For those who follow the daily polls and political trends, the floor may have just fallen out from under the Republican campaign for Ohio Governor. And any Republican who fails to distance themselves from this ad risks taking on water as well. I have to give Jon Husted credit. He said he would not have run the ad. That was the right response. While he stopped short of outright condemning it, he made his position clear. Vivek Ramaswamy needs to pivot, and quickly. Stop defending the ad and start talking about his policies, his vision for Ohio, and why he believes he is the better candidate. If he chooses to double down, I don't see anything good coming from it. Here's what too many people in politics seem to forget: Voters don't always elect the most qualified candidate. They often elect the candidate they like, trust, relate to, or even sympathize with. You can have the strongest résumé, the best policies, and the most impressive background, but none of that guarantees victory if voters don't like what they see or hear. And when voters believe someone has been treated unfairly, sympathy can become a powerful political force. Elections aren't won simply by convincing voters that your opponent is worse. They're won by convincing voters that you're better. That is a lesson every candidate, Republican or Democrat, would be wise to remember.

WHY DO I POST WHAT I POST? I get asked that question occasionally. The answer is pretty simple. My goal isn't to make everyone agree with me. My goal is to share what I know, what I see, and what I believe to be the facts. To be honest, straightforward, and fair. And to keep doing it, even when people disagree. Over the years, I've learned something important. Not everyone who disagrees with me does so for the same reasons. There are people who look at the same facts and reach a different conclusion. That's okay. They love this country just as much as I do. They want what's best for their families, their communities, and our nation. They may weigh the facts differently, have different experiences, or simply see things from another perspective. I respect those people. They deserve the facts. They deserve an honest discussion. And they deserve respect, even when we disagree. I've had plenty of conversations over the years where someone changed my perspective, and others where I believe I changed theirs. That's how honest debate should work. But there's another group. People who have already decided what they want to believe, regardless of the facts. They've picked a side, joined a movement, and closed their minds to anything that challenges their position. For them, the conclusion comes first, and the facts only matter if they support it. I used to spend a lot of time trying to convince those people. I've learned that you can't open someone's mind when they've decided to keep it closed. But that doesn't mean you stop telling the truth. You keep presenting the facts. You keep asking questions. You keep challenging statements that don't hold up under scrutiny. And you do it without personal attacks or hatred. Because I've always believed that, over time, the truth has a way of coming out. History has shown us that the loudest voices aren't always the right ones. And just because something is repeated over and over doesn't make it true. A lie needs to be constantly defended, repeated, and explained away. The truth doesn't change simply because it becomes unpopular. So why do I keep posting? Because I believe facts matter. Because I believe honest debate matters. Because I believe we should be able to disagree without becoming enemies. And because remaining silent when you believe something is wrong isn't the answer. I've also learned that I don't need to win every argument. I don't need everyone to agree with me. And I certainly don't need everyone's approval. I'll continue sharing what I believe to be the facts. I'll listen to those who disagree. I'll acknowledge when I'm wrong. And I'll respect those who are willing to have an honest conversation. As for those who refuse to listen, I'll leave the door open. Maybe someday they'll walk through it. In the meantime, I'll keep posting. I'll keep questioning. And I'll keep standing for what I believe is right. Not because I expect everyone to agree. But because I believe the truth matters more than winning an argument. Jim Renacci

Republicans need to pay attention to what is happening with the next generation. These aren't just statistics. These are our children and grandchildren — and they will soon be the business owners, taxpayers, parents, community leaders and elected officials running this country. The numbers should get everyone's attention. According to Pew Research Center's 2026 data: • Among Americans ages 18–29, just 38% identify as Republican or lean Republican, compared with 54% who identify as Democrat or lean Democratic. • Among ages 30–49, Republicans also trail: 41% Republican/Republican-leaning compared with 49% Democratic/Democratic-leaning. • The situation among young women is even more dramatic. Among women ages 18–29, only 27% identify as Republican or lean Republican, while 66% identify as Democrat or lean Democratic. And Harvard's 2026 Youth Poll gives us another warning sign. Only 13% of Americans ages 18–29 believe the country is headed in the right direction. Just 25% approve of the job Republicans in Congress are doing — although Democrats in Congress aren't doing much better at 26%. Half of young Americans say people like them have no real say in government. Maybe instead of simply asking, "How do we get young people to vote Republican?" we should be asking a much more important question: Why don't they believe we represent them? These young Americans are worried about housing, inflation, healthcare, jobs, wages and whether they will ever have the same opportunities their parents and grandparents had. We don't have to abandon our principles to listen to them. We don't have to change our values to understand their concerns. But we do have to give them a reason to believe those principles and values can improve THEIR lives and THEIR future. Because they aren't some distant generation we can worry about later. They are our sons and daughters. They are our grandchildren. They are the next generation of American leaders. If the Republican Party isn't willing to listen to them, talk to them and address the issues affecting their future, we shouldn't be surprised when they look somewhere else. The future of any political party ultimately belongs to the generations that come next.

I’m seeing plenty of social media posts from Republicans telling people to “hold your nose and vote” for the Republican candidate because the other side consists of socialists, communists, or people who apparently hate puppies. What does that say about the candidate we’re being asked to support? Why not tell us what that candidate believes, what their voting record shows, and what their history says about their character? Give voters a positive reason to support them. Of course, sometimes that history is precisely what makes the candidate difficult to defend. I believe everyone should vote. People fought and died to protect that right. But exercising it does not require filling in every spot on the ballot. Leaving a race blank can also send a message: neither candidate has earned your support. When neither candidate represents your values and principles, I believe those values and principles should come first. For me, “holding your nose” and voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing to support something you believe is wrong. When I shared that thought with a minister recently, he paused and said, “Hmm. I never thought about it that way.” Please go out and vote. Support candidates who represent your values, demonstrate good character, and earn your trust. If neither candidate meets that standard, you should not feel obligated to endorse either one. I understand that leaving a race blank means other voters will decide the outcome. But a party that expects our votes regardless of whom it nominates has little incentive to offer better candidates. And don’t accept the argument that the damage caused by the other side can never be repaired, while ignoring the damage a bad candidate from our own side can do. Our candidates should earn our votes. Our principles should never be the price of party loyalty.

Yes, people are frustrated with the cost of gas, food prices, utility bills, mortgage interest rates, and rising real estate taxes. In 2024, voters were frustrated with many of the same things. Prices were too high, and too many people felt the Biden Administration was telling them the economy was doing great when that wasn't what they were experiencing at the grocery store, the gas pump, or around the kitchen table. They rejected Democrats and put Republicans in charge. Now, two years later, many of those economic frustrations remain. Republicans can point to accomplishments. President Trump made securing the border a priority, and the Republican majority extended the 2017 tax cuts. But that doesn't change what many Americans are feeling financially today. If you're a Republican telling people everything is OK, you may want to pay attention. Voters know what they're paying for groceries. They see their utility bills. They know their mortgage payments and property taxes. People aren't stupid. They know what their own checkbook looks like. BUCKLE UP !!!!!!! The November elections are 34 days away.

STOP CALLING PEOPLE SOCIALIST BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT OUR CURRENT ECONOMY A Pew Research Center survey found that nearly three in four U.S. adults believe our economic system unfairly favors powerful interests. That included 62% of Trump supporters and 85% of Biden supporters. So maybe we shouldn’t be surprised by a new Gallup poll showing that 43% of Americans now have a positive view of socialism. But here’s my read: I don’t believe 43% of Americans are necessarily endorsing a socialist economic system. Many may simply be expressing frustration with their current economic situation. That same Gallup poll found that capitalism is still viewed positively by 55% of Americans, while free enterprise and small business receive even stronger support. When housing, health care, food, energy and other everyday costs feel out of reach, the promise of a system that sounds “fairer” can have appeal. And people mean very different things when they use the word “socialism.” America already has major government-run social insurance and assistance programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We have also seen government intervention in private enterprise, including the federal government's investment in Intel and its “golden share” arrangement involving U.S. Steel. Whether you call those policies socialism, government intervention or industrial policy, they demonstrate that our economy has never fit neatly into one ideological box. The answer for those of us who believe in free enterprise is not to call frustrated voters “socialists.” It is to demonstrate that free enterprise can deliver affordable housing, rising wages, economic mobility and greater opportunity. People have every right to be frustrated when gasoline, groceries, rent, mortgages, health care and other necessities consume more of their paycheck. And simply comparing today's economy to the Biden years isn't enough. Biden is no longer president. Voters made their decision in 2024, and economic concerns were an important part of that election. People who were unhappy then voted for change. People who are unhappy today are entitled to demand results today. That is the political lesson both parties should remember: voters don't live in yesterday's economy. They live in today's. Calling them names won't change how they feel when they go to the grocery store, fill up their car, pay their rent or make their mortgage payment. If you want their support, give them a reason to believe tomorrow will be better than today.

So, it’s election time, and data centers have become the latest political talking point. But here are a few questions I haven’t heard anyone adequately answer. Suppose a massive data center is built in your community. The developer pays for the buildings, roads, utility connections, and other infrastructure required for the project. In other words, the developer bears the upfront cost. The data center then begins consuming enormous amounts of electricity and, depending on the facility, significant amounts of water. The data center pays its utility bills, of course. But what happens to everyone else? If this new demand requires additional electric generation, transmission lines, substations, water capacity, treatment facilities, or other long-term infrastructure, who ultimately pays for those costs? Maybe your electric or water bill doesn't increase today or tomorrow because of the data center. But over time, if demand increases and billions of dollars of additional infrastructure must be built to meet that demand, doesn't some portion of that cost eventually find its way to other ratepayers? And here is an even bigger question: What happens if technology changes? We are making enormous infrastructure investments today based on what data centers currently require. But technology moves incredibly fast. What if today's massive data center becomes outdated, substantially less valuable, or unnecessary 7, 10, or 15 years from now because computing becomes dramatically smaller, more efficient, and less resource-intensive? What happens to all the infrastructure that was built to support it? Who pays for the electric, water, road, and other infrastructure if the demand that justified those investments disappears? That's the part of this discussion I think deserves much more attention. I believe America needs data centers. We need the computing capacity to compete in AI and the technologies of the future. But needing data centers doesn't necessarily mean we should concentrate massive numbers of them in one state or approve every project that comes along. Maybe the smarter approach is more strategic: locate them where the infrastructure and resources can support them, spread the risk geographically, and, where practical, encourage development on existing industrial or commercial sites that are underutilized rather than consuming enormous amounts of undeveloped land. I'm not against data centers. I'm against making massive, long-term infrastructure bets without first answering a very simple question: Who bears the risk if today's assumptions about demand, technology, and infrastructure turn out to be wrong?.

Does ANYONE remember the big Intel deal DeWine announced in 2022. I do. It was right before the 2022 primary. With great fanfare, the DeWine-Husted administration in 2022 announced the massive Intel project about 20 miles northeast of Columbus. It promised to be at least a $20 billion investment — and it promised to serve the strategic goal of bringing microchip production back to the United States. It came with a price. The DeWine-Husted administration said it would put up $2 billion in state incentives and JobsOhio pledged another $150 million. The project began to hit snags. At the start of 2024, Intel announced that it was delaying its construction timeline, citing sluggish chip sales. Hemorrhaging money in July 2025, the company announced that it was laying off 24,000 people worldwide, abandoning two construction projects in Europe and further delaying the Ohio project. Originally slated to begin production by the start of this year, the facility now won’t start making chips until 2030 at the earliest. As the problems grew, so did the DeWine-Husted administration’s entanglements with the chipmaker. This is government at its worst !!!!!!! Yet no one is talking about it anymore !!!!

PEOPLE FORGET..... Social Security is a social-insurance program, not an individual retirement account. Workers and employers pay payroll taxes into legally established trust funds, and most of that current revenue is used to pay current beneficiaries. Benefits provide partial income replacement after retirement, disability, or the death of a covered worker. When revenue exceeded benefits in prior decades, the surplus was invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities. Those securities are obligations of the United States, and Social Security’s trust-fund assets can be used only to pay program benefits and administrative expenses. Congress can nevertheless change the program’s taxes, eligibility rules, and benefits through legislation. The financial shortfall is real, but it is not simply the result of Congress “taking the money,” poor investment returns, or disability and spousal benefits being added without funding. Disability benefits receive an allocated share of payroll taxes, while spousal and survivor benefits are financed through the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance program. The larger problem is demographic and actuarial: Americans are living longer, birth rates have declined, and the number of workers supporting each beneficiary has fallen. Consequently, scheduled benefits are growing faster than the program’s dedicated revenue. Nor does “I paid in, so I want my money back with interest” accurately describe social insurance. Contributions do not create an individually owned account. They purchase protection against several risks—including disability, premature death, and living far longer than expected—and benefits are calculated under a progressive formula. Social Security is approaching a serious financing deadline, but it will not suddenly have no money. If Congress does nothing, depletion of the retirement trust fund’s reserves would require substantial benefit reductions because incoming payroll taxes would cover only part of scheduled benefits. Congress has many possible solutions. The longer action is delayed, the larger and more abrupt those changes are likely to be. Previous reform efforts have repeatedly become partisan political battles. That history helps explain the delay, but it does not eliminate the need to act.

Especially this close to an election, politics becomes all about talking points — and which ones actually work. Republicans will continue to talk about the rise of democratic socialism and warn that the Democratic Party is moving further left. Democrats will talk about the Iran War, gas prices, food prices, rent, utility bills and the overall cost of living. Republicans will blame many of today's economic problems on the Biden years. Democrats will argue that they are the bigger tent and that Republicans aren't addressing the affordability issues families are dealing with today. In the end, one message will resonate more than the other. And the voters who may ultimately decide which message wins aren't the committed Republicans or the committed Democrats. They're the independents. Those voters aren't necessarily asking who won the political argument. They're asking a much simpler question: Who is talking about the issues that matter most to me right now?

If Republicans lose in November, it won't be because voters suddenly became socialists or communists. It will be because too many Americans went to the grocery store, paid their utility bill, filled up their car, paid their insurance and asked a very simple question: Why can't I afford what I used to afford? Republicans can continue to remind voters how bad inflation was under Biden. They can continue to talk about Democrats moving further to the left. Those arguments may be true and they may motivate the Republican base. But they don't make groceries cheaper. Elections are usually about the future, not the past. I've been concerned about this for months. We are now 83 days from the midterms, and the clock is running out. Republicans need an affordability message that people can actually see and feel in their own household budgets. Because if voters don't believe their lives are getting better, telling them how much worse things were two or four years ago probably isn't going to be enough. November may ultimately come down to one question: Do Americans feel better off today? If the answer is no, Republicans should be very concerned.

I keep hearing the words “socialist” and “communist” used interchangeably in today's political debate. They aren't the same thing. Yes, there are candidates running for Congress who openly identify as democratic socialists and support policies that would significantly expand government's role in health care, housing, energy and other parts of the economy. I disagree with those policies and believe they would move America in the wrong direction. But that doesn't automatically make someone a communist. Communism is a system that goes much further—including eliminating or severely restricting private ownership of businesses and productive property in favor of collective or state control. We don't need to exaggerate someone's position to oppose it. If a candidate supports socialist policies, call them socialist policies. If they actually support communist policies, show exactly what those policies are. Political debate is much stronger when we argue about what people actually believe rather than simply attaching the most inflammatory label we can find. Facts should be strong enough to make the argument.

There have been a lot of press reports lately, some quoting only portions of statements I have made regarding Ohio’s 7th Congressional District. So let me be clear about my position. Max Miller has been a strong representative for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, and I believe he has served the district well. He is currently involved in a custody dispute with his former wife, who has made serious allegations involving herself and their child. Those allegations should be taken seriously—but allegations are not findings of fact. The case is in the legal system. That is where the facts should be determined. This is first and foremost a family matter, not a political one. My heart especially goes out to their daughter. She has now been placed at the center of a very public controversy by people who say they are trying to protect her. Unfortunately, once these deeply personal matters become public, the toothpaste is out of the tube. You cannot put it back in. Those politicians demanding that Max immediately step aside should also think carefully about the standard they are establishing. Public officials regularly face allegations of many different kinds—personal, ethical, financial and political. Some ultimately prove true; others do not. If the standard becomes that an allegation alone requires someone to leave office, we need to understand where that standard leads. There is an important distinction, however: if the allegations against Max are established as fact through due process, that crosses a line that NO ONE should tolerate. I have also been asked what I would do if—and only if—Max Miller decided to step aside and I were asked to become involved. My answer has been simple: I would consider it if asked. I am not seeking this seat. My response comes from something I have always believed: if I am in a position to help, I will consider helping. I have said repeatedly that this is Max Miller’s nomination. He earned the right in the Republican primary to represent the party in November. The decision whether to continue is ultimately his to make. There is another issue being overlooked in all of this: Ohio’s 7th District is politically unsettled right now, and that did not begin with Max Miller. I have reviewed significant polling conducted in the district this week that should be of grave concern to Republicans. National Republican figures tested in that polling had approval ratings in roughly the 30–35% range, and the movement of independent voters toward Democrats should concern anyone who wants to keep this district Republican. This district was represented by a Democrat until I defeated the incumbent in 2010. It leans Republican today, and Republicans should not simply assume it will remain that way. All indications are that Max Miller intends to remain in the race. He apparently believes he needs to defend himself both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion. People can disagree with that decision. Some believe he should step aside regardless of whether the allegations are ultimately proven. But only someone actually facing that situation can make that decision. I pray for Max, his entire family, and especially his precious daughter. I also hope we never reach the point in American politics where allegations automatically become facts, assumptions become evidence, and only people with perfectly clean histories are considered worthy of public office. If that becomes the standard, very few people will ever meet it. Ultimately, voters should judge their elected officials on the facts, their conduct, and the service they have rendered. I have always said that if I am given a choice between two candidates I cannot support, I will leave that race blank. If Max Miller remains the Republican nominee, I will not be leaving this one blank.

BREAKING: US economy unexpectedly loses 23,000 jobs in July, with unemployment rate falling on a further decline in labor force participation rate -FOX

I was told I am a Republican Party critic. My response......I am a Republican Party loyalist that criticises Republican party actions that aren't Republican policy principles.

EVERYDAY YOU WAKE UP....REMEMBER SOMEONE DID NOT!!! Enjoy this day !!!! You have been blessed

President Trump talking about Republican voters in an interview yesterday. “If I [am not running], will those people go out and vote? And that’s the one thing I can’t do. I’m going to ask them to. … The question is, will they vote? Because a lot of them are very angry at Republicans, to be honest with you. … They’re angry at Republicans, but they’re not angry at me.”

Just like USAID on the federal side, JOBSOHIO in our state needs dismantled as well. Your tax money has funded private directors and pay to play projects and is unaccountable to anyone. It's a scheme. Shut it down!!

USAID in DC is JOBS OHIO in Columbus. Shut it down!