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

The Renters' Betrayal: How Zohran Mamdani's Property Tax Threat Exposes Progressive Hypocrisy

9.5% increase in Property Tax For NYC. They deserve what they VOTED For. POLICY MATTERS!!! "ALLAH AKBAR" STUPID!!!

Mamdani floats increasing New York City property taxes as part of $127B budget plan

The mayor says increased property levies could be harmful but argues they’ll be necessary if the state doesn’t enact a new tax on millionaires.

#NYC #ProertyTax #Taxes #RentControl #Mamdani

For The Weeds of The Situation:

The Renters' Betrayal: How Zohran Mamdani's Property Tax Threat Exposes Progressive Hypocrisy

There is a special kind of political deception that occurs when a politician campaigns on lofty promises of relief for the working class, only to reveal, once in office, that the bill for those promises will be paid by the very people who believed in them. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist who swept into office on a wave of progressive enthusiasm, has now presented the city with a stunning ultimatum: raise taxes on millionaires, or he will be forced to raise property taxes by 9.5% a move that would devastate homeowners and, inevitably, renters.

The cruel irony is unmistakable. Mamdani campaigned as the champion of renters, promising free childcare, no-cost buses, and a four-year rent freeze for tenants struggling in an unaffordable city. He positioned himself as the defender of ordinary New Yorkers against the rapacious greed of landlords and the ultra-wealthy. Yet his first major budget proposal threatens to unleash precisely the kind of tax increase that will land hardest on the working-class and middle-class residents he claimed to represent.

The Shell Game: Tax the Rich or Tax Everyone Else

Mamdani's budget proposal lays out two paths to close a projected $5.4 billion budget deficit over the next two fiscal years. The first, his preferred option, would raise income taxes on New Yorkers earning more than $1 million a year and increase corporate taxes. This requires approval from Governor Kathy Hochul and the state legislature in Albany approval that Hochul, running for reelection, has made clear she will not give .

The second path, which Mamdani calls a "painful" and "last resort" option, would raise citywide property taxes by 9.5% the first such increase since the early 2000s. This move, which Mamdani can implement without state approval, would generate an estimated $3.7 billion in annual revenue. The mayor would also draw roughly $1.2 billion from the city's "rainy day" fund and retiree health care reserves.

"This is something that we do not want to do, and this is something that we are going to utilize every single option to ensure it does not come to pass," Mamdani told reporters.

But here is the uncomfortable truth: Mamdani's "last resort" is not a genuine fallback; it is a political hostage negotiation. He is holding New York's homeowners and by extension, its renters hostage to force Albany's hand. And if Hochul does not blink, Mamdani has signaled he will pull the trigger on a tax increase that the nonpartisan Citizens Budget Commission estimates would cost the typical owner of a one-, two-, or three-family home about $700 more per year .

Why This Hurts Renters Most

The progressive delusion that property taxes only affect property owners is belied by basic economics. As multiple news outlets have reported, multi-unit buildings where renters tend to live are taxed at a higher effective rate than single-family or low-density homes . While renters don't pay property taxes directly, higher property tax levies on their landlords will, over time, translate into higher rents .

Real Estate CEO Jay Batra put it succinctly: "All the costs that the landlords have to absorb have to be passed down to the tenants. It's a chain reaction".

The New York Apartment Association, which represents property owners and managers providing the majority of affordable multifamily housing in the state, condemned the proposal in forceful terms. CEO Kenny Burgos noted that roughly one-third of rent-regulated housing is already struggling due to rising costs, with property taxes being the biggest expense .

"This proposal, coupled with Mamdani's pledge to freeze rents for four years, virtually guarantees the physical destruction of tens of thousands of units of housing," Burgos said. "If the mayor truly cared about preserving regulated housing for the future, he would be fighting for tax reform, not using the city's largest stock of affordable housing as a piggy bank" .

Ann Korchak, board president of Small Property Owners of New York, went further: "The mayor has declared war on thousands of immigrant property owners, most of them multigenerational families, who have their entire life's savings invested in their small buildings" .

The Campaign Promises vs. The Governing Reality

Mamdani's campaign was built on a foundation of appealing to renters. His signature housing proposal was a four-year rent freeze on all rent-stabilized apartments in New York City . He promised to fight for property tax reform to help overtaxed apartment buildings . He spoke of redistributing wealth and making the wealthiest pay their "fair share" .

But as the old saying goes, campaigns make promises; budgets reveal priorities. Mamdani's preliminary budget, which swells to $127 billion a 55% increase over the last decade reflects a spending velocity that the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce correctly identified as the city's real problem . "New York does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending velocity problem," said CEO Jessica Walker .

The mayor has largely blamed the budget gap on former Mayor Eric Adams' budgeting tactics and a Cuomo-era policy that he claims shortchanges the city on state funding . But this blame-shifting ignores the fundamental reality that New York City's budget has ballooned under successive Democratic administrations, with expenses consistently outpacing revenue growth .

The Progressive Blind Spot: Landlords Are Not the Enemy

The Mamdani administration's housing agenda is being shaped by figures like Cea Weaver, his pick to head the resurrected Office to Protect Tenants. Weaver has been pilloried for calling homeownership a "weapon of white supremacy" and declaring that private property and homeownership merely "masquerade as 'wealth building' public policy" . She has railed against property ownership as "an individualized good and not a collective good" .

This ideological hostility toward private property and homeownership blinds the administration to a basic truth: the private housing sector is the engine of affordability. When landlords are crushed by tax increases, they cannot maintain their buildings. When they cannot maintain their buildings, units fall into disrepair or are taken off the market entirely. The result is the opposite of what progressives claim to want: less housing, higher rents, and more displacement.

The Furman Center and the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development have documented the severity of the financial distress facing older buildings . Enterprise Community Partners, a nonprofit that builds affordable housing in New York, has said that six out of every ten affordable projects it financed is losing money and in trouble . Yet Mamdani's response is to threaten a tax increase that would compound this distress.

A Contrast in Governance: Massachusetts Shows Another Way

The New York Post offered a striking contrast between Mamdani and another progressive Democrat: Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey . Healey, the nation's first LGBTQ state chief executive and a fierce critic of "systemic racism," has nonetheless broken ranks with her fellow leftists on housing policy. When faced with a ballot referendum in favor of statewide rent control, Healey said no.

"Rent control is not going to be the solution to how we get through this crisis," she said. "We need to build more homes".

Healey understands what Mamdani apparently does not: that freezing rents inhibits new supply, that poorly maintained buildings and falling housing stock are the predictable results of rent control, and that the private housing sector must be welcomed as a partner, not treated as an enemy .

An MIT study found that prior to Massachusetts' 1994 abolition of rent control, Boston had more than 10,000 vacant apartments, as overall rental housing stock fell by 12% . Healey fears a replay and has acted accordingly. Mamdani, by contrast, seems determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

The Bipartisan Pushback

Remarkably, Mamdani's proposal has drawn fire not only from Republicans but from his fellow Democrats and even his own political allies. City Council Speaker Julie Menin, a Democrat, issued a joint statement with Council Member Linda Lee declaring that "significant property tax increases should not be on the table whatsoever" . They called for the administration to pursue additional savings and revenue options first .

Queens Borough President Donovan Richards, an ally to the mayor, said a property tax hike would "worsen our wealth inequality and overall affordability crises, while threatening to return us to the days of the 2008 financial catastrophe, when Southeast Queens was the national epicenter of property foreclosures" .

Comptroller Mark Levine, also a Democrat, warned that relying on a property tax increase and a significant draw-down of reserves could have "dire consequences," leaving the city vulnerable to economic turbulence .

Even Governor Hochul, the target of Mamdani's ultimatum, has made her position clear: "I don't think a property tax increase is necessary" .

Conclusion: The Renters' Champion Exposed

Zohran Mamdani campaigned as the champion of renters. He promised relief, reform, and redistribution. But his first major budget proposal threatens to raise taxes on the very buildings where renters live, driving up costs and driving down housing quality. His "last resort" is a tax increase that would hit working-class homeowners and, through them, the tenants who can least afford higher rents.

The progressive playbook is predictable: promise the moon, blame others when the bills come due, and threaten to make ordinary people pay if the wealthy don't volunteer their wallets. Mamdani's property tax threat is not a serious budget proposal; it is a political weapon aimed at Albany but loaded with ammunition that will ultimately strike New York's homeowners and renters.

Conservatives have long argued that the path to affordable housing is not through rent control, tax increases, and hostility to private property, but through supply-side reforms, sensible tax policy, and partnership with the private sector. Mamdani's budget proves the point. His agenda, if implemented, would make New York less affordable, less hospitable to working families, and more divided than ever.

The renters who believed in Zohran Mamdani deserve better. They deserve a mayor who understands that you cannot help tenants by destroying landlords, and you cannot build housing by taxing it out of existence. Instead, they got a socialist with a ultimatum—and a tax hike waiting in the wings.

Trump remembers Jesse Jackson as 'good man,' 'force of nature'

#JesseJackson #DonaldTrump #Trump

The Unlikely Alliance: Understanding the Jesse Jackson-Donald Trump Relationship

In the hours following the passing of the Reverend Jesse Jackson at age 84, a remarkable thing happened. President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to offer a tribute that was equal parts memorial, defense of his own record, and characteristically pointed political commentary . "Jesse was a force of nature like few others before him," Trump wrote. "I knew him well, long before becoming President. He was a good man, with lots of personality, grit, and 'street smarts'" .

For those who have watched American politics over the past decade, this moment of presidential praise for a civil rights icon might have seemed jarring. After all, Jackson had become one of Trump's most vocal critics during his presidency, condemning his immigration policies and rhetoric as "dangerous, divisive, and diversionary". Yet their relationship stretches back nearly four decades a complex history that defies simple categorization and offers valuable lessons about political alliances, personal relationships, and the nature of public service.

From a conservative perspective, the Jackson-Trump relationship illuminates something important: the difference between transactional politics and transformational change, and the enduring value of engaging across ideological lines even when profound disagreements remain.

The New York Years: When Worlds Collided

To understand how a Manhattan real estate developer and a civil rights leader from the Jim Crow South developed any kind of relationship, one must understand the New York of the 1980s. It was a city of overlapping elite circles—business, media, entertainment, and politics where figures like Trump and Jackson inevitably crossed paths .

Jackson was then at the height of his national influence, having run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and gearing up for another bid in 1988. Trump, meanwhile, was ascending as a real estate mogul whose name was becoming synonymous with luxury and ambition. They attended the same high-profile events, including heavyweight championship fights at Trump Plaza in Atlantic City in 1988, 1989, and 1991—glitzy, televised spectacles that drew politicians, celebrities, and business leaders together .

Jackson later recalled that Trump took his presidential campaigns seriously when many in the establishment dismissed them. "When many others thought it was either laughable or something to avoid, he came to our business meeting here in New York because he has this sense of the curious and the will to risk to make things better," Jackson said .

This is a point conservatives might appreciate: Trump, whatever one thinks of his style, has never been afraid to engage with figures outside his immediate orbit. He showed respect for Jackson's ambition and his message at a time when doing so offered no obvious political advantage for a man who was then a Democrat.

The 40 Wall Street Decision: More Than Real Estate

The most tangible evidence of this early relationship came in 1997, when Trump made a decision that would become a footnote in both men's histories but a telling one. He announced he would donate office space to Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition at 40 Wall Street, a building he was renovating .

This was not a small gesture. The Wall Street Project, Jackson's initiative to expand minority access to corporate America and financial markets, needed a physical presence in the heart of New York's financial district. Trump provided it for years, at no cost.

At the January 1998 conference marking the opening of the space, the dynamic between the two men was on full display. Trump, with his characteristic blend of self-deprecation and self-promotion, joked about Jackson's negotiating skills. "He's a very tough negotiator when it came to rent, I wanna tell you that. This man is definitely setting a new standard for paying low rent," Trump told the panel. "I said, Come on, Jesse, you gotta give me something. He said nothing. I said, Alright, what the heck. So he's tough" .

Jackson, in turn, praised Trump's seriousness of purpose. "One can miss his seriousness and his commitment, for his success is beyond argument," Jackson said. He added that Trump possessed a "sense of the curious and the will to risk to make things better" .

From a conservative perspective, this exchange reveals something often missing from today's hyper-partisan environment: the ability to acknowledge good faith efforts across political divides. Trump, a businessman, was supporting an organization dedicated to expanding economic opportunity in minority communities. Jackson, a civil rights leader, was willing to accept help from a source outside his usual political coalition. Both understood that progress on issues like minority business development required partners wherever they could be found.

The 1999 Wall Street Project Conference: A Moment of Praise

The relationship reached perhaps its warmest moment in January 1999, when Jackson invited Trump to speak at the Rainbow PUSH Coalition's Wall Street Project conference. There, Jackson introduced Trump warmly and again thanked him for providing the office space at 40 Wall Street, which he said was "to make a statement about our having a presence there" .

Trump, for his part, praised Jackson as "a terrific guy" and declared, "We love him and I'm here for him" . He spoke about his record as a builder and employer, pointing to his construction projects as creating jobs for large numbers of minority workers. He argued that expanding access to capital and opportunity in urban communities was both good business and good policy .

This moment captured on video and later circulated by Trump supporters during his presidential campaigns represents a high-water mark in their relationship. It also serves as a useful corrective to the simplistic narrative that Trump has always been persona non grata in the civil rights community. Jackson, no naif when it came to assessing political figures, saw enough in Trump to share a stage with him and offer public praise.

The Partisan Turn: When Politics Pulled Them Apart

If the story ended there, it would be a pleasant tale of cross-cultural cooperation in the spirit of colorblind opportunity. But politics, as it so often does, intervened.

When Trump launched his presidential bid in 2016 as a Republican, the dynamic shifted dramatically. Jackson, a lifelong Democrat who had twice sought the party's nomination, became a fierce critic. He condemned the tone and substance of Trump's rhetoric, particularly on immigration and race .

In the days after Trump's 2016 victory, Jackson did not mince words. "The idea of making America great again reopens the wounds in America's immoral foundation, born in sin, and shaped in inequity," he said . He warned of a "tug of war for the soul of America" and criticized Trump personally, saying, "Trump says you must be able to speak the language of English, [be] qualified, and have a job skill. Jesus would not qualify to come in Trump's country" .

By 2019, Jackson was describing Trump's attacks on minority lawmakers as fueling white nationalist extremism . The man he had once praised for his "sense of curiosity" and "will to make things better" had become, in Jackson's view, a threat to the communities he had spent his life advocating for.

For conservatives, this turn is both understandable and disappointing. Understandable because Jackson was, after all, a man of the Left who had built his career within the Democratic Party. Disappointing because it suggests that the personal relationships and cooperative efforts of the 1990s could not survive the partisan pressures of the 2010s. The office space at 40 Wall Street, the friendly introductions, the shared laughter about rent negotiations—all of it was washed away by the tidal wave of political polarization.

Trump's Defense: A Record to Stand On

Throughout his political career, Trump has faced accusations of racism charges he has consistently denied. And in his tribute to Jackson following the civil rights leader's death, Trump used their history together as part of his defense.

"Despite the fact that I am falsely and consistently called a Racist by the Scoundrels and Lunatics on the Radical Left, Democrats ALL, it was always my pleasure to help Jesse along the way," Trump wrote. He then enumerated specific actions he had taken: providing office space for the Rainbow Coalition "for years" at 40 Wall Street; responding to Jackson's request for help in passing criminal justice reform; securing long-term funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities; and supporting Opportunity Zones, which he called "the single most successful economic development package yet approved for Black business men/women".

From a conservative perspective, this is not mere self-defense it is a legitimate point about results. Whatever one thinks of Trump's rhetoric, his administration did achieve significant policy outcomes that benefited minority communities. The First Step Act represented the most substantial criminal justice reform in a generation. Opportunity Zones have channeled billions in investment to distressed communities. HBCUs received unprecedented federal support.

Jackson, to his credit, had advocated for all of these things. And Trump, to his credit, delivered on them. The relationship between the two men, whatever its later strains, had produced tangible results.

The Obama Complication

No discussion of Jackson and Trump would be complete without addressing the complicated figure of Barack Obama. In his tribute to Jackson, Trump inserted a pointed observation: Jackson "had much to do with the Election, without acknowledgment or credit, of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who Jesse could not stand".

This was not mere mischief-making. There is a genuine historical point here. Jackson's presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988 laid much of the groundwork for Obama's historic 2008 victory. Jackson expanded the Democratic electorate, built multiracial coalitions, and demonstrated that a Black candidate could compete for the presidency . Yet the relationship between Jackson and Obama was strained. In 2008, Jackson was caught on a hot mic saying he wanted to "cut [Obama's] nuts off" for what Jackson perceived as the candidate talking down to Black Americans.

For conservatives, this episode illustrates something important about the civil rights establishment and Democratic Party politics. The relationship between generations of Black leadership is more complex than the unified front presented to the public. Personal rivalries, policy disagreements, and competing visions all exist beneath the surface.

Lessons for Conservatives

What should conservatives take away from the Jackson-Trump relationship?

First, engagement matters. Trump's willingness to provide office space and appear at Rainbow PUSH events did not transform Jackson into a Republican, nor should it have. But it did create channels of communication and cooperation that eventually produced policy outcomes conservatives can be proud of. The First Step Act and Opportunity Zones were not gifts to the Left; they were conservative reforms that addressed real problems in ways consistent with conservative principles.

Second, personal relationships can survive political disagreements but only just. The friendship between Jackson and Trump, such as it was, could not withstand the intensity of contemporary partisan conflict. This is a loss. When political opponents can no longer share a stage or acknowledge each other's good faith, the country is diminished.

Third, results matter more than rhetoric. Jackson praised Trump in the 1990s for his willingness to engage. Trump, in turn, delivered policies Jackson had long advocated. The rhetoric of the 2016 campaign and the Trump presidency undeniably caused pain to many, including Jackson. But the policy record deserves honest assessment.

Finally, the Jackson-Trump relationship reminds us that American politics is not always as simple as the cable news narratives suggest. A real estate developer who would become a Republican president and a civil rights leader who would become his critic once found common ground. That ground was not vast it was a few thousand square feet of office space at 40 Wall Street. But it was enough to produce something of value.

In his final tribute to Jackson, Trump wrote that the civil rights leader "loved his family greatly, and to them I send my deepest sympathies and condolences. Jesse will be missed!". Whatever their political differences, whatever the strains of the Trump presidency, that sentiment stands as a testament to a relationship that spanned nearly four decades and to the possibility, however fragile, of finding common purpose across the divides that separate us.