Concerns over teen mental health are growing, but how teens and parents view the root causes can differ significantly. This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, compares their perspectives on what’s driving mental health issues among adolescents.

Although both groups identify social media as the biggest concern, teens are more likely than parents to cite bullying and academic pressure. The chart highlights where their views align—and where they diverge.

The data for this visualization comes from the Pew Research Center.

Social Media Tops Both Lists

Social media is the #1 concern for both groups, though the degree of concern differs.

While 44% of parents name social media as the top threat, just 22% of teens do the same. In fact, a majority of teens see social media as a positive space for friendships and creativity: 74% of teens say these platforms make them feel more connected to their friends, and 63% say they give them a place to show off their creative side.

Teens More Worried About Bullying and Pressure

Teens are more likely to mention bullying (17%) and pressure or expectations (16%) than their parents, who rank these lower at 9% and 8%, respectively.

These stressors often originate in school environments and peer interactions, which parents may not fully perceive.

Parents See Broader Threats, Teens Focus on School

A small share of parents (5%) cite societal issues—like politics or culture—as threats. Meanwhile, teens are more likely to pinpoint school (5%) as a direct source of mental strain.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Social Media Especially Harms Girls’ Sleep and Mental Health on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Hiroshima University researchers have found that fermented stevia extract may fight pancreatic cancer without harming healthy cells—potentially making it more than just a zero-calorie sugar substitute.

Pancreatic cancer shows significant resistance to existing treatments like surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.

“Globally, the incidence and mortality rates of pancreatic cancer continue to rise, with a five-year survival rate of less than 10 percent,” study coauthor Narandalai Danshiitsoodol, associate professor at Hiroshima University, said in a press statement.

There’s a growing need to find new, effective cancer-fighting compounds—especially those that come from medicinal plants, said Danshiitsoodol.

Fermentation Unlocks Cancer-Fighting Power

The study, recently published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, found that when stevia is fermented with a probiotic, the resulting extract kills pancreatic cancer cells while sparing healthy kidney cells. The fermented extract inhibited cancer growth but did not harm normal cells.

The research team fermented stevia leaf extract using the probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum SN13T, a beneficial bacterium commonly found in fermented foods like sauerkraut, pickles, and kimchi. The researchers noted that fermenting the extract with bacteria can change its structure and produce beneficial compounds called bioactive metabolites.

“To enhance the pharmacological efficacy of natural plant extracts, microbial biotransformation has emerged as an effective strategy,” Masanori Sugiyama, a professor of microbiology and biotechnology and coauthor of the study, said in a press statement.

Sugiyama’s lab has studied more than 1,200 strains of bacteria from fruits, vegetables, flowers, and medicinal plants, evaluating their health benefits.

The results showed that the fermented stevia leaf extract (FSLE) was more effective at killing cancer cells than the nonfermented version.

Sugiyama said that FSLE was also less harmful to the HEK-293 cells, which are human kidney cells used in the study. Even at the highest dose tested, FSLE caused minimal damage to these cells.

This is important because conventional chemotherapy, such as cisplatin, can damage the kidneys—especially the left one, which is adjacent to the pancreas.

Key Anticancer Agent Identified

Further analysis identified a compound called chlorogenic acid methyl ester (CAME) as the key anticancer agent. Fermentation reduced the amount of chlorogenic acid—a precursor to CAME—in the extract by sixfold, a change caused by bacterial enzymes, according to Danshiitsoodol.

“This microbial transformation was likely due to specific enzymes in the bacteria strain used,” she said.

CAME was found to stop cancer cells from multiplying, trigger them to self-destruct, and change the expression of key genes so that cells are more likely to die.

The experiments were conducted on cancer cells grown in laboratory dishes—not in living organisms. The researchers plan to conduct tests in mice to better understand how different doses of the fermented extract affect the entire body.

They emphasized that their results help explain how probiotic bacteria can boost the anticancer effects of herbal medicines. Danshiitsoodol noted that the study significantly advances understanding of how the Lactobacillus plantarum SN13T strain works in fermenting herbal extracts, and it also offers insight into using probiotics as natural antitumor agents.

Stevia Safety and Benefits

Dr. Joseph Mercola, a board-certified family medicine physician not involved in the study, called the research “a powerful reminder” that plants like stevia offer more than just sweetness—they may deliver compounds that support long-term health.

Mercola noted that stevia extract is a “far healthier” alternative to artificial sweeteners like aspartame, sucralose, or saccharin. “Unlike synthetic options that can disrupt gut bacteria or trigger metabolic changes, pure stevia extract—which has a glycemic index close to zero—has minimal to no impact on your blood sugar or insulin,” he added.

However, he cautioned that sweeteners blended with stevia—such as those containing dextrose or maltodextrin—can raise blood sugar if taken in large amounts.

Authored by Joseph Lord & Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

As state lawmakers in both parties ponder the possibility of increasing their share of seats in the House through redistricting, some have questioned the legality of the move.

The current situation kicked off in June, after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special session of the Texas Legislature that would, among other goals, consider the prospect of redistricting the state’s congressional seats to more heavily favor Republicans.

President Donald Trump’s administration, through the Department of Justice (DOJ), has encouraged this redistricting, claiming that some of Texas’s districts are illegal under the Voting Rights Act, civil rights legislation designed to increase participation in federal elections and prevent discriminatory or race-based voting restrictions.

Now, lawmakers in the blue states of New York, California, and Illinois are considering a response in kind to increase their own share of the House—while red states like Ohio, Florida, Indiana, and others are considering following Texas’s lead.

But there are hurdles, both legal and political.

Some Americans view the push as blatant partisan gerrymandering—and some legal experts think moving forward is a mistake.

Here’s what to know about the legal basis of the redistricting pushes nationwide.

Gerrymandering

The issue has prompted many to claim that one or both parties is attempting to make partisan gains through a strategic redrawing of the congressional map—behavior known colloquially as “gerrymandering.”

Often, districts are described as “gerrymandered” when they are in an odd or unusual shape that seems designed to ensure a particular outcome.

The term originated in the United States in the early 19th century, and is derived from the name of former Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry’s salamander-shaped district.

According to a 2022 poll by The Economist and YouGov, two-thirds of Americans considered gerrymandering to be a “major problem” in the United States, with only 23 percent describing it as a “minor problem.”

However, the legality of such behavior is a different question.

Constitutional Basis

As a core constitutional question, redistricting in the middle of the decade is permitted under the law.

In the Constitution’s so-called “Elections Clause,” state legislatures are given a degree of power over​​ “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” However, that clause also gives Congress the power to “at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”

This is a power the Congress has exercised often, through legislation such as the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. But the states retain at least one major power over the process: the drawing of congressional maps.

“Congress can set the time, place, and manner of elections, but as far as the districts themselves, those are drawn by the states,” Neama Rahmani, a lawyer who observes and commentates on national politics, told The Epoch Times.

In short, while states do not get to choose the number of seats they claim in the House—these seats are awarded based on population—states do have the power to determine how their congressional seats are awarded, the shape of the congressional districts, and other factors related to the state’s House delegation.

In some states, this power has been used for partisan purposes and handled by state legislatures, while other states rely on independent commissions or bipartisan districting processes.

In 2006, the Supreme Court affirmed in League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Perry that gerrymandering for partisan gain is not inherently unconstitutional or a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The issue at hand was Texas’s mid-decade redistricting carried out in 2003. The goal of that redistricting was to increase Republicans’ control of the House delegation.

State-Level Challenges

While the move may be technically legal under Supreme Court precedent, challenges remain, particularly on a state-by-state level.

In Texas, where Republicans hope to add as many as five new seats, the Legislature is currently gridlocked after at least 51 Democrats fled the state, depriving the Texas House of a quorum to move forward on the push.

Rahmani said that this is likely only “delaying the inevitable” in Texas.

If Texas does move forward, Rahmani said that it likely wouldn’t be impossible for Democrats to respond in kind, particularly in dark-blue states like California.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has said his team is looking at the possibility of changing the state’s maps—which are currently drawn by an independent commission—via a referendum of the people of California.

The referendum would have voters accept or reject a redrawn map during the 2026 midterm elections, allowing the new map to go into effect in later elections.

“California is a heavily blue state throwing a lot of money at this. You can win any ballot initiative here,” Rahmani said.

Currently, Democrats control 43 of the Golden State’s 52 congressional seats.

Other states considering redistricting could face similar hurdles—but ultimately, Rahmani said, none of these will be insurmountable if states are determined to move forward.

In red states with legislatures and governors’ mansions controlled by the GOP, he said, “there’s nothing Democrats in the state can do to stop it.”

Likewise, Rahmani said, “California can do the same, even if there is a law on the books that prohibits this. Those laws can be changed, and especially when you have the [ballot] initiative process.”

Political Question

With many Americans opposed to gerrymandering, and with potentially dire consequences for the political system and rule of law, experts say that the question isn’t just a legal one, but also a political one.

Misha Tseytlin, a lawyer who specializes in political law, told The Epoch Times that in “some states the hurdles would be political, not legal. New York and California, for example, would require constitutional amendments adopted by the people of each state.”

While these hurdles likely aren’t insurmountable, Rahmani said, “I don’t think it’s the right thing to do.”

“It’s going to result in retaliation. It’s going to result in even more extreme candidates being elected to Congress, and gridlock in Congress, because all of a sudden you’re not going to have any purple districts. There’s going to be no more moderates,” Rahmani said.

“So I think this is a bad idea politically, and it’s just going to result in retaliation on the other side.”

Rahmani expressed particular concern about the prospect that Americans could lose faith in the political process if redistricting moves forward.

“If people think that they’re not represented in Congress … it’s going to end up being a problem,” Rahmani said.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), considered a moderate in his purple New York district, has also expressed reservations about his party’s push in Texas and elsewhere.

“I think it’s wrong, what Texas is doing,” he said on CNN. “I don’t support it.”

Somewhat to be expected, among the first to mount a full-on attack of President Trump’s planned Alaska summit with Russia’s President Putin set for next Friday is none other than former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who served in the first Trump admin.

Also to be expected is that he railed against the summit toward finding peace in Ukraine as playing into the Kremlin’s hands. He told CNN’s Kailtin Collins on “The Source” in a Friday interview: “Well, it’s very gracious of Putin to come to former Russian America for this summit. This is not quite as bad as Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David to talk about the peace negotiations in Afghanistan, but it certainly reminds one of that.”

“The only better place for Putin than Alaska would be if the summit were being held in Moscow,” Bolton said. “So, the initial setup, I think, is a great victory for Putin.”

And of course, ultra-hawk Bolton invoked axis of evil type language in destribing Putin: “He’s a rogue leader of a pariah state, and he’s going to be welcomed into the United States,” Bolton added.

“I don’t think anybody would have objected, frankly,” the former adviser said.  “I have a feeling this is sliding very quickly in Russia’s direction” – he described of Putin’s seeking to “take advantage” of Trump.

“We’re not quite back at February the 28th, in the Oval Office, when Trump told [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy, ‘You don’t have any cards.’ But what’s happening is that Russia and the United States are discussing what terms they’re going to present to Zelenskyy, and it may well be that Zelenskyy has no choice here,” he also said. “Surrendering is always one way to get a peace deal.”

So there it is… the two leaders are still nearly a week out from their history-setting Alaska meeting and the narrative from both Republican and Democrat hawks is going to be ‘appeasement!’. 

This is the same old playbook and talking-point. 

But the reality remains is that Washington will have to bring the pressure on Zelensky to cede territory in Eastern Ukraine (and certainly give up Crimea, for starters) if real progress toward a final settlement is to be made.

Bolton dutifully gives CNN the type of simplisitc never Trump commentary its audience wants to here…

Bolton: This is not quite as bad, as Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David to talk about the peace negotiations in Afghanistan, but it certainly reminds one of that. The only better place for Putin than Alaska would be if the summit were being held in Moscow. So the initial… pic.twitter.com/yUSn8Fyj5v

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 9, 2025

Yet this is the very thing Zelensky is vowing to never do. He said in a Saturday video address that “Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier.” 

“Any decisions made against us, any decisions made without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace.” He then clarified Ukriane’s position further, “They will bring nothing. These are dead decisions; they will never work.”

Current and former officials like Bolton will now seek to highlight Zelensky’s words, and rush to his defense amid Trump pressure to make serious compromises.

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

In arid South Texas, home to mesquite and cacti, it hasn’t been uncommon for commercial beekeeper Robert Wheeler to lose half his bees every year.

But this year has been far worse.

His family-owned Frio Country Farms lost 2,000 of its 3,000 bee hives this year, many of which would have been pollinating crops such as watermelon and almonds had they lived.

And he is not alone. America’s bees are dying at an alarming rate as scientists try to figure out why.

The main suspect is the deadly Varroa mite, a vampiric parasite that carries viruses and has become immune to Amitraz, the primary pesticide used to kill it.

Wheeler, a commercial beekeeper since 2019, said he is one of many in his trade who relied on Amitraz to keep his colonies healthy.

“Some big beekeepers are hurting pretty bad right now because it takes a lot of money to run a big bee operation, and you can’t have a mistake because it’ll cost too much,” Wheeler told The Epoch Times.

“It is a pretty big deal what’s going on,” he said. “I mean, everything we eat is pollinated.”

Bee Crisis

Viruses spread by the Varroa mite, a devastating parasite that pierces the bodies of bees to drink their blood and nutrients, are the chief suspects, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) press release issued in June.

Scientists examined mites from collapsed colonies across western states in February and discovered signs of resistance to Amitraz, a critical miticide widely used by beekeepers.

“This miticide resistance was found in virtually all collected Varroa, underscoring the need for new parasitic treatment strategies,” according to the agency.

The agency stated commercial beekeepers lost 1.7 million colonies, amounting to more than a 60 percent loss from summer 2024 through January. The economic impact was estimated at $600 million.

Some beekeepers reported 80 percent or more hive losses, according to bee surveys.

A survey carried out by the Apiary Inspectors of America noted “staggering” colony losses of more than 55 percent in a 12-month period ending April 1.

The survey report said the losses were the highest reported since the annual survey first began tracking them in 2010–2011.

“Experts warn that without immediate intervention, the ripple effects could drive up costs for farmers, disrupt food production, and shutter many commercial beekeeping operations,” according to a joint press release from the Honey Bee Health Coalition, released this spring in reaction to the losses.

“In January 2025, beekeepers across the country began reporting unexpected large-scale honey bee losses—we now know the largest ever recorded in the U.S.,” Danielle Downey, executive director of Project Apis m., stated in the same release.

In July,  USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced a reorganization plan that includes the relocation of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland.

The center holds the country’s bee lab, a frontline research facility studying Varroa mites.

The Epoch Times did not receive a response from the USDA concerning the details of how the relocation might affect bee research.

Impact on Beekeepers

In Texas, beekeeping has undergone a renaissance thanks to a 2012 law that grants property tax breaks to landowners who keep bees on at least five acres.

A conservative estimate puts the number of Texas beekeepers at 6,000, including backyard beekeepers, “sideliners,” or medium-sized beekeepers with small businesses, and commercial bee operators.

In the state, however, the average loss stands at 61 percent over the past year, according to preliminary survey results from the Apiary Inspectors of America.

That rate has typically been more than 40 percent in recent years, far above the expected loss of about 25 percent, according to Garett Slater, an entomologist researching bees at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Overton, Texas.

“They’re relying on Amitraz, and it’s not working,” Slater told The Epoch Times. “Their mite levels are exploding.”

The consequences could be far-reaching since crops such as carrots, onions, blueberries, apples, cucumbers, melons, and almonds depend on bees for pollination.

Slater said about a third of food crops rely on bees for pollination.

“If you ever go to your grocery store … those shelves would look pretty bare if we can’t have bees for pollination,” Slater said.

Commercial beekeepers—generally those with more than 300 colonies—have been hit particularly hard, making it difficult to provide bees for California almond crops, where operators can make $250 per hive.

About 80 percent of the world’s almonds are produced in California, which require 80 billion insects, or 1.7 million hives, for pollination.

“These losses are more widespread than ever before,” Slater said. “They’re experiencing probably the highest loss we’ve ever received for the commercial beekeepers.”

Researchers are just now getting the data they need to assess the impact on almond pollination, he said.

Some beekeepers may be unable to stay in business if they sustain high bee losses year after year, though many split their hives to rebuild numbers.

“But 80 percent losses—it’s really hard to take that 20 percent to make up for that 80 percent loss,” Slater said.

Slater’s job, which was created at the university last year, will support beekeepers and promote good practices across the state.

He is also starting Texas’s first bee breeding center—one of a handful in the country, he told The Epoch Times.

The goal is to breed queens that produce bees that destroy Varroa mites within a colony.

However, nationwide bee losses can’t be entirely explained by the unchecked spread of pesticide-resistant Varroa mites. Some believe pesticides and herbicides weaken the bees, along with poor nutrition, making them more susceptible to viruses.

Corneliu Prelipceanu, a commercial beekeeper in California’s Bay Area, does not use Amitraz, and still suffered high losses. He uses organic pesticides such as formic acid and oxalic acid to kill the mites.

Prelipceanu experienced his worst year since 2010, when he started his company, Elsi Bees.

This past year, he lost 50 percent of his hives, significantly higher than the normal 20 to 30 percent loss, he said.

Blood-thirsty Mites

Of all the threats that bees face, the Varroa mite has proven to be one of the most lethal since arriving in the United States in 1987.

They feed on the body fat and blood of bees, and also spread the deadly deformed wing virus, according to a study published by the National Institutes of Health.

“Mites are basically like having a plate-sized parasite on your chest if you’re a bee,” Slater said.

Beekeepers began using insecticides such as coumaphos to kill the mites, but they became immune to the treatments around 2005, he said.

They eventually switched to the insecticide Amitraz to kill the mites, which they’ve continued to use over the past 20 years. It’s a popular, widely used insecticide used in agriculture and veterinary medicine to control fleas and ticks.

While there are alternatives to Amitraz, they pose problems for some beekeepers.

Beekeepers can use organic pesticides such as oxalic acid, formic acid, and thymol, Slater said. But it can be a problem in warm southern states because formic acid and thymol can’t be used once the temperature rises above 85 degrees Fahrenheit.

As for oxalic acid, it won’t kill the mites that hatch inside the cells where they begin to feed on bee larvae and pupae.

Read the rest here…

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: Megan C. Ryan, former CEO of the public Nassau University Medical Center on Long Island, New York, authorized a $3.5 million payout of taxpayer funds to herself and 12 colleagues days after announcing her resignation, Newsday first reported.

Key facts: On May 31, Gov. Kathy Hochul announced what is essentially a state takeover of the hospital, with new oversight laws and four state officials added to the hospital’s Board of Directors.

Days before, Ryan announced she would resign as CEO effective July 20. Her exit was quickly expedited — the new Board voted to fire Ryan for cause on June 18. A letter the Board sent to Ryan claims the $3.5 million payout Ryan authorized contains “at least $1 million” of excess funds that do not have a “valid business purpose” and that Ryan and her colleagues were never entitled to, Newsday reported.

Ryan does not dispute approving the $3.5 million payment but says she and the other employees who resigned along with her were owed the full amount for salary and unused vacation and sick time. She says the allegations are a “political hit-job” and plans to sue the Board of Directors to clear her name. The Board told Newsday they stand behind the accusations.

A spokesperson for Ryan told OpenTheBooks, “Unlike previous CEOs, who racked up hundreds of thousands in inappropriate expenses, Ms. Ryan, during her short tenure, personally paid thousands of dollars for initiatives that were not reimbursed, including food for employees, transportation, and supplies for community events.  Any suggestion that she did anything improper or was reimbursed inappropriately is just another effort to distract from the State’s Medicaid corruption, now under investigation by Congress, the millions in illegal no-bid contracts approved by Hochul’s new appointees and [the hospital’s] violation of Ms. Ryan’s employment contract.”

Regardless of whether the payments were legal, they are a huge expense for a hospital that has teetered on the edge of bankruptcy for years. NUMC is the only public hospital in Nassau County, and relies on federal, state and local funds. It has posted a $700 million deficit over the last decade, prompting the state takeover. Nassau County Legislator Siela Bynoe said in 2024 that there was a “real possibility” of the hospital closing its doors.

Despite the budget troubles, NUMC doctors are among the highest-paid public employees in New York. OpenTheBooks previously reported that four doctors each earned over $2 million from 2017 to 2023 from salary and pensions.

The hospital spent $241.7 million on payroll in 2024, with 3,083 people earning between $200,000 and $667,000. 

Ryan earned $250,000 in salary last year, according to payroll records. OpenTheBooks has filed an open records request to see what additional compensation Ryan earned last year, if any.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Summary: Public officials around the country often bill taxpayers for unused vacation time and other perks, but it’s especially hard to justify at a hospital that barely has enough money to function.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

A public backlash is brewing against “The Next AI Trade“ as power bills surge nationwide, especially in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast areas, where the Mag 7’s massive CapEx boom is carpeting the region with data centers lined with rows of energy-hungry GPUs running chatbots and all things AI. 

What we know so far is that we’re likely in the early innings of the revolt against the data center buildout supercharged by President Trump’s AI Stargate project, as alarming internet search trends show more and more Americans in these regions Googling about the surge in power costs over just a few short years, with some even resorting to apps like “Deferit” to split their power bills into four interest-free installments. 

The epicenter of the people’s revolt against the massive expansion of AI data centers, gobbling up local resources like power, land, and water, began in Central Maryland, where residents first pushed back in summer of 2024 against the risk of losing their properties to make way for new transmission lines needed to power data centers in Northern Virginia.

We first identified the ‘dark side’ of ‘The Next AI Trade’ one year ago:

• Dark Side Of ‘The Next AI Trade’: Seizing Private Property For Transmission Lines

Next, the power bill crisis in Maryland: According to local news station WBAL, over 264,000 in Central Maryland are behind on their power bills, which represents roughly one-fifth of all Baltimore Gas and Electric customers.

Power bills are spiraling out of control in counties just north of Washington, DC, because far-left Governor Wes Moore and crazed progressive lawmakers in Annapolis prioritized failed ‘green’ policies in the age of increasing baseload power demand from data centers, EVs, and other electrification trends.

The power crunch sparked by Democrats in Maryland is a “manufactured crisis” that has sent electric bills skyrocketing and crushed the pocketbooks of mom-and-pop businesses and working poor households the hardest. But it’s not just Maryland residents burned by soaring power costs and data centers gobbling up local resources… It’s happening in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and other parts of the nation.

🚨 THREAD: The Maryland Freedom Caucus Was Right

For months, we warned that Maryland’s rush to shut down reliable power plants would lead to blackouts, rate hikes, and federal intervention.

Now PJM is confirming every word. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/kc1YzN1i4V

— Maryland Freedom Caucus (@MDFreedomCaucus) July 24, 2025

One of the main forces driving the nationwide data center boom is the AI arms race with China. What U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has dubbed America’s “next Manhattan Project” is aimed at keeping the U.S. ahead of China ahead of the 2030s.

U.S. hyperscalers are unleashing an ungodly amount of new capital towards the buildout of AI infrastructure nationwide. 

More power-intensive GPUs are coming online in the years ahead, as per a UBS note.

The timing of this buildout, as explained to us by one Blue Owl Capital executive, will remain in “sprint” mode through the end of the decade. Recall that Blue Owl is financing the massive AI data center in Abilene, Texas, the first Stargate project.  

The rapid expansion of data centers has sparked local growing resistance, with 142 grassroots groups across 28 states now organized to block construction and expansion efforts. So far, these local groups have managed to block $18 billion worth of proposed data centers and delay another $46 billion. 

New local resistance has also emerged in Arizona, with Tucson’s City Council recently voting unanimously to end all discussions with Beale Infrastructure regarding Project Blue, a proposed Amazon Web Services (AWS) data center complex.

Tucson’s City Council nuked Project Blue after weeks of intense public backlash, with residents protesting concerns over water use, environmental impact, and corporate secrecy.

Here is the summary of what happened:

• Unanimous Rejection: The 7–0 vote terminated the annexation process required to provide city water to the site and nullified a related land sale agreement with Pima County.

• Public Outcry: Thousands attended three public meetings opposing the $3.6 billion project. Concerns included transparency, AI surveillance, low job creation, and high water and energy consumption.

• Water Use Concerns: Documents revealed the two Tucson-area data centers would consume more water than four golf courses—up to 2,000 acre-feet annually, making them the city’s largest water customer.

• Job Promises Scrutinized: Developers touted 3,000 temporary construction jobs and 180 permanent roles, but were only contractually obligated to hire 75.

• Amazon Confirmed as Client: While cloaked in NDAs, Councilmember Rocque Perez confirmed AWS as the end user during the meeting.

• Regulation Path Forward: Mayor Regina Romero proposed developing data center-specific regulations aligned with Tucson’s 2045 carbon neutrality goals. The Council agreed.

• Larger Themes: Councilmembers criticized corporate influence, “tech bro” culture, and federal preemption over AI regulation. Some questioned the role of data centers in government surveillance and predictive policing.

• Activism Victory: The No Desert Data Center Coalition hailed the vote as a win for environmental justice and community activism, vowing to remain vigilant against future attempts by Amazon or its partners.

• Developers’ Next Steps: Beale Infrastructure hinted it may pursue similar projects in neighboring jurisdictions like Marana or Sahuarita.

What’s notable about Tucson is that it’s among the first cities to reject a major AWS data center during the Stargate data center boom, with residents choosing to prioritize water conservation and other local resources.

But Tucson is just one spoke in the wheel of nationwide local resistance gaining momentum. Add to that the Baltimore-area residents burned by soaring power bills and land grab threats, along with many others across the country who will eventually realize that their rising power costs stem from a combination of new data centers coming online and failed green energy policies. The lawmakers asleep at the wheel over a ‘climate crisis’ hoax should’ve prioritized nuclear a decade ago for clean, reliable baseload capacity, not solar and wind, plus retiring reliable fossil fuel power generation was an epic mistake.

The liberal media matrix that spent years saturating the minds of Americans with Biden-Harris regime and Deep State propaganda, toxic woke ideology, discredited Russia-collusion stories, and a censorship-driven leftist agenda is now accelerating its collapse in real time, freeing the minds of tens of millions.

The next domino to potentially fall could be “The View” on ABC. Unfunny and unhinged leftist comedian Rosie O’Donnell posted a lengthy message on TikTok about the show’s imminent demise, which features a panel of leftist women hosts who spend their days screeching anti-Trump rhetoric.  

Here’s what O’Donnell wrote 

You know what I just read today? ABC is “reviewing the liberal bias” on The View. The VIEW. The show with five women speaking the own opinions – That’s the threat now.

They say they’re not canceling it—they’re just “reviewing the bias.” Which is code for – we’re gonna cancel it we’re just trying to soften you up first.

“The View is a leftist echo chamber through and through,” media watchdog group Media Research Center recently wrote on X. 

The View is a leftist echo chamber through and through pic.twitter.com/KXpzuHMJK3

— MRC NewsBusters (@newsbusters) August 2, 2025

O’Donnell claimed, “This isn’t about bias – This is about obedience. This is about removing any program that doesn’t align with Trumpism — soft fascism in full lashes with commercial breaks.” 

Yet the women on The View are noting more than useful idiots – or puppets – who promoted an endless amount of misinformation and disinformation from the Obama-Clinton regime. 

Remember: Russia! Trump! Russia! Trump!

Donald Trump wanted Flynn to contact Russia so they could work together to destroy ISIS.

This is @TheView‘s reaction to this.

This video will not age well. pic.twitter.com/8r7K64pYco

— Liberal ‘Logic’ 🇺🇸 (@LiberalLogic123) December 2, 2017

.@MeghanMcCain calls Trump’s Putin comments “extremely dangerous” and “un-American”: “Our president acted like a pathetic puppy who was completely neutered around a former KGB agent, [a] murderous dictator who has caused some of the worst atrocities.” pic.twitter.com/8YqZ1ZjkCC

— The View (@TheView) July 21, 2018

The View has to be getting government kickbacks. No way people actually watch this show:

Sunny Hostin: Why is Trump so enthralled with Russia?

Joy Behar: Maybe Trump owes something to Putin. pic.twitter.com/7LDNzO4Tm8

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) February 28, 2025

And then this: Defenders of Fauci and experimental vaccines. “Listen to what we say. We tell the truth,” host Joy Behar told the audience.

NEW – The View Hosts Say You Should Listen to Them When It Comes to COVID Vaccines

“I have been boosted and boosted and boosted. So I got it, COVID. It does not prevent you from getting COVID but you don’t die from it…People need to check their sources. Only listen to what we… pic.twitter.com/Rg3nWi1cMu

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 5, 2024

O’Donnell might be correct about The View’s fate, but she’s entirely wrong about the platform being the guardian of “truth”; instead, these liberal women were defenders of the Deep State agenda and their corporate billionaire allies.

This rumor comes after:

• Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” Cancelled By CBS

• Corporation For Public Broadcasting Begins “Winding Down” As Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda Machine Crumbles

• Howard Stern’s SiriusXM Show In Dire Straits As $500M Contract Nears End

There will be more… 

The music could soon stop for the broken-record hosts of The View, as the leftist propaganda network implodes around these elitists in real time.

Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClearInvestigations,

A whistleblower report declassified last week suggests that Hillary Clinton’s campaign efforts to manufacture evidence tying Donald Trump to alleged Russian hacking in 2016 were deeper than previously known – as were Obama administration efforts to conceal them.

According to the report, a former senior U.S. intelligence analyst who investigated alleged Russian attempts to breach state voting systems during the 2016 election suspected the breaches may have been “related to activities” of the computer contractors involved in the Alfa Bank hoax, who were accused of manipulating Internet traffic data. 

In that well-publicized case, a Clinton campaign lawyer worked with federal computer contractors and the FBI to create suspicions that Russia was communicating with Donald Trump through a secret server shared by Alfa Bank of Russia and Trump Tower in Manhattan. 

The anonymous whistleblower – who served as the deputy national intelligence officer for cyber issues in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from 2015 to 2020 – told Special Counsel John Durham he stumbled onto “enigmatic” data while leading the investigation of alleged Russian cyber activity for the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. He said that his discovery took place in December 2016 when President Obama ordered the ICA. 

After examining state-reported breaches of election networks, the whistleblower said, “It seemed only brief interaction was occurring – in some cases, no unauthorized access, or even attempted access, was detected on ‘victim’ systems.” Though the suspicious activity initially was attributed to Russian actors, further analysis raised doubts. 

But when he brought his findings to his boss, ODNI’s national intelligence officer for cyber issues, he was ordered to stop investigating and not include his findings in the final ICA draft. 

“After being directed to conduct analysis of Russian-attributed cyber activity for the ICA, I had been abruptly directed to abandon further investigation,” the whistleblower analyst said.

He added that his boss, whose name was blacked out in the whistleblower statement, “directed me to abandon analysis of these events, stating reports of Russia-attributed cyber activity were ‘something else.'” 

While the names of the whistleblower and his boss are blacked out in the report, a RealClearInvestigations search of federal records shows Vinh Nguyen was the national intelligence officer for cyber issues at the time. The whistleblower would have been Nguyen’s deputy.

Nguyen did not respond to RCI’s request for comment.

Pressured To Change View

The whistleblower’s 2023 complaint, declassified last week by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, also seems to contradict the recent claims of Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, and his CIA Director, John Brennan, among others that the ICA was a neutral document prepared according to the highest standards whose conclusions were widely supported by the intelligence community. The whistleblower said his supervisor also “pressured me to accept the ICA’s judgment of a decisive Russian preference for then President-elect Trump, and stated to me that he sought my concurrence as means to sway the position of” another intelligence agency.

“I was pressured to alter my views on the key judgment,” he said.

But, he added, “I could not concur in good conscience based on information available, and my professional analytic judgment.” 

What’s more, he said his boss “intentionally deceived and excluded me from things I was cleared for and had need to know” during the ICA’s drafting. This included the fact that Clinton campaign opposition research – the now-debunked Steele dossier – was used as supporting evidence in the highly restricted, classified version of the ICA. 

“I had been led to believe that Clapper viewed the ‘Steele dossier’ material as untrustworthy, and I had believed it played no role in the ICA,” he said. 

His boss told him there was other evidence that supported the key Trump-Russia judgment, which he was “not allowed to see,” but “if you saw it, you would agree.” Pressed to share the alleged additional evidence, his superior said, “You need to TRUST ME on this.” (Emphasis in original.) “I need you to agree with these judgments,” he said his boss demanded. 

The whistleblower alleged his superior committed “potential malfeasance” during the crafting of the ICA, which was used as the foundation for several investigations of Trump and his advisers during his first term in office. 

Still, the whistleblower said that back in 2016, he did not view the omission of the suspicious Internet data from the ICA report as “nefarious.” “However, I later began to consider it possible that some of the reporting might reflect Domain Name Service (DNS) record manipulation by parties other than Russian,” he said. 

After conducting further research, “I came to view some of the reported cyber activity as possibly related to activities of USPERSONS under federal investigation” by special prosecutor Durham, who was probing the Alfa Bank hoax. 

Suspected Manipulation

He said he subsequently provided a data report detailing his suspicions of “manipulation” to Durham’s investigators, which remains classified. But they never interviewed him, even though “I likely had information relevant to ongoing criminal investigations.” (Durham’s final report makes no mention of the incident and does not even focus on the ICA. The whistleblower report is separate from the Durham report. Attempts to reach the now-retired special prosecutor were unsuccessful.) 

The whistleblower’s reference to U.S. individuals under investigation ostensibly refers to computer scientists led by tech executive and FBI informant Rodney Joffe, who collaborated with Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to create documents and data files tying Trump to the Russian-based Alfa Bank in the summer of 2016. Sussmann, in turn, gave the materials to a friend at the FBI to investigate.

By September 2016, Sussmann had convinced the FBI to open an investigation into an alleged secret backchannel between Trump and Putin based on Domain Name Server records that Durham suspected had been manipulated by the contractors. DNS records are numeric addresses that computers, smartphones, and other devices use to communicate with websites and email servers. 

After Joffe and his contractors obtained DNS Internet data related to Trump Tower, emails cited by Durham reveal they created an “inference” of Russian contacts and even suggested “faking” DNS traffic to show communications that didn’t actually exist. 

According to an Aug. 20, 2016, email prosecutors uncovered, one contractor offered, “I could fill out a sales form on two websites, faking the other company’s email address in each form, and cause them to appear to communicate with each other in DNS. (And other ways I can think of).” 

Joffe replied that the ability to “provide evidence of *anything* that shows an attempt to behave badly” [by Trump] would make “the VIPs … happy.” According to Joffe, the Clinton campaign “VIPs” were looking for a “true story that could be used as the basis for a closer examination” by the FBI, and any interactions between Trump and Alfa Bank “would be jackpot.” 

But in an Aug. 22, 2016, email, one of the researchers expressed skepticism the scheme would “fly,” complaining to Joffe that: 

“Lets [sic] for a moment think of the best case scenario, where we are able to show (somehow) that DNS communication exists between Trump and R[ussia]. How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Lets [sic] assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our “best case” scenario. Rodney, you do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association? Lets [sic] all reflect upon that for a moment. [S]orry folks, but unless we get combine netflow and DNS traffic collected at critical points between suspect organizations, we cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny. … Sorry to say this, we are nowhere close coming [sic] with a plan to attack this problem that will fly in the public domain. The only thing that drive [sic] us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump].”

Nevertheless, in materials they provided the FBI, Joffe’s group contended “odd” Internet traffic on the server reflected hidden communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank. 

Durham found the Clinton associates conspired to gin up an FBI investigation into Trump based on knowingly false information. He also suggested they manipulated that Internet data. 

Alfa Bank, which also operates in the U.S., commissioned two studies that found the DNS data compiled by Joffe and his computer operatives was formatted differently than the bank server’s DNS logs, and one study posited that the DNS activity may have been “artificially created.” 

In his 2023 affidavit, the ODNI whistleblower implied that anti-Trump computer contractors working with the Clinton campaign may have been involved in a similar false flag operation targeting state election networks. He suspected they may have been the source of suspicious connection attempts using “IP [address] ranges historically used by Russian state cyber actors.” 

These “concerns” did not make it into the ICA,  he said, because his supervisor excluded them, among other intelligence that did not conform with the narrative he pushed. 

McCain Connection

Although the supervisor’s name is redacted from the whistleblower’s report, records show that the national intelligence officer (NIO) for cyber issues at the time was Vinh Nguyen. He was new to the job in 2016 but received DNI’s Exceptional Accomplishment Award the following year. 

Before the 2016 election, Nguyen worked with  Democratic National Committee cybersecurity contractor CrowdStrike to gather intelligence on the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC computer system. Even though the company had publicly blamed Russia during the heated presidential campaign for stealing and then sharing the emails, many of which were published by WikiLeaks, its president, Shawn Henry, later testified in a closed-door congressional hearing that there was no proof that Russian intelligence had exfiltrated emails from the DNC.

Nguyen is said to have also overseen election security analysis for the 2018 mid-term elections and 2020 presidential election. He is now the top AI officer at the National Security Agency. 

Federal Election Commission records show that Nguyen has contributed at least $500 to the late GOP Sen. John McCain, his only political donations. Nguyen made the donations while serving as “senior national advance representative” for McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. 

He is listed as a member of the McCain Alumni Club, according to the McCain Institute. In 2020, Nguyen was listed among 100 McCain Alumni who endorsed Joe Biden for president. McCain and Biden served in the Senate together and maintained a friendship despite being from different political parties. 

Following Trump’s surprise victory in 2016, McCain played a role in the attempts to link Trump with Russia. On directions from McCain, one of his top staffers from the McCain Institute sought out Christopher Steele and FusionGPS and began working directly with them to distribute their Clinton-funded dossier. 

The Clinton campaign had hired FusionGPS, which in turn hired Steele to produce the dossier. The now-debunked collection of hearsay and inventions was used by the FBI to obtain a wiretap to spy on the Trump campaign, and later by Clapper and CIA chief John Brennan to buttress the findings of the ICA. 

On Dec. 9, 2016, the same day Obama convened a meeting to refocus the ICA on Trump, McCain personally provided 16 Steele reports to then-FBI Director James Comey, including five that Steele had not given the agency previously. 

Then on Dec. 17, Comey discussed the new dossier material with Nguyen’s boss, Clapper, over the phone. A few weeks later, in early January 2017, the same McCain Institute aide, David Kramer, gave copies of all of the Steele reports to Buzzfeed, which published them in full under the headline, “These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties to Russia.” 

On Jan. 5, 2017, McCain, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, held hearings with Clapper as his lead witness and forcefully reaffirmed the findings of the ICA. 

The following month, despite the FBI debunking the Alfa Bank hoax and closing its case, the Senate Armed Services Committee “leadership” commissioned a report on the alleged links to Trump. The report was written by Daniel Jones, a FusionGPS and Steele crony, who said the committee put him in touch with Sussmann and Joffe, who provided him with a “dataset of DNS look-ups.” Joffe knew McCain from his days working in Arizona. 

Jones’ 687-page report concluded “there was likely human interaction and coordination between personnel working on behalf of Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization,” even though his own research team “found no evidence of a secret channel of communications.” 

Turns out the Trump Organization had no access to the email server or any of the systems involved, according to the Durham report. 

Paul Sperry is an investigative reporter for RealClearInvestigations. He is also a longtime media fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Sperry was previously the Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, and his work has appeared in the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Houston Chronicle, among other major publications.