Senate Pushes Through Short-Term Extension Of Spy Tool Beloved By Deep State
Extended until April 30
Good Court Rulings Aren’t An Excuse For GOPers To Ignore Their Duty To Judicial Oversight
Relying on higher courts to correct the abusive actions of rogue judges is not an effective long-term strategy for Republicans.Republicans must reject Big Tech land grabs or start losing elections
Republicans are continuing their uninterrupted streak of woefully underperforming in elections. However, in the first of its kind referendum on Big Tech data centers, voters are showing that a party that embraces land sovereignty over Big Tech dystopian land grabs will win the day.
Sadly, Republicans have chosen to be on the losing side of the issue.
The public is being asked to shoulder a burden to facilitate a supposed technology whose benefits are very unclear and dubious.
In a first of its kind local referendum, voters in Port Washington, Wisconsin, voted by a margin of 2-1 for a referendum that will require all future data center projects in the area to be approved by a vote of the city’s residents.
The referendum was sparked in the wake of Oracle and OpenAI’s Stargate facility setting up shop in the area. The proposed 1.3 gigawatt facility will consume the power equivalent of over one million households.
The referendum does not undo the Stargate project but will prevent any future project worth more than $10 million from getting approval without the public input.
Over 1,000 residents signed the petition that put this measure on the ballot. "We are not against development," added Michael Baester, founding member of Great Lakes Neighbors United, which spearheaded this campaign. "We are for development that the community understands, supports, and has chosen together. Tonight proves that when citizens organize and engage, their voices can be heard."
What is so important nationally about this vote is that Port Washington was carried by Trump 52-48 in 2024. It is the quintessential swing city that sways the Wisconsin vote, and by proxy, the entire country’s electorate.
Such an emphatic result from a swing town demonstrates the potency of the data center issue.
According to Politico, other communities around the country are set to vote on similar ballot measures.
Imagine if Republicans could get on the right side of the data center issue. What might that do for their failing election efforts?
In Festus, Missouri, a solid conservative jurisdiction, voters ousted four GOP councilmen who recently approved rezoning for a $6 billion data center. Two of them were defeated by margins greater than 2-1.
Thus the grassroots opposition to data centers is just as virulent in red America as it is in swing areas that have already soured on Trump because of the economy.
Oklahoma is a state where Trump carried every county, yet voters there are firmly opposed to data centers.
After Google tried to bribe the locals in Osage County to support a hyperscale data center, the Rock Volunteer Fire Department turned down a $250,000 donation from the company. This is a county Trump won by 41 points.
The opposition is just as stiff in the cities. Last month, the Tulsa City Council voted unanimously to halt construction of new data centers for nine months. All 19 speakers at the meeting voiced support for the moratorium.
Across the state in Oklahoma City, the city council recently voted to rezone over 800 acres of farmland for a Google data center. The council is now facing a recall petition.
Portage County, Ohio, is a prototypical rust belt, blue-collar county that traditionally voted Democrat but migrated to the GOP under Trump. The president carried the county by 15 points in 2024. Last week, the Ravenna City Council moved forward with a 12-month moratorium on the centers after a crowd filled the city council chambers to speak against the proposed projects.
In many respects, the ubiquitous opposition to data centers is a reflection of the sheer pervasiveness and magnitude of these projects, targeting nearly every county in states like Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Arizona and numerous places in the majority of other states.
According to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the grid operator in most of the Midwest, by 2030, the proposed hyperscale data centers in Indiana will use an amount of electricity equivalent to twice that used by the entire state.
None of this makes any sense nor is it sustainable, especially for a product that increasingly fails to produce a degree of profit that could come close to paying for all the capital expenditure and power.
This is why red-state RINOs like those in drought-stricken Texas continue to shower these companies with lavish sales tax breaks.
RELATED: Data centers are a hidden tax on your burger
We don’t offer 30-year abatements like this to any other industry, but this is what data centers require to remain solvent because their hardware depreciates so quickly. According to the state comptroller, Lone Star voters will subsidize $3.2 billion in tax breaks to the largest companies on the planet over the next two years.
Four of the largest states targeted for data centers — Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and Georgia — are languishing through a severe and sustained drought.
Industry apologists are trying to gaslight people into believing that their closed-loop systems will somehow not affect the water flow, but it’s inconceivable that it won’t have a short-term effect and also pose health concerns when recycled back into the water table.
An application from Amazon to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management indicates that the sanitary system it is constructing for two of its hyperscales in New Carlisle is designed to use more than 1.6 million gallons per day on hot summer days.
This is “only” the equivalent water use of about 5,000 households, which pales in comparison to some other facilities and to the magnitude of the power use. Keep in mind that the entire population of this town is just under 1,900.
There’s a reason why 65% of voters oppose all data center construction, including a clear majority of all demographics, ideological groups, and income levels, despite all of the lobbying and electioneering by Big Tech.
The public is being asked to shoulder a burden to facilitate a supposed technology whose benefits are very unclear and dubious.
Republicans can continue ignoring this grassroots revolt, but they will do so at their own peril. Nothing motivates voters more than the preservation of their own communities. That is one thing that still unites a divided America.
Exclusive: Watchdog Files Complaint Against Obama Judge At Center Of Arctic Frost Lawfare
'The American people deserve an immediate investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding these meetings.'The Dignidad Act is a complete betrayal of Republican voters
For all the infighting over the current and future direction of the Trump coalition, one thing stands above all else as the biggest threat.
It’s not the podcasters and corporate media talking heads arguing over foreign policy. It’s not tax rates or farm policies. It’s not even the social issues that have been flash points on the right in recent decades. It is the issue of immigration, specifically deportation.
It’s shaping up to be a classic standoff between monied special interests and the liberal Republicans they sponsor versus everyday Americans.
Representatives Maria Salazar (R-Fla.) and Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) have started what hopefully will be a short but politically violent war by once again raising the specter of mass amnesty for illegal aliens via their Spanish-language-titled Dignidad Act.
There is nothing new under the sun, so much like every other failed Republican-led amnesty push, their chief sales pitch has been that the Dignidad Act is not amnesty, despite the plain language offering amnesty to more than ten million illegal aliens, by conservative estimates.
Salazar’s sales pitch, which you can see in full, occurred at the deep state’s consensus manufacturing plant, the Brookings Institute.
Rep. Salazar employed a rhetorical device of speaking to imaginary illegal alien friends and asking them if they would accept a new legal status of dignity that would allow them to remain in the United States and enjoy a litany of legal benefits.
To no one's surprise, they would welcome this opportunity. Salazar also employed the classic trope of challenging the audience regarding who else would clean the toilets or pick the jalapenos, hopefully separate tasks.
While the bill enjoys 20 other Republican co-sponsors, Rep. Mike Lawler leads the pack in hawking this awful amnesty bill. In a heated interview with Laura Ingraham, Lawler attempted to make the case that the amnesty bill is not amnesty, because the status quo is.
While it is true that lack of enforcement of the current laws amounts to de facto amnesty, the solution is to actually enforce the law at scale with the money Congress gave President Trump to carry out his promise of mass deportation.
Lawler stepped on the logical rake with Ingraham when he tried to pump up his enforcement credentials by focusing on criminals and on the ludicrous suggestion that the Department of Homeland Security is able to vet the entirety of the illegal population for amnesty.
On the first point, he said that “if you have committed a crime, you should be removed from the country, period.” What that means in practical terms is that by his argument, only some 500,000 to 800,000, by estimates of the Trump administration, would be in that definitional category.
What he ignores is that illegal presence in the United States is itself a crime, along with the variety of other identity and immigration-related crimes that illegal aliens routinely commit.
As a legal matter, there is no such thing as his small category of “criminal illegal,” and even taking him at his intended policy point of focusing on successfully charged criminals, he is arguing that amnesty should be given to this category so long as an additional crime has not been committed.
This is what I like to call the “one-murder” policy, where liberals argue that illegal immigrants should be allowed to violate our immigration laws until the point at which they create an angel family by killing someone. That is a suicidal immigration policy.
RELATED: My friend survived the Global War on Terror. Leftist immigration policies got him killed.
Lawler then goes on to argue that his amnesty wouldn’t apply to those who entered during the Biden administration. Ingraham challenges him on how the DHS would prove that, at a scale of over ten million, in addition to proving that illegal aliens have maintained continued presence in the United States during their period of being illegally present in the United States.
To put it mildly, he had no answer when pressed by Ingraham multiple times on how the DHS would go about that.
She pressed for a single consideration or qualification that an immigration official would use to determine continual presence. After a non-response, Lawler settled on “you have to be able to meet the qualifications.” Ingraham asked again, “What is the qualification?” Lawler said, “They are going to make the determination as they always have, based on the current structure and guidelines.”
If your head is spinning because of this, it’s okay because it didn’t make any sense. I’ll make it simple: Some Republicans, particularly those who see the big dollar signs of special interest donors who can fund a tight race, are willing to sell an unpopular policy through a left-coded emotional argument.
I would put Mike Lawler in that category. As for Maria Salazar, she is a true believer.
You don’t go on stage at Brookings, put a foreign-language name on a piece of legislation, and deploy emotional arguments centered around the well-being of illegal aliens unless you’re a true believer and, to an extent, acting as an ethnic lobbyist trying to advance the interests of a foreign group in the United States.
The good news is that the majority of the country still believes that people who are in the country illegally should be deported. Those numbers skyrocket for Trump voters and are a key plank of the playbook for the newly formed Mass Deportation Coalition, of which I am a part
The backlash on the Dignidad Act, Salazar, and Lawler has been swift and severe. It’s shaping up to be a classic standoff between monied special interests and the liberal Republicans they sponsor versus everyday Americans.
RELATED: This Supreme Court case could decide the future of American citizenship
Social media has been lit up with fury and ratios, and most elected Republicans have denounced the futile amnesty effort as a complete rejection of why Republicans are in power right now.
Rising star Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) perhaps put it best when he said that the bill was “mass amnesty” and “a terrible betrayal of our voters” and that he “wanted dignity for Americans — the people whose interests we represent.”
There remains one area of creeping concern: The White House hasn’t exactly made the administration's position clear, aside from Vice President Vance, who has been continually vocal about opposing amnesty in any form.
Lawler and Salazar retain endorsements from President Trump, and recent confusion about the commitment to the mass deportation agenda can give rise to reasonable suspicion that this amnesty talk is allowed, if not tacitly approved.
Now is the time for continued clarity from those who decide Republican elections: Republican voters. They have made their voices heard with this recent flash point of mass amnesty. The path ahead means not just playing defense against amnesty demands but raising the bar for what is required on the mass deportation front.
These votes will need to see large increases in the deportation numbers, to at least 1 million in 2026, which would be an increase over last year of about three times. The numbers will ultimately tell the story above the politics.
Getting commas in the deportation numbers will maintain the coalition, and it may turn out that it is far more important for keeping power in Washington than it is to keep Lawler and Salazar inside the coalition, even as they seek to tear it apart.
GOP Senators: Nuke The Filibuster, Pass The SAVE America Act
Sen. Ron Johnson sees it as a kind of golden rule in dealing with nasty Dem politics: Do unto others before they do unto you.Support for Israel is dropping quickly among young Republicans, new poll shows
New polling from Pew Research shows a massive contrast in opinions about Israel between younger Republicans and their older allies.
The polling, conducted in late March, additionally showed not only the typical divide between conservatives and liberals with regard to support of Israel, but also a growing, unfavorable view of Israel and President Donald Trump's ability to handle relations with Israeli leaders.
'Across all US adults, 60% have an unfavorable view of Israel.'
While the majority of Republicans still have a favorable view of Israel, younger party members are currently showing the lowest level of support of any demographic.
For Republicans over 50, just 24% have a "very/somewhat unfavorable" opinion of Israel. That number is 57% for the 18-49 age group, up seven points in just one year, and showing a glaring 33-point difference within the party.
Democrats are more unified about their dislike of Israel. Just four points separate the two age groups, averaging out to an 80% negative view of the country overall.
Across all U.S. adults, 60% have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% in 2025, Pew Research reported.
When it comes to confidence in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the sentiment among young Republicans remains the same. When asked if they have confidence in Netanyahu to "do the right thing regarding world affairs," just 25% of Republicans 18-49 have some or a lot of confidence, while 58% said they have "not too much" or none at all.
RELATED: MEMBERS ONLY: Pro-Palestine posting no problem with 'penis,' claims fired Kate Beckinsale
Republicans over 50 are confident in Netanyahu by a net of 66%, with just 30% having a net negative level of confidence in him. This demographic has the most confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu.
At the same time, more than 75% of Democrats have little or no faith in the Israeli leader's ability to do the right thing.
Moreover, according to the poll, Republicans have the biggest contrast in opinions when it comes to the importance of the Israel-Hamas conflict.
RELATED: Israel ramps up attacks on Middle East target despite US-Iran ceasefire
In terms of those who said the conflict between Israel and Hamas is important to them personally, Republicans over 50 years old found it important most often at a rate of 69%. That was 12 points more than the second-highest group, which was Democrats over 50 years old.
Republicans ages 18-49, however, were the demographic most likely to say the conflict was not personally important to them at 41%, seven points higher than Democrats of the same age.
In the end, Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to have confidence in President Trump's handling of the United States' relations with Israel, with nearly three-quarters either somewhat or very confident in him.
More than 80% of Democrats polled said they were not too confident or not at all confident in Trump's handling of the situation.
The survey was conducted March 23-29 and involved 3,507 U.S. adults.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The judgment behind the abortion numbers
For decades, we have been told that we may not be able to end abortion, but we can reduce it. Political reality requires patience. Incremental laws, strategic compromises, and careful coalition-building will, over time, bend the curve downward.
Fewer abortions this year than last. Fewer still the next. This is what we’ve been told, but the numbers are not bending in the right direction.
The same movement that insists on the humanity of the unborn defends strategies that refuse to treat that humanity as legally binding.
In 2020, the United States saw roughly 930,000 abortions. By 2024, annual abortions had surpassed 1 million again. Monthly averages have continued to rise, moving from roughly 88,000 per month in 2023 to nearly 100,000 per month by 2025 — estimated at over 1.1 million abortions a year.
This is not the trajectory we were promised.
Even in a post-Dobbs world — after decades of work, millions of dollars, and countless political victories — abortion remains not only legal in much of the country, but increasingly accessible.
According to the standard used to justify compromise, the results of our efforts have been thoroughly unimpressive.
If compromise is justified because it reduces abortion, what happens when it does not? If the entire framework rests on pragmatic outcomes, then those outcomes must be honestly measured. If they fail, the justification collapses with them.
The central question, though, was never whether compromise works. The central question is whether compromise is obedience.
Scripture is not silent on this. “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). That statement assumes that what is right is already understood — and then confronts the refusal to act on it.
That is where the abortion debate now stands.
RELATED: At its core, the abortion debate is very simple
For decades, the pro-life movement has argued — rightly — that the unborn child is fully human. Not partially or potentially human. Not a life that becomes valuable later. A human being, made in the image of God, from the moment of conception.
And yet, that premise is not applied in law.
Equal justice is withheld. Justice is knowingly delayed. Entire classes of human beings are acknowledged in rhetoric and denied in practice — through heartbeat bills, 20-week bans, and fetal pain bills.
The same movement that insists on the humanity of the unborn defends strategies that refuse to treat that humanity as legally binding.
To know that a child is fully human and yet defend a legal framework that allows that child to be killed is not a lesser evil. It is a greater evil — because it is compounded.
Scripture goes further. When knowledge increases, so does accountability. When leaders teach truth, they are bound to it. And when they fail to act on what they teach, they do not merely err — they invite judgment.
We have been told to evaluate abortion policy on outcomes alone. But Scripture does not separate outcomes from obedience. It ties them together. God does not bless disobedience because it is politically strategic.
When disobedience is institutionalized — when it becomes the operating principle of a movement — the results should not surprise us.
RELATED: The collapse of conservatism nobody wants to admit
Abortion does not decrease under compromise because compromise is not a neutral tool. It is a moral decision. It trains a culture to tolerate the very evil it claims to oppose. It teaches legislators to delay what they confess is urgent. It forms a people who say that the unborn are fully human, while structuring their laws as though they are not.
This is why the numbers do not tell the story we were promised. Not because the strategy was insufficiently refined, but because it was fundamentally misaligned. The issue is not that we have failed to compromise enough. It is that we have compromised at all.
God does not require political feasibility. He requires obedience.
Obedience does not ask how much injustice can be tolerated while we make progress. It asks what justice demands — and then establishes it.
Until that shift is made, the pattern will remain. More laws, more campaigns, more assurances of progress — and the same or worse results. Not because we lack the power to change it, but because we refuse to apply what we already know to be true. Until we do what is right, we should not expect the numbers to change — because God does not bless disobedience. He judges it.
That is why we must fight to establish equal justice under the law for our preborn neighbors — not by regulating abortion, but by abolishing it.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com