The list of questions and concerns has grown. I’m not saying no to data centers. I think that ship has sailed. We do need to be informed and stand up for transparency and control, especially about energy, land and water issues.

The Infrastructure of Artificial Intelligence Is Taking Shape

For the past year or so, much of the discussion surrounding artificial intelligence has focused on the technology itself—chatbots, image generators, automation, and the race for AI leadership.

But a different part of the story is taking the lead.

The real challenge is no longer simply building better AI systems. It is building the physical infrastructure needed to support them.

And that infrastructure story is growing more complex - and concerning - by the week.

Several developments this week reveal an important shift. AI infrastructure is no longer just a local land-use issue. It involves cities, utilities, regulators, investors, energy companies, and communities across the United States and around the world.

The conversation is moving beyond:

“Should we build data centers?”

to:

“Who decides where they go, how they are powered, how much water they use, and who pays for the infrastructure they require?”

That is a much bigger discussion.

One of the clearest signals comes from a new international effort being launched during London Climate Action Week. Mayors from approximately 40 cities—including London, Melbourne, and Phoenix—are joining a Global Urban Data Centres Pact focused on the impacts data centers can have on electricity systems, water resources, land use, urban planning, noise, and community quality of life.

This development demonstrates that concerns about AI infrastructure are no longer limited to rural counties or isolated citizen groups. Large cities are now organizing around many of the same questions.

Whether the issue is water use in Arizona, electricity demand in Texas, or noise concerns near residential areas, local governments increasingly see data centers as public infrastructure issues rather than simply economic-development projects.

At the same time, investors are moving in a different direction.

According to Reuters, some data-center investors are now purchasing or partnering with power developers in order to gain greater control over electricity supplies. One example is DigitalBridge’s reported $1.1 billion acquisition of ArcLight Capital.

This trend is significant because it suggests that AI companies and their investors are becoming less interested in simply buying electricity from utilities. Instead, they are increasingly looking at owning, financing, or controlling the infrastructure that produces electricity.

In other words, the industry is becoming more vertically integrated.

The implications extend far beyond the data centers themselves.

A power plant serving a data center may require natural-gas supplies, water resources, transmission infrastructure, substations, roads, permits, environmental reviews, batteries, and long-term operating agreements. What starts as a technology project will likely become an energy and infrastructure project too.

A good example is the recently reported Chevron-Microsoft project in Reeves County, Texas.

The proposed 2.67-gigawatt power plant would reportedly serve Microsoft’s AI operations directly and may use brackish water and treated oilfield wastewater rather than potable water supplies.

That approach could potentially reduce pressure on freshwater resources. However, it also raises important questions regarding treatment standards, disposal practices, permitting, future grid connections, land impacts, and local oversight.

The lesson is not that the project is necessarily good or bad.

The lesson is that infrastructure decisions are becoming more complicated.

Meanwhile, the most important decisions may be occurring in places that receive very little public attention.

In Texas, ERCOT’s upcoming “Batch Zero” process will help determine how large new electricity users connect to the grid. Utility Dive recently reported that Texas is facing approximately 438 gigawatts of large-load requests, nearly 90 percent of which are associated with data centers.

Most of those projects will never be built. But the numbers illustrate the scale of interest. The key questions are no longer simply whether Texas can generate enough electricity.

Increasingly, the questions are:

• Who receives access to limited grid capacity?

• Who pays for upgrades?

• How are costs allocated?

• How should reliability be protected?

Those are utility-law questions.

And utility law is becoming one of the most important battlegrounds in the AI infrastructure debate.

The same pattern is now appearing nationally.

On June 18, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) directed regional grid operators outside Texas to update or justify their approaches to handling large-load interconnection requests.

Again, the central question is not technology. The central question is governance. Who gets electricity first? Who pays for upgrades? Who bears the risk?

Water remains part of the story as well.

The new city coalition is focusing heavily on water use and drought resilience. At the same time, projects such as the Great Springs initiative between San Antonio and Austin highlight a growing realization that protecting water resources increasingly involves protecting land, aquifer recharge areas, and long-term infrastructure planning.

Takeaways from this week’s developments:

• AI infrastructure is becoming vertically integrated.

• Data-center investors are moving into power generation.

• Cities are organizing around infrastructure impacts.

• Grid operators are developing new rules.

• Regulators are stepping in.

Bottom Line: AI infrastructure is becoming vertically integrated, data-center money is moving into power generation, cities and regulators are trying to catch up.

Sources:

Global Urban Data Centres Pact (Cities Organizing Around Data-Center Impacts)

Reuters (June 22, 2026)
City mayors from London to Melbourne seek to curb data centre burden on power, water
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/city-mayors-london-melbourne-seek-curb-data-centre-burden-power-water-2026-06-22/

C40 Cities – Global Urban Data Centres Pact
https://www.c40.org/news/the-global-urban-data-centres-pact/

Associated Press (June 22, 2026)
40 mayors worldwide endorse a pact to shape data center development
https://apnews.com/article/37df5184ad4f28ea084082563182e1ea

Data-Center Investors Moving Into Power Generation

Reuters (June 22, 2026)
Data center investors buy up power developers in race to build
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/data-center-investors-buy-up-power-developers-race-build--reeii-2026-06-22/

DigitalBridge / ArcLight Announcement (May 27, 2026)
DigitalBridge and ArcLight Announce Strategic Combination
https://www.digitalbridge.com/news/2026-05-27-digitalbridge-and-arclight-announce-strategic-combination-to-form-a-leading-alternative-asset-manager-at-the-convergence-of-power-ai-and-digital-infrastructure

Chevron / Microsoft / West Texas AI Power Project

Houston Chronicle (June 23, 2026)
Chevron plans massive Texas power plant for Microsoft, eyes oilfield wastewater as water source
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/chevron-microsoft-permian-gas-produced-water-22315265.php

Midland Reporter-Telegram (June 23, 2026)
Chevron, Microsoft sign 20-year deal for Pecos data center
https://www.mrt.com/news/article/pecos-tx-chevron-microsoft-data-center-22315597.php

ERCOT Large Loads / Batch Zero

ERCOT Large Load Update (April 1, 2026)
https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/04/01/ERCOT_LargeLoad_Update_April2026_B-C_-Hearing.pdf

National Grid Rules / FERC

FERC Large-Load Interconnection Actions (June 2026)

Water Planning / Great Springs

Great Springs Project

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!

While easy and dependable nuclear energy is on the horizon, the below is credible information that it may be nearer than we expected.

President Trump’s Executive Order 14301, Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy, May 23, 2025 helped move this forward. (He had already issued Executive Order 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, on Inauguration Day.)

America’s energy future may have taken another important step forward this week.

The U.S. Department of Energy announced that Valar Atomics’ “Ward 250” advanced reactor successfully completed what is called a “zero-power fueled criticality demonstration.” That sounds complicated, and maybe even a little alarming, but in plain English it means this: the reactor’s nuclear core successfully “started” in a controlled way.

The reactor is not yet producing electricity for homes, businesses, factories, data centers, or military bases. But it is still a very important milestone.

To understand why, it helps to know a little background.

For decades, nuclear power has been one of America’s most reliable sources of electricity. Traditional nuclear plants are large, expensive, heavily regulated, and take many years to build. They also provide steady power around the clock, unlike wind and solar, which depend on weather and time of day.

Now, due to energy support by the Trump administration, a new generation of companies is working on much smaller nuclear reactors. These are often called microreactors or advanced reactors. Microreactors are simple and compact reactors capable of producing thermal energy used directly as heat or converted to electric power. The goal is to build reactors that are smaller, safer, faster to deploy, and useful in places where reliable power is hard to provide.

That could include military bases, remote communities, disaster relief areas, mining sites, industrial facilities, space missions, and eventually high-demand users like data centers. As artificial intelligence, manufacturing, and advanced technology grow, America will need much more dependable electricity. Nuclear power is one of the few options that can provide large amounts of steady power without depending on the weather.

That is why this recent announcement matters.

The Department of Energy’s Reactor Pilot Program was created to speed up the testing of advanced reactor designs. The goal was to reach criticality for at least three advanced reactor concepts outside of national laboratories by July 4, 2026, America’s 250th birthday.

Valar Atomics’ Ward 250 is now the second reactor in that program to reach this point. Antares Nuclear’s Mark-0 reactor reached criticality earlier in June.

So what does “criticality” mean? In nuclear engineering, “criticality” does not mean ‘critical’. A reactor achieves criticality when the nuclear chain reaction is able to continue on its own in a steady, controlled way.

Think of it like starting an engine. When your car engine turns over and begins running on its own, that is a key step. It does not mean you are driving down the highway yet. It means the engine started and is operating as designed.

That is similar to what happened here. The reactor reached the point where its nuclear reaction could sustain itself, safely and as expected, under controlled conditions.

The “zero-power” part is also important. It means the reactor reached criticality at a very low level. It was not producing meaningful power for the grid. It was more like an engine idling, not a truck pulling a heavy load.

This kind of test allows engineers to confirm that the reactor behaves the way they expected. It helps prove the basic physics of the design. It also gives them information they will need before moving toward power production.

That is why this progress is worth celebrating.

Microreactors are not ready to solve America’s energy problems next week. They still have to go through more testing, safety reviews, fuel supply questions, siting decisions, cost evaluations, and real-world operating experience.

At the same time, we should not miss the significance of what is happening.

For years, America has talked about advanced nuclear power as something promising but always far off in the future. Now we are seeing young American companies build and test real reactors under federal authorization. That is progress.

It is especially encouraging at a time when America faces rising electricity demand from artificial intelligence, data centers, manufacturing, defense needs, and population growth. Reliable energy is not optional. It is the foundation of a strong economy, national security, and modern life.

Communities will need honest information. Citizen concerns should be respected. Safety must remain a top priority. Costs must be evaluated. Regulators should protect the public without smothering innovation.

But this milestone is still good news.

America needs more energy. We need reliable power, not wishful thinking. We need innovation that strengthens the country, supports industry, protects national security, and gives communities real options.

Valar Atomics’ Ward 250 reaching zero-power criticality does not finish the race. But it shows the race is moving.

As of June 20, 2026, two reactors have reached this milestone under the program; DOE still anticipates additional advanced reactors may go critical by the July 4 goal.

That is excellent progress, and it gives us good reason for hopeful expectations about America’s next generation of nuclear energy.

Sources:

1. U.S. Department of Energy — “Department of Energy Celebrates Second Advanced Reactor Achieving Criticality”
   June 18, 2026
   https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-celebrates-second-advanced-reactor-achieving-criticality

2. U.S. Department of Energy — “U.S. Department of Energy Reactor Pilot Program”
   https://www.energy.gov/ne/us-department-energy-reactor-pilot-program

3. White House — “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy”
   May 23, 2025
   https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/reforming-nuclear-reactor-testing-at-the-department-of-energy/

4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission — “Criticality” glossary definition
   Page last reviewed/updated February 15, 2023
   https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/criticality

5. Idaho National Laboratory — “What does ‘reactor criticality’ mean?”
   https://inl.gov/nuclear-energy/reactor-criticality/

6. U.S. Department of Energy — “Department of Energy Celebrates First Advanced Reactor Criticality”
   June 2026
   https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-celebrates-first-advanced-reactor-criticality

7. Reuters — “Trump’s lightning reactor build program ignites nuclear sector”
   July 31, 2025
   https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trumps-lightning-reactor-build-program-ignites-nuclear-sector-2025-07-31/

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!

Good news that the many concerns that have been expressed are being taken into consideration and more research will be done to address the possible issues.

Texas Regulators Hit Pause on First Segment of Massive 765-kV Transmission Buildout

For months, Texans concerned about the state’s proposed 765-kV transmission buildout have been told the project was moving forward as planned.

This week, something changed.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) voted to postpone consideration of the first segment of the proposed Strategic Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP), a massive network of extra-high-voltage transmission lines designed to move electricity across large portions of Texas and into the Permian Basin.

The decision does not stop the project. It does not cancel the project. But it does signal that regulators are willing to slow down and take a closer look before moving forward.

That alone makes this one of the most significant developments in the 765-kV debate to date.

What Is STEP?

The Strategic Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP) is part of the broader Permian Basin Reliability Plan approved by the PUCT in 2025.

Supporters argue that major transmission investments are needed to meet growing electricity demand and improve reliability in West Texas, particularly in the Permian Basin.

Critics argue that the plan has grown far beyond what lawmakers originally authorized and that Texans deserve a more thorough review before billions of dollars are committed and thousands of acres of private property are affected.

According to research from the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Life: Powered initiative, the approved 765-kV projects could cost approximately $33 billion to build and approach $100 billion in lifetime costs.

The Debate Has Changed

When this issue first surfaced, most of the attention focused on routing.

Landowners wanted to know where the lines would be built, whether eminent domain would be used, and how their farms, ranches, homes, and businesses might be affected.

Those concerns remain.

But over the last several months, the debate has expanded dramatically.

Questions now being raised include:

• Are the lines actually necessary?

• Were alternatives fully considered?

• Could additional generation be built closer to where power is needed?

• Were affected landowners given adequate notice and opportunity to participate?

• What are the long-term impacts on private property, ratepayers, and rural communities?

These questions have transformed what began as a routing dispute into a much broader discussion about energy policy, property rights, government process, and infrastructure planning.

A Growing Coalition

Opposition to the project is no longer limited to individual landowners.

American Stewards of Liberty recently asked the PUCT to delay deciding whether several of the proposed transmission segments are actually needed until additional proceedings are completed.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation has published research arguing that alternative approaches—including additional natural gas generation in West Texas—could potentially reduce or eliminate the need for portions of the 765-kV buildout.

Most notably, 43 Texas legislators—34 members of the House and 9 members of the Senate—recently filed an amicus brief urging regulators to slow down and fully evaluate the project’s need before irreversible decisions are made.

Their concerns include ratepayer costs, private property impacts, and whether the current plan represents the best solution available.

Good News

Perhaps the most important shift is this: The central question is no longer simply where the lines should go.

The question increasingly being asked is whether all of the proposed lines should be built at all. That is a very different debate. Transmission lines move electricity. They do not generate it.

Critics argue that Texas should carefully examine whether other options could improve reliability while reducing costs and minimizing impacts on private property.

Supporters maintain that the transmission buildout is necessary to meet future demand and keep power flowing where it is needed.

Reasonable people can disagree on the answer.

But the size of the project, the potential costs, and the long-term effects on Texas landowners suggest that these questions deserve serious consideration.

What Happens Next?

The PUCT’s decision to postpone consideration of the first segment does not resolve the dispute.

Additional hearings, filings, and commission decisions still lie ahead.

However, the pause signals that regulators recognize the interconnected nature of these projects and that the debate surrounding them is far from settled.

Whether the final outcome favors transmission expansion, alternative solutions, or some combination of both, one thing is becoming clear:

The discussion has moved beyond transmission routes.

Texas is now engaged in a broader conversation about reliability, cost, property rights, local impacts, and who should decide how the state’s energy future is built.

Additional sources:

PUC Docket 59475 (Bell County East–Big Hill)
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Search/Filings?ControlNumber=59475

Texas Scorecard – Lawmakers Join Push to Pause Transmission Lines (June 16, 2026)
https://texasscorecard.com/state/lawmakers-join-push-to-pause-transmission-lines/

Texas Scorecard – Pro-Landowner Nonprofit Seeks Pause on Determining Need for Transmission Line (June 10, 2026)
https://texasscorecard.com/state/pro-landowner-nonprofit-seeks-pause-on-determining-need-for-transmission-line/

Texas Public Policy Foundation – Legislators Urge PUC to Delay Vote
https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/texas-legislators-urge-puc-to-delay-vote-on-765-kv-transmission-facilities

KXAN – Texas Landowners Fight Massive Transmission Line Project at Austin Hearing
https://www.kxan.com/energy-crossroads/texas-landowners-fight-massive-transmission-line-project-at-austin-hearing/

Oncor – Bell County East–Big Hill 765-kV Project
https://www.oncor.com/content/oncorwww/us/en/home/about-us/transmission-systems/current-transmission-line-projects/bell-county-east---big-hill-765-kv-transmission-line-project.html

Amicus Brief
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59029_465_1656879.PDF

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

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

We’ve come to a point - in my opinion - ‘between a rock and a hard place’.

Evidence points to the fact that AI is critical to national security. And we’re being told that it must be rushed due to the race with China. That’s a post for another day.

Part 1 was The Resistance Is Building

Part 2 is below.

Part 2

If the first phase of the AI debate was about whether data centers should be built, the second phase is about how they should be built.

That distinction matters.

Because despite the growing opposition, there is mounting evidence that demand for AI computing power is real.

One of the clearest signs came when reports surfaced that Google agreed to pay roughly $920 million per month for access to AI computing capacity through SpaceX. Google already operates some of the world’s largest data centers, yet it was willing to spend billions of dollars to obtain additional computing resources.

That suggests the industry is facing genuine infrastructure constraints.

The AI race is no longer just about software.

It is about electricity, water, land, cooling systems, substations, transmission lines, and computer chips.

In short, it is an infrastructure race.

Supporters argue that America cannot afford to fall behind China in artificial intelligence. They point to national security concerns, economic competition, and the possibility that AI could reshape industries in much the same way the internet did a generation ago. I don’t disagree.

Those arguments do not answer the concerns being raised by communities across the country.

Many Americans are not asking whether AI should exist.

They are asking whether local residents should bear the costs of building the infrastructure that supports it. And even more - transparency and upfront information, not NDAs and behind closed doors deals.

Increasingly, the industry is responding with proposed solutions. But many questions and concerns remain unanswered.

Some developers are promoting facilities powered by dedicated natural gas plants rather than drawing power from the local grid. Others are exploring nuclear power. Some projects propose using non-potable or produced water rather than competing with municipal supplies. Closed-loop cooling systems are being promoted as a way to reduce water consumption.

In Texas, discussion has begun around requiring stronger protections related to water use, power reliability, and infrastructure planning. Policymakers are beginning to recognize that communities want more than assurances. They want enforceable standards.

That may be the most important shift taking place.

For years, the debate centered on whether data centers would bring jobs and economic growth.

Today, the discussion is increasingly focused on conditions.

Should projects disclose expected water use?

Should they provide their own power generation?

Should counties have greater authority to review impacts?

Should facilities be restricted near schools or residential areas?

Should developers be required to contribute to infrastructure upgrades before construction begins?

These are not anti-technology questions.

They are governance questions.

Supporters often point to voluntary commitments from technology companies, including investments in water conservation and energy programs. Such efforts may help - if the commitments are followed and audited. But communities are increasingly asking whether voluntary commitments are enough when the projects themselves involve investments measured in billions of dollars.

For decades, Americans have been told that major infrastructure projects require careful consideration of environmental impacts, land use, water consumption, and community effects. Many citizens are now asking why AI infrastructure should be treated differently.

America does not have to choose between technological leadership and protecting local communities.

It can do both.

But doing both requires honesty.

It requires acknowledging that the concerns are real.

It requires recognizing that the benefits are real.

And it requires establishing the rules before the infrastructure becomes permanent.

The future of AI may depend on computers and algorithms.

But the future of communities depends on something else: whether growth happens with the people who live there—or simply happens to them.

People should be prioritized above big business.

And one basic tenet is being largely ignored: Farmland lost to technology is lost forever. Agricultural land, farms and ranches, means food.

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!

We’ve come to a point - in my opinion - ‘between a rock and a hard place’.

Evidence points to the fact that AI is critical to national security. And we’re being told that it must be rushed due to the race with China. That’s a post for another day.

This Part 1 is people are concerned and raising issues.

Part 2 will be about possible resolution, ‘The Infrastructure Question: If America Needs AI, How Should We Build It?’

Part 1

A year ago, most Americans had never given a thought to data centers.

Today, communities across the country are fighting over them.

City councils are debating them. Counties are trying to slow them down. Citizens are organizing against them. Lawsuits are being filed. In California, voters recently approved a permanent ban on new data centers. In Texas, counties are scrambling to understand projects that could reshape their communities for decades.

At first, data centers were presented as a simple economic development story. They would bring jobs, tax revenue, and technological progress. Communities were told they were essential for America’s future and its ability to compete in the rapidly growing field of artificial intelligence.

But as projects have moved from PowerPoint presentations to real-world proposals, many citizens have begun asking questions.

How much water will these facilities use?

How much electricity will they require?

Who pays for the new infrastructure?

Will farmland disappear beneath concrete and steel?

Will local residents have any meaningful say in the process?

Those questions are no longer theoretical.

In Texas, Hill County attempted to pause data center development while officials studied potential impacts. The county later rescinded the moratorium after facing a $100 million lawsuit from a developer. In Georgia, homeowners are fighting transmission-line projects tied to growing power demands. Across the country, residents are increasingly discovering that AI infrastructure is not just a technology issue—it is a land-use issue, a water issue, a power issue, and a quality-of-life issue.

One of the most significant recent developments came from Monterey Park, California, where voters overwhelmingly approved a permanent ban on new data centers. Whether one agrees with the decision or not, the vote demonstrated something important: citizens want a voice in these decisions.

The concerns vary by location.

In some communities, water is the dominant issue. In others, it is power demand, farmland preservation, property rights, noise, or local control. Residents near a Memphis-area facility associated with Elon Musk’s xAI recently filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that power generation equipment serving the project has negatively affected their quality of life and property values.

What ties these disputes together is not opposition to technology itself.

Many of the people raising concerns use AI every day. Many support innovation. Many support economic growth.

What they oppose is the idea that large-scale infrastructure projects should move forward without transparent discussion of the costs and consequences.

Erin Brocovich reports on what she’s learning bout lack of transparency. See the 5-minute CNN clip with Erin Brocovich.

Supporters of data centers often point to projected tax revenue, construction jobs, and national/international competitiveness. Critics point out that some facilities employ relatively few permanent workers once construction is complete. Communities are increasingly asking whether the promised benefits justify the tradeoffs.

The debate has also revealed a deeper issue: local control.

Many proposed facilities are being directed toward rural or unincorporated areas where local governments have fewer tools to regulate development. Residents often feel that major decisions are being made long before they learn the details.

That frustration is becoming political.

What began as a handful of local disputes has grown into a national conversation involving state legislatures, county governments, utility commissions, courts, and voters.

The resistance is building because the impacts are visible.

The question now is not whether data centers are coming.

The question is whether communities will have a meaningful role in deciding how they are built, where they are built, and what protections are put in place.

Because while the resistance is growing, so is the pressure to build.

And that raises an equally important question: If America truly needs this infrastructure, what should responsible development look like?

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!

We know AI data centers are a big part of news these days. People are concerned for a variety of reasons, and big business wants the projected profit, and AI is national security.

I just never imagined Google having to outsource for computer power…

Google’s decision to pay nearly $920 million per month to SpaceX for access to 110,000 Nvidia GPUs may be one of the most revealing developments yet in the AI boom.

At first, does it sounds like just another big-tech business deal? But wait, why would Google, of all companies, need more compute capacity? The bigger story is what it tells us about the unprecedented demand for computing power behind artificial intelligence.

Google is one of the world’s largest technology companies. It already owns and operates vast networks of data centers around the globe. Yet according to reports, Google is willing to spend almost $1 billion every month to rent computing capacity rather than wait for additional infrastructure to come online.

That should get our attention.

For months, Americans have been hearing about proposals for new data centers, power plants, transmission lines, substations, water projects, and industrial-scale infrastructure. Many have wondered whether the demand is real or whether the industry is simply overbuilding.

This deal confirms that the demand is very real.

The challenge is that AI requires much more than software. It requires physical infrastructure: computer chips, massive server buildings, electricity, cooling systems, water, networking equipment, transformers, and transmission lines. In many places, the limiting factor is no longer the availability of AI chips. It is whether there is enough power and infrastructure to run them.

I do not believe every proposed data center should be approved. Communities still have legitimate concerns about water use, power demand, noise, land conversion, tax incentives, local control, and property rights.

But it does help explain why the pressure to build continues to intensify.

The AI debate is often presented as a competition between companies or even nations. Increasingly, however, it appears to be an infrastructure race. The companies that secure enough power, computing capacity, and physical infrastructure may gain the greatest advantage.

Personally, I’m not against data centers in general, but PEOPLE must be prioritized over big business. And that must include agricultural land - food - and water.

Whether one supports or opposes the rapid expansion of AI, this deal points out that the “cloud” is not something just floating in the sky. It is built on real land, using real resources, and the demand for that infrastructure appears to be growing faster than many expected.

Source:

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/05/google-to-pay-spacex-920-million-a-month-for-xai-compute-capacity.html

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!

Consider this.

Thesis:

America became weaker because manufacturing was outsourced, factories closed, supply chains moved overseas, and Wall Street prioritized finance over production.

Therefore:

The federal government should actively help rebuild American manufacturing capacity, especially in strategic industries.

And therefore:

Trump’s tariffs, energy policies, tax incentives, deregulation, defense spending, and industrial policies are all pieces of a coordinated effort to rebuild America’s productive economy.

America’s Course Correction

America did not arrive at this moment overnight.

For decades, leaders in both parties largely embraced the same economic model: globalization, free trade, outsourcing, financialization, and the belief that markets would naturally place production wherever it could be done most efficiently.

There were ‘benefits’. Consumers enjoyed lower prices. Companies increased profits. Global trade expanded. Technology advanced.

But there were costs as well. It seems we’ve learned the costs outweighed the benefits.

Factories closed. Manufacturing jobs disappeared. Supply chains stretched across oceans. Critical industries moved overseas. Many communities watched their economic foundations erode while Wall Street prospered.

Whether one calls it globalization, financialization, or simply the prevailing economic consensus, a growing number of Americans concluded that something was wrong.

Today, we are witnessing a deliberate shift in direction.

The Trump administration has made rebuilding America’s productive capacity a central goal. Through tariffs, deregulation, tax incentives, energy expansion, strategic investments, and defense procurement, the administration is attempting to encourage more production, manufacturing, and investment within the United States.

The objective is simple: make more things in America, build more things in America, and reduce dependence on foreign competitors for critical goods and materials.

Supporters argue that a nation cannot remain strong if it loses the ability to manufacture essential products, refine critical minerals, build ships, produce advanced technology, or maintain secure supply chains.

This effort extends beyond traditional manufacturing. It includes semiconductors, artificial intelligence infrastructure, energy production, shipbuilding, defense systems, and other industries viewed as vital to both economic prosperity and national security.

At the center of this approach is an old American idea: strong nations build things.

Factories are more than buildings. They create entire ecosystems of suppliers, engineers, skilled workers, transportation networks, research facilities, and supporting businesses. One successful manufacturing facility often generates opportunities far beyond its own walls.

This concept has deep roots in American history.

Alexander Hamilton argued that the young nation needed domestic manufacturing. Later generations built railroads, steel mills, power systems, shipyards, and industrial centers that helped transform the United States into the world’s leading economic power.

Advocates of today’s policies believe America must recover some of that productive strength after decades of offshoring and deindustrialization.

Of course, every course correction carries risks. Can government intervention can sometimes create waste, political favoritism, or investments that fail to deliver promised results? We know it can.

The challenge is balance.

America does not need government directing every aspect of the economy. But neither does it benefit from becoming dependent on foreign nations for critical industries and essential goods.

The goal is to rebuild what has been lost while preserving the innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic freedom that have long been America’s strengths.

Perfection is impossible. Every generation inherits challenges created by the decisions of previous generations. The question is not whether every policy is flawless. The question is whether the nation is moving toward greater strength, resilience, and opportunity.

Can America once again become a nation that not only consumes and finances, but also designs, manufactures, builds, and produces?

There is growing recognition across the political spectrum that a strong America requires more than financial markets and consumer spending. It requires the capacity to create the products, technologies, infrastructure, and industries on which both prosperity and national security depend.

Is this course correction a good thing? Well, in my opinion, America certainly could not have survived on the previous course.

Sources:

https://brianlantz.substack.com/p/the-factory-is-the-product

https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/speeches-and-remarks/2026/hamilton-today-trade-and-us-economic-strategy

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/alexander-hamiltons-manufacturing-message/

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!

This essay is inspired by Eric Zemmour’s The Suicide of France, but the broader concern is not his alone. France itself has debated “separatism,” assimilation, public order, and whether republican law can hold against parallel societies. Pew, OECD, and French government sources all show that immigration, integration, schools, and national identity are not abstract issues. They are now central questions for every Western nation.

The point is not that every immigrant fails to integrate. Many do integrate. The concern is what happens when a country loses the confidence to require assimilation as a condition of long-term national unity.

The Lesson from France: A Nation Must Believe It Has the Right to Remain Itself

France is giving the West a warning.

Not because France is weak. Not because the French people lack history, culture, courage, or intelligence. Quite the opposite. France is one of the great civilizations of the world. It gave us cathedrals, philosophers, artists, military heroes, political revolutions, great literature, and a deep national identity rooted in language, place, memory, and pride.

That is exactly why its current struggle matters.

The warning from France is not simply about immigration. It is not simply about Islam. It is not about saying every immigrant is a threat or every Muslim is an enemy. That would be unfair and untrue.

The deeper issue is this: Can a nation survive if its own institutions stop believing it has the right to remain itself?

That is the question France has been forced to face.

For decades, many French leaders and cultural elites treated national pride as outdated, borders as embarrassing, assimilation as intolerant, and traditional values as something to apologize for. Schools softened the teaching of national memory. Courts and bureaucracies often seemed more concerned with avoiding offense than enforcing order. Political leaders talked about tolerance but often failed to require loyalty to France’s laws, language, customs, and civic expectations.

The result has not been compassion. It has been confusion.

When a country stops teaching newcomers what it means to belong, it does not create unity. It creates separation. When a country stops expecting assimilation, it does not create peace. It creates parallel societies. When schools stop transmitting history and civic memory, children do not become more enlightened. They become easier to detach from the nation that raised them.

And when leaders become more afraid of defending the country than of losing it, the people eventually notice.

That is the lesson America — and Texas — must take seriously.

We do not need to become fearful, hateful, or extreme. But we do need to be honest. A nation is not just an economy. It is not just a labor market. It is not just roads, stores, technology, and tax revenue.

A nation is a people bound by shared laws, shared memory, shared language, shared duties, and a shared understanding of right and wrong.

If those things are not taught, defended, and passed on, they do not magically preserve themselves.

America has its own version of this challenge. We see it in open-border policies that overwhelm communities. We see it in schools that sometimes teach children more about America’s sins than America’s founding principles. We see it when law enforcement is undermined, when citizenship is treated as a technicality, and when civic unity is replaced with grievance categories.

We see it when ordinary citizens are told that defending borders, election integrity, parental rights, local control, or constitutional government is somehow “extreme.”

It is not extreme to want a country with borders. It is not extreme to expect children to learn American history. It is not extreme to believe newcomers should embrace our Constitution, our laws, and our civic culture. It is not extreme to insist that local communities have a say in what happens to their schools, neighborhoods, land, and way of life.

That is not hatred. That is stewardship.

Texas has a special responsibility here. We are a border state. We are a growth state. We are a state people move to because they still believe there is something freer, stronger, and more grounded here.

But Texas will not remain Texas by accident. Freedom requires memory. Local control requires participation. Safe communities require law and order. Constitutional government requires citizens who understand it well enough to defend it.

France reminds us that cultural decline does not usually happen overnight. It happens gradually, through a thousand small surrenders. A softened curriculum. A silent parent. A city council nobody watches. A school board race nobody votes in. A law not enforced. A word redefined. A tradition mocked. A border ignored. A people told, year after year, that loving their country is something to be ashamed of.

The good news is that decline is not inevitable.

Citizens can still show up. Parents can still ask questions. Voters can still pay attention to local races. Churches, civic groups, families, and neighborhoods can still teach what schools neglect. Communities can still insist on safety, order, honesty, and self-government.

The lesson from France is not despair.

The lesson is urgency.

A country can survive hardship, enemies, recessions, wars, and mistakes. What it cannot survive is the loss of belief in itself.

America is worth preserving. Texas is worth preserving. Our Constitution is worth preserving. But preservation is not passive. It is the work of citizens.

So let France be a warning — not because we are doomed to follow, but because we still have time not to.

Wake up. Pay attention. Speak up. Show up.

A free country remains free only when its people decide it is worth the effort.

Note:
Pew Research Center’s newer data helps keep this discussion factual. Europe has not been “taken over” demographically: Pew estimated Muslims were about 6% of Europe’s population in 2020. But Pew also found that Muslims were 18% of migrants living in Europe, and that Muslim population growth in several European countries has been tied to immigration and higher-than-average fertility. In other words, the question is not panic; it is assimilation. Can Western nations absorb large-scale migration while still preserving a shared civic culture, rule of law, language, and national memory?

Sources:

“The Suicide of France” by Eric Zammour

https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/11/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_2fca04b9/france_d1a5bb8b/8008535b-en.pdf

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/06/indicators-of-immigrant-integration-2023_70d202c4.html

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/05/04/french-interior-minister-nunez-i-have-no-problem-with-islam-in-france-but-i-fight-those-who-use-it-to-undermine-our-republic_6753107_7.html

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/10/islam-was-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religion-from-2010-to-2020/

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FRANCE-2021-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf

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

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

These proposed transmission lines are a big deal. They have opponents and proponents as well as the excellent Texas Public Policy Foundation’s truths, and understanding, and explanation.

If you need more background:
www.rationalamerican.org/p/when-the-power-line-comes-through
propertyrightsandfreedom.substack.com/p/data-centers-765-kv-lines-and-public

Texas’ $100 Billion Transmission Debate Is Entering a New Phase

When most Texans first heard about the proposed 765-kV transmission lines crossing the state, the discussion centered on property rights.

Landowners were concerned about eminent domain. Rural communities worried about massive transmission corridors crossing farms, ranches, and family property.

Those concerns remain.

But over the last several weeks, the debate has grown into something much larger.

Texas regulators, utilities, landowners, lawmakers, policy organizations, and citizen groups are now asking a more fundamental question:

Do Texas taxpayers and ratepayers actually need this unprecedented 765-kV transmission buildout?

The proposed projects are part of ERCOT’s Strategic Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP) and the Permian Basin Reliability Plan (PBRP). Supporters argue the lines are necessary to move electricity into West Texas and support future growth in the Permian Basin.

Critics argue that the assumptions behind the plan have never been fully vetted and that alternatives may exist.

Recent research from the Texas Public Policy Foundation estimates that approved 765-kV projects could cost approximately $33 billion to build and approach $100 billion in lifetime costs. The study argues that alternative approaches, including additional natural gas generation closer to demand centers, deserve serious consideration before irreversible decisions are made.

At the same time, hearings and filings have expanded the conversation far beyond routing decisions.

Today, at least five distinct debates are taking place simultaneously.

1. The Utility and Reliability Debate

Utilities and grid planners argue that Texas needs major transmission investment to maintain reliability and support future growth.

2. The Property Rights Debate

Landowners continue to raise concerns about eminent domain, loss of productive land, and long-term impacts on family property.

3. The Due Process Debate

Questions have emerged regarding public notice, route additions, hearing timelines, and whether affected landowners are receiving meaningful opportunities to participate.

4. The Water and National Security Debate

Proposed routes have raised concerns involving aquifer protection, military installations, radar systems, and foreign-owned land near critical infrastructure.

5. The Economic Necessity Debate

Perhaps the newest and most significant question is whether the entire 765-kV buildout is the most cost-effective solution available.

This issue appears to be gaining traction.

Recent reports indicate that opponents are now asking regulators to slow the process and more fully examine the underlying assumptions behind the Permian Basin Reliability Plan before additional approvals move forward.

Whether those efforts succeed remains to be seen.

What is clear is that this is no longer simply a routing dispute.

It has become a statewide conversation about energy policy, infrastructure planning, property rights, ratepayer costs, water resources, and who gets to decide the future of rural Texas.

This is one to watch closely.

Sources:

https://www.texaspolicy.com/tppf-releases-new-research-on-ercots-765-kv-strategic-transmission-expansion-plan/

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/article/landowners-participate-in-transmission-hearing-22232399.php

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!

A recent Promethean Action Saturday Wrap-Up raised an interesting question: What is going on when President Trump says he and Bernie Sanders are “not that far apart” on certain economic issues, while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent criticizes what he called America’s “slavish devotion to free markets”?

The point of the video is not that Trump has changed sides politically. The argument is that Trump and his economic team are operating from a different economic framework altogether — one that is neither modern free-market globalism nor socialism.

The program begins with Trump’s comments on his way to Wisconsin. When asked about Bernie Sanders, Trump said many Sanders voters came over to him because, economically, “we have certain things that aren’t that far apart.” The video argues that the important phrase is Trump’s reference to “an economic plan.” According to Promethean Action, Trump was not simply being polite to Sanders. He was pointing to a different way of thinking about the economy.

The video then connects Trump’s remarks to comments from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who said that for the past 25 years, America had a “slavish devotion to free markets” and assumed that things would automatically “recalibrate.” Bessent’s point, as presented in the video, is that many Americans lost faith because they felt trapped in a rigged system where hard work no longer reliably led to a stable, comfortable life.

Promethean Action frames this as a major break from the usual political debate. Instead of arguing only about “free markets” versus “socialism,” the video says there is another system — an older American system — based on national production, industrial strength, tariffs, infrastructure, finance, and directed economic policy.

The video also points to recent economic numbers as evidence that this approach is beginning to work. It cites a May jobs report showing 172,000 non-farm payroll jobs added, compared to lower expectations. It also notes that March and April job numbers were revised upward. The host emphasizes that factory jobs were only up by 7,000, which is positive but still modest. The point made is that manufacturing growth does not immediately appear in payroll numbers. According to Peter Navarro, the sequence is: first orders, then production, then capital investment, and only then more robust hiring.

In other words, the video argues that after decades of de-industrialization, a manufacturing comeback would first show up in orders, machinery, construction, overtime, and productivity before it shows up fully in job totals. Promethean Action presents this as the early stage of Trump’s broader economic plan.

The program describes that plan as industrial policy. That means government does not simply step back and trust the “invisible hand” to solve everything. Instead, the government takes an active role in protecting and supporting producers and workers. The video specifically mentions tariffs, tax policy, directed investment, and possible public-private partnerships, including the idea of the government taking stakes in large AI companies, similar to what has been discussed regarding Intel.

Another theme is skilled trades. The video says young Americans are beginning to respond to the administration’s skilled trades initiative, citing claims that 60% of Gen Z Americans plan to pursue skilled trade work this year, that many college graduates are pivoting toward trades, and that skilled trade pay can match or exceed many four-year-degree paths without the burden of large college debt.

The historical centerpiece of the video is Henry Clay’s “American System.” Peter Navarro is quoted describing Clay’s view that a nation unable to produce what it needs is vulnerable. Clay’s American System, as summarized in the video, followed Alexander Hamilton’s earlier vision and included tariffs to build industry, finance to fuel growth, and infrastructure to tie the country together as one economic unit.

Promethean Action argues that this system helped turn the United States from a young, developing nation into the world’s strongest economy. The video says America later drifted away from this model, outsourcing its strength and calling it progress.

The closing argument is that the American System is neither free trade, nor socialism, nor the modern global free-market model. It is presented as a distinct American tradition focused on national sovereignty, production, infrastructure, and the ability of the country to make what it needs.

The video’s main message is that Trump, Bessent, Navarro, and others are not merely criticizing the old system. They are pointing back to an older American economic tradition — one Promethean Action believes has been hidden, forgotten, or deliberately pushed out of the national conversation.

Whether one agrees with the full interpretation or not, the argument is worth understanding: the current economic debate may not be only about capitalism versus socialism. It may also be about whether America should return to a national-development model that prioritizes production, workers, infrastructure, and economic sovereignty.

Resources:

Trump Agreed With Bernie, Bessent Trashed the Free Market, What’s Going On?! (13-minute video)

Henry Clay and the Architecture of American Strength (>3 minutes)

https://www.prometheanaction.com/

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

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

This article is great, but a bit long. I wanted to share the overall perspective and philosophy, so I asked AI to summarize. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read the whole thing, just that I don’t want anyone to miss out because of length. :-)

Happy 250th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence!

Executive Summary: Is the American Experiment Legitimate?

This article asks a question Americans do not often state plainly but debate constantly: Is our system of government legitimate? In other words, who has the right to govern, by what authority, through what institutions, and for what purpose?

The author argues that the Declaration of Independence gives the American answer. Government is legitimate when it secures the equal, God-given rights of the people — including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — and when it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

But the Declaration does not say legitimacy comes merely from a particular form of government. Its first concern is function: Does the government protect the rights of the people? The American Revolution, in this view, was not simply a rejection of monarchy as a form. It was a rejection of a government that had stopped securing the rights of the colonists and had begun violating them.

Still, the article explains that consent logically points toward representative government and majority rule. If all people are equal, and if government requires their consent, then permanent minority rule cannot be legitimate. Lincoln later made this point clearly: without majority rule, the alternatives are anarchy or despotism.

Yet majority rule also creates a serious danger. A majority can become oppressive. It can use political power to trample the rights of minorities or individuals. So the central American problem was never simply, “How do we let the majority rule?” It was, “How do we allow majority rule while still protecting the rights of everyone?”

That is where the Constitution comes in. The author argues that the Constitution was designed to meet the test posed by the Declaration. It accepts the necessity of majority rule but restrains narrow, temporary, or passionate majorities through checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, two houses of Congress, and an independent judiciary.

In this view, the Constitution’s slowness is not a defect. It is part of the design. The system forces negotiation, compromise, and coalition-building before power can be exercised. That can be frustrating, but it helps prevent rash decisions, mob rule, and the tyranny of bare majorities.

The article highlights James Madison’s warning in Federalist No. 10: the greatest danger in a republic is a majority faction that sacrifices the public good or the rights of others to its own interests. The Constitution was built to preserve self-government while reducing that danger.

The author also emphasizes that Congress is supposed to be the main arena for this negotiation. When Congress fails to do its job, the whole constitutional system suffers. The president and courts have important roles, but lawmaking is meant to happen through representative deliberation.

The article’s bottom line is that America’s constitutional system has endured not because it is efficient, but because it is legitimate, adaptable, and protective of liberty. Its structure helps balance majority rule with equal rights — a difficult but essential task.

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its founding, the question is not whether the Declaration and Constitution are still capable of meeting the challenges ahead. The real question is whether Americans still understand them well enough, and value them enough, to preserve and use them wisely.

Source: https://thedispatch.com/next-250/american-experiment-declaration-constitution-founders/

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!

Did you know:

• A Harris county judge candidate is endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which Gov. Abbott designated as a foreign terrorist organization and transnational criminal organization under Texas law?

• Judges denied a request from landowners seeking more time in the Bell County East–Big Hill 765-kV transmission line proceeding?

• USDA launched the Great American Cotton Plan to revitalize the cotton farm economy and bring back clothing that doesn’t contain plastics?

• U.S. manufacturing has expanded for five straight months?

• The truth about battery storage as ‘back-up power’?

Getting the whole story can be a challenge, but these days it’s important to try. Media almost always has a spin and, like in contracts and life, sometimes what’s not said is more important that what is said.

With elections (and election integrity including voter ID), data centers, and Islam in our daily news - and time sensitive, I encourage you to be informed and engaged especially - but not only - on these concerns.

One of Texas’ Most Powerful County Offices Is on the Ballot

Few people pay close attention to county judge races — but they should.

In Texas, a county judge plays a major executive role, presides over commissioners court, helps shape budgets and emergency management, and has significant influence over local government priorities.

That is why the Harris County Judge race matters so much. Harris County is the largest county in Texas and one of the most politically important counties in the country. In November, Democrat Letitia Plummer will face Republican Orlando Sanchez for the open Harris County Judge seat.

One reason this race is drawing attention is Plummer’s endorsement from CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Gov. Abbott designated CAIR as a foreign terrorist organization and transnational criminal organization under Texas law citing ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. (CAIR denies the allegations.)

Voters are right to ask serious questions about candidate endorsements, policy positions, and ideological beliefs. As to religion, Americans are free to worship, or not, as they choose.

Local races are more important than many realize. And we’ve certainly seen the power judges wield since Trump began his second presidential term.

Source:

https://texasscorecard.com/local/cair-backed-muslim-candidate-seeks-harris-county-judge-post/

Texas Landowners Say They Were Denied More Time in a 765-kV Transmission Line Case

A major Texas transmission line fight is moving fast — too fast for many landowners.

Administrative law judges denied a request from landowners seeking more time in the Bell County East–Big Hill 765-kV transmission line proceeding. The landowners say hundreds of miles of new route links were added after earlier public meetings, affecting roughly 1,300 to 1,400 properties and ~2,000 owners who were not given the same early opportunity to participate in the routing discussion.

This is not a small neighborhood power line. The proposed Bell County East–Big Hill project is part of Texas’ 765-kV Strategic Transmission Expansion Plan, intended to move large amounts of electricity across the state, including toward the Permian Basin. LCRA says the project endpoints are about 199 miles apart, and the filed application includes 122 alternative routes ranging from about 214 to 244 miles.

The landowners asked for more time. The administrative law judges said no, citing the 180-day approval deadline under Texas law.

That is the part Texans should pay attention to.

Whether someone supports or opposes 765-kV transmission, the process matters. When state-backed infrastructure projects move on compressed timelines, landowners can find themselves racing to understand maps, deadlines, legal filings, intervention rules, and potential impacts to their property.

This is bigger than one transmission line.

It raises a basic question: Are Texas landowners being given a real opportunity to participate before decisions are made that may affect their land for generations?

Local property rights are not a side issue. They are the foundation of self-government.

Source:

https://texasscorecard.com/state/judges-deny-landowners-more-time-in-765-kv-transmission-line-hearing/

Cotton is now part of the Make America Healthy Again conversation?

The USDA just announced the Great American Cotton Plan, aimed at helping American cotton farmers, rebuilding domestic textile manufacturing, and encouraging more demand for products made with American-grown cotton.

The surprising part is the health angle.

USDA says support for natural fibers like cotton aligns with MAHA because Americans are increasingly concerned about microplastics and synthetic materials in everyday products. Cotton is natural, breathable, biodegradable, and grown by American farmers. Many synthetic fabrics, by contrast, are petroleum-based and can shed microplastics.

USDA also says nearly 70% of the world’s textile fibers are now synthetic, most of them plastic-based materials such as polyester.

This is about more than cotton.

It touches American farming, rural jobs, domestic manufacturing, supply chains, consumer choice, and the growing concern over synthetic materials in everyday life.

There are fair questions about subsidies and government involvement, but this is worth watching.

Sometimes the “big picture” shows up in something as ordinary as the shirt on your back.

Source:
https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2026/05/28/usda-launches-great-american-cotton-plan-revitalize-cotton-farm-economy

You’re not seeing this in the ‘news. U.S. Manufacturing Has Expanded for Five Straight Months.

Here is a good-news economic signal worth watching.

According to the Institute for Supply Management, U.S. manufacturing expanded again in May 2026, marking the fifth straight month of growth. The Manufacturing PMI came in at 54.0, the highest reading since May 2022. Any number above 50 signals expansion.

Even better, new orders rose to 56.8, and production remained in expansion territory at 54.3. That matters because new orders often tell us whether businesses expect continued demand.

This is the kind of trend people who care about rebuilding America’s industrial base should watch closely.

Peter Navarro tells us that this reflects the early impact of Trump’s tariff-and-tax strategy: making foreign production less attractive while encouraging investment here at home.

It’s the beginning of broader American manufacturing recovery.

However… Manufacturing employment is still below the expansion line, though it improved from April. So this is not yet a full manufacturing boom. It is a real signal, and the positive results will continue. Think of it like a partially prepared meal; the best is yet to come.

After years of concern about offshoring, hollowed-out supply chains, and dependence on foreign production, it takes time for the manufacturing expansion to get to the employment piece.

Sources:

Peter Navarro Substack:
peternavarro.substack.com/p/a-trumpnomics-trend-manufacturing

Official ISM May 2026 Manufacturing PMI PDF:
https://www.ismworld.org/globalassets/pub/research-and-surveys/rob/pmi/irun202605pmi.pdf

ISM May 2026 Manufacturing roundup:
https://www.ismworld.org/supply-management-news-and-reports/news-publications/inside-supply-management-magazine/blog/2026/2026-06/ism-pmi-reports-roundup-may-2026-manufacturing/

Reuters report:
https://www.reuters.com/business/us-manufacturing-activity-scales-four-year-high-may-ism-says-2026-06-01/

Battery Storage May Help the Grid — But It Is Minimal

Battery storage is often described as if it were backup power.

That is only partly true. Battery Energy Storage Systems, often called BESS, can provide power quickly when the grid is strained. In Texas, ERCOT says battery storage is already helping during peak demand hours, improving reliability, and lowering some energy costs. NERC also says ERCOT’s summer reliability outlook improved partly because thousands of megawatts of battery storage were added in 2025 and early 2026.

So this is not an argument that battery storage is useless.

But battery storage is also not the same thing as a power plant.

A battery does not create electricity. It stores electricity produced somewhere else and releases it later. Pumped hydro storage works in a similar way: electricity is used to pump water uphill, and then water is released later to generate power. In both cases, storage shifts electricity from one time period to another which can be helpful for balancing the grid.

But it is not the same as having firm, dispatchable generation that can keep running through long periods of low wind, low sun, extreme weather, or multi-day emergencies.

Communities are being asked to host more battery storage projects, often with unrealistic promises about reliability, renewable integration, and emergency support. Those claims need to be examined carefully.

While battery storage may help stabilize the grid and provide short-duration support, it should not be oversold as generation, fuel security, or long-duration emergency backup.

Citizens must understand the difference before more land is committed, more substations are expanded, and more infrastructure is stacked across rural communities.

Sources:

Energy Security and Freedom Substack:
energysecurityfreedom.substack.com/p/battery-storage-isnt-backup-storage

EIA: Energy storage for electricity generation:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/energy-storage-for-electricity-generation.php

EIA: Utility-scale batteries and pumped storage return about 80% of stored electricity:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46756

ERCOT: Understanding Battery Energy Storage Systems — Current and Future:
https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/02/02/4-Understanding-Battery-Energy-Storage-Systems-Current-and-Future.pdf

NERC 2026 Summer Reliability Assessment:
https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/our-work/assessments/nerc_sra_2026.pdf

FERC 2026 Summer Energy Market and Electric Reliability Assessment:
https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/presentation-report-2026-summer-energy-market-and-electric-reliability-assessment

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!

I guess most of us are comfortable by now knowing about and talking about the ‘cloud’. Because information magically appears from thin air when we ask for it, we don’t consciously recognize the ‘hard’ (as in hardware) truths.

AI and data centers are in the news every day. There are basically two sides, and the battle is basically between people/communities and businesses, though governments have a part to play too.

Is the future digital?

Our photos are in the cloud. Our documents are in the cloud. Our banking, shopping, entertainment, and increasingly our artificial intelligence tools all exist in a vast digital world.

The language itself creates a certain image. A cloud sounds light, invisible, doesn’t get in our way.

But the cloud has a physical footprint. A very large one.

Most people think of AI as software, somewhere ‘out there’. In reality, AI depends on an enormous amount of physical land and hardware. The “cloud” is not floating in the sky. It is a growing network of massive buildings filled with computer servers, cooling systems, electrical equipment, backup power systems, water infrastructure, and the land required to support them. Think of a mobile home manufacturing plant, or the home location of Tesla cars.

Not so long ago, data centers were usually discussed as economic-development projects. Communities were told they would bring investment, tax revenue, and jobs. That’s the developers perspective. And maybe government because it always courts large commercial businesses.

But as projects have grown larger and more numerous, citizens have started asking a different set of questions.

How much water will these facilities use?
Where will that water come from?
How much electricity will they require?
Who pays for new transmission lines and infrastructure?
How many permanent jobs will actually be created?
What happens to farmland, ranchland, and rural communities when industrial-scale development arrives?

And perhaps most importantly:

Who gets to make these decisions?

These questions are no longer coming from a handful of activists or isolated communities.

Across America, local governments are debating moratoriums. Citizens are organizing opposition groups. State officials are raising concerns. National media outlets that once covered data centers as economic-development stories are increasingly covering them as political issues.

The shift is significant. The debate is no longer primarily about AI. The debate is increasingly about the infrastructure being built around AI. That infrastructure extends far beyond a single building.

Data centers require electricity. Electricity requires generation/transmission. Transmission requires land, permits, rights-of-way, and public acceptance.

Many facilities require substantial access to water for cooling systems.

Battery electrical storage systems (BESS) are increasingly being proposed to support reliability and flexibility.

What may seem a simple technology project often turns out to be a much larger infrastructure project.

This is especially true in Texas.

Because of its size, energy resources, available land, and business-friendly environment, Texas has become one of the nation’s primary destinations for data-center development. New projects continue to be proposed across the state.

And Texans are also want answers to the same questions being raised elsewhere in the country. Not whether technology should advance. But whether communities should fully understand the tradeoffs before major decisions are made.

Water has emerged as one of the most common concerns.

In region after region, citizens are asking how much water these facilities require, how usage is measured, and how priorities will be determined between people and industries. Agriculture, residential users, industry, power generation, and data centers all depend on the same finite resource.

Agriculture deserves particular attention.

Unlike many forms of development, productive farmland and ranchland are not replaceable. Water diverted from agricultural production, land removed from farming and ranching, and changes to rural communities can have consequences that last for generations. There must be land and water to grow food and support cattle, pigs, etc.

Electricity is creating a similar concern.

Utilities, grid operators, and planners are discussing extraordinary future demand projections. New generation projects, battery-storage systems, transmission corridors, and industrial power users increasingly appear in the same planning documents. Even when forecasts are uncertain, the infrastructure implications remain substantial.

Some citizens have raised an additional concern that extends beyond land, water, and electricity. What the growing collection of data may ultimately mean for privacy, surveillance, and individual freedom.

The common thread running through all of these issues is a desire for transparency. People need to know what is being built, to understand the costs and benefits, to know how decisions are made.

And they want a meaningful voice in decisions that may reshape their communities for decades. That is citizenship.

Whatever these projects ultimately bring - prosperity, problems, or some combination - NOW is when the questions need answers.

Once the land is converted, the infrastructure is built, the water commitments are made, and the transmission corridors are established, there is no do-over.

We only get one chance to get this right.

For readers who want to explore the specific projects, studies, moratoriums, maps, case studies, and source material behind this article, I’ve included this research supplement (PDF).

Ai Infrastructure Research Supplement 05302026

245KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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:

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

Some housekeeping…

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

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

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

I want to give credit to Ronald Dodson. He wrote a great article, “The Flaws in Mass Democracy Continue to be Made Manifest”.

My shorter version is below.

The runoff is over, and AG Paxton is the Republican candidate for that Texas Senate seat.

The reason this is still worth talking about is because conservatives must stand together and, in November, vote Republican all the way down the ballot.

You know the Democrats will, and under-voting elects Democrats.

Texas cannot afford to allow Talarico a U.S Senate seat.

Vote for the person who can do the job best

One of the biggest mistakes voters can make is confusing personal pleasantness with political virtue.

That confusion was especially clear in the Texas Senate runoff, where many people were tempted to frame the choice in overly simple terms:

John Cornyn was considered by many to be the respectable, experienced, “nice” institutional man. Some called him ‘cardboard’.

Ken Paxton was considered immoral (Who is free from sin?) even though he is a proven and successful conservative fighter.

Cornyn had Senate seniority, bipartisan relationships, and the calm, polished style that Washington rewards. Paxton carries obvious baggage, but he also has a reputation for fighting aggressively for conservative priorities.

Some voters were deciding based on the less controversial or the stronger fighter?

But politics is not a contest in niceness or morality. It is about rule, justice, courage, prudence, loyalty, and whether elected officials actually defend the people and principles they were sent to protect.

A man can be uncontroversial yet function as an agent of surrender.

Manners may matter. Character may matter. But in a degraded political culture, “morality” is rare, for sure.

Conservatives have rightfully become skeptical of “statesmanship” as Washington defines it. Establishment approval is typically for the ineffective, the one who goes along to get along.

The real contrast is not “nice” versus “immoral.”

It is this:

Cornyn was the danger of ‘respectable’ unfaithfulness to his constituents.

Paxton represents the willingness to fight for Texas conservatives and the political good that must be defended.

Here’s the question:

Who is more likely to preserve and advance the good that must be defended - with courage, prudence, justice, and proven self-command to be effective?

That question exposes the hollowness of respectability when it is detached from faithfulness.

This is the hard reality of politics in a decadent age. A polished instrument may be pointed in the wrong direction. A compromised instrument may be pointed at the right target. Prudence does not get to pretend either fact is irrelevant.

Conservative voters are not necessarily choosing vice over virtue when they reject the polished establishment candidate. They may be rejecting a form of public virtue that has become detached from loyalty, courage, and the actual defense of their communities.

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

Some housekeeping…

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

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

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

Life is sometimes crazy-busy. Keeping up with government/politics on top of the day-to-day is a challenge.

Trump Is Moving Fast - and the Constitution Is Still Working

President Trump is not governing like a traditional politician.

That is one of the reasons many Americans voted for him.

For years, millions of citizens watched Washington drift from one crisis to another: open borders, rising debt, foreign entanglements, weakened manufacturing, energy uncertainty, censorship concerns, activist bureaucracies, and a growing sense that ordinary Americans were being ignored by the very government meant to serve them.

Trump came back into office with a very different mindset.

He is not acting like someone who believes America has ten more years to slowly study every problem.

He is acting like someone who knows the window is short, the problems are serious, and the people who elected him expect action.

That is not “business as usual.”

But for many Americans, “business as usual” is exactly what failed.

A Businessman’s Sense of Urgency

Trump’s approach often looks more like a turnaround strategy than a standard political program.

In business, when something is broken, you push for results. You look for leverage. You identify weak points. You pressure bad actors. You renegotiate bad deals. You move capital. You challenge assumptions.

That seems to be how Trump views much of Washington and America’s position in the world.

On trade, he is pressing for better terms for American workers and producers.

On manufacturing, he is trying to bring critical industries back home.

On energy, he is focused on strength, reliability, and independence.

On the border, he is treating national sovereignty as a basic duty of government.

On foreign policy, he is using pressure and unpredictability to push adversaries and allies toward good-for-America decisions.

On the administrative state, he is challenging the idea that unelected agencies should be allowed to run the country with little accountability.

On Big Tech, censorship, and institutional power, he is responding to concerns many Americans have had for years: that government, corporations, media, universities, and outside organizations have become far too intertwined.

That does not mean every tool will be perfect. It does mean the larger goal is clear: America should be strong, sovereign, productive, secure, and governed by the people again.

Why Many Conservatives Support This Approach

Many grassroots conservatives are not looking for polite speeches about decline. They are looking for someone willing to reverse it.

We have watched factories leave.
We have watched borders be ignored.
We have watched speech become policed.
We have watched federal agencies grow more powerful and abuse that power.
We have watched corporations take taxpayer benefits while pushing political agendas.
We have watched international organizations and foreign governments gain influence while American citizens are told to be patient.

So when Trump moves quickly, we do not see recklessness. We see long-overdue urgency.

We see someone finally saying: America does not have to accept managed decline.

That is why his style resonates even when it makes Washington uncomfortable.

Conservatives Can Disagree Without Losing the Big Picture

Of course, conservatives will not agree on every method.

Some are more supportive of tariffs. Others worry tariffs can raise costs or expand executive power.

Some like aggressive use of federal leverage to rebuild strategic industries. Others worry about government getting too involved in private business.

Some want the executive branch to move faster. Others want Congress to reclaim more of its constitutional role.

Those are real debates, and they are worth having.

But disagreement over tools should not obscure the larger point: most conservatives agree that America needs secure borders, fair trade, energy strength, economic independence, constitutional courts, less bureaucracy, election integrity, and government that serves citizens rather than managing them.

That shared goal matters more than faction labels.

Some policy-minded conservatives talk about a blend of limited government, free markets, traditional values, and constitutional restraint. That is not incompatible with Trump’s actions. Conservatives should always be careful about government power.

And grassroots conservatives are also right to say that old slogans are not enough when powerful institutions are already using their power against the people.

The answer is not weakness.

The answer is bold action with constitutional accountability.

The Founders’ Balance Is Still Working

This is where the Founders’ wisdom becomes important. They designed a system where power would be divided, challenged, checked, and corrected.

That is why we have Congress, and courts, and why presidents can act, but their actions can also be challenged.

Sometimes lawsuits serve a legitimate constitutional purpose.

Courts may properly rein in overreach or require cleaner legal footing.

And sometimes, frankly, lawsuits are used as political obstruction. They become delay tactics by people who lost the election but still want to stop the agenda voters chose.

The constitutional system is complex by design. It allows action, resistance, review, correction, and accountability. That can be frustrating when urgent reform is needed, but it is also part of what keeps America from becoming ruled by raw power alone.

Urgency and Restraint Can Work Together

Trump’s urgency is one of his strengths.

America needs leaders who understand that weakness invites danger, delay protects the status quo, and entrenched institutions rarely reform themselves.

Bold action can survive constitutional review, adjust where necessary, and keep moving. Keep the ultimate goal in view: restoring self-government, national strength, and liberty for the American people.

Trump is moving fast because America needs movement.

Conservatives’ task is to support bold action that restores the Constitution’s promise.

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

Some housekeeping…

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

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

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

I saw this Texas Scorecard article today and I did some digging on the status of ‘new parks’ the voters approved in 2023.

• Addie Hovland reports that the recently acquired Silver Lake Ranch in the Hill Country is set to become a new state park.
  

• Located between Uvalde and Rocksprings, the Silver Lake Ranch encompasses almost 54,000 acres. When it opens, it will be the second-largest state park in Texas.
  

• The Palo Pinto Mountains State Park—the first new state park in 25 years—just opened in March.

https://texasscorecard.com/state/new-state-park-coming-to-the-texas-hill-country/

More Parks May Sound Nice — Until You Count the Acres and the Tax Dollars

In 2023, Texas voters approved Proposition 14, a constitutional amendment creating the Centennial Parks Conservation Fund.

The ballot pitch was easy to love: more state parks. Who is against parks?

But what too many voters didn’t see what that vote actually created: a $1 billion fund for purchasing land and developing new Texas state parks. That means more land moved into state government ownership and control, more long-term obligations, and more tax expenses that do not end when the ribbon is cut, are ongoing in perpetuity.

The newest example is Silver Lake State Park.

Texas Parks and Wildlife recently announced that the nearly 54,000-acre Silver Lake Ranch, located in Edwards and Kinney counties between Uvalde and Rocksprings, will become Texas’ second-largest state park. The state purchased the undonated portion for $11.85 million, using the Centennial Parks Conservation Fund and sporting-goods-sales-tax revenue. Both the Fund and the sales tax come directly from YOUR pocket.

Once any land becomes government owned, including state parks, taxpayers are on the hook for the long-term obligations. Roads, gates, trails, parking, restrooms, water access, staffing, law enforcement, wildfire response, rescue operations, resource studies, visitor facilities, repairs, and ongoing maintenance all cost money. And we know how government spends taxpayer money - not very efficiently.

None of this stops costing money. Ever. Period.

And the $1 billion fund is not the whole cost. By law, the Centennial Parks money is restricted; it cannot be used for TPWD salaries, benefits, administration, routine operations, or park maintenance. So even after land is acquired and developed, Texans still have to pay for staffing, repairs, roads, emergency response, utilities, and long-term upkeep.

There is another cost voters rarely hear about: land moved into state ownership generally comes off the local property-tax rolls. Private ranch land, even with agricultural exemptions, still supports counties, schools, roads, emergency services, and local government. State-owned parkland - not so much.

Sometimes tourism helps. A new park can bring visitors, hotel stays, restaurants, gas purchases, and outdoor recreation dollars. That is the positive side, but it benefits specific persons while ALL taxpayers support the expense side.

And it is not the same thing as private land staying productive, taxable, and locally controlled. Nor does tourism erase the long-term cost of turning tens of thousands of acres into government-owned and controlled land.

And Silver Lake is just the latest case.

Palo Pinto Mountains State Park, more than 4,800 acres between Abilene and Dallas-Fort Worth, opened to visitors in 2026 after years of development. Under the new Centennial Parks program, Texas has also acquired Bear Creek State Park in 2025, where planning is underway for public access as staff members are hired. Texas has also acquired land (2025) for Post Oak Ridge State Park near Lampasas, including two ranch properties costing $47.1 million, and added 3,702 acres to Enchanted Rock State Natural Area.

In other words, the machinery is already moving.

But the broader concern still matters too.

Texas is growing rapidly. Land is becoming more expensive. Housing is harder to find, much less afford. Rural communities are under pressure from reservoirs, transmission corridors, data centers, battery storage projects, conservation programs, and other land-intensive plans.

Every acre matters - cost taxpayers money, don’t produce food, use water for other than actual people, limits access (100% of parks’ acreage are not accessible to the public).

So. While more parks may sound nice, and it’s too late to undo this Constitutional amendment, we still have to pay attention and try to control what we can.

Where does it stop? Or does it stop at all?

Government programs almost never shrink themselves. Once a fund exists, the momentum usually moves in one direction — more land, more projects, more spending, more staffing, more maintenance, and more justification for the next request.

Today it is Silver Lake. Tomorrow it may be another ranch, another conservation corridor, another “once-in-a-generation opportunity,” another “critical habitat,” another “public access” project, another billion-dollar request.

And each time, voters will be ‘fooled’ by the shortcut ‘explanation’ of ‘more parks’ (or whatever) but not told the whole story.

How much private land can we afford to have the government own and control?

To make the point, we keep losing land, but owing increased taxes for the land we lost. Where will that lead us? Serfdom?

And who gets to say, “Enough”? If we, the residents/voters/citizens, do not stand up and speak out, it won’t stop. It won’t even slow down…

Sources:

Texas Parks and Wildlife — Silver Lake State Park announcement:
https://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?req=20260527a

Texas Parks and Wildlife — Centennial Parks Conservation Fund:
https://tpwd.texas.gov/state-parks/park-information/parks-fund

Texas Parks and Wildlife — Palo Pinto Mountains State Park opening:
https://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?req=20260225b

Texas Constitution / SJR 74 ballot language:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/SJ00074F.pdf

Texas Legislature — SB 1648 Bill Analysis / Centennial Parks Conservation Fund:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/analysis/html/SB01648F.htm

Texas Tribune background on the $1 billion park fund and new park acquisitions:
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/28/new-texas-state-parks-centennial-land-funding/

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

Some housekeeping…

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

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

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

Many are waking up to the danger of Islam’s goal to make Sharia law the law of the USA, to replace the Constitution and all laws, federal and state.

Here is a story from PolitiBrawl.

On Saturday (5/16/2026), tens of thousands of Britons flooded the streets of London.

Families. Veterans. Christians carrying wooden crosses. Iranian exiles flying the Lion and Sun flag. Ordinary people who believe their concerns over immigration, cultural fragmentation, public safety, and national identity have been ignored for too long.

Two days later, the political establishment is still trying to process what happened.

The march was not simply about Britain.

It was a warning to the rest of the West.

Because many conservatives now believe the same tensions Britain spent years dismissing are beginning to emerge here in the United States, and nowhere more visibly than Texas.

And unlike Britain, Texas still has time to confront these battles before they become even more politically and culturally combustible.

The Blueprint

Britain did not wake up one morning and suddenly arrive at this moment. It happened gradually. Policy by policy. Court ruling by court ruling. Accommodation by accommodation. While the media mocked anyone who raised concerns and political leaders assured citizens everything was under control.

Now Texas is watching similar fights emerge in real time.

Forty miles northeast of Dallas, a 402-acre Muslim-centric development known as EPIC City, later rebranded “The Meadow,” has become the center of one of the most explosive political and legal battles in the country. The proposed development includes more than 1,000 homes, a mosque, retail infrastructure, senior living, and a K–12 Islamic school. In promotional material later deleted after public backlash, organizers described the project as intended to become “the epicenter of Islam in America.”

As conservatives sounded the alarm, developers quietly rebranded the project and the lawsuits quickly followed.

Attorney General Ken Paxton sued over the project’s proposed utility district. HUD launched an investigation. A state bench trial is now scheduled for November 2026.

This is not internet rumor or social media paranoia. This is an active, documented legal and political fight unfolding inside Texas.

Meanwhile, the East Plano Islamic Center, tied to the broader EPIC network, has experienced such rapid growth that overflow rooms have become necessary during services. Some Muslim publications have described the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex as “the Medina of America” as the region’s Muslim population and infrastructure continue expanding. Reports estimate the area now contains more than sixty Sunni mosques.

Houston is not far behind. Greater Houston reportedly has more than two hundred mosques and Islamic centers and is home to the largest Muslim population in the Southern United States.

This is not a small or temporary demographic shift. It is a growing and permanent population building institutions, schools, financial systems, and political influence while Texas leaders scramble to determine where the legal and cultural boundaries actually are.

The Shadow Court

EPIC City is not the only front in this fight.

In April 2026, Attorney General Ken Paxton announced what he called a landmark investigation into a Dallas-based group known as the Islamic Tribunal. According to the Texas Attorney General’s office, the organization claimed authority over disputes involving Muslim Texans and falsely represented that its rulings carried “the approval of the Texas Judicial system.”

Paxton argued the matter crossed from protected religious arbitration into potentially deceptive representations about legal authority inside the state of Texas.

His warning was direct:

“Anyone or any entity that seeks to subvert the codified state and federal laws of this country will be stopped dead in their tracks. This is America, and we will not be governed by Sharia law.”

Following the investigation, reports indicated the Islamic Tribunal modified portions of its website and public descriptions of its role.

Britain did not arrive at parallel legal and cultural systems through one dramatic declaration. It happened quietly, institution by institution, while political leaders insisted citizens ignore what was plainly visible.

Your Tax Dollars, Their Schools

Texas conservatives fought for years to pass school choice.

The Texas Education Freedom Accounts program, a $1 billion initiative providing families with roughly $10,000 per student for private education, was championed as a lifeline for parents fleeing failing public schools. It was sold to much of the Texas electorate as a parental rights revolution, particularly for Christian and Jewish families seeking alternatives to collapsing public education.

Then the lawsuits started.

Islamic schools connected to CAIR affiliates sought access to taxpayer-funded vouchers. Governor Greg Abbott publicly opposed extending funds to schools he believed promoted radical ideology. Paxton backed the effort. State officials initially refused certification.

Then a federal judge intervened.

The court ordered Texas officials to reconsider the applications and extend the window for Islamic schools to apply. Following court intervention, Islamic schools were allowed back into the application process, forcing Texas into a political and legal battle many conservatives never expected the program to create.

Many Texas voters never imagined the school choice fight would end here. But once the state created a taxpayer-funded education system without meaningful ideological boundaries, the expansion became inevitable. Courts, not voters, would ultimately decide who qualifies.

Now Texas taxpayers are being forced into a debate many never realized they were having in the first place: should the public be compelled to fund religious and ideological systems fundamentally at odds with the values many supporters believed the program was created to protect?

Britain learned this lesson years ago through publicly funded faith schools and parallel educational systems. Texas is now confronting the same debate at extraordinary speed.

The CAIR Battle

In late 2025, Governor Abbott designated CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations under Texas authority, though neither group holds that designation at the federal level.

Abbott also directed the Texas Department of Public Safety to open criminal investigations into both organizations and their affiliates.

CAIR immediately challenged the actions in federal court.

At the same time, schools tied to CAIR-linked networks were seeking access to Texas taxpayer-funded voucher dollars after judicial intervention forced reconsideration of their applications.

The contradiction was impossible to ignore: federal courts were expanding access to taxpayer-funded programs while Texas officials were simultaneously investigating the very organizations tied to them.

The Communities Texans Are Now Debating Openly

Texas Congressman Chip Roy said publicly during the primaries that parts of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex have become areas where some Texans feel increasingly culturally displaced and uncomfortable.

The media immediately labeled the comments Islamophobic.

But residents in Collin County have continued showing up to public meetings expressing fears over rapid demographic and cultural transformation they believe was never openly debated with voters.

Britain has spent years dealing with similar tensions while political leaders and media outlets dismissed critics as extremists until frustration finally exploded into the open.

Texas still has time to confront these issues democratically before resentment hardens into the kind of political fracture now consuming parts of Europe.

The Ballot and the Battle

Early voting is already underway for the May 26 Texas Republican Primary Runoff.

These races are not abstract political theater. They will shape how Texas handles immigration, religious liberty, school choice, local governance, and the growing legal battles surrounding developments like EPIC City.

Ken Paxton has aggressively positioned himself at the center of nearly every major fight described above. He sued over EPIC City’s utility district, launched the Islamic Tribunal investigation, fought the inclusion of Islamic schools in the voucher program, and pushed investigations tied to CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Paxton has built a reputation among conservatives for engaging fights that most officials sidestep, taking on legal battles directly rather than issuing carefully worded statements from a distance.

What separates him is not just aggression. It is strategy. Paxton understands how institutional battles are actually won. He identifies pressure points, forces legal confrontations, and moves aggressively while others are still debating whether the fight is even worth having.

Whether the issue is immigration, election integrity, federal overreach, Big Tech censorship, or now the growing battles surrounding EPIC City and parallel legal systems, Paxton repeatedly takes fights most politicians avoid and drags them directly into court and public view.

These elections matter far more than many Texans seem willing to admit.

And if conservatives sit home assuming someone else will handle it, they do not get to wake up years from now asking how Texas changed so quickly.

Political transformation rarely happens all at once. It unfolds election by election, race by race, while millions stay disengaged believing someone else will hold the line.

What London Just Showed The West

The people who marched in London were not marching because they hated their country.

They marched because they loved it.

They believe Britain is still worth fighting for.

For years, ordinary citizens watched political leaders dismiss concerns over immigration, cultural fragmentation, public safety, and national identity as backward or dangerous. Now those same issues are exploding into the open across Britain, forcing conversations the establishment spent years trying to shut down.

The crowds in London were not signs of surrender. They were signs of awakening.

Britain is fighting back.

And Texas should pay attention to both the warning and the awakening.

Texas is not Britain. Not yet.

Texas still has elections that matter. Texas still has leaders willing to fight publicly over these issues. Texas still has a population capable of confronting these debates before the fractures deepen further.

But the window does not stay open forever.

Every court ruling narrowing state authority narrows it further. Every institutional battle delayed narrows it further. Every voter who stays home because politics feels exhausting narrows it further.

Britain waited too long to confront many of these battles openly. Now millions of Britons are demanding their leaders finally listen.

Texas still has the opportunity to act before the fight becomes that intense.

Texas still has a ballot.

Use it while it still matters.

Source: politibrawl.substack.com/p/britains-warning-for-texas-you-cannot

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

Some housekeeping…

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

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

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

I love that you love America. That you support the Constitution. That you believe in our Judeo-Christian founding.

But I have to tell you - Right now that is not enough.

Words do not win elections.

Conservatives have spent years watching the country change and asking, “How did this happen?”

The honest answer is uncomfortable: it happened while too many good people were busy, distracted, trusting, or waiting for someone else to handle it.

We waited for a better candidate.
We waited for the next election.
We waited for Washington.
We waited for President Trump.
We waited for the Republican Party.

But self-government was never supposed to work that way.

The left knows something conservatives must now relearn: political power is not built only in presidential election years. It is built every day, locally, patiently, and persistently.

They organize.
They train volunteers.
They recruit candidates.
They attend meetings.
They register voters.
They build local networks.

And they stay united.

They shape language, institutions, and narratives long before most people realize a battle is underway.

Conservatives can be strategic, active and effective. We must understand the basic truth: organized people usually defeat disorganized people.

And right now, too many conservatives are informed but inactive.

We know what is wrong.

We share articles.

We complain about the media.

We talk to people who already agree with us.

We wait for others to fix local problems.

That is not happening.

A social media post is not a ground game.

A rally is not a precinct strategy.

A podcast is not a school board majority.

A complaint is not a plan.

If we want better government, safer communities, honest elections, protected property rights, strong families, and constitutional limits on power, then we have to show up.

That means knowing who represents us locally.
It means reading city council and school board agendas.
It means attending county meetings.
It means asking questions before decisions are final.
It means encouraging good people to run for local office.
It means supporting candidates early, not after they are already outspent.
It means registering voters, reminding neighbors about elections, and helping people understand what is at stake.
It means building trusted local communication networks so citizens are not dependent on national media or last-minute campaign mailers.

Most of all, it means accepting that citizenship - which should be an action verb - is not something we can outsource.

Not to Washington.
Not to the RNC.
Not to President Trump.
Not to commentators.
Not to “someone else.”

The Constitution gives us the structure of self-government, but citizens have to use it.

Freedom survives when ordinary people do ordinary civic work consistently.

The person who attends the meeting matters.
The person who reads the agenda matters.
The person who asks, “Who benefits and who pays?” matters.
The person who helps one neighbor understand an issue matters.
The person who notices a bad policy before it becomes law matters.

Conservatives do not need to be loudest.

We need to be active and consistent.

We need to be better prepared.

We need to be more present.

We need to stop reacting after the damage is done and start acting while decisions can still be influenced.

There is no time to remain passive.

The November election matters - big time.

And so does the next city council meeting.

So does the next school board vote.

So does the next county agenda.

So does the next local candidate who needs support.

So does the next neighbor who feels alone and needs to know someone else is paying attention.

This country will not be saved by spectators.

It will be strengthened by citizens.

And that means us, my fellow Americans.

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

Some housekeeping…

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

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

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

I cannot stress this enough. Conservatives know that America is at a critical inflection point. Liberals act it. Conservatives are outvoted, and that is our own responsibility.

If we don’t vote our values, we are handing our government, our very freedoms over to the people whose values are, frankly, not American.

Please share and help others wake up to the VALUE of voting.

The Value of Your Vote

We all understand that money has value. But money can still be wasted.

You can leave it unused when it is needed. You can throw it away. You can spend it on junk and feel good for a few minutes, only to regret it later. Or you can use it wisely, invest it carefully, and let it help build something better.

Your vote works much the same way.

Your vote has value — but that value can be wasted. It can be wasted by staying home. It can be wasted by voting blindly. It can be wasted by letting slogans, ads, fear, guilt, or empty promises do your thinking for you.

That is why voting matters. But informed voting matters even more.

A campaign promise is a little like the picture on the front of a food package. It is designed to get your attention. It may look appealing. It may even be partly true. But responsible people do not buy only from the picture on the front. They look at the label. They ask what is actually inside.

Voters should do the same.

What has this candidate actually done? What does this proposal actually cost? Who pays? Who gains power? Who loses freedom? Does this policy strengthen families, communities, property rights, and personal responsibility — or does it create more dependency on government?

Those questions matter because choosing a candidate is not just choosing a name. It is choosing a method of governing.

“Free” is one of the most expensive words in politics. Free programs, free benefits, and free promises may sound compassionate, but government does not create resources out of thin air. Someone pays. Often we pay through higher taxes. Sometimes through less independence.

A wise voter looks past the word “free” and asks, “What is the real cost? Who pays?”

We also need to stop believing the lie that one vote does not matter. Many state and local races are decided by margins so small they could fit inside a neighborhood, a church group, a civic club, or a few families who simply reminded each other to show up. The smaller the election, the larger your vote becomes.

That is why staying home is not neutral. When you do not vote, you do not stop government from acting. You allow other people to decide what government will do.

Someone will decide your taxes.

Someone will decide who governs your schools.

Someone will decide who sits in judgment.

Someone will decide local ordinances, public safety priorities, bond debt, land use, water policy, infrastructure, and election procedures.

The only question is whether your values will be represented in those decisions — or whether you will live under decisions made by people who showed up when you stayed home.

Because votes have value, election systems must also protect that value. Eligible voters should be properly identified. Ballots should be handled securely. Choices should be presented honestly. Votes should be counted carefully and transparently. A lawful vote should not be diluted by fraud, carelessness, coercion, or deception.

But even a secure election system cannot save a country from careless citizenship. If voters are uninformed, manipulated, intimidated, or shamed into voting against their own judgment, the mechanics may work while the wisdom fails.

So yes — get off the sofa and vote.

But do not vote casually. Do not vote because an ad made you angry, a slogan made you feel virtuous, or someone told you that asking questions was hateful.

Study the choices. Think through the consequences. Talk with people you trust. Make your list. Then go vote.

Encourage others to vote too — not by pressuring them, but by helping them understand what is at stake. Share good resources to help them make good decisions.

Many Americans before us paid a far higher price for freedom than most of us are being asked to pay today. The least we can do is learn, think, vote, and help others do the same.

Your vote has value.

Do not throw it away by staying home.

Do not waste it by using it carelessly.

Use it wisely — because freedom is protected only by citizens who are informed and who show up.

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

Some housekeeping…

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

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

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

Hi friends,

We are watching a major national shift in who controls essential resources.

Food, water, land, energy. These issues are so critical today. Addressing them cannot be put off. Every day more food and water resources are ‘taken’ from actual availability to humans. Machines, technology, commercial uses are being prioritized.

Water, land, energy, food, and local control are becoming interconnected pressure points — and citizens must be involved before the decisions are made for them.

This article has several examples, including two for Texas.

I encourage you to be informed and engaged. This is a battle for food and water.

People are more important than Big Tech and Big Business.

The New Water Wars Are About More Than Water

A recent article about a “water war” in Nevada may sound like a distant dispute over a drying lake. But it is much more than that. It is a warning about a larger fight already spreading across the West — and increasingly into Texas.

Water disputes are no longer just about drought or conservation. They are becoming battles over land, farming, housing, energy, food security, industrial growth, and local control. When water becomes scarce, the question is not simply who gets wet and who goes dry. The question becomes who gets to decide the future of a community.

For generations, Americans assumed water would simply be there — for farms, towns, cities, power plants, recreation, and growth. But many systems were over-promised, overbuilt, or planned during times when people believed supply would keep up with demand. Now those assumptions are colliding with reality.

That is why these “water wars” matter. Water determines whether land can be farmed, whether towns can grow, whether homes can be built, whether food can be produced, and whether industry can operate. When water becomes scarce, every decision about water becomes a decision about power.

The basic question is simple:

When essential resources become scarce, who gets to decide who keeps their water, who loses their land, and who pays the price?

Walker Lake, Nevada: A Warning and a Lesson

Walker Lake is one example of what happens when historic water use and modern public-resource concerns collide.

The lake’s decline is real. Long-term reductions in inflow have harmed the fishery, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the surrounding local economy. Mineral County’s concerns are not imaginary. A dying lake affects more than scenery. It affects property values, tourism, local businesses, wildlife, and the identity of a community.

But the solution is not simple.

Upstream users have long-established water rights. Many of those rights were legally adjudicated long ago. If government can retroactively rewrite settled rights whenever public pressure shifts, then property rights become far less secure.

That is why the Nevada Supreme Court’s 2020 decision was important. The court recognized public-trust concerns, but it held that Nevada’s public trust doctrine does not allow the state to simply reallocate already-adjudicated water rights. In other words, the state could not use the public trust doctrine as a shortcut to undo vested rights after the fact.

That matters far beyond Nevada.

A society that values property rights must be careful when it uses phrases like “public benefit,” “environmental necessity,” or “regional need.” Those phrases may describe real concerns. But they can also become broad justifications for taking from one group to benefit another.

The better approach in Walker Lake appears to be the one now being pursued: voluntary acquisition of water rights from willing sellers, restoration work, conservation, and negotiated solutions.

That model is not perfect. It can still raise concerns about pressure, funding sources, market distortion, or long-term land-use consequences. But it is far better than treating property rights as obstacles to be overridden.

The lesson from Walker Lake is not that the lake should be ignored.

The lesson is that restoration must respect rights.

Great Salt Lake: The Same Question at a Larger Scale

Utah’s Great Salt Lake raises a similar issue on a much larger stage, with declining water levels threatening wildlife, public health, recreation, mineral industries, and surrounding communities. Utah has leaned toward conservation programs, water leasing, and voluntary arrangements to help more water reach the lake, which may be a more property-rights-friendly approach than forced reallocation. But citizens should still watch the fine print: who funds the programs, who controls the water, whether participation remains truly voluntary, and what happens to farms and communities when water is permanently redirected.

The Colorado River: When the Paper Promises No Longer Match the Water

The Colorado River is the national example everyone should watch.

Seven states, tribal nations, farms, cities, hydropower systems, recreation economies, and Mexico all depend on a river that has been asked to do too much for too long.

The current operating rules for Lake Powell and Lake Mead are being reconsidered for the post-2026 period. That process is not just a technical water-management exercise. It is a battle over priorities.

Who cuts first?
Who is protected?
Who has senior rights?
How are tribal water rights handled?
How much water should agriculture retain?
How much should cities conserve?
How low can reservoirs fall before hydropower and water delivery systems are threatened?
What role should the federal government play when states cannot agree?

The Colorado River shows what happens when generations of legal, political, and economic decisions depend on assumptions nature may no longer honor.

When there is enough water, everyone can live with ambiguity. When there is not enough water, ambiguity becomes conflict.

The Rio Grande: Texas Is Already in the Fight

Texans do not have to look to Nevada, Utah, or Colorado to understand the stakes.

The Rio Grande has become a continuing source of conflict among states, farmers, and even nations. Texas has been involved in long-running disputes with New Mexico and Colorado over Rio Grande water. Separately, the United States and Mexico have clashed over treaty obligations involving water deliveries that affect Texas farmers.

This matters because water is not simply an environmental issue. It is a food-security issue. It is a border issue. It is an economic issue. It is a sovereignty issue.

If farmers do not receive the water they were promised, crops fail.

If border-region agriculture collapses, communities suffer.

If treaties are not enforced, states are left carrying the burden.

If cities and industries grow while agriculture is squeezed, the public may not notice until food prices, rural economies, and land values are already affected.

Water policy is not abstract. It shows up at the grocery store, in property taxes, in utility bills, in land values, and in whether families can remain on the land.

Klamath Basin: When Legal Claims Collide

The Klamath Basin in Oregon and California shows how complicated water disputes become when farmers, tribes, endangered species protections, federal agencies, and dam-removal efforts all collide. Each side can point to a real concern: farmers see livelihoods and contracts, tribes see treaty rights and cultural survival, environmental advocates see damaged ecosystems, and agencies see legal duties. The warning is that once courts, federal agencies, and overlapping legal mandates dominate the process, local communities can lose control over decisions that directly affect their land, water, and future.

Texas: Reservoirs, Data Centers, Transmission Lines, and the New Resource Rush

Texas is not immune to any of this.

In fact, Texas may be entering one of the most important water-and-land policy periods in its history.

Population growth is increasing demand.

Industrial development is increasing demand.

Data centers are increasing demand.

Energy infrastructure is increasing demand.

Reservoir proposals are increasing land-use conflict.

Transmission lines are raising new eminent-domain and land-fragmentation concerns.

Battery storage projects are raising safety, zoning, and decommissioning concerns.

CO₂ pipelines, hydrogen projects, and other industrial corridors are adding another layer.

Each issue may appear separate when viewed alone. But they are not separate. They are connected by land, water, energy, and control.

A proposed reservoir is not just about water storage. It is about condemning land, flooding farms, relocating families, changing tax bases, and permanently altering counties.

A data center is not just about technology. It is about water demand, electricity demand, tax abatements, grid strain, land use, noise, wastewater, and long-term community character.

A transmission line is not just about electricity. It is about easements, property values, land fragmentation, routing decisions, and whether rural landowners are being asked to sacrifice for distant users.

A battery storage project is not just about grid support. It is about fire risk, emergency response capacity, toxic plume concerns, land encumbrances, decommissioning obligations.

A CO₂ pipeline is not just about climate policy or corporate infrastructure. It is about eminent domain, rupture risk, emergency evacuation, water use, federal tax credits, and should private companies be allowed to take land for projects that primarily benefit private financial interests.

These are pieces of a larger transformation, not isolated projects.

Who gets to decide the future of our land, our water, and our communities? If we want to have a seat at the table:

The first step is awareness. The second step is showing up. Read the notices. Attend the meetings. Ask the questions. Request the studies. Follow the money. Talk to your county commissioners. Contact your state legislators. Do not wait until the project map is finalized, the permit is approved, or the landman is at the door. Water is life — but control of water is power. And in a free country, power must never be allowed to drift too far from the people.

The Pattern: Public Benefit, Private Cost

In nearly every one of these disputes, the public is told the project serves a larger good: future water supply, grid reliability, economic growth, environmental restoration, or regional planning. Sometimes those claims may be true. But “public benefit” should never end the conversation. It should begin the scrutiny.

The real question is who receives the benefit, who carries the burden, and whether the people most affected had any meaningful say before the decision was made.

That matters because property rights are not just about owning land on paper. They are about independence — the ability to farm, build, drill a well, operate a business, pass land to children, or say no when a powerful entity wants what a family has worked for.

When water rights are weakened, land rights are weakened. When land is condemned, easements carve up property, or regulations restrict productive use, ownership can become hollow. And when agencies or regional planners make decisions far from the affected community, local self-government is weakened too.

Local citizens may not have every technical answer, but they know their roads, wells, farms, flood patterns, emergency-response limits, and community needs. Their knowledge deserves respect.

Water policy is also food policy. If agricultural water is reduced, farmland is retired, or rural land is converted to industrial or conservation use, food production can be affected. A country that cannot protect its farmers eventually becomes dependent on others.

This does not mean every project is bad or every conservation effort is wrong. It means we should be very careful before treating local land, water, and food production as acceptable collateral damage for someone else’s idea of progress.

A Better Path

There is a better way to handle these conflicts.

Essential uses should be clearly prioritized. Drinking water, food production, public safety, and basic community needs should come before speculative or optional uses.

Major water and land-use decisions should be transparent from the beginning — not after agencies, developers, or regional planners have already narrowed the options.

Local citizens should receive notice early enough to matter. A public meeting after the preferred route, site, or project has already been chosen is not meaningful participation.

Private property should not be treated as an inconvenience. If land or water is taken, restricted, or impaired, compensation should be full, fair, and timely.

Voluntary solutions should be prioritized whenever possible. Water leasing, willing-seller transactions, conservation incentives, infrastructure repair, reuse, desalination where appropriate, and better planning should all be considered before forced takings or heavy-handed restrictions.

Industrial water demands should be audited before approval.

Counties and local governments should have enough authority to pause and study major impacts before projects are approved.

Finally, “public benefit” should be defined narrowly and honestly. It should not become a magic phrase that turns private losses into acceptable collateral damage.

This Is About the Future

America needs water, energy, food, housing, technology, and infrastructure. But those needs should not become blank checks for government agencies, corporations, utilities, or regional planners to bypass the people most affected.

Progress should not mean local communities are ignored. Restoration should not mean property rights are erased. Economic development should not mean rural landowners quietly absorb the cost while others receive the benefit.

The new water wars are about more than water. They are about whether America can solve hard problems while still respecting property rights, local control, food security, constitutional limits, and the dignity of ordinary citizens.

Walker Lake is a warning. Great Salt Lake is a warning. The Colorado River is a warning. The Rio Grande is a warning. Klamath is a warning. Texas is already giving us warnings of its own.

The question is whether we will pay attention before the decisions are made — or only after the land is taken, the water is redirected, and the people most affected are told it is too late.

Find more details and needed answers below the Sources.

Sources:

Walker Basin Conservancy — Walker Lake restoration and water acquisitions
https://www.walkerbasin.org/water
https://www.walkerbasin.org/restoration

Nevada Supreme Court / Mineral County public trust decision
https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2020/75917.html

Nevada Independent coverage of Walker Lake public trust ruling
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-supreme-court-says-state-cannot-change-water-rights-for-public-trust-a-loss-for-environmentalists-county-seeking-to-bring-more-water-to-walker-lake

Utah Great Salt Lake legislative actions
https://greatsaltlake.utah.gov/legislative-actions

Utah HB 410, Great Salt Lake water leasing
https://le.utah.gov/~2026/bills/static/HB0410.html

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation — Colorado River Post-2026 Operations
https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/index.html

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation — Post-2026 Draft EIS news release
https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/news-release/5263

Oregon Department of Agriculture — Klamath Basin water update
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/ORODA/bulletins/3f88a05

Native American Rights Fund — Klamath Tribes water rights
https://narf.org/cases/klamath-tribes-water-rights/

Reuters — U.S.–Mexico Rio Grande water dispute
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-mexico-meet-tuesday-over-water-dispute-2025-12-09/

Politico — Mexico/Rio Grande water deliveries and Texas farmers
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/08/trump-tariffs-mexico-rio-grande-water-00682220

Politico — Mojave Desert groundwater / Cadiz project
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/18/facing-colorado-river-crunch-trump-admin-eyes-socal-groundwater-00414098

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1504646098057732

Questions Citizens Deserve Answers To

Citizens do not have to be water-law experts, engineers, or policy insiders to ask basic questions. In fact, these are exactly the questions that should be answered before major decisions are made — not after permits are approved, routes are selected, funding is committed, or landowners are told the project is already moving forward.

Who benefits from this project?

Who pays for it?

Who loses land, water, access, income, or future use of their property?

Who carries the safety risk?

Is the stated need proven, or merely projected?

What alternatives were studied?

Was conservation considered first?

Was infrastructure repair considered first?

Was a smaller or less harmful option considered?

How much water will the project use, and where will that water come from?

What happens during drought?

Will the project compete with households, farmers, ranchers, or existing local businesses?

Were local citizens notified early enough to influence the outcome?

Were county officials, emergency responders, landowners, and affected communities consulted before decisions were made?

Are private property rights protected?

Is compensation full, fair, and timely?

Who will own or control the land, water, easement, pipeline, transmission corridor, reservoir, facility, or infrastructure in the future?

What happens if the project fails, changes ownership, becomes obsolete, or creates long-term damage?

Those questions are not anti-growth. They are pro-accountability.

Condensed/Summaries

Walker Lake, Nevada: lake restoration vs. settled agricultural water rights.

Great Salt Lake, Utah: environmental/public health crisis vs. agricultural and municipal water use.

Colorado River: seven states, tribes, Mexico, cities, farms, and hydropower fighting over a shrinking system.

Rio Grande: Texas farmers harmed by water shortfalls tied to interstate and international obligations.

Klamath Basin: farmers, tribes, endangered species, and federal agencies colliding over water priority.

Mojave/Cadiz groundwater: private water markets, desert groundwater, and transfers to thirsty regions.

This Is Not Just About Drought

Drought is part of the story, but it is not the whole story.

The deeper problem is that many water systems across the American West were over-promised, overbuilt, overallocated, or over-relied upon. Rivers were divided on paper. Reservoirs were planned. Irrigation systems expanded. Cities grew. Industry moved in. Environmental obligations increased. Tribal claims and treaty rights gained renewed legal force. And population growth continued as if water would always be there.

Now the math is changing.

In some places, the water was legally promised to more users than the system can reliably support.

In other places, cities and industrial developers are competing with agriculture.

In still others, federal agencies, courts, conservation groups, utilities, and regional planning boards are asserting more influence over decisions that directly affect local landowners.

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

Some housekeeping…

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

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

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