Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
When President Trump first began talking about Greenland, as expected, his opposition went nuts over it. They accused the president of seeking to invade Greenland, planning to make it a U.S. territory or even a state, and they claimed that what he was wanting to accomplish was not doable. Fortunately, President Trump could care less what his opposition says, or thinks. He said what he said, and then he took the actions necessary to make a deal… because that is what he does. He makes deals.
The key to any deal is to start high, and that’s what Trump did regarding Greenland. The critics sounded like those accusing the guy who asked for a high price on his used car of being greedy. You don’t ask for more than what a car is worth because you expect to get it, but because you know that during the negotiations the other side will work towards getting you to reduce your offer – so you start high so that you can end up with what you want. That’s all Trump does. And regardless of how high he went with Greenland, first of all it got them talking, and second of all he wound up getting exactly what he was aiming for.
President Donald Trump’s sweeping agreement with Denmark and Greenland gives the United State permanent military rights on the Arctic Island, an expansion of the existing Pituffik Space Base (which supports missile warning and space surveillance), overflight and landing rights for aircraft over and on anywhere on the island (with U.S. forces receiving full movement authority between military areas by land, air, and sea), the ability to establish a communications structure that includes undersea cables, the right to establish ports, and the right to access critical minerals and vast energy resources. The deal also locks out China, Russia, and any other actor that may attempt to exploit Greenland in the way that China was doing with the Panama Cana before Trump stepped in. The world scoffed when Trump opened with “America must own Greenland,” and in the process they came to celebrate giving him the deal he wanted from the beginning.
Each leader signed a copy of the pact and then warmly shook hands for the cameras.
“The United States has a friend that has always kept our word, an ally you have always been able to rely on, and this day represents a milestone in our long-standing cooperation,” said Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.
“We are, have been, and will remain a steadfast friend of the United States and a part of the Western alliance. Your security is our security, and our security is your security,” added Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said regarding the deal, “”They recognize, at the end of the day, that they have a national security concern here as well,” Rubio said. “Denmark and Greenland understand that they don’t have the financial means necessary to defend Greenland if it were to come under attack or be threatened. The United States has the power to do that.”
Two military bases are already planned, Narsarsuaq in southern Greenland (a former Cold War era military base) and Mestersvig on the island’s remote eastern coast. Greenland will also play a major role in President Trump’s planned Golden Dome missile-defense system – a critical feature since Russia has invested heavily in their northern military infrastructure as China has repeatedly sought economic and strategic influence in the region (despite not bordering the Arctic). The agreement also disallows any non-NATO nation from establishing any base, unmanned installation, or persistent troop presence unless all three governments (U.S., Denmark, and Greenland) approve it. In addition to that, even commercial investments by adversarial nations are disallowed.
The agreement preserves Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self-determination, and if ever Greenland accomplishes independence, the new country will automatically remain a member of NATO.
The biggest part of the deal is that there is no expiration date, and there is no cost to the American taxpayer. Changing the terms of the deal require mutual consent.
In the end, Trump did not need to buy Greenland, invade Greenland, or acquire Greenland to secure what he wanted. All of that was just a part of starting the negotiations with a high bid. In the end he got what he wanted, the protections America needed, and all of it is on paper as a part of a never-ending agreement.
Addressing the United Nations General Assembly, Trump said the agreement with Denmark and Greenland would expand America’s military presence and restrict access by U.S. adversaries.
“We will have the complete ability to do what is necessary to defend the American continent and also Europe and other places,” Trump said. “We will be building two very major military bases.”
U.S. forces were previously allowed on Greenland under the terms of a 1951 defense treaty. America maintained 17 installations and over 10,000 personnel on Greenland at the height of the Cold War. This deal by President Trump represents the first major expansion of the U.S. military infrastructure in the region since the breakup of the Soviet Union.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The trial of Lindsay Clancy caught the attention of Americans because of how horrific the crimes were. A mother, after sending her husband off on an errand, killed her three young children (ages 3, 5, and 8), one by one, by strangling them. Then, she tried to commit suicide by jumping out a second story window of her home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. But, she survived the fall, sustaining injuries that left her permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Prior to her decision to kill her children and attempt suicide, Lindsay Clancy knew she was mentally messed up. She saw psychiatrists. She called a suicide hotline. She even went to an emergency room, but was turned away. She was taking a prescribed cocktail of medications that didn’t seem to help, and the list of medications, according to her lawyers, put her into a mental condition that made is to that she didn’t know what she was doing.
Anyone who kills their own children, one by one with the living ones watching as the first is being killed, is definitely out of their mind, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she was so out of her mind that she was completely incapable of stopping and saying to herself, “Hey, this is wrong.”
The prosecution believed she premeditated the whole thing, and was aware enough regarding what she was doing. The defense argued she heard a voice that told her to kill her children, she believed the voice, and she did it; but, she was unable to stop herself.
Eleven jurors believed she was not guilty by reason of insanity, and one decided against that verdict.
The thing about America is we operate on Natural Rights. Checks and balances exist across the board so that the mob can’t simply get their way. Even in our justice system, the Founding Fathers placed strict restrictions on the mob, believing that even the accused has rights and that the right to innocence until absolutely proven guilty must be preserved. A jury cannot convict with a simple majority, or a super-majority. It requires a fully unanimous decision. And in a jury trial, the judge cannot legally do or say anything to influence the jury’s decision. Even the guilty has rights. They are innocent until proven guilty. The proof has to be so compelling that all of the jurors cannot come to any decision other than a guilty verdict, beyond reasonable doubt. If only one juror is not sure about the guilt, or the lack of guilt, it ends with a hung jury and the process takes a different path.
Is Lindsay Clancy guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? I wasn’t in the courtroom, so I don’t know every single thing that the jury saw in there, or their discussions in their chamber. But, based on what I saw and what I know, in my opinion it seems like she’s guilty. She did admit to killing her children. She premeditated her actions and then either felt guilty or wished to escape the consequences, so she tried to commit suicide. As the prosecutors argued, she planned the murders and understood the wrongfulness of her actions.
One juror agreed with that assessment. One juror decided that a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity was not the proper decision. So, he held out.
Eleven jurors, nine women and two men, all white, decided Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity. One juror, Michael P. Desronvil, the only “person of color” on the jury panel, decided the verdict by the other eleven was in error. He believed she was guilty.
In interviews later, Desronvil said that eight of the jurors behaved like “activists” who wanted her found not guilty from the first day of deliberations. After more than 38 hours of deliberation, and no unanimous verdict, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4, 2026 – three and a half years after the actual crime.
Desronvil said he concluded she was guilty based on the evidence presented in court. He believes she knew what she was doing. But, from day one, eight of the jurors were going for “not guilty,” and they were not willing to be swayed. Originally, one other juror agreed with Desronvil, but “caved in at the last moment.”
Think about that for a moment. Eight jurors, before the evidence was even presented, decided they were going to vote not guilty, and according to Desronvil, “acted like activists” regarding their early decision.
Sure, I can see believing certain things going in, “leaning in a particular direction” one might say; but as a juror your job is to come to your conclusions based on the evidence. Nothing is final until the final argument has been presented. Perhaps, along the way the evidence confirmed what those eight were already thinking in their minds. I can see that. But, the “acted like activists” comment caught my attention. Considering the fact that they are all women, and from what I’ve heard “hard-left, progressive” women from a political standpoint, we need to start asking questions about whether or not they were as unbiased as our judicial system requires.
This whole thing becomes even more concerning when you take into consideration that Desronvil feels like he is now being targeted because “he is a black Republican with conservative values.” His lawyer dubbed him as “an American Hero and Champion of Justice” who loves the USA and President Trump.
Desronvil said, according to the New York Post, “I didn’t have any doubts. As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present… Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she [Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”
His fellow jurors have indicated otherwise, claiming Desronvil appeared to acknowledge reasonable doubt during deliberation, which led to the judge repeatedly explaining to the jury pool the meaning of “reasonable doubt.”
Now, thanks to the backlash from the leftist side of the aisle, Desronvil is lying low in an undisclosed “rural area” in New England.
Plymouth County prosecutors are now trying to decide if to retry Clancy, or perhaps to try to resolve the case without another jury trial. The alternative is to accept that there are three dead children, but there’s no avenue available for winning the case. Lindsay Clancy is being held at Tewksbury State Hospital in Massachusetts as the prosecution decides what to do next in the case.
Now, Desronvil faces death threats, doxxing, and harassment by a lunatic mob, not just from the eight jurors who decided Clancy was guilty from day one, but from thousands of liberal-progressive women expressing support for Clancy and who believes she should not be held accountable for her actions.
As the cacophony around the country gets louder and louder, the question becomes, Why are so many people not only trying to defend Clancy, but to the point of being a rabid lunatic mob towards Desronvil?
Cultural Marxism has led our culture to a point where many Americans have been programmed to be anti-family, and with abortion as normalized as it has become over the last half-century, a segment of America has come to believe that a child’s life does not hold the kind of value that it ought to. A child’s death, after 64 million abortions since Roe v. Wade in 1973, is being treated by the culture as secondary to a mother’s distress. The thinking seems to be that if a woman can kill her child for whatever distressful reason she can come up with during pregnancy, why can’t she take the same action after they’re born? Postpartum mental illness is a reality, but killing one’s children is still heinous and wrong, and the killer should still be criminally responsible.
In biblical times, being with child was considered a blessing. Now, it’s seen as a curse; especially if you can come up with an excuse to feel that way. Abortion, the murder of children in the womb, has become so normalized that now we have a countrywide mob that seems to think that if we come to the conclusion that Clancy is guilty, we are somehow targeting women and their “right” to abortion and any other female thing they can clamp on to their argument. Somehow, in their minds, it is okay to kill another human being if someone is going through something tough in their life, and they are mentally off-balance as a result. Abortion has taught us to think about our feelings, and desires, and how tough it might be to have the child before even considering that the life of a child is in the balance.
Life is tough. Things are a struggle. Things don’t always go our way. But that doesn’t mean we should avoid taking responsibility for our actions by killing our children. As I have told my own children, “suck it up and do what’s right. Take responsibility for your actions, don’t blame everyone else or everything else, and do what’s you’ve gotta do. In the end, the decision is still yours, and the consequences of those decisions are also yours.”
Unfortunately, thanks to a culture war that the virtuous segment of society seems to be losing, we have a segment of society that has placed “feelings” above everything – even the life of a child. I get it. Things were tough for Clancy for whatever reason, and I think we should have compassion for anyone who’s going through tough times or even tough mental challenges – but that still doesn’t make it okay to commit a crime – especially murder – and even more so when it comes to the precious lives of your children. Mental suffering or the level of difficulty regarding whatever is going on is not, and should not be, justification for doing something wrong, be it murder, theft, or whatever else we wish to throw on that pile of issues. The fact is, a mother killed her own children, and a segment of the population has been championing the killing of one’s children through abortion for over fifty years in America. In the name of feelings and “but, you’ve got to understand,” they are doing more than merely defending the barbarous practice of abortion. They’ve been pushing it and celebrating it. In a number of states, the practice is even being legally okay’d up to the moment of birth. What did we think was going to happen when the envelope got pushed that far? The culture has been programming mothers through indoctrination from all directions that a mother’s stress is more important than the life of a child in the womb, and now we have eight angry female jurors and a massive mob claiming that the child’s humanity vanishes in the face of fear, stress, depression, or any other mental situation the mother might be experiencing.
NO! Three children died that day. Three children were supposed to be safe in their own home, safe in the hands of their own mother, and now because of a culture that celebrates the death of children those three children will never grow up, never experience the wonders of life, and never be parents of their own.
They were murdered by the hands of their own mother, and a man is being targeted and threatened because he was the only sane person on the jury who saw it for what it was: Murder. That Clancy was fully capable of preventing herself from committing those murders. Instead, she planned the killings, carried out the killings, and then tried to escape the consequences through suicide.
She, in my opinion, should have been found guilty as charged by all twelve jurors, and should have been dealt the death penalty.
Anything less makes us no more than reasonless animals who have turned our backs on our children, and are willing to let them die like some ritualistic bloody sacrifice dedicated to some evil entity who lusts for our embrace of a culture of death.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In 2007, working with fellow constitutional originalists, I calculated that approximately 85% of the federal budget was unconstitutional. Today, after examining the complete federal budget, I estimate that figure has dropped to 83%. Despite its nominal drop, it still remains at an alarming percentage that reveals how far we’ve strayed from our constitutional foundations.
The problem isn’t merely academic. It represents a fundamental betrayal of the constitutional design that once limited federal spending to under 5% of GDP for most of American history. The transformation from that limited government to today’s behemoth wasn’t accidental. It was the result of what I call “Hamilton’s Heist.”
The Founding Fathers, or at least the ones who debated against Alexander Hamilton’s ideas, envisioned a system where states would act as fiscal guardians of the Republic. Under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, direct taxes had to be apportioned among the states according to population, meaning that the states collected federal taxes and could theoretically refuse payment if Washington exceeded its constitutional authority. It gave the states a direct voice regarding the federal budget, a system that provided a natural check on federal power that kept spending remarkably constrained.
Alexander Hamilton changed everything. As early as 1779, at just 24 years old, he advocated for a national bank. By 1791, as Treasury Secretary, he articulated the doctrine of “implied powers” in order to achieve his aim. Thomas Jefferson argued against implied powers, correctly asserting that any powers possessed by the federal government must be expressly enumerated in the text of the United States Constitution. Hamilton countered with his radical idea, claiming that the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause granted Congress authority to do whatever it deemed necessary to achieve its ends, even if not explicitly enumerated.
This Hamiltonian philosophy directly contradicted the views of not only Thomas Jefferson, but Father of the Constitution James Madison, and other Founders who believed that if the Constitution had intended to grant such important powers as erecting corporations, “it would have been expressly mentioned.” Jefferson noted that one reason the Convention rejected granting Congress power to issue corporate charters was fear that “then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities… adverse to the reception of the Constitution.”
The consequences of Hamilton’s victory were profound. His First Bank of the United States lasted only twenty years before constitutional challenges forced its closure, but it established the precedent for perpetual national debt as a feature rather than a bug in our system. Hamilton believed that “a central economic system with managed debt was critical to the United States’ ability to undertake commerce” and proposed that the federal government assume state debts, making them “equal partners in the federal debt.” He would later argue that the states would then be more likely not to secede at first sign of trouble, considering they shared responsibility in the overall debt.
The Hamiltonian transformation accelerated dramatically in 1913 with two constitutional changes: the 16th Amendment, which eliminated apportionment and allowed direct federal taxation of citizens; and the creation of the Federal Reserve System, which privatized money creation. Before these changes, federal revenue averaged just 3% of GDP. Today, federal receipts have increased to 16.5% of GDP, and expenditures have reached 24.0% of GDP.
The 17th Amendment was then put in place to remove the states’ voice from the U.S. Senate – a measure put in place to ensure the state legislatures no longer had the ability to challenge the heist of the American monetary system begun more than a century before by Alexander Hamilton.
The economic consequences extend beyond mere numbers. The Federal Reserve creates money to purchase government debt, which dilutes the dollar’s purchasing power and imposes what amounts to a hidden “inflation tax” on all citizens. When the Fed creates money to buy treasuries, the cost is distributed across the economy through price increases rather than through direct taxation.
Even if we eliminated all unconstitutional spending, a massive 83% of the budget, we would still need approximately 76% of current direct tax revenues to fund the remaining constitutional functions. This reveals how deeply dependent our government has become on direct taxation of its citizens.
Restoring our constitutional fiscal order would require a incremental methodical approach. First, we must gradually reduce unconstitutional spending through sunset provisions and attrition rather than abrupt cuts that would create economic upheaval. Second, we need to reform monetary policy by reducing the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and implementing rules-based monetary policy. Third, we should transition from direct federal taxation back to state-based apportionment. Finally, we must consider constitutional amendments to restore these fiscal constraints.
This restoration would be more than an economic exercise. It would hearken a return to the constitutional design that once made America exceptional. The Framers of the Constitution understood that when government can tax and spend without constraint, liberty inevitably erodes. They created a system of checks and balances to prevent this outcome, but those checks have been systematically dismantled over the past century.
The urgency of this moment cannot be overstated. With the national debt exceeding $40 trillion and annual interest costs now surpassing defense spending, we are approaching a point of no return. The time has come to reverse Hamilton’s Heist and restore the constitutional fiscal framework that once kept federal power in check and preserved American liberty for future generations.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A recent unanimous ruling by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court represents more than just a troubling custody dispute. It signals a dangerous shift in how our legal system views religious liberty in America. The decision to grant a father veto power over his daughter’s religious upbringing, effectively banning a mother from taking her child to church or reading the Bible to her, strikes at the very heart of our constitutional republic’s founding principles.
The case involves Emily Bickford and Matthew Bradeen, unmarried parents of a 13-year-old girl. After their separation, Bickford converted to Christianity and began attending Calvary Chapel Greater Portland with her daughter. When Bradeen objected to his daughter’s church involvement, he took legal action, ultimately securing sole authority over his daughter’s religious upbringing. The Maine Supreme Court upheld this decision, arguing it served the child’s “best interest” because she experienced “fear and anxiety” from church teachings about Hell and the rapture.
What makes this ruling particularly alarming is how the court treated mainstream Christian beliefs as potentially harmful. The court allowed an expert witness to describe Calvary Chapel as a “cult” and “closed social system” despite it being a mainstream evangelical denomination with well-established doctrines. The court even placed scare quotes around basic Christian teachings about Heaven, Hell, and Christ’s return, treating them as strange and dangerous ideas rather than time-honored religious beliefs.
This case is not an isolated incident but part of a growing pattern of hostility toward Christians in America. Across the country, we’re witnessing churches burning to the ground with minimal media coverage, Christian business owners being forced to violate their consciences, Faith-based organizations facing discrimination for their beliefs, and Parents being penalized for raising their children according to their religious convictions.
The media’s relative silence on church arsons, compared to their intense coverage of incidents involving other religions, demonstrates a troubling double standard. In Michigan alone, multiple churches have suffered suspicious fires, including LaGrand Avenue Christian Reformed Church where four firefighters were injured battling the blaze. Similar incidents have occurred in Ohio, Florida, Mississippi, and Idaho.
The Maine ruling directly contradicts fundamental American principles. Our Founding Fathers established religious freedom as the first right in the Bill of Rights for a reason. They understood that a society without religious liberty is not truly free. The First Amendment explicitly prohibits government interference with the free exercise of religion, and all of the state constitutions contain similar language, yet the Maine Supreme Court has effectively punished a mother for exercising this fundamental right.
The court’s reasoning that allocating religious authority to one parent doesn’t “intrude” on parental rights defies logic and precedent. By privileging the father’s non-religious perspective over the mother’s Christian faith, the court has effectively established a hierarchy of beliefs, placing secular viewpoints above religious ones.
RELATED: A NATION FORGED BY FAITH AND FREEDOM
Benjamin Franklin famously stated that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” He understood that liberty requires moral restraint and that virtue, often nurtured by religious communities, is essential for self-governance. When courts begin treating basic Christian doctrines as psychological harm, they undermine the very foundation of virtue that makes liberty possible.
The Maine court’s decision reflects a dangerous shift from protecting children from actual harm to shielding them from ideas that some judges find uncomfortable. This paternalistic approach treats religious beliefs as harmful rather than formative, undermining parents’ rights to direct their children’s moral and spiritual development.
This legal discrimination exists within a broader cultural context where Christianity is increasingly portrayed as intolerant, harmful, or extreme. Our educational systems often present faith through a hostile lens, while entertainment media regularly mocks religious believers. Even simple acts of Christian charity, like a Missouri grandmother who was told she needed a commercial license to feed breakfast to community members, face government and regulatory hurdles that are in direct violation of our natural right to religious freedom.
When a coffee shop owner in Idaho kicks out customers discussing pro-life issues, or when government officials require permits for neighbors sharing breakfast, we see how hostility toward Christian values manifests in everyday life. These incidents create a chilling effect on religious expression and community involvement.
The Maine case highlights the urgent need for judicial reform and renewed commitment to religious liberty. Liberty Counsel has announced plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Maine decision “rejects the First Amendment right of a fit parent to raise her child consistent with her Christian faith.”
This case should concern all Americans, not just Christians. When the government can decide which religious beliefs are acceptable for parents to teach their children, everyone’s freedom is at risk. The principle at stake transcends any single custody dispute. It’s about whether the government can effectively penalize citizens for their religious convictions.
To address this crisis, we must demand that courts apply strict scrutiny to any case involving religious freedom rather than dismissing such rights as secondary to a vague “best interest” standard. We must advocate for judicial nominees who respect the Constitution’s original meaning and understand that religious liberty is not a secondary concern but a fundamental right. We must support organizations that defend religious freedom in courtrooms and legislatures. We must educate our communities about the importance of religious liberty for all Americans, not just Christians. We must elect representatives who will confirm judges who respect the First Amendment’s protection of religious exercise.
The Maine Supreme Court’s decision represents a dangerous departure from American constitutional principles. By treating mainstream Christian beliefs as harmful and restricting a parent’s right to raise her child in the faith, the court has undermined the very foundation of religious liberty that makes our constitutional republic possible.
ENJOYING THE CONTENT? DROP A FEW COINS IN THE TIP JAR…
As Benjamin Franklin understood, freedom requires virtue, and for many Americans, religious faith provides the moral foundation for that virtue. When courts begin treating time-honored religious teachings as harmful, they not only violate constitutional rights but also undermine the moral framework necessary for our constitutional republic.
The preservation of religious liberty is not just a Christian concern. It’s an American one. The Maine case should serve as a wake-up call to all who value liberty, reminding us that when any group’s constitutional rights are threatened, everyone’s freedom is diminished. The path forward requires renewed commitment to the principles that has made America exceptional, including robust protection for religious liberty as the cornerstone of all our natural God-given rights.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Artificial Intelligence (Super Intelligence, according to President Trump at his United Nations speech) is a new technology. We’ve spent an awful lot of time watching science fiction movies show us how someday, AI will destroy us all. From “Would you like to play a game?” to “You’ve been targeted for termination,” we have been programmed from the beginning that the end comes when technology learns to outthink us. To be honest, I can’t say that the movies have a point, or that it’s silly to get all worked up about it. I’m a sci-fi guy, and even some of my own fictional writings address the AI versus humanity question.
It’s all fascinating for storytelling, but in the end, it’s all fiction.
In the real world, the concern over data centers we need for AI, and other internet connected things, has risen to near-hysteria. People are acting like a prison for hard-core inmates or a nuclear waste dump is being proposed in their backyards, and next to our schools and if we don’t stop it the prisoners and radioactive sludge will consume us all.
They protest and shout with a massive flow of emotion.
Their reasoning steps aside as their feelings claim all kinds of myths and misperceptions are attached to the dreaded data centers. It’s like the socialists out there protesting the evils of capitalism as they use all of the devices that came from free market innovation. The reality is, we enjoy the benefits of modern technology, and we’ve even come to rely on them, as we protest against the data centers that are an integral part of the infrastructure required for that very modern technology to exist.
These are the kinds of emotions that can stand in the way of progress if we don’t also employ reason, analysis, logic and critical thinking. And if you fear those data centers so badly, then get rid of your cell phone, stop using social media, close your Netflix and Amazon accounts, stop searching for things on the web, and disconnect from all of your Zoom calls and YouTube videos. The truth is, the data we use is no longer flowing through telephone lines, or stored on floppy discs, tapes, CD-ROMs, and DVDs. Now, for the most part, we use the cloud. And the cloud is not up there, somewhere, over your heads. It exists in servers and computers and other technology the average person cannot name huddled inside a giant building full of all of this equipment that today we call data centers. And the funny thing is, as many protest against more data centers, the reality is we already have thousands of these buildings all across the country. You probably have one near you, but never noticed it. But now, everyone is panicking over data centers.
Suddenly, it’s a concern. Yet, nobody has stopped to wonder why, all of a sudden, these data centers are a concern sweeping across the country on both sides of the political aisle.
It is amazing how gullible the American people truly are.
Isn’t it interesting that the moment China is feeling the heat, and America is beginning to pull ahead in the information age technology race, the fears about data centers are suddenly rising to a crescendo?
There are no accidents when it comes to the sudden rise of across-the-board panic. The sudden fears over data centers are not organic. When the former employee at Anthropic suddenly became the flavor of the week about how AI would end humanity, it was hardly the first time someone made those kinds of statements about AI. Twelve years ago Stephen Hawking said the same. The movie Terminator said the same. Countless sci-fi and opinion writers have said the same. Frank Herbert in his 1965 sci-fi classic DUNE said that “men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” The theme of artificial intelligence killing off or enslaving humanity is hardly one that has never been used before.
And as all of the hysteria among the public is going on, the four biggest AI labs called for the industry to slow down development, and even have government step in to heavily regulate the industry. Barack Obama sent a message to Democrats to make AI a campaign issue. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has called for immediate congressional action to regulate AI development. Reporters pressed Trump to take on “concerns about AI leading to human extinction.”
Trump’s response told us everything we need to know. “We’re leading China in AI, we’re the most sophisticated country in the world, and frankly, I want to keep it that way because whoever wins AI, wins.”
So, if we are in this technology race with China, and suddenly there are calls for us to slow down, stop building data centers, and use government to handcuff the industry, is it not obvious who’s wooden spoons might be in the pot stirring up all of the chaos over the innovative lunges we seem to be on the verge of?
As with any other new technology, the problem isn’t the technology as much as it is the hands that are upon it. Like a firearm, artificial intelligence can be a valuable tool, or a dangerous weapon. The reality, however, is that its potential is tremendous and our enemies are seeking to exploit its uses for reasons that are not good. If we sleep, they will defeat us with the new weapon – so, whether or not in the future terminator robots may exist as a result, we have to do the best we can to make sure America remains on top – otherwise, those terminators roaming the streets will have the Chinese flag on them.
While the Democrats and their socialist allies call for creating heavy federal regulatory structures, the fact is the more government gets involved with any innovation the slower it grows. Sure, we want some regulation on things. I get it. But do we need government to push technology right out of the American market and ruin it with idiotic policies?
AI is an unknown brimming with transformative potential. There are no known negatives to rein in the technology because blundering politicians and power seeking megalomaniacs said so.
America’s freedom is about how our culture and society adapts, without government interference. When the free market is unleashed, our economy roars ahead of every rival.
Data centers are included in all of this. They are necessary. Perhaps, a necessary evil. But if we are going to win on the world stage regarding the emerging technologies associated with AI, we need the data centers. If we want the advantage of having available the technologies that are emerging for the American public, and you don’t want to depend on China for them, you need more data centers. That is the cold hard truth.
That’s why it perplexes me that according to a recent Fox poll, 70% of Americans oppose building new data centers in their communities. They are crucial to our future as a high-tech economy. When automobiles were a new thing, should communities have fought against the construction of auto assembly plants?
And it’s both sides falling for the Chinese propaganda and creation of hysteria. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has announced a construction moratorium on data centers as has Governor Kathy Hochul of New York.
The backlash comes despite the fact that data centers are needed to power our future economy from AI to everything associated with The Cloud. And if we allow the moratoriums to stand, the real beneficiary is China – as planned by them. Anti-data center forces have attracted strong support from communist China, which has been linked to more than 200 accounts on X promoting data center misinformation. Yet, the public remains skeptical, and people continue to stand against the much needed data centers. And China, if this hysteria wins long enough to delay our progress, benefits from the U.S. putting itself into a technology straitjacket.
New data centers expand job and technology opportunities for everyone, not just AI or tech companies. If their Trump Derangement Syndrome would just shut up long enough, they would realize that President Donald Trump’s insistence that they come with their own power supply will ensure they don’t raise electricity rates. We must also remember that systems that do not rely heavily on “renewable energy” are more than capable of increasing the supply to meet any surge in demand. If there’s anything that is guilty of driving energy prices up, it’s not data centers as much as it is the allegedly cheaper sources of wind and solar, which are not only not cheaper, but unable to keep up with any increase in demand.
The myth they will use up all of the water is proven wrong when you realize that your average golf course consumes more (and many of the data centers now use air-cooling, while others use “closed-loop water cooling”), and “90-95% of the water returned are available for treatment.” Realize, the data centers built five years ago will look like technological dinosaurs compared to what is coming. And, let’s remember, if we don’t build data centers, China will, and it will give them gains and advantages that will hurt America in the long run. Data centers are about more than growing AI. Our modern life is becoming dependent upon them. Many of our devices we use requires more and more data power, with today’s average household having close to twenty internet-connected devices as opposed to a couple devices only fifteen years ago. All of that connectivity creates increasing demands the future grid won’t be able to match without new data centers.
As for the Democrats, I am not suggesting that they are in league with China – though I believe in many ways they are. It’s their usual idiocy where they claim to be for the little guy, but through their policies are not. As examples, I offer the California law during the first decade of the new millennium that required all commercial big rigs be equipped with new devices that were basically catalytic converters for reducing big commercial truck emissions. The device cost $25,000 for each truck, but California offered a rebate of a part of the cost once the update was performed and passed inspection by state officials. Smaller trucking companies and owner-operators could not afford compliance, so they went out of business, or left the state, leaving only the largest companies in place who then benefitted from the stringent regulations because it blocked new entrants into the market and reduced the competition as the little guys were pushed out of the way. The leftists did the same with policies aimed at meat-packing. The cost of compliance knocked ranchers and small operations out of the meat-packing business, forcing all of the beef producers to depend upon four major meat-packing corporations, reducing competition and driving up the cost of doing business that in the end then translated to higher beef prices that the Democrats now blame President Trump for.
The same goes for the largest technology companies contributing to the AI hysteria, and their attempt to manipulate Congress into regulating AI. As Issues & Insights reports, “almost everyone involved is affiliated with Coefficient, Open Philanthropy, Anthropic, and/or OpenAI — all of who serve to benefit financially from creating regulation.” As with the two examples I provided, making sure the federal government steps in to regulate the AI industry is the best way to block new entrants into the market, and crush any little guys that might be trying to compete. Big companies then spend money big money that their smaller competitors don’t have to craft the rules they want, making sure that any competition is shut out. It’s the “robber barons” scheme all over again.
In the end, the AI companies kill their competition, the Democrats get their political control, and Chinese interests catch up and pass us by as we fall for their propaganda and tie a noose around our own throats and step up on the stool to hang ourselves during the fight for the future.
The protests and hysteria against new data centers, once one understands all of this, then seems unjustifiable and illogical. The effects on local resources are not what they are being made out to be, and with data centers comes the kind of economic development in America that the Chinese fear, and the Democrats’ policies would never be able to encourage. As the technologies increase, and things like data centers are added to the landscape, innovation increases, job creation increases, tax revenue increases, and money for public services that people scream for would then increase. As local governments drown in debt, why wouldn’t they be compelled to consider adding data centers to their landscape? Nearly half of all tax revenue generated in Loudoun County, Virginia, for example, currently comes from the existence of data centers, and consequently residents pay an average of $5,800 less in property taxes. Our entire online world relies upon data centers, which includes using your debit card while at the store, the systems that keep track of products available on the shelves, and of course all of your online shopping, social media, apps, streaming services, texting, and phone calls.
Modern technology is at the center of our modern world. Life is more convenient, faster, and comfortable because of data centers. To stop the production of them is not only a step backward, but downright dangerous considering how our Chinese enemy, and how the tyrants in America, seeks to use such a scenario to gain more power and shoot down any competition.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
This Day in Early American History: Creation of the Office of the Attorney General
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Congress passed the Judiciary Act in 1789, which established the lower courts of the federal judiciary system. The law created 13 judicial districts in the states, establishing a circuit and district court in each. The act set the number of Supreme Court Justices, at the time, at six, with one Chief Justice and five associate justices.
The Office of the U.S. Attorney General was established on September 24, 1789, when the Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law by President George Washington. The act, in addition to creating the inferior federal judiciary system, also established the position of Attorney General as a part of the executive branch.
The position was designed to serve as the chief legal officer of the federal government and the head of the Department of Justice (though the Department of Justice as we know it today wasn’t formally established until 1870). The first Attorney General was Edmund Randolph, who was appointed by President Washington and took office on September 26, 1789.
Initially, the Attorney General’s role was quite limited compared to today. Randolph was essentially a one-person operation who provided legal advice to the President and heads of executive departments. He didn’t even have a dedicated staff or office space initially. The position was considered part-time, and Randolph continued his private law practice while serving as Attorney General.
The creation of this office was a crucial development in the formation of the American government, establishing the principle that the executive branch needed legal counsel to navigate constitutional issues and ensure the lawful execution of federal laws. Over time, the role has expanded significantly, with the Attorney General now overseeing a vast department with numerous divisions and responsibilities.
While the Judiciary Act of 1789 was important, and necessary in many ways, unfortunately it laid the groundwork for what would become judicial review and judicial tyranny when the branch was originally supposed to be the weakest of the branches – so weak that John Jay turned down a second opportunity to be chief justice in 1801 for exactly that reason.
The Judiciary Act of 1789, while establishing necessary court structures, unfortunately contained provisions that would later enable the expansion of judicial power beyond what the Framers of the Constitution intended.
The early Supreme Court was so insignificant that it heard few cases, and justices were required to “ride circuit” – traveling to preside over trials in various regions, a grueling duty that many found beneath their dignity.
The concept of judicial review was rejected by the Framers of the Constitution during the Convention of 1787. The Federalist Papers are silent on judicial review because it was never authorized by the Constitution. Hamilton briefly suggested in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary might have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws – but even this was presented as a limited defensive power and it did not align with the express enumerated powers in the Constitution.
According to the legal world, the power of Judicial Review was codified by Marbury v. Madison (1803), a claim that essentially says that the judges gave the power to themselves. The timing supports the fact that judicial review wasn’t considered an established principle of the new government, but rather an innovation of the Marshall Court.
The Anti-Federalists had warned about potential judicial overreach during the ratification debates. Brutus (likely Robert Yates) argued that the judiciary would inevitably expand its power because “few can be expected to have the virtue to resist such an insidious attack on their liberties.”
This perspective reminds us that the Judiciary Act, while perhaps necessary, contained within it the seeds of what became judicial overreach – a transformation from what was supposed to be “the least dangerous branch” into what some would call judicial tyranny.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary