Realism from an American Conservative

Progress: Be Encouraged

Ellen Leyrer — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 15:29:27 GMT

Hi friends,

If you follow the headlines, you may feel as though we are in an ‘endless’ Iran war, the Strait of Hormuz is all-important, and high oil and gasoline prices are here to stay.

Not so! Also, you need a different media source. :-)

The situation is improving.

A month ago, I wrote Strategy Is an Art about the pieces beginning to come together. Today, we can see more progress.

More oil is getting out

The Strait of Hormuz is still disrupted.

But Iran has not succeeded in choking off Middle Eastern oil.

Crude moving through Hormuz itself has increased, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE are using pipelines, alternative ports and other routes to move more oil around the Strait.

September crude exports from major Middle Eastern producers have risen to roughly 12.8 million barrels a day — the highest since February.

The world is already less dependent on it — and therefore Iran has less power and control.

The economic pressure on Iran is increasing

The United States is also moving beyond simply putting sanctions on Iran.

Treasury is targeting the network that allows Iran to make money: oil buyers, shippers, intermediaries, banks and other foreign companies.

And it is using the financial leverage I mentioned last month.

Foreign institutions are being forced to make a choice: Is doing business with Iran worth jeopardizing access to America’s much larger financial system?

Importantly, Washington has not immediately gone after China’s biggest banks. The pressure is being increased in stages, leaving room for increasing the pressure.

And negotiations are happening

Iran and the United States are again communicating through mediators.

Iran has proposed conditions for reopening Hormuz; the Trump administration has rejected terms it considers unacceptable.

We are not stuck.

Pressure → choices → negotiation was always part of the strategy.

Gas prices are still high

No, the problem isn’t solved - yet.

Oil is not yet as plentiful as before. Gasoline and diesel remain high, which affects transportation of goods pricing.

The war continues.

But there is an important difference between saying “we aren’t there yet” and saying “nothing is working.”

Look at the direction

More Gulf oil is finding its way to market.
Alternative routes around Hormuz are being used and expanded.
Iran’s financial networks are under increasing pressure.
Countries helping Iran are being forced to reconsider the cost.
The United States is rebuilding strategic energy, mineral and industrial capacity.
And negotiations are taking place while the pressure continues.
These are signs the strategy moving in the right direction.

There may be setbacks - negotiations are a back-and-forth process. And, as I recently had pointed out to me, “In war, the enemy has a say.”

Strategic infrastructure takes time to build, and economic pressure must be handled carefully so that it hurts the adversary enough to put pressure, but not too much.

We must not focus on the current position.

And there is another reason to feel positive. Despite a months-long war and severe disruption at the Strait of Hormuz, the national average for regular gasoline is about $4.48 a gallon — painful, certainly, but still below the record $5.02 reached in June 2022 (under Biden). (Diesel is, however, is near record highs.)

Yes, Strategy is an Art. It requires vision, patience, leverage, restraint and knowing when to apply pressure.

Today, we can see more of that sculpture taking shape.

We aren’t finished. But we are making progress.

Sources:

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 (8/13/2025)

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 Can One Vote Change?

Ellen Leyrer — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 13:36:42 GMT

Hi friends,

In recent midterms, turnout has ranged from about 42% to 53% so your vote can have double the impact. And get 10 friends and family to vote and look at the impact!

“It’s only one vote.”

That thought is understandable. We’ve all voted in elections decided by thousands, or tens of thousands, of ballots. It can be hard to feel that MY vote is important.

Then consider Maine’s 2024 election for state House District 141. The official results recorded 2,478 votes for Lucas Lanigan and 2,477 for Patricia Kidder. The difference was one vote.

Of course not every election will come down to one ballot. It does show why “my vote matters.”

Races that close are not common, but they are real. Ballotpedia identified 64 state legislative races decided by fewer than 100 votes in 2024. In 2022, it counted 103.

Individual participation contributes to the total, and sometimes the final totals are extraordinarily close.

The Maine example also offers a reminder about assumptions. A big national lead, an encouraging headline, or a discouraging poll cannot tell us the outcome of every district. Each race has its own candidates and voters. Until ballots are cast and counted, a forecast remains a forecast.

For Texans: Monday, October 5, is the last day to register to vote in the November 3 election. In-person early voting begins Monday, October 19. If you have moved or are unsure what your registration record says, this is a sensible time to check your registration.

Check it yourself

The close race: Maine’s official legislative record lists the District 141 vote totals: Maine House election record.
The broader numbers: Ballotpedia’s 2024 close-race analysis.
Your registration: Scan. Check. Protect. offers a registration-record check. For an official Texas status check, use the Texas Secretary of State’s voter information page. If the records disagree, contact your county voter registrar.
Texas dates: Secretary of State’s 2026 election calendar.

One vote does matter. The Maine result is a good reason to take that one seriously.

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

AI Is a Tool—Not a Monster

Ellen Leyrer — Sun, 27 Sep 2026 06:20:50 GMT

Hi friends,

(This post does not address data centers.)

President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping just finished three days of meetings in Washington. Artificial intelligence was one of the subjects they discussed.

The result was fairly simple. The United States and China agreed to keep talking about AI and to create a direct communication channel for serious AI incidents.

They did not agree to stop or slow AI development. They did not agree to ban advanced AI or place it under control of the United Nations or any international organization.

Thank goodness!

A direct line between two powerful countries could help prevent a cyberattack, computer failure, or false warning from turning into a larger issue. Talking about real emergencies is sensible. Giving other countries control over American technology (or anything) would be foolish.

AI is necessary and beneficial. Its practical risks deserve safeguards, and proposed controls must be carefully considered for their effects on competition, freedom, national security, and American sovereignty.

AI Is Not a Living Creature

AI is not a person. It has no conscience, morals, political beliefs, or secret desire to rule the world.

It is technology built and directed by people.

AI can help doctors find disease, help scientists develop treatments, strengthen cybersecurity, improve factories, assist small businesses, and make information readily available and easier to understand. It can help our military and intelligence agencies find threats more quickly.

I use AI regularly for research, fact-checking, writing, organization, and finding information that would otherwise take hours or days to locate - or be completely impossible to locate.

This technology is too important to national security - and too useful - for America to abandon it. China, Russia, Iran, and other countries will not stop developing AI just because we do. A ‘world-wide’ agreement would be a joke.

The Real Dangers Are Human Dangers

As with any tool, or technology, AI can certainly be used badly. It can be used for fraud, surveillance, censorship, cyberattacks, weapons, political manipulation, and careless decisions that affect people’s lives.

Some powerful AI agents have also done unexpected things when given access to the internet and other tools. That is a warning, like the low tire light in your car, not the tornado siren. As with other industries, auto factories for example, developers and others must provide safeguards, testing, and human supervision.

But that is very different from saying AI is becoming an evil creature that will decide to wipe out humanity.

We should deal with real risks, not treat every science fiction scenario seriously.

Fear Is Also a Tool

During the past few weeks, we have heard a sudden wave of warnings that AI could take over the world or destroy the human race.

Some of the people making those warnings may sincerely believe them.

But there is also an organized campaign involving advocacy groups, corporations, proposed laws, media appearances, and meetings with lawmakers in several countries.

Why would companies that spent billions of dollars building AI suddenly ask government to place more limits on it?

Who would expensive and strict regulations help, and who would it harm? Businesses who are early in the game, or newer and more innovative smaller companies?

Would the biggest companies help write the rules that govern their competitors?

Who would decide which companies and experts are approved? Don’t we see enough of this type of thing?

Fear can be used to rush people into accepting things they would normally question. If people believe AI could kill everyone, almost any law can be called necessary and anyone who objects can be called irresponsible.

But “everyone could die” should not become a blank check for government power.

A Worldwide Ban Would Not Stop the World

Some groups want countries to ban the development of extremely advanced AI.

That may sound good when someone spouts it, but there is an obvious problem - countries that break other rules and agreements would also break AI rules.

Governments that steal technology, hide military programs, avoid sanctions, and mislead inspectors will not give up one of the world’s most valuable technologies because they signed an agreement.

America could follow the rules in public while any other country continued working in secret.

Nuclear programs require special materials, large buildings, reactors, centrifuges, and missiles—and international agreements still have not stopped every country determined to develop nuclear weapons.

AI could be even harder to monitor. Research can be spread among universities, companies, military laboratories, computer networks, and hidden facilities.

A worldwide ban would end up holding back the countries that obey rules while rewarding the countries that do not.

Common Sense Instead of Panic

We do not have to choose between ignoring every danger and allowing government to control the entire technology.

AI must not become an excuse for government or agencies to control innovation, speech, or political thought. We should regulate harmful conduct and high-risk uses, not hand a few corporations or an international authority control over the entire technology.

If a company breaks copyright law, enables fraud, carelessly releases a dangerous product, or causes measurable harm, the responsible people and the company should answer for it.

“The computer did it” cannot become an excuse.

America needs AI for medical research, scientific progress, economic growth, cybersecurity, and national defense.

We should move forward confidently and with common sense. We should deal with real dangers without frightening ourselves into giving away America’s future.

We need common sense, human responsibility, and American leadership—not fear.

Sources:

Trump–Xi summit
Official Chinese readout confirming an AI dialogue and a direct communication channel for serious AI incidents:
https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyxw/202609/t20260926_12031663.html
America’s AI Action Plan
The strongest source for AI’s economic, scientific, national-security, and strategic importance:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf
NIST AI Risk Management Framework
Supports managing actual risks while allowing beneficial AI development:
https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
Anthropic’s investigation of AI-agent incidents
Primary evidence that capable agents can cause serious problems when given tools, network access, and inadequate safeguards:
https://www.anthropic.com/news/investigating-incidents-cybersecurity-evals
ControlAI’s congressional and political work
The organization’s own description of its campaign and outreach—not an opponent’s characterization:
https://controlai.org/our-work-in-us
Proposed ban on artificial superintelligence
Official Sanders–Casar announcement showing that broad restrictions and a development pause are being seriously proposed:
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-casar-introduce-legislation-to-ban-artificial-superintelligence-and-temporarily-pause-advanced-ai-development/
Dario Amodei’s proposal to slow frontier AI
The Anthropic CEO’s own argument for slowing development, outside evaluation, international coordination, and shared governance:
https://darioamodei.com/post/we-must-pace-the-frontier

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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 Does DSA Actually Say?

Ellen Leyrer — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 20:06:12 GMT

Hi friends,

I bet you realize that the Democratic party is moving left at an alarming pace.

To know what to think about “democratic socialism” we must read what the Democratic Socialists of America says it wants.

And we can’t just believe it’s not real. The Democratic party is moving farther left along with many of DSA’s goals and policies.

DSA’s new 2026 national program does not merely call for higher taxes, more social programs, or a larger welfare state. It describes a future “without capitalism” and says complete victory will require “building a new society from the ground up.” Its stated objectives include drafting a new constitution and changing our Constitutional Republic to what it calls a “democratic socialist republic.”

Change the Government Itself

Some of DSA’s most consequential proposals concern the structure of the United States government.

DSA proposes to:

Abolish the Senate.
Abolish the Electoral College.
Replace the President with an executive chosen by and subordinate to the remaining legislature.
Replace the current Supreme Court structure with a judiciary chosen by and subordinate to that legislature.
Expand the House, institute proportional representation and ranked-choice voting, and replace the two-party system with a multiparty system.

Consider what that means structurally.

The Senate would not simply lose power—it would cease to exist. With it would go the current institution that gives every state equal representation and performs constitutional duties involving treaties, presidential appointments, judicial confirmations and impeachment trials.

Meanwhile, the executive and judiciary would no longer possess their present institutional independence from the legislature.

That raises a basic question:

If there is no Senate, and both the executive and judiciary are subordinate to the remaining national legislature (previously the House of Representatives), what independent federal institution checks that legislature?

DSA’s program does not provide a complete proposed constitution explaining how all of those powers and checks would be redistributed. It does, however, explicitly say America needs “a new political system.”

It Goes Beyond Government Structure

DSA also proposes:

Public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries.
Universal healthcare at no cost to individuals.
Free public education through college and cancellation of all student debt.
Publicly owned social housing and universal rent control.
A federal jobs guarantee and publicly owned energy and transit infrastructure.
Abolition of ICE, an end to immigration detention and deportations, legalization of migration, amnesty regardless of immigration status, and elimination of visa caps and quotas.
Voting rights for permanent U.S. residents and incarcerated people.
And DSA describes redirecting police funding and other changes as steps toward “fully abolishing the police and prison system.”

These are not descriptions supplied by DSA’s opponents.

They come directly from DSA.

Read DSA’s 2026 program yourself.

“But Isn’t This Is Just Fringe Politics?”

That is a reasonable question—and this is where the history becomes important.

Not every DSA proposal has migrated into mainstream Democratic politics.

But some ideas once associated primarily with the socialist or progressive left have become acceptable and even desirable to many Democratic officeholders.

Consider Medicare for All. The 2025 House bill was introduced with 102 additional House cosponsors, while the Senate version had 15 additional cosponsors. Who will pay for it?

A federal jobs guarantee is another example. In September 2026, Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley renewed her proposal to create an enforceable legal right to a federally funded public job for every adult seeking employment. So, every adult would/could be a government employee? Who will pay for it?

Abolishing the Electoral College has also moved well beyond DSA. Democratic Sens. Brian Schatz, Dick Durbin and Peter Welch introduced a constitutional amendment in 2024 to replace it with election of the president by popular vote.

Noncitizen voting provides another measurable example—but one that requires precision. In 2025, 148 House Democrats voted to allow noncitizens voting in Washington, D.C.’s local elections, while 56 Democrats voted for the prohibition.

Though the national Democratic Party has not completely adopted DSA’s entire program, there are several matching goals. Its most recent national platform, for example, calls for funding police officers, while DSA goals include police reforms as steps to abolish police and prison.

2008 → 2016 → 2026

Twenty years of political change does not reveal one simple march from one ideology to another.

In 2008, Democrats called for securing the border, additional border personnel and technology, enforcement against employers hiring undocumented workers—and simultaneously a legal path for undocumented immigrants meeting specified requirements. They also advocated restoring police funding.

By 2016, Democrats were calling for major criminal-justice reform and a broader path to citizenship, while still supporting law enforcement and immigration enforcement.

By 2026, DSA is advocating abolition of ICE and eventual abolition of the police and prison system.

Other issues followed different trajectories. Medicare for All gained substantial congressional support. Electoral College abolition gained congressional sponsors. “Defund the police” entered national politics, but the national Democratic platform subsequently moved in the other direction and called for more police funding.

So far, not every DSA proposal has become Democratic Party policy.

It shows ideas can move. Some move a long way in a relatively short time.
That is why today’s DSA goals and proposed policies must be understood, and we must consider their consequences.

Start With the Source

There is no need to rely on labels, political advertising, or somebody else’s description of democratic socialism.

DSA has told the public what it wants.

Read its program. Look at what would change. Compare those proposals with the governmental and economic system America has today. Then also notice which ideas are appearing in legislation, campaigns and party politics.

Now you know what the DSA actually plans - in writing - and how the Democratic party is going along with some of the goals that will completely do away with the Constitution.

Sources:

Democratic Socialists of America — 2026 Program
This is the key source for the new constitution, “democratic socialist republic,” abolishing the Senate, subordinate executive/judiciary, public ownership, ICE, police/prisons, housing, healthcare, etc.
DSA 2026 Program
2008 Democratic Party Platform — American Presidency Project
Useful for our historical comparison: immigration enforcement, police funding, private enterprise, healthcare, and the particularly useful statement that “our Constitution, our courts, our institutions, and our traditions work.”
2008 Democratic Party Platform
2016 Democratic Party Platform — American Presidency Project
Our middle benchmark for criminal-justice reform, immigration, voting, healthcare, college, climate and other policy changes.
2016 Democratic Party Platform
2024 Democratic Party Platform — Democratic National Committee
Important for distinguishing official Democratic policy from DSA policy, including the national party’s “fund the police, not defund the police” position.
2024 Democratic Party Platform PDF
Medicare for All Act of 2025 — Rep. Pramila Jayapal
Primary congressional source for the Medicare-for-All legislation and its congressional sponsors/cosponsors.
Jayapal — Medicare for All Act of 2025
Federal Jobs Guarantee — Rep. Ayanna Pressley, September 17, 2026
Primary source for the current federal job-guarantee proposal.
Pressley — Federal Job Guarantee
Electoral College constitutional amendment — Sens. Schatz, Durbin and Welch
Official Senate source. The December 2024 proposal would abolish the Electoral College and establish direct popular election of the president and vice president.
Schatz — Constitutional Amendment to Abolish Electoral College
H.R. 884 noncitizen-voting roll call — U.S. House Clerk
This is especially good because it’s the actual official vote record: 56 Democrats Yea, 148 Nay, 1 Present on legislation prohibiting noncitizens from voting in D.C. elections and repealing D.C.’s Local Resident Voting Rights law.
House Clerk — H.R. 884 Roll Call 163
Congress.gov — Constitution Annotated - That gives us the authoritative comparison for what the Senate, presidency, judiciary, separation of powers and Article V actually do today.

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

A Challenge to Conservatives

Ellen Leyrer — Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:40:13 GMT

Hi friends,

Conservatives should not assume that their political opponents are so powerful that nothing can be done. We should not assume those opponents are already defeated, either.

Both beliefs lead to the same result: people stop organizing and participating.

The left has a defined agenda and its unified sheep, while the right is sometimes too divided.

The November election is a test of whether conservatives will stand up for the policy changes the Trump administration is fighting for. Those policies must have continued support in Congress. The stakes are concrete: the midterms will determine which party holds a majority in the House and Senate for the next two years. (www.usa.gov)

Panicans are wrong. As Peggy Tierney said: “For those weak and whiny panicans and RINOs who can’t wait to wake up every morning and “scold” [Trump] for not being “appropriate” enough or moral enough or for not doing things the way they want him to - why don’t you first be honest with yourself and admit that you wouldn’t even have the courage to get out of bed if you had to face what that man has been through.”

And overconfidence is just as damaging. We can’t rest on our laurels. If literally saving America isn’t worth taking the time to vote, we are lost.

The direction of the country is at stake. Vote!

This article is the result of much input, but special credit goes to Tom DeWeese for his inspiration.

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

While You Were Watching the Headlines…

Ellen Leyrer — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 17:00:41 GMT

Hi friends,

So much is happening so fast that major developments can disappear beneath the next day’s headlines. In just the past few weeks we’ve seen new economic numbers, manufacturing investments, prescription-drug changes, help for veterans, action involving American ranchers — and, just hours ago, a major new agreement involving Greenland.

The Trump administration continues working to strengthen America for Americans.

Yes, I know gas prices are still high. Why do you think Zelensky targeted a diesel plant in Russia? Gotta keep those prices up until the midterm election.

What the Trump administration is working to fix has been building for decades. Great strides have been made in 19 months. We must not stop the momentum but keep moving forward, and that means voting to keep the conservative majority.

The below are what I believe are important topics, but I’m working on my next post to share even more good news.

Just In: A New U.S.-Greenland Security Agreement

President Trump announced Friday that the United States, Denmark and Greenland have reached a far-reaching security agreement giving the U.S. permanent access, basing and overflight rights in Greenland and allowing an expanded American military presence.

The agreement also prohibits non-NATO countries from establishing military bases there and restricts sensitive investments by U.S. adversaries.

Greenland, however, remains within the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark and Greenland say the agreement recognizes their sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self-determination. Details are still emerging, and parliamentary action is still required.

Greenland’s Arctic location is strategically important for national security - missile warning, space surveillance, Arctic shipping and North American defense.

Jobs, Income and American Manufacturing

JOBS: The August jobs report showed 162,000 jobs added, with unemployment unchanged at 4.1%. Manufacturing added 16,000 jobs and has gained 58,000 since its December 2025 low.

INCOME: Then came remarkable Census numbers: real median household income reached $87,460 in 2025 — the highest on record dating to 1967. The official poverty rate fell to 10.2%, its lowest on record, while child poverty reached a record-low 13.4%.

AMERICAN MANUFACTURING: Meanwhile, Hitachi Energy announced a $528 million Mississippi transformer factory, expected to create more than 700 jobs and more than double the company’s transformer-production capacity there. It is part of roughly $1.5 billion in Hitachi Energy U.S. manufacturing expansion.

Prescription Drugs

Prescription-drug changes continue to expand. The administration now has Most-Favored-Nation agreements with 26 pharmaceutical manufacturers covering 89% of the branded-drug market.

And there’s a new development: all 50 states’ Medicaid programs will participate in the MFN pricing initiative covering hundreds of drugs. The administration says Medicaid programs have already received one million free prescriptions of Eliquis and projects $64.3 billion in federal and state Medicaid savings over ten years.

Separately, the White House reports patients have saved more than $700 million through TrumpRx since its February launch.

A Little-Known $1,700 Tax Credit

Another change begins January 1, 2027: taxpayers can receive up to a $1,700 federal income-tax credit for qualifying cash contributions to Scholarship Granting Organizations providing K–12 scholarships. Texas is participating. This is a tax credit, not merely a charitable deduction. That’s $1,700 off your total taxes due. You get to donate a scholarship instead of that $1,700 going to Uncle Sam. That’s great for education too.

What You May Have Missed…

Veterans: A new executive order requires improved military/VA medical and personnel-record sharing, streamlined digital access to benefits and better connections to jobs, training and apprenticeships for departing service members.
American beef: USDA has 90 days to examine restoring mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef and determine what can be accomplished administratively and what may require Congress.
Trump Accounts: Progress continuing on implementation, including investment rules and employer contributions.
Immigration: An analysis of Census survey data estimates America’s foreign-born population declined approximately 2.8 million with an estimate of a 2.3-million decline in the illegal-immigrant population.
Immigration: RIGHT NOW we have the opportunity to tell the government who should be counted in the 2030 Census. Change representation to citizens only by commenting to not count illegal immigrants. See Your Input on the U.S. Census Rules.
Antifa-linked infrastructure: Treasury sanctioned Italy-based Autistici/Inventati, alleging it supplied digital services to violent Antifa cells and other extremist groups.

Don’t Believe the Lies

There is plenty happening. We are being plagued by the Globalists and Democrats, even the DSA (Democrat Socialist of America) to try to stop Trump’s Make America Great Again agenda.

Sources:

Greenland security agreement
Reuters — U.S., Denmark reach Greenland deal
August employment
BLS — Employment Situation, August 2026
U.S. Census Bureau
Census Bureau — Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage: 2025
$1,700 Scholarship Tax Credit
IRS — Federal Scholarship Tax Credit
Beef country-of-origin labeling/ranchers — White House Executive Order 14425
White House — Supporting America’s Ranchers

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

Public Comment - Your Input on the U.S. Census Rules

Ellen Leyrer — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 18:31:33 GMT

Hi friends,

Have your say about the rules for the U.S. Census.

Below: Part 1) Choose only the issues important to you; Part 2) Issues explained; and Part 3) How to submit your comment

YOUR CENSUS — YOUR COMMENT

A Quick Guide to the Proposed Census Rules

Docket: USBC-2026-0628
Public comments due: October 13, 2026

The U.S. Census Bureau is proposing new rules governing who is counted for congressional apportionment, how a person’s usual residence is determined, and what demographic questions may be asked on the decennial census.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO COMMENT ON EVERYTHING

Choose only the issues important to you. You can support one proposal, oppose another, or suggest changes.

Sample language is in Part 3.

PART 1 — CHOOSE YOUR ISSUES

Sample comments in Part 3

1. Who Counts for Congressional Apportionment?

Proposed: Count U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (green-card holders). Other foreign citizens would not be counted for apportionment.

2. What About Other People Lawfully Living Here?

Census specifically asks whether some other lawful immigration statuses are sufficiently similar to permanent residency that they should also count for apportionment.

3. How Should “Usual Residence” Be Determined?

Proposed: Generally use where a person lawfully spent the greatest number of days from January 3 through April 1 of the census year. Administrative records may be used as evidence.

4. Should Census Ask Citizenship/Legal Status Directly?

Census is considering putting a legal-status question on the census form and specifically asks for public comment. This has not yet been decided.

5. Using Government and Commercial Records

Census is considering using extensive government records and third-party commercial data to help determine legal status.

6. Race and Ethnicity Questions

Proposed: Do not ask race or ethnicity on questionnaires used for the decennial population count. Census could still collect demographic information through the American Community Survey and other sources.

7. Sexual-Orientation Questions

Proposed: Do not ask sexual-orientation questions on questionnaires used for the decennial population count.

8. Accuracy of the Population Count

Proposed: Prioritize accurate population totals used for apportionment and redistricting, while maintaining Census confidentiality protections.

REMEMBER: You may comment on ONE issue, several issues, or all of them. Explain what you support or oppose and, when possible, WHY.

PART 2 — ISSUES EXPLAINED

1. Congressional Apportionment

The census population determines how the 435 seats in the U.S. House are divided among the states. The proposal would count U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents for apportionment, but not other foreign citizens.

2. Other Lawful Residents

Not everyone legally living in America has a green card. Census specifically requests comments about whether other lawful statuses may be sufficiently similar to lawful permanent residency to count. This could raise questions involving people such as refugees, asylees and other legally present non-U.S. citizens.

Important: Supporting the exclusion of people unlawfully present does not require supporting the exclusion of every lawfully present non-citizen.

3. “Usual Residence”

Census proposes determining usual residence generally by where someone lawfully spent the greatest number of days between January 3 and April 1. Records such as tax returns and W-2s could provide evidence. Commenters may want safeguards for outdated, conflicting or incorrect records.

4. Citizenship/Legal-Status Question

Census has not yet decided to put a legal-status question on the census form. It specifically asks for public input. Options include asking people directly, relying on administrative records, or using both.

5. Government and Commercial Data

Census describes access to extensive administrative records from federal, state, local and tribal governments and third-party commercial sources. Possible concerns include privacy, data accuracy, cybersecurity, correcting errors, data retention and limiting information to census purposes.

6. Race and Ethnicity

The proposal would prohibit these questions on questionnaires used to enumerate the population. It would not prohibit Census from collecting demographic information through the American Community Survey or other non-enumeration surveys and sources. Commenters may want Census to explain how reliable data needed for redistricting and Voting Rights Act purposes would remain available.

7. Sexual Orientation

The proposal would prohibit sexual-orientation questions on questionnaires used for the population count. Questions about biological sex, date of birth and household relationships could still be used to help verify the enumeration.

8. Population Accuracy

Census proposes prioritizing accurate population totals for apportionment and redistricting, subject to federal Census confidentiality requirements. It also proposes restrictions on publishing demographic data when doing so would require introducing uncertainty into national or state population counts.

OTHER RESIDENCE RULES

The proposal also addresses special situations involving military and federal personnel, dependents, Merchant Marine personnel, prisoners and detainees, births and deaths around Census Day, and people staying in transitory locations. You may comment on these provisions, too.

PART 3 — BUILD YOUR COMMENT

You may use or adapt any of these sample statements. Choose only those that reflect your views and add your own reason whenever possible. Comments that are all the same only get counted once. Make your comment personal/individual.

OPENING

I am submitting this comment regarding Docket USBC-2026-0628, the proposed rules concerning residence criteria and demographic questions for the decennial census. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

1. APPORTIONMENT

I support/oppose counting U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, while excluding other foreign citizens from the population used for congressional apportionment because ________________________________.

2. OTHER LAWFUL RESIDENTS

I believe Census should/should not recognize additional lawful immigration statuses for apportionment. Census should clearly distinguish between unlawful presence and people lawfully authorized to reside in the United States.

3. USUAL RESIDENCE

I support/oppose the proposed usual-residence standard. If government records are used, Census should provide safeguards for inaccurate, conflicting or outdated information and a method for correcting errors.

4. LEGAL-STATUS QUESTION

I support/oppose placing an appropriately worded citizenship/legal-status question on the census form because ________________________________.

Sample answer to support LEGAL-STATUS QUESTION
I support placing an appropriately worded citizenship/legal-status question on the census form because only citizens can legally vote, and the apportionment of Congresspersons should be based on that. The Constitution repeatedly describes voting rights as rights of “citizens,” and the 15th Amendment states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged…” The 19th, 24th and 26th Amendment similarly refer to “Citizens” voting rights.

5. GOVERNMENT AND COMMERCIAL DATA

If Census uses government or commercial databases, strict safeguards should protect privacy, data accuracy and cybersecurity. Collection and use should be limited to information necessary for legitimate census purposes, with procedures for correcting errors.

6. RACE AND ETHNICITY

I support/oppose removing race and ethnicity questions from questionnaires used for the decennial population count because ________________________________.

7. SEXUAL ORIENTATION

I support/oppose prohibiting sexual-orientation questions on questionnaires used for the decennial population count because ________________________________.

8. POPULATION ACCURACY

I support/oppose prioritizing the accuracy of population totals used for congressional apportionment and redistricting because ________________________________.

SAMPLE CLOSING

Thank you for considering my comments. I ask the Census Bureau to carefully consider these issues when developing the final rules and to ensure that the census is conducted under clear, accurate and transparent standards with appropriate protections for individual privacy.

3) HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT

Go to Regulations.gov and search:

USBC-2026-0628

It looks like this:

Open the proposed Census rule and click “Comment.” You may enter your comment or attach it as a document.

(This link, Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions, worked for me, but you may have to do the search per the instructions.)

Deadline: October 13, 2026

Comments generally become part of the public record, so do not include personal information you do not want made public.

Official Rule:
Federal Register, Vol. 91, No. 174, September 10, 2026
91 FR 57524 — Document No. 2026-18481

You have the option to have an email confirmation of submission and tracking number.

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

2026 Mail-Ballot Rule Blocked

Ellen Leyrer — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 15:50:42 GMT

Hi friends,

The Supreme Court has blocked the Trump administration’s new Postal Service mail-ballot requirements from taking effect for the 2026 midterm election. That sounds like a final defeat, but it is not.

What the Court decided - per SCOTUS’ job description - was the immediate question of whether the new rule could be put into effect now, with the election already underway.

The larger legal question — whether the Postal Service has authority to impose these kinds of requirements at all — remains open.

The administration’s plan directed the U.S. Postal Service to adopt new procedures for handling mail-in ballots in federal elections. The final rule required state and local election officials to meet additional standards, including submitting ballot-envelope designs for approval and providing voter-related information through a Postal Service system. Mail that did not comply with the standards could potentially be rejected.

Several states and advocacy groups sued, arguing that the rule exceeded USPS authority, interfered with state election administration, and violated federal administrative law. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking implementation.

The administration then asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief — essentially asking the justices to let the new rule take effect while the larger lawsuit continued.

The Supreme Court declined to do that.

The Court did not publish a full vote breakdown. Justices Alito and Thomas publicly dissented, while Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately agreeing that the rule should not apply to the 2026 election but indicating that USPS may ultimately have authority to adopt such standards.

That does not mean the justices concluded that the USPS rule itself is illegal.

In fact, the separate opinions give us a more complicated picture.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the rule should not be imposed for the 2026 election, largely because state and local election officials did not have enough time to reasonably implement the changes. But he also wrote that there is “at least a fair prospect” that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority.

That is an important distinction.

Kavanaugh appears open to the idea that USPS may have legal authority to adopt this kind of rule, while concluding that implementing it this late in the election cycle would violate administrative-law requirements.

Justice Samuel Alito went further. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, he dissented and would have allowed the rule to proceed even for the 2026 election. Alito also questioned whether some of the plaintiffs had legal standing to sue and criticized portions of their legal theory as the kind of claim the Supreme Court has previously described as a “Hail Mary pass.”

So, based on the written opinions, Alito and Thomas clearly favored the government’s position, while Kavanaugh expressed substantial openness to the underlying Postal Service authority but objected to implementation this close to the election.

The positions of the remaining justices on the ultimate legality of the rule are uncertain from this emergency order alone.

That means the 2026 election fight is probably over — but the mail-ballot legal fight is still on.

The case now returns to the lower courts, where the parties can litigate the underlying questions more fully.

There is also nothing preventing the administration from revising the rule, providing states far more lead time, improving implementation procedures, and attempting to put a stronger version in place well before the 2028 election.

The easiest way to understand where things stand is this:
1. Can USPS impose the new rule immediately for the November 2026 election?
Answer: No.
2. Does USPS legally have the authority to establish this kind of mail-ballot system at all?
Answer: Still being litigated.
3. If the concept is lawful, could a well-crafted rule — with enough time — be implemented for 2028?
Answer: Looks likely.

So this is not the end of the case. It is the end of the attempt to change the rules for 2026.

The much more consequential decision is still ahead. And, as we know, plenty of lawfare along the way.

Sources:

U.S. Supreme Court docket — United States Postal Service v. California, No. 26A305. This gives the procedural history, filings, and the September emergency application. It is the best official source for showing exactly what was before the Court.
Supreme Court docket — USPS v. California
Supreme Court September 14 decision/order. Reuters reports that the Court declined to let USPS enforce the rule for the 2026 election; Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, while Kavanaugh separately indicated that USPS may have statutory authority even though implementation for this election came too late.
Reuters — Supreme Court declines to allow USPS mail-ballot rule for 2026
Judge Indira Talwani’s September 4 preliminary-injunction order. This is particularly useful because it spells out exactly which portions of the USPS rule were blocked for elections occurring on or before November 3, 2026. The injunction covers mandatory USPS review of outbound and return ballot envelopes, mandatory registration in the Federal Ballot Mail Portal, voter enrollment requirements, and other portions of the new standards.
Federal district-court order granting preliminary injunction
USPS/Federal Register materials describing the rule itself. USPS explicitly said states would continue determining voter eligibility and their own voter rolls, while the Postal Service would require specified ballot-envelope information and use its Federal Ballot Mail Portal. That is useful for describing the government’s position fairly rather than relying only on the challengers’ description.
Federal Register/USPS explanation of the final ballot-mail rule
Coffee and Covid

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

Have you heard?

Ellen Leyrer — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 04:45:17 GMT

Hi friends,

Maybe you’ve heard.

The United States seems to have secured a substantial economic and strategic interest in the private company developing fields of oil in Venezuela, along with preferential access to future oil production.

Yes, another ‘Trump deal’ that is working to set America’s path forward for the future. (Interesting that the time it will take for his ‘deals’ to come to fruition means someone else will get the credit.)

The headline number is enormous: more than 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves are associated with the Venezuelan fields covered by the arrangement.

That doesn’t mean America bought 65 billion barrels of oil. Venezuela still owns its natural resources.

Here’s where we are

The central private company is North American Blue Energy Partners, or NABEP, which already operates oil fields in Venezuela.

Under the arrangement announced by the Trump administration:

NABEP has development rights involving 17 Venezuelan oil fields containing about 65 billion barrels of proven reserves.
The U.S. government holds warrants giving it rights associated with a 35% economic interest in NABEP’s parent company.
The U.S. is entitled to buy about 20% of NABEP’s production at production cost.
The United States also has preferential rights involving much of the remaining production.
The U.S. position is reportedly protected from being diluted as NABEP raises additional investment capital.
NABEP says the overall development could eventually involve nearly $100 billion in investment.

Importantly, that $100 billion is a planned or anticipated investment figure. It does not mean $100 billion has already been financed and committed.

Chevron is also moving ahead separately with more than $7 billion in planned Venezuelan investment, aiming to substantially increase its own production there over the next several years.

Other international energy and infrastructure companies are entering as well.

How could this help the United States?

The first benefit is obvious: energy security.

Venezuelan oil is geographically much closer to the United States than Middle Eastern oil. It also gives the U.S. another major potential supply source at a time when events around the Strait of Hormuz continue to demonstrate how vulnerable global oil flows can be to war and political instability.

There is also a refining advantage.

Much of Venezuela’s oil is very heavy crude. That makes production and transportation more complicated, but the United States — especially the Gulf Coast — has some of the world’s best refinery infrastructure for processing heavy crude.

If Venezuelan production increases significantly, more of that oil could flow to American refineries.

The deal also has a geopolitical side. Some of the fields now shifting toward NABEP were previously associated with Chinese and Russian interests. Greater U.S. influence over Venezuelan energy therefore potentially reduces Chinese and Russian economic influence in the Western Hemisphere.

And if the arrangement works as planned, the United States could eventually benefit financially through its economic interest in NABEP, preferential oil-purchase rights, and possibly dividends.

It’s a work in progress

Two questions stand out.

First: Will the investment actually materialize?

Venezuela’s oil infrastructure has deteriorated badly over many years. Increasing production will require drilling rigs, pipelines, electricity, ports, storage, upgrading equipment and substantial private capital.

Announcing $100 billion in future investment is one thing.

Actually raising it and building the infrastructure is another.

Chevron’s willingness to commit billions is encouraging, but rebuilding Venezuela’s oil industry will take years, not months.

Second: How durable is the deal legally and politically?

The White House has described some of NABEP’s rights as lasting as long as 100 years, while Venezuelan officials have referred to 25-year licenses.

There are also still unanswered questions about the exact legal structure of the U.S. government’s 35% interest and whether any federal loan guarantees or other taxpayer-backed financial exposure accompany the arrangement.

Those issues mean details are still being worked out or have not yet been made public.

One number worth clearing up

Early reporting created considerable confusion.

The figure is 65 billion barrels of proven reserves. Not 65 billion gallons. Or 65 billion barrels of annual production.

And another widely circulated number — roughly $200 billion — refers to estimated Venezuelan royalties and taxes over about 25 years, not $200 billion every year.

If all goes well…

If the investment arrives, the contracts hold, and Venezuela’s infrastructure can be rebuilt, the United States could gain something genuinely significant:

a large new Western Hemisphere energy supply, preferential access to potentially inexpensive oil, greater use of American refineries, reduced Chinese and Russian influence in Venezuela, a valuable financial interest in the company developing the resources, and greater resilience against future disruptions in Middle Eastern oil supplies.

It could also help restore Venezuela’s badly damaged oil industry and economy.

Those are substantial potential benefits.

Time will tell

This is much more than a routine oil-purchase agreement, and it could eventually become one of the more consequential energy arrangements the United States has made in decades.

But 65 billion barrels underground are not the same thing as 65 billion barrels produced.

The oil must be developed. The money must be raised. Infrastructure must be rebuilt. Contracts must survive political changes. And several important legal and financial details still need clarification.

So this is one to watch with cautious optimism.

The potential upside for the United States is enormous.

Sources:

White House fact sheet - administration claims and terms
Reuters - US structured Venezuela oil position to protect it from dilution, official says
Reuters - Venezuela’s heavy crude could be swapped for American oil to fill emergency reserve, Wright says
Reuters - on Chevron’s $7+ billion investment and production plans.
The OSC statute - legal-authority source
Financial Times - 25-year vs. 100-year Venezuelan contract question.

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

Ranchers and Beef

Ellen Leyrer — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 07:50:00 GMT

Hi friends,

This is pretty new and will not be an overnight fix, and like many of President Trump’s policies, it’s a path for improvement and success. It seems the beef supply will begin to increase in about 2 years. The BRAND and SPUR initiatives provide assistance for ranchers to be able to raise more cattle, but you can’t rush Mother Nature. It takes a couple of years for those calves to grow into cows. (Please pardon my city girl ignorance of the details.)

USDA has begun rolling out its new Ranchers First Initiative, along with a program called SPUR (Strengthening Processing for U.S. Ranchers). The effort appears aimed at some of the underlying problems in the beef market—not just today’s retail price.

Among the goals: rebuild the U.S. cattle herd, preserve and expand small and regional American-owned beef processors, encourage new processing cooperatives, increase competition, and make it easier for ranchers to get their cattle to market without being so dependent on a handful of huge processors.

There’s also a new insurance initiative called BRAND designed to encourage ranchers to keep more young females for breeding rather than send them to slaughter. That may mean tightening our belts a little longer—fewer cattle entering the beef supply today so those heifers can produce calves and help rebuild the American herd for tomorrow. Like growing a business, sometimes increasing future capacity requires giving up some immediate return. It also helps ranchers bear the financial risk of making that long-term investment. A strong domestic food supply is worth thinking beyond next month’s grocery bill.

Interestingly, Glenn Beck raised the processing problem directly with President Trump on August 26. Trump seemed genuinely interested and said he would look into the regulations and concentration in the industry. Five days later, USDA announced the broader Ranchers First Initiative.

This is very early. Some pieces are operating now, while others get up and running.

With beef prices where they are, this is something worth knowing about and watching.

Side note: Another win for ranchers - and farmers - happened in April, USDA Announces Farmer and Rancher Freedom Framework to End Agricultural Lawfare.

Sources:

USDA Ranchers First

USDA SPUR

USDA Beef Industry Plan White Paper

Farmer and Rancher Freedom Framework

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

Three Very Different Stories About National Strength

Ellen Leyrer — Mon, 07 Sep 2026 02:52:03 GMT

Hi friends,

Three stories caught my attention this week that, at first glance, seem to have almost nothing to do with one another.

One is about Canada’s weak economic performance. One is about Iran, oil exports and the Strait of Hormuz. The third concerns federal sanctions against infrastructure supporting violent far-left groups.

But put them next to each other and a larger idea begins to emerge: national strength is not just military strength. It includes a productive economy, abundant and reliable energy, manufacturing capacity, secure supply chains, financial and technological infrastructure, and institutions strong enough to protect both constitutional rights and the rule of law.

Those pieces reinforce one another.

And I bet that sounds familiar to you. We have been hearing these things, haven’t we?

Canada: Economic policy shows up in the numbers

A recent Elizabeth Nickson column drew attention with the headline “U.S. median income $90K, Canadian $60K.” That particular comparison needs caution because the underlying income measures are not necessarily apples-to-apples. But the larger point she was making is much harder to dismiss: Canada has been struggling economically.

A chart accompanying the piece placed Canada at the bottom of a group of advanced economies for cumulative real GDP growth from early 2025 to early 2026. The exact figure in that graphic appears to depend on the particular data release being used, but subsequent OECD figures confirm the basic story. Canada’s economy contracted 0.2% in the fourth quarter of 2025 and showed no growth in the first quarter of 2026. Compared with a year earlier, Canadian GDP was down 0.1% — the weakest result among the G20 economies for which the OECD reported data. (The White House)

Why does that matter to Americans?

Because economic policy is not simply about this quarter’s GDP number or whether the stock market went up yesterday. Productivity, investment, energy availability, regulation, housing, workforce growth and the ability to build things all accumulate over time. Eventually, the effects show up in wages, purchasing power, business formation and living standards.

And ultimately, a country with a stronger productive base has greater freedom of action. It has more resources available for infrastructure, defense, innovation and emergencies.

A country that has lost manufacturing capacity, become overly dependent on foreign suppliers, or allowed its productive base to flounder becomes weak: prosperity cannot simply be taken for granted. It has to be produced.

Iran: Energy is economic power — and strategic power

Then there is Iran.

The current struggle over the Strait of Hormuz makes the relationship between energy and national security especially visible.

Iran has long possessed enormous leverage because of its geography, and no one had challenged that status quo until recently. The Strait is one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints (or was), and threatening shipping through it can raise oil prices and impose costs far beyond the Middle East.

So the pressure cuts both ways.

The disruption is certainly not painless for everyone else. Shipping remains dangerous, tankers have been attacked and oil prices have risen. Iran can still impose substantial costs.

But this is also a real-world demonstration of why energy production, refining, transportation, manufacturing and supply chains matter so much.

A country that can produce more of what it needs — energy, equipment, critical materials, replacement parts — is harder to squeeze.

A country that depends heavily on one export, one route, one foreign supplier or one vulnerable link in a supply chain has less room to maneuver.

That is why current U.S. policy increasingly treats supply chains as a national-security issue. A July executive order directs defense contractors to map critical supply chains all the way back to raw materials, identify bottlenecks and single points of failure, and shift important sourcing toward the United States or allied nations where possible.

That may sound like dry government policy until a war, blockade, pandemic or other crisis suddenly makes one missing component very important.

Then everybody understands supply chains.

Political violence: Constitutional liberty requires constitutional order

The third story, from Real Clear Politics, looks completely different.

On August 26, the Treasury Department sanctioned the Italy-based Autistici/Inventati collective, saying it supplied specialized digital infrastructure, tools and services to Antifa cells and other violent far-left extremist organizations. Treasury used its counterterrorism authorities to target the organization and several other groups it said provided support to violent networks. (U.S. Department of the Treasury)

There will inevitably be arguments about where government authority should begin and end in this area, and there should be. Powerful counterterrorism authorities deserve scrutiny.

But one distinction should not be difficult.

The First Amendment protects speech, political disagreement and peaceable assembly. Political violence does not become constitutionally protected merely because someone calls it protest.

Arson is not speech. Assault is not assembly. Sabotage is not petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

And organized political violence does not have to resemble a traditional organization with officers, membership cards and a headquarters. Opposing networks, usually extremists, provide money, technology, communications, logistics, training, information or other support. Treasury’s latest action is important partly because it focuses on that supporting infrastructure rather than treating every violent incident as a one-off.

A free society has to be able to do two things simultaneously: protect the right of citizens to criticize their government — vigorously, angrily and publicly — and enforce the boundary where political expression becomes violence or material support for violence.

Failing at either one weakens America.

The larger picture

An overview of these three stories can be summed up like this.

A prosperous nation needs the economic capacity to produce wealth rather than simply consume it.

A secure nation needs energy, manufacturing, supply chains and infrastructure resilient enough to withstand pressure from abroad.

And a free nation needs institutions capable of protecting peaceful political disagreement while enforcing laws against political violence.

That helps explain why policies concerning energy production, domestic manufacturing, critical minerals, defense supply chains, grid reliability and technological infrastructure increasingly appear alongside one another. They may look like separate policy debates, but are really pieces of the same question:

How much capacity does America have to take care of itself when conditions become difficult?

Economic policy matters. Energy policy matters. The rule of law matters. And none of them exists in isolation from America’s ability to remain prosperous, secure and free.

Sources:

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

Self-Government Is Not a Spectator Sport

Ellen Leyrer — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:56:18 GMT

Hi friends,

When we’re not happy with the way government is going - local, state, or federal, complaining is not the way to improve it.

Vote! The coming midterm election is super important.

Make your voice heard.

America has more information than ever. The problem is that too few citizens are watching, participating, or even voting.

America has never had more information available to ordinary citizens.

We can watch city council meetings from home, download county agendas, search legislation, read budgets, email elected officials, find polling places, look up campaign finance reports, and publish what we discover to thousands of people—all from a phone or laptop.

And yet there is a troubling paradox:

It has never been easier for ordinary Americans to find information about their government. And perhaps never easier to ignore it.

That matters because self-government depends on citizens doing something remarkably basic: paying attention and participating.

Not everyone needs to become an activist. Not everyone has time to attend government meetings, study every issue, or monitor public records.

But enough people have to care. Enough have to watch.

And, at the very least, enough have to vote.

The turnout numbers should bother us

Americans usually do much better in presidential elections. Census data show about 65% of eligible citizens voted in 2024.

Move down the ballot, however, and participation can collapse.

Texas turnout for the 2023 constitutional-amendment election was only about 14% of registered voters. Collin County Texas turnout in its May 2025 local election was about 11%.

That means a relatively tiny portion of the electorate can determine who runs local government, how tax dollars are spent, whether bonds are approved, and who sits on school boards and city councils.

There are understandable reasons people disengage.

They are busy. Politics is unpleasant. Some distrust government and the media. Some believe their vote will not matter. Some don’t know enough about the candidates. Others simply don’t realize an election is occurring.

Those explanations deserve understanding.

But they don’t change the arithmetic of self-government.

If most people don’t participate, the people who do participate make the decisions.

Freedom still asks something of us.

Something else has disappeared: the people who used to watch

At the same time citizens have become less engaged, America’s local information system has been shrinking.

Nearly 40% of American local newspapers have disappeared since 2005. Roughly 50 million Americans now live in communities with limited or no reliable local news coverage.

And the decline is deeper than newspaper closures alone. A 2026 Local Journalist Index estimated that America has lost roughly four-fifths of its local reporting capacity since the early 2000s.

That doesn’t mean every old newspaper was wonderful. It certainly doesn’t mean reporters always asked the right questions.

But someone used to have an assigned job that sounded roughly like this:

Watch city hall. Watch the county. Attend the meeting. Read the proposal. Ask questions. Tell people what happened.

Today, in many communities, nobody has that assignment.

Government may technically be transparent, or appear so. The agenda is online. The contract is posted. The hearing notice exists.

But transparency isn’t the same thing as awareness.

A 400-page agenda packet sitting unnoticed on a government website does very little for citizens who don’t know there is something inside it worth reading.

The grapevine is replacing some of the newsroom

People have not stopped exchanging local information.

Quite the opposite.

Friends, family and neighbors are now among Americans’ most common sources of local political information. Facebook groups, Nextdoor, community newsletters, government social-media pages, independent websites and citizen journalists increasingly fill gaps left by traditional local media.

That can be a good thing.

A citizen journalist can attend a school-board meeting. A retired engineer can understand a utility proposal better than a general-assignment reporter. A neighborhood resident may know a zoning case intimately. A local Substack can publish documents without waiting for an editor to decide whether the story is important.

But there is a major difference between information spreading and somebody systematically watching.

The grapevine is excellent at:

“Did you hear what happened?”

It is much less reliable at:

“Did you notice Item 14 on next Tuesday’s county agenda?”

By the time everybody is asking, “How did this happen?”, the vote may already be over.

That has consequences beyond bad government

This is where the problem gets bigger.

Research has linked the loss of local journalism with higher government borrowing costs, reduced political knowledge, lower turnout, more straight-party voting and increased political polarization.

A 2026 study also found relationships between news deserts and weakened social capital—the trust, networks and civic participation that help communities function.

That doesn’t mean disappearing newspapers caused America’s polarization.

They didn’t.

But the erosion of local civic information appears to be one ingredient in a much larger weakening of community life.

And the reason makes sense.

National politics constantly reminds us what divides us.

Local life constantly reminds us what we share.

Your Republican neighbor and Democratic neighbor may disagree passionately about Washington and still agree that the road needs fixing, the water supply needs protecting, property taxes matter, children deserve good schools, and the neighborhood should be safe.

Working together on those things builds relationships.
It creates community.
And perhaps more importantly, it gives people practice at self-government.

The deeper problem: we may be losing the habit of citizenship

Alexis de Tocqueville noticed something unusual about Americans almost two centuries ago.

When Americans encountered a problem, they tended to form associations and do something about it. Civic groups, churches, clubs, committees, charities and local organizations created what he called the “science of association.”

People learned democracy by practicing it together.

Decades later, Robert Putnam described something similar as “social capital”—networks of trust, cooperation and reciprocity.

Those networks do more than create friendships. They create information.

Someone says: “Did you know there’s an election Saturday?” “Have you seen what the city is considering?” “Can you come to the meeting?” “Will you help?”

That is simultaneously a social network and a civic-information network.

Americans still help their neighbors. Volunteerism has actually rebounded somewhat since the pandemic.

But other indicators have weakened over decades: fewer people know most of their neighbors, interpersonal trust has declined, people spend more time alone, many civic organizations are smaller, and relatively few Americans participate deeply in civic life.

A 2026 Pew study divided Americans into four engagement groups.

Only 9% were highly active “Mobilizers.”

Another large group consisted essentially of spectators—people who follow news and politics but rarely translate that attention into civic action.

That distinction may be one of the most important of all:

Following politics is not the same thing as practicing citizenship.

You can watch political television for three hours a night, read twenty posts, argue online and still never vote in the school-board election.

Participation itself appears to become a habit

Here is the hopeful part.

Research suggests voting can be habit-forming.

Participating in one election makes participation in future elections more likely. Personal neighbor-to-neighbor contact can increase turnout. Civic participation tends to cluster with volunteering, association membership and other forms of community engagement.

In other words:

Participation can reinforce participation.

So can disengagement.

That means one additional voter isn’t necessarily just one additional ballot.

It could be the beginning of another habitual voter.

One person who attends a meeting may attend another.

Someone who learns about one local issue may begin watching another.

Someone who sends useful information to ten neighbors may become the person those neighbors rely upon.

Citizenship can spread through relationships.

We don’t need everybody

This is important because telling everybody to “get involved” is unrealistic.

People have lives.

Some will never attend a public meeting. Some will never monitor government documents. Some want nothing to do with politics.

Fine.

Self-government doesn’t require every citizen to become an activist.

It requires enough citizens to act like citizens.

Maybe the challenge is simply to move one notch upward.

Don’t vote? Vote.

Only vote for president? Vote locally.

Already vote? Learn about one local issue.

Already reading? Tell somebody else.

Already informed? Attend one meeting.

Already active? Watch one part of government consistently.

The goal isn’t perfection.

It’s participation.

What if one more person did something?

One more voter.

One more neighbor paying attention.

One more person willing to ask a question.

One more person willing to read the document before repeating the rumor.

One more person willing to tell ten others what is happening.

One more person who decides:

“This one is my responsibility.”

America’s constitutional system is remarkable.

But no constitution can operate itself.

Self-government depends on habits, expectations and citizens willing to do their part.

Americans need to recover the habit of citizenship.

Not because everyone must become political.

Because self-government has never been a spectator sport.

And maybe rebuilding it begins with a much smaller question:

What if one more person did something?

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

Government, Private Companies & National Security: What’s the Deal?

Ellen Leyrer — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 21:15:06 GMT

Hi friends,

The United States has a real problem: we depend on foreign countries, especially China, for some materials, technologies, and manufacturing capabilities that are important to our military and economy.

Few people would argue that America should ignore those vulnerabilities.

The harder question is:

How should government help fix them without becoming too involved in private business?

That question matters more now because the federal government is using several different tools—from ordinary purchases and loans to actual ownership in private companies.

A good place to start is simply:

What is government providing, and what do taxpayers get in return?

Six Ways Government Can Help

The federal government has several ways to help private companies build capabilities considered important to national security. Those methods differ in what taxpayers provide, what taxpayers get back, how much risk taxpayers assume, and how much influence government gains.

1. Purchases — taxpayers get a product or service.
Government buys something it needs, such as aircraft, ammunition, computer systems, or research. This is the familiar customer relationship: government pays, and taxpayers receive the product or service.

2. Grants — taxpayers get the promised public benefit.
Government gives money for a specific purpose, usually without repayment. Taxpayers may get a new factory, more domestic production, or another strategic benefit—but if the project fails, the grant generally is not repaid.

3. Loans — taxpayers should get principal and interest back.
Government lends money to help build something considered strategically important. Taxpayers assume the risk that the borrower may fail, and the financing may be cheaper than the private market would offer.

This is the main role of the Pentagon’s relatively new Office of Strategic Capital, or OSC. OSC made its first direct loan only in 2025, so it does not yet have a meaningful repayment record.

4. Loan guarantees — taxpayers stand behind someone else’s loan.
A private lender supplies the money, but government agrees to cover some or all of the loss if the borrower defaults. Taxpayers may get the strategic benefit without providing the original loan, but they may still be on the hook if things go badly.

5. Equity investments — taxpayers own something.
Government receives stock or another ownership interest in exchange for its support. Taxpayers can benefit if the company rises in value, but they can also lose money. More importantly, government is now a shareholder in private enterprise.

6. Special ownership or control rights — government gains leverage.
Government may receive warrants, special voting rights, veto powers, or a “golden share.” These may protect a national-security interest, but they move government farther from simply buying from private industry and closer to influencing business decisions.

The progression looks something like this:

Buying → Financing → Risking → Owning → Influencing

What Does This Look Like in Real Life?

Intel: Roughly $8.9 billion in previously authorized federal funding was converted into Intel stock, initially giving the federal government about a 9.9% stake. The arrangement was designed mainly as passive ownership rather than day-to-day federal management.

MP Materials: The government combined several tools at once—a $150 million OSC loan, a $400 million equity investment, warrants, price support, and long-term purchase commitments—to expand domestic rare-earth production.

U.S. Steel: The federal government received a special “Golden Share” giving it rights involving certain major corporate decisions. That goes beyond passive investment.

Why Might This Be Necessary?

The national-security concern is real.

America cannot wait until a war or major crisis to discover that it cannot produce critical magnets, chips, batteries, defense components, or other essential products.

Private investors also make decisions based on financial return. A factory may be very important to national security but not attractive enough to private capital—or may take too long to build without help.

Government assistance can sometimes speed up production the country genuinely needs.

There is also a reasonable taxpayer argument for equity:

If taxpayers are putting billions of dollars at risk to help a company succeed, why should private shareholders receive all the upside?

So What Is the Concern?

The concern is not simply that government is involved. The concern is how involved it becomes and what precedent is created.

If Washington owns part of Company A while Company A competes with Company B, government may simultaneously be shareholder, regulator, customer, tax collector, grant maker, and trade-policy maker.

Government can become both referee and player.

That raises the risk of favoritism, political pressure, conflicts of interest, and crony capitalism—even if today’s officials are acting with good intentions.

And there is a longer-term question:

What could a future administration do with the same authority?

What Guardrails Should Taxpayers Expect?

At minimum: clear congressional authority, a genuine national-security need, evidence that ordinary private financing is inadequate, transparent company selection, strong conflict-of-interest rules, public disclosure of government ownership, limits on voting and management control, GAO and Inspector General oversight, reporting of gains and losses, and a clear exit strategy.

The guiding principle should be:

Use the least intrusive government tool that will accomplish the legitimate national-security objective.

If buying the product solves the problem, buy it. If a loan solves it, there may be no reason to own the company.

Bottom Line

America should not depend on foreign adversaries for products critical to our national security.

But national security should not become a blank check for government ownership, favoritism, or increasing control over private enterprise.

National security may justify government help. It does not automatically justify government control.

Sources:

Office of Strategic Capital — first direct loan, $150 million to MP Materials (DoD, Aug. 10, 2025): OSC states this was its first direct loan.
DoD: OSC Announces First Loan to MP Materials
MP Materials — $400 million equity investment, $150 million loan, warrant, 10-year price floor, and 10-year offtake agreement: These terms are laid out in MP Materials’ SEC filings.
SEC: MP Materials 8-K
SEC: MP Materials Transaction Agreement
Intel — $8.9 billion federal investment for roughly a 9.9% stake: Intel’s SEC filing says the government agreed to provide about $8.87 billion and receive up to 433.3 million shares; Intel’s announcement describes it as approximately a 9.9% stake.
SEC: Intel Government Equity Agreement
SEC Exhibit: Intel and Trump Administration Agreement
Intel — passive ownership/no board seat: Intel states that the government’s interest is passive, with no board representation or ordinary governance or information rights, and that it generally agrees to vote with Intel’s board.
SEC Exhibit: Intel Terms of Federal Investment
Intel — prior milestone requirements modified/removed: Intel disclosed that the amended agreement removed previous project milestones and certain other conditions after Intel certified eligible spending.
SEC: Intel Aug. 27, 2025 Filing
U.S. Steel — Golden Share: U.S. Steel’s SEC filings state that the federal government received a Class G preferred “Golden Share” with rights concerning governance, domestic production, and trade matters.
SEC: U.S. Steel National Security Agreement
SEC: U.S. Steel Golden Share Rights
CBO — taxpayer risk in federal loans and loan guarantees: CBO estimates 2026 federal credit programs would show $12.5 billion in lifetime savings under standard federal accounting, but a $52.6 billion lifetime cost using fair-value accounting that incorporates market risk. This is useful support for our point that “repaid” does not necessarily mean “costless to taxpayers.”
CBO: Estimates of the Cost of Federal Credit Programs in 2026

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

Just Because You Can Doesn’t Mean You Should

Ellen Leyrer — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 21:04:54 GMT

Hi friends,

I use ChatGPT a lot. It saves me time, helps me research complicated subjects, explains things I don’t understand, and helps me organize information. I’m certainly not interested in giving it up.

But I recently learned about a new ChatGPT capability that made me say, “No, thank you.”

ChatGPT Work can now do more than research public websites or work with information you give it. It can access some websites that require you to log in and then continue working inside the account.

For example, you might tell ChatGPT to go to a website and complete a task. When the site requires a login, you take over and enter your password or two-factor authentication code. ChatGPT doesn’t need to know your password. Once you’re logged in, it can continue with the task.

That’s impressive.

It also raises an important question:

Just because AI can do something for us, does that mean we should let it?

The Password Isn’t Really the Point

At first, “I enter the password myself” sounds reassuring. And it is an important security protection.

But think about it another way.

Suppose I unlock my computer and hand it to someone. I haven’t told that person my password. But while the computer is unlocked, that person may be able to see and do quite a bit.

The same principle applies here.

The important question isn’t only, “Does AI know my password?”

It’s also, “What can AI access after I open the door?”

That could include account information, documents, messages, purchase history, addresses or other information stored behind the login.

OpenAI also says an authenticated website session may remain signed in for future tasks. That doesn’t automatically mean something bad will happen. It simply means we should understand what permission we are granting.

AI Is Moving From Answering to Acting

This is the bigger story.

We’ve become accustomed to asking AI questions:

Explain this.

Find this.

Compare these.

Summarize this document.

Now we’re entering the age of AI agents that can do things on our behalf.

That’s a significant change.

If ChatGPT gives me a bad answer about where to buy a frying pan, perhaps I’ve wasted a few minutes.

But what if an AI agent misunderstands instructions while operating inside an important account?

Computer-security experts have a useful term for thinking about this: blast radius.

It simply means: If something goes wrong, how much damage could it cause?

That’s the question I’d ask before allowing an AI agent into any account.

Not All Accounts Are Equal

I wouldn’t worry much about allowing AI to retrieve something from a low-risk subscription site.

But my primary email account? Financial accounts? Medical records? Tax information? Social Security or other government accounts?

That’s very different.

There’s another useful security principle called least privilege. It means giving a person or computer system only the access needed to accomplish a particular job—and no more.

We can apply that principle to AI.

Before giving an AI agent access to an account, ask:

What information is behind this login?
Can it send, change, purchase or delete anything?
Does the account contain information about other people?
Will the login remain active afterward?
Could I accomplish the same thing by downloading a document myself and giving AI only that document?
If something went wrong, what’s the worst realistic result?

That last question may be the most important.

Convenience Can Make Us Careless

For years, technology has trained us to click buttons without thinking very much:

Allow. Accept. Connect. Remember Me. Stay Signed In.

We usually just want to get past the screen and finish what we’re doing.

AI makes those permissions more important because increasingly we’re not merely giving technology permission to see information. We may be giving it permission to act for us.

That doesn’t make AI bad. It makes our judgment more important.

Personally, I’ll continue using ChatGPT for research, writing, explanations, analyzing documents and plenty of other things. If I need help understanding a financial statement, for example, I can download the statement myself and provide the document. AI can help me analyze it without needing access to the entire account.

That’s a tradeoff I’m perfectly happy to make.

New technology often gives us capabilities faster than we develop rules for using them wisely. AI is moving especially fast.

So perhaps we need to revive an old-fashioned bit of common sense:

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

The smartest way to use powerful technology isn’t necessarily to use every capability it offers.

Sometimes it’s knowing which doors you prefer to keep closed.

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

Documented Community Impacts of Large Data Centers

Ellen Leyrer — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 19:55:03 GMT

Two PDFs are below.

One is a summary research report on documented community impacts, legal cases, siting standards, and risk-reduction approaches related to large data centers.

The other is a working draft of a white paper I’m writing. It includes a set of practical questions that communities, policymakers, or organizations may want answered before supporting or approving a large project. They grew directly out of the research and are intended to help move the discussion from “what can go wrong?” to “what information should we have before problems develop?”

Both documents are copyrighted and the completed products will be Registered.

Data Centers Report For Cra 08262026

357KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Data Centers White Paper Working Draft As Of 08262026

924KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

Strategy Is An Art

Ellen Leyrer — Tue, 25 Aug 2026 19:54:25 GMT

Hi friends,

On this issue of Iran and oil prices, several second-term policies really do reinforce one another, whether by original design or because the administration is successfully exploiting the opportunities created by earlier moves.

Let’s consider the pieces now sitting on the board.

A bigger strategy may be taking shape

It is easy to look at higher gasoline prices, Iran’s threats in the Strait of Hormuz, new sanctions, and tensions with China as separate problems. But put the pieces together, and a larger strategy begins to appear. The goal is not simply to punish Iran. It is to reduce Iran’s ability to hurt the United States and the world, strengthen America’s own position, and use that strength to make negotiation more attractive than continued confrontation. That won’t happen overnight. But several policies already underway reinforce one another in ways that give reason for cautious optimism.

1. The immediate problem: Iran is using a strategic weakness

About one-fifth of the world’s petroleum has historically moved through the Strait of Hormuz. That gives Iran enormous leverage. Threatening shipping can raise oil and gasoline prices, transportation costs and eventually the price of groceries and other goods.

Americans feel that pressure quickly.

The long-term answer is to remove the dependency that makes the threat so powerful. Not simply to threaten Iran more forcefully.

2. Reduce Iran’s leverage — and our own vulnerabilities

This helps explain Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s recent statement that within two years Hormuz could become far less important. Gulf countries are developing and expanding pipelines and export routes that bypass the Strait.

America is addressing the same principle closer to home.

Several second-term policies reinforce one another:

Energy: Increase U.S. oil and gas production and exports while encouraging nuclear development.
Hormuz: Keep energy moving now while Gulf countries build alternative routes.
Critical minerals: Reduce dependence on China for materials essential to defense and manufacturing, including the new $12 billion Project Vault initiative.
Industrial capacity: Rebuild U.S. or allied production of semiconductors, defense components, energy equipment and other strategic goods.
Iran: Target not only Iran itself, but the financial networks that keep its government functioning.
China and trade: Use America’s markets, tariffs and financial system as negotiating leverage.

Put those together and something larger appears:

Global trade is useful. Strategic dependency is dangerous.

America does not need to make everything. But during a crisis, we must retain access to critical things, either made in America or available from reliable allies.

3. Is oil actually moving through Hormuz?

There are two very different estimates.

U.S. officials say: Recent flows have sometimes exceeded 8 million barrels per day, with substantially more moving on some days. The U.S. military has surveillance capabilities commercial ship trackers do not, and some tankers are reportedly traveling at night with tracking equipment turned off.

Commercial tracking companies say: They can document considerably less — generally around 2–6 million barrels per day — and available export and import data do not yet fully support the government’s higher estimates.

The relatively restrained oil price lends some support to the idea that more oil is reaching the market than visible ship traffic suggests. If Gulf supplies were as severely constrained as the lowest numbers might imply, all else equal, we would normally expect stronger upward pressure on oil prices. But price alone cannot prove how many barrels crossed Hormuz; markets also respond to inventories, alternative supplies, expectations and hopes for de-escalation.

The important point is that Iran has not succeeded in completely choking off world oil supplies.

4. Now use America’s leverage — carefully

Iran needs buyers, ships, insurers, banks and ways to move money.

China is especially important because it has been Iran’s largest oil customer.

That gives Washington another option besides military force: tell companies and banks doing business with Iran that they may jeopardize their access to America’s much larger financial system.

But the strongest threat does not have to be used immediately.

Washington can start with traders, shippers, small refiners and intermediary companies before threatening major Chinese banks.

That is important because a credible threat can itself be a negotiating tool.

Warning → credible consequence → negotiation → changed behavior

can be far better than:

Sanction → retaliation → escalation → economic damage for everyone.

Treasury itself has long recognized that sanctions work best when they are tied to a clear objective, carefully calibrated, coordinated with allies and reversible when behavior changes.

In other words: don’t cry wolf.

Use America’s financial power when it matters, and make the other side believe the threatened consequence is real.

5. There must be an off-ramp

The purpose should not be economic destruction for its own sake.

Iran — and countries helping it — need to understand both sides of the proposition:

Continue this behavior and the cost increases. Change the behavior and the pressure can decrease.

There is historical evidence that this approach can work. Earlier coordinated sanctions against Iran severely restricted oil revenue, banking and access to foreign currency and helped bring Tehran into nuclear negotiations. People disagree about whether the resulting 2015 agreement was good; the narrower point is that economic pressure created negotiating leverage.

6. Why patience matters

This is delicate.

Too little pressure and the threat becomes meaningless. Too much can provoke retaliation, hurt Americans through higher energy prices, damage trade or encourage countries to build financial systems that bypass the dollar.

And rebuilding strategic independence takes time.

Pipelines, mines, nuclear plants, refineries, factories and supply chains cannot appear overnight.

But that may be the larger strategy taking shape:

Protect ourselves. Reduce adversaries’ leverage. Build our own strength. Apply pressure selectively. Provide an off-ramp. Negotiate from strength.

Economic leverage can move quickly. Strategic independence cannot.

The encouraging part is that both can be pursued at the same time.

Sources:

U.S. Treasury — Operation Economic Outcast, August 24, 2026
Secretary Bessent’s remarks on Operation Economic Outcast
Treasury — 2021 Sanctions Review — particularly useful because it lays out the established principles for successful sanctions: clear objectives, calibration, allies, enforceability and reversibility.
Bessent interview — Hormuz becoming “irrelevant” and pipelines replacing much of its traffic
Reuters — August 25 Iran/China sanctions developments
Wall Street Journal — disagreement over how much oil is actually moving through Hormuz
Reuters — Iraq/Syria pipeline alternative to Hormuz
AP — Project Vault and U.S. critical-mineral dependence
VIDEO Gas Prices Explained: Refining, Regulations & Global Factors (2:29)

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

Complacency Is Fatal

Ellen Leyrer — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 22:59:32 GMT

Hi friends,

I’m going to say it again. The economy is turning around. Almost every day I see at least one positive news item on jobs, construction, housing, industry investment, etc. Don’t believe any negative psy op. The legacy media is 100% aimed at shooting down the Trump administration and is policies. That’s the trap of globalists, communists, and the so-called democratic socialists of America. The polls are not accurate either. They are biased, and many conservatives don’t bother to respond so it’s pretty one-sided.

To keep this train of winning policies moving forward, it’s necessary to keep the Republican Congress.

Voting is the key. Just as we did in 2024, we must make it too big to rig. And please remember, for conservatives, the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat. Vote all the way down the ballot. It’s your life, our country, and the children’s future.

America’s direction is never secured by one election, one president, or one burst of public enthusiasm. Policies can change quickly, executive actions can be reversed, and reforms that appear settled can disappear when political control changes hands.

That is why complacency is fatal.

The country has seen several meaningful shifts since 2025. Federal policy has placed greater emphasis on domestic energy production, faster permitting, American manufacturing, tariffs on strategically important imports, and reducing dependence on foreign supply chains. The administration has also opposed creation of a federal central bank digital currency, an issue that concerns many Americans who fear financial surveillance or programmable money.

These changes do not settle every debate, but they demonstrate something important: elections can substantially alter the direction of government.

The broader economy presents a mixed but improving picture. Real gross domestic product grew at a 2.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2026 after growing only 0.5 percent in the previous quarter. The unemployment rate stood at 4.2 percent in June. Those figures do not mean every household is prospering. Many families still face economic uncertainty. But the numbers remind us that economic policy has real consequences and deserves close public attention.

Trade and industrial policy are also changing. The administration has used tariffs and temporary import duties to encourage more production of steel, aluminum, copper, vehicles, and other strategically important goods inside the United States.

Supporters see this as a needed correction after decades of offshoring. Critics warn about higher prices and foreign retaliation. Either way, America is again confronting an essential question: Can a nation remain secure if it depends on foreign countries for the materials, medicines, machinery, energy equipment, and technology necessary for modern life?

Energy policy is moving toward greater use of domestic oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power, with the stated goal of producing reliable and affordable electricity for households, industry, and the rapidly growing demands of artificial intelligence and data centers.

Yet much remains unfinished.

America still needs more generating capacity, pipelines, refining capacity, skilled workers, critical minerals, transformers, machine tools, and secure supply chains. Communities also need protection from poorly planned projects that threaten water supplies, property rights, farmland, local control, or electric reliability.

Regulatory changes can begin that work, but rebuilding an industrial base takes years. It will require consistency across multiple elections—not merely temporary executive orders.

That is the central point: progress is not permanent.

A future administration and Congress could reverse executive orders, change energy and trade policies, revive CBDC development, expand federal regulation, or redirect agencies toward entirely different priorities. Voters should examine those possibilities carefully rather than assuming today’s direction will continue automatically.

No president succeeds alone. Congress writes laws and controls spending. State governments decide questions involving elections, energy, education, property, policing, and economic development. County commissioners, city councils, school boards, water districts, and party organizations often make decisions that affect daily life more directly than Washington does.

The opposition to any major change is powerful, which is precisely why citizens cannot disengage.

Voting is the minimum—not the maximum—responsibility of self-government. If you need recommendations, reach out to your county GOP office. Another good resource is Ballotpedia. Citizens should also study candidates, attend local meetings, question officeholders, follow legislation, volunteer, communicate with neighbors, and hold officials accountable after Election Day.

A republic cannot be maintained by spectators. It depends on citizens who understand that every gain can be reversed and every neglected institution can be captured.

America’s future is not guaranteed. Neither is its decline.

The direction will be determined by people who show up, stay informed, and refuse to surrender their responsibilities to political professionals.

Complacency is fatal. Participation is the cure.

A printable PDF of this flier is below.

Common Sense Vs Crazy

268KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

Good News Abounds

Ellen Leyrer — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 14:20:32 GMT

Hi friends,

I’ve been keeping tabs open with ‘good news’ articles I want to share.

So, here goes.

If you’ve been waiting for arrests... Coffee & Covid-Thunder
8 states and multiple arrests, convictions, and more investigations.

WH: Prescription drugs drop to a record 60-year low thanks to TrumpRx

The ISM Report Confirms America’s Manufacturing Revival

Texas Supreme Court Sides With Citizens in Eminent Domain Dispute

Cutting the Cost of Ambition; Launching a Golden Age of Innovation

American Manufacturers Are Reshoring, And The Big Beautiful Bill Helped

Inside the Next-Gen Nuclear Power Revolution in Idaho’s High Desert

High-tech developers and hyperscalers are financing a nuclear renaissance and will mass-produce portable reactors. Not next decade. Next year.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Explains How Trump Accounts and Deportations Will Unleash a Boom for Young Americans on the Charlie Kirk Show

The Quiet Manufacturing Boom

The Trump Counterrevolution

All that frenzy is not a sign that the Trump counterrevolution is failing. It is good evidence that it is advancing forward, and its ethically bankrupt opposition has no idea how, or whether even, to stop it.

The Empire’s Jihad: How the British Built Islamic Fundamentalism — and How Trump’s Abraham Accords Are Ending It

We need to understand what we pay in transaction costs for what we buy--it is considerable…

The importance of using cash. If you’ve been reading my Substack for a while, you’ll have seen other articles on the importance of cash. Check out my archive for more and visit KeepCashAlive.com too. (Also, CBDCs: Just Say No, https://www.rationalamerican.org/p/cbdcs-just-say-no)

Legislators have a guide. Model Election Laws Handbook from the Election Integrity Network (Hard copy available on Amazon)

They Tried to Stop Him: What the Bible Says About Donald Trump

They Tried To Stop Him What The Bible Says About Trump 08092026

5.44MB ∙ PDF file

Download

And, ICYMI, Weekly Newsletter from the White House includes First New Naval Shipyard in 80 Years, Prescription Drug Prices Record 60-Year Low, Apple Opens U.S. Manufacturing Center in Houston, and Federal Cybercrime Powers Expanded.

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

America Will Be Affordable Again

Ellen Leyrer — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 16:25:36 GMT

Hi friends,

Conservatives know what every working family knows: America is still too expensive.

We must stay engaged and we MUST get out the vote. President Trump’s policies are working. This ship is turning around, but you don’t undo years of bad policies in 18 months.

Time to focus on keeping the administration strong and keeping the power of Congress to continue the wins.

Affordability

A trip to the grocery store costs too much. Filling a tank costs too much. Families who work hard deserve better. They are concerned. We must meet that concern honestly.

No president, Congress, or governor can erase years of accumulated price increases overnight. A lower rate of inflation does not mean that prices immediately return to where they were. We did not get into this problem in a day, and we will not get out of it in a day.

But that is not an excuse for inaction. It is a reason to keep moving in the right direction.

The conservative answer to affordability is not another government check, another bureaucratic program, or another promise that Washington can manage every detail of family life. The answer is to make America less expensive to build in, produce in, work in, and live in.

That begins with energy.

Gasoline prices are not simply a number on a roadside sign. Higher fuel costs raise the price of food, freight, farm inputs, construction, travel, and nearly everything delivered to a store shelf. The uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz is a reminder that energy security abroad reaches directly into the American household budget. We can’t change that overnight either.

America cannot control every foreign conflict. But we can control whether we are prepared for one.

We should produce the energy we need here at home. Check! We should build the pipelines, refineries, transmission, storage, and infrastructure needed to keep the country running. Check! We should pursue reliable power, including oil and gas, nuclear energy, and other sources that can strengthen the grid without making families hostage to foreign instability. Check!

Energy abundance is not merely an economic issue. It is a national-security issue and a family-security issue.

Housing is another affordability test. We need more starter homes, more manufactured housing, more responsible development, and faster, fairer permitting.

But conservatives also require that growth respects property rights. The answer to high costs is not to steamroll ranchers, farmers, homeowners, and rural communities for the benefit of politically connected developers. Infrastructure projects, data centers, pipelines, transmission lines, and industrial facilities must be transparent, properly sited, accountable for water and road impacts, and respectful of landowners’ rights.

We can build more without surrendering local control. We can strengthen the economy without sacrificing the people who steward the land and produce our food.

That is the conservative difference.

We believe in work, ownership, family, local communities, and the dignity of self-government. We believe that a stronger economy is built from the ground up—not imposed from Washington down. We believe a family should keep more of what it earns and face fewer obstacles when it tries to build a life.

The road back to affordability will take persistence. It will require discipline in spending, serious regulatory reform, reliable energy, stronger domestic production, and a willingness to measure results rather than celebrate slogans.

But the direction matters.

Every unnecessary permit removed, every home built, every reliable source of energy brought online, every dollar kept out of Washington’s wasteful machinery, and every property right defended moves us closer to an America in which ordinary people can again afford an ordinary, decent life.

Never stop fighting for freedom. Fight, fight, fight!

References:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/investments/ (Some present, some promised)

BEA reported that new foreign direct-investment expenditures totaled $232.2 billion in 2025, up $76.8 billion—or 49.5%—from 2024.

Texas Comptroller’s Economic Development and Analysis

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!

USDA, SBA Announce Partnership to Fight Weaponized Regulations

Ellen Leyrer — Mon, 03 Aug 2026 01:29:07 GMT

Hi friends,

American Stewards of Liberty does fantastic work for property rights and freedom.

American Stewards of Liberty executive director Margaret Byfield joined administration officials and other stakeholders at a lawfare roundtable last week in Washington, D.C., where the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Small Business Administration announced a partnership to combat regulatory lawfare that targets farmers, ranchers, private property, and small businesses.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines lawfare as the use of administrative, legal, and legislative government systems to adversely impact farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers, usually motivated by extreme environmental and progressive agendas. In an agricultural context, it typically involves excessive red tape and permitting; unwarranted litigation by private and public entities to deter favorable outcomes for property owners; excessive civil and criminal penalties; and the use of eminent domain to inhibit agricultural production.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on July 2 between the two agencies gives producers a direct line portal to report regulations and enforcement actions they believe constitute lawfare. It also allows USDA and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to identify recurring regulatory patterns that could lead to broader deregulatory reforms. (The portal can be accessed here.)

In announcing the memorandum, USDA secretary Brooke Rollins said that, for years, farmers and ranchers who believed they were victims of abusive regulation often had only two choices: either absorb enormous legal costs or fight lengthy court battles against federal agencies. For too long, she said, a network of government agencies, radical environmentalist NGOs, and activist groups have targeted American farmers and ranchers, forcing producers to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, give up prime grazing land, and even sell and stop farming on generational properties.

That approach is changing, Rollins said.

“Producers and ranchers who feed the nation should never face the full power of government alone,” she said. “This partnership with the SBA creates clear pathways for redress, ensures fairness in enforcement, and demonstrates that Washington stands with, not against, the hardworking Americans who sustain our country. Through the USDA Lawfare Portal and interagency collaboration, we are delivering real protection under the Farmer and Rancher Freedom Framework.”

The Farmer and Rancher Freedom Framework is a comprehensive, four-pillar plan to protect, preserve, and partner with American agriculture to end what the Trump administration calls onerous regulations and the weaponization of government against American farmers and ranchers. The partnership announced last week advances Pillar 4 of the framework by building a government-wide shield against lawfare.

Under the memorandum, USDA will oversee the portal, through which farmers and ranchers and small business owners can submit complaints against federal agencies. The agency will share those submissions with the SBA’s Office of the National Ombudsman for case management. Complaints involving USDA will be handled through that department, while the SBA will refer complaints against other agencies to the appropriate entities for resolution.

The MOU also authorizes SBA to analyze complaint data to identify recurring lawfare practices and enforcement or regulatory issues that may be disproportionate, inconsistent, or abusive, helping inform potential deregulatory action for broader reform. Rather than addressing each dispute independently, USDA and SBA officials say they are working to create a permanent infrastructure to serve as an early warning system for identifying systemic regulatory problems.

Byfield said American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) stands ready to help the administration find ways to help the Administration.

“This is the first time that Cabinet level officials have taken a personal interest in helping America’s small landowners when unjustly targeted,” she said. “Secretary Rollins and Administrator Loeffler are the courageous leaders we have needed to defend all American’s right to securely own and use their property.”

ASL has been spearheading a set of policies that would provide long term protections for landowners with other partner organizations, the USDA and the House Oversight Committee.

“This is something much bigger than an agreement between two agencies,” Byfield said. “It reflects an effort to build a government-wide response to regulatory lawfare, not only helping producers challenge alleged abuses, but also identifying recurring enforcement patterns that can drive broader reforms.”

SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler also lauded the pact, saying farmers and ranchers do some of the hardest and most essential work in America while facing a growing burden from costly federal regulations. Those regulations, Loeffler says, have crushed multi-generational family businesses that often lack the time, money, and legal resources to fight back.

“With our MOU, the SBA and USDA now offer America’s producers a direct line to report lawfare, with a new infrastructure to deliver lasting regulatory reform,” she said.

Another key administration official involved in the effort is John Rich, Trump’s Special Envoy for American Landowners, whom Trump tapped to serve as a leading advocate for America’s farmers, ranchers, and private landowners.

Rich said the cumulative effect of over-regulation and zealous prosecution—from grazing permits to irrigation to endangered species litigation to federal easements, and more—has been to place extraordinary financial and legal burdens on America’s agricultural producers.

“For too many ranching families, lawfare has become just another cost of doing business—except it’s one no hardworking producer should ever have to bear,” Rich said. “I’ve traveled across this country and met families who have spent years fighting bureaucrats instead of tending their cattle, working their land, or passing their operations on to the next generation. This partnership sends a clear message: the federal government is done standing on the sidelines while producers are buried in red tape and abusive enforcement. We’re standing up for the people who feed America.”

Early successes

The administration points to several examples it considers evidence that the initiative is already producing results.

One of the earliest successes halted the federal prosecution of Charles and Heather Maude, a South Dakota family with a small cattle and hog operation. The family endured what Rollins says was a senseless and politically motivated prosecution waged by the Biden administration over 25 acres of federal land.

The dispute began when U.S. Forest Service alerted the Maudes that fencing on their property blocked access to the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, and, in good faith, the family agreed to a survey of the property lines. After the survey, what had been a routine property dispute escalated into what the administration characterizes as an unnecessary criminal prosecution, which the Trump administration dropped.

Government resources for prosecution should be focused on true criminals, not a family farm trying to make ends meet, Rollins said.

“The Maudes are not criminals,” she said. “They have worked their land since the early 1900s, and something that should have been a minor civil land dispute that was over and done with quickly turned into an overzealous criminal prosecution on a hardworking family that was close to losing their home, children, and livelihood. Not in this America, not under President Trump.”

The USDA has also protected a family farm in New Jersey from condemnation, ended a disputed Forest Service easement claim in Tennessee, challenged California proposals involving agricultural land redistribution, opposed ESG demands affecting dairy producers, and halted federal funding for solar projects on productive farmland.

At the roundtable last week, the USDA highlighted numerous cases involving families still facing administrative delays and land-management disputes, as well as the arbitrary application of environmental laws and potential due process violations. Attendees told heart-felt stories about their struggles, ranging from litigation over irrigation practices in Montana to grazing permit delays in Arizona to proposed solar developments replacing prime farmland in New York.

While each dispute is unique, Byfield says they embody a common theme: the government has increasingly laid down a gauntlet of regulatory and legal obstacles that threaten multigenerational agricultural operations and private property. USDA officials also say disputes often originate not only in the federal bureaucracy but in aggressive lawsuits brought by environmental groups to pressure landowners into costly settlements or operational changes.

Over the coming weeks, Liberty Matters will examine those cases and stories, exploring both the regulatory disputes and the broader questions they raise about the relationship between government and the people who work the land.

The MOU agreement builds on earlier administration initiatives, including right-to-repair reforms for agricultural equipment and the elimination of certain diesel emissions requirements, in addition to dozens of regulatory rollbacks and revisions to agency guidance intended to reduce administrative burdens on agricultural producers.

In addition to Byfield and ASL, administration officials, and affected producers and ranchers, U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyoming) also attended the roundtable, representatives from leading legal organizations, including the America First Policy Institute, Institute for Justice, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Pacific Legal Foundation, and Mountain States Legal Foundation.

Source: https://americanstewards.us/usda-sba-announce-partnership-to-fight-weaponized-regulations/

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 (8/13/2025)

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

Until next time…

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!