The statute is the Jones Act, passed in 1920 to rebuild and protect the U.S. merchant marine fleet after World War I disrupted American shipping capabilities. It requires that any vessel moving cargo between two American ports must be built in an American shipyard, be American-owned and be at least three-quarters American-crewed. Miss any one of these marks and the shipper is barred from carrying a single barrel of fuel from Houston to Honolulu.

The stated justification for the act is national security. We need American ships and American sailors to fight wars. But 100 years in, it’s hard to repeat this justification with a straight face.

An American-built cargo ship costs $190 million to $250 million to build; the same vessel costs about $30 million from a foreign shipyard. U.S. shipyards now build less than 1% of what China and South Korea do, and roughly 300 U.S. shipyards have closed since the early 1980s. Legislation meant to sustain a merchant fleet has presided over its collapse.

Fewer than 100 oceangoing ships qualify under the Jones Act today, and the American tanker fleet is so thin that moving oil from Texas to the Northeast costs about three times what it would to ship it from Africa. Michael Bloomberg recently called the act “a national sales tax” — except that Washington never sees a dime. Instead, the premium is captured by a few U.S. shipyards and carriers operating relatively free of competition. Economist Thomas Grennes found that consumers lose more than what the statute hands to sailors, shipbuilders and carriers.

In March, the Trump administration suspended the Jones Act for energy and fertilizer shipments. It’s not the first waiver of its kind, but it is the longest in recent history. With the waiver’s expiration looming, the administration just announced a 90-day extension along with stricter terms.

The numbers speak for themselves. The Cato Institute’s Colin Grabow documented that in under five months, Puerto Rico took in more mainland fuel than in any full year since 2015. Shipments to the West Coast, Alaska and Hawaii hit nearly 14 million barrels, about 170% of the recent annual average. Whole trade routes quickly appeared: Gulf Coast fuel to Hawaii, New Jersey jet fuel to California, propane to Puerto Rico.

America’s government-protected fleet seldom served these locales. Remove a prohibition and the market pours resources where they are needed. As Grabow noted, “That’s strong evidence for the longstanding critique that the Jones Act suppresses domestic commerce by preventing economically viable trade between Americans.”

The question then becomes: Why won’t the Jones Act die? The answer, as the oldest story in political economy tells us, is that it benefits a few special interests at the cost of all the rest of us.

The handful of shipyards, carriers and labor unions that profit from the Jones Act defend it vigorously. The average person pays just a few cents more at the pump or the register. It adds up, but not many people trace it to a statute they’re mostly unaware of. One side is lobbying. The other is you, and you’re busy.

The lobby mobilized against a limited waiver as if the republic were under siege. Grabow described a national ad campaign drawing millions of views from an account with just a few hundred subscribers, a 10-state media blitz, a form-letter-writing machine and roughly one op-ed or letter per week, mostly written by people on the industry payroll.

Two influencers who had never mentioned shipping policy, Kaya Jones and Olivia Krolczyk, posted identical lines about “protecting 650,000 Americans” a day apart, and one disclosed a paid partnership. A commissioned study for the Transportation Institute warned, with gross exaggeration, that 100,000 jobs were “at risk.” Fifty-two House Republicans, the speaker among them, bought into the economic illiteracy and urged the White House to let the waiver die.

Such machinery does not stop at persuasion. A few years ago, documents pried from the Maritime Administration revealed that an advisory committee meeting participant suggested, probably half in jest, that every past and present Cato Institute and Mercatus Center scholar (presumably including me) be charged with treason for criticizing the Jones Act. As economist Art Carden observed, that dragnet would have to be enormous, since the critics run from free-market economists to the far-left Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz.

Unfortunately, the Jones Act is representative of much American legislation: a narrow group harvesting a fortune while the costs are spread across hundreds of millions of us. By design, those costs are all but invisible. Whether it’s protectionist sugar quotas, occupational licensing laws or bespoke tariffs for connected companies, you, dear taxpayer and consumer, fund them all.

Ask yourself how many statutes you are paying for right now. It’s more than you think.

Written by Veronique de Rugy

Official website; http://twitter.com/veroderugy

The rapid spread of public surveillance cameras represents something far more consequential than a new piece of police technology. It represents a fundamental change in the relationship between the individual and the state.

These cameras allow government agents to record, identify, catalog and retroactively track the movements of people who have committed no crime, are suspected of no wrongdoing and have done nothing to invite government scrutiny. That’s not public safety. It’s an assault upon individual privacy.

Privacy is not a privilege granted by government. It is an aspect of personal liberty that government exists to protect. It is a natural human right protected from the government in the Bill of Rights. The fact that a person leaves his home and travels upon a public road does not mean that he has surrendered that right.

There is an enormous moral and constitutional difference between a police officer who happens to observe a person in public and government surveillance that automatically and systematically records that person’s vehicle, location and movements; and stores that information for future use.

A free society doesn’t just protect people from crime; it protects them from arbitrary government. The presumption is liberty. Government is the negation of liberty. A person should not have to establish his innocence before the government leaves him alone. The burden always belongs to the government to justify all intrusions into personal liberty. Police cameras reverse that principle. They collect information about everyone the camera views and leave it to individuals to challenge the collections afterward.

The Constitution requires articulable suspicion connecting the person being surveilled to a legitimate law-enforcement objective to justify public surveillance. A vague assertion that the technology might someday help solve a crime or enhance public safety does not meet that standard.

The view that personal privacy and public safety are in equipoise — that they are merely two competing interests of equal moral and legal weight from which government officials are entitled to choose subjectively their preferred balance — is the core of authoritarianism.

Safety is one of the legitimate purposes for which government exists. Privacy is among the personal liberties that government exists to protect. It cannot be taken away without judicial approval. Government cannot justify violating a natural right merely by asserting that doing so might make people safer. If that were so, there would be no meaningful boundary on any governmental power.

There is a profound difference between investigating a specific crime through constitutionally authorized surveillance and constructing a permanent infrastructure of suspicionless surveillance. The former begins with evidence and seeks information relevant to a particular governmental purpose. The latter begins with everyone and waits for the evidence.

When 7,000 American police departments have these systems with no legislative approvals, we have the police making policy judgments. They are deciding that the government should possess a new capacity to observe innocent people, what information should be collected, how long it should be retained, who should have access to it and what purposes may justify searches; all this irrespective of the Constitution.

Those are not merely administrative questions. They are questions about personal liberty.

If elected legislators believe that such surveillance is necessary, they should publicly debate it, enact specific legislation mandating warrants, establish meaningful limitations and accept responsibility before the voters. The decision should not be buried in a police procurement process or treated as an ordinary equipment purchase.

Liberty cannot depend upon the benevolence, restraint or good intentions of government employees. The premise of the Constitution is that government power must be limited, checked and divided because government officials are human beings who possess power and will inevitably have incentives to abuse it.

The answer is not better government surveillance. The answer is what the Fourth Amendment requires: No government surveillance without search warrants.

The constitutional question cannot be reduced to whether someone was physically standing in a public place. A police officer seeing a car pass by is one thing. A government database capable of reconstructing months of a person’s movements is something fundamentally different.

The difference is the difference between observation and surveillance.

A free people should be profoundly suspicious of any governmental system that makes surveillance the default position. No person should have to fear that every trip down the street is being permanently recorded, whether his movements can later be reconstructed or whether a government official can search his history without individualized suspicion.

The Constitution mandates that government leave people alone unless it has a legitimate, articulable reason to interfere with their liberty. That principle is not an obstacle to public safety. It is one of the defining characteristics of a free society.

Police cameras embody the opposite philosophy: Collect first, investigate later; monitor everyone, suspect someone later; expand governmental capacity and trust officials to exercise restraint afterward. That’s not the philosophy of a constitutional republic. It’s the philosophy of a surveillance state.

The constitutional objection is not that fighting crime is unimportant. It is that government must fight crime chained down by the Constitution, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson. Safety cannot become the magic word that dissolves every constitutional limitation. Privacy cannot be treated as a luxury available only when government determines that it is convenient. And police departments cannot be permitted to acquire, deploy and normalize technologies that fundamentally alter the balance of power between individuals and the state.

If the police could track all movements, stop anyone on a whim, search and photo as they pleased, would we have less crime? Perhaps. But who would protect us from the criminals in uniform? And who would want to live in such an authoritarian state?

Written by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Official website; https://twitter.com/Judgenap

All of this was done to protect the president. The threat to him, and to Air Force One, was sufficiently serious to pull off this extraordinary scheme. It sounds like a Hollywood pitch. But not. The New York Times actually spoke to the screenwriter of the film “Air Force One,” in which President Harrison Ford’s plane is hijacked. Andrew Marlowe had this to say: “Now real life isn’t a movie, but given the circumstances, I’m not sure I could ever script a moment like that for a heroic main character. If the threat were that great, it’s hard to imagine the audience rooting for any character who would trade his own safety by treating the remaining civilians onboard as potential sacrificial lambs, especially without their informed consent.”

That’s what’s been bothering me. If the threat to Air Force One was too great for the president, why wasn’t it too great for the senior officials and members of the news media who boarded the plane with him? Trump used them as decoys to protect himself. Yes, the Secret Service came up with the scheme, but the buck doesn’t stop there. It stops with the man who approved it and got on the catering truck, leaving the rest behind.

And then, when the danger had passed, they didn’t tell. When the need for secrecy has passed, why keep it a secret? Isn’t it relevant in evaluating this war that Trump has managed to get us into? Isn’t it relevant in evaluating Trump’s character? And put aside that he was on the old Air Force One, or at least he was supposed to be, not the new Qatari gift, because it will take time and money to bring it up to the old plane’s defensive capabilities. (But I’m sure it has more gold inside).

It was in the Kennedy campaign in 1980 that I first came across the concept of the “death watch” — which meant that the press “pool,” select representatives of the press corps, had to be with the senator even at closed events — just in case. That’s how the rotating pool works. Still does. The public has a right to know. At least it’s supposed to. As I understand it, no reporters traveled with the president.

When the news did break, the White House initially did not respond to the media’s requests for comment. On Tuesday night, Trump told reporters that he followed the advice of the Secret Service and rejected the notion that others were put in more danger than him.

“I think actually the plane that I flew on was at greater risk because that would be the plane I think that they would be more likely to go for.”

That makes no sense. The whole plan was premised on Air Force One being the target. Didn’t Trump understand whose lives he was risking? How could he not? That’s the problem with the movie version of this. You can’t have Harrison Ford playing a coward. What about Donald Trump?

Written by Susan Estrich

This pattern has repeated itself in community after community for generations, long before social media made these stories visible to a wider audience. A death gets labeled accidental, a shooting gets ruled justified, or a case simply goes cold without anyone facing real consequences. Families who feel the official version does not match what they know, or what evidence suggests, are left searching for another way to hold someone accountable once the traditional channels have gone quiet.

The Legal Path Families Turn to Next

When a criminal investigation closes without charges, or ends in a verdict a family believes was wrong, many people assume there is nothing left to do. That assumption overlooks an entirely separate legal process that operates under different rules and a different standard of proof. Civil court does not require the same level of certainty as a criminal trial, which means a case that fails to produce charges in one system can still move forward in another.

According to Ward and Smith, this is the route that leads many grieving families toward a wrongful death claim, a civil lawsuit built around the argument that someone’s negligence or misconduct caused a loved one’s death, regardless of whether criminal charges were ever filed. Attorneys who handle these cases often explain that a wrongful death claim exists precisely for situations where the criminal system fails to deliver accountability, giving families a separate avenue to establish responsibility and pursue some form of justice. For many, pursuing this path becomes less about money and more about forcing a public acknowledgment that never came the first time around.

Communities Organizing Around These Cases

Individual families rarely carry this fight entirely on their own. Community organizers, local pastors, and grassroots advocacy groups frequently step in once a case starts drawing attention, helping families navigate unfamiliar legal processes while keeping public pressure on institutions that would otherwise prefer the story to fade. These networks have existed in various forms for decades, built out of necessity in communities that learned early not to expect quick or fair answers from official channels.

Social media has changed how quickly these efforts can gain traction, allowing a single case to reach national attention within days when it might have stayed local a generation ago. That visibility can bring resources, legal support, and renewed scrutiny that a family could never access alone. It can also bring unwanted attention and public speculation that adds new strain to people already dealing with tremendous loss, which is part of why many families describe this period as exhausting in ways that go far beyond grief alone.

The Weight These Cases Carry Across Generations

The impact of an unresolved death rarely stays contained to one household. Children grow up watching parents and grandparents fight for answers that never fully arrive, absorbing lessons about trust, institutions, and justice long before they understand the specifics of what happened. Family gatherings often carry the quiet presence of someone whose case was never truly settled, shaping how younger relatives view the systems meant to protect them.

Older generations frequently draw connections between current cases and ones from decades earlier, recognizing familiar patterns in how investigations unfold and how quickly public attention shifts elsewhere. That historical memory shapes expectations, sometimes toward exhaustion and cynicism, but often toward a determination that someone in the family will keep pushing regardless of how long it takes. This inherited responsibility becomes part of how many families define loyalty and love within their own history.

Why Some Families Choose to Keep Fighting

Not every family pursues additional legal action after an investigation closes, and there is no single right way to respond to this kind of loss. Some feel that continuing to fight would cause more pain than closure, while others feel they owe it to their loved one to exhaust every available option no matter how long it takes or how much it costs emotionally and financially.

For those who do continue, the motivation rarely centers purely on financial compensation. Many describe wanting an official record that acknowledges what actually happened, something that can outlast news cycles and public memory. A ruling in their favor, even years later, often matters less for the money involved and more for the simple fact that someone in a position of authority finally said out loud what the family always believed to be true.

What Accountability Looks Like When the System Falls Short

Accountability rarely arrives the way families originally hoped it would. It often comes slowly, through a civil judgment instead of a criminal conviction, or through policy changes prompted by public pressure rather than a single dramatic courtroom moment. For many families, these smaller, delayed forms of accountability still matter enormously, even if they never fully replace what was lost or erase the years spent fighting for recognition.

What remains consistent across these stories is the refusal to accept silence as the final answer. Families keep showing up at hearings, keep speaking to reporters, and keep pursuing legal avenues long after most people have stopped paying attention, because for them the case never really closed. That persistence, passed down through generations in some families, continues to shape how communities respond when official systems fail to deliver the truth they were owed.

Staff Writer; Patrick Wall

Indeed, it represents for us a call and commitment to continuously rise up in righteous and relentless resistance in opposition to evil, injustice and oppression; in affirmation of the good and our sacred and soulful selves, and in active aspiration to remake the world, as Nana Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune taught, and to forge in the furnace and fires of radically transformative struggle a future worthy of the best of what it means to be African and human in the world.

Insurgent August is a special marking, then, in which we remember and raise up the concentration of struggles, events and people in this month committed to regaining our freedom and building a liberated world and way of being human that is unencumbered and unmarred by any form of oppression and injustice. Indeed, we celebrate this sacred narrative we call Black history remembering our constant and costly struggle to be ourselves and free ourselves. For as Nana Harriet taught “freedom is not bought with dust”, but rather regained and achieved in a life and death struggle. And it is this insurgent history of righteous and relentless resistance that concentrates itself in the month of August across time and space in the world and calls us to remember and honor this legacy by self-consciously living and advancing it in the varied ways and spaces required.

This means remembering, reflecting on and taking seriously the reality that ours is a history of liberation struggles, and of a culture founded and formed in these struggles directed towards radical transformation and bringing and ensuring good in the world. These struggles were and remain a liberated and liberating process and practice before, during and after August, every day, year, decade and century. In a word, it was and is a practice of life and living itself. And thus, it is full of enduring lessons of life, love and struggle. It is in this context that we speak of celebrating and honoring the legacy of Insurgent August and the larger liberation struggle and history of which it is a valuable and instructive part.

We mark our arrival in this country in August 1619, in enslavement and resistance on ships and boats, beaches, and plantations as a beginning focal point. But it is safe to say, we were in resistance every day and month in Africa already, not only against enslavement, but also against colonialism and imperialism, its systemic crime partners. Long before the Amistad arrived in Long Island, New York in August 1839, seized by enslaved Africans, there were surely many other mutinies and continuous forms of resistance. Indeed, in August 1729 enslaved Africans rose up in rebellion and freed themselves from the enslavement ship, Clare Galley.

Nana Harriet Tubman taught us during the Holocaust of enslavement that we do not escape from our history nor the moral obligation to fight for and win a shared and inclusive freedom for everyone. And Nana Frederick Douglas assured us that struggle is indispensable to progress and freedom. These are lessons and teachings from the text of living practice given to us not only by Nana Harriet and Nana Douglass in their high risk liberation activities, but also by enslaved African revolts led by Nanas Gabriel and Nanny Prosser in August 1800 and by Nana Nat Turner in August 1830 and others in and outside of the month of August. We write and speak here in memory and honor of these freedom fighters, these audacious, steel-willed and self-sacrificing insurgents, daring to rebel and resist against all odds, mindful martyrs who offered their lives and deaths in the interest of African and human freedom.

As always, the Haitian revolution which began August 22-23, 1791, was and remains a singular, signature and world transforming achievement in Haitian, African and human history. It is a model and mirror for us and the world in all that it overcame and achieved, freeing the Haitian people and assisting others in their liberation struggles and contributing a crucial turning point in the international struggles to eventually abolish human trafficking and enslavement and the genocidal savagery and suffering it imposed on us.

Certainly, the Watts Revolt in August 1965, is a fundamental turning point and central reference for the decade of the 1960s, which was defined by hundreds of revolts of varying scale and scope. During this period of uprising and resistance, numerous organizational, ideological and philosophical initiatives were developed, including our organization Us and its Simba, (Young Lions) formation. And so was Kawaida philosophy out of which I created the Nguzo Saba and Kwanzaa, a pan-African holiday created as an act of freedom, an instrument of freedom, a celebration of freedom and a practice of freedom, and now celebrated by millions throughout the African global community.

The celebration of Black August which began in August 1979 is also an important part of our special focus on Insurgent August. It is dedicated to remembering and supporting Black prisoners, freeing Black political prisoners, honoring the lives of the struggles of prisoners resisting oppression, and demanding prisoners’ rights which has been a continuing struggle since the 1960s. Also, it is out of the Ferguson Revolt of August 2014 against police violence that a forest fire of resistance was ignited around the country which intensified our liberation struggle and brought the Black Lives Matter Movement to international prominence at a critical juncture in our history.

Our commitment to righteous and relentless struggle, then, has a long and honored lineage in this country and the world. And again, the month of August offers us concentrated proof of this practice over centuries of lived experience, both imposed by others and initiated by us in insurgent resistance. Again, this insurgent resistance has filled the calendar and content of our days, years, decades and centuries. And every act of our righteous and relentless resistance reaffirms Nana Malcolm’s teaching that wherever we are is a battle line. Indeed, our response to injustice and oppression is always and everywhere resistance of every kind and audacious insurgence at every level and line of battle.

Written by Dr. Maulana Karenga

Official website; https://www.maulanakarenga.org/

 The US launched another sneak attack against Iran on February 22, 2026 while the US and Iran were negotiating a peace settlement; now here we are in early August and the war is spreading rapidly. Now Trump’s war involves: Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain against Iran and non-state actors who are not part of their national government like Ansar Allah (the Houthis of Yemen), Hezbollah of Lebanon and al-Shabeeb of Somalia! Meanwhile Iran has the support of Russia and China and possibly North Korea.

 More countries are becoming involved as the conflict expands. Things are happening really fast. The Saudi Arabia attacked Yemen, in response the Houthis attacked Saudi Arabia, now Saudi Arabia is galvanizing a “coalition” of nations including Sudan, Djibouti, Turkey, Yemen, Jordan, Qatar, Egypt, Pakistan and Bangladesh in an attempt to respond to Ansar Allah’s, blocking the Bab el-Mandeb Strait which is critical for commercial traffic in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Restricting traffic in the Straits of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb is crippling Saudi Arabia’s efforts to get their oil to markets which in turn is devasting global energy supply chains, rising costs and restricting availability! America, Saudi Arabia’s main ally and defender can do nothing to stop this nor rescue the Saudis from this crisis.

            Remember Saudi Arabia waged war against Ansar Allah from March 25,2015 supported by the US until April 2, 2022 and yet they still could not win even with US air support and military supplies! The Houthis are no joke and Saudi Arabia has demonstrated they cannot beat them even with a coalition of nations which included the governments of: Yemen, Qatar (from 2015-2017) and Sudan (from 2015-2019). That was a regional conflict the US media rarely mentioned.

In 2022 the United Nations brokered a ceasefire/settlement between Saudi Arabia and Ansar Allah. Saudi Arabia was supported with logistics, military and air strikes by the United States until later when the US signed a separate cease fire with the Houthis in 2025! Let that sink in. Saudi Arabia could not defeat the Houthis with the support of the US and the US finally stopped fighting them in 2025!

            Here’s the other piece to that conflict. Ansar Allah was supported by Iran, North Korea and Sudan and Qatar switched their support from Saudi Arabia to Ansar Allah!  Based upon past events do you think the Saudis can defeat the Houthis? Do you think diplomacy will work instead of warfare? What if things go South and Saudi’s multi-national coalition is forced to join the conflict; how do you think that will turn out? Sudan is already in an internal conflict, do you really think Egypt, Djibouti, Turkey, Somalia, Yemen, Jordan, Qatar, Bangladesh and Pakistan will take up arms against the Houthis on behalf of the Saudis?

            Meanwhile Iran is going about its business exposing the US Empire as a paper tiger, effectively destroying US military bases in the region, simultaneously wreaking havoc on the GCC nations, Israel and the global economy. How much longer can/will this go on? We have seen that despite the massive bombing by the US and Israel; Iran is still standing.  Despite promises and anticipation of an easy and quick victory, Iran is holding its own making both America and Israel look bad. The Iranian leadership seems steadfast resolute and resilient in contrast to Trump looking like an imbecile and Netanyahu looking like a petulant child because things are not getting his way.

This is where we are in August of 2026; who thought back in February things were going to turn out like this?  Blowback can be a mother. Conditions are worsening and this is not going to bode well for the US or the world.

Written by Junious Ricardo Stanton

Official website; http://fromtheramparts.blogspot.com

“Folks who lead our party go to swing states like North Carolina and Georgia, but states like Mississippi and Tennessee and Alabama and South Carolina are really neglected and are really forgotten and are really treated as if it is inevitable that we’ll always stay in such systems of what I call apartheid type of politics,” said Jones. The feeling of neglect is negatively adding to what lawmakers are calling a crisis for Black representation.

In March 2023, Jones was thrust into the national spotlight when he joined fellow state Reps.  Justin Pearson and Gloria Johnson to become known as the “Tennessee Three.” The group of legislators supported gun-safety demonstrators in the House chamber after the Covenant School shooting in Nashville. Pearson, who represents the Memphis-area House District 86, recently won the Democratic primary for U.S. House for Tennessee’s 9^th Congressional District.  Pearson has an uphill battle since Tennessee Republicans redrew the congressional map soon after the Louisiana v. Callais Supreme Court decision.

Previously, the 9^th District largely kept Memphis together and was a majority-Black, strongly Democratic district represented by Democrat Steve Cohen. The new map divides Memphis between three districts that extend into more rural, white Republican-leaning areas. Cohen chose not to run under the new configuration. The Tennessee legislature, through means of partisan and racial gerrymandering, took what was a reliable Democratic seat and made it into a Republican-leaning district. The new statewide map is now designed to give the Republicans an electoral advantage in all nine of Tennessee’s U.S. House districts. Going back to Rep. Jones’ point, states like Tennessee cannot be an afterthought to the national Democratic Party. When I think about Rep. Pearson as a candidate running in a Republican district, one person comes to mind: former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

In 1998, Tom Vilsack was elected Iowa’s first Democratic governor in more than 30 years, and was re-elected to a second term in 2002. As governor, he worked with schools, medical providers, businesses, faith-based organizations, and other entities to expand healthcare coverage to more than 90,000 previously uninsured children. He served as Secretary of Agriculture during the Obama administration and again during the Biden administration. He stands out because he came from a rural state and he knew the concerns of rural America. He constantly told Democrats not to ignore rural voters.

As Agriculture Secretary, Vilsack had urged Hillary Clinton’s campaign to shore up rural outreach, multiple sources said. The Clinton campaign didn’t think it needed rural voters, which was seen as a shrinking population that was reliably Republican. The campaign never named a rural council, as Obama did in 2008 and 2012. It also didn’t build a robust rural-dedicated campaign infrastructure. The rural voting bloc turned out to be formidable. “Hillary lost rural America 3 to 1,” said one Democratic insider. “If she had lost rural America 2 to 1, it would have broken differently.” Vilsack’s message and warning to Democrats still stands true today. Pearson and other Democrats need an effective rural strategy that resonates with farmers who are frustrated with tariffs, damaging trade policies, inflation, the impact of the Iran War, and cuts to federal farm programs. U.S. farm debt has reached historic levels.

In February 2026, the American Farm Bureau Federation released a report that substantiated what many farmers and agriculture economists already knew: We are experiencing a new farm crisis. The report found that Chapter 12 family farm bankruptcies surged by 46% in 2025. And let’s not forget there is a growing food crisis due to President Trump’s cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

According to former Treasury advisor Steve Rattner, who shared data from the USDA showing that participation in SNAP had plunged by 5 million people over the course of Trump’s second term. “Over 5 million low-income Americans–including 1.5 million children–have lost access to food assistance due to Trump’s SNAP cuts last year,” Rattner explained. “Most of the hardest hit states are traditionally Republican, resulting in growing hunger crises in states like Arizona. While Tennessee has created nine congressional districts of Republican domination, this could be a defining moment for Democrats despite the changing electoral landscape.

A significant opportunity now exists in Tennessee’s 9^th Congressional race to start reversing this domination or “apartheid type of politics,” as Rep. Jones described. This could be done by addressing non-partisan, quality -of-life issues like the burgeoning farm debt crisis and food insecurity, which are hitting Republican-held districts hardest. A candidate like Justin Pearson, who is a passionate, eloquent orator and charismatic, can succeed not by being a traditional Democrat, but by proving a young, Black leader can effectively represent the survival interests of white, rural voters who feel equally abandoned.

Written by David W. Marshall

Official website; https://davidwmarshallauthor.com/

One may purchase his book, which is titled; God Bless Our Divided America: Unity, Politics and History from a Biblical Perspective.

How Na Pali Coast Wedding Charters Create Unforgettable Experiences

The Na Pali Coast is renowned for its dramatic landscapes, which include towering cliffs, lush valleys, and cascading waterfalls. These natural wonders provide a stunning backdrop for any wedding ceremony. Couples opting for a Na Pali Coast Wedding Charter can expect to experience this beauty firsthand, as the charter allows access to secluded spots that are otherwise inaccessible. This exclusivity adds a touch of magic, making the ceremony feel like a private haven amidst nature’s grandeur.

Furthermore, many wedding charters offer personalized services that enhance the experience. For instance, Destination Management Companies (DMCs) specialize in organizing seamless wedding events, ensuring every detail is meticulously planned. Whether it’s arranging for a traditional Hawaiian blessing or coordinating with a local musician for live entertainment, these services contribute to the overall enchantment of the day.

Recent analysis from Travel and Leisure confirms that couples who choose such unique locales often report higher satisfaction levels with their wedding experience, highlighting the importance of selecting a venue that resonates with personal preferences.

The Romantic Setting of Na Pali Coast for Your Ceremony

The Na Pali Coast’s natural beauty is complemented by the romantic ambiance it provides, making it an ideal setting for a wedding ceremony. As the sun sets over the Pacific Ocean, it casts a warm glow over the cliffs, creating a picturesque scene that is perfect for exchanging vows. The ambiance is further enhanced by the gentle sound of waves and the scent of tropical flowers, which contribute to an unforgettable atmosphere.

Couples can choose from various ceremony locations along the coast, each offering unique features. Whether it’s a secluded beach or a serene cove, the options abound. This flexibility allows couples to find a spot that perfectly matches their vision for the day.

Moreover, with Ecotourism Certification becoming increasingly important for travelers, choosing a wedding charter that prioritizes sustainable practices ensures that your ceremony is both beautiful and environmentally conscious.

Exploring Customized Wedding Packages on the Water

One of the advantages of booking a Na Pali Coast Wedding Charter is the availability of customized wedding packages. These packages cater to different preferences and budgets, ensuring that every couple can find an option that suits their needs. From intimate elopements to larger gatherings, the packages are designed to offer flexibility and personalization.

For instance, couples can opt for a package that includes a sunset cruise, complete with cocktails and appetizers, which adds a touch of elegance to the celebration. Additionally, many charters offer the option to incorporate local Hawaiian traditions, such as a lei exchange, adding authenticity and cultural richness to the ceremony.

With the increasing trend of Free Independent Traveler (FIT) bookings, these customized packages provide an opportunity for couples to tailor their experience, ensuring that every element of their wedding day is exactly as they envisioned.

Capturing Memorable Moments with Professional Photography Options

Documenting your wedding day is crucial, and the Na Pali Coast offers countless opportunities for stunning photography. Professional photographers familiar with the area can capture the essence of the coast and the beauty of the ceremony. With the cliffs and ocean as a backdrop, every photo becomes a work of art.

Many charters provide photography services as part of their wedding packages, ensuring that couples have access to skilled professionals who understand how to make the most of the setting. These photographers often use drones and other advanced equipment to capture unique angles and perspectives, adding another layer of creativity to the images.

Moreover, a recent survey by The Knot revealed that couples who invest in professional photography for destination weddings report greater satisfaction with their wedding albums, underscoring the value of high-quality documentation.

Conclusion

Booking a Na Pali Coast Wedding Charter offers couples a chance to celebrate their union in one of the most stunning locations in the world. The combination of natural beauty, personalized services, and professional photography ensures a dreamy ceremony that will be cherished forever. For those seeking a unique and breathtaking setting, the Na Pali Coast provides an unforgettable experience that truly encapsulates the romance and magic of a wedding day.

Staff Writer; Craig Marshall

After last Tuesday’s primary contest in Michigan, where Marxist/Islamist candidate Abdul El-Sayed won the Democrat nomination for U.S. Senate, there was much prognostication. It was a race barely won, and if it had not been for a third candidate, who had since dropped out, El-Sayed would probably not have been successful. It was certainly not the supposed blowout that everyone had predicted for the Democratic Socialists (Marxists) of America-supported candidate. However, the real story behind that race, which has been a consistent theme, is that black Democrat voters do not want to be the “useful idiots” of these intellectual elite, privileged white Marxists/Islamists. Abdul El-Sayed tanked with Black voters in the Michigan Democrat Senate primary. The same can be said for Zohran Mamdani in New York City. The exit polls are very telling: the main support for these Marxists emanates from college-educated, privileged, leftist elites who embrace their knowing better than you about your life, liberty, and freedom.

When one studies the history of the American Democrat Party, it is one replete with examples of decimation and destruction of the American Black community. It started with slavery, moved on to segregation (the original Jim Crow), the first domestic terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, obliteration of the traditional nuclear Black family, construction of the inner city economic plantation, and the relegating of Black kids to failing public school systems. Remember, it was Karl Marx who first introduced the idea of state-controlled education. So, today’s “Democratic” Party is being overtaken by the same old mentality, kinda like the song by The Who, “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” with the lyric, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Last Tuesday, the Black community rejected the Marxist ideals of open borders and abolishing prisons, which will have less safety and security. Not in the leftist elitist gated communities, of course. And it was not just in Michigan, but consider the rematch between incumbent Congressman Wesley Bell and former Congresswoman Cori Bush in the St. Louis-area Missouri Congressional District 1. That race was not even close, with Bell receiving 59 percent to Bush’s 37 percent. Bush was heavily supported by the DSA and her old friends in “Da Squad”, and she sought to make this about Rep. Bell’s vote in support of Israel. As we know, the Marxist/Islamists are anti-Semitic. That strategy fell way short in this heavily Black congressional district.

Here in my area of Dallas, Texas, I have noticed that Democratic congressional candidate Pastor Frederick Haynes III has had the Black Lives Matter banner removed from his Friendship-West Baptist Church building, which was visible from the interstate. Now, maybe Haynes did not direct that to be done personally, but how interesting that it has disappeared as he became the Democrat nominee for Texas Congressional District 30, replacing Jasmine Crockett. Perhaps Haynes and Co. realized what that banner represented: an organization that was founded by self-proclaimed Black female “trained Marxists.” It is obvious that someone did not believe that Pastor Haynes, the pastor of a large Black church, and the BLM banner were a good fit.

Even the “establishment” Marxists in the Democrat Party realize how important the Black community is in turning back the Marxist/Islamist (Red-Green Alliance) that is overtaking their party. The Democratic National Committee has already decided that South Carolina will be their first-in-the-nation primary state for the 2028 presidential election cycle. I am sure they will be leaning heavily on longtime South Carolina Democrat Rep. James Clyburn.

There is nothing that the DSA Marxists aligned with their Islamist comrades can offer the Black community. All they are saying is that we will be your NEW slave masters. And they have enlisted certain Black leftists to be the new plantation overseers. We should not forget that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded in 1909 by four white intellectual elite “progressives” (meaning Communists), Mary White Ovington, William English Walling, Oswald Garrison Villard, and Henry Moskowitz. They then brought in Black intellectual elites, such as W.E.B. Du Bois, to be the face. Nothing has changed since. It is worth noting that Du Bois was an avowed socialist, well, a communist, who would end up rejecting his American citizenship. He also dined with Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.

Marxism, socialism, communism, along with segregation, have done nothing for the advancement of Colored people. The real impetus behind those four white progressives founding the NAACP was to counter the father of Black conservatism, Booker T. Washington, whom they would demonize and denigrate. Washington’s three principles of education, entrepreneurship, and self-reliance, along with the establishment of the National Negro Business League, would do more to lift Blacks out of their plight, even under the dark specter of Democrat segregationist policies. And, once again, nothing has changed. White Marxist intellectual elites fear strong Black conservatives who will not surrender to their ideals of victimhood.

Booker T. Washington, not Karl Marx or W.E.B. Du Bois, is my philosophical mentor. Perhaps this quote from the founder of Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute will provide a lesson learned to the Marxists of the DSA, as they try to dupe Blacks, once again, into being “useful idiots” for their insidious schemes. It comes from his 1911 book, My Larger Education:

“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into a settled habit of advertising their wrongs, partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

Booker T. Washington gave us an apt description of the grievance mongers, race hustlers, and poverty pimps who have plagued the Black community. He also gave us insights into the “gospel of envy” that drives the Marxists. It is my sincere hope that more and more blacks, and truthfully all Americans, will heed Washington’s words and not be the useful idiots of the Marxists, starting tomorrow in Wisconsin with delusional and deranged Marxist Francesca Hong, running for the Democrat nomination for Governor.

Written by Allen West

Official website; https://x.com/AllenWest

But from the East Coast to the West Coast, “tax the rich” is the battle cry of radical-left Democrats. They claim that by attacking the rich, including celebs like Swift, they’re saving democracy. Don’t be fooled.

Their new forms of taxation — including wealth taxes, mansion taxes and pied-a-terre taxes — are fueled by jealousy and hatred for our free-market system, working people and everything American. You’re their next target.

You may not consider yourself “rich,” but these new forms of taxation will eventually hit you if you live in a blue state.

Swift paid a whopping $17.75 million for her Watch Hill, Rhode Island, pad back in 2013. But the tax starts on any vacation home worth over $1 million and occupied less than half the year. It went into effect at the end of July.

“Tax the rich” is also building steam in Connecticut, Washington, D.C., and California.

The official magazine of the Democratic Socialists of America announces that the fight to tax the rich will go on until “there is not a single state that is a safe haven.”

Connecticut Democrats are ramming through a “mansion” tax, the first-ever statewide property tax, which will be levied annually on homes valued at over $3 million, whether they’re primary residences or not. That’s in addition to the sky-high local property taxes residents already pay. Democrats are united behind the radical new tax and have a veto-proof majority in both legislative houses to pass it whenever they choose.

No one should assume that only the “rich” will be hit with the tax. When the state adopted an income tax in 1991, it was supposed to be temporary and had only one bracket. Thirty-five years later, it’s still in effect and has been expanded to seven brackets.

Another blue enclave, Washington, D.C., is proposing a “mansion” tax on high-value residences — those valued at more than $2.5 million. Most of the revenue will come from three tiny but tony neighborhoods: Georgetown, Kalorama and Massachusetts Avenue Heights. Plenty of wealthy politicians will be hit, but Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, vocal advocates for wealth taxes, will unfortunately not be among them. They don’t live there.

Mansion taxes are proxies for wealth taxes, but in November, Californians will vote on Proposition 40, which, if approved, will lead to the nation’s first tax on total net worth: the Billionaire Tax Act. It’s a “onetime” 5% tax on all forms of wealth, from homes and yachts to where the real money is: stocks, bonds and ownership interests in private companies.

The bill says 90% of the revenue collected will go to support health care services for Californians, and health care unions are its biggest supporters.

The “onetime” claim is preposterous because once health care services are funded, where do the unions and patients go when that spigot is turned off?

The state Democratic Party endorses the tax, but Gov. and presidential wannabe Gavin Newsom does not. He pivoted instead to calling for a national wealth tax, warning that the passage of the Billionaire Tax Act will make more California billionaires head for the exits — following in the footsteps of Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Newsom joins a chorus of lefties, including Warren, Sanders and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, calling for a national wealth tax. They make the preposterous argument that “a well-functioning democracy” is threatened by the existence of billionaires.

Nonsense. Billionaire former Gotham Mayor Mike Bloomberg blew through hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money seeking the presidency in 2020 and won support only from American Samoa. Money doesn’t guarantee political success. The Republican National Committee right now has about 10 times as much cash on hand as the Democratic National Committee, but the outcome of the November midterms is still a nail-biter.

What is true is that democracy is threatened by dire poverty. People who are hungry will succumb more easily to the promises of a dictator. But poverty in the U.S. is half what it was in 1959, when the U.S. Census began measuring the number of Americans living below the poverty line.

The leftwingers calling for wealth taxes aren’t telling you the truth — wealth taxes are economy killers, and workers are the victims.

Only 2.7% of a billionaire’s wealth is in jewels, yachts, artwork, homes and other luxuries. Almost all of it is in business assets — stock and ownership interests that provide the capital for businesses to buy more efficient trucks, faster computers and more sophisticated equipment that increase worker productivity. Jeff Bezos’ $250 billion in wealth is mostly in Amazon. As Cato economists Adam Michel and Chris Edwards warn, taxing wealth takes capital out of these companies, limiting worker productivity gains and future wage growth. Ouch!

Wake up, everyone. You’re the ones in the “tax the rich” crosshairs. Call out these leftwing demagogues for their lies. In Swift’s words, be “fearless.”

Written by Betsy McCaughey

Official website; https://twitter.com/Betsy_McCaughey