BREAKING: Whistleblower reveals Trump officials and DOGE bros tried declaring 2.7 MILLION living people "dead" in Social Security records to drive them out of the country as part of Trump's immigration crackdown!

According to a former senior Social Security Administration whistleblower, the plan would have used one of the federal government's most powerful databases to effectively erase living people from the financial system. The allegations were revealed by the WaPo this morning.

Whistleblower Jeremiah Schofield, says DOGE officials arrived at Social Security in early 2025 and quickly gained access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. He recalled seeing DOGE personnel discussing databases that few government employees were normally allowed to access.

Then things allegedly took a darker turn. Schofield said a DOGE official working with the Department of Homeland Security described a plan to place as many as 2.7 million people into Social Security's “Death Master File,” a database used by banks, employers and government agencies to determine whether someone is alive.

Anyone falsely placed in that file would lose access to wages, bank accounts, credit, benefits and other essential services because the system effectively treats them as dead.

Schofield says he reviewed a sample of names from the list and discovered the people were alive. The sample included U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, teenagers and senior citizens, including a widow legally receiving survivor benefits.

Agency lawyers warned that falsely marking living people as dead could violate federal law, and he refused to help implement the plan.

Schofield said he was shocked by discussions that indicated the goal was to make immigrants so miserable financially that they would self-deport or seek help from government offices where they could potentially be detained.

The Social Security Administration says the larger 2.7 million-person effort was never carried out. But Schofield alleges a smaller operation involving roughly 6,100 people was implemented, with some later forced to prove they were still alive in order to restore their records.

In short, the plan was to use government databases to make living people disappear from the financial system. If Schofield's allegations are true, DOGE wasn't just hunting for waste and fraud. It was helping build a bureaucratic blacklist.

Add this to the many crimes perpetrated by DOGE that have already come to light. Justice must be served against their wholesale ransacking of some of the U.S. government's most sensitive data.

If you agree, like and share this post.

 

Marco Rubio before congress:

"I do think you are going to see a reshifting of where the world gets its energy from in the aftermath of this conflict. You are already beginning to see some of it now. I think you are going to see the United States will be a bigger energy provider to the indo pacific. We have the capability to do so, but it's going to take some time to build that capability, so I think you are going to see more of that. I think you are going to see the establishment of more of these alternative routes as a result of this. Remember, only about 20% of global oil goes through the straits of Hormuz, but it is about 80 to 85% of the oil that goes to the indo Pacific. So in those particular countries, I think you are going to most definitely see them buying more from other places including the United States."

Scott Perry replied:

"And that is going to lower the cost for everybody, which is great."

Here's some clarity for the confused Liberals:

· The US intends to become a bigger energy provider to the Indo‑Pacific. That is not “free trade.” That is a strategic push to replace Middle Eastern oil with US LNG, locking Asian countries into dependence on American energy.

· The Strait of Hormuz is the choke point. Rubio notes that 80‑85% of oil going to the Indo‑Pacific passes through Hormuz. The current conflict has disrupted that flow – by design. The US is not trying to “reopen” the strait; it is trying to replace it.

· This will take time. The US needs to build export terminals, shipping capacity, and long‑term contracts. That is why the war is not ending soon. The longer the strait remains unstable, the more Asian buyers will turn to US suppliers.

What Perry added (and why it is a lie)

Perry says: “And that is going to lower the cost for everybody, which is great.”

This is pure propaganda. US LNG is more expensive than Middle Eastern oil and Russian gas. The only way US exports become “cheap” for Asian buyers is if their other options are destroyed – by sanctions, blockade, or war. The “lower cost” is not a market outcome; it is the result of armed coercion.

Perry is either lying or repeating a talking point he knows is false. The real effect will be higher energy prices for everyone except US producers.

1. The US energy monopoly strategy is not a secret conspiracy. It is stated openly by senators like Rubio. The goal is to “reshift” global energy supply away from the Middle East and Russia and toward the US – using military force to destroy competing suppliers.

2. The Indo‑Pacific is the primary target. Rubio explicitly says the US wants to supply energy to that region. That is where China, Japan, South Korea, India, and Vietnam are located. The real goal is to force Asian economies to depend on US energy – and to use that dependency as leverage against China.

3. The war will not end until the new energy architecture is in place. Rubio says it “will take some time to build that capability.” That means the conflict will continue. The strait will remain dangerous. European and Asian buyers will be pushed toward US LNG. The “deal” with Iran is a distraction. The real deal is between the US energy sector and the US government.

4. Perry’s “lower cost” claim is a lie. The truth is that US energy companies are profiting from war – and ordinary people are paying the price.

 

BREAKING : California’s first-ever anti-data center ballot measure is shaping up to be an absolute shellacking for the tech industry — part of a wave of opposition rising across the country, as communities and lawmakers grapple with the frenzied push to build AI infrastructure.

Monterey Park, a city of 60,000 people about 10 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, placed a measure on Tuesday’s ballot asking voters if they wanted to prohibit data centers in their city. The response, so far, has been an unequivocal “yes,” with 86 percent of votes counted as of Wednesday afternoon in favor of the proposal.

Local officials and environmental organizers said they hope the drubbing will spur other cities to enact similar bans.

“A lot of the other cities that are facing data center proposals are going to follow suit,” Elizabeth Yang, the city’s mayor, said on Tuesday. “There’s [a] bad reputation across the board, across the country, from other data centers that have been built in neighborhoods.”

California is one of many states experiencing an explosion of developer interest in constructing new data centers, which house the physical infrastructure that make up the backbone of the internet.

Tech companies racing to develop artificial intelligence models need the computing power stored in these facilities. But the seemingly endless rows of servers and other equipment that fill their floors use immense amounts of electricity and water, which has made them controversial, and sparked backlash and protests.

The Monterey Park vote represents an extension of that resistance in California, and serves as a successful test of a new model for anti-data center activists.

The text of the city’s measure stated that its aim was to “protect air quality, drinking water resources and public health” and prevent increases to residents’ electricity and water rates, and it came about in response to community uproar over a now-abandoned proposal to build a data center in the city.

Monterey Park is believed to be only the second city in the nation to pass an anti-data center referendum, following an April vote in a small Milwaukee suburb (the Data Center Coalition, an industry association, is not aware of any other measures, it told POLITICO). The upswell in opposition has been all the more notable coming in Silicon Valley’s own state, which is an important market for data centers.

“The data center industry will continue to work with California residents, communities, and policymakers to support the responsible development of this critical infrastructure and ensure California remains competitive in the modern economy,” Khara Boender, director of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, said in a statement ahead of the vote.

The result in Monterey Park was a rare piece of bright news for environmental advocates in the state, who suffered a series of setbacks during Tuesday’s primary.

Green groups’ gubernatorial favorite, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer, trailed both establishment Democratic pick Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton in initial results. And a slew of progressive down ballot candidates appeared poised to lose to opponents supported by the fossil fuel industry.

Other organizers across the nation have signaled an eagerness to embrace plans similar to the one in Monterey Park, which aim to counter the breakneck race to build infrastructure to support the artificial intelligence boom. That includes a campaign to put a ban on the ballot statewide in Ohio, and local efforts in Georgia, Maryland and Utah.

“What we’re seeing in Monterey Park can be an early step in this being replicated in other parts of the country,” Andrea Vega, a Southern California organizer with environmental group Food & Water Watch, said in an interview.

But Boender warned that there’s a downside to barring data centers from a community.

The Monterey Park ballot measure would “send a signal that the area is closed for business, both for data centers and for other significant economic development projects,” depriving the region of “jobs and investment,” Boender said ahead of the vote.

But voters split with tech interests during Tuesday’s primary, handing the industry a series of electoral losses.

Meanwhile, other states are grappling with how to respond to the massive AI infrastructure buildout in their own rural communities and cities. On Tuesday, the New York Legislature appeared poised to move forward with a one-year moratorium on new large-scale data centers.

Local activists began pushing for a data center ban in Monterey Park after plans by Australian developer DigiCo Infrastructure REIT surfaced to build one in the city. Opponents voiced concerns about how much electricity and water data centers require, and the potential for diesel backup generators to cause air pollution.

“We don’t want any of them to be built in our area,” Amy J. Wong, a volunteer organizer with the group San Gabriel Valley Progressive Action, said in an interview.

The organizers pressured the city council to implement a data center moratorium and place the referendum on Tuesday’s ballot. Following the city council action, the developer, which did not respond to a request for comment, withdrew its proposal.

Data center opponents in Los Angeles County have scored a series of wins in other small cities around Monterey Park, with city councils enacting their own data center moratoriums in recent months. The nearby City of Industry could be next, according to Wong.

That coming fight is the reason why the Monterey Park vote was significant, she said. “It can send a strong message to neighboring cities and other cities in California, and also across the nation.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Monterey Park vote.

See less

 

This story will make your blood boil. And it happened right here in America just weeks ago.

Residents in Fayette County, Georgia, were told by their local government to stop watering their lawns. Water pressure in their homes was dropping. People couldn’t shower properly. Something was draining the town dry.

So they started investigating. And what they found will shock you.

A massive data center campus located about 20 miles south of Atlanta had been secretly drawing approximately 29 million gallons of water through two water connections that the county didn’t even know existed — and this went on for 15 months before anyone caught it. 

15 MONTHS. Hidden pipes. Millions of gallons. While regular families were being told to stop watering their grass.

Now here’s the part that will really get you angry —

Officials refused to fine the builders of the massive 6.2 million-square-foot facility over the unauthorized water use. The county’s soft response was attributed to the data center being described as “our largest customer, and we have to be partners.” 

So let’s get this straight. A tech company secretly taps into your water supply without permission, drains 29 million gallons while your water pressure tanks, and the punishment is… nothing. Because they’re a “partner.”

This Is Not an Isolated Incident

This is happening all across America right now.

Data centers powering AI systems consumed approximately 17 billion gallons of water in 2023, and that number is projected to explode to 68 billion gallons by 2028 — a 300% increase in just five years. 

On average, a single medium-sized data center consumes roughly 110 million gallons of water per year — enough to cover the annual water use of about 1,000 households. 

And they’re building thousands of these things. Everywhere.

Many AI data centers are deliberately built in the country’s driest regions to take advantage of cheap solar power — placing enormous strain on water supplies in areas least equipped to handle the extra demand. 

Every Time You Use ChatGPT, This Happens

Training a single large AI model like GPT-4 consumed approximately 700,000 liters of water for cooling. And generating just 10–50 AI responses consumes roughly 500 milliliters — about one water bottle. 

Scale that to billions of daily users across every AI platform in the world, and you start to understand just how massive this crisis really is.

Who Pays the Price?

Not the billionaires building these facilities.

Water costs are expected to rise dramatically across affected regions in 2026 as AI consumption spikes. Businesses and consumers nationwide should expect to pay significantly more for water as data centers compete for the same limited resources. 

Regular Americans — farmers, families, small businesses — are already feeling it. The Georgia story is just one example of what’s quietly happening in communities nationwide while the tech giants write the checks and the politicians look the other way.

Georgia families were told to stop watering their lawns. A $10 billion data center was secretly draining their water. And nobody got fined.

This is the AI boom nobody is talking about. Share this before it gets buried. drop a follow for more data center news

Source: Tom’s Hardware — “AI data center project secretly sucked 29 million gallons of water over 15 months before detected by residents” (May 10, 2026)

 

 

 

I sent this to Gillibrand, Schumer & Riley, as well, and anyone who wants to share it? We are also SNAIL MAILING it.

(IN)Justice John Roberts

"Dear Justice Roberts,

"It has come to my attention through your various media appearances that your feelings are hurt — that people view you and your Court as political actors, which you insist is not an accurate understanding of what the Court does.

"So let me resolve the confusion: the misunderstanding is yours, not ours.

"People believe your Court is political because it is and acts so in plain view of the nation.

"You unleash unlimited corporate money into elections by inventing constitutional protections for concentrated wealth. You dismantle voting protections while dining with the very political movement that benefits from their destruction. You expand presidential immunity in ways conveniently favorable to a corrupt executive you have rewarded with extraordinary deference, 90% deference. And then you perform public astonishment when Americans recognize your pattern.

"Your Court did not merely 'interpret' the Constitution. It selectively hollowed it out whenever democratic participation threatened entrenched power.

"Citizens United accelerated America’s transformation into an oligarchy where billionaires and corporations wield more political influence than millions of citizens combined. Shelby County gutted the Voting Rights Act, after which states moved with remarkable speed to burden the very voters the Act was designed to protect. The immunity ruling signaled that sufficient power can place a president beyond meaningful accountability.

"Then you publicly mourn the collapse of trust. What exactly did you think would happen?

"Legitimacy is not something a court grants itself while issuing ideologically convenient outcomes wrapped in constitutional language — when the public is fortunate enough to even receive a full opinion instead of another consequential ruling buried in the shadow docket.

"Legitimacy is earned through restraint, consistency, ethical seriousness, and fidelity to principle even when principle is inconvenient to power.

"This is precisely the credibility your Court squandered. We understand perfectly well what we have been watching. We all see you and your court and its role in what our nation has become.

"And we are furious — not because we are too ignorant to understand constitutional law, but because we are capable of reading the Constitution you claim to defend- while watching this Court repeatedly twist it to serve its own ideological will.

"History will remember this era. And it will remember you and your Court- not as a guardian of constitutional democracy, but as a key institution that eroded it. That is already your legacy, so stop whining- you earned a nation's scorn."

Elizabeth Layton

Are you missing the trees for the forest?

Peter Thiel co-founded Palantir in 2003 with a stated mission to make Western liberal democracy legible to itself through data, a formulation that contained within it the entire logic of what followed: the conversion of surveillance capacity into governance capacity, and the positioning of private actors as the architects of that conversion.

 

Larry Ellison built Oracle into the world's second-largest software company and then, through the acquisition of Cerner in 2022, into the custodian of the largest integrated healthcare records database in the United States, a position he has leveraged into federal contracts that place Oracle's infrastructure at the center of the government's health, financial, and administrative data architecture.

 

Mark Zuckerberg built the world's largest behavioral surveillance system under the name of a social network, producing a real-time map of human associational relationships, political expressions, and behavioral patterns that government agencies access through legal process, data broker intermediaries, and the structural fact that Meta's platforms are where organizing happens.

 

Elon Musk acquired the platform through which political resistance most visibly organizes, eliminated the content moderation architecture that previously created friction between speech and surveillance, and simultaneously obtained operational access to federal administrative data systems through his role in the executive branch's efficiency initiative.

 

Alex Karp, Palantir's CEO, built the connective tissue: the data integration and analysis platform that takes what Oracle stores, what Meta produces, what X amplifies, and what federal agencies collect, and routes it through a unified analytical architecture whose outputs power immigration enforcement, law enforcement intelligence, child welfare risk scoring, healthcare surveillance, and financial crime investigation simultaneously.

 

These actors compete with each other. They sue each other, outbid each other for government contracts, and position themselves publicly as operating toward different ends. Those conflicts are genuine at the level of short-term and mid-term corporate interest. They are irrelevant at the level of structural consequence.

 

What these five actors share is not a coordination agreement. What they share is a common political project whose success depends on the same conditions: the elimination of meaningful regulatory constraint on algorithmic governance, the federalization of AI infrastructure as a national security interest that places it beyond ordinary democratic accountability, the consolidation of data control under private corporate architectures that governments can access but cannot govern, and the suppression of the organized community resistance that would otherwise impose accountability on that consolidation.

These conditions do not require their cooperation. They require only that none of them act to undermine them, and none of them has.

 

The absence of a single unified corporate entity is not a gap in this architecture. It is a design feature. A merged mega-corporation would create a single point of accountability, a single target for regulatory action, a single actor whose exposure would compromise the entire system. The distributed architecture is more resilient precisely because it is distributed. When Palantir's ICE contracts produce public outrage, Oracle's healthcare data infrastructure continues operating. When Meta faces congressional scrutiny over its surveillance practices, Palantir's law enforcement contracts expand. When Musk's government access generates political opposition, Thiel's political investments work to ensure that the officials responsible for oversight remain structurally aligned with the infrastructure's expansion.

 

The distribution of the system across competing corporate entities, each with its own political relationships, its own public narrative, and its own apparent independence from the others, is what makes the system difficult to name, difficult to challenge, and nearly impossible to dismantle through the accountability mechanisms that democratic governance provides.

See less