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.

Summary: 'Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson' by Kenneth R. Timmerman

Summary: 'Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson' by Kenneth R. Timmerman

Kenneth R. Timmerman’s 'Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson' is a searing investigative work that pulls back the curtain on a figure who has long been a sacred cow of the American Left. Published in 2002, the book presents a meticulous and damning portrait of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, not as a courageous civil rights warrior, but as a cunning operator who built a lucrative career on exploiting racial grievances for personal and political gain .

From a conservative perspective, 'Shakedown' is an essential text because it validates what many have long suspected: that the civil rights establishment, led by figures like Jackson, has strayed far from the noble principles of equality and colorblindness championed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Instead, Timmerman exposes a world of "race hustlers" who manipulate white guilt, threaten corporations with boycotts, and funnel money into their own pockets and those of their allies . The book's central thesis is that Jackson's primary skill is not leadership or moral persuasion, but a sophisticated form of extortion disguised as social activism.

The Anatomy of a "Shakedown"

The book's title perfectly encapsulates its core argument. Timmerman meticulously documents what he calls Jackson's "fundraising style," which operates like a protection racket . The pattern is repetitive and, as one reviewer noted, "numbingly repetitive" in its audacity . It unfolds as follows:

1.  Identify a Target: Jackson and his operatives would identify a major corporation—often one involved in a merger, seeking regulatory approval, or vulnerable to public perception.

2.  Issue a Threat: They would then threaten the company with accusations of racism, a consumer boycott, or negative media attention unless it agreed to their demands .

3.  Make the Demands: The demands were rarely about principle. They typically involved monetary "donations" to Jackson's organizations, such as the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, or lucrative contracts for minority-owned businesses hand-picked from Jackson's inner circle .

4.  Collect the Payment: Fearing the reputational and financial damage of being labeled racist, corporations would often "pony up" . As the Independence Institute summarized, "It's less expensive to just pay him off" . Timmerman argues that these payments were a form of "hush-money" to make the "racial bullying" stop.

Timmerman argues that this was not activism; it was a business model. The goal was never to create lasting change but to create a continuous revenue stream. The book is filled with examples of corporations that, in the words of one CEO quoted by Timmerman, lacked the courage to "grow a pair of balls" and instead chose to "toss bones to Jesse".

Debunking the Myth

Beyond the financial extortion, 'Shakedown' systematically dismantles the carefully constructed mythology surrounding Jackson's public persona. Timmerman accuses Jackson of consistently "manipulating the truth to build a false portrait of himself". This includes:

The Minister Title: Timmerman points out that for much of his public career, Jackson was a "seminary drop-out," raising questions about the legitimacy of the "Reverend" title that lent him moral authority.

The King Association: Jackson famously claimed to have been with Dr. King when he was assassinated in Memphis, even asserting that he was the last person to speak with him and cradled the dying leader in his arms. Timmerman presents evidence that these claims were greatly exaggerated, portraying Jackson as a self-aggrandizing figure who used King's death to elevate his own standing.

Anti-Semitism: The book does not shy away from Jackson's infamous "Hymietown" remark, in which he referred to New York City as "Hymietown" during the 1984 presidential campaign. While Jackson later apologized, Timmerman uses it as an example of the casual bigotry that underlay his public message of tolerance.

The "Subversive" Agenda and Unsavory Allies

For a conservative reader, Timmerman's exploration of Jackson's political alliances is particularly alarming. The book accuses Jackson of espousing a "subversive domestic agenda" and of supporting anti-American dictators abroad . He portrays Jackson's foreign policy forays often celebrated by the Left as "citizen diplomacy" as photo opportunities with despots that lent legitimacy to brutal regimes.

Furthermore, 'Shakedown' highlights Jackson's long-standing relationships with figures like Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious antisemite, and his cozy ties with Yasser Arafat and other controversial figures . For conservatives who believe in standing with allies and confronting tyrants, Jackson's embrace of such characters is deeply troubling and reveals a man whose "rainbow coalition" included some very dark colors.

The Personal Financial Question

Finally, Timmerman focuses on Jackson's personal finances, contrasting his message of helping the poor with his own opulent lifestyle. The book details Jackson's "fifteen room Tudor" house, his expensive suits, and his family's privileged lifestyle including private schools and luxury cars. The point is not to begrudge anyone success, but to highlight the hypocrisy of a man who claims to speak for the "despair" of the inner city while living behind the gates of affluence. Timmerman quotes one observer who caustically noted that Jackson was "as close to inner city despair as the Beverly Hillbillies were to poverty".

Conclusion

'Shakedown' is not a dispassionate biography; it is a prosecutorial brief. Timmerman makes no pretense of balance, and for that, he was viciously attacked by the Left-leaning media, with outlets like 'The Nation' decrying his "racialized animus" and "class bias". However, from a conservative vantage point, these attacks are predictable. They are the howls of a protective press corps desperate to shield a liberal icon from scrutiny.

The value of 'Shakedown' lies in its unapologetic willingness to ask the hard questions that the mainstream media refuses to ask. It exposes the corrupting intersection of race, money, and power. It reveals how the language of social justice can be weaponized not to help the downtrodden, but to enrich the hustlers who claim to represent them. For conservatives seeking to understand the rot at the heart of the modern civil rights establishment, and for anyone who believes in colorblind justice over racial favoritism, Kenneth Timmerman's 'Shakedown' remains a powerful and necessary read.

#JesseJackson #CivilRights #MLK

STOP SOCIALISM!

 

 STOP SOCIALISM!

"Socialism is good until you run out of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY." ~ The Late British PM Margaret Thatcher 

The quote referenced is commonly attributed to Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, though it’s not a direct quotation. It reflects a criticism of socialism or welfare policies, suggesting that such systems rely heavily on wealth redistribution and could become unsustainable once the resources or wealth of others are depleted.

The phrase is often used in debates about the limits of government intervention in the economy, highlighting concerns that high levels of taxation and redistribution could discourage investment, productivity, and personal responsibility. However, proponents of socialism or mixed economies might counter that well-managed systems can generate wealth and ensure fairness, rather than merely depleting resources. It’s a significant point in the broader discussion of economic models and their long-term viability.

Stopping Socialism with

DAVID KENDAL

powered by Surfing Waves

#Socialism #Socialists

#Socialism #politics #communismf

41 years ago 221 Marines and 21 Sailors were killed in a terrorist attack in Lebanon.

   

41 years ago 221 Marines and 21 Sailors were killed in a terrorist attack in Lebanon. Word has it ISRAEL turned him into dust this week.

1st Posted on September 22, 2024

https://snip.ly/ky3dao

#Marines #Lebanon #terrorists 

The Obamas Also Are In The Epstein Files

 

The Obamas Also Are In The Epstein Files

Guess who else's name showed up in the EPSTEIN FILES ... The 1st Half White President ... Barack Hussain Obama ... and his wife MICHELLE ... Ooooo ... Now what???

Yes, the recent release of the Jeffrey Epstein files by the Department of Justice confirms that both Barack and Michelle Obama are named in the documents. However, a conservative analysis must go beyond the mere fact of their inclusion and examine the context, the media's handling of the information, and the stark contrast between the political left's performative outrage and its silence when its own icons are implicated.

What the Files Actually Show

On February 14, 2026, Attorney General Pam Bondi officially announced that the Department of Justice had released all available files related to Jeffrey Epstein, complying with the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by Congress . The release includes millions of pages of records, images, and videos, along with a list of more than 300 high-profile individuals whose names appear in the documents .

That list prominently includes former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama . Also named are Bill and Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and numerous other Democratic luminaries .

Now, here is where conservative intellectual honesty requires precision. The Justice Department explicitly states that inclusion in the files "does not imply wrongdoing, or even direct contact with Epstein" . Some individuals had "extensive direct email contact" with Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, while others were referenced in documents "including press reporting that on its face is unrelated to the Epstein and Maxwell matters".

Attorney General Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche emphasized that "no records were withheld or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary". This is a significant statement: the Trump administration did not shield anyone, regardless of party affiliation, from being named.

The Conservative Framework: What This Really Means

From a conservative perspective, several points demand attention.

First, the Obama name appearing in these files is newsworthy and should be investigated. Conservatives have long suspected that Epstein's network extended deep into elite circles on both sides of the aisle. The release confirms that the Obamas are among the hundreds of names a fact that cannot be dismissed. While mere mention is not proof of wrongdoing, it raises legitimate questions about the nature of any contact, the context of any communications, and the extent to which the Obama circle intersected with Epstein's world.

Second, the media's selective interest is revealing. For years, the left-wing press has demanded "transparency" and "accountability" regarding Epstein's associates but primarily when the names were Republican or simply famous. Donald Trump has been named repeatedly in earlier document dumps, and those headlines dominated cable news for weeks . Now that the Obamas, Clintons, and Harris appear on an official DOJ list, the coverage is notably more cautious, more hedged, more eager to explain away rather than investigate.

Conservatives notice this double standard. When the left controls the narrative, Epstein is a story about powerful men exploiting women. When the names include Democratic royalty, Epstein becomes a story about "context" and "guilt by association."

Third, the timing and handling of the release merit scrutiny. The files were released under a transparency law passed by Congress, implemented by a Republican administration. The Obama-Biden years, by contrast, were marked by secrecy, stonewalling, and the infamous "Clinton body count" jokes that were never funny because they reflected a genuine pattern: powerful Democrats seemed to skate while others faced consequences . Epstein himself received a sweetheart plea deal in 2008 when Acosta then a federal prosecutor was criticized for being too lenient. But let us not forget that Epstein's original let-off occurred under a Republican administration, and his 2019 arrest happened under Trump's watch. Neither party has clean hands.

Fourth, the conservative principle of equal justice demands that no one be above scrutiny. If Barack Obama's name appears in these files, he owes the public an explanation. What was the context? Was there any communication? Did he or Michelle ever meet Epstein? Were they aware of his activities? These are not unreasonable questions. They are the same questions conservatives have been asking about Trump, about Clinton, about everyone on that list.

The Silence from the Left

What is most striking, from a conservative vantage, is the deafening silence from progressive activists and media figures who built careers on Epstein outrage. Where are the demands for Obama to "release his flight logs"? Where are the social media campaigns demanding that Michelle Obama testify before Congress? Where are the cable news panels grilling Democratic operatives about what the Obamas knew and when they knew it?

They are nowhere to be found. Because for the left, Epstein was never about justice for victims. It was about weaponizing a tragedy against political opponents. Now that the files include their own icons, the narrative shifts to "context" and "innocent until proven guilty" concepts conservatives have been urging all along.

Conclusion: Transparency Cuts Both Ways

The release of the Epstein files is a victory for transparency, period. Conservatives should welcome it not because it damages Democrats though it may but because sunlight is the best disinfectant. If Barack and Michelle Obama are innocent of any wrongdoing, they have nothing to fear from the truth. If their names appear in innocuous contexts, they should say so clearly and move on.

But the American people deserve straight answers. The same questions conservatives have asked about Trump must now be asked about Obama. The same scrutiny applied to Clinton must now be applied to Harris. Anything less is not journalism; it is partisan advocacy masquerading as news.

From a conservative perspective, the Obama name appearing in the Epstein files is a fact. What that fact means remains to be seen. But the left's sudden embrace of caution and context, after years of reckless accusation, tells us everything we need to know about who was really seeking justice and who was simply seeking scalps.

#Epstein #Obama

The ID Double Standard: What You Need Identification For in America

 

The ID Double Standard: What You Need Identification For in America

The debate over voter ID laws has become one of the most contentious and revealing battles in American politics. The left insists that requiring identification to vote is an insurmountable barrier a modern poll tax designed to disenfranchise minorities, the elderly, and the poor. The right responds with a simple, commonsense question: if identification is required for virtually every other significant transaction in American life, why should the most sacred act of citizenship be the sole exception?

The answer, from a conservative perspective, is that the left's opposition to voter ID has nothing to do with protecting access to the ballot and everything to do with preserving the conditions in which electoral fraud can flourish. To understand why, one need only examine the extensive list of everyday activities that already require government-issued identification. The contrast between what Democrats demand for voting and what they accept for ordinary commerce is not merely inconsistent; it is revealing.

Travel and Transportation

Perhaps the most obvious category is travel. Every commercial airline passenger over the age of 18 must present a valid government-issued ID before boarding a flight. The Transportation Security Administration is uncompromising on this point. No ID, no flight. This applies equally to executives, students, retirees, and celebrities. It applies in every state, regardless of racial demographics or income levels. And yet the left, which has not launched a single protest against this requirement, expects us to believe that asking for the same ID at a polling place constitutes an act of oppression.

Amtrak does not require ID for most tickets, but passengers must present identification to pick up tickets at will-call windows or to receive refunds for unused tickets . International travel, of course, requires a passport a more stringent identification standard than any voter ID law has ever proposed.

Driving and Vehicles

Operating a motor vehicle requires a valid driver's license. This is not controversial. It is understood that operating heavy machinery on public roads carries risks that justify verifying the operator's identity and competence. The same progressives who oppose voter ID have no problem with laws that require drivers to prove who they are before getting behind the wheel.

Registering a vehicle requires identification. Purchasing automobile insurance requires identification. If you are pulled over by law enforcement, you are legally required to present your license, registration, and proof of insurance. Failure to do so can result in fines, impoundment of your vehicle, and even arrest. All of this is accepted as normal and necessary.

Financial Transactions

The financial sector operates on the assumption that identification is essential to prevent fraud, money laundering, and identity theft. Opening a bank account requires multiple forms of identification. Applying for a credit card requires identification. Cashing a check at a bank where you are not a customer requires identification. Taking out a mortgage, refinancing a loan, or even renting a safe deposit box all require government-issued ID.

The Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to verify the identity of anyone opening an account. This is federal law, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, because everyone understands that anonymous financial transactions enable criminal activity. Yet when the same logic is applied to voting an activity with profound consequences for the entire nation the left suddenly discovers a passionate commitment to anonymity.

Employment and Benefits

Showing up for work requires identification. The I-9 form, required for every new employee in America, demands that workers present documents establishing both identity and work authorization. This includes a driver's license, passport, or other government-issued ID. The left does not protest this requirement. Unions do not demand that workers be allowed to verify their own identity through "self-attestation." Employers do not argue that asking for ID is a form of discrimination.

Applying for government benefits requires identification. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, housing assistance, and every one of these programs requires applicants to prove who they are. The left, which champions these programs, has never suggested that requiring ID for benefits access is a form of voter suppression. Yet when the same identification standard is proposed for voting, the narrative suddenly shifts.

Age-Restricted Activities

The list of activities restricted by age and therefore requiring proof of age is extensive. Purchasing alcohol requires ID. Purchasing tobacco products requires ID. Purchasing lottery tickets or entering a casino requires ID. Buying spray paint or certain over-the-counter medications requires ID in many jurisdictions. Entering bars, nightclubs, and many concerts requires ID.

The left accepts these requirements without complaint. They understand that society has a legitimate interest in verifying that individuals are old enough to engage in certain activities. They do not argue that asking a 19-year-old to show ID before buying beer is an unconstitutional burden. They do not claim that requiring identification disproportionately harms minorities or the poor. But when the same principle is applied to voting an activity with age restrictions (18+) and citizenship requirements—the left's commitment to verification magically evaporates.

Housing and Utilities

Renting an apartment requires identification. Landlords universally require prospective tenants to provide government-issued ID as part of the application process. This is accepted as reasonable due diligence. Utility companies require identification to establish service. Turning on electricity, gas, water, or internet service requires proving who you are and that you can be held accountable for payment.

None of this is controversial. The left does not organize protests outside apartment complexes demanding that landlords accept "self-attestation" of identity. They do not file lawsuits against utility companies for discriminating against those without ID. The requirement is accepted as a normal part of adult life.

Healthcare and Medicine

Picking up a prescription requires ID in most pharmacies. This is not because pharmacists are racist but because controlled substances are, well, controlled. The same progressives who oppose voter ID have no objection to requiring ID to obtain pain medication or other prescription drugs. They understand that verifying identity prevents diversion and abuse.

Applying for health insurance, whether private or public, requires identification. Checking into a hospital requires identification. Even visiting a patient in many hospitals requires presenting ID at the reception desk. All of this is accepted as standard operating procedure.

Firearms and Self-Defense

The irony here is particularly rich. Purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer requires passing a background check, which requires presenting identification. This is federal law, supported by the very same Democrats who oppose voter ID. The left argues that identification is essential to ensure that convicted felons and the mentally ill do not obtain weapons. They are correct. But they refuse to apply the same logic to voting, where the stakes control of the entire government are arguably higher.

In many states, obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon requires not only identification but fingerprints, photographs, and extensive background checks. The left supports these requirements. They understand that verifying identity and eligibility is essential when public safety is at stake. But when the integrity of elections is at stake, they suddenly discover that verification is unnecessary and oppressive.

The Conservative Conclusion

The list goes on. Registering for school requires ID. Getting married requires ID. Adopting a child requires ID. Serving on a jury requires ID. Entering a federal building requires ID. The ubiquity of identification requirements in American life is not an accident or a conspiracy. It is a rational response to the reality that identity matters, that fraud is possible, and that verification is the only reliable protection against abuse.

The left's selective opposition to voter ID reveals their true priorities. They accept identification for everything else air travel, financial transactions, employment, benefits, age-restricted purchases, housing, healthcare, and firearms because those requirements serve purposes they support or at least do not oppose. But voting is different. Voting determines who holds power. And the left has concluded, correctly from their perspective, that maximizing turnout by any means necessary, including the elimination of basic verification, serves their electoral interests.

Conservatives see through this. We understand that if identification is necessary to buy a beer, board a plane, open a bank account, or obtain government benefits, it is certainly necessary to cast a ballot. We reject the premise that requiring ID is an act of oppression when applied to the franchise but an act of responsibility when applied to everything else.v

The ID double standard is not an oversight. It is a strategy. And the conservative response must be to insist, consistently and unapologetically, that the most fundamental act of citizenship deserves at least the same level of verification as buying a six-pack of beer. Show your ID. It's not oppression. It's citizenship.

#SaveAct #Voting #ID #VoterID #VoterFraud