WAR UPDATE: Military Insider Gives Terrifying Prediction & Reveals How Unprepared America Truly Is

 

The Data-Center Revolt Goes National: Tea Party Veteran Leads 142 Rallies Across 42 States

by Tyler Durden

The backlash against the AI data-center build-out - which we've been tracking since it was a smattering of county fights across 28 states - staged its first coordinated day of action on Saturday: 142 protests across 42 states, from Wasilla, Alaska to Naples, Florida, organized by Humans First, the nonprofit that Tea Party veteran Amy Kremer co-founded and chairs. The crowds spanned both sides of the aisle...uniting a MAGA stalwart in a 'faith, family, freedom' T-shirt in New Jersey, a first-time activist in Texas, and a left-leaning organizer in California's Imperial Valley.

The fight looked like Kenilworth, New Jersey. Residents of the 8,500-person borough gathered outside the municipal court at mid-morning with drums, plastic horns, and sidewalk chalk to protest the $1.8 billion CoreWeave AI data center their planning board approved in May 2025 on the former Merck campus - a project that has since drawn more than 12,000 petition signatures against it, several thousand more names than the town has people. The woman in the "faith, family, freedom" T-shirt marched beside neighbors holding "Build community, not data centers" signs. When heavy rain arrived later in the day, they pulled on ponchos, shared umbrellas, and kept marching. One sign, caught by Business Insider's photographer on the scene: "You think this is pressure? Wait 'til there's no water pressure."

Texas, the country's hottest data-center market, hosted the most rallies - 18 - with Georgia at 11, California at eight, and Pennsylvania, Florida, and Indiana at seven apiece. In Imperial Valley, where a proposed facility could pull 260 million gallons a year from the Colorado River, Ivan DelSol, 54, told Reuters that around 50 people turned out in 100-degree heat. "It's dystopian that you would use this much fresh water for AI," he said. Organizers released no headcounts; turnout ran below expectations in some rural areas and in Atlanta, where about a dozen showed - most of them, a volunteer there said, driving in from the smaller Georgia towns where the biggest data centers are going up.

Kremer is a founding figure of the Tea Party movement who went on to found Women for Trump, and an organizer of the January 6, 2021 rally that preceded the Capitol riot (she neither planned nor took part in the riot itself). She has spent months calling data centers the defining fight of her lifetime, warning the technology could threaten humanity itself, and she is open about running the old playbook: grassroots pressure, town by town, aimed at both parties.

Today was incredible!

142 protests. 42 states. One message: ONE NATION UNITED AGAINST DATA CENTERS!

Communities across America showed up today for a National Day of Protest Against AI Data Centers to say that We The People deserve a voice before massive data centers are… pic.twitter.com/TwE7oRjR6V

— Kylie Jane Kremer (@KylieJaneKremer) July 18, 2026

Her crowds bear that out. One of Saturday's Texas rallies, in Tyler, was organized by Eva Cardona, a 31-year-old self-described political nomad and first-time activist who told Reuters she wanted something more hands-on than posting on Facebook; about a dozen people came. And in Imperial Valley, the man who helped lead the rally leans left. The polling explains why a coalition that broad holds. A June Reuters/Ipsos survey found only 14 percent of Americans would support a data center in their own community. Gallup polling fielded in March found 71 percent oppose building an AI data center in their area - 48 percent strongly - a worse number than a local nuclear plant gets. And Morgan Stanley told clients in a July 14 note that support for local data-center bans runs strongest among Republican, higher-income, and urban voters, while Morning Consult's national tracker crossed a line of its own in May: "stop building" (about 45 percent) overtook "keep building while expanding energy supply" (about 38 percent) for the first time since last October.

Several democratic candidates, including candidate for Texas Governor Gina Hinajosa, stopped in Lubbock to discuss campaign topics including data centers. A data center protest was also held to collect signatures to pause building hyperscale data centers in the Lubbock area. pic.twitter.com/wh3mdGNcu4

— KAMC News (@KAMCNews) July 19, 2026

For all the movement's reputation, Kremer's demands stop well short of a shutdown. She opposes a national moratorium and statewide moratoriums alike, telling Business Insider that each community should choose what gets built inside it, and that too many of those choices are made behind closed doors. Humans First's platform runs to transparent approval processes, environmental review before permits are granted, union construction jobs, and binding developer commitments of the kind lawyers call community benefits agreements. She has aimed as much fire at her own side, accusing Republicans of giving Big Tech a free pass and predicting the industry will cozy up to Democrats the moment the majority flips. The fix, she argues, belongs to Congress.

Amy Kremer is the cofounder of Women for Trump and Women for America First. Now she's taking on AI data centers. Jacquelyn Martin/AP

The organization is a narrower thing than the crowds it convened. Humans First announced in April that its non-conservative team members would spin off into a separate group, with Kremer promising "a topflight team of conservatives" to fight Big AI and its lobbyists. The banner over Saturday's rallies, in other words, was a conservative one - which makes the mix of people who marched beneath it all the more striking.

Official Backlash

The rallies capped a fast-moving week. On Tuesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order imposing the nation's first statewide moratorium on new hyperscale data centers - an immediate pause of up to a year on state environmental permits for projects of 50 megawatts or more while regulators draft standards covering energy demand, water use, and air quality. Her office promised localities community-benefit guidance within 60 days, and Hochul will pursue repeal of the state's sales-tax exemptions for massive data centers. A tougher bill passed by the legislature, with a 20-megawatt threshold, remains unsigned on her desk; her office has called it complicated, and Hochul said the state wants to be "the first to get it right."

New York was not alone. Virginia's new tax on data-center electricity - 1.1 cents per kilowatt-hour - took effect July 1. Pennsylvania's House passed a ban on non-disclosure agreements in data-center deals by a 171-31 vote, and separately voted 197-5 to repeal the industry's sales-tax exemption, a break worth roughly $517 million a year by 2030. Arizona's governor signed a three-year moratorium on new data-center tax breaks in June. Legislators have filed more than 300 data-center bills this year; local pauses have passed at the county, city, and tribal level in at least 15 states.

Meanwhile In China

Nothing comparable is happening on the other side of the Pacific. Two days before the marches, Beijing-based Moonshot AI released Kimi K3, a 2.8-trillion-parameter system billed as the largest open-weight model ever built and claimed to perform level with America's best frontier models. Bloomberg has reported that Beijing plans to spend roughly $295 billion over five years on a nationwide network of AI computing hubs - and none of it will face a zoning board. Under the state's "Eastern Data, Western Computing" program, the buildout is steered into the arid, sparsely populated west; provincial governments compete to attract data centers with tax holidays, cheap land, and compute vouchers, and the state absorbs up to half of operators' energy costs, so the strain never shows up on a household bill. No Chinese county has passed a moratorium, because no Chinese county gets a vote.

The financial toll is no longer hypothetical. Third-party trackers cited by Morgan Stanley in its July 14 note put the value of cancelled or delayed projects at roughly $156 billion in 2025 and another $130 billion in the first quarter of 2026 alone - about $286 billion in all - set against the bank's own estimate of $877 billion in AI capital spending this year. The underlying quarterly count comes from Data Center Watch, a tracker run by 10a Labs, an intelligence firm whose client list includes AI companies, which logged at least 75 projects blocked or delayed from January through March - matching in one quarter the number of projects derailed in all of 2025 - as active opposition groups more than doubled from 396 to 833 and spread to 49 states.

Saturday itself stayed peaceful - chalk, chants, drums, umbrellas - though the wider fight has had harder edges: developers of the Piedmont transmission line into Northern Virginia's data-center corridor asked a federal court last summer for U.S. Marshals to escort survey crews after landowners threatened workers, an episode we covered at the time.

The industry answered forcefully. The Data Center Coalition warned that New York's moratorium tells investors the state is "closed for business" and will push jobs and tax revenue to neighboring states. Seven major AI and cloud companies - Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI - point to the Ratepayer Protection Pledge they signed at the White House in March, a voluntary commitment to cover the grid costs their facilities create. And White House AI czar David Sacks went after Hochul's case point by point on the All-In podcast, calling data centers "the scapegoat for all of the angst that people have about AI." His answer to the utility-bill complaint: let developers build their own generation behind the meter instead of competing with households for grid power.

David Sacks: Everything Kathy Hochul Said About Datacenters Was a False Accusation@DavidSacks: “These data centers become the scapegoat for all of the angst that people have about AI.

Everything she's saying there is a false accusation on datacenters. So let's just go one by… pic.twitter.com/gAxesw3fRD

— The All-In Podcast (@theallinpod) July 18, 2026

Some industry allies go further, pointing to OpenAI's June disclosure that it banned a China-linked network using ChatGPT to mass-produce comics and comments blaming data centers for rising power bills. OpenAI itself found the operation gained almost no authentic traction - and the crowds in Kenilworth and Imperial County were unambiguously homegrown.

Kremer spent Saturday evening thanking volunteers and looking past the weekend. "America is not for sale, and our communities are not collateral," she wrote on X. She expects data centers on the ballot in November, and again in 2028. The midterms are less than four months away. 

The Next Phase Of Shrinkflation: Rolling Blackouts

  

 Via SchiffSovereign,

The lights went on at approximately 3pm on September 4, 1882 in New York City.

Thomas Edison (with major funding from JP Morgan) had spent roughly two years building the first-ever commercial power plant, located in Manhattan’s financial district. Its total capacity was about 600 kilowatts… barely enough to power a single rack of GPUs today.

But at the time it was nothing short of miraculous.

Edison’s coal-fired DC power plant initially served just 82 customers, and electricity was nothing more than a luxury flex by the ultra-wealthy.

But over time– especially after Westinghouse and Tesla’s alternating current became the gold standard– electrification rates in the United States skyrocketed.

At the turn of the 20th century, hardly anyone had electricity in their homes. By 1920, it was about 35%. By the time the Great Depression hit in 1929, roughly 70% of US homes were electrified, and urban areas were nearly 85%.

The systems were surprisingly reliable given the rudimentary technology of the day.

Blackouts were not infrequent, but they were generally short and localized, often just affecting a few streets or houses.

And typically the biggest reason for a short, localized blackout was simply because electrical demand was increasing more rapidly than the grid could create new supply. More and more homes were being electrified, and, after World War II, consumer appliances like refrigerators and air conditioners began consuming more power. We’ll come back to that.

In response, the industry began looking for efficiencies to be able to scale more quickly. They built larger, beefier power plants and connected their independent grids to be able to share reserves and load balance.

In short, they planned for speed and scale. Not resilience. And the end result was an incredibly complex network that was highly vulnerable to systemic failure.

That failure first came at 5:16pm on November 9, 1965: a minor maintenance issue near Niagara Falls triggered a chain reaction across the entire grid. 30 million people went without power– most until the next morning, some for a few days.

It was a wake-up call… and the first catastrophic grid failure of many more to come. So naturally the government stepped in to “fix” it.

With the electrical grid’s vulnerabilities laid bare, Congress held inquiries and hearings. New rules and regulations were passed. And, before long, the US electrical industry became a confusing alphabet soup of state, local, and federal authorities– ISOs and RTOs, FERC, PJM, MISO, CAISO, SPP, and so many more.

Layers and layers of bureaucratic agencies didn’t fix anything. But technology was quite fortunately on America’s side, and over the past few decades, advances (like LED bulbs) made consumer appliances more energy efficient. Power plants also became more productive.

In fact, today the US consumes less electricity per capita than it did in 1995. And the grid produces much more power.

But this balance is starting to change rapidly.

We all know the story of data centers and their insatiable appetites for energy. Electricity is such a critical input, in fact, that data centers are typically described by their power consumption.

For example, Softbank recently announced 5GW of new data centers in France. The famous StarGate project in the US is targeting 10GW. Facebook is building a 5GW data center in Louisiana.

And various plans over the next few years go in to several hundred gigawatts.

This trend is similar to the 1950s– utility companies struggled to keep up with surging demand from US consumers who were plugging in air conditioners and refrigerators for the first time.

But supply and demand in the electricity market is a funny thing. Demand can surge very quickly… just like we’ve seen over the past year or so. But electrical supply grows more slowly.

New power plants take years to build. Thanks to the aforementioned alphabet soup, the regulatory burden alone is a minefield.

And most electrical producers aren’t willing to go through the effort, risk, and capital expenditure unless they’re sure the new power plant will be profitable. And profitability depends on the price of electricity.

That’s where politicians and the regulators have stepped in to screw it all up.

Naturally, with demand soaring and supply constrained, electricity prices are rising. You’d think that politicians would respond by making it easier for utilities to build new power plants, i.e. reduce the regulatory and permitting process to increase electricity supply.

But no. Instead, they’re capping prices.

Last year, a whole lot of state officials and federal regulators got together to set a ceiling for certain wholesale electricity prices to roughly $333 per megawatt-day.

Clearly, they’re responding to voters’ demands to rein in inflation and reduce the cost of living.

Unfortunately, $333/MW-day isn’t high enough to justify investment in new power plants.

Existing power plants are old. Sometimes extremely old. They already own their land, and their construction loans are all paid off. So $333/MW-day is sufficient for them to pay for fuel, conduct maintenance, and turn a small profit.

But $333 isn’t enough to build a new plant– to cover the additional costs of construction, land purchases, permitting, etc.

In fact, the regulators themselves estimate that electricity prices need to be about $500/MW-day (i.e. 50% higher) to justify investment in new power plants.

This means there won’t be enough new commercial power plants built to sufficiently supply the grid. In fact the northeast grid (known as PJM) is already in a 6.5 GW deficit against its own reserve requirement for the first time ever, increasing the chance of failure next summer.

This is essentially a form of shrinkflation. i.e. paying the same amount of money but getting less for it. We’ve all seen it at grocery stores and restaurants– same price, smaller portions.

In this case, electricity prices are supposedly remaining flat. But you’re getting less for it– potential grid failure.

All because the maze of political and regulatory authorities won’t do the obvious thing and make it easy for new power plants to be built.

Take Your Pick - Either Jesus Christ or the Third Temple!

 

INSOMNIA STREAM: MEH EDITION (Starts at 10:30 mark)

 

Election Integrity: Is Representative Democracy A Foolish Fantasy?

By Brandon Smith

The US Constitution is perhaps the most significant historical and governmental document in a millennia. It established the modern conception of the western Republic, along with true representative government designed to answer to the people rather than rule over the people.

The Bill of Rights outlined clear restrictions on federal and state powers to legislate away the inherent and God given freedoms of the citizenry; an accomplishment which had been attempted in the past but was never truly realized until the war for independence and the creation of the United States. Until that moment, the idea that common men answer to authority and authority answers to no one was the accepted norm.

It’s a document and an ideal that gave birth to an epoch.

However, our constitutional republic was created based on conditions that, frankly, no longer exist. The American population was 95% Christian. The implementation of “patriarchy” was widespread and embraced as the most solid foundation for society. Meritocracy was absolute. Cultural identity was rooted in western civilization without any deviation or distraction.

Marxism did not exist. Atheism was rare. Degeneracy was shunned or punished. Shame was an effective social tool. Psychopathy was easy to identify and remove from within the smaller population. Women were expected to raise families and care for the home. Men were expected to feed and protect those families; perhaps even die for them.

Voting was for land owners and people with an actual stake in the success or failure of government policies. Women did not vote until a hundred years later in 1920 (many commentators have offered compelling arguments that the country quickly went downhill from there).

In 2026, many Americans still treat the notion of representative democracy as sacrosanct and untouchable, even though they don’t really know why. They just think it’s about freedom, but, they are basing their devout reverence on a system that used to work because it heavily restricted who was allowed to participate.

As John Adams sated in 1802:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other…”

Like many conservatives, I started out as predominantly libertarian. Millions of us of us launched our political lives in the era of the Ron Paul Revolution. That said, whenever I hear libertarians wax romantic about the Constitution and why we must strictly adhere to it today regardless of the circumstances, I have to remind them that if the system today looked like it did when the Founders were in charge, most people would not be voting.

I’m not saying this is a bad thing. In fact, the central question I want to ask is, would that actually be a better way of governing than what we have now? Should we return to the idea of restrictions on civic participation for people who have a habit of causing harm? In our liberal drive to create total democratic inclusivity, did we end up destroying the social structures and expectations that made our country and elections work in the first place?

Hell, in 2026 we are actually fighting for our lives just to get voter ID laws in place to prevent foreigners from influencing election outcomes. Around 80% of the country supports this policy, yet, the Senate refuses to pass it and 20% on the radical left are viciously opposed because they WANT illegal migrants to be able sneak into the vote.

As if it wasn’t already obvious, this proves the fact that Democrats and Neo-Con politicians have no regard for “democracy” – They cry about majority rule all the time but when there’s a clear case of an overwhelming majority in favor of secure elections, they do the opposite.

The top 0.2% and the bottom 20% work in tandem to make life miserable for everyone else.

Is representative democracy even possible when a large portion of the population is actively fighting to burn our republic to the ground by any means necessary? How can our elections and our government maintain integrity when people who want to destroy everything are allowed to vote or take political office?

Maybe that 20% of militant leftists and Neo-Cons should NOT be allowed to vote. Maybe they should be denied participation in government. Maybe they should be kicked out of the country. It’s what the Founding Fathers would have done…

During and after the Revolutionary War, many states required oaths of allegiance to the new American cause. Refusal (often by Loyalists/Tories who supported Britain) led to disenfranchisement, property confiscation, banishment, etc. These rules and restrictions were explicitly ideological – punishing pro-British or “neutral” political views. Pennsylvania, New York, and other states used such tests and the Founders saw this as necessary for security.

The idea that every American citizen should be allowed to have a hand in national matters despite their dubious background or belief system is a foolish fantasy. The Founders were correct to make distinctions.

That said, is the system so broken by corruption and delusion that it cannot be mended? How do we fix this situation? Do we merely sit back and allow the country to deteriorate in the name of liberal hedonism? Because that’s not an act of freedom. Rather, it’s the attitude of anarchy and it’s important to understand the difference.

Anarchy is freedom without accountability; the abandonment of any personal responsibility for the future. It means national suicide.

This week, the Trump Administration released classified information which they argue is proof of election manipulation in 2020. In response, the legacy media has refused to air Trump’s speech addressing the issue. Many outlets “fact checked” Trump’s arguments online as false without having time to read the reports and classified documents he offered.

I’m not saying that 2020 was unequivocally rigged, but, I’m willing to look at the evidence and clearly the political left and the media are not. This tells us all we need to know about them.

Everyone remembers the “hockey stick” graph and the impossible voting numbers for Joe Biden in the early morning hours of November 4^th. Even the skeptics found it hard to come up with a believable rationale. To this day, Democrats are unable to explain how Biden got 81 million votes, the highest raw vote count for any presidential candidate in US history, in the middle of a pandemic.

In 2024, Kamala Harris fell short of Biden’s totals by over 6 million votes. It shouldn’t be possible, but it happened. The recent rigging revelations, if accurate, help us to understand why the Democrats (and some Neo-Cons) absolutely refuse to pass voter ID laws and limits on mail-in ballots despite the vast majority of Americans in favor.

But ballot rigging and illegal migrant voting are only two threats among many to our country’s elections. Let’s not forget:

1) The mentally ill still get a vote. Over 23% of all US adults report having at least one mental illness. Meaning 1 in 4 US voters many not have the mental stability required to make reasonable or logical decisions. Nearly 20% of US adults are on some form of prescription medication for mental health issues. The number of women on medication is double the number of men on medication.

2) Low IQ people get to vote. Around 10% of the population has an IQ under 80, which is 20 points below the average. An IQ of 80 or less is associated with poor impulse control, extreme aggression and an inability to maintain normal day-to-day responsibilities. Should such people be allowed to vote?

3) Psychopaths and sociopaths get to vote. Around 4% of the population has these dangerous psychological traits. Yet, they can vote, run for office, and get jobs within the bureaucratic system. There is certainly some nuance to consider here (for example, some sociopaths are highly functional and are not a threat when operating ion positions of authority), but I would argue that all candidates should be tested openly for these issues before they’re allowed to enter government office.

4) Finally, how do we bring transparency to a government that is built around a bureaucracy that has no term limits and few checks and balances? To Trump’s credit, he has been attempting to dismantle this “deep state” edifice and has had a few successes, including the shutdown of the nefarious USAID. But it would take multiple presidencies to accomplish any long-lasting changes to this entrenched secondary government.

The efforts of DOGE showed us that the bureaucracy has always been the true base of power – protected by an array of corrupt politicians, judges, journalists and NGOs. It doesn’t matter who ends up in office because the people managing the bureaucracy usually keep their jobs for life, and when a confrontational administration leaves, they simply change everything back to the way things were.

Should we ignore constitutional protocols and remove the vast majority of these people from their jobs? The courts are doing everything in their power to prevent these people from being fired. What if we ignored the courts and kicked them out anyway? What alternatives do we have?

None of the answers to these problems can be found within the Constitution and the current legal environment. Again, we can’t even get Congress and the Senate to pass commonsense voter ID laws. Which means, we would have to go outside the Constitution to save the Constitution.

Ah yes, the slippery slope reveals itself. But the constitution is designed to limit the actions of the federal government, not the people. This leaves us with the age-old conundrum of rebellion and reformation. Maybe this is the only way that things will ever really change.

What I know is this: We cannot continue on the path we have been following for so many decades. We cannot rely on the system to police itself. And, we cannot allow certain subsections of the population to continue to have influence over our society.

Something has to change, dramatically and for the long term. We could do it through partisan government while breaking a number of constitutional laws, or, we could do it through popular revolution and hope that the country survives the aftermath of total domestic war. In the end, sitting back and doing nothing is not an option.

 

Investigating Flock: America's Mass Surveillance Company