Nothing says fake grassroots like an email from a corpse



Data center boosters routinely accuse local opponents of serving China or obstructing progress. In Coweta, Oklahoma, supporters of a proposed hyperscale project appear to have answered authentic opposition with something less democratic: phony support from real residents.

“Dear Vice Mayor Barnett, Project Atlas would generate millions for city services and schools, and all the needed upgrades are paid for by the developer. This seems like reasonable, low-impact growth. Please support this opportunity for Coweta.”

The data center lobby may have money, consultants, and automated emails. Its opponents have something more durable: actual voters and the truth.

The message appeared to come from a known Coweta resident. When the vice mayor contacted the supposed sender, the resident replied that he had not written it and opposed the project. Fox23 News confirmed the account with the victim.

That was not an isolated irregularity. Local farmer and activist Darren Blanchard obtained public records showing nearly 300 substantially identical messages supporting the data center. Many arrived at strange hours and apparently originated through an advocacy website that automatically generated letters to council members.

Automated advocacy tools aren’t new. But using the personal information of real people to send messages in their names without permission is not grassroots politics. It is political identity theft.

“What we suspect as to what was going on is that local citizens’ data — names, address, phone numbers, emails — was purchased, and probably a script was written and likely inputted into this advocacy website,” Blanchard said in an interview on my podcast. “And then nearly 300 people were impersonated within the community of Coweta, asking the city council to approve the data center. It was completely made up.”

The irony is hard to miss. Companies seeking to build facilities that warehouse and process vast quantities of information allegedly used residents’ personal data to impersonate them and manufacture consent.

The most grotesque message allegedly came from a dead man. Blanchard said a council member received an email supporting the project in the name of a deceased relative — on the second anniversary of that relative’s death.

That message persuaded city officials that the matter required the attention of law enforcement. Yet the city has redacted the names attached to the nearly 300 emails, making it harder for residents to learn whether their identities were used. Blanchard says an appeal to the Oklahoma attorney general has gone nowhere.

The proposed 270-acre hyperscale development from San Francisco-based Beale Infrastructure, backed by Blue Owl Capital, was abandoned at the end of March after intense local opposition and scrutiny of the campaign supporting it.

RELATED: Before you say ‘no’ to a data center, here’s what you’re giving up

Sarah Rice/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Coweta is not an isolated case of public resistance. In Box Elder County, Utah, Kevin O’Leary proposed a data center complex projected to consume enormous amounts of electricity and occupy a footprint larger than thousands of Walmart Supercenters. A public-records review by the Salt Lake Tribune found overwhelming opposition in emails to county commissioners. Just seven messages — about 2% — supported the plan.

The voters delivered an even clearer verdict. Last month, two Box Elder County commissioners who backed the project were crushed in their Republican primaries. Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams, who played a prominent role in the state entity that approved the development, also lost.

In Calvert County, Maryland, Republican voters booted all three commissioners who had signed nondisclosure agreements with data center companies and then opposed a proposed moratorium.

These defeats expose the basic political problem facing Big Tech. Opposition to giant data centers is deep, local, and often bipartisan. Residents worry about electricity demand, water use, tax subsidies, land consumption, secrecy, surveillance, and the transfer of private risk to the public.

Those concerns cannot be erased by labeling opponents agents of China or enemies of innovation. Nor can they be overcome honestly by sending hundreds of nearly identical emails in the names of people who never authorized them.

Astroturfing usually tries to make a small constituency look large. The Coweta campaign went further: It manufactured a constituency from stolen identities, including one voice from beyond the grave.

Republican officials need to decide which side they are on. They can stand with citizens demanding transparency and control over their communities, or with globalists and techno-feudalists willing to fabricate public support.

The data center lobby may have money, consultants, and automated emails. Its opponents have something more durable: actual voters and the truth.

Democrats can’t outrun their socialist wing



“In New York, they don’t say ‘I love you,’ they say ‘NYPD suck my d**k’ and I think that’s beautiful.”

“A world without borders — just like a world without prisons or police — is possible, necessary, and the only moral way forward.”

Voters judge political parties by what they do, not by what they call themselves.

“Trick question — Israel doesn’t exist.”

Those are social media posts or reposts from Darializa Avila Chevalier, the Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidate who won the 2026 Democratic primary for New York’s 13th Congressional District.

Many Democrats still insist the Democratic Socialists of America remain a fringe movement with little influence over the party. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), for example, recently promised that “common-sense Democrats will fight back” against the socialist agenda.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

The DSA’s influence no longer depends on how many members it elects to Congress. Its influence comes from how many of its priorities have become mainstream Democrat positions.

Approximately 250 DSA members held public office in 2025, with roughly 90% elected after 2019. Only two currently serve in Congress, but the movement’s real strength lies elsewhere: dozens of state legislators and nearly 150 local officials, including mayors, city council members, county commissioners, and school board members. Another 35 DSA-backed candidates advanced through this year's primaries and appear positioned to win office.

Increasingly, the DSA shapes the Democratic Party from the ground up.

Consider the issues. The DSA openly advocates sweeping changes on immigration, policing, transgender policy, censorship, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The DSA has long called for expanding the Supreme Court to reduce conservative influence. Democrat leaders have moved in the same direction. Former Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed Supreme Court reform, while Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced legislation in 2024 to expand the court to 13 justices, joined by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

On gender policy, the DSA advocates taxpayer-funded transgender procedures, including for minors, and has threatened hospitals that refuse to provide them.

Former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D) argued that schools should be permitted to withhold information from parents when a child socially transitions at school. Whatever differences may exist around the edges, the underlying assumption is similar: Parents should not always have the final say.

RELATED: Yet another establishment Democrat taken out by a Mamdani-like socialist from a foreign land

Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

Immigration presents another point of convergence.

The DSA opposes meaningful immigration enforcement and has labeled Immigration and Customs Enforcement itself an instrument of “state violence.” Democrat officials have likewise resisted federal immigration enforcement in a variety of ways.

Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) publicly aligned himself with anti-ICE activists, while New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) has limited state cooperation with federal immigration authorities and expanded state funding for immigrant legal defense.

The rhetoric differs. The practical effect often does not.

The same pattern appears on free speech.

After Elon Musk purchased Twitter and restored numerous previously restricted conservative accounts, the New York City DSA launched a dedicated “Stop Musk” campaign.

Democrat officials have repeatedly criticized Musk’s moderation policies and supported efforts, both here and abroad, to pressure X over the speech it permits.

Again, the methods differ. The destinations look remarkably similar.

The DSA also embraced the “Free Palestine” movement immediately after Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terrorist attack, issuing a statement calling for an end to the Israeli regime.

Many of the Democratic Party’s most prominent progressive members have likewise become leading voices in the pro-Palestinian movement. Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) have all championed that cause, while several have also supported reducing police funding or sharply limiting law enforcement.

No, today's Democratic Party is not formally controlled by the DSA. But it increasingly advances many of the same priorities. That is why Democrat leaders spend so much energy insisting they are not socialists. They understand the label remains politically damaging.

The problem is that voters judge political parties by what they do, not by what they call themselves. When the Democratic Party repeatedly adopts positions first championed by the Democratic Socialists of America, the distinction becomes more difficult to see.

Democrats may not like the comparison. Their policies increasingly invite it.

In 2026, voters should recognize an uncomfortable political reality: A vote for today’s Democratic Party increasingly advances the agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Grassroots GOP Ousts Indiana Republicans Who Betrayed Base On Redistricting

In a remarkable demonstration of grassroots strength, Indiana conservatives ousted numerous Republican state lawmakers who betrayed their constituents on mid-decade redistricting. According to The New York Times, preliminary results from Tuesday’s primary elections indicate that at least five incumbent Republican senators who sided with Democrats last year to kill redistricting before the 2026 midterms are […]

Copy Our Neighborhood Pie Night Tradition If You Want To Build A Better Community

In an age where the idols of dissociation and personal comfort demand empty reverence, it is healthy to remind our souls that we are embodied creations living in specific places and communities.

For Charlie Kirk, conservatives will knock 500,000 New Jersey doors



“Doors win wars” is more than just a slogan. It’s a proven fact.

In Pennsylvania, our Citizens Alliance team executed the largest Republican ballot-chasing program in the country, knocking on more than 510,000 doors in 2024. The public goal was for Donald Trump to capture 33% of the mail-in vote. He earned 34.5% — and with it, Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes. That effort helped re-elect Trump as president.

The ‘New Jersey Chase’ is about more than one race. It’s about creating a model Republicans can replicate across the country.

Now we’re bringing that same fight to New Jersey.

With mail-in ballots already hitting mailboxes in the governor’s race, the “New Jersey Chase” has officially begun. The mission is simple: flip New Jersey red.

We aim to deliver a victory for Jack Ciattarelli, flip key state assembly seats, and push conservative leadership into county and local offices up and down the ballot.

Democrats have run a ballot-harvesting machine in New Jersey for decades. They exploited mail-in rules while Republicans sat on the sidelines, often complaining about the system instead of competing inside it. That ends now.

I’ve said it before: I don’t like mail-in voting. But I like losing even less. Until the rules change, we can’t let Democrats dominate the battlefield uncontested. The rules are the rules. Our job is to win under them.

So far, our New Jersey Chase team has knocked on 284,565 doors, encouraging Republicans to request, complete, and return their mail-in ballots.

Each door we knock and each conversation we have are about more than one election. It’s about building a culture of action on the right.

This mission is personal. On September 10, when my friend and mentor Charlie Kirk was assassinated for standing up for free expression and American values, something changed in all of us. I don’t need to spell it out — we saw it. The world saw it.

Charlie believed in the power of dialogue to move people off the sidelines and into the fight. He also believed in me.

When the Trump campaign needed someone to design and execute a ballot-chasing strategy in Pennsylvania, Charlie asked me to take it on. Together, we proved the establishment wrong.

RELATED: Charlie Kirk sparks viral Christian revival: ‘I'm going to go take his seat for him‘

Photo by Jon Putman/Anadolu via Getty Images

Now, in his memory, I’m channeling that same fight into New Jersey.

Our opponents are entrenched, ruthless, and armed with decades of political machinery. But they underestimate grassroots patriots who are willing to put their shoulders to the wheel and take their state back.

Jack Ciattarelli has the vision and leadership to restore sanity in Trenton. His victory would prove to the nation that even in deep-blue territory, conservatives can organize, fight, and win.

The “New Jersey Chase” is about more than one race. It’s about creating a model Republicans can replicate across the country — a model that turns every Trump supporter into a Trump voter, ensures every conservative voice is heard, and makes sure every ballot is counted.

We are building a red wall, one door at a time.

In New Jersey, we’ll prove the future belongs to those who knock, not those who sit back and hope. By November 4, we will have knocked on 500,000 doors.

For Charlie. For New Jersey. For America.

Lies, flags, and firebombs: Just another ‘mostly peaceful’ riot in LA



I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

RELATED: Why Trump had to do what Gavin Newsom refused to do

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.

Want more fromGlenn Beck? Get Glenn'sFREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Conservatives Can’t Make America Great Again Until They Hold ‘Red State’ RINOs Accountable

In many so-called 'red states' across America, Republican lawmakers are quietly thwarting the will of their constituents.

A woke Wisconsin win is just the start of the left’s 2026 push



When I went to bed Tuesday night, the race for the open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court had already been called — unsurprisingly — for Susan Crawford, the ultra-woke candidate. With more than two-thirds of the votes counted, Crawford held a lead of more than 10 percentage points.

Despite complaints from Wisconsin Democrats about Elon Musk’s support for Republican candidate Brad Schimel, Crawford outspent him by a margin of roughly 2 to 1. Her campaign benefited from funding from George Soros, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D), and other wealthy backers with culturally progressive agendas. Powerful public-sector unions in Wisconsin also rallied behind Crawford, opposing Musk’s calls for reducing the influence of government bureaucrats.

Does anyone seriously believe Democrats won’t use Susan Crawford’s court victory to gerrymander two new congressional districts?

As usual, the Democratic base — racial minorities and college-educated white women — turned out in strong numbers to support her.

Watching the activist left unite behind a candidate who embraces the very ideologies that writer Christopher Rufo has documented in his research on institutional wokeness, I was reminded of the overly optimistic narratives coming from some in the conservative media.

We keep hearing that the Democratic Party is falling apart — that it’s resorting to riots and hurling obscenities because it has lost the support of ordinary voters. But these talking points ignore political reality.

The claim seems to rest on Donald Trump’s victory in 2024, which was hardly a landslide, and came against a tongue-tied mediocrity. Tuesday night’s results in Wisconsin tell a different story. With record Democratic turnout, Crawford defeated Schimel handily. The left, far from collapsing, remains highly mobilized and effective.

The cheerleading from Fox News pundits likely stems from their inability — or unwillingness — to believe that anyone could support a party as deeply unserious and radical as today’s Democrats. But the reality is right in front of us.

Why would any voter — citizen or not — back candidates who insist there are more than two genders, advocate for biological men in women’s sports, excuse the burning of Tesla dealerships, and elevate political carnival acts like Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.)?

The answer is straightforward: The left, across the Western world, is backed by immense institutional power. It enjoys the support of major financial interests, the legacy media, most of the entertainment industry, and nearly the entire education system. It also benefits from every new expansion of the electorate.

More importantly, the left plays to win — and to stay in power. Does anyone seriously believe Democrats won’t use Susan Crawford’s court victory to gerrymander two new congressional districts? Of course they will. And if they retake the House, they’ll waste no time rallying their obedient congressional foot soldiers for yet another effort to impeach Donald Trump.

Democrats will also keep using the courts to target Trump’s administration, relying on friendly federal district judges to strike down any executive action that doesn’t serve their agenda.

And let’s not forget the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens the Democratic Party has welcomed and intends to keep here — criminal gang members included. These individuals are not just here to stay; they’re here to vote. As Elon Musk pointed out, though lapdog media outlets rushed to deny it, Democratic politicians and bureaucrats have pushed to issue Social Security numbers to noncitizens — numbers that can serve as voter ID.

The left has mastered the art of weaponizing the judiciary, both in the United States and across Europe, against its already weakened opposition. It reflexively smears anyone who resists its cultural agenda — on family, gender, or borders — as a “Nazi.” And it works.

The left wins because it has more power: more institutional support, more funding, more cultural dominance. The notion that it's collapsing because it acts outrageously is laughable. That behavior energizes its base. As we saw on April 1, even in so-called purple states, that base remains large — and ready to deliver.

One major advantage the American right still holds — unlike, say, its counterparts in Germany, England, Spain, and elsewhere in the West — is a substantial electoral base. Roughly 40% of the electorate continues to resist a full leftist takeover. We also have a president willing to use whatever authority he’s given to push back against the left’s grip on the permanent bureaucracy.

These advantages matter. I’m delighted they still exist. But let’s not kid ourselves: The Democrats and their ideological allies are not vanishing. Far from it.

And there’s no reason to pretend that those who reliably vote with the left, excuse its political games, and indulge its outbursts and riots somehow share “common ground” with their opponents. That fantasy only weakens the real resistance. It promotes the delusion that if we’re just a little “nicer,” the Democrats will magically start playing fair.

We’re told we can return to the supposed golden age when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill shared drinks and Irish jokes after trading barbs in public. If that era ever existed, it’s gone — and it isn’t coming back.

Restore self-government by handing debt power to states



Donald Trump last week shocked Congress by demanding that the debt limit either be abolished or at least suspended during his presidency — a stance typically championed by Democrats. While the plan, thankfully, has been shelved for now, there might be a way for conservatives to turn this political lemon into lemonade. What if Congress eliminated the debt limit in the much-anticipated budget reconciliation bill but did so in a way that tackled the debt itself rather than the ceiling?

Want to restore relevance to state legislatures and self-government while addressing the debt crisis? Consider putting the states in charge of managing the debt. The idea might not be as far-fetched as it sounds.

As part of the upcoming reconciliation bill, Congress could implement a rule requiring that the debt limit cannot be raised unless two-thirds of state legislatures approve.

We are no longer a self-governing people. Politics today reveals a troubling reality for both the right and the left: Our government no longer operates of, by, for, or in response to the people. The cause lies in the dismantling of the federalist system created by the Constitution. Instead of states representing the people in federal government, the entire arrangement has been turned upside down.

The states have become a joke, a bunch of shleppers doing the bidding of the federal government and groveling for its attention and money. Our founders envisioned the need for localism when America was a relatively homogenous group of just 3 million people. How much more so now with 340 million very diverse individuals and communities?

From a liberal and conservative perspective, restoring the balance of power the founders intended requires flipping the tables. Few solutions achieve this better than devolving debt authority to the states, an idea first proposed by the Goldwater Institute and recently promoted by Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) on my podcast.

Putting the states in the driver’s seat

Empowering the states through this transformational reform will strengthen self-governance. It will make state and local elections more relevant, align state governments with the priorities of their people, and hold the federal government more accountable.

States and local governments have lost influence because they collect only $3.5 trillion in revenue combined, while the federal government collects $5 trillion in one central pot. The federal government then returns about $1.1 trillion to the states, burdened with conditions and distortions that leave state officials unable to control their own destinies.

The federal government collects most of its revenue from the wealthy, leaving half the country indifferent to reining in federal overreach. Meanwhile, the truly wealthy accept their burden, content to pay what amounts to a bribe for maintaining their status. At this point, we might as well hand our money to the King of England. These funds bear no connection to self-governance or the character of our communities and epitomize the “taxation without representation” that sparked the war for independence.

In recent years, much of this revenue hasn’t even come from taxes but from money printing to service the interest on the debt through treasury auctions. This practice has burdened Americans with an even worse tax — long-term, intractable inflation. What if we shifted control of the printing presses to the states, placing them firmly in the driver’s seat?

Empowering grassroots conservatives

As part of the upcoming reconciliation bill, Congress could implement a self-imposed rule requiring that the debt limit cannot be raised unless two-thirds of state legislatures approve. Even a 26-state threshold would demand agreement from several Republican-controlled chambers for every Democratic-controlled chamber to raise the limit. This approach wouldn’t delegate Congress’ appropriations authority to the states but would instead impose a self-restraint, limiting federal spending without state approval to raise the cap.

Currently, Democrats fully control both legislative chambers in only 18 states. Even a simple majority-rule requirement would still need approval from eight GOP-controlled states or chambers to lift the debt ceiling. Shifting this power to state legislatures would bring the debate over the federal government’s scope to a local level, empowering conservative grassroots movements to wield a veto over excessive spending. It would also make state legislators key players in Congress’ most critical decisions, in effect serving as a backdoor repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Over time, this plan would compel states to take control of their own futures and permanently reduce the size of the federal government. Once states take the lead on managing the debt, the conservative vision of states fully overseeing health care, transportation, education, and agriculture could become a reality.

Civil society established the states, and the states established the federal government. Many of today’s public policy problems arise from flipping this governance on its head. Granting states authority over the debt limit could address not only the federal spending crisis but also fix the broader dysfunction of the federal government in a single, systemic move. Now, we need elected officials with the courage to champion this or other bold ideas to promote localism. It’s not too late to include this reform in next year’s most important bill.

How A Strong Ground Game Helped Trump Flip Michigan Red

Grassroots groups knocked on thousands of doors, sometimes in Michigan's most unlikely areas, to help deliver the state for Trump.