|
Hello Reader,
From secret cameras to hushed subpoenas, this week’s stories expose how power can move in silence—and the neighbors, courts, and whistleblowers daring to push it back.
A More Perfect Union
- Faux Controversy, or Biden's Watergate?
- CATO Strikes at Surveillance Machine
- Beyond the Big Apple: Voters Reward Sanity
- Skepticism Reigns Supreme Over Tariffs
- Renegade: Humble Farmer Stares Down Tyranny
Faux Controversy, or Biden's Watergate?
MSNBC dismissed it as "faux controversy." Republican Senator Ted Cruz branded it "Biden's Watergate."
Only the intellectually honest Free Presscut through partisan hyperbole, dubbing it a "real scandal."
This week, Chuck Grassley released whistleblower documents revealing Jack Smith's team issued nearly 200 subpoenas to some 430 Republican targets: White House officials, members of Congress, Trump family, party organizations, think tanks, nonprofits, donors, and even journalists.
Most had no involvement with January 6th. Smith's quest for justice now looks like political targeting.
The fake elector scheme warranted investigation, and January 6th rioters belong in jail. Trump’s behavior was abhorrent, but five years later, there’s still no evidence he communicated with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who disgraced our nation that day.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg authorized Smith to subpoena Verizon for senators' phone records. Verizon complied, turning over metadata—numbers dialed, call durations, cell-site locations. AT&T refused, correctly arguing the subpoenas infringed on Article I, Section 6 protections preventing executive intimidation of Congress.
The Fourth Amendment deepens concerns. In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court ruled historical cell-site data normally requires a warrant supported by probable cause. Smith's team instead used grand jury subpoenas requiring only "reasonable grounds"—a standard for criminal suspects, not sitting senators. Roughly 13,000 location points were logged over four days, though call contents were excluded.
Cruz also revealed Boasberg signed gag orders preventing AT&T from notifying him his records were subpoenaed. Both Cruz and Senator Rick Scott demanded Boasberg's impeachment. Scott called for Smith's disbarment.
As The Free Press argued, one party's politicized prosecution justifies the other's retaliation when power shifts. Norms protecting justice erode until law yields to power. Arctic Frost fed this cycle—prelude to Trump's vengeance, which itself preludes the Democrats' next turn.
CATO Strikes at Surveillance Machine
In 2018, Birmingham police suspected Rolando Williamson of running a major drug operation, but they didn’t bother to request a warrant. Instead, they mounted cameras atop utility poles and watched his home continuously for ten months. The footage helped convict him of leading a criminal enterprise distributing crack cocaine—earning him life in prison.
His guilt isn't disputed here. But the warrantless surveillance has ignited a constitutional firestorm. In February, the Eleventh Circuit dubiously ruled it legal because a sliver of Williamson's backyard was partially visible from an alleyway, erasing his Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search.
This week, the Cato Institutefiled an amicus brief that obliterated their argument: "A person does not invite an officer's observation in a restroom because the keyhole is uncovered."
The stakes are profound. Over 1,400 U.S. police departments now deploy drones. New York's Domain Awareness System fuses tens of thousands of cameras, collecting "identity, location, banking details, and social media activity" of millions. Modern cameras feature infrared vision and real-time facial recognition. New systems listen for voices; others use radio waves to "see" through walls.
The parallels to China's 700 million surveillance cameras are chilling—differing only in degree. Both enable what the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent: comprehensive monitoring creating "near perfect surveillance."
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear Williamson's petition.
If you’re into naked gardening or backyard sex, thank CATO—and check those utility poles.
Beyond the Big Apple: Voters Reward Sanity
"We will get f*cking torn apart," Abigail Spanberger warned Democratic leadership five years ago after the party lost over a dozen House seats. "And we need to not ever use the words socialist or socialism ever again."
On Tuesday, voters in New Jersey and Virginia rewarded two Democrats' tack toward center. Spanberger crushed Trump-aligned Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears by 15 points to become Virginia's first female governor. Establishment Democrat and former Navy pilot Mikie Sherrill demolished Republican Jack Ciattarelli by thirteen points in New Jersey. Ciattarelli's association with Trump proved toxic after the president cancelled a major infrastructure project and Latino voters recoiled from the administration's immigration crackdown. Both rejected progressive purity tests—Spanberger vocally opposed "defund the police" after 2020's George Floyd protests, telling colleagues it nearly cost her reelection.
Their campaigns conspicuously avoided far-left policies that decimated Democrats in 2024. No Medicare-for-all. No Green New Deal. Instead, they hammered affordability—lowering healthcare, housing, utility costs. I may oppose their prescriptions, but Spanberger's "pragmatism over partisanship" marked a welcome shift.
This matters because Virginia and New Jersey are purple battlegrounds where Trump made gains last year. These aren't deep-blue strongholds like New York City—where nearly 40% of residents are foreign-born, 280,000 work for city government, and economic dependency runs deep—where democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani won promising his redistributionist fantasy wish list. Mamdani's victory represents socialism's latest doomed experiment that will inevitably collapse like every predecessor.
Tuesday's results delivered our democracy a rare gift: Voters rewarding Democrats’ shift away from their excesses while checking Trump economic platform. Whether national Democrats glean the right lesson—Virginia, not New York—remains their existential question.
Skepticism Reigns Supreme over Trump's Tariffs
When Justice Neil Gorsuch asked whether a president could “impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars to combat climate change,” the courtroom fell silent. His question cut to the heart of the case: if Trump’s tariff powers stand, any future president could wield the same authority to reorder the economy by fiat.
Searing skepticism defined the day. Chief Justice John Roberts described the administration’s reading of a 1977 emergency law as “a misfit,” warning that a statute meant to regulate foreign financial transactions was being stretched to cover “tariffs on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that under the Constitution, citizens are taxed only “through a bill generated by Congress.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett fretted the outcome “could be a mess.”
The timing of a ruling remains uncertain, but Wednesday’s hearing hinted at a court unwilling to surrender Congress’s taxing power to the White House. For advocates of economic freedom, that restraint is more than a legal principle—it’s a vital reminder that freedom dies when presidents rule by proclamation.
American Renegade of the Week: Andy Henry
This is how the neighbors of Andy Henry—a humble farmer from Cranbury, New Jersey—described the moment that threatened to erase his family's 150-year legacy.
"No call. No visit. No conversation. Just a sterile, unsigned letter from a township attorney telling Andy that Cranbury had decided to take his land for a massive housing project—and if he didn't 'agree' to sell, he'd be dragged through a costly battle that could bankrupt him."
Property rights are democracy's bedrock—secure ownership enables citizens to build wealth independent of government favor, fostering both economic stewardship and political autonomy. Nations that protect property rights grow twice as fast as those that don't, driving prosperity and constraining state power.
Andy Henry's family has held onto its Cranbury farm for five generations—through civil war, Depression, and recently, eight-figure developer offers for warehouse conversion. Henry refused them all.
Then came government's assault. Through decades of New Jersey legislation and Supreme Court decisions, municipalities must now provide "fair share" affordable housing. This well-intentioned mandate spawned predictable consequences: government intervention demanding more government intervention. Cranbury needed 265 affordable units. Mayor Lisa Knierim identified Henry's farm as the most "viable site."
Neighbors erupted. Town halls overflowed. A GoFundMe titled "Save Andy's Family Farm" raised $145,000. Trump Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins amplified the cause nationally, personally contributing $1,000.
Victory arrived when Governor Phil Murphy revised state building rules under pressure, enabling alternative sites. Cranbury abandoned its eminent domain claim.
The triumph matters beyond one farm. In 2005's disastrous Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court ruled governments could seize private property for private developers if "public purpose" was alleged—even when that purpose was merely increased tax revenue. Kelo's precedent endures: 5,800 properties were seized in the year following.
The Henrys won because outrage erupted and officials blinked. Most are not so lucky. But one man's quiet dignity—and his neighbors' fierce defiance—proved government overreach can still be beaten.
Refer a Friend:
If you've enjoyed this episode of Dispatches from the Rebellion, please consider referring a friend. Forward this email and ask them to click on the "Subscribe" button below to sign up.
|