care home, daycare center, religious institution, community education use, park, zoo, correctional facility, or other data center. Distance shall be measured in a straight line from the closest point of a parcel line of the parcel for which the data center is sought to the closest point of the parcel line of the parcel on which the identified uses are located.
The bill also defines a medium data center as “a data center larger than 20,000 but not to exceed 100,000 square feet in size and/or with a maximum utilization capacity greater than 20MW but not exceeding 100MW of electricity and which utilizes a dedicated power substation.”
Under this bill, “No medium data center shall be permitted in a location that is less than 500 feet from a residential use, day care home, daycare center, religious institution, community education use, park, zoo, correctional facility, or other data center or less than 2,640 feet from the centerline of a Choose How You Move (CHYM) All-Access Corridor. Distance shall be measured in a straight line from the closest point of a parcel line of the parcel for which the data center is sought to the closest point of the parcel line of the parcel on which the identified uses are located or from the closest point of a parcel line of the parcel for which the data center is sought to the centerline of identified corridors.”
BL-1391 also requires that any data center operating in Davidson County must utilize a “closed loop” cooling system that prevents the discharge of harmful chemicals and heavy metals into our water system. I am also working closely with Metro Water Services to undertake an examination of our current clean water regulations with the goal of closing loopholes across industries to ensure that no data center or any other industrial business is able to harm our vital natural resources.
BL-1391 will be before Council for its third and final reading at the next Council meeting. As a Title 17 bill, 1391 will be amendable on third reading, and I anticipate there will be a number of amendments brought forward to strengthen this bill.
Top Stories
Trump Names Singer John Rich, of Duo "Big and Rich", USDA Special Envoy for US Landowners
As Special Envoy, Rich will serve as a leading advocate for America’s farmers, ranchers, and private landowners, helping ensure their concerns are heard and their rights are protected. He will engage directly with landowners across the country and work to address challenges posed by government overreach, activist pressure campaigns, and outside interests that threaten private property rights and the long-term viability of rural communities.
A key focus of Rich’s work will be advocating for landowners facing pressure related to large-scale solar and wind development that may impact productive farmland, ranchland, and rural livelihoods. He will work closely with USDA leadership and stakeholders to ensure landowners have a strong voice in decisions affecting their property and communities.
“America’s farmers, ranchers, and landowners are among the greatest stewards of our nation’s resources and the backbone of our rural communities,” said Secretary Rollins. “President Trump understands that private property rights are fundamental to the American way of life. John Rich has long been a champion for rural America, and I look forward to working alongside him as we continue fighting for the people who feed, fuel, and clothe our nation.”
“President Trump has afforded me the great honor of serving as Special Envoy for American Landowners,” said Special Envoy Rich. “I look forward to representing and advocating for landowners’ rights and standing up for the farmers, ranchers, and rural families who work every day to provide for our country. Protecting private property rights and ensuring that landowners are not harassed, intimidated, or pressured by outside interests will be at the heart of this mission.”
The appointment reflects President Trump’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that America’s farmers, ranchers, foresters, and landowners have a strong voice in Washington and a federal government that supports, rather than hinders, their success.
I am not sure if John Rich will get paid for his role as Special Envoy for landowners or not. I have searched but cannot find an answer. I would assume he would not, but who knows. Will he be paid for travel expenses? I would assume so, but don't know. I also wonder it he will have staff? Is this the birth of a new bureaucracy? It seems to be an unnecessary position, but if it is just an honorary title and doesn't cost taxpayers anything, then I guess there's no harm done.
This sort of reminds me of when Elvis Presley was made a Special Honorary Agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and got a badge.
Top Stories
Friday, July 10, 2026
Tennessee Attorney General Skrmetti Pushes Federal Government to Crack Down on Illegal Robocalls
I approve. I routinely get phone calls and text messages informing me of the "Social Security grocery allowance.' I usually hang up before they can make their pitch. The number is a 615 area code. I will block the number and then the next day, I will get another call, again from a 615 area code, but a different number. It is annoying and frustrating. I have reached the point to where I almost never answer a call from an unknown number. I could be missing legitimate calls.
There is no official “Social Security grocery allowance” issued by the Social Security Administration. The benefit they try to tell me about is usually a $900 or $2,700 annual food allowance. Sometimes, I will play along and let the caller waste his time and ask question if I am in a good mood and have nothing else to do. This is not a Social Security program. Instead, it’s a supplemental benefit offered by some Medicare Advantage Part C insurance plans.
Another call I sometimes get is from someone asking me if I still have back pain. Since I am old, I guess they assume a lot of old people have back pain. I don't. I think this is a Medicare scam. If I stay on the line, they will transfer me to a doctor to diagnose me over the phone. I never let the call go that long, but I have learned I am entitled to a back brace, and they will send it to me at no cost. These calls are almost always from someone with a lilting Indian accent.
I hope the coalition of attorneys general can succeed in stopping these scam calls. The coalition filed comments supporting proposed FCC rules that would help prevent criminals from exploiting legitimate phone numbers to carry out robocall and text message scams.
"Scammers are constantly changing tactics to stay one step ahead, and we have to be just as relentless in protecting consumers," said Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. "Cracking down on illegal spoofing made a real difference, but now bad actors are exploiting legitimate phone numbers to gain consumers' trust. These commonsense reforms will make it harder for scammers to operate and easier for law enforcement to track them down and hold them accountable."
In a press release, Skrmetti said Americans received an estimated 29.6 billion scam robocalls and text messages last year and lost nearly $2 billion to these schemes.
To better protect consumers, the bipartisan coalition is urging the FCC to:
- Require companies that purchase and resell North American phone numbers to meet stronger certification standards and disclose how and to whom numbers are assigned.
- Require regular reporting on the sale and use of phone numbers so law enforcement can trace illegal robocalls to their source and hold companies throughout the call chain accountable.
- Require applicants seeking access to phone numbers to certify they will not use them to facilitate illegal robocalls.
- Prevent the sale of phone numbers to entities that are not connected to a legitimate calling or texting service.
- Prohibit "number cycling," the practice of rapidly rotating through large blocks of phone numbers to evade spam detection tools.
- Restrict the availability of trial phone numbers that scammers can exploit to carry out fraudulent schemes.
Top Stories
Thursday, July 09, 2026
Senator Marsha Blackburn and Representative Andy Ogles Offer Different Approaches for Addressing Birth Tourism
 |
| Senator Marsha Blackburn |
The other way to amend the Constitution is by a Constitutional Convention. If two-thirds of state legislatures formally request it, Congress must call a convention to propose amendments. This method has never been used. It is not going to happen to overturn birthright citizenship.
That the Constitution is difficult to amend does not mean Congress is powerless to address the perceived problems with birthright citizenship. One of the greatest concerns about birthright citizenship is "birth tourism," in which expectant mothers travel on tourist visas during the later stages of pregnancy to give birth on American soil. Upon birth, the child receives a birth certificate and citizenship.
 |
| Representative Andy Ogles |
It is not hard to imagine children born in the US and raised in China, being sent back to the US for nefarious purposes when they become adults. Nor is it hard to imagine Russian oligarchs desiring to have a child with American citizenship to help facilitate expanding their business holdings in America. I favor legislation to curtail the practice of birth tourism.
Both Representative Andy Ogles and Senator Marsha Blackburn have introduced legislation to address the issue, but are taking different approaches. Congressman Ogles has introduced the "Anchors Away Act," which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act's definition of who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of birthright citizenship. Under his proposal, a child born in the United States would automatically receive citizenship only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident or an active-duty member of the U.S. armed forces. This act attempts to address the whole issue of birthright citizenship instead of focusing on birth tourism. This would almost certainly be struck down. It is as contrary to the 14th Amendment as was Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. I think even Trump loyalists would see this as a simple act of defiance and a waste of time.
Sen. Blackburn's bill is focused simply on "birth tourism." The proposed legislation, titled the “Ban Birth Tourism Act,” would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit foreign nationals from obtaining tourist visas for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States. It would still allow individuals seeking legitimate medical care related to a problem with childbirth to visit the US for childbirth if U.S. citizenship for the child is not the primary purpose of their travel.
While Ogles' proposal seeks to change how federal law defines eligibility for birthright citizenship, Blackburn's bill focuses on restricting the use of temporary visas by individuals traveling to the United States for the primary purpose of giving birth. Blackburn's bill makes sense and deserves careful consideration; Ogles bill needs to never see the light of day.
Top Stories
Tuesday, July 07, 2026
LAWSUIT: He Criticized ICE. So, the Feds Crashed His Vacation.
From Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, July 7, 2027
- The freedom to criticize law enforcement without fear of punishment is an essential right in the United States. But officials at the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement don't seem to understand this.
Just ask David Streever. Following ICE's January crackdown in Minnesota, Streever wrote an angry email to the then-head of ICE, condemning him and calling him a "monstrous human being."
The government's response?
Showing up at Streever's front door with a "WARNING NOTICE" that explained, on official federal stationery from ICE and DHS, that "YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW" for sending his email to the ICE director.
Since Streever wasn't home at the time, agents went one step further and tracked him down at the hotel where he was staying during a trip with his 7-year-old daughter. A federal agent showed up at the front desk, leaving a hotel clerk a business card to give to Streever. Two agents also repeatedly called Streever's phone, leaving anonymous voicemails identifying themselves only as "Homeland Security Investigations."
This type of behavior sounds more like it belongs in an authoritarian police state than in the United States of America.
That's why FIRE just filed a federal lawsuit to challenge ICE's efforts to scare Streever and others into silence — and remind other government officials that such behavior is un-American, unconstitutional, and unacceptable in a free society.
Streever's criticism of ICE contained only fully protected speech, and nothing that could constitutionally justify ICE's "knock it off" threats. And it came nowhere close to an unlawful threat of violence, as the notice and subsequent ICE comments suggested. The fact that it took five months for the government to take this drastic action provides further proof that Streever presented no threat.
Simply put, the only threat here is the one DHS and ICE officials pose to Streever's First Amendment freedoms — and those of his fellow Americans. That's why FIRE is fighting it.
With our lawsuit, we're sending a message to government officials everywhere: respect the First Amendment, or be prepared to see us in court.
FIRE
P.S. This work is only possible thanks to generous donors like you. Thank you for all you do to help FIRE protect the First Amendment. Your Donations Make a Difference
Rod's Comment:
As we watch the Trump administration trample the Constitution and advance its authoritarian agenda, it is important that we who support classical liberal values, including free speech, stand up for our values and rights. Fire does an excellent job of doing that. They have long been defending free speech, whether the attack comes from the left or the right. FIRE is one of the organizations I support with my charitable giving. Please follow the link and make a donation.
Top Stories
Sunday, July 05, 2026
How I Plan to Vote in the Republican Primary for Governor
In the Governor's race, I will not vote for Marsha Blackman. I used to like her. I have voted for her in the past. However, in Trump's second term, she has gone out of her way to be a suck-up to Trump. I am less forgiving of Blackburn's Trump sycophant status than I am of some other Republican suck-ups. The reason I am less forgiving of Blackburn is that she knows better. Some people, like Andy Ogles, for instance, were never principled or very bright; Marsha was; she has no excuse.
A vote for John Rose in the Governor's race, was his to lose, and he has lost it. I did not know much about John Rose before the race started, but from what I did know, I was favorably impressed. As the leading opponent of Blackburn, I was inclined to vote for him. Then, however, the ads started, and he has tried to wrap himself in the Trump mantle. In almost every ad, he praises Trump and says things like, "Trump is a CEO, and I'm a CEO ...." The only way I would vote for Rose is if Trump endorses Blackburn. I like seeing Trump-endorsed candidates lose.
The other Republican candidate for governor is Monty Fritts. I would never ever consider voting for him under any circumstances. He is much to the right of other candidates on gun rights, opposes school choice, and advocates a ban on the practice of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or "other pagan religions" in the state of Tennessee. He has also said he would criminalize sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex. He opposes allowing rape victims access to the morning-after pill. He advocates the death penalty for women who get an abortion, and he has called for the execution of the parents of trans children who allow their child to undergo hormone therapy.
There are some other Republicans on the ballot, and I know nothing about them. I have voted for names on the ballot before, when knowing nothing about the candidate, but I am hesitant to do that; one could be voting for a Nazi or a serial killer.
I could vote in the Democratic primary. Despite being an exile from the Republican Party, I still think of myself as a Republican. The only times I have voted in a Democratic primary were in local elections in Nashville when the winner of the Democratic primary was going to win the seat. In most cases, Republicans did not even put forth candidates. I knew the people running and cared who was going to be the county clerk, the register of deeds, the trustee, the sheriff, etc. Now that I am no longer at home in the Party of Trump, I could be persuaded to vote for a Democrat, but Democrats do not stand a chance in Tennessee. A Democrat has not won a statewide office in Tennessee since 2006, when Gov. Phil Bredesen won reelection to a second term.
Six candidates have filed for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, with Memphis Councilmember Jerri Green considered the frontrunner in that primary. I have not seen a single ad for Jerri Green and know little about her. From what little I do know, she seems to be pragmatic and is not a Democratic Socialist. I assume she will win the primary, and then I will take a closer look at Jerri Green and her opponent, which will most likely be Marsha Blackburn or John Rose.
I thought about just not voting. There is nothing wrong with simply not voting when there is no one to vote for, except that when a large number of people don't vote, it is interpreted as apathy rather than disgust. I vote every time the polls are open. I plan to vote, although I have no one to vote for.
So for now, I will vote in the Republican primary. I wish the ballot had a "none of the above" choice. I would vote for "none of the above." Since we do not have that choice, I plan to write in my own name. If you vote, I urge you to write in your own name, or your spouse's name, or your dad's, or your mother's name, or write in my name: Rod Williams.
Top Stories
Friday, July 03, 2026
Injustice Toward Barrett
Supreme Court justice. Hysteria shouldn’t.
With the conclusion of the 2025–26 Supreme Court term and Donald Trump’s defeat on birthright citizenship, we have been treated to another round of abuse from right-leaning commentators directed toward Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The immediate trigger of their ire is Barrett’s joining the Trump v. Barbara majority (along with Chief Justice John Roberts and, on the outcome, Justice Brett Kavanaugh) striking down Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
... It’s the intemperate vitriol of these attacks, and their utter lack of perspective, that appalls us. Critics brand Barrett a traitor, a DEI hire, and a left-winger who has doomed the country. They complain that she makes poor decisions because she is a woman and a mother of adopted children from Haiti.
... the predictable, faithful rule of written law is a positive end in itself, and a pillar of the good society. If judges are to be loyal to a party or impose their own preferred ends, they may as well be elected
... aside from her devotion to process and methodology, it is hard to find a pattern of issues in the cases where Barrett breaks with conservative outcomes, (read it all)
Top Stories
The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Restoration
by The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2026 - What is this Supreme Court’s project? ... Read the Justices, and it becomes clear they are focused on the Constitution and the law. They are protecting ordered liberty, correcting deviations from the Founders’ design, and taking the Bill of Rights seriously. ...
... The separation of powers is fundamental to the Constitution, ... The Justices are also ruling against Presidents who try unilaterally to impose policies ... When the Justices strike down executive overreach, they’re upholding the Constitution. ... The Court’s effort to re-separate legislative and executive powers is constitutionally correct. ... The Second Amendment means the government can’t disarm casual marijuana users (U.S. v. Hemani) or ban firearms by default (Wolford v. Lopez). ... America has a “colorblind Constitution,” as the Court said in a brief unsigned opinion, after its decision removing race from partisan redistricting ...
... Originalism is a method, not a party line, and nobody will like every decision. (read it all)
Top Stories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
