W³P Lives: July 2026

Friday, July 31, 2026

Trump is Right: Americans Should Embrace AI Data Centers

American Thinker

America stands at a crossroads that will define her power for generations on end.

The choice is clear: build the foundations for artificial intelligence (AI) dominance or surrender the future to those who already race ahead.

President Donald J. Trump has chosen the path of strength.

Last summer, he signed an executive order which accelerates federal approval for data centers that demand more than 100 megawatts. This unlocks loans, grants, and tax incentives while stripping away Biden-Harris mandates that layered red tape onto energy projects. Agencies must cut fat, use existing exemptions, speed reviews under proven frameworks, and open suitable federal lands.

The goal is simple and unapologetic: secure American prosperity, security, and leadership so this nation outruns every rival. Especially China.

This summer, Trump reiterated his support for AI data centers, declaring they will proliferate without forcing higher electricity bills onto households or businesses. He announced that his Ratepayer Protection Pledge now includes more than 200 additional utilities, developers, cooperatives, and states. The pledge covers 80 percent of all power delivered to American homes and businesses. Large operators, not ordinary ratepayers, must pay the full cost of the extra generation and infrastructure.

The larger strategy appears in Trump’s AI Action Plan.

More than 90 concrete steps fall under three pillars. The first is clearing barriers that slow innovation.

The second is expanding the physical backbone of data centers, chip plants, and the skilled workers who build them.

The third is exporting secure full-stack packages of hardware, models, and standards to trusted partners.

The plan treats the contest with China as the decisive race of our time. Whoever builds the largest AI ecosystem sets the rules, harvesting the economic, military, and, of course, political rewards. America once led in space. It must accumulate epic leverage in AI. Energy capacity has barely grown since the 1970s, while China has raced forward. Only a “build, baby, build” approach can reverse that gap, securing today’s edge in construction, hardware, and models.

Yet public resistance hardens.

More than 70 percent of Americans now oppose local AI data centers. Coordinated protests hit 142 sites across 42 states. Activists call the projects an “unacceptable infringement on liberty.” At least 69 jurisdictions have imposed bans or one-year freezes. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, more than $130 billion in projects stalled.

A June poll found 63 percent of likely voters want a nationwide pause lasting at least a year. That includes 67 percent of Democrats, 66 percent of Independents, and 58 percent of Republicans. Over 800 groups in 49 states target roughly 1500 planned sites. Seventy-five projects were blocked or delayed in just three months. Bills seeking nationwide moratoriums have drawn sponsors from both parties.

The stated reasons sound practical: water and power use, noise, traffic, higher bills, and doubt that jobs will appear. A Gallup survey shows seven in 10 Americans reject AI data centers near their communities. Half of opponents cite resource demands like water, energy, and pollution. One in five worry about quality of life. Another fifth fear economic pain. The rest voice unease about artificial intelligence itself.

Deeper still lies the real driver: fear of software replacing humans. Workers aged 22 to 25 in highly exposed occupations already see employment fall by 3.8 percent each year. Overall AI-exposed jobs contracted while less-exposed roles still grew. Nearly two-thirds of Americans expect fewer jobs over the next two decades. Only five percent expect more.

That fear is understandable. It is also fatal, if allowed to become public policy.

AI is not a passing trend. Global corporate investment more than doubled in 2025. Private funding surged 127.5 percent and now forms 60 percent of the total. Generative AI investment grew more than 200 percent. Newly-funded AI companies rose 71 percent. Billion-dollar funding events nearly doubled. The United States invests 23 times more private capital than China. It far outpaces the combined total of China and Europe in generative AI.

The estimated value which American consumers get from generative AI climbed 54 percent between 2025 and 2026, reaching $172 billion. The median value per user tripled over just one year. Tech giants are pouring record capital into AI, even as the Americans who rely on it revolt.

Some of the most effective opposition is gravely questionable.

A report from the Bitcoin Policy Institute sheds light on the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL). This Marxist-Leninist group has documented ties to China. That arrives via leadership overlap with the nonprofit network of Shanghai-based US expatriate billionaire Neville Roy Singham. He is under federal scrutiny for connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The PSL helped organize 21 campaigns across 14 states. Those efforts delayed, blocked, or scaled back roughly $23.6 billion in proposed investment. This includes a $5 billion project in Maryland, a $12 billion campus in Wisconsin, and a permanent ban in Monterey Park, California. Under federal law, the PSL need not disclose any issue-advocacy donors.

Meanwhile, the CCP encourages America to choke off her own AI capacity while China builds data centers without hesitation.

Critics who demand pauses, bans, and endless review are living in a vanished world. They treat an intensifying post-industrial revolution as if it can be wished away. They ignore that every delay hands priceless ground to Beijing. They pretend environmental worries and job anxiety justify national self-destruction.

AI is already woven into the American and global economies. It will only grow more pivotal, regardless of what anyone wants, fears, desires, hypothesizes, or demands. The question is not whether data centers will rise, shattering the perception of what is technologically possible. It is whether these data centers rise under the American flag, guided by Uncle Sam’s Trump-era rules, or under the iron fist of China and its communist party.

Republicans who make anti-AI maneuvers in this exponentially important midterm season play a dangerous game. It is one which they are likely to lose. Democrats already treat the AI backlash as a rare bipartisan opening. Should they seize the U.S. House or Senate, maybe even both, then blue vipers will unleash boundless venom. They would do everything possible to slow, malign, and ultimately cripple the second half of Trump’s administration.

That outcome serves China’s interest, while setting the Republicans up for a horrendous 2028 presidential election cycle. The smart course is obvious: accept that AI is a lasting and expanding part of life itself. Do not scream about data centers being built. Embrace Trump’s protection of electricity ratepayers. Demand programs to train the AI revolution’s burgeoning workforce. Vote for candidates who are serious about winning the digital race against commies in Beijing.

Anything less is not caution. It is surrender. Not only to China, but to the Democratic Party.

President Trump is right: America must embrace artificial intelligence data centers or forfeit the future. Republicans opposing him are hideously wrong, trapped in yesterday’s fears. Every American should wake up to reality and get with the evolving digital program. Its train has no brakes. Like it or not, every car races forward.

Board now and claim the victory, or stand frozen as China seizes the rails and leaves Americans choking on the smoke of their own engineered defeat.

Podcast thread for July 31

no one cares, got it.

America's Peak Socialism — Abandoned a Century Ago

Townhall

The emergence of the Democratic Socialists of America and their political victories, from New York City across the fruited plains of Michigan and Wisconsin, all the way to Colorado, strikes many as a new thing in U.S. politics.

Previous movements have, in fact, increased, sometimes significantly, the size and scope of government. But it has been their opponents who have accused them of "creeping socialism," while advocates have avoided the S-word.

Some major policies of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal—Social Security most of all—remain part of the fabric of American life, and elements of the social safety net have been expanded quietly, but effectively enough that, as former Sen. Phil Gramm has argued, the government transfer payments have effectively equalized the incomes of those on the bottom 60 percent of the economic ladder.

But virtually no attention, so far as I can see, has been paid to the period in U.S. history when the government took maximum control of the private-sector economy, including the dissemination of information and communication of opinion.

That moment came more than 100 years ago, before the emergence not only of the internet but also of radio and talking motion pictures. It lasted only briefly, and its implications have mostly been glossed over by historians.

It has been chronicled recently, however, and with the help of artificial intelligence, by the iconoclastic economist Arnold Kling. The centerpiece is the policies adopted by Woodrow Wilson's administration and an acquiescent Democratic Congress during the 19 months from April 1917 to November 1918, in which the United States was at war with Germany and its allies in World War I.

This creation of an American state that would "seize the railroad, ration the coal, set the price of wheat, conscript four million men, and prosecute the printed word" was the work of progressive reformers convinced that experts could do better than seemingly chaotic markets in running the economy but who had been limited in their efforts by public opinion and courts' constitutional doctrines.

Wilson's War Industries Board, headed by Wall Street speculator Bernard Baruch, set out "to decide, for the whole nation, what got made, from what materials, in what quantities, at what price, and in what order of priority." His food administration, headed by mining engineer Herbert Hoover, pushed for "meatless Tuesdays and wheatless Wednesdays (and) victory gardens," and doubled the price of wheat so that U.S. farmers could feed allies in Europe.

The government seized the railroads in December 1917, and Treasury Secretary William McAdoo (who was also Wilson's son-in-law) "set the schedules, the rates, the wages, unified the equipment, and cut the competitive duplication." It ran the system "imperfectly, expensively, but it moved the troops and the coal," the essential fuel then for both heavy industry and home heating.

The fuel administration enforced "heatless Mondays," the National War Labor Board set the eight-hour day, and the War Finance Corporation built an emergency fleet. In November 1917, the 35-year-old Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Roosevelt imposed a strike settlement on Bethlehem Steel's Fore River Shipyard manager, a 29-year-old bank president named Joseph P. Kennedy.

This socialist America was anything but friendly to civil rights and civil liberties. Wilson imposed racial segregation on the federal workforce and shut down German cultural organizations. His government prosecuted and jailed the Socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs for defending men imprisoned for obstructing the military draft.

"Everything," Arnold Kling writes, "so far has described a state expanding — seizing, planning, rationing, prosecuting, persuading. The last movement is the one the buildup does not prepare you for, and it is the heart of the matter: how fast nearly all of it came apart."

The War Industries Board voted to dissolve itself on New Year's Day 1919, less than two months after the Armistice; the War Labor Board lapsed; the food and fuel controls ended; Congress (Republican after the November 1918 election) returned the railroads to private owners in the Transportation Act of 1920.

Wilson's Democratic Party was punished in the presidential election that year. The Democratic ticket of James Cox and Franklin Roosevelt got 34 percent of the popular vote. The Republican ticket of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge got 60 percent, the highest percentage in any election up to that date.

You can find elements of Wilson's wartime socialism in some self-described experiments within Roosevelt's New Deal. But when war came, he didn't choose to nationalize the railroads and industries. Instead, he got William Knudsen to enlist executives in moving toward wartime production.

Even the top-secret Manhattan Project got private firms to produce the weapons it invented. Rationing and price controls were employed, but the government didn't use Wilson's overbroad Espionage Act—still on the books today!—to suppress opposition speech as Wilson had.

If you listen to a tape of Roosevelt's speech to Congress on Dec. 8, 1941, the loudest applause, cheers and rebel yells came after he said, "The American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory." Socialism, he evidently thought, was not the way to get there.

Maybe there's a lesson there for the public today.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Welcome to

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature,

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of.

No politics or divisive posts on this thread.

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time.

Kissin' Cousins: Troy Jackson's Senate Campaign Just Got Really Weird

Everyone knew there was more to learn about Troy Jackson, the man chosen by Maine Democrats to replace the contemptible Graham Platner in challenging incumbent Republican Susan Collins for her Senate seat, but what surfaced Thursday is next level weird.

Because Jackson served in the Maine statehouse for years, we already knew certain things about him. He likes to play fast and loose with mortgage finance laws. He throws water bottles at people to intimidate them.

There were lots of whispers that opposition research had uncovered some pretty spicy stuff about Jackson, but no one knew exactly what would be revealed in a slow drip leading up to November. Affairs? Drugs? Money laundering? Nazi tattoos? The mafia?

We weren't entirely sure.

In what is likely to be the first of many reveals to come, the folks at Maine Wire have discovered that Jackson has romantically partnered up with his second cousin and the two have produced offspring. Now, shacking up and procreating with your cousin isn't illegal in Maine, but, let's be honest, it's a little weird in this day and age. But, hey, he found a unique way to out-Platner Platner.

Here's what Maine Wire discovered. It all starts in Jackson's hometown of Allagash, Maine.

The tiny St. John River Valley town of Allagash (population 240) has long been the butt of Maine jokes about its handful of last names and family trees that don’t so much branch as tangle.
Now Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Troy Dale Jackson, 58, and on his fifth pacemaker, finds his own ancestry under the same microscope that eventually ran his predecessor, oyster hobbyist Graham Platner, out of American politics and into hiding.

At this point, genealogy enters the chat.

Allagash tipsters and genealogical records confirm that Jackson’s longtime significant other, Lana Pelletier — his high school sweetheart and the mother of his two adult sons, Chace and Camden — is, in fact, his second cousin by blood.

Jackson and Pelletier share the same great-grandparents: Thomas Pelletier and Edith Thibodeau. Thomas and Edith’s daughter Albertine was Troy’s grandmother; their son Louis Sr. was Lana’s grandfather. That makes Troy and Lana second cousins on the Pelletier line.

The outlet noted that Jackson and his lifemate, who are not believed to be married, are well within their legal right to cohabitate as second cousins. However, that still may be too close for comfort for some of their neighbors, or, as Maine Wire put it, "close enough for small-town knowing glances, distant enough that the law and biology shrug."

I'd hazard this is just a taste of things to come. Keep in mind, we're just now entering into the summer doldrums and many voters aren't yet enthused about the November elections. The closer we get, the more that will be revealed about Troy Jackson.

Of note also is that the kissin' cousins revelation didn't come from the Republican Party, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or the Collins campaign, which means they are likely holding their fire for September and perhaps a big October surprise.

Leftist Women Are AWFUL

Townhall

In the 1984 movie "Ghostbusters," the titular characters are asked to choose the form of the supernatural entity that will destroy New York City. Dan Aykroyd's character, Ray Stantz, accidentally chooses the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. Movies and popular culture often portray the destroyer of our cities and our world as gigantic monsters like Godzilla, unearthly beings like aliens, or cataclysmic natural disasters like 100-foot tsunamis. But the form of our destructor is much simpler: the affluent white female urban leftist (AWFUL).

I can say this as a woman, too. There is no greater threat to our world and our freedoms than AWFULs. A little over a week ago, I wrote about how these women believe that the First Amendment of the Constitution doesn't protect so-called "hate speech." The majority of leftist women have at least one diagnosed mental illness, which means their definition of "hate speech" is anything that hurts their feelings or contradicts their delusional worldviews. They're also more likely to end friendships and familial relationships over politics.

Much of this, I think, comes from the fact many of these women have no purpose in life beyond scolding the rest of us. Most of them are unmarried, and understandably so; no man should have to suffer that fate. Those that are married are often childless, and usually by choice. But the maternal instinct is innate and runs deep, even in the childless. Instead of focusing that energy in their homes, they focus it outward, but it's warped severely by their politics.

That's why women like this exist:

"I think my answer is yes, even though that's a challenging answer to say," the woman says when asked if a rapist should be free to roam the streets.

"I have been raped, and they are out in the street, and I'm not sure, like, them going to jail is a solution to whatever's going on inside their heart, or even my own heart that contributed to the experience that I'm having," she continues.

"Even in my own heart that contributed to the experience that I'm having ... "

Excuse me, but what? It truly sounds like she's blaming herself for her rape. That's diseased thinking. But it gets worse.

"And I don't want more people to get raped but I don't know for certain if going into a jail in the United States is going to shift anything inside of their operating system so they'll make a different choice again," she says.

Prison doesn't exist to shift hearts or operating systems. Prison exists to remove bad, evil people from polite society. Full stop. Evil exists, contrary to what this dingbat believes, and it cannot be reasoned with.

Nor can we spend our way out of it. The view of Democratic Socialists (and I don't doubt this woman is one) seems to be that if we spend boatloads of money on failing public education, healthcare for all, housing, and other free s**t, crime will simply go away. They believe poverty is the sole driver of crime, which is a load of horse crap and a slap in the face to poor people.

My grandparents, born in 1928, spent their childhoods during the Great Depression. They sometimes had to pick the maggots out of meat before cooking and eating it; lard sandwiches were common, and they didn't have much. But my forebears, in response to their poverty, did not rob, rape, or murder. They made do with what they had.

Then again, we're talking about leftists who think common behaviors like being on time, working hard, and being polite are markers of "white supremacy" now. As I've written about in the past, some school districts excuse the disruptive and violent behavior of black students because they deem it "culturally appropriate," and I've never heard anything that's more actually racist and white supremacist in my life.

But I digress.

This woman, like a lot of them, is perfectly fine with a rapist not only raping her, but raping other women as well, so long as her preferred political ideologies continue to be upheld. We saw that in Maine, too, when Graham Platner's second accuser, Jenny Racicot, admitted she almost didn't come forward to say Platner raped her because she liked his politics. Democratswould have brushed Racicot aside, too, had they not suddenly realized that Graham Platner was going to lose to Susan Collins. That's why they kicked him to the curb; his scandals were just the cover story.

This mentality is what is going to destroy our society. This notion that it's wrong to put people in prison, the idea that prison is supposed to be some wellness spa where people go to hear Oprah-esque affirmations and come out renewed, that prisons and violence are social constructs, and if we just ply these people with free stuff courtesy of the taxpayer, they'll suddenly behave. Few crimes are driven by poverty. Rape and murder certainly aren't. It's driven by unintelligent people with poor emotional control, poor impulse control, and a sense of entitlement. That's moral bankruptcy, not poverty.

And most of that is driven by women like this. This woman does not care who is hurt or how society falls, so long as she can say she didn't put a criminal in prison. She thinks she speaks for the rest of us, and that we must agree to be victims of crime because her worldview says so. They live up to the acronym, and what they're doing to our cities, our country, and our culture is truly AWFUL.