Accountability

Marana: Corporate Interests and Political Support

by

Extractive Capitalism and the Assault on Constitutional Democracy

The Project and the Public’s Concerns

Arizona’s constitution gives residents a direct tool for pushing back against decisions their government makes on their behalf: the referendum. In January 2026, Marana residents used it.

The Marana Town Council voted unanimously to rezone 600 acres of farmland adjacent to the Arizona Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery and a groundwater recharge zone for a data center campus known as Project Blue. The developer is Beale Infrastructure, controlled by Blue Owl Capital, a $295 billion investment firm. The projected scale: 550 to 750 megawatts of continuous power — enough to supply roughly 57,000 homes.

Residents had specific, documented concerns. The energy demand required new generating capacity, the costs of which would be passed to ratepayers. Water usage drew particular concern in a desert community whose aquifers do not replenish on any timeline relevant to human planning. Hundreds of backup generators raised noise and air quality concerns in a largely agricultural landscape. Residents questioned whether the promised $5 billion investment and $145 million in tax revenue over ten years would materialize, or whether the primary beneficiary would be a $295 billion investment firm. Some critics argued the project supports an AI industry that facilitates surveillance and data extraction for private profit.

These are the concerns that drove nearly 6,000 Marana residents to sign referendum petitions in a matter of days. The constitutional tool was available. They used it. The rest of this piece documents what was done to stop them.

Read more

II. Scope, Definitions, and Accounting Rules

by

This report is an accounting of outcomes — not an argument about motives, ideology, or intent. To ensure clarity and fairness, this section defines the report’s scope and the criteria used to evaluate costs and benefits.

Scope of the report

This report examines U.S. actions that meet all three of the following conditions:

  • The United States directly intervened to overthrow, remove, or decisively weaken a foreign government
  • The country targeted was a significant oil producer or held major proven oil reserves
  • The intervention was justified in part by claims related to security, stability, or strategic energy interests

The report focuses on modern U.S. interventions beginning in the mid-20th century, when oil became central to global economic and military planning. Earlier conflicts fall outside this scope because oil did not yet play the same structural role.

This report does not evaluate every U.S. military action worldwide. It focuses only on regime-change or regime-destabilization efforts in oil-producing countries, because those cases are most often linked—explicitly or implicitly—to energy narratives.

Read more

The Klaus Schwab Story: Why Isn’t Anyone Talking About This?

by

An Anomaly in Typical Coverage Patterns Jefferson said he’d prefer newspapers without government over government without newspapers. But what happens when newspapers decide some news is too inconvenient to report? Klaus Schwab WEF story exposes unprecedented media bias: 0% left-wing coverage of investigation involving Brexit manipulation, financial misconduct. Read the full post here

Releasing grand jury info is not the same as releasing “the files.”

by

Most Epstein files aren’t in grand jury transcripts. The names, evidence, photos, and flight logs people want? They’re held by DOJ and FBI—not sealed by a judge. So why is the administration pointing at the transcripts? Grand jury transcripts are only a small part of the Epstein case. Key evidence—including names of abusers, seized devices, … Read more

Protecting Communities and Business from Housing Market Dysfunction: How Values-Based Decision Making Serves Shared Prosperity

by

Table of Contents

Read more