By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article details how the rushed implementation of the revamped SAVE database led to significant errors, including the incorrect flagging of numerous voters as noncitizens and their subsequent referral to the Department of Homeland Security for investigation. This occurred after a demand for states to gain free access to SAVE and partner with the Department of Government Efficiency to review voter rolls, a process involving the acquisition of Social Security numbers from DOGE employees accused of misuse. The expansion of the federal SAVE database included sensitive information from the Social Security Administration, with a USCIS official expressing pride in the system’s rapid deployment.
Read the original article here
It’s quite a story unfolding, isn’t it? We’re hearing about a major U.S. manufacturing plant, specifically Conn Selmer, the largest maker of brass and orchestra instruments in America, slated for closure. And the interesting, and frankly, rather telling detail here is that the owner, hedge fund billionaire John Paulson, a significant donor to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, plans to move this entire operation to China. This move directly contradicts the very “America First” rhetoric that Paulson himself has echoed, and that his chosen political candidate champions. It really brings into question the sincerity of such promises when profits seemingly outweigh national loyalty.
The hypocrisy in this situation is palpable, especially when you consider Paulson’s past statements. Just last year, he was quoted saying, “We can’t have American producers closing American factories and offshoring. We need to protect American jobs and protect American manufacturing.” Now, fast forward a bit, and we see him doing the exact opposite. He’s not just a wealthy individual; he’s a major financial backer of a political movement that has made the revitalization of American manufacturing a cornerstone of its platform. This disconnect is what leaves many feeling understandably frustrated and even betrayed.
One can’t help but notice the irony of the situation, particularly for the workers in East Lake, Ohio, where the Conn Selmer plant is located. This news comes after a period where such workers may have been led to believe that their jobs and their factory were secure, thanks to promises of bringing manufacturing back to American soil. The sentiment expressed by many is that this is a classic example of the donor class, the ultra-wealthy, prioritizing their own financial gain above the well-being of American workers and communities. It’s a stark reminder that for some, the promise of prosperity isn’t always delivered to the domestic workforce.
The broader implications of this decision extend beyond just one factory and one donor. There’s a growing concern that other companies, including some Canadian ones, are also contemplating or actively moving their manufacturing operations out of the United States. Reports suggest that South Korea and Germany are also looking to pull manufacturing back from the states, and Switzerland is reportedly cutting back. This trend, if it continues, paints a concerning picture for American jobs and the health of domestic industries. It suggests a more widespread movement driven by economic calculations that favor lower labor costs and potentially less stringent regulations elsewhere.
This situation also raises a fundamental question about loyalty and patriotism. When individuals or corporations amass vast fortunes, often in part due to the economic environment and consumer base of the United States, but then choose to offshore their operations to countries like China, it prompts reflection on where their true allegiances lie. It highlights the perception that for some in the “Epstein class,” as some commentators refer to the ultra-wealthy and influential, their loyalty is primarily to profit and a globalized financial system, rather than to the nation that provided the foundation for their success. This lack of “zip code loyalty,” as it’s been described, is a recurring theme in discussions about the decisions of the wealthy.
The concept of “America First,” a slogan heavily associated with Donald Trump, appears to be selectively applied, or perhaps entirely disregarded, when it comes to these large-scale business decisions. For those who voted for candidates promising to prioritize American jobs, this news is a particularly bitter pill to swallow. It fuels the argument that the “America First” agenda, for some, has always been more about appealing to a certain voter base than about enacting policies that would genuinely safeguard domestic employment and manufacturing. The disconnect between campaign rhetoric and corporate action is a recurring source of disillusionment.
Moreover, the argument that billionaires are driven by an insatiable need for more money, like “gold sickness” dragons in fantasy, resonates with many. This perspective suggests that the sheer accumulation of wealth doesn’t necessarily lead to contentment or a desire to contribute to the broader societal good. Instead, it can foster a relentless pursuit of profit maximization, even at the expense of jobs and communities within their own country. The idea that these individuals, holding immense financial power, might be “severely ill people” speaks to a perception of their motivations as being beyond normal economic rationale, driven by a pathological desire for accumulation.
There’s also a layer of commentary that suggests these actions are part of a larger pattern of exploitation. Some express the view that the Republican party, in particular, is not aligned with the interests of the U.S. working class, preferring instead to support economic models that benefit corporations and the wealthy, potentially through outsourcing to countries with significantly lower labor costs. The notion that they would rather see jobs performed by workers earning mere dollars an hour for extended workdays is a stark contrast to the promises of prosperity made to American workers. This interpretation frames the issue as a deliberate choice to disadvantage domestic labor for greater corporate profit.
The question of whether this move is a reflection of broader economic trends or a specific consequence of certain political choices is complex. While economic factors have always influenced manufacturing locations, the timing of this closure, coupled with the donor’s political affiliations and rhetoric, makes it a point of contention. It’s easy to imagine some attributing this directly to a Republican administration or its policies, while others might point to broader global economic pressures. Regardless of the primary driver, the outcome for the American workers involved is the same: job loss and uncertainty.
Ultimately, the story of John Paulson’s Conn Selmer plant moving to China serves as a potent symbol of the perceived disconnect between the promises of political leaders and the realities faced by ordinary workers. It highlights the power of wealthy donors and raises uncomfortable questions about patriotism, economic policy, and who truly benefits when decisions are made based on global profit motives rather than domestic well-being. The hope that such decisions would align with an “America First” agenda appears, for many, to be a misplaced one, leaving communities like East Lake, Ohio, to grapple with the consequences.