Wednesday, September 2, 2026

Trump’s Economic D-Day Puts America First, Crushes Iranian Jihadists


The Donald J. Trump administration has launched its most aggressive economic assault yet against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent labeled it “economic D-Day.” Operation Economic Outcast (OEO) is designed to choke off every remaining financial channel that buoys the ayatollahs and their Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). After 47 years of Iranian Islamist aggression, the United States has stopped managing the threat and started ending it. This turn is entirely due to the leadership of Trump.

OEO maps the exact networks Tehran uses to smuggle oil, launder money, buy missile components, and launch cyberattacks.

In one day, nearly 60 companies, individuals, and vessels across the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, China, Singapore, Switzerland, and Europe were targeted. Five key sectors — digital assets, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping — now face sharply expanded secondary-sanctions risk. Any foreign firm still operating in those sectors can be cut off from the American financial system.

Licenses that once permitted limited remittances and academic exchanges were frozen. New guidance warned shipping companies against bowing to Iranian demands in the Strait of Hormuz.

This is not theater.

Jihadist fanatics, who enjoy their sadistic stranglehold over the Iranian people, have treated “Death to America” as state policy since the 1979 Islamist revolution. They have armed proxies that murdered Americans, pursued nuclear weapons, and used oil money to bankroll the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Earlier White House administrations issued statements and occasional sanctions. The Trump team has chosen total isolation for the savages in Tehran.

Control over the Strait of Hormuz proves the shift.

Iranian mines have been swept from the international lanes. Nearly 1,500 commercial vessels have transited under U.S. protection, carrying 750 million barrels of crude oil to world markets. Iran itself has exported no oil from its own ports since the blockade resumed in July. Seventy-five ships that tried to break the blockade were turned around. Persian Gulf oil exports have climbed back to two-thirds of pre-operation levels and continue to recover.

Trump stated repeatedly that the American Navy, not Tehran, controls the waterway. The shipping data confirm him.

The economic vise is tightening inside Iran. A fuel crisis, a collapsing currency (i.e., the rial), and crushing inflation are already visible. OEO closes the last escape hatches: cryptocurrency used by the IRGC, gold purchases meant to prop up the rial, so-called commercial airlines that ferry weapons and cash, and the shadow tanker fleet that moves illicit crude oil. Tehran now faces a stark choice: complete isolation or a return to the global economy on American terms.

Democrats spent the Biden-Harris years treating this same Islamist regime with a softness that ignored the rising body count in Tehran and far beyond. They revived nuclear talks, waived sanctions, and watched Iranian proxies grow stronger.

That pattern is not a series of mistakes. Large sectors of the Democrat Party, from city halls to Capitol Hill, have been seized by seriously organized, well-funded, and ultra-motivated activists. They are overwhelmingly Generation Z (born from 1997 to 2012) or Millennial (born from 1981 to 1996). They call themselves “democratic socialists.” In reality, their ideology is third-worldist and race-communist. They view Western prosperity as theft from the non-white, underdeveloped world.

Muslim theocracies are therefore regarded as natural partners in tearing the West down. Softness toward Tehran flows directly from that worldview, which directs paramount hatred toward America and Israel.

If those race-communists capture the House, the Senate, or both this November, they will spend the next two years dismantling every remaining pressure campaign against Iranian Islamism. They will try to starve the Trump administration of vital funds, launch endless anti-GOP investigations, and give Tehran breathing room. They will then go all-out to hobble any Republican running for president in 2028.

That is their explicit plan. Pretending otherwise is self-delusion.

Republican voters therefore face a clear test. The progress is already visible. Trump has delivered American naval dominance over Iran, financial strangulation of the IRGC, and deterred Iranian state terrorism on an unsurpassed level. Members of a majority-Democratic Congress would do everything possible to set roadblocks in his way.

Staying home in November is an America-last decision. It signals to the Tehran regime that Uncle Sam lacks the stamina to finish his righteous job.

The stakes are concrete. Iran’s foreign policy is built on destroying Americans and their partners. The Treasury designations last week, combined with actual control over the Strait, represent the first coherent effort in generations to make Iranian state terror unaffordable. Strength produces results. Surrender to the race-communist faction inside the Democrat Party produces more of the same weakness that defined Biden-Harris.

Turnout in November will decide which course the country follows.

The details of OEO reveal how systematic it is. A procurement network spanning East Asia that supplied dual-use technology to Malek Ashtar University and other Iranian defense ministry subordinates was dismantled. A cyber group, directed by Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence, that penetrated U.S. energy firms, defense contractors, hospitals, and government offices was sanctioned. Four of its members now face federal indictment.

Brokers in Dubai and Singapore, who moved Iranian oil for the IRGC and processed tens of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency payments, were frozen by Uncle Sam. Shadow-fleet tankers that carried millions of barrels of Iranian crude oil to China were blocked.

These are not isolated names on a list. They are the arteries. Cut them and the Iranian Islamist regime’s ability to fund terror, build missiles, and wage cyber war shrinks. Secretary Bessent was blunt: Nations still doing business with Tehran should expect to share its isolation. The clock started last week.

Critics at home will call OEO reckless. They said the same about the American naval blockade. The facts on the water and in the markets refute these voices of doom and gloom, whose words ultimately excrete from the bowels of death-to-America ideology. Oil is moving. Iran is not selling. The rial is sinking. That is what America-first policy looks like when it is actually executed, rather than announced and then walked back.

The midterm question is therefore simple. Do Republican voters want this actual America-first pressure continued? Alternatively, do they want it reversed by a blue Congress, captured by activists who despise the West and romanticize its enemies? There is no middle ground.

For nearly half a century, Iran has funded terrorism against America and its allies while Washington too often treated the regime as a problem to be managed. Trump and his administration chose instead to starve it financially, control the Strait of Hormuz, and make Tehran’s isolation real. Democrats, increasingly captured by third-worldist race-communists, will go to great lengths to reverse that progress if they retake Congress.

Republican voters who stay home this autumn will have implicitly chosen that reversal. November will show whether Americans have the stamina to finish the job.


Podcast thread for Sept 2nd

 


what a time to be alive.

America Wins in Venezuela While China and Canada Lose


In a January Townhall column, I argued that the Venezuela operation was a win for America and a loss for China and Canada. Friday's announcement from the Trump administration of an oil deal with Venezuela confirms that assessment.

The agreement gives the U.S. a majority control of more than 65 billion barrels of proven reserves through a joint venture built around 17 strategic fields, with an initial production target north of 1.5 million barrels per day over a 25-year framework. On paper, it creates the second-largest private holder of proven reserves on the planet, behind only Saudi Aramco.

But Americans need to be realistic about their expectations: this won’t translate into lower gasoline or diesel prices anytime soon. Oil is an extremely investment-heavy industry with massive infrastructure, and Venezuela is a complete wreck after years of communists running it into the ground.

Decades of mismanagement left pumps, pipelines, storage tanks, upgraders, port facilities, and the electrical grid that powers all of it in a state of advanced decay. It’ll take billions of dollars and several years to repair, replace, and modernize that infrastructure. Anyone promising cheaper gasoline by Thanksgiving knows nothing about the oil industry.

But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and industry needed the guarantees of this deal to return to Venezuela. When the communists took over, they kicked out American oil companies, confiscating their physical and intellectual property, converting profitable private businesses to unprofitable state-run failures.

Firms that had poured billions of dollars into modernizing the industry effectively lost it all. Earlier this year, some of the largest names in American energy publicly called Venezuela “uninvestable” because of its track record on property rights, among other sins.

However, this agreement creates a very different calculus. A bilateral framework of this size, negotiated by the State and Defense Departments and running a quarter-century, amounts to an implied federal backstop against another round of confiscation. This reduces political risk and makes infrastructure projects profitable again.

Furthermore, that backstop doesn't just unlock capital in Venezuela, but here as well. Refiners on the Gulf of America can already run three to four million barrels a day of heavy crude, and many of those coking units were purpose-built for Venezuelan barrels in the first place. But absorbing a sustained new flow means fresh investment in docks, terminals, storage, and blending capacity along the coast.

Multi-billion-dollar pieces of equipment can’t be built on a whim. They require reasonably confident projections of the future. In this case, industry needs to be confident that Venezuelan crude will be arriving in greater volumes before deciding to upgrade Gulf facilities to handle additional imports. Trump’s new oil deal gives that confidence.

And more Venezuelan imports impacts Canada. Venezuelan heavy crude and Western Canadian Select are chemical cousins: both viscous, high in sulfur, and bound for the same complex refineries. Every marginal Venezuelan tanker unloading on the Gulf Coast can displace a Canadian one, and now at a discount.

Canada sends roughly 80 percent of its crude production to the US, but it now stands to be replaced by Venezuela in coming years — and that’s a key piece of leverage in the current trade dispute. Negotiations recently collapsed, followed by 50 percent tariffs on some Canadian exports, and Canadian retaliation scheduled for September 8 on some American exports.

However, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s negotiating position has been severely weakened because the clock is ticking on his quasi-monopoly on heavy crude oil. 

Negotiators in both the U.S. and Canada now know that lower cost Venezuelan crude will very likely be arriving at U.S. shores in larger quantities in coming years, removing a key piece of leverage currently enjoyed by Canada. While there are no winners in a trade war, not everyone loses equally and these new dynamics in the oil market mean Canada stands to lose much more.

This increases the odds that the U.S. will get a fairer trade deal and that American exporters — from farmers to factories — will gain access to more Canadian consumer markets. By forcing Ottawa to reduce its tariff and non-tariff barriers, U.S. products will be able to compete on a more level playing field in Canada.

In less than a year, Venezuela has gone from selling oil to China to entering an oil deal with the US, weakening the former and strengthening the latter. The relief for American consumers won’t be instantaneous, but that’s what naysayers said about the fracking revolution, which eventually drove down gas and diesel prices for many years.


🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

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. 


Americans Need To Seize U.S. Assets Foreigners Are Sending Abroad


Every deportee must be compelled to leave behind all gains illegitimately ‘earned’ as a result of mass migration invasion.



As dire as circumstances seem across the country, the United States can fix most, if not all, of the problems facing the average American family through mass deportations and expropriation of the property of anyone associated with the illegal alien invasion. This means dramatically increasing taxes on remittances, confiscating the property of deportees, and imposing escalating fines on businesses that incentivize and profit from mass illegal migration. Then the government must use the acquired funds to fuel the ongoing deportation efforts and improve the socioeconomic conditions of the American worker.

Before the angry cries of the libertarians and the leftist GOP establishment class reach a fever pitch, I’d like to remind — or, perhaps, inform for the first time — such detractors about this great American tradition. During the first American Revolution, American patriots had a problem: Tories, or Loyalists, acted as a fifth column that was aligned with a foreign power and that stood against the independent American people.

Reaching back into the same Anglo-Saxon common law familiar to both sides of this conflict, the patriots passed acts of attainder to formalize the confiscation of the commercial and personal property of this fifth column. These acts served two purposes: First, they punished Loyalist dissenters and created a chilling effect among the fence-sitters in the former colonies; second, the seized properties were sold at auction to finance the war effort.

From New York to South Carolina, confiscation acts treated Loyalist property as forfeit despite stipulations in the Treaty of Paris stating that confiscated property should be restored. Your ancestors, the same ones celebrated during this 250th year of American exceptionalism, cared not about the technicalities but about the practicalities of securing their new homeland.

“The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation” than a strict observance of the written law, opined Thomas Jefferson in an 1810 letter in response to a question about the assumption of authorities beyond the law by leaders when our country is in danger. The mere words in the Treaty of Paris ranked below the security of the fledgling nation in the decades during and after the revolution.

For the left-leaning establishment class, take heart that your Union heroes used the same logic against the Confederacy during the “second American Revolution.” The Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862 stripped the Southern patriots of their capital. The Federals did not stop at military property; rather, they escalated to the total confiscation of all personal and commercial property belonging to anyone supporting the Confederacy. Even President Abraham Lincoln, despite his initial tepid protestations, signed both acts and used the same expropriation concept to underpin the Emancipation Proclamation.

Now that we’ve established that both sides of the Republican aisle have an historical ally who engaged in expropriation to punish their enemies and reward their friends, let us turn our gaze together to the fifth column anchored within our country today. These illegal foreigners are the obvious place to start — every deportee must be compelled to leave behind all gains illegitimately “earned” as a result of their invasion. Simply deporting them to their country of origin is insufficient. Where is the recompense to the actual Americans who have suffered due to the invasion?

There is a second category prime for expropriation: the traitor class that employs, houses, and benefits from this imported invasion. Men who speak our language and hold our titles have worked tirelessly to sell our inheritance to these replacements. The commercial and personal property of such men represents a plenteous bounty ripped from the hands of patriots, off the plates of our children, and into vacation homes and cruises that these men never deserved. Americans have every right to expropriate their property, just as our fathers did in the first American Revolution.

Let’s talk practically about how to accomplish this noble goal. First, every remittance payment sent back to the homeland by a visa-holding foreigner should be taxed at least 50 percent. Foreigners remitted more than $200 billion in 2021 alone. With an estimated price tag of $315 billion to deport the current illegal population, per the American Immigration Council, we’ve covered the cost of mass deportations with just three years of remittance taxes.

Second, every employer of illegal foreigners should lose his business license for a first offense and face civil asset forfeiture of his business for a second offense — the punishment for employing illegals must be so strong that executives are terrified of making such a mistake. A third offense for employing illegals should result in forfeiture of all personal property determined to have been acquired as a result of their illegal activity.

A 2022 survey from the American Immigration Council provides extremely conservative estimates of the percentage of illegal foreigners in various industries: 14 percent of the construction industry, 13 percent of agriculture, and 7 percent of hospitality. Given that those percentages are based on the significant underestimate of 11 million illegal foreigners, the reader may extrapolate what the true percentages are per industry.

Now that we’ve seized these assets, what else can we do with them? Remember, we already paid for the remainder of the mass deportations, following in the footsteps of our fathers who financed their revolution via acts of attainder. Once the demographic security of our country is stable, we can focus on rewarding the young American patriot who has been denied a job, a home, and a future.

As Sean Davis noted recently, “A majority of Americans under the age of 50 believe that the American Dream is no longer possible for them.” Without access to the property and capital illegitimately held by foreigners and traitors, a majority of Americans — particularly the youth below 30 — are right to feel that way.

Many failed pundits have made much of Vice President J.D. Vance’s commentary on the appeal of socialism to the youngest voting bloc. To these voters, Vance said, “You as an American citizen deserve to have a good life in this country, and you deserve to have a government that is making it easier for you to start a family, for you to afford to get a good education, for you to have a good job, for you to afford a home.”

Rather than modern DSA slopulism, Vance’s comments are aligned with the historical Anglo-Saxon and American understanding of the government’s role in serving and safeguarding the common good. The expropriation framework outlined above can make that common good a reality.


Revised Gun Survey Delivers Some Very Bad News for Gun-Control Advocates

Eighty-eight million American adults. Roughly 461 million firearms. About 40 million AR-15-type rifles. A new national survey by Georgetown University professor William English put those numbers on the board last week.

The numbers alone are interesting. How English got them this time around is probably more important.

English's 2021 survey ended up all over Second Amendment litigation. By December 2024, it had been cited in roughly 65 briefs and came up during Supreme Court arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Five academics later published a critique in the SMU Law Review.

Because of serious methodological issues, English’s draft fails to provide a reliable estimate of the number of annual defensive gun uses, the stock of AR-15s, or the actual protective value of or frequency with which AR-15 type firearms have been used. The paper should not be used as an authoritative source.

Among their complaints: English asked whether people had ever owned an AR-15 or similarly styled rifle. His ownership questions also left open whether respondents were counting their own guns or somebody else's in the household.

So the 2026 survey asks different questions.

English surveyed 51,398 adults and counted 16,688 as validated gun owners. Respondents were told to count firearms they personally owned. AR-15 owners were asked what they own now. Other similarly styled semi-automatic rifles got their own question.

English also required two answers before counting somebody as a gun owner: They had to select firearm ownership in the screening question and later report at least one handgun, rifle, or shotgun.

The result was not a smaller estimate.

Twenty-five percent of gun owners reported owning an AR-15-type rifle, which works out to roughly 22 million adults. When owners of other similarly styled rifles are included — while avoiding double-counting people who own both — English estimates that 26.4 million adults own at least one rifle in those categories.

Then there is the actual gun count: about 40 million AR-15-type rifles and another 20 million similarly styled rifles.

Magazines moved in the same direction. The old survey found 48 percent had ever owned a magazine holding more than 10 rounds. In 2026, 50.5 percent said they currently own one. English estimates 44.5 million people own roughly 539 million of them.

Defensive gun use drew another fight.

Critics objected to English taking incidents reported over a person's lifetime and using them to calculate an annual number. 

This time respondents were asked how old they were when each incident happened. They were also asked whether they were dealing with a person or an animal.

The survey finds that 37.6% of gun owners have used a firearm to defend themselves, their property, a family member, or a member of their household, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 2.2 million incidents per year.

Most did not involve anybody pulling the trigger. No shot was fired in 76.3 percent of reported incidents. More than one assailant was involved in 50.8 percent.

And these aren't numbers landing in a vacuum. Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins involve restrictions on AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles and are before the Supreme Court this fall. 

The new survey has been public for only a few days, and the academics will have their say. But the data is already on the field. The estimated 88 million American gun owners don't need a law review article to know what they own.


‘Communist Red Guard BS’: Mom of Girl Crippled by Illegal Alien Just Levels Anti-ICE School Walkouts

A Colorado mother whose daughter was left nonverbal, wheelchair-bound, and feeding-tube dependent after an illegal immigrant slammed into her vehicle did not mince words on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

Patricia Fox was particularly irate over a planned statewide anti-ICE student protest.

“70-plus Colorado schools are poised to stage an anti-ICE walkout on September 4th,” Fox told a House Judiciary subcommittee. "If that is not some Communist Party, red-guard bulls**t, I don't know what is."

WARNING: Language

Organizers say students at more than 70 campuses across the Centennial State will walk out Friday under the banner “Students Say ICE Out.”

Those same students would be better served to stay in school and maybe learn that the people who need to get out are the criminal illegal alien animals who never should have been allowed in the country in the first place.

You wouldn't stroll into a bank in the middle of your accounts being emptied by bank robbers and demand the security guards get out, you absolute raving lunatics.

Fox, in her comments to Congress, argued schools were mobilizing students against ICE while families like hers live with the wreckage of open-borders policy.

"Policymakers ... could reasonably foresee that some people within such a large population would commit crimes, drive unlawfully, traffic drugs, or otherwise harm Americans," she said. "That raises a moral question that has stayed with me throughout this experience: What was the acceptable number of American victims?"

Nobody came to families like mine and asked what level of additional risk we were willing to accept. Nobody asked me whether I was willing to pay for these policy choices with my daughter's future. There was no voluntary status under which only Americans willing to assume that risk would experience its consequences. Other people made the policy decisions. Families like mine were left to live with the consequences when those decisions went wrong.

Fox is the mother of 22-year-old Carissa Aspnes. Carissa was a passenger on a friend’s motorcycle when a car driven by illegal immigrant Valeria Bermudez Marcano crossed multiple lanes of traffic and pulled into their path. 

The motorcycle struck the vehicle, and Carissa was thrown into a concrete barrier. She survived, but a catastrophic brain injury left her “minimally conscious, nonverbal.”

She is fed through a tube, uses a wheelchair, and requires round-the-clock care.

In an incredibly infuriating moment, Fox, under questioning from Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ-5), said sanctuary-state officials in Colorado lied to her about the driver who destroyed her daughter’s life.

After the March 2025 Aurora hit-and-run, she asked whether the woman who struck Carissa was in the country illegally. The initial investigators told her family the driver was a U.S. citizen.

Fox said she had no reason to doubt that answer for months. Then, about six months later, immigration status began surfacing in the criminal case, and the official story fell apart. 

Fox said local officials could not, or would not, give her a straight explanation and only confirmed the truth after she pressured them on the matter. The driver, she later learned, had entered the United States illegally in 2023 and come to Colorado because of its sanctuary policies.

"This is why laws matter before someone becomes a victim," Fox explained. "A driver's-license requirement is a guardrail. Insurance requirements are guardrails. Traffic laws are guardrails. Immigration laws are guardrails. Cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities is another guardrail."

"We should not have to wait until someone is killed or permanently disabled before those guardrails suddenly become important."

Well said.

Fox, in a hearing back in April, challenged Democrats on the committee to come help feed her daughter and get her out of bed, then try to lecture her on sanctuary city policies.

Colorado schools can walk out against ICE on Friday. Democrats can walk out of these hearings and tell Americans why they have to accept illegal aliens. But Fox’s daughter won't ever be able to walk or talk again.

Where is the justice in that?


President Trump Is a Data-Center YIMBY. His Critics Are Not.

President Trump sparked the predictable outrage Monday after telling communities to “let Data Reign” and embrace the data centers powering America’s AI future. Apparently, suggesting that the United States should build the infrastructure necessary to compete in the most consequential technological race of the century is enough to provoke a national meltdown.

"The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor," the president wrote on Truth Social, Monday. "If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign. The good news is that there are plenty of other places that want them. If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame. China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement. Actually, they can’t believe it is happening! President DJT."

The administration has chosen to support the data centers America needs to remain competitive in AI, even though it is politically unpopular to do so. Nearly seven in ten Americans, including 60 percent of Republicans, say they oppose putting one in their own community. But that is precisely the point, that a lot of people implicitly want the AI revolution, but far too many want the infrastructure in someone else’s backyard. President Trump, unlike the professional NIMBYs, is not demanding that sacrifice from a safe distance.

Just five miles from Mar-a-Lago, the presidents Florida home, sits a data center. Palm Beach County, where Mar-a-Lago resides is home to 15 data-center facilities, 12 operational and three in development, making it Florida’s fifth-largest county market for the industry. The story is much the same in Washington. A data center sits about half a mile from the White House, while just across the Potomac is Loudoun County, Virginia, the global epicenter of data centers, with over 200 facilities. 

Trump is practicing what he preaches. He is a YIMBY, “yes in my backyard,” when it comes to the infrastructure of the future. Much of the opposition, by contrast, is classic NIMBYism. People want the jobs, AI tools, and economic gains promised by the next technological revolution. But they also want the servers, construction, and power generation built in someone else’s backyard. Or, worse, they oppose the infrastructure outright while complaining that AI’s promised benefits have not yet arrived, as they demand new jobs, revived manufacturing, reshoring, energy abundance, and economic growth.

Much of the loudest opposition to AI data centers comes conveniently from people who live, work, and tweet from cities like New York and Washington, D.C., places already powered by enormous networks of digital infrastructure and data centers. They enjoy the cloud services, instant delivery, streaming platforms, online commerce, and increasingly AI-powered tools that these facilities make possible. 

And this is the larger point. Opponents insist their communities do not need data centers, as though Big Tech woke up one morning and decided to impose servers on innocent Americans for fun. But every AI prompt, cloud backup, streamed show, online order, and app depends on the computing power housed inside them. People say they do not want data centers, then spend all day using the services that require them. That is not Big Tech imposing its will, it is people demanding more data centers. AI does not run on good intentions, public meetings, or angry posts on X; it runs on enormous amounts of specialized computing infrastructure. 

Trump’s message is simple, America cannot lead the AI race while refusing to build the infrastructure that makes AI possible. We can build it here, or we can pat ourselves on the back for opposing Big Tech while the investment, jobs, and technological advantage go somewhere else.


♦️𝐖³π πƒπšπ’π₯𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 π“π‘π«πžπšπ


 


W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time.