We would be better off if Democrats would stop killing their babies and have their own kids as opposed to trying to brainwash other people's kids.

 

We would be better off if Democrats would stop killing their babies and have their own kids as opposed to trying to brainwash other people's kids.

The Demographic War: How Democrats Abandoned Their Own Future to Control Yours

There is a truth so obvious that it has become invisible, so foundational that it is rarely spoken aloud in polite political discourse. Yet it underpins nearly every cultural and political battle of our time. The Democratic Party has made a calculated decision: they will not have enough children to sustain their own vision of society, so they have set about gaining control of everyone else's.

The social media post that prompted this reflection puts it with refreshing bluntness: "We would be better off if Democrats would stop killing their babies and have their own kids as opposed to trying to brainwash other people's kids." This is not merely a rhetorical jab. It is a profound observation about the demographic reality of modern America and the political strategies that have emerged in response to it.

The Demographic Divide

The numbers are stark and undeniable. According to the Pew Research Center, religiously affiliated Americans who lean conservative have higher birth rates than secular Americans, who lean liberal. The fertility rate among white evangelical Protestants is 2.1 children per woman, above the replacement level of 2.1. Among white mainline Protestants, it is 1.8. Among white Catholics, it is 1.7. Among religiously unaffiliated Americans the fastest-growing demographic group and the core of the progressive coalition the fertility rate is just 1.4 children per woman.

This is not an accident. It is the product of a worldview that prioritizes individual fulfillment over family formation, career advancement over child-rearing, and sexual liberation over marital commitment. The progressive value system, whatever its rhetorical commitment to "inclusivity" and "diversity," has proven itself demographically sterile. It produces fewer children than it needs to sustain itself, let alone to grow.

The Abortion Question: 65% and Counting

The post's reference to "killing their babies" points to the most direct expression of this demographic reality. Since the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision returned abortion policy to the states, the abortion industry and its political allies have fought to enshrine abortion on demand, at any stage, for any reason, funded by taxpayers. The numbers are staggering: approximately 65% of abortions are now performed at home using abortion pills a practice that has an 11% complication rate, higher than FDA standards for most medications.

For conservatives, this is not merely a policy disagreement. It is a moral catastrophe. The Democratic Party has positioned itself as the party of abortion absolutism, opposing even modest restrictions like parental notification laws, late-term abortion bans, and protections for babies born alive after failed abortions. This position is not supported by the majority of Americans, who favor reasonable limits, but it is demanded by the party's activist base and the billion-dollar abortion industry that funds its campaigns.

The consequence is that Democratic-leaning populations abort their children at higher rates than Republican-leaning populations. According to the Guttmacher Institute, blue states have higher abortion rates than red states. New York, California, and Illinois states with the most permissive abortion laws also have the highest abortion rates. Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas states with the most restrictive laws have among the lowest.

This is not correlation without causation. When a party champions abortion as a positive good, celebrates it as "healthcare," and demands that taxpayers fund it, it should not be surprised when its constituents avail themselves of the service. The Democratic Party has effectively subsidized the non-birth of its own future voters.

The Schoolhouse Strategy

Which brings us to the second half of the post: "trying to brainwash other people's kids." Having failed to produce enough children of their own, progressives have set about capturing the children of those who do.

This is not a conspiracy theory; it is a stated strategy. The progressive left understands that if they cannot outbreed conservatives, they must out-teach them. And so they have poured enormous resources into capturing the institutions that shape young minds: public schools, teachers' unions, curriculum boards, textbook publishers, and now, increasingly, the family itself.

Consider what has happened to American education in the past generation. Schools that once taught reading, writing, and arithmetic now teach critical race theory, which divides children by skin color and teaches them that their country is irredeemably racist. They teach gender ideology, which tells children that they can be born in the wrong body and that their biological sex is a social construct. They teach sexual education that normalizes every form of sexual expression while denigrating traditional morality as oppressive.

Parents who object to any of this are labeled bigots, extremists, or domestic terrorists. School boards that once answered to local communities now answer to federal bureaucrats and national teachers' unions. Curriculum is designed not by parents but by activists with advanced degrees in grievance studies and a deep contempt for the American way of life.

The Department of Education, originally created to ensure equal access to education, has become a weapon of cultural warfare. Under Democratic administrations, it has threatened to withhold funding from schools that do not adopt progressive curricula. It has investigated parents who dare to speak at school board meetings. It has imposed Title IX interpretations that require schools to allow biological males who identify as female to compete in girls' sports and use girls' locker rooms.

The Family Under Assault

This assault on parental authority is not accidental. It is the logical extension of a worldview that sees the traditional family as an obstacle to progressive transformation. The family, after all, transmits values from one generation to the next. It preserves traditions, instills morality, and creates loyalty to country, community, and faith. For progressives who seek to remake society from the ground up, the family is a rival institution that must be weakened and, ultimately, replaced by the state.

Hence the relentless attacks on parental rights. Hence the insistence that children have "privacy" from their parents when it comes to gender transitions. Hence the laws that allow minors to receive hormonal treatments and surgeries without parental knowledge or consent. Hence the efforts to remove parents from the process entirely, replacing them with school counselors and social workers who share the progressive worldview.

The irony is that the same progressives who demand absolute autonomy for women to abort their unborn children insist that parents have no right to direct the education and upbringing of their living children. The unborn child is a matter of private choice; the born child is a matter of public control. This is not consistency; it is ideology.

The Cultural Capture

Beyond the schools, progressives have captured virtually every major cultural institution. Hollywood produces entertainment that relentlessly promotes progressive values while mocking traditional ones. The news media filters every story through a progressive lens. Social media platforms censor conservative voices while amplifying progressive propaganda. Corporations that once stayed out of politics now compete to demonstrate their progressive credentials, imposing diversity quotas, celebrating Pride Month, and punishing employees who dissent.

Children absorb this propaganda constantly. They watch television shows that feature every form of sexual deviance as normal and healthy. They use smartphones that deliver a constant stream of content designed to shape their values and attitudes. They attend colleges where conservative speakers are shouted down and conservative students are marginalized. By the time they reach adulthood, many have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the progressive worldview even if their parents raised them differently.

This is what the post means by "brainwashing." It is not an exaggeration. It is an accurate description of a coordinated effort to shape the minds of the next generation in ways that parents cannot control and often cannot even see.

The Conservative Response: Reclaiming the Future

Conservatives cannot match progressives dollar for dollar or platform for platform. We do not have Hollywood. We do not have the mainstream media. We do not have the universities or the major corporations. What we have is something more powerful: we have children.

The demographic advantage conservatives enjoy is not accidental. It flows from a worldview that values life, family, and tradition. It is the product of communities that still believe that children are a blessing, not a burden; that marriage is a sacred covenant, not a disposable contract; that the purpose of life is not individual fulfillment but service to God, family, and country.

If conservatives will simply have children and raise them in the faith, we will win the future. Not through political manipulation or cultural capture, but through the simple arithmetic of reproduction. Our children will outnumber theirs. Our values will be transmitted naturally, through the love and teaching of parents, not imposed artificially through state power.

But we must also fight for the children who are not ours. We must defend parental rights against the encroachments of the state. We must demand transparency in education and accountability from school boards. We must create alternative institutions classical schools, homeschool networks, conservative media that can compete with the progressive monoculture. We must never surrender the public square, even when it seems hopelessly stacked against us.

Conclusion: The Arithmetic of Freedom

The Democratic Party has made a choice. It has chosen abortion over birth, the state over the family, and indoctrination over education. It has chosen to kill its own babies and brainwash everyone else's. And it now finds itself demographically dependent on immigration to replace the native-born population it has aborted out of existence.

Conservatives have made a different choice. We choose life. We choose family. We choose the messy, demanding, glorious work of raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We choose to pass on our faith, our values, and our heritage to the next generation. And we choose to fight for the right of all parents to do the same.

In the long run, this choice will determine the outcome of every political battle. Demography is destiny. The side that has children will inherit the earth. The side that kills them will inherit the wind.

So let the Democrats cry about unaffordability and illegal immigration and all the other consequences of their own choices. Let them wring their hands about why working-class voters have abandoned them. The answer is simple: those voters have children, and they have noticed that the Democratic Party does not value them.

We would be better off if Democrats stopped killing their babies and started raising their own. But since they won't, we will raise ours and we will raise them to know the difference between freedom and tyranny, truth and propaganda, life and death. That is the conservative mission. That is the conservative future. And that is why, in the end, we will win.

#abortion #indoctorination #Democrats #Policy

The Party of Consequences Denial: How Democrats Caused the Crises They Now Blame on Everyone Else

 

The Party of Consequences Denial: How Democrats Caused the Crises They Now Blame on Everyone Else

Democrats Are Crying Over The Unaffordabilty That They Caused And ILLEGALS. So Much For You.

There is a particular form of political gaslighting that has become the Democratic Party's signature move. Create a crisis through decades of failed policy. Blame the crisis on Republicans, on corporations, on "greed," on anyone but themselves. Then, when the public finally rebels against the unaffordability and chaos they have engineered, express bewilderment that voters are not rewarding them for their "compassion." The latest iteration of this performance is almost too predictable to be believed: Democrats are now crying about the unaffordability that they caused and the illegal immigration they encouraged, asking plaintively, "So much for you?"

The answer, from a conservative perspective, is simple and devastating: yes, so much for us. So much for the working families priced out of housing by your zoning policies. So much for the American workers whose wages were suppressed by your open borders. So much for the children trapped in failing schools protected by your teachers' unions. So much for the communities devastated by the fentanyl you allowed to flood across a border you refused to secure. You created this. You own it. And your tears are not an argument for more power; they are a confession of catastrophic failure.

The Affordability Crisis: A Democratic Masterpiece

Let us begin with housing, the most visible and painful manifestation of unaffordability in America. In cities and states controlled by Democrats for decades New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland the cost of shelter has become astronomical. The median home price in California now exceeds $800,000. In New York City, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment hovers around $4,000 per month. Young people are giving up on homeownership entirely. Families are doubling up in cramped apartments. The American Dream of owning a home with a yard is slipping away for an entire generation.

And who is responsible? Democrats will tell you it is corporate landlords, or greedy developers, or Airbnb, or the weather. But the truth is that Democratic governance created this crisis through a simple, relentless formula: make it impossible to build.

For decades, Democratic-controlled cities have enacted some of the most restrictive zoning laws in the developed world. They have empowered neighborhood activists to block any new construction through endless environmental reviews and community board hearings. They have imposed rent control policies that discourage new development while accelerating the decay of existing housing stock. They have created permitting processes that take years and cost millions, ensuring that only the most expensive luxury projects can survive the gauntlet.

The result is exactly what any economist could have predicted: when you make it illegal to build enough housing, housing becomes unaffordable. The laws of supply and demand are not suspended by progressive good intentions. Yet Democrats continue to act surprised that their policies have produced precisely the outcomes they were designed to produce.

The Inflation Tax: Paid for by Progressive Spending

Then there is inflation, the cruelest tax of all because it falls hardest on those with the least. Since 2020, the cost of everything groceries, gasoline, utilities, insurance has soared. The Biden-Harris administration inherited an economy recovering from a once-in-a-century pandemic and proceeded to pour trillions of dollars of new spending into it, overheating an already strained system.

The American Rescue Plan. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which did nothing to reduce inflation and everything to increase spending. Student loan forgiveness schemes that added hundreds of billions to the national debt. Green energy subsidies that distorted markets and raised energy costs. Regulatory assaults on domestic energy production that sent gasoline prices to record highs.

Every one of these policies was championed by Democrats. Every one was opposed by Republicans who warned of exactly the consequences that followed. And now, when Americans go to the grocery store and wince at the price of eggs and milk, Democrats blame "corporate greed" and "supply chain issues" and "Putin's price hike." They never blame themselves. They never acknowledge that their own spending spree devalued the currency in every American's wallet.

The Border: Open Doors, Closed Minds

Perhaps no issue demonstrates Democratic hypocrisy more vividly than immigration. For four years, the Biden-Harris administration systematically dismantled every border security measure put in place by President Trump. They ended the Remain in Mexico policy. They stopped construction of the border wall. They instituted catch-and-release on a massive scale. They broadened the definition of asylum to include claims that would never survive a court challenge. They instructed ICE to focus enforcement on "priorities" that excluded most illegal border crossers.

The result was the largest wave of illegal immigration in American history. Millions of people crossed the border illegally. Communities across the country from small towns in Ohio to major cities like New York and Denver were overwhelmed by the influx. Shelters filled to capacity. Schools struggled with students who did not speak English. Hospitals provided uncompensated care. Local budgets were blown apart by the cost of services.

And what did Democrats do when their own cities and states began to feel the strain? They blamed Texas. They blamed Florida. They blamed anyone but themselves. Mayor Eric Adams of New York, who had spent years praising "sanctuary city" policies, suddenly began begging for federal help and complaining that the buses from Texas were overwhelming his capacity. Governor Gavin Newsom of California, who had turned his state into a de facto sanctuary for the entire country, remained largely silent as border crossings shattered records.

The cruelty of this approach is that it uses human beings as political props. Democrats encouraged people to make a dangerous journey across thousands of miles, often at great personal cost, based on the implicit promise that they would be welcomed and supported. Then, when the numbers became politically inconvenient, they turned around and blamed the very people who had warned them this would happen.

The Double Standard: Compassion for the Foreign, Contempt for the Citizen

Underlying all of these policy failures is a profound moral inversion that has come to define the modern Democratic Party. The party that once claimed to speak for the working class now speaks almost exclusively for the donor class, the academic class, and the activist class. Its "compassion" is reserved for those who are far away the migrant crossing the border, the victim of climate change in Bangladesh, the oppressed minority in some distant land. For the American citizen struggling to afford rent, or the American worker displaced by immigration, or the American child trapped in a failing school, Democrats have nothing but lectures about privilege and demands for more patience.

This is the "so much for you" moment that the original post captures so perfectly. After decades of Democratic governance that has made life less affordable, less safe, and less secure for ordinary Americans, Democrats now express hurt and confusion that those same Americans are not more grateful. They cannot understand why the working-class voters who once formed the core of their coalition have drifted away to a Republican Party that at least pretends to notice their existence.

The answer is that working-class Americans are not stupid. They can see that Democratic policies have made their lives harder. They can see that Democratic priorities do not include them. They can see that the party's "compassion" is a rhetorical performance, not a governing philosophy. And they have decided, rationally and correctly, that they would rather vote for a party with flaws that at least acknowledges their existence than for a party that treats them as an obstacle to its progressive ambitions.

The Conservative Alternative: A Vision of Abundance

Conservatives offer a different vision, one rooted not in scarcity and redistribution but in abundance and opportunity. On housing, we advocate for deregulation, property rights, and the removal of barriers to construction. On inflation, we advocate for fiscal discipline, sound money, and an end to the spending sprees that devalue the currency. On the border, we advocate for enforcement, sovereignty, and an immigration system that serves American interests rather than globalist fantasies.

These are not radical ideas. They are common sense. They are the policies that built the American middle class in the first place. And they stand in stark contrast to the Democratic agenda of control, dependency, and decline.

Conclusion: The Tears Are Not Convincing

So Democrats are crying now. They are crying about unaffordability they created. They are crying about a border they opened. They are crying about voters who have abandoned them. And they are asking, with genuine bewilderment, "So much for you?"

Yes. So much for you. So much for your promises of free stuff paid for by someone else. So much for your open borders and closed minds. So much for your contempt for the working class and your devotion to the donor class. So much for your performative compassion and your actual cruelty. So much for you.

The American people have rendered their verdict. They have seen what Democratic governance delivers: unaffordability, insecurity, and chaos. They have chosen a different path. And no amount of crocodile tears will change that calculation.

The only question that remains is whether Democrats will learn anything from their defeat. Will they finally acknowledge that their policies have failed? Will they finally listen to the voters they have lost? Or will they continue to cry about the consequences of their own actions, blaming everyone but themselves for a future they have made unbearable?

The answer, based on decades of evidence, is that they will not learn. They will not change. They will continue to double down on the same failed policies, expecting different results. And they will continue to wonder, with genuine confusion, why the American people keep rejecting them.

So much for you, indeed.

#Affordability #Democrats #Policy 

#Immigration #Law #ILLEGALS 

How the United States Immigration System Works

While they were chanting 'USA' Rashida Tlaib was yelling 'KKK'. GO BACK TO GAZA AAND TRY THAT BEHAVIOR!!!

While they were chanting 'USA' Rashida Tlaib was yelling 'KKK'.

GO BACK TO GAZA AND TRY THAT BEHAVIOR!!!

#RashidaTlaib #Tlaib #Gaza #StateofTheUnion

Trump says lawmakers Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib should be removed from USTrump Trump President Donald Trump lashed out at two lawmakers after their protests.

 Muslim lawmakers should be sent 'back from where they came' after State of the Union clash

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan went back and forth with Trump during his State of the Union address.

uslim lawmakers should be sent 'back from f the Union clash

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan went back and forth with Trump during his State of the Union address.Trump says Muslim lawmakers should be sent 'back from where they came' after State of the Union clash

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan went back and forth with Trump during his State of the Union 

Trump says Muslim lawmakers should be sent 'back from where they came' after State of the Union clash

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan went back and forth with Trump during his State of the Union address.

She Made The Ultimate Sacrifice

 

She Made The Ultimate Sacrifice

"In the predawn darkness of June 28, 1969, mortar rounds slammed into the 312th Evacuation Hospital in Chu Lai, Vietnam. Explosions tore through buildings, scattering debris and igniting fires amid the chaos of incoming wounded soldiers.

Lt. Sharon Lane, a 25-year-old Army nurse from Ohio, was on duty in the shock ward. As sirens wailed and staff rushed to evacuate, she refused to leave her patients—men immobilized by injuries, unable to move on their own.

Medics urged her to go. She shook her head. "Go without me," she said, turning back to stabilize the bleeding and administer aid under the barrage.

A direct hit struck her ward minutes later. Shrapnel pierced her chest and neck. She died en route to surgery.

Lane became the only U.S. servicewoman killed by enemy fire in Vietnam. Posthumously, she received the Bronze Star with "V" for valor—the only one awarded to an American woman there—and a Purple Heart.

God bless this American hero forever.

#nurses #vietnamwar #neverforget

How Kamala Harris Helped Create a Crime Wave in CA

Kamala Harris is trying to run for President right now as “California’s Prosecutor” — but she’s actually one of the biggest reasons why California is experiencing a dangerous crime wave.

#KamalaHarris #Harris #Crime #California

Hillary Clinton Is As Bad As Her Husband

 

#Hillary #HillaryClinton #Rape

Five Ways Barack Obama’s Presidency Harmed America

 VIA 'I LOVE THE USA' - FROM FACEBOOK:

Five Ways Barack Obama’s Presidency Harmed America

"Listen, folks, when Barack Obama swaggered into the White House back in 2009, the media hailed him as some kind of messiah, the guy who was gonna fix everything with hope and change. But let’s cut through the nonsense what we got was eight years of policies that weakened our economy, emboldened our enemies, ballooned the debt, divided the nation, and shoved big government down our throats. It wasn’t just incompetence; it was a deliberate agenda that put America last. Here are five big ways his presidency did real damage, and don’t let the revisionist history fool you.

1. Wrecking the Economy with Socialist Schemes

Obama came in during a recession, sure, but instead of unleashing free-market solutions, he rammed through that trillion-dollar stimulus boondoggle, loaded with pork for his union buddies and green energy scams like Solyndra that went belly-up faster than you can say “taxpayer waste.” Unemployment stayed sky-high for years, and the so-called recovery was the weakest in modern history growth barely crawled along at 1-2% while regulations strangled small businesses. Then there’s Obamacare, that monstrosity that jacked up premiums, forced people off their plans, and turned healthcare into a bureaucratic nightmare. Millions lost their doctors, despite his famous lie: “If you like your plan, you can keep it.” It was all about control, folks, expanding government power at the expense of your wallet and your freedom.

2. Weakening America on the World Stage

Remember how Obama went around apologizing for America, bowing to foreign leaders, and drawing “red lines” in Syria that he never enforced? That emboldened tyrants everywhere. He pulled troops out of Iraq too soon, creating a vacuum that let ISIS rise up and slaughter innocents. The Iran deal? What a joke handing billions to the mullahs in Tehran so they could fund terrorism while pretending it stopped their nukes. And don’t get me started on the pivot to Asia that never pivoted, leaving China to build islands in the South China Sea and steal our jobs. His foreign policy was all talk, no action, making America look like a pushover and putting our troops and allies at risk. We paid the price with more chaos in the Middle East and a resurgent Russia under Putin.

3. Exploding the National Debt to Astronomical Levels

Under Obama, the national debt doubled yes, doubled from about $10 trillion to $20 trillion. He spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave, with deficits over a trillion bucks year after year in his first term. All that borrowing didn’t build lasting infrastructure; it funded failed experiments in big government, like bailing out banks and car companies that should’ve faced the music. Future generations are stuck with the bill, higher taxes, and inflation eating away at savings. And for what? A “recovery” that left millions underemployed or out of the workforce entirely. It was fiscal malpractice, plain and simple, prioritizing liberal pet projects over sound economics.

4. Dividing the Country with Identity Politics

Obama promised to unite us, but he did the opposite, stoking racial tensions and pitting Americans against each other. From Beer Summit nonsense to jumping into local issues like Ferguson and Trayvon Martin, he fanned the flames of division instead of calming them. His administration pushed radical social agendas, like forcing schools to let boys in girls’ bathrooms under the guise of transgender rights, and ramming through same-sex marriage without a real national debate. Immigration? He ignored the law with DACA, rewarding illegals while our borders stayed porous. All this identity politics garbage eroded trust in institutions, empowered the grievance industry, and set the stage for the cultural wars we’re still fighting. America became more fractured, not the post-racial paradise he sold us.

5. Assaulting Energy Independence and Job Creators

Obama declared war on American energy, killing the Keystone Pipeline to appease his environmentalist donors while propping up unreliable wind and solar with subsidies. Coal miners lost their livelihoods as regulations shut down plants, driving up energy costs for everyone. Remember the BP oil spill? His moratorium crippled Gulf Coast jobs. And for all the green hype, we still depended on foreign oil from unstable regimes. It was anti-growth extremism that hurt working families, especially in the heartland, and delayed the energy boom we finally got later. His climate obsession, like joining the Paris Accord, tied our hands while China and India polluted away. It was all about virtue-signaling over real prosperity.

There you have it the Obama years weren’t some golden age; they were a setback that America is still recovering from. His legacy? Bigger government, weaker security, deeper divisions, and a mountain of debt. If we don’t learn from this, we’ll keep repeating the mistakes. 

Time to put America first again."

#Obama #Politics #Socialism #Marxist

 

California's High-Speed Rail: A $200 Million-Per-Mile Boondoggle That Still Hasn't Laid a Single Track

#California #HighSpeedRail

Seventeen years. Nearly $15 billion spent. Zero feet of track laid. By any objective measure, California's high-speed rail project stands as perhaps the most egregious example of government mismanagement in American history and that's saying something for a state that specializes in bureaucratic failure.

What voters approved in 2008 seemed ambitious but plausible: a $33 billion bullet train connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco by 2020. Today, those projections look like cruel fiction. The cost has ballooned to over $135 billion for the full routeb. The completion date has been pushed to the 2030s at the earliestand that's only for a truncated Central Valley segment that one critic aptly describes as a "train to nowhere". Meanwhile, the project continues burning through taxpayer money at a staggering rate that deserves closer examination.

How Much Does This Project Spend Per Day?

The numbers are almost too absurd to comprehend. According to recent reporting, the high-speed rail authority has spent approximately $14.7 billion to date. With the project now entering its eighteenth year, that translates to roughly $2.3 million every single day since voters were sold the original dream.

But that's just the historical average. The bleeding is accelerating. The authority needs an additional $7 billion by June 2026 just to keep the lights on. When you consider the actual physical progress or lack thereof the waste becomes even more obscene. One partially completed segment in the Central Valley consists of 22 miles of raised dirt and 11 overpass structures at a cost of $1.4 billion. That's $63 million per mile for what amounts to an earthen berm through farmland.

Perhaps most damning: recent analysis suggests the per-mile cost for the project now approaches $215 million. For context, China builds high-speed rail for a fraction of that cost. Even Brightline's privately funded Florida project which actually operates and carries passengers came in at roughly $25 million per mile .

The Conservative Case Against This Disaster

From a conservative perspective, California's high-speed rail represents everything wrong with progressive governance: breathtaking fiscal irresponsibility, contempt for taxpayers, fealty to union special interests, and a complete disconnect between government promises and government performance.

Let's start with the dishonesty. Voters were told that more than 20 percent of the project would be privately funded. That prediction proved laughably wrong. Taxpayers are on the hook for virtually the entire cost, with 82 percent of funding coming from state coffers. When President Trump rightfully moved to reclaim $4 billion in unspent federal funds, Governor Gavin Newsom responded by suing the federal government rather than acknowledging the project's terminal condition .

Then there's the labor question. Unions have been among the biggest beneficiaries of this fiasco. The rail authority's community benefits agreement mandates that union members receive hiring preference, and workers on site for more than eight days must pay union dues effectively creating a closed shop with state money. This isn't infrastructure building; it's a patronage system disguised as public works.

The Permitting Nightmare

Conservatives have long argued that excessive regulation kills projects before they break ground. High-speed rail provides the ultimate proof. According to a Circulate San Diego study, local governments along the route have imposed arbitrary and costly demands that have added years and hundreds of millions to the project's timeline .

Consider the city of Wasco, population 27,000. A dispute over closing a single street at the rail line resulted in five extra years of delays, 37 contract change orders, and $26 million in additional costs. Madera County imposed conditions that added another $30 million. This is what happens when dozens of local jurisdictions each hold veto power over a project it dies by a thousand cuts.

The "Stonehenge" of the Central Valley

Perhaps the most devastating critique comes from within California itself. Representative Alexandra Macedo, whose district includes part of the Central Valley route, recently toured completed construction and emerged with a damning comparison. She described an incomplete concrete structure as "Stonehenge" a monument to nothing.

"What do we have to show for that $15 billion?" Macedo asked. "Just some flashy videos and graphics to make us believe this is still feasible".

Her frustration echoes that of Central Valley residents who were promised economic transformation but have received only disruption. Meanwhile, Democrats in the legislature are advancing Assembly Bill 1608, which critics say would allow the inspector general to withhold audit reports detailing vulnerabilities in the project. When government starts hiding information from the public paying the bills, you know the situation is dire.

A Tale of Two Approaches

The contrast with Florida couldn't be starker. While California chased federal grants and union approval, Florida rejected Obama-era high-speed rail funding and let the private sector do what government cannot. Brightline now operates 32 daily trains between Miami and Orlando, covering 235 miles in just over three hours . The project cost $6 billion all private money—and is already planning expansion to Tampa. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been clear: state taxpayers won't fund rail construction .

This is the difference between conservative and progressive governance. One approach trusts markets, private capital, and consumer demand. The other trusts central planners, environmental reviews, and political cronyism. One produced an operating railroad. The other produced 22 miles of dirt and a $200 million-per-mile price tag.

The Path Forward

President Trump's decision to reclaim federal funding was not just justified it was merciful. As Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy put it, "It's time for this boondoggle to die". Continuing to pour money into a project that has demonstrated zero ability to deliver results is the definition of insanity.

Some will argue that we've come too far to stop now that the sunk costs justify additional investment. This is precisely the thinking that traps governments in failing endeavors. When a private company faces a failing project, it cuts its losses and reallocates resources. Only government treats failure as an argument for continued funding.

The 14,000 jobs allegedly created by high-speed rail could have been deployed toward actual infrastructure needs: water storage, road repair, energy production. Instead, they've been wasted on consultants, environmental studies, and litigation defense. A 2025 poll found that 53 percent of California voters have lost confidence in the project, with only 28 percent believing it will ever be completed .

Conclusion

California's high-speed rail was always a fantasy a progressive dream of European-style social democracy crashing into the reality of American governance, environmental litigation, and fiscal limits. Seventeen years and $15 billion later, not a single track carries a single passenger. The project spends millions daily while producing nothing but dirt mounds and broken promises.

Conservatives have been proven right at every turn. We warned that the cost estimates were fiction. We warned that government couldn't manage a project of this scale. We warned that union demands and environmental reviews would strangle progress. And we were right.

The only remaining question is whether California's leadership will finally admit defeat or continue pouring good money after bad. Given the legislative push to hide audit records and the governor's reflexive lawsuits against anyone who questions the project, don't expect accountability anytime soon. In Sacramento, failure is not a reason to stop it's a reason to ask for $7 billion more.

Mamdani’s Proposed 9.5% NYC Property Tax Increase Stirs Debate

Mamdani says if the state doesn’t tax Millionaires more then NYC will need to impose an additional 9.5% property tax increase. He campaigned on lowering rent. If you raise taxes on property owners what do you expect to happen to the rent [Is too damn high]?

STUPID ~ You Get What You Voted For 

#Mamdani #NYC #Taxes #PropertyTax #Affordability

Mamdani wants to cut 22 Million from NYPD and cut 5,000 Cops. He also wants to spend more on ILLEGALS.

 

Mamdani wants to cut 22 Million from NYPD and cut 5,000 Cops. He also wants to spend more on ILLEGALS.

Mamdani plan pours millions into ‘racial equity’ offices and six-figure diversity jobs, cuts 5,000 NYPD jobs ... Socialist NYC Mayor Mamdani clashes with Hochul over tax hikes as some critics warn of catastrophe

#NYC #NewYork #Mamdani #GovernorHochul

Texas AG Ken Paxton files second suit targeting Muslim housing project in North Texas

Paxton began investigating the East Plano Islamic Center in March for potential violations of consumer protection laws.

#Texas #AGKenPaxton #Muslim #Plano

The Battle Over "EPIC City": A Conservative Concern About Culture, Law, and Taxpayer Funding in North Texas

In the rolling countryside near Josephine, Texas, about 40 miles northeast of Dallas, a battle is brewing that cuts to the heart of what it means to be an American community. The East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC) has proposed a sprawling, 400-acre development called "EPIC City"—a planned community that would include over 1,000 homes, a large mosque, Islamic schools, clinics, shops, and even a nursing home . To its supporters, it is a chance for a growing religious community to put down roots. But to a growing number of conservative Texans including Governor Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Senator John Cornyn it represents a deeply troubling proposition that warrants serious scrutiny .

From a conservative perspective, the concerns surrounding EPIC City are not rooted in bigotry, but in principle: the defense of American law, the protection of constitutional rights for all citizens, and the fundamental question of whether taxpayer dollars should ever flow to organizations with leaders who have expressed extremist views.

The "Sick Views" of the Preacher Behind the Plan

The most immediate cause for alarm centers on the spiritual leader of the community: Yasir Qadhi, the resident scholar at EPIC. Qadhi, a Pakistani-American born in Texas who was educated at the Islamic University of Medina in Saudi Arabia and later at Yale, is a highly influential figure in American Muslim circles . But his past rhetoric, captured on tape and reported by outlets like the Daily Mail and the Middle East Forum, is deeply disturbing to anyone who holds to Western values of tolerance and equality.

In recordings from the early 2000s, Qadhi explicitly endorsed the stoning of adulterers and the execution of homosexuals as integral parts of his religious worldview. "This is a part of our religion, to stone the adulterer … and to kill, by the way, the homosexual. This is also our religion," he is heard saying in a sermon . While Qadhi has since attempted to walk back these comments, dismissing them as the mistakes of a "young and naïve" man, the sentiments reveal a foundational belief system that is fundamentally at odds with the American way of life.

Conservatives are right to ask: Is this the man who will set the moral and cultural tone for a new city in Texas? While Qadhi has reportedly said such punishments are not suitable for America—stating, "No, we're not allowed to do this in America... But I'm saying if we had an Islamic State, we would do this now"—the distinction offers little comfort . It suggests that the only thing preventing the implementation of this draconian system is geography, not a change of heart.

"Sharia Cities" Have No Place in Texas

Governor Abbott has been the most prominent voice pushing back against the project, and his language has been intentionally stark. "To be clear, Sharia law is not allowed in Texas. Nor are Sharia cities. Nor are 'no go zones' which this project seems to imply," he wrote on social media . He has since opened multiple state investigations into the project for potential criminal activity and violations of fair housing laws, and even ordered the group to halt construction.

Critics, including the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, dismiss concerns over Sharia law as a "conspiracy theory" and "fearmongering" . They argue that Sharia is simply a personal religious code governing prayer and fasting. But this is a willful misreading of the term. Sharia law, in its traditional interpretation, is a comprehensive legal and political system. When a community is designed explicitly around a mosque and Islamic institutions, with a leader who has preached the death penalty for sexual minorities, it is not unreasonable to worry about the eventual social pressure such an environment creates.

Americans have a proud tradition of religious freedom, but that freedom exists within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. It does not include the right to create parallel legal systems or to establish communities that, through social or religious pressure, effectively discriminate against those who do not share the faith. As Senator Cornyn noted when requesting a federal investigation, there is a real concern that such a project "could violate the constitutional rights of Jewish and Christian Texans" by effectively barring them from living there.

Initial advertisements for the community reportedly suggested that buyers would be restricted to those who "contribute to the overall makeup of [the] community," a dog whistle that was later scrubbed from the website after media inquiries . Actions speak louder than words. If the goal was truly an "open" community, why was the initial language exclusionary?

Your Tax Dollars at Work: The Plano Payouts

Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of this saga for Texas taxpayers is the revelation that their money has been used to fund the very organization at the center of the controversy. According to official filings, the city of Plano has funneled more than $220,000 to EPIC since 2016 Shockingly, a grant of nearly $143,000 was provided as recently as May 2025 just weeks after state investigators opened probes into the group’s activities .

This is a betrayal of public trust. Sam Westrop, a researcher with the Middle East Forum, a conservative nonprofit that tracks Islamist movements, argues that Plano officials have been dangerously negligent. "Islamist groups in the West subsist on the foolishness of public officials," he said. "Public funding not only enriches these groups, but gives them legitimacy and power".

It gets worse. Records show that Plano has handed over a staggering $3.8 million to seven Islamic groups flagged by researchers in recent years, including the Islamic Association of Collin County (IACC). The IACC’s imam, Arsalan Haque, has been recorded delivering sermons about how husbands may beat their wives provided it is done in the correct "context" and not "to the extent that they die" .

For conservatives, this is a nightmare scenario. The principle of "religious freedom" does not mean "religious blank check." It is one thing to allow a group to worship freely. It is another thing entirely for a city council to write million-dollar checks to organizations whose leaders preach spousal abuse and the killing of homosexuals. This is not an attack on Islam; it is an attack on the misuse of public funds to prop up illiberal ideologies.

A Question of Assimilation

The developers of EPIC City insist they are being unfairly targeted. Their attorney, Dan Cogdell, called the accusations "political theater" and "fear mongering," stating that the project is just a normal housing development that happens to have a mosque . Developer Imran Chaudhary even invited Governor Abbott to a Texas-style barbeque .

But this misses the point. America has always been a melting pot, but the pot itself has a distinct shape. It is defined by the Constitution, by Judeo-Christian values, and by a tradition of liberal democracy. The concern among conservatives is not that Muslims are moving to Texas; it is that this project, with its history of exclusionary language and its leadership by clerics with extremist pasts, appears to be a move toward *separation* rather than integration.

As the DOJ and state investigators continue their probes, the EPIC City project stands as a defining test for Texas . It forces a difficult conversation about how to balance religious liberty with the need to protect American legal norms. For now, Governor Abbott has drawn a line in the sand. For many conservatives, it is a line that should have been drawn the moment taxpayer money started flowing.

100% of jobs created during Trump's first year in office (47) were in the PRIVATE SECTOR.

 

The Trump Economic Boom: A Story of Private Sector Resurgence

For conservatives, this statistic represents a validation of a core principle: that the private sector, not the public sector, is the true engine of job creation and prosperity. The early months of Donald Trump's presidency offered a clear case study in what happens when you unleash that engine.

The Numbers Don't Lie: A Private Sector Surge

When President Trump took office in January 2017, he inherited an economy that was, by most measures, in the ninth year of a slow and tepid recovery from the Great Recession. The Obama-era growth was characterized by historically low labor force participation, sluggish wage growth, and a explosion in regulatory red tape that stifled business formation.

That began to change almost immediately following the 2016 election. The "Trump effect" was felt before he even set foot in the Oval Office. As noted by economists at Morgan Stanley, small business hiring which had been lagging for years picked up dramatically after Election Day . This wasn't an accident. It was a direct response to a change in the political winds.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a leading small business association, reported that its Optimism Index skyrocketed to levels not seen in 43 years . Why? Because small business owners, the very backbone of the American economy, anticipated a new era of tax reform, healthcare relief, and most importantly a rollback of the crushing regulatory burden that had made expansion so difficult under the previous administration.

The hard data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) backed up this sentiment. The first jobs report of the Trump era, for January 2017, showed the economy adding a robust 227,000 new jobs, smashing expectations of around 175,000 . More importantly, the sectors leading the charge were the ones most sensitive to the new administration's "America First" agenda. Construction added 36,000 jobs a clear sign of confidence in a coming infrastructure push and deregulation and manufacturing added 5,000 jobs, a reversal of the bleeding seen in prior years .

The trend continued. In February, the economy added another 235,000 jobs . In March, a stunning 263,000 jobs were added, with businesses employing fewer than 50 people accounting for a massive 118,000 of those gains . Throughout this period, the overwhelming majority often exceeding 90% of these gains were in the private sector.

The Philosophical Divide: Who Creates Jobs?

To understand why the "100% private sector" claim matters, one must understand the competing economic philosophies in American politics.

The progressive model, embraced by the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress, tends to view the federal government as the primary driver of economic activity. Their solution to economic stagnation is almost always a massive infusion of federal spending. From the "stimulus" packages of 2009 to the multi-trillion-dollar spending sprees of 2021 (the "American Rescue Plan"), the Left believes that jobs come from Washington. This model grows the public sector funding government workers, consultants, and grant administrators while often leaving the productive private sector to struggle under the weight of the taxes needed to pay for it all.

Conservatives, by contrast, believe in the "supply-side" model. We argue that the government's job is not to *create* jobs, but to create the *conditions* in which the private sector can thrive. This means getting out of the way: lowering taxes, eliminating unnecessary regulations, and fostering a climate of certainty where entrepreneurs are willing to risk capital.

The first year of the Trump presidency was a textbook example of this conservative model in action. While the media focused on the chaos of Twitter storms and palace intrigue, the Trump administration was quietly implementing a deregulatory agenda that unleashed the "animal spirits" of capitalism.

President Trump signed legislation to kill the "Stream Protection Rule," a burdensome regulation that was strangling the coal industry . He required that for every one new federal regulation imposed, two must be eliminated . This sent a powerful signal to every industry, from manufacturing to mining, that Washington was no longer an adversary but a partner in growth.

The result was a boom in private sector confidence. Companies like Ford, Fiat Chrysler, and General Motors, which had been shipping jobs to Mexico for years, suddenly announced billion-dollar investments in the United States . Intel pledged to build a factory and create thousands of American jobs . These weren't government make-work projects; they were private sector commitments driven by the belief that America was open for business again.

The ADP Debate and the "Real" Numbers

The social media post, with its reference to "47," may be pointing to a controversy that erupted in the summer of 2017. In June, President Trump claimed in a speech that his administration had created "more than a million private sector jobs" . Fact-checkers at CNN and elsewhere were quick to pounce, noting that the official BLS data only showed about 600,000 jobs added since his inauguration.

However, the White House, led by economic adviser Gary Cohn, clarified that they were citing data from ADP, a private payroll processing company . This is a crucial distinction that the "fact-checkers" conveniently ignored. The mainstream media, desperate to deny Trump any credit, clung to the government's BLS report as the sole source of truth. But why should a government agency's estimate be considered more valid than a private company's estimate based on actual payroll data for 24 million Americans? The ADP report, which showed 1.2 million private sector jobs created in the first five months of the year, captured the real-world dynamism of the labor market in a way that the government's lagging indicators often miss .

This debate highlights a broader conservative critique of how economic data is politicized. The BLS numbers are frequently revised—sometimes months later and are subject to seasonal adjustments and models that can obscure reality. The ADP numbers, while also an estimate, are derived from actual paycheck data. If the Trump White House chose to highlight the more optimistic private forecast, it was likely because it more accurately reflected the "vibe-cession" breaking and the genuine optimism they were hearing from job creators on the ground.

A Legacy of "Animal Spirits"

The first year of the Trump presidency stands in stark contrast to the Biden years that followed. Under President Biden, the economy has seen a massive resurgence of public sector hiring, even as private sector growth has cooled. The Biden administration's policies have been focused on gigantic government spending bills the so-called "Inflation Reduction Act" and the "CHIPS Act" that funnel billions of dollars through federal agencies. While these bills claim to support manufacturing, they often result in a boom for government contractors and unionized construction crews working on prevailing wage projects, rather than the broad-based, organic growth seen in 2017.

The 100% private sector job creation of early 2017 was a testament to what happens when the federal government steps back and lets the American people work. It was a surge driven by small business owners who finally felt confident enough to hire that extra employee. It was a wave powered by manufacturers who believed they could compete globally if freed from the ball-and-chain of Washington red tape. It was a boom fueled not by stimulus checks printed by the Fed, but by the "animal spirits" of a free people.

The social media post, despite its typographical quirk, serves as an important reminder. Economic policy is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet; it is about philosophy. The Trump administration proved that when you trust the private sector, the private sector delivers. And for conservatives, that is the only model that leads to sustainable, lasting prosperity.

#Jobs #Trump #Manufacturing #Economy #PrivateSector

Trump Is Returning Jobs To America

WHERE DID THE JOBS GO?

Trump Is Returning Jobs To America, Rubio Is Telling You About It. Biden Was Part Of The Sucking Sound Ross Perot Told Us About.

"Pay attention! First it was sending jobs to China next was NAFTA. Remember Ross Perot warning about the sucking of jobs leaving to Mexico and Canada? America First!"

Joe Biden was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Nothing goes overseas unless it goes through that committee.

VIDEO HERE:

https://www.facebook.com/share/1GRE8wD9br/

Full Story Here:

The Biden China Connection: Unpacking the Manufacturing Job Losses of the 2000s

A recent social media post has reignited a crucial conversation about the legacy of Joe Biden’s lengthy career in Washington. It poses a pointed question to the American people, particularly those in the industrial heartland who have watched their communities struggle: What was your role in the jobs that left America, Mr. President?

The post highlights a specific and damning period of Biden’s resume: his tenure as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) from 2001 to 2003 and again from 2007 to 2009. While the post accurately notes that the SFRC doesn’t hold direct jurisdiction over trade policy that power resides with the Senate Finance Committee it would be naive and a dereliction of duty to suggest that the nation’s top foreign policy voice has no influence on, or responsibility for, the economic devastation that unfolded on his watch. During those years, while Biden was ostensibly shaping America’s relationship with the world, the American manufacturing sector was being hollowed out.

To understand the present economic anxiety and the rise of "America First" economic populism, one must look back at the 2000s. During the very years Joe Biden was a leading voice on America's role in the global community, the United States suffered the worst decade for manufacturing in its history. The numbers are staggering, and they form a significant blot on the foreign policy legacy of the current president.

The Great Hemorrhaging: 5.7 Million Jobs Vanished

Between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. economy bled approximately 5.7 to 6 million manufacturing jobs. This wasn't a gradual adjustment; it was a collapse. By the end of the decade, America had lost roughly one-third of its entire manufacturing workforce a decline described by many economists as the worst in American history [citation:oai].

A primary driver of this collapse was the explosion of the trade deficit with China following its entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. While policymakers in Washington, including then-Senator Biden, applauded this move as a victory for globalism and free trade, it unleashed a tidal wave of foreign competition that American workers were never prepared to face.

According to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a source not typically sympathetic to conservative critiques of trade policy, the growing trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2011 was responsible for the loss or displacement of a staggering 2.7 million American jobs . The vast majority of these over 2.1 million were in the manufacturing sector that had long formed the backbone of the American middle class . This wasn't an abstract economic statistic; it was the story of shuttered factories in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

The sectors hit hardest read like a catalog of what was once "Made in the USA." The apparel and textile industries, long a stepping stone for generations of workers, were decimated as production moved to China and Vietnam. The furniture manufacturing hubs of North Carolina and Virginia saw their factories go dark. The computer and electronic components sector, the high-tech promise of the future, saw its manufacturing capacity shipped across the Pacific. Even the heart of the auto industry, motor vehicle parts, began a long and painful decline as supply chains were globalized .

The Biden Defense: A Convenient Jurisdictional Argument

The social media post correctly points out that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee does not manage trade policy, a fact that Biden's defenders are quick to cite. They argue that the 2000s job losses were the result of a complex mix of factors: rising productivity, the shock of the Great Recession, and trade policies championed by both parties. They will note that the 2002 and 2007-2009 periods also saw recessionary job losses, with 1.4 million manufacturing jobs lost during the Great Recession alone.

But this is a political dodge, not a serious defense.

As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden was the Senate's point man on America's relationship with the world. The SFRC is responsible for debating and shaping legislation regarding the State Department, the diplomatic corps, foreign aid, and perhaps most importantly, the advice and consent on treaties and ambassadors. The central foreign policy achievement of the 2000s, supported overwhelmingly by the foreign policy establishment that Biden represented, was the integration of China into the global economic order.

The decision to support China's entry into the WTO, the normalization of permanent trade relations with Beijing, and the consistent refusal to hold China accountable for currency manipulation and intellectual property theft were all part of a foreign policy consensus. This consensus prioritized engagement and the hope that economic liberalization would lead to political liberalization, a gamble that turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

When a factory closes in Ohio because it cannot compete with state-subsidized Chinese industries and a deliberately undervalued yuan, that is not just a trade issue; it is the direct result of a foreign policy that placed a higher value on geopolitical engagement than on American livelihoods. The SFRC Chairman is not just a passive observer in this process; he is a chief architect of the worldview that made it possible.

The "Right Hand" and the "Left Hand" of Policy

Decades later, the cognitive dissonance of the foreign policy elite is on full display. In a 2023 press release, Senator Bob Menendez, who succeeded Biden’s protege as Chairman of the SFRC, joined with Republican Senator James Lankford to introduce the American Economic Diplomacy Act . Their argument? That for too long, Administrations in both parties have failed to align the Annual Trade Agenda with National Security and National Defense Strategies .

Lankford put it bluntly: "We should set clear trade parameters so the right hand of the Biden Administration, or any future administration, knows what the left hand is doing to maximize our national security and our trade goals at the same time" .

This is an admission of the very failure that defines the 2000s. During Biden’s chairmanship, the "right hand" of foreign policy was building up a geopolitical rival, while the "left hand" of trade policy was dismantling the American industrial base to feed it. The result was a weakened America, dependent on a strategic adversary for everything from pharmaceuticals to microchips.

While the Biden administration now scrambles to "friend-shore" supply chains and pass bills like the CHIPS Act to undo the damage, it offers little solace to the workers displaced during the years Biden was helping to set the tone. The EPI data tracking job displacement from China shows a grim, upward trajectory throughout Biden’s tenure as chair: from 222,800 jobs lost in 2002 to over 2 million by 2007 .

A Legacy Written in Rust

The argument over committee jurisdiction is a Beltway parlor game. Out in the real world, when the man who would be President sits in a position of immense foreign policy power for eight critical years, and during those years the country loses a third of its manufacturing base, he owns a piece of that failure.

The social media post is a powerful reminder that "foreign policy" is not an abstract concept debated in ivory towers. It has real-world consequences. It is the furniture plant in North Carolina that ships its last order. It is the textile mill in South Carolina that sells its looms for scrap. It is the auto parts supplier in Michigan that declares bankruptcy.

Joe Biden was a leading voice in a foreign policy establishment that, for a generation, believed that globalism was an unquestionable good and that the pain of the American worker was an acceptable price to pay for "stability" and "engagement." As he now tries to project strength on the world stage, the ghost of those 5.7 million lost jobs hangs over him. The post’s question is not just a political jab; it is a demand for accountability from the communities that were sacrificed on the altar of a foreign policy consensus he helped build.

#Biden #China #Jobs #Detroit #Manufacturing #AutoIndustry #Trump #Tariffs