Another step in the right direction.

The Trump administration is making strides to hold people accountable.

Also, Making America Great Again.

Yes, gas is high right now and the other ‘stuff’ people are blaming on Iran’s evil being fought.

Personally, I’m having faith in the process. President Trump has done a LOT in less than 16 months.

Enjoy the below and, most importantly, get out and vote in November so liberals don’t take the House and have a field day again with impeachments. That would men no more progress on the MAGA agenda.

Under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the pace of resignations, indictments, and arrests is picking up speed. Yesterday, the UK Guardian covered the latest in a sneaky and deceptive story headlined, “Mayor of California city resigns over charges of being a foreign agent of China.” The Guardian’s story included all kinds of biographical information, but “forgot” to mention the mayor’s political affiliation. Can you guess what that means?

Arcadia is a Los Angeles suburb tucked against the rumpled green wall of the San Gabriel Mountains, about 13 miles from downtown. (Pop. 56,000.) Palm-lined boulevards slide past tidy ranch houses and understated mansions, shaded by an “urban forest” that the city calls its municipal tree canopy. On weekends, the air smells faintly of jasmine, dim sum, and fresh coffee as multigenerational families drift between Asian bakeries, old-school diners, and sleek bubble tea bars, reflecting a population that, over time, has become 59% Asian. The city’s name, Arcadia, is a Greek word meaning “idyllic rural paradise.”

Well, not all that idyllic. This week, Eileen Wang (D), 58, the mayor of Arcadia since 2022, pleaded guilty to a federal charge of acting as an agent of the Chinese Communist Party and abruptly resigned.

Wang was the council’s first female member from China and its first ‘Asian-American’ Democrat. (Thanks for nothing, Guardian.) She was elected on a platform of homelessness, “collaboration and unity,” and “championing small business.” Arcadia’s homeless population grew, and its small businesses shrank, but on the other hand, it got an exciting communist secret agent.

Admittedly, this is not super surprising in the modern Democrat party, in which you practically trip over Chinese spies on your way to the ribbon table. See, e.g., Eric Swalwell.

Prosecutors said Wang was in charge of spreading “pro-PRC propaganda” in the US. “By her own admission, Eileen Wang secretly served the interests of the Chinese government,” said Roman Rozhavsky, assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence and espionage division. In the plea agreement, which Wang signed, she admitted she “received and executed encrypted directives from PRC government officials to post pro-PRC content.” Well, who among us hasn’t received directives from PRC officials from time to time?

Wang faces fines and potentially ten years in federal prison. But more importantly, as a convicted felon, she can no longer hold office or vote.

I mention this “local interest story” because it is part of the larger pattern of resignations, arrests, and indictments that I covered in more detail in Sunday’s C&C post. Here’s the summary, in case you missed it. First, just in the last three weeks:

• April 14th — Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) resigns from Congress; he had been the Democrats’ leading candidate, it’s “great white hope” for California Governor.

• April 20th — the Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted by a federal grand jury for bank fraud and secretly financing hate groups.

• April 21st — Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) resigns mid-campaign for her fourth term, with a pending Miami criminal case over $5 million in allegedly stolen covid disaster-relief funds (CNBC: “third House member to quit this month”).

• April 28th — Dr. David Morens, longtime Fauci adviser, indicted by DOJ on covid-related charges.

• May 4th — Michigan AG Dana Nessel files a 41-page criminal affidavit charging Fay Beydoun — a Gretchen Whitmer-appointed “nonprofit business leader” — with sixteen felonies for fraud and corruption around a $20 million state grant.

• May 8th — Poul Thorsen, former CDC scientist and lead author of the foundational 2003 NEJM paper used for two decades to “disprove” the MMR-autism link, was extradited from Germany and arraigned in Atlanta on two counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering; he’s being held without bail as a flight risk.

• May 8th — Mass. State Rep. Christopher Flanagan (D-Dennis) was indicted on eight counts of wire fraud, one count of money laundering, one count of falsification of records, and three counts of filing false tax returns (~$40K, including a psychic).

• May 11th — James Comey indicted by a federal grand jury for his moronic “86 47” seashell art project. (Also, yesterday, USA Today: “Comey says Trump DOJ may seek third indictment.”)

• Last week — FBI raided Virginia State Sen. Louise Lucas (D) — “Virginia’s most powerful Democrat” and the “architect” of the failed $70M gerrymandering operation — along with her marijuana dispensary, as part of what Acting AG Todd Blanche confirms is an “ongoing criminal investigation.”

• Yesterday — Arcadia (Greater LA) Mayor Eileen Wang (D) resigned and pleaded guilty to being a Chinese spy.

That’s just three weeks! All of this wildly gratifying DOJ activity should also be considered in light of the FBI’s Fulton County raid (January 28th) and the FBI’s criminal subpoenas to Maricopa County officials (March), both related to the 2020 Election. This level of politically adjacent prosecution spanning the entire country and involving state and federal levels and deep state actors like the CDC scientists is historically unprecedented. If it weren’t happening right before our astonished eyes, you’d place a Polymarket bet that it could never happen.

🔥 Read the full Coffee and Covid Substack here.

☕️ Coffee & Covid News 🦠

☕️ REVOLUTION AND RENEWAL ☙ Tuesday, May 12, 2026 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Good morning, C&C, it’s Tuesday! Your roundup includes: an Los Angeles area (Arcadia) mayor unmasked as a Chinese agent; the swelling prosecutorial floodwaters; the NYT awkwardly admits RFK Jr.’s vac…

Read more

4 days ago · 1712 likes · 885 comments · Jeff Childers

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

Privacy and personal information remain in our minds and in the news. Cell phones are the biggest trackers.

What will the courts decide about the 4th Amendment? It’s another conundrum.

How to catch the bad guys while protecting the rights and privacy of the non-bad guys.

But, in the end, the only control we may be able to exercise over our phones is to leave them someplace we’re not.

This is one of the most important modern Fourth Amendment debates because it sits right at the intersection of:

• privacy,

• technology,

• public safety,

• government power,

• and constitutional limits.

The legal and constitutional tension comes from a simple question:

Should the government be allowed to know where you were simply because you carried a phone?

And the answer becomes complicated because:

• sometimes that information helps solve serious crimes,

• and sometimes it can sweep up thousands of innocent people who were merely nearby.

What “Geofencing” Actually Means

A geofence is a virtual boundary around a physical area.

Law enforcement can ask companies like Google for:

• all devices detected within a geographic area,

• during a certain time period.

Example:

• “Give us all devices near this bank between 2:00–2:20 PM.”

That can produce:

• suspects,

• witnesses,

• delivery drivers,

• nearby residents,

• random pedestrians,

• journalists,

• protesters,

• tourists,

• or innocent bystanders.

That is why geofence warrants are controversial.

Why This Raises Fourth Amendment Concerns

The Fourth Amendment protects against: “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Traditionally, police needed:

• probable cause,

• tied to a specific person or place.

Geofence warrants reverse that logic.

Instead of: “We suspect John Doe.”

It becomes: “Give us everyone who was there, then we’ll figure out who interests us.”

That is where critics argue it starts resembling a:

• “general warrant.”

General warrants were one of the abuses that helped trigger the American Revolution. British authorities used broad authority to search groups of people without individualized suspicion.

Many constitutional scholars see geofence warrants as potentially reviving that same concept digitally. And authority never seems to stay inside its boundaries.

The Key Supreme Court Foundation: Digital Privacy

Several Supreme Court cases have increasingly recognized that:

modern technology changes privacy expectations.

The biggest modern case is:

Carpenter v. United States

In Carpenter, the Supreme Court ruled that:

• long-term cell phone location tracking generally requires a warrant.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that cell phones create: “an intimate window into a person’s life.”

The Court recognized that:

• location data reveals:

  • political activity,

  • religion,

  • medical visits,

  • associations,

  • habits,

  • movements,

  • relationships.

That case did not directly decide geofence warrants, but it strongly influenced the debate.

The Core Constitutional Problem

The central legal issue is this:

Traditional Warrants

Traditional warrants are:

• particularized,

• narrow,

• based on individualized suspicion.

Geofence Warrants

Geofence warrants are:

• exploratory,

• broad,

• location-based first,

• person-based second.

That creates tension with:

• “particularity requirements” of the Fourth Amendment.

The Strongest Argument for Geofencing

Supporters argue:

1. Serious Crimes Need Modern Tools

Geofencing has reportedly helped solve:

• murders,

• kidnappings,

• robberies,

• arson,

• serial crimes.

Example:
A phone present at:

• a murder scene,

• at exactly the right time,

• then fleeing,
  can become powerful evidence.

2. Society Already Shares Location Data Constantly

People voluntarily:

• carry phones,

• use GPS,

• use apps,

• share location data with tech companies.

Supporters argue: if private companies already possess the data, lawful warrants should access it.

3. Police Often Narrow Results in Stages

Law enforcement sometimes argues:

• initial results are anonymized,

• identities revealed later,

• only after narrowing criteria.

Courts vary on whether that sufficiently protects privacy.

The Strongest Argument Against Geofencing

Critics argue:

1. Innocent People Become Investigative Targets

This is the biggest concern.

If:

• 5,000 people attended an event,

• every one of them could enter a law enforcement database.

Even if they did nothing wrong.

That creates:

• chilling effects,

• fear of political participation,

• fear of protest,

• fear of attending religious services,

• fear of association.

2. It Enables Mass Surveillance

The Founders never envisioned:

• the government being able to retroactively reconstruct everyone’s movements.

Modern smartphones essentially create:

• a passive tracking system.

Critics argue geofencing risks normalizing:

• population-level surveillance.

3. Abuse Potential Is Enormous

This is where public trust becomes central.

People often evaluate geofencing differently depending on:

• who is using it,

• against whom,

• and for what purpose.

That inconsistency is exactly why constitutional limits exist.

The Fourth Amendment is supposed to:

• restrain government power regardless of politics.

A power acceptable today against:

• “bad people” may later be used against:

• political opponents,

• activists,

• religious groups,

• journalists,

• ordinary citizens.

Historically, many surveillance tools expanded beyond their original justification.

January 6 and the Constitutional Debate

Critics argue geofence-style techniques there became:

• extremely broad,

• politically charged,

• and insufficiently individualized.

Supporters argue:

• investigators were identifying people present during a federal crime.

The constitutional question is not necessarily:

“What was January 6?”

but rather:

“How broad can digital searches become before they violate constitutional protections?”

That distinction matters legally.

Election Monitoring and “True the Vote”

Consider election investigations.

Groups such as True the Vote have used commercially available location data to argue patterns of ballot trafficking.

Critics of those efforts argued:

• location precision can be overstated,

• datasets may not prove criminal conduct,

• innocent movement patterns can look suspicious.

Supporters argued:

• unusual repeated movements deserved investigation.

Again, same technology:

• different political interpretation.

That is why constitutional analysis tries to focus on:

• neutral standards,

• not outcomes people happen to like.

Where Courts Seem To Be Heading

The trend appears mixed but increasingly cautious.

Several judges have already expressed concern that geofence warrants may be unconstitutional because they:

• lack particularity,

• resemble general searches,

• sweep in innocent people.

Some courts have:

• suppressed evidence,

• or criticized broad geofence requests.

Others have allowed narrower versions.

From a purely constitutional logic standpoint, the most likely long-term outcome

Courts may eventually allow:

• highly narrow,

• tightly constrained,

• serious-crime geofence warrants,

while rejecting:

• broad dragnet searches.

Likely future standards may include:

• smaller geographic areas,

• shorter time windows,

• stronger probable cause,

• judicial oversight,

• minimization rules,

• deletion requirements,

• limits on innocent-person retention.

The Broader Reality

The deeper issue is that technology evolved faster than constitutional doctrine. Your phone now reveals:

-where you sleep,

-shop,

-worship,

-protest,

-travel,

-meet,

-and socialize.

That creates power governments in prior centuries simply never possessed.

The constitutional system is still trying to adapt.

Can You Really Turn Off Location Tracking?

Partially.

But modern phones are difficult to make truly “dark.”

Even with:

• GPS off,

• apps disabled,

• location permissions denied,

phones may still reveal data through:

• cell tower connections,

• Wi-Fi scanning,

• Bluetooth,

• carrier metadata,

• app telemetry.

Are Faraday Bags Real?

Yes — if they are genuine and functioning properly.

These are often called:

• Faraday bags,

• signal-blocking bags,

• RF shielding bags.

They attempt to block:

• cellular,

• GPS,

• Wi-Fi,

• Bluetooth,
  signals.

When working correctly, they may prevent the phone from communicating externally.

But There Are Important Caveats

1. Many Cheap Bags Are Poor Quality

Some products sold online:

• leak signals,

• degrade over time,

• fail at certain frequencies.

2. You Must Seal Them Properly

Even a small opening can defeat shielding.

3. The Phone May Reveal Location Again Once Removed

Once the phone reconnects:

• carriers/apps may infer movement patterns.

4. Phones Themselves Still Store Data

Even disconnected phones may internally log:

• movement,

• Wi-Fi networks,

• timestamps.

The Most Privacy-Protective Option

Strictly speaking, the most privacy-protective approach is:

• powered-off device,

• battery removed (if possible),

• inside a tested Faraday container.

But modern sealed smartphones make true isolation harder than older phones.

Final Perspective

The real constitutional issue is less about:

“Is geofencing good or bad?”

and more:

“How much power should government have to reconstruct the movements of innocent citizens?”

That is why this debate is becoming so significant.

Technology has made:

• mass location tracking possible,
  while the Fourth Amendment was designed specifically to prevent:

• overly broad government searches.

Courts are now trying to determine where that constitutional line belongs in the smartphone era.

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

Hi friends,

I had never heard of Bretton Woods. And I am the farthest possible thing from an economist, but in my quest for a grasp of understanding my world today, two things came to my attention yesterday that made me dig a little.

I learned of the Pentagon Office of Strategic Capital and about ‘New Bretton Woods’. It’s a bit convoluted, so here’s an overview:

“Make America Great Again” can be understood not only as a political slogan, but as a practical economic goal: making America strong again. A strong nation must be able to manufacture what it needs, defend itself, secure its supply chains, protect the value of its currency, and earn respect from other nations because it has real productive strength behind its promises.

The original Bretton Woods system, created after World War II, made the U.S. dollar the anchor of the global financial order because America was industrially powerful, financially trusted, and capable of leading the free world. That system lasted from 1944–1971, and the core lesson remains: a currency is strongest when the nation behind it is strong.

In 2009, Lyndon LaRouche argued for a “New Bretton Woods” built around the dollar, national sovereignty, productive credit, and a return to the “real economy” rather than speculation. His full proposal was far outside mainstream policy, but some of his concerns are timely today: America outsourced too much production, became too dependent on foreign supply chains, and allowed finance to dominate over manufacturing, infrastructure, energy, and industrial capacity. (Note: LaRouche was a controversial figure. Most of the search results for him are derogatory.)

This second Trump administration has pushed a more direct America First economic strategy focused on reshoring, tariffs, trade fairness, industrial strength, critical minerals, manufacturing, and national-security supply chains. One example is the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital, which uses loans and loan guarantees to direct private investment into strategically important technologies and domestic production. Formed by the Secretary of Defense in 2022 (expanded by Congress in the FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)), now in the news due to DOD’s April request for $20B “for a loan program designed to help eligible companies working in certain technology areas of interest”.

This is to help advance the reshoring of manufacturing, mining, etc., particularly for national security. You can learn more details at Pentagon requests more than $20B for strategic capital loan program in 2027

Though this does not mean America is returning to the original Bretton Woods system or adopting LaRouche’s 2009 proposal, it is similar and does suggest a major shift in policy: finance should serve national strength, not replace it.

The dollar, America’s global influence, and our national security all depend on whether we can still build, mine, manufacture, power, defend, and feed ourselves.

The big-picture takeaway is simple:

A nation that cannot produce what it needs cannot remain fully sovereign. Making America great again may ultimately mean making America strong, productive, independent, and respected again.

Making America Great Again Means Making America Strong Again

“Make America Great Again” is not just a political term. It includes making America strong again.

Strong enough to manufacture what we need.

Strong enough to defend ourselves without depending on adversaries.

Strong enough to keep the dollar respected around the world.

Strong enough that other nations know America is a productive, sovereign nation with the industrial capacity to back up its promises, not merely a consumer market or a financial center.

The Federal Reserve’s history of Bretton Woods describes the system as one in which countries kept their currencies fixed within a narrow band against the dollar, while the dollar itself was tied to gold. (Federal Reserve History)

In plain English, the world trusted the dollar because the dollar was backed by America’s economic strength, gold convertibility, and postwar industrial dominance.

But over time, the system strained. There are conflicting stories of the why, but…

In 1971, President Nixon ended dollar-gold convertibility. That did not end the dollar’s global role, but it did end the original Bretton Woods gold-dollar system. The world moved into the modern era of floating currencies, central-bank management, global finance, and increasingly complex debt and credit markets. [Big trouble, huh, friends?]

The 2009 “New Bretton Woods” Idea

Fast forward to 2009. In the wake of the financial crisis, Lyndon LaRouche argued for what he called a new Bretton Woods: a dollar-based global recovery built not around speculation, but around real economic production.

His argument, simplified, was this: America and the world had confused financial activity with true wealth. Stocks, derivatives, debt instruments, and speculative finance had grown far beyond the real productive economy. In his view, the solution was not just another bailout or another round of monetary stimulus. It was a structural reset.

His “New Bretton Woods” idea emphasized:

• A dollar-centered international recovery.

• Sovereign nations cooperating, rather than surrendering control to globalized finance.

• Long-term credit for infrastructure, industry, science, and production.

• A move away from speculation and toward the physical economy.

• A stronger role for government-directed credit.

This is where the topic becomes especially interesting today. Some of the themes he emphasized sound even more pertinent today than then.

America is once again talking seriously about manufacturing.

America is once again talking about supply chains.

America is once again asking whether dependence on China and other foreign suppliers is dangerous.

America is once again questioning whether a nation can remain free, prosperous, and secure if it no longer produces enough of what it needs.

The Trump Shift Since January 2025

Since President Trump returned to office in January 2025, the national conversation has moved sharply toward economic sovereignty. The White House’s January 20, 2025, America First Trade Policy memorandum directed agencies to examine trade deficits, unfair trade practices, currency practices, industrial capacity, and economic-security risks.

The U.S. Trade Representative’s 2025 Trade Policy Agenda stated that the administration’s trade policy sought to increase manufacturing’s share of GDP, increase real median household income, and reduce the goods trade deficit. (United States Trade Representative)

That is not just “trade policy” in the narrow sense. It is a broader view of national strength.

The message appears to be:

• Trade should serve American workers and producers.

• Manufacturing is not optional.

• Supply chains are national-security assets.

• The dollar’s strength depends not only on financial markets, but on America’s underlying productive strength.

• National policy should favor rebuilding domestic capacity where dependence has become dangerous.

This is why “Make America Great Again” can also be understood as Make America Strong Again.

Not strong in a boastful way.

Strong in the practical way that matters:

Can we produce steel?

Can we make chips?

Can we refine rare earths?

Can we build ships?

Can we power our own grid?

Can we defend ourselves?

Can we feed ourselves?

Can we keep our currency respected because the world sees America as economically serious again?

Where the Office of Strategic Capital Fits

OSC was created to help attract and scale private capital for critical technologies and supply-chain components needed for national security. Its tools include loans and loan guarantees, which means it is not merely handing out grants; it is using government credit power to steer investment toward strategic production. The Department of Defense describes OSC as seeking to issue loans and loan guarantees for critical technology and supply-chain components in support of national security. (CTO)

That matters.

In August 2025, OSC announced its first direct loan: $150 million to MP Materials to strengthen the U.S. industrial base and protect critical minerals supply chains. The money was tied to expanding heavy rare-earth separation capabilities at Mountain Pass, California. (U.S. Department of War)

Then in November 2025, OSC announced a joint $700 million conditional loan commitment with Vulcan Elements and ReElement Technologies to increase domestic neodymium-iron-boron magnet production and strengthen U.S. critical-minerals supply chains. (U.S. Department of War)

This is not exactly the same thing as a “New Bretton Woods.” It is not a new global currency system. It is not a return to gold. It is not a full national bank.

But it does fit into the same broader category of thought:

Finance should serve national strength, not merely financial speculation.

That is the key.

OSC is a practical example of government-directed credit being used to rebuild the real economy in areas that matter for defense, energy, technology, and independence.

Is This Just America, or Is the World Moving Too?

This “real economy” turn is not only American. Around the world, nations are realizing that supply chains are not just business arrangements. They are strategic vulnerabilities.

Europe learned this through energy dependence.

Japan and South Korea understand it through semiconductors and advanced manufacturing.

India is trying to build domestic manufacturing capacity.

China has used industrial policy for years.

A 2026 Chatham House analysis put it bluntly: market-oriented governments are increasingly taking direct stakes in mining projects because critical minerals now affect manufacturing, energy security, and national defense. (Chatham House)

So yes, the world is moving in this direction. But America under Trump appears to be pushing it more openly, more aggressively, and more directly under the banner of national sovereignty.

In that sense, America is not simply following the trend. It is helping shape it.

Because when the United States changes its trade policy, tariff policy, defense-industrial policy, and supply-chain policy, companies and countries around the world respond.

The Big Picture for Citizens

The big picture is this:

For decades, we’ve been pushed (herded) toward globalization. We were told it did not matter where things were made. We were told cheaper goods were enough. America was led in the direction of ‘outsourcing’. Finance, services, and consumption cannot replace factories, foundries, mines, refineries, shipyards, and skilled labor.

But reality has intruded.

COVID exposed supply-chain fragility.

China exposed the danger of depending on adversaries.

The war in Ukraine exposed the importance of energy and industrial capacity.

The rare-earths issue exposed how even advanced weapons systems can depend on materials we do not sufficiently control.

And now, policies like America First Trade Policy and tools like the Office of Strategic Capital are moves to make America strong again.

A nation that cannot produce what it needs cannot remain fully sovereign.

That is why the Bretton Woods discussion matters. The original Bretton Woods system reflected a world in which America’s dollar was respected because America was productive, powerful, and industrially dominant. The 2009 “New Bretton Woods” idea argued that the world needed to return to a dollar-based system rooted in real production rather than speculation.

While we are not seeing a Bretton Woods reset, we may be seeing a shift back toward the real economy.

A stronger America is not just about rhetoric. It is about productive capacity. It is about national resilience. It is about whether America can still build, mine, manufacture, defend, invent, and lead.

That may be the deeper meaning of “Make America Great Again.”

It means making America strong enough to be respected again.

Additional Sources:

Pentagon Office of Strategic Capital — main page
https://www.cto.mil/osc/
This is still indexed as the official OSC page and says OSC develops strategies and partnerships to scale private investment in critical supply-chain technologies needed for national security. (CTO)

OSC Credit Program
https://www.cto.mil/osc/credit-program/
This page says the OSC Credit Program provides debt financing to eligible borrowers in critical technology areas that drive national and economic security. (CTO)

OSC Investment Strategy page
https://www.cto.mil/osc/investment-strategy/
This page describes the FY25 Investment Strategy as prioritizing investments through credit-based financial products for critical technologies and their supply chains. (CTO)

Official FY2025 OSC Investment Strategy PDF
https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jan/02/2003623435/-1/-1/1/FY25-INVESTMENT-STRATEGY-FOR-OFFICE-OF-STRATEGIC-CAPITAL.PDF
This is the stronger source because it is the actual official PDF. It states that the FY2025 Investment Strategy identifies and prioritizes investment areas for OSC’s newly authorized credit-based financial products. (U.S. Department of War)

Official DoD announcement for FY2025 Investment Strategy
https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4020461/office-of-strategic-capital-announces-release-of-fiscal-year-2025-investment-st/
This announcement says the FY25 Investment Strategy incorporates new authorities, defines arenas of strategic competition, and identifies industry segments of interest for OSC investments. (U.S. Department of War)

MP Materials / DoD rare-earth partnership — company announcement
https://investors.mpmaterials.com/investor-news/news-details/2025/MP-Materials-Announces-Transformational-Public-Private-Partnership-with-the-Department-of-Defense-to-Accelerate-U-S--Rare-Earth-Magnet-Independence/default.aspx
MP Materials says the company expected to receive a $150 million DoD loan connected to expanding heavy rare-earth separation capabilities at Mountain Pass. (MP Materials)

Reuters coverage of MP Materials / DoD deal
https://www.reuters.com/business/mp-materials-partners-with-department-defense-boost-us-rare-earth-magnet-supply-2025-07-10/
Reuters reported that the agreement included a $150 million DoD loan to support heavy rare-earth processing at Mountain Pass, alongside broader DoD support for domestic magnet production. (Reuters)

Vulcan / ReElement — official Commerce/NIST source
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2025/11/department-commerce-announces-chips-incentives-letter-intent-vulcan
This is the cleaner official source for the $700 million OSC conditional loan commitment. It says OSC announced a $700 million conditional loan commitment with Vulcan Elements and ReElement Technologies to increase domestic NdFeB magnet production and strengthen U.S. critical-minerals supply chains. (NIST)

Vulcan Elements company announcement
https://vulcanelements.com/vulcan-elements-forges-1-4-billion/
This gives the split: $620 million direct loan for Vulcan Elements and $80 million direct loan for ReElement Technologies, along with private capital and Commerce incentives. (Vulcan Elements)

Argus summary of Vulcan / ReElement deal
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2757859-us-loans-vulcan-reelement-700mn-to-make-magnets
Argus also reports the split as $620 million to Vulcan and $80 million to ReElement through OSC. (Argus Media)

1. Original article
https://larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3620nbw_$global_recovery.html

2. Original Bretton Woods history — Federal Reserve
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/bretton-woods-created

3. End of gold convertibility — State Department
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/nixon-shock

4. America First Trade Policy — White House
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/america-first-trade-policy/

5. USTR 2025 Trade Policy Agenda
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2025/President%20Trump%27s%202025%20Trade%20Policy%20Agenda.pdf

6. OSC official FY2025 Investment Strategy PDF
https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jan/02/2003623435/-1/-1/1/FY25-INVESTMENT-STRATEGY-FOR-OFFICE-OF-STRATEGIC-CAPITAL.PDF

7. MP Materials / DoD rare-earth partnership
https://investors.mpmaterials.com/investor-news/news-details/2025/MP-Materials-Announces-Transformational-Public-Private-Partnership-with-the-Department-of-Defense-to-Accelerate-U-S--Rare-Earth-Magnet-Independence/default.aspx

8. Vulcan / ReElement official Commerce source
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2025/11/department-commerce-announces-chips-incentives-letter-intent-vulcan

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

Artificial intelligence is reshaping entire industries. Manufacturing is beginning to return after decades of outsourcing. Capital is flowing into large-scale infrastructure at levels we haven’t seen in years. The United States appears to be leading much of that movement.

It’s a good news, bad news scenario.

In some ways, it looks like a clear success story.

But every industrial era, no matter how modern it appears, rests on something very old and very physical.

It runs on land. It runs on water. And it runs on energy.

For all the talk of a digital economy, there is nothing abstract about what’s being built right now. Data centers require massive physical footprints. Industrial facilities need space, access, and long-term stability. Energy systems must deliver continuous, large-scale power. And behind much of it is a steady, often overlooked demand for water.

These aren’t optional pieces of the puzzle. They are the foundation.

What’s different today is not just the scale of investment—it’s how these systems are being developed. In the past, infrastructure tended to grow in separate lanes. Power plants were one category. Industrial zones were another. Data and communications existed in their own space.

Now, those lines are blurring.

Increasingly, what we’re seeing are integrated developments—clusters where data centers, power generation, transmission lines, and industrial operations are planned together, often in the same geographic footprint. From an efficiency standpoint, it makes sense. From a national strategy perspective, it may even be necessary.

But it raises a question that doesn’t get nearly enough attention.

What happens to the land—and the people—where all of this is being built?

As demand increases, pressure inevitably follows. Rural areas, agricultural land, and privately held property are often where these projects land. That’s not accidental. These areas offer space, fewer immediate constraints, and proximity to key resources.

But they also represent something else: communities, livelihoods, and long-standing property rights.

Growth doesn’t just appear on a map. It is approved, permitted, and sited through a series of decisions. And those decisions can involve zoning changes, regulatory approvals, and in some cases, the use of eminent domain. For landowners, that can mean navigating a landscape that is shifting quickly, sometimes with little clarity about long-term outcomes.

At the same time, another constraint is beginning to emerge—one that may ultimately shape the limits of this growth more than anything else.

Water.

Industrial-scale development requires reliable, long-term access to water, whether for cooling, processing, or supporting energy systems. In some cases, the volumes being discussed rival those used by entire communities. That forces a question that is both simple and complex at the same time:

How should water be prioritized?

Should it go first to residential use? To agriculture? To industrial development? The answer isn’t obvious, and it may not be the same everywhere. But it is a question that is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid.

What we are really looking at is not just a story about growth. It’s a story about allocation.

Who gets access to land. Who gets access to water. Who benefits from development—and who bears the cost.

These are not new questions. But the speed and scale at which they are emerging today is different.

We are still in the early stages of decisions that will shape land use, resource availability, and community structure for decades. Once infrastructure is in place, it becomes part of the landscape—physically, economically, and politically.

That’s why this moment matters so much.

Right now, much of this is still being decided. Projects are being proposed. Policies are being implemented. Frameworks are being set in motion. And while the broader narrative focuses on economic strength and technological advancement, the underlying reality is more grounded.

Every industrial boom has a footprint.

The question is not whether this one will.

The question is whether we understand it in time to shape it.

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

What if we step back from the daily noise and looked at the bigger picture?

Because when you line up the headlines from the last few days, something interesting starts to take shape. Not certainty, but a pattern. A possibility.

We’ve all grown used to hearing that everything is falling apart, negativity galore. The economy is fragile. Institutions are broken. The world is unstable. That drumbeat has been steady. So when a series of developments pops up that seems to indicate otherwise, let’s pay attention.

Consider this.

At the same time that federal prosecutors are bringing new indictments tied to COVID-era decision-making and high-level government conduct, we’re also seeing a broader push toward accountability in other areas—fraud investigations expanding, data being cross-checked in ways it never was before, and long-standing loopholes suddenly getting attention. Whether every case holds up in court remains to be seen, but the direction itself raises a question: could this signal a shift toward more transparency and enforcement after years of frustration?

Then layer in the economic signals.

Despite geopolitical tensions and ongoing global instability, consumer confidence has ticked upward—not downward. It’s not a massive surge, but it’s moving in the ‘right’ direction, despite those dire predictions. It may mean that, underneath the headlines, people are feeling a bit more stable than expected. Or that policy changes—regulatory, fiscal, or otherwise—are beginning to show up in real-world sentiment.

And then there’s energy.

A newly identified lithium reserve in the United States—potentially one of the largest in the world—could reshape how we think about resource dependence. If even part of that estimate holds true, it raises the possibility of a more self-sufficient supply chain for critical materials. Add to that renewed domestic production efforts and policy shifts around mining and energy development, and you see a different reality: not scarcity, but capacity, and increased national security.

Globally, the picture gets even more interesting.

The announcement that the United Arab Emirates has stepped away from OPEC signals a loosening of long-standing controls over oil supply and pricing. That doesn’t automatically mean lower prices or stability, but it does suggest movement inside a system that has remained relatively rigid for decades. At the same time, increasing pressure on countries like Iran through sanctions and financial restrictions is being interpreted by some as part of a broader realignment in global energy and power dynamics.

Could all of this be connected? How could it not?

It seems we’re not just watching isolated events, but signs of systems adjusting—economically, politically, and globally.

Even domestically, there are subtle shifts worth noting. In regions like Appalachia, where economic opportunities have historically been limited, the lithium discoveries in addition to energy policies could change the trajectory of entire communities. Voter registration trends and political movement in those areas may reflect that reality on the ground. And in places like Silicon Valley, where political alignment has long been predictably liberal, even small signs of change suggest that the conversation isn’t as one-sided as it once was.

None of this guarantees a positive outcome. But seeing the signs and looking forward to results is a good problem to have.

Will everything work out perfectly? Likely not, but they present something we don’t hear nearly enough about: the possibility of major improvement.

Sources:

• https://www.justice.gov/

• https://www.prometheanaction.com/the-midweek-update-begging-king-charles-visits-trump-doj-strikes-comey-and-iran-falls-the-same-day-april-29-2026/

• www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/happenings-wednesday-april-29-2026

• https://www.foxnews.com/

• https://www.npr.org/

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/04/raids-minneapolis-somali-linked/

• https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/apr/rollins-food-stamps-luxury-cars/

• https://apnews.com/article/us-consumer-confidence-april-2026

• https://www.conference-board.org/

• https://www.usgs.gov/

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-xx/appalachian-lithium-cache

• https://www.nytimes.com/

• https://www.reuters.com/

• https://harvardharrispoll.com/

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

Opinions of others are not necessarily shared by RationalAmerican.org.

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

This article is based on Dinesh D’Souza’s Substack.

Political violence isn’t random—but the predictable outcome, virtual certainty, of years of rhetoric that paints one side as dangerous, immoral, and beyond redemption.

When opponents are no longer seen as people, it doesn’t take many to act on that belief.

Violence doesn’t appear out of nowhere. Constant messaging turns political opponents into villains. When that line is crossed, the risk isn’t just division. It’s escalation.

We’ve passed the point where rhetoric is just speech; it has become a catalyst. When a political movement, and its supporters, are consistently framed as an ‘existential’ threat, it doesn’t take much to push some to violent action. And to make heroes of the violent.

Political violence is no longer isolated. It’s the downstream effect of a culture that increasingly treats disagreement as danger—and people with differing opinions as enemies.

Dinesh D’Souza’s Substack is long, so below is a summary.

The argument he presents is that some individuals who carry out violence against conservative figures are not simply acting alone, but are influenced by a wider ecosystem of messaging that portrays political opponents as dangerous, immoral, or illegitimate. When individuals come to believe that their targets represent an existential threat, violence can begin to feel, in their minds, justified—even necessary.

This perspective emphasizes that radicalization does not happen in a vacuum. It is often fueled by repeated narratives that dehumanize or demonize specific groups. When public figures, organizations, or media outlets consistently frame opponents as “extremists,” “threats,” or “enemies,” that language can shape perceptions in ways that go far beyond political disagreement.

In some cases, this environment may contribute to a small subset of individuals crossing a dangerous line—from rhetoric to action. The concern raised is not just about any single incident, but about whether a culture is developing where hostility is normalized, and where violence is implicitly encouraged by the framing of political conflict.

The broader warning is this: when political discourse shifts from disagreement to moral condemnation—and from persuasion to vilification—it can create conditions where extreme actions become more likely. History has shown that sustained dehumanization of any group can have unintended and serious consequences.

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

Opinions of others are not necessarily shared by RationalAmerican.org.

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

The U.S. economy is being hailed as the start of a new industrial revolution, fueled by AI, manufacturing, and investment. But behind the oh-so-positive platitudes, that growth is placing increasing pressure on land, water, energy, and communities across the nation. Here’s what you need to know.

Over the past few months, a clear narrative has taken hold. The U.S. economy is surging. Markets are hitting record highs. Investment is pouring in. And increasingly, analysts are using a phrase we haven’t heard in a long time: a new industrial revolution.

At first glance, it’s easy to see why. Major companies are committing hundreds of billions of dollars to artificial intelligence infrastructure. Manufacturing is showing signs of life again after years of decline. Policies aimed at reducing regulatory burdens and encouraging domestic investment are beginning to shape real-world decisions. By many traditional measures, the momentum is undeniable.

But if you’ve been following the headlines, you already know that big national narratives often leave something out.

And in this case, what’s missing is hard to ignore.

In just the past few weeks, the pace of development tied to this so-called industrial boom has become clearer—and faster. Projects aren’t just being discussed; they’re being proposed, planned, and, in some cases, pushed forward at a speed that’s catching local communities off guard. Data centers, energy infrastructure, and large-scale industrial sites are no longer abstract ideas. And a more recent concern, 765 kV transmission lines that travel halfway across the state by eminent domain. They are showing up in zoning meetings, permitting discussions, and local headlines.

And with them comes a reality that must be faced, and resolved, in the national conversation.

This kind of growth doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It requires enormous amounts of electricity. It depends on reliable access to also-enormous amounts of water. And it takes up land—often more than people expect. These aren’t minor inputs. They are foundational.

That’s where the conflict between landowners and residents and the big businesses and governmental entities stands out.

Across the country—and especially here in Texas—questions must be answered. Communities are asking where this water is coming from, how much will be needed, and who gets to decide. Landowners are taking a closer look at how infrastructure projects are sited and what that means for their property. Local officials are often NOT weighing economic opportunity against long-term resource strain.

These aren’t theoretical debates anymore. They’re happening in real time, and sometimes at warp speed.

Are we seeing this in the broader economic narrative, or does most coverage focus on growth, innovation, and investment. And those things matter.

But far less attention is given to how resources are allocated, how decisions are made at the local level, and what the long-term implications might be.

That gap matters a lot!

Because while economic growth may be measured state-wide or nationally, its impact is always felt locally. The decisions being made today about infrastructure, water use, and land development will shape communities for decades. Once these systems are in place, they are almost impossible to improve. And you can rest assured that some improvement WILL be needed.

None of this is to say that growth itself is a problem. Economic expansion, technological advancement, and investment can bring real benefits. But they also bring tradeoffs—and those tradeoffs deserve to be understood, not overlooked.

We are entering a moment where development is moving quickly, often faster than public awareness. Policies are being implemented ahead of broad community engagement. And long-term consequences—especially when it comes to land and water—are not always part of the initial conversation.

That’s why paying attention now matters.

There’s more to tell about this “industrial boom”, how it’s reshaping land use, where water demand fits into the equation, and why these decisions are unfolding the way they are.

Because if we’re going to talk about a new industrial revolution, we need to understand what it’s built on—and what it may cost.

Sources:

• Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) – Thirsty Data: Water Use and the Projected Data Center Boom in Texas (Jan 2026)
  https://harcresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Thirsty-Data-Water-Use-and-The-Projected-Data-Center-Boom-in-Texas.pdf

• EnergyCapitalHTX – HARC Data Center Water Supply Report Overview
  https://energycapitalhtx.com/harc-data-center-water-supply-report

• Texas Observer – AI Data Centers and Water Usage in Texas
  https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-ai-data-centers-water-usage-regulation/

• HARC Announcement / Summary Page – Thirsty Data: Hidden Water and Energy Costs
  https://harcresearch.org/news/thirsty-data-the-hidden-water-and-energy-costs-of-texas-data-center-boom/

• Save Texas Water (meeting presentation referencing report findings)
  https://savetexaswater.org/meeting/doc/Minutes/doc/MCook---Thirsty-Data---1.27.2026.pdf

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

There’s a growing sense—understandably so—that the world is moving toward something bigger, more centralized, and potentially more controlling. You hear it in discussions about BRICS, global finance, digital currencies, supply chains, and even land and infrastructure here at home. It can feel like the pieces are being assembled into something that ordinary people will have very little control over.

But let’s look at what’s happening in a more grounded—and importantly, more hopeful way.

Yes, the world is changing.
No, the outcome is not predetermined.

The Big Concern: A Consolidated Global Power Structure

Some of today’s anxiety centers on the idea that a bloc of nations—often associated with BRICS—could eventually form a counterweight powerful enough to reshape global systems.

At the center of that concern is China.

China is not just another economic competitor. It is strategic, disciplined, and long-term in its planning. Its leadership structure allows it to move with a level of coordination that democracies often struggle to match. Through infrastructure investments, trade networks, and regional partnerships, it has been steadily expanding its influence across Asia, Africa, and parts of Europe.

That’s where the idea of “Eurasian consolidation” comes in—the possibility that China could anchor a vast, interconnected economic and political system stretching across Europe and Asia.

If that were to fully materialize, it could shift the balance of global power in a profound way.

But here’s the key point that often gets lost:

That consolidation is far from inevitable. I submit that with President Trump’s current handle on the global situation things will become even more stable, and America’s strength will continue to increase.

What the Headlines Don’t Always Tell You

It’s easy to look at maps, alliances, and headlines and think certain outcomes are likely. But geopolitics is more complex than that.

China, for all its strength, is also facing internal pressures—economic slowdowns, demographic challenges, and structural issues that could limit its long-term trajectory.

Russia, often seen as part of a competing bloc, is not in a position of strength. Its ongoing conflicts have drained resources and increased its dependence on China rather than reinforcing independence.

And then there is Iran—arguably one of the most important and unpredictable players in the current landscape.

Iran sits at a literal and strategic crossroads. It connects regions, influences energy flows, and shapes Middle Eastern stability. But its future is not locked in. Internal pressures, generational shifts, and geopolitical realities mean that Iran could move in a very different direction in the near future.

That uncertainty matters. And, thinking positively, the U.S. will continue to hold control of the Strait of Hormuz.

And let us not forget Indonesia’s Strait of Malacca. Another strengthening step for America.

This is Important for Sovereignty and Everyday Americans

At first glance, these global shifts might feel distant—something for diplomats and defense analysts to debate. But they connect directly to the issues many of us have been following closely:

• Who controls land

• Who controls resources

• Who sets the rules for infrastructure and development

• Who ultimately decides how communities grow—or don’t

When power consolidates—whether globally or domestically—it often leads to the same outcome: less local control, fewer choices, and more top-down decision-making.

We’ve seen versions of this already in:

• Large-scale infrastructure planning that overrides local concerns

• Resource allocation decisions that prioritize industrial or strategic use over community needs

• Increasing alignment between government policy and large institutional interests

The global picture and the local picture are not separate. They are reflections of the same underlying question:

Who holds the power—and who gets a say?

The United States: Not Declining, Reawakening

Some want to believe that the United States is in decline.

That narrative doesn’t hold up.

The U.S. remains:

• The world’s leading economic and financial hub

• A dominant force in technological innovation

• Energy independent in ways that were unthinkable just decades ago

• Anchored by longstanding alliances that still matter

But strength alone isn’t enough. Strategic action is critical. Citizen engagement is required.

A Realistic Path Forward

Strengthening alliances—not abandoning them
Longstanding partnerships still provide stability and shared leverage. Walking away from them would create more risk, not less.

Selective engagement—even with adversaries
Diplomacy is not weakness. Strategic engagement, when done carefully, can prevent larger conflicts and shift long-term alignments.

Avoiding unnecessary wars
Especially in regions like the Middle East, where escalation can spiral quickly and unpredictably.

Maintaining economic and technological leadership
This is where long-term influence is truly built—not just on the battlefield, but through innovation, production, and financial systems.

And increasingly, there is another piece worth noting:

Peace-making efforts.

The last 15 months have seen a number of diplomatic agreements and normalization efforts in historically unstable regions. While each one is complex and imperfect, they point toward something important:

Peace is still possible—even in places long defined by conflict.

Where This Leaves Us

It’s natural when we look at the complexity of today’s world we feel uncertain. Life is always uncertain. We just aren’t always facing that fact head-on.

The direction of the future is still being shaped—by decisions, by leadership, and yes, by informed citizens who are paying attention.

The world is not settling, and never will, into a fixed order.

And that means the work of protecting freedom, strengthening communities, and addressing issues is never-ending.

That means staying engaged, staying informed, and continuing to work .

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

For generations, Americans have understood that faith is not something to hide — it shapes our character, our leadership, and our understanding of freedom itself.

Today, faith and freedom are both being tested. If you prefer to think in terms of morality and ideology (a belief system), this post still applies.

Where, in the past, politics used faith as a declaration of good character, more recently faith has been denigrated. The phrase, ‘separation of church and state’, has been abused in an attempt to downplay and exclude faith from public view and acceptance.

But that phrase, nor that meaning, isn’t in the Constitution or any governmental document.

And its modern use often flips the Founders’ intent on its head.

This wasn’t a nation built on the idea that faith should be hidden or excluded. In the colonies, many public officials were actually required to affirm faith — sometimes even professing faith in Jesus Christ before taking office.

Also today, faith is making a comeback. Young people are reaching out, listening, and returning to faith. Leaders are speaking more openly, partly because we currently have many leaders who have faith, who live their faith. National efforts like America Reads the Bible* are bringing Scripture back into the public square.
* Week of April 18-25, 2026.

This moment is a reminder — not just of what we believe, but of what is required of us.

Freedom doesn’t sustain itself. It never has.

(Side note: I saw the film, “A Great Awakening” and recommend it - very well done.)

Faith, Freedom, and Our Inherited Duty

Somewhere along the way, a version of history that doesn’t match reality has been instituted. (Many believe that factual civics courses have not been in our schools for quite some time.)

We’re told that “separation of church and state” means faith should be pushed out of public life — out of schools, out of government, out of leadership. False, another instance of abuse of words and trying to redefine.

According to Thomas Jefferson and his letter and David Barton, as well as other history experts, the limitation is that government shall not require, prohibit, or interfere with one’s religion, except to the extent incompatible with the Constitution or the rights of others. It is wholly asinine to believe the founders would want to keep faith out of government when such a huge part of everything they did included God and prayer.

What is in the Constitution is a protection — that government cannot establish a national religion and cannot interfere with the free exercise of faith.

That’s a very different thing.

The Founders weren’t trying to remove religion from public life. They were protecting faith from government control.

And for most of our history, that’s exactly how it has been known and understood.

Presidents spoke openly about faith. Leaders referenced Scripture. Public expressions of belief were expected, seen as a sign of character, used in political campaigns to get votes.

We still see leaders openly emphasize their religious identity when it suits the moment. (A recent example is how Biden used his Catholicism when it suited the administration’s purpose.)

As to our inherited duty, that goes hand-in-hand with our inherited freedom: If you don’t take care of (duty) an inheritance (freedom), you lose it.

Has “Separation” Become Exclusion?

Instead of protecting religion from government, we have increasingly seen religion being pushed out of public life and out of public acceptance — especially Christianity and Judaism, the very traditions that shaped our nation.

At the same time, institutions bend over backwards to accommodate religious demands in other contexts — in schools, in workplaces, even in government spaces. Do you wonder at the division? It’s so intentional…

Americans are aware, more every day, that some faiths are denigrated while others are accommodated, amplified, and encouraged, often in the name of inclusion.

This is another example where words are incorrectly used for ideological purposes. Some people in different religions use name-calling (such as racist or islamophobe) to create fear of reprisal for speaking freely. Self-censoring is often the result. Zealots (Someone who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals) claim ‘freedom of speech’ for their purposes, but decry it when others use it to express differing views.

Faith Is Making a Comeback

Despite the efforts of those who prefer otherwise, faith is making a comeback.

You see it in younger generations who have heard it and are grasping the good news..

You hear it in voices like Charlie Kirk, who speak openly about faith, culture, and responsibility.

You see it in national efforts like America Reads the Bible, where leaders and citizens alike are publicly engaging with Scripture again.

Even in the political sphere, expressing faith is once again becoming comfortable is the public sphere.

That matters.

Because for all the attempts to sideline it, faith has always been part of America’s foundation — not just of personal belief, but of public life.

The Foundation Some Forgot

The idea that our rights come from God is not a side note in American history — it is the cornerstone. (Cornerstone - an indispensable and fundamental basis.)

The Declaration of Independence makes it unmistakably clear:

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.

Not by government.
Not by kings.
Not by majority vote.

By our Creator.

That belief didn’t appear out of nowhere. It was shaped and spread by voices like Reverend George Whitefield, whose preaching helped ignite a spiritual awakening across the colonies — one that emphasized God-given rights, equality, personal responsibility, moral accountability, and freedom of conscience.

It created a culture that understood something essential:

Freedom requires a moral foundation.

As John Adams warned:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

That wasn’t rhetoric. It was a recognition of reality.

We hear the word ‘existential’ too often. The definition is ‘related to or dealing with existence’. Well, it doesn’t get much more existential than freedom.

If rights came from government, they could be taken by government.

If freedom depended on power, it could be reshaped - as has been tried - by those in power. Think globalists and globalism.

But because rights come from God, they are not subject to political trends, cultural pressure, or shifting majorities.

That distinction is everything.

And it’s exactly why the meaning of “separation of church and state” matters so much.

Because if that phrase is used to push faith, and its expressions, away, then the very foundation of our God-given rights is destroyed.

Our Duty — Then and Now

Earlier generations understood duty differently than we often do today.

They fought wars. Barefoot in the snow with dysentery.
They risked everything. Their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor.
Many lost their lives. They suffered, their loved ones suffered.
These facts are more than words. Every defender is a hero.

That was their responsibility in their time. Today’s troops carry the same heavy mantle.

Ours is lighter — but no less necessary.

We are called to be informed.
To vote.
To engage in our communities.
To speak up when truth is distorted.

Because freedom doesn’t sustain itself.

It depends on a people willing to protect it.

This Moment

We are living in a moment where foundational ideals are crucial. We must hold tightly to these truths, not allow dissolution or redefining to suit those with unamerican ideology.

Many Americans are awakening and reawakening to:

Faith.
Responsibility.
Truth.
Freedom grounded in God-given rights.

The question isn’t whether those things matter.

The question is will Americans stand for them.

Faith is not meant to be hidden or downplayed.

God gave us His Word to teach, to guide, to strengthen, to comfort.

And so, to preserve these God-given freedoms we’ve inherited, earned with God’s help, by those before us, we must not sit quietly.

Additional sources:

• Jefferson Letter to Danbury Baptists
  https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-36-02-0152

• First Amendment
  https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

• Declaration of Independence
  https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

• America Reads the Bible

• Trump to read Bible verse from Oval Office

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

Whether you believe Planned Parenthood was ethical or not, here is the story, beginning to end. The videos are heart-wrenching, listening to them talk coldly about money for baby parts.

In 2015, a little-known activist released a series of undercover videos that would shake one of the most powerful organizations in America—and set off a legal and political battle that still hasn’t fully settled nearly a decade later.

His name was David Daleiden.

At the time, most Americans had never heard of him. But within weeks, his work—recordings of conversations with individuals connected to Planned Parenthood—was everywhere. The videos appeared to show discussions about fetal tissue: how it was obtained, how it was handled, and how it was transferred. To many watching, the language was clinical—but the implications felt anything but.

To supporters, it looked like proof of something deeply troubling: that aborted fetal remains were being treated as commodities. To critics, it looked like a deceptively edited hit job designed to inflame and mislead.

That divide has never really closed.

Daleiden wasn’t a journalist in the traditional sense, but what he did looked a lot like investigative reporting—just with a very clear mission. Through the Center for Medical Progress, he and a colleague spent years building a fake biomedical company, creating false identities, and embedding themselves in conferences and meetings with abortion providers.

Hidden cameras captured hours of conversations. Some of those conversations included references to costs associated with fetal tissue—transport, processing, preservation. In several clips, officials discussed adjusting procedures to preserve certain organs.

That was enough to ignite a national controversy.

The phrase “selling baby parts” quickly took hold in certain circles. Others pushed back hard, arguing that what was being described was legal, tightly regulated, and common in medical research: tissue donation with reimbursement for expenses, not profit.

That distinction—profit vs. reimbursement—became the legal and ethical fault line of the entire debate.

Planned Parenthood’s response was immediate and firm. The organization stated that any fetal tissue donation was voluntary, consent-based, and compliant with federal law. They emphasized that clinics could be reimbursed for actual costs, but not paid for the tissue itself. They also argued that the videos had been selectively edited to create a misleading narrative.

Multiple investigations followed—state (Kamala Harris, Attorney General in CA at the time), federal, congressional. None resulted in criminal charges against Planned Parenthood.

And yet, the controversy didn’t fade.

Because even if something is legal, people still ask whether it is right.

What happened next turned the spotlight away from Planned Parenthood—and directly onto Daleiden himself.

Instead of being treated as a whistleblower, he became the defendant.

Planned Parenthood filed a civil lawsuit accusing him of fraud, illegal recording, trespass, and even racketeering. The case centered not just on what he uncovered, but how he did it. Fake identities. A sham company. Secret recordings in a state—California—that requires all parties to consent.

In 2019, a jury sided with Planned Parenthood. (The case was tried in federal court in San Francisco, with a jury drawn from the local population. While legally a jury of peers, the venue itself—one of the most politically liberal regions in the country—has been noted by critics as a challenging setting for a pro-life defendant.)

The legal outcome may have been very different if the recordings had occurred in a one-party consent state such as Texas—one of roughly 38 states (plus D.C.) where only one participant must consent—rather than in California, which requires consent from all parties.

The judgment against David was staggering: over $2 million in damages, plus more than $13 million in attorney’s fees. Appeals followed, but the core ruling held. The Supreme Court declined to take the case.

On paper, Daleiden now owes more than $15 million.

In reality, it’s unclear how much—if any—has actually been paid. Judgments of that size against individuals often don’t get fully collected. They don’t disappear, but they can sit unresolved for years, sometimes decades, hanging over a person’s financial life indefinitely.

At the same time, a separate criminal case was unfolding in California.

Daleiden and his colleague were charged with multiple felonies related to illegal recording. The case stretched on for years, drawing national attention and accusations of political motivation—especially since it originated under then–Attorney General Kamala Harris.

In 2025, the case finally ended.

The remaining charges were dismissed. The final count was expunged. No jail time. No fines.

In the end, no criminal charges.

From a civil standpoint, the consequences remain.

So what do we make of this?

That depends, in large part, on where you’re standing.

To his supporters, David Daleiden is a whistleblower who exposed a system that many Americans find deeply troubling—and paid the price for it. They see the lawsuits and prosecution as a form of “lawfare,” a way to punish someone for challenging a powerful institution.

To his critics, he’s something else entirely: an activist who broke the law, manipulated footage, and violated privacy in pursuit of a political goal. From that perspective, the legal consequences weren’t persecution—they were accountability.

Both views exist. Both are widely held.

And that’s what makes this story so enduring.

There’s also a deeper issue that continues to linger beneath the surface.

Even after the investigations, even after the court rulings, even after nearly ten years—many Americans still don’t fully understand how fetal tissue practices work, where the legal boundaries are, or how those boundaries are enforced.

They hear phrases like “reimbursement” and “donation,” but also see contracts, logistics, and structured exchanges. For some, that feels like a distinction without a difference. For others, it’s a clear and important line grounded in law and medical ethics.

That gap in understanding keeps the debate alive.

David Daleiden himself remains a figure defined as much by endurance as by controversy.

For nearly a decade, his life has been shaped by courtrooms, legal filings, and public scrutiny. Regardless of how one views his actions, it’s hard to deny the scale of what followed: federal litigation, criminal charges, appeals, and a financial judgment that could shadow him for years to come.

He is still relatively young. That means this story—at least for him—isn’t over.

Not legally. Not financially. And certainly not in the broader cultural conversation.

In the end, the Daleiden case isn’t just about one man or one organization.

It’s about the boundaries of activism.
The limits of undercover tactics.
The role of law in settling moral disputes.

And perhaps most importantly:

Who gets to define the truth—and what it costs to try to expose it.

(This came to my attention from this article, “Final charge dropped in yearslong Harris-era case against pro-life activist”, published on April 3, 2026.)

Sources (for reference and verification):

https://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/final-charge-dropped-yearslong-harris-era-case-against-pro-life-activist
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/abortion-foes-largely-lose-24-mln-appeal-over-planned-parenthood-videos-2022-10-21/
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom https://thomasmoresociety.org
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/center-for-medical-progress-v-planned-parenthood-federation-of-america/

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

Texas officials have used strong language to suggest certain organizations have been “designated” as terrorist groups or curtailed the influence of Sharia law. In reality, these actions—primarily a 2025 gubernatorial proclamation and related legislation—carry little, if any, legal effect than the rhetoric implies. While federal authorities have identified and acted on legitimate security concerns in specific cases, the power to formally designate terrorist organizations rests with the federal government, and Texas laws in this area largely reinforce existing constitutional limits, not creating new ones.

In November 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a proclamation claiming to “designate” the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as foreign terrorist organizations.

The document is a proclamation—not a statute, not a court ruling, and not a federal designation. It relies on existing Texas law (including references to provisions like Texas Penal Code §22.07 on terroristic threats) and serves primarily as a policy statement directing state agencies to operate within authority they already have. It does not create new law, and it does not carry the legal force of a federal terrorism designation. Under U.S. law, only the federal government—through the State Department—can formally designate a foreign terrorist organization. A governor does not have that authority, and a state-level declaration does not trigger federal penalties, sanctions, or immigration consequences.

This becomes clearer when viewed alongside other widely discussed Texas actions. For example, Texas HB 4211 (2025), authored by Candy Noble and signed by Abbott, was heavily promoted as addressing or even “banning” so-called “Sharia compounds.” In reality, the law regulates certain housing and contractual arrangements—requiring transparency and ensuring disputes are governed by U.S. law. It is fundamentally a consumer protection and property law measure, not a prohibition on religious practice or legal system.

Similarly, earlier legislation often cited in this context—Texas HB 45 (2017)—does not ban Sharia law. It simply ensures that no foreign or religious legal system can be applied in Texas courts if it conflicts with constitutional rights. That standard already exists under U.S. law and applies broadly to all non-U.S. legal frameworks, not just one religion.

Taken together, these examples show a consistent pattern: the public messaging is broader than the legal substance. The proclamation uses the language of terrorism designation but does not create one. HB 4211 was framed as targeting religious systems but instead addresses contract and property structures. HB 45 is often described as banning Sharia, yet it merely reinforces constitutional limits already in place.

The Holy Land Foundation trial (2007–2008), the largest terrorism-financing prosecution in U.S. history, resulted in convictions for providing material support to Hamas. Among the documents entered into evidence was the “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” introduced by prosecutors as contextual evidence regarding networks and strategic outlooks. (https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/federal-judge-hands-downs-sentences-holy-land-foundation-case)

While state-level proclamations may overstate their legal authority, the concerns driving them are not without foundation—and they are not confined to political rhetoric. At the federal level, Congress has formally examined “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat” (https://www.congress.gov/event/115th-congress/house-event/108532/text), highlighting international reach and influence. More concretely, the U.S. government has designated specific Muslim Brotherhood branches as terrorist organizations after determining they provided material support to groups such as Hamas (https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0357). These are not symbolic actions; they reflect documented findings and national security assessments.

The disconnect, therefore, is not whether risks exist—but how they are addressed. When public messaging exceeds truth, it can create confusion instead of clarity. But ignoring the underlying issue is equally problematic.

The challenge is to promptly confront threats with precision, rule of law, and enforceable action.

Even at the federal level, designation is not instantaneous. President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order did not itself designate any organization, but instead directed a formal review process that ultimately led to the designation of specific Muslim Brotherhood branches in 2026. This underscores a key point: even the President must operate within a defined legal framework—something state-level actions cannot bypass.

President Donald J. Trump Begins Process to Designate Certain Muslim Brotherhood Chapters as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists

Whether ‘designated’, ‘deemed’, ‘proclaimed’ (or otherwise), action has been taken by Attorney General Ken Paxton. The suit is ongoing.

Texas Sues CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood to Halt Operations in the State

Sources:

Trump Executive Order & Federal Actions

Executive Order (Primary Source)

• https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/11/designation-of-certain-muslim-brotherhood-chapters-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/

White House Fact Sheet (explains process)

• https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/11/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-begins-process-to-designate-certain-muslim-brotherhood-chapters-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/

Supporting explanation (independent analysis noting it starts a process, not designation)

• https://charityandsecurity.org/news/trump-administration-starts-process-to-designate-muslim-brotherhood-chapters-as-terrorist-organizations/

💰 Treasury / Federal Designation Actions

Treasury press release (actual designations of MB branches)

• https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0357

🏛️ Congressional Hearing

“The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat”

• https://www.congress.gov/event/115th-congress/house-event/108532/text

⚖️ Holy Land Foundation Case

DOJ official case summary (most authoritative)

• https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/federal-judge-hands-downs-sentences-holy-land-foundation-case

⚖️ Texas Actions & Lawsuit

Abbott Proclamation (Nov. 18, 2025)

• https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/PROC_declaring_Muslim_Brotherhood_and_CAIR_Transnational_Criminal_Organizations_IMAGE_11-18-2025.pdf

Paxton Lawsuit (your document)

• https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Petition_7.pdf

CAIR Federal Complaint

• https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Doc.-1-Complaint.pdf

📜 Texas Legislation

HB 4211 (2025)

• https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB04211F.htm

HB 45 (2017)

• https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/HB00045F.htm

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

I bet you’ve been hearing/reading about property rights and landowner woes all across America.

There’s a plethora of concerns: Solar, wind, AI, data centers, nuclear and nuclear waste facilities, Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), hithium, lithium, hydrogen, reservoirs, biosolids, CO2 capture, ethanol, eminent domain, ‘conservation’, 765 kv transmission lines, expanding government land ownership with no people/no roads requirements, even oil, minerals, and cloud seeding.

All adversely affect energy, food, water, land, and air. Sure, some have good points. I’m not advocating for stopping progress. BUT, it’s critical to fight for the good to outweigh the bad.

Farms, ranches, timber/forests, wetlands, wildlife, endangered species, even schools and cemeteries are falling to ‘progress’, especially technology.

Take a deeper look at any one of them, and you’ll learn the concerns. People are less and less considered, or even allowed to speak, while governments/agencies and Big Business tout the great benefits without addressing known, much less unknown, ‘side effects’.

(See more at propertyrightsandfreedom.substack.com/archive)

Here’s the latest project I’ve learned about.

Project Matador is a real proposed advanced energy and data campus in Carson County near Amarillo, backed by official NRC nuclear-license filings and TCEQ air-permit actions. It is being marketed by Fermi America as an extremely large private power-and-data project, but its ultimate scale and full buildout remain proposed . It is drawing attention as a large-scale energy and data infrastructure development planned for Carson County, Texas, near Amarillo. Public records confirm that the project is not speculative—there are active filings with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a four-unit nuclear facility, referred to in those documents as the “Donald J. Trump Generating Plant – Units 1–4.” (You can find the 247-page document here.) At the same time, the project has moved through the Texas permitting process, with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality reviewing and issuing permits for a substantial on-site natural gas power plant intended to support a hyperscale data center campus.

What makes Project Matador notable is its structure: rather than relying on existing grid power, the proposal combines multiple forms of energy generation—natural gas, and potentially nuclear in later phases—directly with a large data center operation. According to permitting materials, the power produced would be used on-site rather than distributed through the broader grid. This reflects a growing trend in which energy-intensive industries, particularly AI and data centers, are beginning to develop dedicated, self-contained power systems to meet rising demand.

While the project has been described in promotional materials as potentially one of the largest of its kind, its full scope and final buildout remain in the proposal and permitting stages. The nuclear component is still undergoing federal review, and long-term timelines and capacity are not yet finalized. Even so, Project Matador offers a clear example of how land use, energy infrastructure, and large-scale industrial development are increasingly being planned together—raising important questions about local governance, resource allocation, and the long-term impacts on surrounding communities.

Many large industrial facilities now promote “closed-loop” water systems as a solution to water consumption concerns. While these systems do reduce withdrawals compared to once-through designs, they are not truly closed. Water is continuously lost through evaporation and must be replaced, and contaminants become concentrated over time, requiring chemical treatment and periodic discharge. In practice, closed-loop systems shift how water is used and managed rather than eliminating demand—raising important questions about long-term sustainability and local resource allocation.

Read more about “closed-loop” water systems here (orf.od.nih.gov) and here.

Project Matador is more than just another proposed development—it is a clear signal of where infrastructure planning is heading. Energy production, data processing, and industrial land use are no longer being treated as separate systems, but as integrated, large-scale complexes with long-term implications for surrounding communities. A data center, for example, doesn’t just occupy land; it tends to bring additional layers with it—expanded power infrastructure, transmission lines, water delivery systems, and backup energy sources. Over time, this creates a kind of stacking effect, where multiple systems converge on the same area, each adding to the overall demand on land and resources. While this project remains in the proposal and permitting stages, its structure alone raises important questions about how resources are allocated, who benefits, and how local impacts are weighed against national or corporate priorities. Project Matador also reflects a broader shift toward integrated systems that concentrate power, water, and land use in ways communities have not historically had to navigate. And as these layers continue to stack—energy, water, infrastructure, and industrial use—the long-term implications become more problematic. As projects like this move forward, transparency, oversight, and informed public engagement will be essential to ensure that decisions made today do not create unintended consequences for decades to come.

Here’s a great quote from Margaret Byfield of American Stewards of Liberty:
”America was founded on this core principle: that the people would have the right to own and fully utilize the land. But as the West was settled, instead of disposing of the lands, the federal government became the landowner.

“Importantly, however, Congress also guaranteed that our multiple-use lands—and even protected lands—would not be locked up from the people. These lands would be productively used, except in very rare cases as Congress determined, to ensure every citizen had the opportunity to help steward the land, witness its infinite beauty and wildlife, and enjoy the bountiful resources it produces for human flourishing.”
From docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20260210/118899/HHRG-119-II10-Wstate-ByfieldM-20260210.pdf

Sources:

• American Stewards of Liberty

• Cooling tower mechanics, evaporation, blowdown, and makeup water:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower

• General water cooling systems, including recirculation and chemical concerns:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cooling

• AI/data center water use, including evaporation losses and closed-loop context:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_water_consumption_of_AI_data_centers

• EPA case study (Quincy, WA) – water reuse reducing groundwater demand:
  https://www.epa.gov/waterreuse/water-reuse-case-study-quincy-washington

• Closed-loop cooling reducing freshwater use (industry example up to ~70%):
  https://www.fwpcoa.org/content.aspx?club_id=859275&item_id=130961&page_id=5

• Chemical risks and environmental concerns in closed-loop systems:
  https://ketos.co/closed-loop-cooling-water-saver-or-chemical-time-bomb

• Blowdown losses and hidden inefficiencies in data center cooling systems:
  https://genesiswatertech.com/blog-post/the-data-center-water-efficiency-paradox-why-your-cooling-tower-is-wasting-more-water-than-you-think/

• DOE guidance on blowdown and cycles of concentration (ongoing water loss reality):
  https://www.energy.gov/femp/cooling-water-efficiency-opportunities-federal-data-centers

• Closed-loop (air-cooled) systems may reduce water use but be less energy efficient:
  https://journal.uptimeinstitute.com/dont-ignore-water-consumption/

• Data center water demand and blowdown reuse challenges:
  https://ide-tech.com/en/blog/data-centers-water-turning-cooling-tower-blowdown-into-a-strategic-resource/

• Overview of closed-loop / close-coupled cooling approaches in data centers:
  https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/cooling/what-is-closed-loop-cooling-and-when-should-data-centers-use-it-

• DOE – Cooling Water Efficiency
  https://www.energy.gov/femp/cooling-water-efficiency-opportunities-federal-data-centers

• KETOS – Closed Loop Cooling Risks
  https://ketos.co/closed-loop-cooling-water-saver-or-chemical-time-bomb

• Genesis Water Tech – Blowdown & Water Efficiency
  https://genesiswatertech.com/blog-post/the-data-center-water-efficiency-paradox-why-your-cooling-tower-is-wasting-more-water-than-you-think/

• IDE Technologies – Data Center Water Use
  https://ide-tech.com/en/blog/data-centers-water-turning-cooling-tower-blowdown-into-a-strategic-resource/

• Data Center Knowledge – Cooling Systems Overview
  https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/cooling/what-is-closed-loop-cooling-and-when-should-data-centers-use-it-

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

In November 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a proclamation claiming to “designate” the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as foreign terrorist organizations. The language is strong and attention-grabbing. But legally, its effect is far more limited than claimed.

The document is a proclamation—not a statute, not a court ruling, and not a federal designation. It relies on existing Texas law (including references to provisions like Texas Penal Code §22.07 on terroristic threats) and serves primarily as a policy statement directing state agencies to operate within authority they already have. It does not create new law, and it does not carry the legal force of a federal terrorism designation. Under U.S. law, only the federal government—through the State Department—can formally designate a foreign terrorist organization. A governor does not have that authority, and a state-level declaration does not trigger federal penalties, sanctions, or immigration consequences.

This becomes clearer when viewed alongside other widely discussed Texas actions. For example, Texas HB 4211 (2025), signed by Abbott, was heavily promoted as addressing or even “banning” so-called “Sharia compounds.” In reality, no - just another sound bite. The law regulates certain housing and contractual arrangements—requiring transparency and ensuring disputes are governed by U.S. law. It is fundamentally a consumer protection and property law measure, not a prohibition on Sharia.

Similarly, earlier legislation often cited in this context—Texas HB 45 (2017)—does not ban Sharia law. It simply ensures that no foreign or religious legal system can be applied in Texas courts if it conflicts with constitutional rights. That standard already exists under U.S. law and applies broadly to all non-U.S. legal frameworks, not just one religion.

Taken together, these examples show a consistent pattern: the public messaging is broader than the legal substance. The proclamation uses the language of terrorism designation but does not create one. HB 4211 was framed as targeting religious systems but instead addresses contract and property structures. HB 45 is often described as banning Sharia, yet it merely reinforces constitutional limits already in place.

This distinction is not just theoretical—it is being tested in court. Following the 2025 proclamation, CAIR and related parties filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the governor exceeded state authority and infringed on constitutional protections, including due process and free speech. The case underscores the central legal point: terrorism designation authority rests with the federal government, not the states.

So. Abbott’s proclamation and related legislative messaging reflect political positioning and policy direction, but they do not amount to a legally binding terrorist designation under U.S. law. The underlying statutes cited are real, but their scope is narrower and more limited than the rhetoric often suggests.

This danger has been known about for decades, long before this, which should have been a wake-up call.

The Holy Land Foundation trial (2007–2008) was the largest terrorism-financing prosecution in U.S. history, resulting in the conviction of a Texas-based charity and its leaders for providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Federal prosecutors presented extensive documentary, financial, and surveillance evidence, including materials seized during investigations. Among those documents was the “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” which was entered into evidence as a government exhibit during the case. The memorandum was not itself the criminal charge, but was used by prosecutors to provide context regarding alleged networks, associations, and strategic outlooks connected to the defendants.

Read this 16-page document to learn about ‘civilizational jihad’.

Islam Explanatory Memorandum

17.2MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

While state-level proclamations may overstate their legal authority, the concerns driving them are not without foundation—and they are not confined to political rhetoric. At the federal level, Congress has formally examined “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat,” highlighting its international reach, ideological influence, and connections to affiliated networks. More concretely, the U.S. government has already designated specific Muslim Brotherhood branches as terrorist organizations after determining they provided material support to groups such as Hamas.

These Federal actions underscore a critical distinction and show that the issue itself is taken seriously at the highest levels of government. A congressional hearing titled “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat” examined the organization’s international reach and influence, while more recent federal actions have gone further—formally designating specific Muslim Brotherhood branches as terrorist organizations due to findings that they provided material support to groups like Hamas.

Public concern, grounded in evidence, deserves prompt and serious attention—and effective action requires constitutional authority, precision, and accountability. The risk, as identified in federal findings, must be addressed—within the legal framework that governs how such threats.

Note: Sharia, the law of Islam, is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution or the Texas Constitution. Islam is not just a religion. The religion aspect is only 14% of Islam.

Sources:

• https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Doc.-1-Complaint.pdf

• https://www.fox4news.com/news/texas-cair-chapters-sue-governor-abbott-ag-paxton-over-terrorist-designation

• https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/20/cair-texas-lawsuit-terrorist-designation-00663140

• “Sharia: Law for Non-Muslins” (A Taste of Islam) by Bill Warner PHD

• The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat (https://www.congress.gov/event/115th-congress/house-event/108532/text)

• Treasury and State Departments Designate Muslim Brotherhood Branches as Terrorist Organizations (https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0357)

• Defending Our Republic

• Holy Land Foundation trial (https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/federal-judge-hands-downs-sentences-holy-land-foundation-case)

• Explanatory Memorandum (See PDF embedded above.)

  ---

  

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

There’s a quiet shift happening that most people haven’t been told about. As the push for artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure accelerates, massive data centers are being built at a rapid pace—and they’re bringing with them a growing demand for land, energy, and water. In some communities, that demand already raising difficult questions.

We’re told that the future is digital—that AI is critical to our national economy and security. It sounds clean, efficient, almost weightless. But the reality is much more grounded. The cloud isn’t floating anywhere. It’s built on land, powered by massive infrastructure and, increasingly, drawing from one of our most finite resources: water.

As artificial intelligence expands and data demands grow, data centers are being built at a rapid pace across the country. These aren’t small facilities tucked out of sight. They are large, industrial-scale operations filled with servers that generate enormous amounts of heat and must be cooled continuously. That cooling process, in many cases, requires substantial amounts of water—sometimes hundreds of thousands, even millions of gallons per day.

What’s emerging is a shift in what limits growth. For years, the conversation focused on electricity—how much power these facilities require and how the grid will keep up. But in many areas, especially those already dealing with drought or population growth, water is becoming the more immediate constraint. It’s not just the water used on-site, either. Electricity generation itself often depends on water, which means the true footprint is larger than it appears and is often misrepresented.

That transparency issue must not be ignored. In some communities, details about water usage aren’t fully disclosed, or they’re buried in (non-disclosure) agreements that limit what can be shared publicly. Residents may hear about economic development and new jobs but have a harder time getting clear answers about long-term resource impacts. That gap between what’s promised and what’s understood can make it difficult for communities to fully evaluate what’s coming.

And then there’s the broader pattern—one that may feel familiar. Local residents raise questions. Concerns are voiced about land use, infrastructure strain, or resource allocation. At the same time, projects are often framed in terms of progress, competitiveness, and economic opportunity. Those are not trivial considerations. Data centers do support services people rely on every day. But when those priorities meet local concerns, there is a balancing act—and it doesn’t always land at the local level. And ‘authorities’ can be the point that makes a bad decision for everyone. Citizen engagement is critical.

Another piece that’s easy to miss is how these facilities rarely come alone. A data center doesn’t just occupy land; it tends to bring additional layers with it—expanded power infrastructure, transmission lines, water delivery systems, and backup energy sources. Over time, this creates a kind of stacking effect, where multiple systems converge on the same area, each adding to the overall demand on land and resources.

None of this means data centers are inherently negative. Like most large-scale developments, they come with trade-offs. They support innovation, economic activity, and services that are now deeply embedded in daily life. But they also raise questions that are becoming harder to ignore: how resources are prioritized, how decisions are made, and how much visibility communities have into both.

The digital world isn’t separate from the physical one. It depends on it—on land, on energy, and increasingly, on water. And as that dependency grows, so does the importance of understanding what’s happening behind the scenes.

*See Texas specific piece below the Sources.

Bottom Line

This isn’t a story about one project or even one industry. It’s about a broader shift in how land, water, and infrastructure are being used—and how those decisions are made.

The growth of data centers is part of that shift. And like so many of the issues we’ve been tracking, it comes back to a familiar set of questions: what are the trade-offs, who benefits, and how much say do communities - CITIZENS - have in the process?

As always, understanding what’s happening is the first step toward being able to engage with it in a meaningful way.

Sources:

• https://corbettreport.com/starving-the-data-centre-beast/

• https://texasscorecard.com/local/despite-protest-lacy-lakeview-officials-embrace-proposed-data-center/

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/25/artificial-intelligence-data-center-water/

• https://www.businessinsider.com/how-data-centers-are-deepening-the-water-crisis-2025-6

📍 Texas: Where the Pressure Is Already Building

If this concern isn’t in your area yet, it will be soon.

Texas has quickly become a prime location for data center development. It offers space, a strong energy network, and a regulatory environment that encourages growth. Without proper considerations, it may make sense on paper. But Texas is also a state that already understands what it means to manage competing demands for water.

In places like Lacy Lakeview, near Waco, a proposed data center project has brought that tension into focus. Reports suggest the facility could use an amount of water in a single day that rivals what the city itself uses over a much longer period. Whether those projections hold exactly or evolve over time, the reaction has been telling. Residents aren’t just asking whether the project brings economic benefits—they’re asking what it means for long-term water availability and infrastructure strain.

That concern doesn’t exist in isolation. Across Texas, water is already being pulled in multiple directions—by growing populations, agricultural needs, reservoir expansion plans, and industrial development. Aquifers like the Carrizo–Wilcox are part of that equation, as are regional planning decisions that determine where water is stored, moved, and used.

When a large new demand enters that system, it doesn’t land on a blank slate. It enters a landscape where priorities are already being negotiated, and where every additional use has ripple effects.

There’s also the question of how decisions are made. Texas values local control, but large projects often involve multiple layers of authority—local governments, regional planners, and state-level agencies. That can create situations where residents feel the impact most directly, but don’t always feel they have the final say.

All of this makes Texas something of a preview. It shows what happens when rapid development meets an already complex water environment. It highlights the kinds of questions other regions may soon face: not just whether projects move forward, but how resources are allocated, who decides, and what level of transparency is expected along the way.

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

Over the past several days, something important has shifted in the Iran conflict—but it’s not the kind of shift that comes with a headline saying “It’s over.”

Instead, what we’re seeing is more subtle, and in some ways more meaningful. The situation hasn’t become calm, but it has become more structured. The chaos is now happening alongside ‘The Art of the Deal’: pressure, positioning, and subtle (but significant) attempts to create the best outcome.

That means progress!

One of the clearest signs of that shift is how the timeline itself has changed. What started as a very short window—first 48 hours, then five days—has now been extended into something closer to early April. That tells us that what looked like a hard deadline is really being used as leverage. The pressure is being managed in a way that leaves room for behind-the-scenes progress.

And there is progress.

Countries that initially kept their distance are stepping in. Pakistan, in particular, has emerged as a key intermediary, with Turkey and Egypt also involved. That shows this is not just a two-sided conflict—it’s a broader diplomatic effort, though it’s uncertain and unofficial.

The conflict itself hasn’t slowed down. There are still strikes and responses. The Strait of Hormuz as a major focal point brings the entire world into the picture, whether it wants to be involved or not.

Because once you get to Hormuz, you’re no longer just talking about a regional conflict—you’re talking about energy.

And that’s really where this story deepens.

Oil is reacting, as it always does when supply routes are threatened. But the longer-term pressure is coming from natural gas and LNG, especially with disruptions tied to Qatar. That’s where the difference between countries becomes more visible. The United States is still affected—no one escapes global oil pricing—but it enters this situation from a much stronger position as a net energy exporter. Europe, on the other hand, is far more exposed, because it relies more heavily on imports and has fewer buffers when supply tightens.

That difference isn’t just economic. It’s strategic.

Iran is, of course, unsettled. The long-standing supreme leader is gone, and a successor has been named, but real authority appears far less clear than it was before. Leadership that may look stable on paper can still be uncertain in practice, especially with the multiple factions involved. And that can make ‘what leadership’ questions arise, affecting everything from military decisions to negotiation posture.

Looking at the full picture, what emerges is a phase where pressure is still being applied—militarily, economically, and diplomatically—and where that pressure is also beginning to open negotiations. Not formal talks, not a signed agreement, but the early shaping of what could eventually become one.

And that’s worth paying attention to!

Because conflicts like this don’t usually end in a single moment. They transition and reach a point where continuing down the same path becomes unsustainable. That’s when alternatives start to take shape.

Are we approaching that moment now; how close might it be?

That doesn’t mean the outcome is decided. There’s still real risk here. The situation could escalate further. Miscalculations are always possible. And there is no confirmed agreement on the core issue that sits underneath all of this: Iran’s nuclear trajectory.

But it does mean the situation is not spinning without direction.

There is now a visible interplay between force and diplomacy, between escalation and restraint, between pressure and possibility.

Perhaps that’s where the real turning point is.

Hope for a ‘happy ending’.

If this ends the best way it possibly can, it won’t look like a dramatic victory. It will look like something quieter and more durable. It will mean the pressure applied here led not to a wider war, but to a narrowing of risk. It could mean Iran steps back from the nuclear threshold, not because it was forced overnight, but because the cost of continuing became too high to ignore. It could mean critical energy routes stabilize before deeper damage is done, and that countries that once hesitated are forced to take a more realistic view of both security and dependence.

For the United States, it could reinforce the advantage of energy strength in a world where supply disruptions can reshape entire regions. For Europe, it may serve as another reminder that energy policy and national security are inseparable. And for the region itself, the best outcome wouldn’t be triumph—it would be a more stable balance, where fewer actors are willing to test how far escalation can go.

That outcome isn’t guaranteed.

But now, it feels like something that is within reach.

And that seems to mean good progress, but bear in mind, it’s subject to sudden turns.

Sources:

Reuters – Iran expected to respond to U.S. proposal
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/irans-response-us-peace-proposal-expected-friday-source-says-2026-03-27/

Reuters – Trump extends deadline / Hormuz pressure
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/trump-pauses-attacks-irans-energy-plants-says-talks-are-going-well-2026-03-26/

Reuters – Chinese ships turn back in Hormuz (shipping disruption)
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinese-ships-halt-attempt-exit-hormuz-despite-iran-safe-passage-assurances-2026-03-27/

Reuters – G7 demands halt to attacks / global impact
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/g7-foreign-ministers-demand-an-end-attacks-civilians-iran-war-2026-03-27/

Guardian Live – escalation, Hormuz disruption, energy shock
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/mar/27/iran-war-live-updates-trump-negotiations-bombing-hormuz-energy-oil-prices-middle-easthttps://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/mar/27/iran-war-live-updates-trump-negotiations-bombing-hormuz-energy-oil-prices-middle-east

Guardian – continued strikes and regional spread
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/mar/26/iran-war-live-updates-trump-deal-us-military-strikes-israel-lebanon-hezbollah

Times of India – deadline extension + oil market reaction
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/trump-extends-hormuz-deadline-even-as-strikes-continue-oil-prices-ease-whats-happening-in-us-israel-vs-iran-war/articleshow/129839061.cms

Wikipedia (overview with cited sources) – 2026 Hormuz crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Strait_of_Hormuz_crisis

Wikipedia (overview with cited sources) – Strait of Hormuz importance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz

Reuters (summary listing) – Mojtaba Khamenei as successor
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/khameneis-hardline-son-mojtaba-appointed-irans-new-leader-pope-leo-warns-middle-2026-03-09/

Wikipedia (with multiple cited sources) – succession details
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iranian_supreme_leader_election

ABC News (live updates citing officials)
https://abc7.com/live-updates/iran-war-news-trump-strikes-delay-israel-middle-east-oil/18756340/entry/18758073

Foundation for Defense of Democracies summary (multi-source)
https://www.fdd.org/overnight-brief/march-27-2026/

Fizzles, Fears, and Flip Flops

Palestine condemns Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

In today’s political environment, nearly every headline is framed as a crisis. Social media, fundraising emails, and commentary often intentionally create outrage, leaving many people feeling angry or frustrated. When everything is treated as an existential crisis, it’s hard to distinguish facts from exaggerated narratives. A healthy republic requires more than constant alarm: patience, perspective, and the ability to discern political theater from strategy.

If you’ve been paying any attention to media lately, you’ve probably seen a wave of panic over the latest events in Iran. Headlines warn that the war has crossed a “red line,” that oil markets will collapse, and that the political fallout could harm conservatives in November.

Doom and gloom sells. Media (in general) is negative and short-sighted.

Last night’s coalition strike destroyed Iran’s Tondgouyan refinery near Tehran, producing dramatic images of fire and smoke over the capital. Media outlets immediately framed it as a reckless attack on civilian energy infrastructure and a dangerous escalation.

But that description leaves out at least one key detail: the facility was a central fuel and logistics hub for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The IRGC is not just a military force. It is effectively a parallel (bad actor) government and economic empire controlling large portions of Iran’s oil, banking, transportation, and infrastructure sectors—by some estimates touching over half of Iran’s economy.

In other words, the strike wasn’t random destruction. It targeted the financial oxygen of the regime’s military power.

Equally important, the refinery served domestic fuel needs. Iran’s actual oil export lifeline—Kharg Island—remains untouched.

And that’s a big deal.

Kharg Island is a tiny Persian Gulf outpost that handles about 90% of Iran’s crude exports, roughly 1.5 million barrels per day, much of it destined for China via sanctions-dodging tanker fleets. Destroying Kharg would likely send global markets into panic. Instead, perhaps the strategy is to control that flow rather than destroy it, preserving leverage over the world’s oil supply.

That’s where the story becomes more complex.

While attention is fixed on burning refineries, there was another Trump administration action: the U.S. Treasury signaled that sanctions on Russian oil could be eased, allowing millions of barrels currently stuck in limbo to return to world markets.

That move would instantly replace Iranian supply, stabilizing prices while removing Tehran’s leverage over global energy markets.

It also reshapes the geopolitical board.

China currently depends heavily on discounted oil from Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. If Iranian exports are disrupted, Russian oil reenters global markets, and Venezuelan supply remains constrained, Beijing suddenly loses its cheapest energy sources and must compete at full market prices.

What might appear as chaotic escalation just might be a multi-front pressure campaign:

• Iran’s IRGC loses its financial base
• Russia gains an incentive to move away from Tehran
• China loses discounted energy supplies
• Global oil markets are stabilized through alternative supply

Meanwhile, Iran’s regime faces mounting internal pressure, economic collapse, and growing unrest.

That doesn’t mean the situation is risk-free. The stakes are big, and many variables remain.

But the rush to declare strategic failure says more about modern media cycles than about actual investigative reporting.

Critics often interpret Trump’s moves as chaos in real time. Yet in the past—from tariffs to the Abraham Accords—many actions that initially appeared reckless later revealed a clearer strategic logic. Typically a boon to America and Americans.

Whatever you and I think - and we don’t know the strategy, the current moment may not be about escalation, but about a larger geopolitical realignment goal.

In short, what some commentators see as chaos may be a complicated strategy playing out move by move on a much larger geopolitical board.

If you’d like a deeper historical and geopolitical analysis of how we arrived at this moment, read Tierney's Real News, Iran in 10 Minutes.

Sources:

www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/gentlemens-agreements-sunday-march

tierneyrealnewsnetwork.substack.com/p/iran-in-10-minutes

https://konniburton.com/ (‘The Politics of Permanent Outrage’)

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

I wanted to share several things, so to be considerate of your time, I’ve put together 13 quick hits. (I’ve shared some excerpts in #13 (about Starbucks) that will give you a smile.)

Though these headline may seem unrelated—from developments in Iran and Venezuela to Supreme Court rulings, corporate relocations, and disputes over media platforms—they are actually part of a larger pattern of institutional change. Across government, courts, business, and media, long-standing power structures are being challenged, reinterpreted, or reorganized. Questions about executive authority, judicial limits, information control, and economic incentives are increasingly intersecting with one another. (Think that was the plan?)

Taken together, these stories highlight a broader moment of realignment. Courts are revisiting the boundaries between federal agencies, presidents, and Congress. Major corporations are responding to shifting economic and regulatory environments. Media platforms and news organizations are facing scrutiny over influence and credibility. At the same time, geopolitical conflicts and international economic developments continue to shape domestic policy debates. (Or are domestic policy changes shaping worldwide change?) Overall, the updates below tell a story of legal, political, economic, and cultural forces coming together for change.

Most of the topics were covered by Jeff Childers, Coffee and Covid in the below Substack editions, and I assure you Jeff’s writing is filled with insight and wit. So, take time to read some of it, and it will brighten your day.

www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/an-imperial-judiciary-friday-march

www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/its-me-thursday-march-5-2026-c-and

www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/open-secrets-tuesday-march-3-2026

1. Iran War Update

U.S. and Israeli forces say they have established localized air superiority over key parts of Iran, allowing coalition aircraft to operate with reduced risk while expanding strikes deeper into Iranian territory. Pentagon briefings from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine indicate that the campaign—part of the joint operation launched in late February—has already targeted thousands of Iranian military sites, including missile infrastructure, air defenses, naval assets, and command centers. Iranian missile and drone launches have continued but have dropped significantly since the opening phase of the operation as launch systems are destroyed or suppressed. U.S. officials say the air campaign will continue focusing on ballistic missile systems, military leadership, and defense infrastructure, while acknowledging that some Iranian retaliatory attacks may still get through regional air defenses. There are concerns about this military action being over quickly and decisively. President Trump’s stand is that the Iranian people will have to take appropriate action to set up their own government.

2. Venezuela Oil Production After Political Change

Following political changes in Venezuela earlier in the year, oil exports reportedly doubled, reaching about 1.4 million barrels per day. Revenues are being routed through U.S.-supervised financial channels intended for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes. The shift has also reduced discounted oil shipments to China and increased the share of revenue flowing to Venezuelan programs.

3. DHS Leadership Change

President Trump announced that Kristi Noem will shift from Secretary of Homeland Security to a new role leading a hemispheric security initiative, while Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma will become the new DHS Secretary. Mullin’s Senate seat will be temporarily filled by a gubernatorial appointment until the next election. The move is part of a broader series of administrative and Senate leadership reshuffles within the administration.

4. Court Allows Changes to Federal Worker Union Bargaining

A win for Rule of Law. A federal appeals court lifted an injunction that had blocked the Trump administration from ending collective bargaining for more than one million federal employees. The bargaining system originated with President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order 10988 in 1962, which allowed federal workers to unionize. The case remains in litigation, but the ruling allows the administration’s policy changes to proceed for now.

5. Appeals Court Upholds Refugee Admission Suspension

Another win for Rule of Law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump has the legal authority to suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program under powers granted by the Immigration and Nationality Act. The decision vacated much of a lower court injunction that had blocked the policy. A separate ruling from the Seventh Circuit also overturned restrictions imposed by a district judge on certain immigration enforcement practices.

6. Supreme Court Pauses California School Gender Policy

A win. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked a California policy that restricted teachers from informing parents if a student socially transitioned at school. The case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, centers on whether such policies violate parents’ rights to participate in decisions affecting their children’s mental health and upbringing. The Court’s order pauses the policy while litigation continues.

7. Supreme Court Blocks New York Redistricting Change

A win. The Supreme Court issued an emergency order preventing New York from redrawing the state’s only Republican congressional district in New York City, represented by Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11). A lower court had ruled the district should be redrawn due to racial representation concerns. The high court’s order keeps the current district map in place while legal challenges proceed.

8. Minnesota Church Raid Indictments

The Department of Justice announced 30 additional indictments connected to a January anti-ICE protest at Cities Church in Minneapolis, bringing the total defendants to at least 39. Prosecutors allege the group conducted a planned disruption of a church service, including reconnaissance beforehand. Charges include violations of the FACE Act and conspiracy against rights under the Ku Klux Klan Act. Several suspects have already been arrested, while at least one reportedly left the country.

9. CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee Reviewing Injury Diagnosis Code

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet in March to discuss several topics, including a proposal to adopt a new ICD diagnostic code for COVID-19 vaccine injuries. ICD codes are used in medical billing and record systems to formally identify and track health conditions. If approved, the code would allow medical providers and researchers to track vaccine-related adverse events more systematically.

10. Epstein Files and University of Florida Search Committee

New documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act include references to Doug Band, a former adviser to Bill Clinton who currently serves on a University of Florida presidential search advisory committee. The records reportedly include communications between Band and Ghislaine Maxwell and identify him as a person with information related to the Epstein investigation. University officials have stated they have taken no action regarding his committee role.

11. FTC Scrutiny of Apple’s News App

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sent Apple a letter questioning whether its Apple News app may violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices. The concern centers on whether the platform presents itself as neutral while algorithmically curating news sources. The issue could affect other algorithm-driven news and media platforms if regulators pursue broader action.

12. Possible CNN Ownership Shift

Paramount/Skydance, led by David Ellison, is reportedly pursuing the acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery, which owns CNN. The move follows Ellison’s purchase of CBS and investment in The Free Press. If approved by regulators, the deal would place several major media outlets under the same corporate umbrella and could reshape leadership and editorial direction within those organizations. (This could get a little tricky. Stay tuned.)

13. Starbucks Moving Operations to Tennessee

Excerpts from IT’S ME ☙ Thursday, March 5, 2026 ☙ C&C NEWS

The woke company that put pronouns on name tags is fleeing to a state that put the Ten Commandments in classrooms. The Seattle Times ran the story, headlined, “Starbucks picks this Southern state for its new corporate office.” While the coffee MegaCorp insisted that its headquarters will remain in iconic Seattle, it is moving most of its operations staff to Nashville. I still love you, I just want to see other people.

Seattle companies pay a municipal payroll tax. The Space Needle shakes down employers for between 0.7% and 2.5% of all compensation paid to employees. You can imagine how pricey that gets for Starbucks’ C-suite.

On Tuesday, Starbucks and the State of Tennessee issued a joint press release announcing the coffee company is now dating Tennessee. Stimulated by Tennessee’s low-tax culture…

90% of Starbucks investors agreed DEI was a disaster. You can’t get 90% of Americans to agree on anything.

The moral of this story is: fiscal gravity beats cultural gravity. When Governor Lee says “values,” he means no income tax. When Starbucks hears “values,” it hears no income tax. Finally, everyone agrees on values. In fairness, Starbucks is a business. It just forgot that for five years. Now they remember.

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

The Supreme Court’s recent decision limiting President Trump’s use of emergency powers for tariffs is being framed as a major loss. I don’t think so. Read carefully, and the ruling looks more like a reset—one that reins in a risky shortcut, preserves the tariff strategy itself, and strengthens guardrails against future abuse of executive power. In plain terms: tariffs aren’t going away, the economy didn’t stumble, and the Court quietly reinforced a constitutional framework that protects everyday Americans over the long haul.

If you’ve felt whiplash from the headlines this week, you’re not alone. The news cycle quickly declared that the Supreme Court had dealt a crippling blow to President Trump’s tariff agenda. Progressive leaders celebrated, commentators rushed to call it a turning point, and many Americans were left wondering whether another pillar of economic stability had just been kicked out from under them.

But step back from the noise for a moment. What the Court actually did—and just as importantly, what it chose not to do—tells a far calmer and more constructive story.

At the center of the case was whether the president could use a sweeping emergency law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to impose tariffs. In a 6–3 decision, the Court said no: that particular statute doesn’t clearly authorize tariffs, and when Congress intends to give that power, it usually says so outright. That’s the narrow holding. The Court did not rule that tariffs themselves are unconstitutional. It did not dismantle Trump’s trade strategy. And it did not accuse the administration of acting recklessly or in bad faith.

So why the celebration? Because many critics assumed that emergency authority was the whole foundation for Trump’s tariff program. It wasn’t. And the Court knew that.

A key concern—raised openly during oral arguments—was what would happen if this precedent were left standing for the next president. If vague emergency language can be stretched to justify tariffs today, it could just as easily be stretched tomorrow to impose sweeping economic controls under the banner of a “climate emergency” or some other crisis. Once that door is opened, it doesn’t close neatly.

Seen this way, the ruling functions less like a rebuke and more like a firewall. It shuts down a dangerous shortcut before it can be misused, while leaving intact the broader authority Congress has already granted presidents through other, more specific trade laws. That distinction matters—not just for Trump, but for anyone who cares about limits on executive power.

The dissents make this even clearer. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito argued forcefully that Trump’s reading of the emergency statute was reasonable, grounded in history and common sense. Their message was not that the majority was malicious, but that this was a serious legal disagreement—not a condemnation of presidential overreach. That distinction gives the administration something important: legitimacy. It undercuts the narrative that the first months of tariff policy were lawless or reckless.

As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China. That approach does not make much sense.

-Justice Kavanaugh

Meanwhile, the practical effects were telling. Within hours of the decision, President Donald Trump shifted to other existing trade authorities—ones Congress explicitly designed for tariffs. Markets barely reacted. Trading partners abroad signaled that they expect little to change. Treasury officials acknowledged that tariff revenue is projected to remain largely steady. In other words, the real-world impact was measured, not disruptive.

There’s also a deeper legal thread here that often gets lost in the headlines. The Court relied on what’s known as the “Major Questions Doctrine,” a principle that says agencies and presidents can’t conjure sweeping powers from ambiguous statutory language. This doctrine has already been used to rein in federal overreach in areas like workplace mandates and environmental regulation. By refusing to stretch emergency powers beyond their clear text, the Court strengthened that rule. It’s a quiet but significant step in restoring balance between Congress, the executive branch, and the courts.

We will focus on a key moment from November’s oral arguments that lifts the curtain, letting us see what’s really happening behind the scenes. In paraphrase, at page 69 in the transcript, Justice Gorsuch asked, If we let THIS president use IEEPA for tariffs, what stops the NEXT president from declaring a climate emergency and taxing gas-powered pickup trucks out of existence?

Here’s the thing: don’t miss this. When Gorsuch asked him about the peril of future presidents, the DOJ’s lawyer —Trump’s lawyer— agreed. If IEEPA allows Trump tariffing, then a future Democrat president could also use it, for whatever insane progressive agenda they felt like, just by declaring a “state of emergency.” Nobody disputed that; everybody agreed.

-Coffee and Covid, Tariff Turnabout

All of this helps explain why the decision felt dramatic on the surface but stable underneath. The Court earned public credibility by saying “no” in one narrow context, even as it preserved the legal architecture that allows trade policy to continue. The administration absorbed a short-term inconvenience while keeping its long-term strategy intact. And the country avoided setting a precedent that could have been far more dangerous down the road.

For everyday Americans, this moment matters because it shows something rare in modern governance: a system correcting itself without panic. Prices didn’t spike overnight. Jobs didn’t evaporate. And an overly broad emergency power was narrowed before it could be abused. Progress like this doesn’t always arrive with fanfare—but it does move the country toward steadier ground.

Sources:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/607/24-1287/

coffeeandcovid.com/p/tariff-turnabout-saturday-february

https://thefederalist.com/2026/02/20/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-in-emergency-tariffs-cases/

https://thefederalist.com/2026/02/20/4-of-the-best-lines-from-kavanaughs-masterclass-defense-of-trumps-tariff-power/

https://thefederalist.com/2026/02/20/kavanaugh-trump-obviously-has-tariff-power-and-heres-how-he-can-keep-using-it/

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

I read Coffee and Covid consistently. Mr. Childers is on top of things, and his insight, including legally since he’s an attorney, is welcome. I’ve restacked his posts several times. I recommend subscribing to Coffee and Covid.

On Friday, the UK Guardian ran an unintentionally encouraging story headlined, “ICE to spend $38bn turning warehouses into detention centers, documents show.” That’s not all the documents show; best of all, they show a long-term plan. Here’s one of the warehouses ICE just bought, this one in Georgia. Just look at this thing:

On Friday, Republican New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte posted an internal ICE memo after supposedly catching ICE ‘falsely’ claiming it had worked with her office on a planned facility in Merrimack. The memo —marked ‘For Official Use Only’— revealed ICE’s “$38.3 Billion Detention Reengineering Initiative,” a plan to expand detention capacity to 92,600 beds by this November. It describes eight “mega-centers” holding 7,000 to 10,000 detainees each, with sixteen regional processing centers. According to the memo, ICE has already quietly purchased at least seven warehouses —some exceeding one million square feet— in Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

You would think progressives would be pleased. The planned mega-centers will include medical care, dental, recreation areas, law libraries, courtroom space, cafeterias, and scheduled phone calls. Which, to be honest, is more amenities than a freshman college dorm.

To give you a sense of the scale: ICE is currently holding about 75,000 people, up from 40,000 when President Trump took office a year ago. The new target is 92,600. Last week, ICE Director Todd Lyons told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that 1.6 million illegal aliens have final deportation orders— of whom half, roughly 800,000, have criminal convictions. That’s 800,000 convicted criminals, outward bound.

Meanwhile, twelve thousand new ICE officers are coming online to help process them all.

But the buried story that corporate media seems to miss is that this obviously isn’t a plan to handle a temporary surge. You don’t spend $38.3 billion building eight mega-centers that each hold 10,000 people, sixteen regional processing sites, and a standardized, “scalable” nationwide detention network just to round up a few busloads of criminal aliens and call it a day.

The memo itself calls this ICE’s “long-term detention solution.” Long-term. The infrastructure is designed to be operational by November 2026 — and that’s when it will start operating. They’re hiring 12,000 new agents to fill it out. They’re buying million-square-foot warehouses across seven states— and still shopping for more.

In other words, this memo reads less like an emergency response and more like the blueprints for a permanent deportation pipeline— an industrial-scale system designed to process 1.6 million people with final deportation orders (half of whom have criminal convictions) and then keep running for whoever and whatever comes next.

The Trump administration isn’t just catching up on a backlog. They’re clearly building a massive, multi-armed deportation machine that can actually handle 20 to 40 million illegal immigrants— by making mass deportation a routine government function rather than a political slogan. Critics who sneered that it was too late, that it would be impossible to deport 40 million illegals, are looking at how President Trump could actually deliver on his promises.

Once again, President Trump thought bigger —less modestly— and saw possibilities nobody else did. More promises kept.

Source:

☕️ Coffee & Covid 2025 🦠

☕️ MODESTLY ☙ Monday, February 16, 2026 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Good morning, C&C, it’s Monday! A fresh new week. Your roundup today includes: RFK Jr. and a former FDA chief team up on 60 Minutes to expose the GRAS food additive scandal (10,000 vs. 400), JAMA sa…

Read more

3 months ago · 1471 likes · 1047 comments · Jeff Childers

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!

Perhaps you’ve ben reading or hearing about Sharia law, particularly in Texas.

America has a Constitution, and laws. Texas has a Constitution, and laws.

No other law applies to Texas or America.

Texas is big in the news currently, but the Sharia law issue is nationwide. I encourage you to be informed and engaged. YOU HAVE POWER.

The below is from Senator Bob Hall, Senate District 2, Texas.
https://mailchi.mp/senatorbobhall/protecting-texans-from-sharia-law

For too long, Texans have watched from the sidelines while radical ideologues have pushed narratives and influences that run counter to our state and federal Constitutions. History reminds us that Sharia law is not a neutral set of “religious guidelines” but a legal system that, at its core, conflicts with the fundamental liberties guaranteed to every Texan under the United States and Texas Constitutions.

For instance, organizations such as the Fiqh Council of North America[1] operates for the explicit purpose of applying Sharia law and principles in the United States, issuing guidance on contracts, financial transactions, and community conduct. While the council’s rulings are currently considered opinions rather than binding law, they demonstrate the growing Sharia functions as an active quasi-legal framework embedded in American cultural and civic life.

Attempts to create communities where Sharia law circumvents or usurps state and federal law only pave the way for what Europe is currently experiencing. In the United Kingdom, Sharia councils[2] operate as quasi-legal arbitration bodies handling divorce, inheritance, and custody matters.

Tightly knit Sharia-following communities want to function as closed systems, where social pressure, cultural expectations, and Sharia authority converge to limit genuine choice, particularly for women. In these cult-like environments, women are discouraged from seeking civil courts, warned against outside authorities, and told that compliance with male-dominated rulings is their only morally acceptable option. While participation is often described as “voluntary,” the heightened cultural pressures can make refusal costly, isolating, and even violent, creating a dynamic where consent is constrained, and impartiality within the community’s laws is undermined.

Sharia councils have sustained criticism for issuing decisions that reflect deeply unequal treatment between men and women. Investigations by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and reports by the U.K. Parliament have documented cases where women seeking divorce or custody through Sharia councils were pressured to accept terms far less favorable than those they would receive under civil law. One BBC investigation[3] found that women were advised to return to husbands who had abused them, because the council prioritized reconciliation over safety; another parliamentary report[4],[5],[6] stated that some councils’ rulings on inheritance were “discriminatory” toward women compared to British civil legal standards.

A 2018 Home Office review[7] found that almost all Sharia councils participants were women, with over 90 percent seeking specifically a Sharia divorce. In most cases, a substantial number of women were unable to obtain a civil divorce because their “Sharia” marriage had never been registered[8] under English law, leaving them without legal recourse in the civil legal system.

Europe’s experience demonstrates that parallel legal systems, once allowed, can become entrenched and undermine established law.

In the United States, Sharia-informed arbitration has been used in family disputes. Some choose to incorporate Sharia-informed principles, which refer to the integration of Sharia law concepts into family arbitrations (e.g., marriage rituals, mandatory marriage gifts (mahr gifts), and divorce practices), even though U.S. civil law already governs these legal recognitions. Cultural practices such as these reflect how Sharia doctrines impose and infringe upon our constitutionally established system of governance.

In Irving, Texas, Manara Academy[9], a public charter school supported by the Qatar Foundation International[10] (QFI), has incorporated classroom materials depicting maps of the “Arab world” that omit Israel entirely and replace it with “Palestine.” These materials, highlighted by QFI as part of an “Arab Culture Arts Program,” obviously are intended to indoctrinate and not educate students.

Similarly, in 2016, the Austin Independent School District accepted a $100,000 grant from QFI to fund an Arabic cultural program[11], covering teacher salaries, curriculum development, and instructional materials. Foreign-linked funding that influences public school curricula should concern every Texan who values transparency, neutrality, and local control in education.

This concern was compounded when Austin’s City Council openly defied a state directive[12] by proclaiming January 22 as “Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Austin Day” and establishing a permanent “Muslim Heritage Month” in January. Standing alongside Mayor Watson, council members elevated an organization that the Governor designated as a foreign terrorist organization in November 2025, disregarding both state leadership and widespread public concern about tyrannical Sharia encroachment in Texas.

State leaders have already taken action to stop similar trajectories, with action from the Governor[13] and Attorney General[14] to preserve Texas sovereignty and public safety. In the 89^th session, I voted for and we passed House Bill 4211[15], which was signed into law and specifically addresses schemes governed by codes foreign to our Constitution, like the discriminatory compound East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC)[16]. HB 4211 protects Texans from entities that would use “religion” as a cover to evade equal protection and civil rights.

Recently, I had the honor of attending the Save Texas from Radical Islam dinner in Dallas, a historic gathering held at a pivotal moment for our state and nation. Texans and Americans from across the country assembled with a shared commitment to preserving our Judeo-Christian heritage, defending the United States and Texas Constitutions, and safeguarding the freedoms that make Texas and America exceptional.

During the program, historian and author Bill Federer provided critical historical context, explaining how Islam evolved from a religion into a political system. When a system and doctrine are imposed over constitutional law as a form of its own civil law, a form of tyranny is created. Federer said that in Sharia law, a culture of death is the only outcome of this tyranny.

Texans do not have to wait for the Legislature to make permanent statutory changes; they have power at the ballot box. In the March 3, 2026, Republican Primary Election, Texas Republican voters will see party ballot proposition[17] number 10, which supports prohibiting Sharia law from having any foothold in Texas. These propositions are not laws; they are directives from the grassroots to elected officials about what Texans want their leaders to advocate for when crafting legislation. Election dates are firm: early voting begins February 17, 2026, and Election Day is March 3, 2026. Mark your calendar, study the propositions[18], and cast your vote. This will send a clear message to Texas leadership and the country.

Leading the Charge
I also urge you to contact your state senator and state representative[19] and let them know you support strong statutory language to prohibit enforcement or recognition of any foreign law in Texas courts and contracts.

I have already heard from many of you, and I am not sitting on my hands. I am requesting a legislative interim charge to officially study foreign legal systems and their potential to undermine United States and Texas constitutional governance. This study would bring law enforcement leaders, constitutional scholars, judges, and citizen stakeholders together to determine whether current statutory protections are sufficient and to craft proposals for statutory and constitutional language that leave no ambiguity: Texas law is supreme in Texas courts, and no foreign code or doctrine has any place in our justice system.

Let’s be clear: The state of Texas only recognizes state and federal law, and no foreign code holds sway over our state judicial system. That protection did not happen by accident; it was deliberate, and Texans should be alarmed when foreign entities, like Sharia doctrine, seek to erode and circumvent our constitutional order.

We are fighting at multiple levels, ballot measures, interim charges, and statutory reform, because public safety, the rule of law, and the constitutional integrity of our liberties are non-negotiable.

Texans deserve lawmaking that defends our sovereignty from any ideology that seeks to place another authority above the Constitution of the United States and the Texas Constitution. Together, we can protect Texas and our Constitutional liberties from foreign tyrannical occupation in America.

[1] https://fiqhcouncil.org/about/

[2] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2019-0102/CDP-2019-0102.pdf

[3] youtube.com/watch?v=t_zi-Ww7JUs

[4] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a750e8040f0b6397f35d531/6.4152_HO_CPFG_Report_into_Sharia_Law_in_the_UK_WEB.pdf
and
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a750e8040f0b6397f35d531/6.4152_HO_CPFG_Report_into_Sharia_Law_in_the_UK_WEB.pdf

[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-review-into-sharia-law-launched
and
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a750e8040f0b6397f35d531/6.4152_HO_CPFG_Report_into_Sharia_Law_in_the_UK_WEB.pdf

[6] https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/68996/pdf/

[7] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a750e8040f0b6397f35d531/6.4152_HO_CPFG_Report_into_Sharia_Law_in_the_UK_WEB.pdf

[8] https://theconversation.com/a-push-to-reform-islamic-divorce-could-make-sharia-councils-redundant-in-britain-68023

[9] https://www.manaraacademy.org/page/the-story-of-manara-academy

[10] https://www.qfi.org/about/

[11] https://www.austinisd.org/announcements/2016/05/10/aisd-launches-arabic-korean-and-vietnamese-language-programs-2016-17

[12] https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-designates-muslim-brotherhood-cair-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations

[13] https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-signs-law-banning-sharia-compounds-in-texas

[14] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-sues-east-plano-islamic-center-stop-its-illegal-land-development-scheme

[15] https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/history.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB4211

[16] https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-signs-law-banning-sharia-compounds-in-texas

[17] https://texasgop.org/2026-republican-primary-information/

[18] https://texasgop.org/2026-republican-primary-information/

[19] Who Represents Me? (find your elected officials): https://wrm.capitol.texas.gov/home

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.

White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land

United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.

VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html

Disclaimer:

As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.

No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.

While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.

If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.

Until next time…

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?

Some housekeeping…

Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.

You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.

Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!