BEFORE YOU VOTE DEMOCRAT: 50 Questions Every American Should Ask Before Casting a Democratic Vote in 2026

 

BEFORE YOU VOTE DEMOCRAT

50 Questions Every American Should Ask Before Casting a Democratic Vote in 2026

Introduction: What Does Your Vote Actually Support?

On November 3, 2026, Americans will once again exercise one of the greatest privileges of citizenship.

We will vote.

Some Americans will walk into the voting booth knowing exactly which party they intend to support.

Others will remain undecided.

Still others will vote primarily against a candidate or political movement they dislike.

But perhaps there is a better approach.

Before voting for any Democrat, Republican or independent, Americans should ask a simple question:

What exactly am I voting for?

A political party is more than a name appearing beside someone's name on a ballot.

It represents priorities.

It represents legislation.

It represents judicial philosophy.

It represents taxation.

It represents spending.

It represents immigration policy.

It represents energy policy.

It represents healthcare policy.

It represents the government's relationship with businesses and individuals.

And when congressional control is at stake, your vote can determine whether the president's agenda advances or encounters congressional resistance.

That is particularly important in 2026.

President Donald Trump occupies the White House. Republicans currently control Congress. Democrats need only a small number of additional House seats to gain control of that chamber, while control of the Senate is being contested across several important states.

A Democratic Congress would therefore change Washington substantially.

The Democratic National Committee is quite explicit about its immediate objective. It wants Democrats to take back Congress and stop much of Trump's agenda.

That isn't sinister.

That's opposition politics.

Republicans attempted to stop Democratic presidents from implementing policies they opposed, and Democrats attempt to do the same thing when Republicans control the White House.

But voters should understand the consequences.

If you are considering voting Democratic because you dislike Donald Trump's personality, ask yourself whether personality is enough.

Likewise, if you are voting Republican simply because you like Donald Trump, ask whether that is enough.

Policy matters more.

The Democratic Party says its 2026 agenda is centered on lowering household costs, expanding affordable healthcare, protecting Medicare and Medicaid, creating jobs, making wealthy Americans and corporations pay more in taxes, combating corporate price gouging, protecting voting rights, reducing gun violence and opposing what Democrats consider abuses of presidential power.

Those are the party's stated positions.

They deserve to be evaluated seriously.

There are arguments supporting them.

There are arguments opposing them.

And there are legitimate questions about what they would cost, how they would work and what unintended consequences they could produce.

There is another distinction Americans should understand.

The Democratic Party and Democratic Socialists of America are not the same organization.

Some democratic socialists run as Democrats. Some progressive Democrats support policies also advocated by DSA. But many Democratic politicians reject socialism, and DSA itself ultimately seeks an independent socialist political movement.

Americans should therefore resist guilt by association.

Instead, ask individual candidates what they believe.

That's democracy at its best.

Here are 50 questions worth asking before casting a Democratic ballot in 2026.

50 Questions to Ask

1. What will happen to the Trump tax policies?

Would the candidate preserve, modify or repeal them?

2. Should wealthy Americans pay substantially higher taxes?

Democrats generally advocate increasing taxes on wealthy households. Ask precisely how much and at what income level.

3. Should corporations pay higher taxes?

Higher corporate taxation can produce additional government revenue, but critics argue it can also discourage investment or ultimately affect workers and consumers.

4. How much government spending is sustainable?

America's federal debt has now exceeded $40 trillion. Both parties have contributed to America's fiscal imbalance. Any candidate promising additional programs should explain how they will be financed.

5. What is the candidate's plan for the national debt?

This question should be asked of Republicans just as aggressively.

6. How would Democrats lower grocery prices?

"Lower costs" is an objective, not a mechanism. Ask candidates exactly what policies would accomplish it.

7. What does combating price gouging mean?

Would government investigate collusion, impose penalties, regulate prices or take another approach?

8. Would additional business regulation help consumers or raise costs?

Regulation can protect consumers but also impose compliance expenses.

9. What would happen to America's energy policy?

Ask whether the candidate favors greater fossil fuel production, renewable energy expansion or some combination.

10. What would happen to gasoline prices?

Energy policies should ultimately be evaluated partly by their effect on ordinary households.

11. Would domestic drilling remain strong?

America possesses enormous oil and natural gas resources. Ask whether the candidate wants production expanded, maintained or reduced.

12. What is the candidate's position on natural gas?

Natural gas remains important to American electricity generation and exports.

13. How rapidly should America transition toward renewable energy?

The destination and the timetable are separate questions.

14. Who pays for the energy transition?

Every ambitious energy proposal has costs.

15. What is the candidate's position on nuclear power?

Modern nuclear energy could potentially bridge disagreements between climate and energy-security objectives.

16. What should happen at the southern border?

Democrats currently say they support secure borders and fair enforcement. Ask candidates what that means operationally.

17. Should current Trump border policies continue?

Which ones?

18. What should happen to undocumented immigrants already living in America?

Deportation, legalization and pathways to citizenship produce dramatically different outcomes.

19. Should ICE continue operating in its present form?

Candidates should answer clearly.

20. What constitutes fair immigration enforcement?

That phrase means different things to different people.

21. How many legal immigrants should America accept?

Immigration debates should include legal immigration rather than focusing exclusively on illegal entry.

22. Should sanctuary policies continue?

Ask candidates how federal immigration law should interact with state and local governments.

23. What should happen to asylum policy?

America needs rules capable of distinguishing legitimate humanitarian claims from abuse of the system.

24. What healthcare system do Democrats ultimately want?

The Democratic coalition includes advocates of incremental reform and supporters of single-payer healthcare.

Those aren't the same thing.

25. How would Democrats protect Medicare?

Ask candidates for specific proposals.

26. How would they protect Medicaid?

Again, specifics matter.

27. How would prescription drug prices be reduced?

Government negotiation, competition, importation and regulatory reform offer different approaches.

28. Would private health insurance remain central to American healthcare?

Candidates should explain their long-term vision.

29. How would additional healthcare spending be financed?

Benefits cannot responsibly be discussed without costs.

30. What should happen to student debt?

Should borrowers receive forgiveness?

31. Who should pay for college?

Students, families, taxpayers, institutions or some combination?

32. Should public college become tuition-free?

If so, who pays?

33. What is the appropriate federal minimum wage?

Economic conditions differ dramatically between Manhattan and rural Mississippi.

34. How much additional power should labor unions receive?

Democrats generally favor stronger organized labor protections.

35. What regulations should businesses face?

Ask candidates to identify regulations they would actually implement.

36. What regulations would they eliminate?

A willingness to eliminate ineffective rules is as revealing as a willingness to create new ones.

37. What is the candidate's position on gun ownership?

"Gun safety" encompasses policies ranging from background checks to restrictions on particular firearms.

Specificity matters.

38. What policies would actually reduce violent crime?

Every party wants less crime.

The meaningful disagreement concerns how.

39. What should America's police departments look like?

Ask about funding, staffing, training and accountability.

40. What criminal justice reforms does the candidate support?

Police reform, bail policy, sentencing and prosecution all deserve separate consideration.

41. Would the candidate expand the Supreme Court?

This has become especially relevant because congressional Democrats recently opposed a constitutional amendment permanently fixing the Court at nine justices.

That does not mean every Democrat favors expansion.

Ask them.

42. Should Supreme Court justices have term limits?

This is another major institutional question.

43. Should Washington, D.C. become a state?

Statehood would alter representation in Congress and deserves an open constitutional debate.

44. Should Puerto Rico become a state?

Puerto Rico's political status should ultimately reflect the wishes of Puerto Ricans within America's constitutional process.

45. What voting reforms does the candidate support?

Ask about voter identification, mail voting, early voting and registration requirements individually.

46. What should America's relationship with Israel look like?

The Democratic coalition contains significant disagreements on Israel and Gaza.

47. How much should America spend on defense?

National security requires resources, but unlimited military spending is not automatically wise.

48. What should America's role overseas be?

Ask candidates where American military involvement is justified and where it isn't.

49. How independent is this Democrat from the party's progressive wing?

Don't assume.

Ask.

Some Democratic candidates are moderates. Others are progressives. A small number identify as democratic socialists.

Those distinctions matter.

50. Is this candidate representing your district or merely representing a national political party?

Perhaps this is the most important question of all.

A member of Congress works for constituents.

Party loyalty should never completely replace independent judgment.

Conclusion: Don't Vote for a Label

Perhaps the worst thing an American voter can do in 2026 is walk into a voting booth and blindly select candidates because they have either a "D" or an "R" beside their names.

Political parties aren't sports teams.

Elections aren't football games.

The people on the other side aren't the enemy.

They are Americans who frequently want similar outcomes but profoundly disagree about how to achieve them.

Most Americans want prosperity.

Most want safe neighborhoods.

Most want affordable healthcare.

Most want good schools.

Most want secure borders.

Most want opportunity for their children.

Most want freedom.

Most want America to succeed.

The disagreement is over how.

Democrats believe government can play a larger role in making healthcare affordable, protecting workers, regulating corporations, addressing climate change and ensuring economic opportunity.

Republicans generally place greater emphasis on markets, lower taxes, deregulation, domestic energy development, immigration enforcement and limiting federal authority.

Those competing philosophies deserve something better than political insults.

They deserve examination.

There is also an important lesson from the debate surrounding socialism.

Do not assume that because a socialist candidate runs as a Democrat, every Democrat is a socialist.

That claim simply isn't supported by the evidence.

Conversely, Democratic voters shouldn't pretend the socialist movement has no influence within progressive politics.

It does.

The appropriate response is therefore extraordinarily simple:

Ask the candidate.

Do you believe in capitalism?

Ask.

Do you support socialism?

Ask.

Would you expand the Supreme Court?

Ask.

Would you raise my taxes?

Ask.

Would you change Trump's border policies?

Ask.

Would you restrict oil and natural gas production?

Ask.

Would you increase federal spending?

Ask.

Would you reduce defense spending?

Ask.

Would you support D.C. statehood?

Ask.

Would you support Medicare for All?

Ask.

Would you abolish ICE?

Ask.

Would you support police funding?

Ask.

And don't accept slogans as answers.

There is another side of this examination that Republicans must confront.

If Republicans claim fiscal responsibility, voters should ask why federal debt surpassed $40 trillion while Republicans controlled Washington.

If Republicans promise affordability, voters should examine continuing inflation and household expenses.

If Republicans promise limited government, voters should examine where federal power has expanded.

If Republicans promise peace and strength abroad, voters should examine the costs and consequences of America's current foreign commitments.

Political accountability must work both ways.

Otherwise it isn't accountability.

This is why the November 2026 election matters.

Democrats are attempting to regain the House and potentially the Senate. Republicans are attempting to preserve congressional control and continue implementing President Trump's agenda.

The House margin is extraordinarily narrow, meaning a relatively small number of competitive congressional districts could determine which party controls the chamber.

Your congressional vote therefore matters.

But don't allow anyone, including me, to tell you what conclusion you must reach.

Read the Democratic agenda.

Read the Republican agenda.

Examine Trump's record.

Examine the previous Democratic record.

Research the actual candidates appearing on your ballot.

Separate national rhetoric from local candidates.

Separate Democratic Socialists of America from the Democratic Party.

Separate progressive Democrats from moderate Democrats.

Separate MAGA Republicans from moderate Republicans.

And then compare what each individual candidate actually believes with what you believe America's government should do.

The Democratic Party says that its priorities for 2026 include lowering costs, improving healthcare, creating jobs, fighting corruption and protecting democratic institutions.

Those goals sound attractive.

But voters should always ask the next question:

How?

How will costs come down?

How will healthcare improve?

How will programs be paid for?

How will the border remain secure?

How will businesses remain competitive?

How will America's national debt be controlled?

How will constitutional checks and balances be preserved?

Those questions aren't attacks on Democrats.

They are what citizenship requires.

Republicans deserve exactly the same scrutiny.

Because ultimately, November 3 isn't about Donald Trump.

It isn't about a donkey.

It isn't about an elephant.

It isn't about cable television.

It isn't about social media.

It is about you, your family, your community and the country you will leave behind.

Don't vote because somebody frightened you.

Don't vote because somebody angered you.

Don't vote because somebody told you that every person belonging to the other political party is terrible.

Study the record. Study the candidate. Study the policies. Then make your own decision.

That is not Republican democracy.

That is not Democratic democracy.

That is American democracy.

And protecting that tradition may be one thing Americans of every political persuasion can still agree upon.

Bill Conley

AI Data Centers Are an American Asset, Not an American Threat

AI Data Centers Are an American Asset, Not an American Threat

America Must Build the Future Instead of Surrendering It

By Bill Conley
America’s Favorite Life Coach

Introduction

A wave of fear is spreading across America about artificial intelligence data centers. We are being told that these facilities will drain our water, overwhelm our electric grid, raise every family’s power bill, damage the environment, eliminate jobs, and somehow leave our communities worse off. At public meetings and across social media, the message is often delivered as though the verdict has already been reached: AI data centers are dangerous, unwanted, and should be stopped.

That conclusion is not supported by the whole truth.

AI data centers are the physical foundation of the digital economy. They contain the computers, networking equipment, storage systems, cooling technology, and security infrastructure that allow artificial intelligence to operate. Every time AI helps a physician examine medical information, assists a scientist in studying a disease, protects a bank from fraud, translates a language, improves a weather forecast, strengthens cybersecurity, or helps a small business compete, powerful computers somewhere must perform that work. Artificial intelligence does not float invisibly in the air. It requires real facilities, real electricity, real engineers, real construction workers, and real American investment.

The United States Department of Energy reported that data centers used about 4.4 percent of American electricity in 2023 and projected that their share could reach approximately 6.7 to 12 percent by 2028. Those figures deserve serious planning, but they do not justify panic. They tell us that America must build more power generation, modernize the grid, improve efficiency, and establish fair rules. They do not tell us to abandon one of the most consequential technologies of our lifetime. (U.S. Department of Energy)

We should also understand what is at stake internationally. China is not waiting for America to become comfortable with the future. China has pursued a national computing infrastructure strategy, supported domestic artificial intelligence chips, connected regional computing centers, and used public policy to expand access to computing power. If the United States blocks facilities while China builds them, the demand for AI will not disappear. The research, investment, expertise, and strategic advantage may simply move somewhere else.

This debate therefore reaches beyond any single building or company. It concerns whether America will possess the infrastructure required to lead the next generation of medicine, manufacturing, defense, education, science, and commerce. A nation that depends on foreign computing capacity can lose jobs, investment, security, and the freedom to establish its own technological standards.

Being pro data center does not mean giving every developer everything it requests. It does not mean ignoring water supplies, grid reliability, land use, noise, backup generators, or electricity costs. It means replacing hysteria with facts and replacing blanket opposition with strong, intelligent standards. The right policy is neither reckless approval nor fearful prohibition. The right policy is responsible American construction.

We need AI data centers, and we should welcome the enormous benefits they can bring. We should also insist that developers pay the costs they create, conserve resources, build responsibly, and become genuine partners in their communities. That is not surrendering to big technology. That is American leadership.

A Data Center Is Infrastructure for Modern Life

Many critics speak of data centers as though they were enormous buildings filled with machines performing pointless tricks. In reality, data centers support services that Americans already use every day. Hospitals store and analyze information through secure computing systems. Banks process transactions and monitor fraud. Emergency services depend on digital communications. Manufacturers use advanced computing to improve designs, predict equipment failures, and reduce waste. Schools, universities, government agencies, retailers, farmers, transportation companies, and small businesses all rely on digital infrastructure.

AI expands what this infrastructure can accomplish. It can help researchers examine huge collections of scientific information faster than human teams could do alone. It can assist physicians, though it should not replace their judgment. It can help detect cyberattacks, improve logistics, make factories more productive, and allow a small company to use capabilities that were once available only to enormous corporations.

When America builds data centers, it is building the foundation that allows these tools to be developed and operated here under American laws, American security expectations, and American economic influence.

The Economic Benefits Are Real

An AI data center can represent billions of dollars in private investment. Its construction requires electricians, plumbers, equipment operators, welders, concrete workers, engineers, security specialists, truck drivers, and many other skilled workers. It also creates business for local suppliers, contractors, hotels, restaurants, and service companies.

After construction, a data center generally employs fewer people than a factory occupying the same amount of land. Supporters should admit that plainly. A data center should never be sold as though it will provide thousands of permanent jobs forever when that is not true. Yet the permanent jobs it does create can be highly skilled and well paid, and the project can produce substantial property tax revenue for schools, roads, emergency services, and other local needs.

The wisest communities negotiate from strength. They ask exactly how many temporary and permanent jobs will be created. They require transparent estimates of tax revenue. They examine whether tax incentives are truly necessary. They establish local hiring and apprenticeship commitments. They secure funding for roads, fire protection, workforce training, and utility improvements.

The answer to an imperfect development agreement is a better agreement, not the automatic rejection of the entire industry.

Will Data Centers Raise Everyone’s Electric Bill?

This is the most powerful argument being used against data centers, and it deserves a truthful answer.

A large data center can require an extraordinary amount of electricity. A utility may need to build substations, transmission lines, generating capacity, or other equipment to serve it. If those expenses are placed on residential customers and small businesses, their bills can rise. That concern is real.

But a rate increase is not an unavoidable physical law. It is a matter of utility planning, contracts, and regulation.

Data centers can be placed in a separate rate class. Developers can be required to fund the infrastructure needed to connect their facilities. Long term contracts, minimum payment commitments, deposits, exit fees, and protections against abandoned projects can keep ordinary customers from paying for capacity that a developer requested but never used. Facilities can also bring or finance new power supplies rather than merely competing for the electricity already available.

A 2025 Congressional Research Service report noted that states with the largest growth in data center demand generally experienced decreases in electricity prices between 2019 and 2025, although outcomes varied and the relationship may not continue everywhere. The important lesson is that data center growth does not automatically equal higher rates. Results depend heavily on the local market and the rules governing who pays. (Congressional Research Service report)

The proper demand is simple: welcome the investment, but do not send the bill to the family down the street.

Data Centers Can Help Build a Stronger Grid

For years, America has known that much of its electric infrastructure needs improvement. Growing communities, new factories, electric vehicles, severe weather, cybersecurity threats, and the retirement of older power plants are already placing pressure on the system. Data centers did not create every weakness in the grid. They have made it impossible to continue ignoring those weaknesses.

Large, dependable customers can help support investments in new generation and transmission when contracts and rates are designed properly. Their demand can accelerate the development of nuclear power, natural gas, geothermal energy, renewable generation, energy storage, and improved transmission. It can also encourage utilities to construct a more resilient system that benefits surrounding businesses and communities.

Data centers can sometimes adjust certain computing tasks to periods when more electricity is available. Not every AI workload must operate at maximum intensity every second. Flexible scheduling, on site generation, batteries, and demand response agreements can reduce stress during peak periods. These measures should be encouraged and, where appropriate, required.

The goal should not be to ration America into technological decline. The goal should be to produce more abundant, reliable, affordable energy.

The Water Question Requires Facts, Not Slogans

Some data centers use water for cooling, and in a water stressed region that use can matter greatly. The Berkeley Lab estimated that American data centers directly consumed approximately 17 billion gallons of water in 2023. That is a serious figure and a legitimate reason for local review. (Berkeley Lab report)

Yet not every data center uses the same cooling system or the same amount of water. Facilities can use closed loop systems, air cooling, liquid cooling, recycled water, reclaimed wastewater, or other designs that reduce the use of drinking water. The best approach depends on the climate, energy supply, technology, and local watershed.

A community should require a clear water budget before approving a project. It should know the source of the water, expected daily and seasonal use, drought plans, discharge methods, conservation technology, and whether residential supplies will be protected. In a dry area, stricter limits may be necessary. In another location, reclaimed water may provide an excellent solution.

Water concerns justify standards. They do not justify the claim that every data center everywhere is an environmental disaster.

Efficiency Is Improving

Critics sometimes discuss future electricity demand as if technology will never improve. History suggests otherwise. Computer chips become more efficient. Cooling systems improve. Software developers learn to perform the same work with fewer computing resources. Operators reduce wasted power and reuse heat in certain settings.

The International Energy Agency expects data center electricity use to grow rapidly, but it also explains that AI can help transform the energy sector itself by improving forecasting, optimizing grids, detecting problems, and accelerating innovation. (International Energy Agency)

We should measure and report efficiency honestly. Developers should disclose power and water performance, and public incentives should reward facilities that meet demanding standards. Innovation is not an excuse to ignore consumption. It is one of the most effective ways to manage it.

Artificial Intelligence Is a National Security Competition

The country that leads in computing capacity will possess an enormous advantage in science, medicine, manufacturing, defense, cybersecurity, communications, and economic productivity. Advanced AI requires advanced chips, abundant power, skilled people, secure networks, and data centers capable of operating at tremendous scale.

China clearly understands this. Its government has promoted a nationwide network of computing hubs and data centers through its Eastern Data, Western Computing strategy. China has also pushed the use of domestic chips and the expansion of national computing capacity. This is not proof that America should copy every Chinese policy. It is proof that our principal strategic competitor considers computing infrastructure essential.

If America makes responsible construction nearly impossible, we will not stop the global development of AI. We will weaken our ability to shape it. We will become more dependent on facilities, supply chains, and technical standards beyond our control.

American leadership gives us a better opportunity to protect privacy, strengthen cybersecurity, establish safety expectations, and ensure that the economic value created by AI supports American workers and companies. Leadership does not guarantee perfect outcomes, but surrender guarantees that others will make the most important decisions.

The Naysayers Are Not All the Same

Some opponents use exaggerated language. Some repeat frightening claims without understanding utility regulation or cooling technology. Some oppose nearly every major construction project. Others may prefer policies that would leave the United States less competitive.

But it would be unfair and unwise to claim that every concerned resident wants to harm America. A homeowner worried about a well, a farmer worried about water, or a family worried about an electric bill may be asking an entirely reasonable question. The way to defeat hysteria is not to insult everyone who raises a concern. It is to answer the concern with evidence and a workable guarantee.

Pro-American leadership means listening, measuring, negotiating, and then moving forward. It means refusing both misinformation and paralysis.

What Responsible Approval Should Require

America should build AI data centers under firm, transparent rules.

First, the developer should pay the direct cost of connecting its project to the grid and should provide financial guarantees against cancellation or underuse.

Second, regulators should protect residential customers and small businesses from unfair cost shifting.

Third, the project should identify a reliable power supply and include plans for peak demand, emergencies, and backup generation.

Fourth, the community should receive verified information about water use, cooling systems, noise, emissions, land use, and emergency response.

Fifth, developers should make enforceable commitments involving taxes, local hiring, apprenticeships, roads, public safety, and workforce education.

Sixth, communities should avoid excessive tax giveaways that erase the very public benefits used to justify the project.

Seventh, facilities should meet strong cybersecurity and physical security standards.

Eighth, agreements should include ongoing reporting so promises can be compared with actual performance.

These requirements do not represent hostility to AI. They are the conditions that can make development durable, fair, and publicly trusted.

Conclusion

America is standing at the beginning of a new industrial age. The factories of this age will not all produce automobiles, steel, or household appliances. Some will produce computing power. Inside AI data centers, thousands of specialized machines will analyze information, train models, answer questions, protect systems, accelerate discoveries, and support services that will reach nearly every part of modern life.

We can respond to that transformation with confidence and discipline, or we can respond with fear.

Fear tells us that every new demand for electricity is a threat. Leadership tells us to generate more electricity and build a stronger grid. Fear tells us that water use makes every project unacceptable. Leadership tells us to choose suitable locations, require efficient cooling, protect drinking water, and use reclaimed supplies where possible. Fear tells us that powerful technology should be kept away. Leadership tells us to establish firm rules and make sure America develops it responsibly.

The legitimate concerns surrounding data centers must not be dismissed. A poorly planned project can strain infrastructure, transfer costs to families, waste water, or give away too much tax revenue for too little benefit. Those possibilities are precisely why communities need serious contracts, honest studies, strong regulators, and enforceable protections.

But the existence of manageable risks is not an argument for national retreat. Every major form of infrastructure creates demands and tradeoffs. Factories require power and transportation. Hospitals require enormous resources. Airports create noise. Highways occupy land. Power plants have environmental effects. America has never advanced by pretending that progress carries no cost. We have advanced by solving problems, improving designs, setting standards, and building what the nation needs.

The loudest rhetoric presents a false choice: either reject AI data centers or sacrifice our communities. We can insist on technological strength and responsible government. We can make companies pay for needed facilities, prohibit unfair cost shifting, protect water, demand honest job and tax figures, expand energy supplies, train skilled workers, and build an AI economy that is powerful, secure, efficient, and accountable.

Meanwhile, China and other competitors are not pausing their ambitions while America debates whether computing power is necessary. They understand that the ability to develop and operate advanced AI will influence military strength, scientific leadership, industrial productivity, international standards, and economic opportunity for decades. If America refuses to build, someone else will. The consequences will reach far beyond one town council meeting or one utility bill.

So let us lower the temperature and raise the quality of the discussion. Let us stop treating every concern as proof of catastrophe and every project as automatically flawless. Let us judge each proposal by facts, require developers to earn public trust, and recognize the immense national value of the infrastructure before us.

AI data centers are not enemies of American prosperity. Properly planned, properly financed, and properly regulated, they are engines of investment, innovation, security, and opportunity. They can help modernize our power system, strengthen local tax bases, support skilled work, keep critical computing on American soil, and give our nation the capacity to lead the most important technological competition of our time.

America did not become great by hiding from the future. America became great by building it.

The Claims and the Facts

The alarming claim	The fuller truth	The responsible American answer
Data centers will automatically raise everyone’s electric bill.	Large new loads can raise costs when grid expenses are shifted to other customers, but rate effects depend on contracts, rate design, generation, and regulation.	Require developers to pay connection and expansion costs, use minimum payment contracts, and protect residents from stranded costs.
Data centers will drain every community’s water.	Water use varies widely according to location, climate, cooling design, and water source. Some facilities use substantial water while others use far less drinking water.	Require public water budgets, efficient cooling, drought plans, and recycled or reclaimed water where practical.
Data centers create no meaningful jobs.	Construction can support large numbers of skilled workers. Permanent staffing is smaller than at many factories but can be highly skilled and well paid.	Demand honest job numbers, local hiring, apprenticeships, and workforce partnerships.
They provide no benefit to local residents.	Properly negotiated projects can add substantial private investment and tax revenue, but excessive tax concessions can reduce the benefit.	Negotiate enforceable community agreements and reject unnecessary giveaways.
They will destroy the grid.	Rapid load growth can strain an unprepared grid, but it can also support new generation, transmission, storage, and modernization.	Approve projects only with credible power plans, flexibility measures, and developer-financed upgrades.
Their environmental impact can never be controlled.	Electricity and water use are real, but efficiency, cleaner generation, better siting, advanced cooling, and reporting can reduce the impact.	Set measurable standards and publish actual performance.
America can simply slow down while remaining the AI leader.	Advanced AI requires enormous computing capacity, and international competitors are building strategic infrastructure.	Build responsibly at home and keep American research, investment, security, and influence strong.
Anyone who questions a project is anti-American.	Many residents have legitimate local concerns even when some public rhetoric is exaggerated.	Answer reasonable concerns with evidence, protections, and enforceable guarantees.

Sources Consulted

• United States Department of Energy, data center electricity demand
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report
• International Energy Agency, Energy and AI
• Congressional Research Service, Data Centers and Their Energy Consumption
• State Council of the People’s Republic of China, green data center development

 

THE CONSTITUTION COMES FIRST: No Religious Law, Christian, Islamic, Jewish or Otherwise, Stands Above American Law

THE CONSTITUTION COMES FIRST

No Religious Law, Christian, Islamic, Jewish or Otherwise, Stands Above American Law

Introduction: One Constitution, One Supreme Law

America is an extraordinary experiment.

For nearly two and a half centuries, people representing countless religions, cultures, ethnicities and traditions have lived together under one constitutional system.

That system does not require us to believe the same things.

Quite the opposite.

You may be Christian.

You may be Jewish.

You may be Muslim.

You may be Hindu.

You may be Buddhist.

You may be an atheist.

You may belong to another faith entirely.

The Constitution protects that freedom.

But when someone enters public office, another principle becomes equally important.

The Constitution comes first in the exercise of governmental power.

An elected official does not take an oath to Christianity.

An elected official does not take an oath to Islam.

An elected official does not take an oath to Judaism.

An elected official does not take an oath to atheism.

Federal and state officials are constitutionally bound to support the Constitution.

That distinction is enormously important when discussing Sharia law and Muslim candidates for public office.

A Muslim American has precisely the same constitutional right to seek public office as a Christian American.

The Constitution settles that question explicitly.

Article VI prohibits religious tests for federal public office.

Therefore, saying that someone cannot serve because he is a "devout Muslim" would contradict the very Constitution we claim to defend.

But there is another question Americans absolutely have the right to ask.

Does this candidate accept the United States Constitution as the controlling civil authority of American government?

That question should be asked of everyone.

Suppose a Christian candidate announced:

"The Bible should replace the Constitution, and biblical religious law should become mandatory American civil law."

Americans should challenge that candidate.

Suppose a Muslim candidate announced:

"The Quran and Sharia should supersede the Constitution, and Islamic religious law should become mandatory American civil law."

Americans should challenge that candidate.

Suppose an atheist announced:

"Religious Americans should lose their constitutional freedoms because religion should disappear from society."

Americans should challenge that candidate too.

The principle is not anti-Muslim.

It is pro-Constitution.

America doesn't require citizens to surrender their religion.

America requires government to operate within constitutional boundaries.

That is the line we should defend.

Sharia as Personal Faith Versus Government Law

This distinction is particularly important because "Sharia" is frequently discussed as though it means only one thing.

For Muslims, Sharia can encompass religious and ethical principles governing prayer, fasting, charitable giving, family behavior, diet and personal morality.

Americans are free to organize their personal religious lives around those principles.

A Jewish American may follow Jewish religious law.

A Catholic may follow Catholic doctrine.

A Baptist may follow biblical teachings.

A Muslim may follow Islamic teachings.

That is religious liberty.

The constitutional problem would arise if anyone attempted to transform religious doctrine into a competing governmental authority that superseded constitutional rights.

That cannot happen merely because someone believes God commands it.

Religious Freedom Works Both Ways

Sometimes we forget what religious liberty actually means.

It does not mean:

"My religion is protected, but yours isn't."

It means:

Government cannot decide which religion makes someone sufficiently American.

That protection is tremendously important for Christians.

Imagine an America in which Congress could announce that Catholicism was unacceptable for public officials.

Or Mormonism.

Or evangelical Christianity.

Or Judaism.

Once government receives the authority to decide which religions qualify people for citizenship or political leadership, religious freedom becomes dependent upon whoever controls government.

The Founders deliberately prevented that.

Article VI's prohibition against religious tests protects believers from government.

But Candidates Can Be Questioned About Their Beliefs

Religious freedom doesn't mean voters must ignore a candidate's political philosophy.

Quite the contrary.

If someone's beliefs affect how that person intends to exercise governmental power, voters have every right to ask questions.

Do you support the Constitution?

Do you support freedom of speech?

Do you support freedom of religion?

Do you believe Americans should be free to leave a religion?

Do you support equal protection under American law?

Do you accept American courts as the legitimate interpreters of American civil law?

Do you believe religious law should ever supersede the Constitution?

Do you believe government should punish Americans for violating religious commandments that aren't violations of American law?

Those are legitimate questions.

And they should be asked without regard to the candidate's religion.

There Cannot Be Two Supreme Laws

America cannot function with competing supreme governmental authorities.

Article VI establishes the Constitution, federal laws enacted pursuant to it, and treaties under U.S. authority as the supreme law of the land.

That means a state cannot simply declare itself superior to the Constitution.

Neither can a church.

Neither can a mosque.

Neither can a synagogue.

Neither can a religious tribunal.

Americans may voluntarily seek religious guidance in their private lives, provided ordinary laws and constitutional rights are respected.

But ultimately American civil authority remains American civil authority.

There is one constitutional order.

Muslims Are Not a Monolith

This point is equally important.

There are millions of Muslims with enormously different political and theological beliefs.

It would be inaccurate to assume that because someone practices Islam, that person necessarily wants to impose an Islamic government upon America.

The same reasoning would produce absurd conclusions about Christians.

Christians disagree about theology, abortion, marriage, taxation, immigration, foreign policy and virtually every other political question imaginable.

Muslims likewise hold diverse views.

Evaluate individuals according to what they actually advocate.

America's Christian Heritage

There is no reason Americans must erase Christianity's enormous contribution to American history.

Christian ideas influenced American culture, morality, abolitionism, charitable institutions, education and countless individual Americans.

Many important figures in America's history understood their lives through Christianity.

That heritage deserves recognition.

But appreciating America's Christian heritage is different from claiming that the Constitution established Christianity as the country's official religion.

It didn't.

Indeed, Article VI's religious-test prohibition is one of America's earliest constitutional protections for religious pluralism.

That protection ultimately strengthened Christianity as well.

Churches didn't need government permission to preach.

Americans didn't need government permission to worship.

Faith could flourish independently of government control.

The Same Standard for Everyone

Here is the standard America needs:

Believe whatever your conscience tells you to believe.

Worship freely.

Pray freely.

Read your sacred texts.

Attend your church, synagogue, mosque or temple.

Or attend none at all.

But when exercising governmental authority, obey the Constitution.

A Christian president doesn't get a different Constitution.

A Jewish senator doesn't get a different Constitution.

A Muslim governor doesn't get a different Constitution.

An atheist judge doesn't get a different Constitution.

Everyone operates under the same law.

Conclusion: The Constitution Is the Common Ground

America does not need to become a Christian theocracy.

America does not need to become an Islamic republic.

America does not need to become an atheist state.

America needs to remain America.

Our greatest strength isn't that every American believes the same thing.

We don't.

Our strength is that people who disagree profoundly can nevertheless live together under a constitutional system protecting everyone.

That means protecting Christians.

It means protecting Jews.

It means protecting Muslims.

It means protecting atheists.

And it means protecting Americans from governmental establishment or imposition of religion.

There is nothing inconsistent about simultaneously saying:

A Muslim has every right to hold public office.

And:

Islamic religious law cannot supersede the United States Constitution.

Both propositions arise from the same constitutional principle.

Likewise:

A Christian has every right to hold public office.

But Christianity cannot simply replace the Constitution as America's civil legal system.

Our loyalty as citizens is not measured by whether we attend the same house of worship.

It is measured politically by our commitment to the constitutional order that permits all of us to live together.

So when someone runs for political office, don't ask:

"Is this person Muslim?"

Ask:

"Will this person uphold the Constitution?"

Don't ask:

"Does this person pray differently than I do?"

Ask:

"Will this person defend my right to pray as I choose?"

Don't ask:

"Does this person's sacred book look like mine?"

Ask:

"Will this person defend my freedom to read mine?"

And if any candidate, from any religion, tells America:

"My religious law stands above your Constitution, and when I acquire political power I intend to impose that religious law upon you,"

then voters have discovered something enormously important about that candidate's political philosophy.

The objection shouldn't be:

You belong to the wrong religion.

The objection should be:

No religious authority gets to replace the Constitution.

That distinction isn't political correctness.

It is constitutional consistency.

The prohibition against religious tests is part of the Constitution we are defending.

The supremacy of the Constitution is part of that same Constitution.

We cannot defend one by violating the other.

America's formula is actually beautifully simple:

Freedom of religion for everyone.

Religious government for no one.

One Constitution governing us all.

That protects the Christian.

It protects the Muslim.

It protects the Jew.

It protects the unbeliever.

Most importantly, it protects the American experiment itself.

The Constitution comes first.

Bill Conley