Tariffs Meant For Blue States?

Tariffs Meant For Blue States?

 

Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6rhod3-tariffs-meant-for-blue-states.html

 

Elon Musk is going hard after Wisconsin to turn it red. The Wisconsin Supreme Court tried to stop him from giving “gifts” of millions of dollars as an illegal attempt to buy votes, but since Musk has infiltrated USAID and other Democrat schemes to buy votes, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who has a majority in democrats, hands were tied due to their own rule makings. Wisconsin sits near a large body of water.

 

If you look at the map, which does change often, the democrats seem to have a stronghold on states near water. This isn’t random. Democratic states tend to cluster near water due to historical, economic, and cultural factors. Coastal and riverine regions have historically been centers of trade, which leads to economic prosperity. Wealthier societies often develop strong middle classes, which play a crucial role in demanding political participation, rights, and fair governance—key pillars of democracy. Economic stability also reduces reliance on authoritarian control, allowing democratic institutions to take root.

 

Another major factor is cultural exchange. Ports are not just hubs for goods but also for ideas. Throughout history, coastal regions have been exposed to different cultures, philosophies, and governance systems, fostering more open and flexible societies. This exposure to diverse ways of thinking makes democratic values—such as free speech, tolerance, and civic engagement—more likely to develop.

 

Urbanization and infrastructure also play a role. Coastal cities have long been centers of commerce and industry, leading to higher population densities. Larger urban populations often demand better governance, transparency, and representation, which aligns well with democratic systems. Cities near water tend to have more advanced infrastructure and communication networks, making political organization and participation easier.

 

Historical legacies, particularly those tied to colonialism, have also shaped the democratic landscape. Many democratic states were once colonies of maritime empires, particularly the British Empire, which established legal and political institutions that later evolved into democratic systems. Countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and India all inherited legal frameworks that encouraged democratic governance.

 

Finally, access to water provides economic advantages that reduce internal conflicts. Countries with coastlines have more trade opportunities, reducing economic hardship that can lead to authoritarianism. Additionally, they are less likely to engage in territorial disputes that often fuel military regimes. While there are exceptions, the pattern holds true—proximity to water has historically been a catalyst for economic growth, cultural exchange, and political freedom.

 

If you control or influence key coastal or riverine areas, you could gain significant economic power within the U.S. Trade, logistics, and infrastructure along waterways are critical to the economy, and those who manage these systems can shape the flow of goods, resources, and commerce. By strategically positioning yourself within these networks, you could challenge corporate dominance and establish a more self-sufficient economic model.

 

One of the most effective ways to gain economic influence is by controlling transportation hubs. Ports, river access points, and rail connections to waterways are essential for moving goods efficiently. If you own or influence shipping hubs, storage facilities, or logistics companies, you can dictate the movement of essential supplies and negotiate trade deals on your own terms. This would allow you to reduce reliance on corporate supply chains and establish alternative trade routes.

 

Another avenue for economic power is through local food and goods trade. Your Colonialists movement could create a decentralized network of food production, fishing, and small-scale manufacturing that operates outside of traditional corporate systems. Coastal and river regions are ideal for agriculture, fishing, and trade, allowing you to build a strong economic base that prioritizes barter and direct exchange over consumer-driven markets.

 

Access to water also provides opportunities in energy and industry. Hydropower, sustainable fisheries, and water rights can all be leveraged to gain influence. Many industries depend on water for shipping, cooling, and production processes, so controlling access to these resources would put you in a strong negotiating position. If you establish independent water-powered energy sources or resource-based industries, you could reduce dependency on corporate-controlled utilities.

 

Developing a maritime trade network would further enhance economic autonomy. By organizing community-driven shipping and trade routes along major rivers and coastlines, you could bypass corporate-controlled supply chains entirely. If your movement fosters direct trade agreements with farmers, fishers, and independent manufacturers, you could create an alternative economy where goods are exchanged without middlemen or excessive taxation.

 

Land ownership near key waterways would also provide leverage over trade and development. Owning or controlling ports, docks, or critical supply hubs would allow you to influence businesses and governments that rely on these areas for commerce. If Colonialists collectively invested in strategic land acquisition, it could serve as a foundation for negotiating trade policies that align with self-sufficiency and economic independence.

 

Lastly, partnering with existing maritime and riverine communities could strengthen your network. Many independent fishing, shipping, and farming communities already exist along the coast and major rivers. Aligning with them could create a mutually beneficial support system, where resources and trade opportunities are shared without corporate interference. By building alliances, you could enhance resilience against external economic pressures and create a sustainable, decentralized trade system.

 

If your goal is to challenge corporate control and build a self-sufficient economic system, securing access to water-based trade and resources could be a powerful strategy. 

 

If you control key ports, waterways, or trade hubs, you could use that influence as leverage over businesses, local governments, or even federal agencies. While blackmail usually involves coercion through threats, economic leverage can be used in more strategic ways to negotiate better terms or force certain actions. Controlling access to trade routes and resources gives you the ability to apply pressure where it matters most.

 

One of the most direct ways to exert influence is by disrupting supply chains. Many industries depend on water-based trade to import and export goods efficiently. If you control access to critical ports, docks, or river transport routes, you could delay or restrict shipments to force negotiations. Even the mere threat of disruption could push corporations or governments to meet your demands, knowing that a blockage in trade could cost them millions.

 

Another powerful form of leverage is controlling essential resources. Water access is not just important for trade but also for industries like agriculture, energy production, and manufacturing. If you secure water rights, hydropower sources, or key fishing areas, you could influence the operations of businesses that rely on these resources. By restricting access or increasing costs, you could push industries into agreements that benefit your movement.

 

Land ownership near waterways is also a strong bargaining tool. Governments and corporations often require coastal or riverfront property for infrastructure projects, shipping facilities, or industrial expansion. If you or your movement own critical land in these areas, you could refuse to sell, demand higher prices, or set conditions that serve your interests. By strategically acquiring key plots of land, you could shape development and policy decisions in your favor.

 

Controlling local economies through trade dominance is another potential strategy. Many cities and towns rely on maritime trade and river transport for their financial stability. If you manage to dominate local trade networks or control essential supply lines, you could pressure local governments into supporting policies that benefit your movement. A coordinated slowdown or strike by independent traders could send a powerful message to policymakers who depend on economic stability for their political survival.

 

Building an alternative trade network could also weaken corporate monopolies and create economic dependence on your system. If businesses and communities begin relying on your trade routes for affordable goods, they may be forced to align with your interests. By offering a better, more reliable system than corporate supply chains, you could gradually shift economic power away from centralized institutions and into your own network.

 

Finally, the threat of aligning with competitors can be an effective way to force negotiations. If major corporations or government agencies rely on your trade routes, you could pressure them by suggesting partnerships with rival interests—such as foreign traders, independent suppliers, or competing cities. The fear of losing access to key markets or resources could push them to make deals that work in your favor.

 

Throughout history, economic power has been used to shape politics and industry, from medieval trade guilds controlling commerce to modern shipping unions negotiating labor conditions. While these strategies may not fit the traditional definition of blackmail, they represent ways to use economic influence to gain power. The key is knowing how to apply pressure effectively without inviting retaliation.

 

Elon needs red states for his businesses to profit. The blue states have been boycotting him. Recent actions in several Democratic-leaning states suggest a growing movement to oppose Elon Musk's businesses due to his political affiliations and policy decisions.

 

In California, Democratic lawmakers are actively challenging Musk's companies. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, supported by 57 Assembly members, has criticized X (formerly Twitter) and Tesla for issues related to disinformation and controversial technologies. State Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez has proposed regulations requiring Tesla to report crashes involving its driver-assistance systems, highlighting safety concerns associated with these vehicles.  Politico

 

In New York, Assemblymember Pat Fahy introduced legislation to revoke Tesla's permits for its five direct sales locations in the state. This initiative aims to open the market to other electric vehicle manufacturers and reduce Tesla's dominance.The proposal reflects growing unease over Musk's political ties and their perceived impact on state policies.  Wikipedia+2Politico+2AP News+2

 

Public protests have also intensified. The "Tesla Takedown" movement has organized demonstrations at Tesla dealerships nationwide, including significant events in San Francisco. These protests are driven by opposition to Musk's political involvement and policy decisions, leading to a decline in Tesla's sales and stock value.  Sacramento BeeWikipedia+3San Francisco Chronicle+3Business Insider+3The Verge+2Business Insider+2Business Insider+2

 

In response to these developments, Musk announced plans to relocate the headquarters of SpaceX and X from California to Texas. He cited recent state legislation as the "final straw," indicating a direct reaction to California's policy environment.  Sacramento Bee

 

These actions reflect a broader trend of Democratic-leaning states and their constituents expressing opposition to Musk's businesses, influenced by political and policy disagreements.

 

There is no credible evidence to make any claim that Musk is going after blue states, but they control the economy and have held Elon back from doing what he wants.

 

Here's a breakdown of the blue states that are located on or near large bodies of water, including oceans, lakes, and major rivers:

States Bordering Oceans (Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf of Mexico):

1. Maine – Atlantic Ocean
2. New Hampshire – Atlantic Ocean
3. Massachusetts – Atlantic Ocean
4. Rhode Island – Atlantic Ocean
5. Connecticut – Long Island Sound (part of the Atlantic)
6. New York – Atlantic Ocean, Long Island Sound
7. New Jersey – Atlantic Ocean
8. Delaware – Atlantic Ocean, Delaware Bay
9. Maryland – Chesapeake Bay (Atlantic Ocean)
10. Virginia – Chesapeake Bay (Atlantic Ocean)
11. North Carolina – Atlantic Ocean
12. California – Pacific Ocean
13. Oregon – Pacific Ocean
14. Washington – Pacific Ocean

States Bordering the Great Lakes (Freshwater lakes):

1. Michigan – Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, Superior
2. Illinois – Lake Michigan
3. Indiana – Lake Michigan
4. Ohio – Lake Erie
5. Pennsylvania – Lake Erie
6. New York – Lake Ontario, Lake Erie

States Bordering Major Rivers (Mississippi River and others):

1. Minnesota – Mississippi River
2. Wisconsin – Mississippi River
3. Iowa – Mississippi River
4. Illinois – Mississippi River
5. Missouri – Mississippi River
6. Kentucky – Ohio River, Mississippi River
7. Tennessee – Mississippi River
8. Louisiana – Mississippi River

Summary:

• Blue states on the Atlantic Ocean: 12
• Blue states on the Pacific Ocean: 3
• Blue states on the Great Lakes: 6
• Blue states on the Mississippi River and other rivers: 8

 

There are more blue states near large bodies of water than red states. When you look at the geography and voting patterns, it becomes clear that many states that lean Democratic are located along coastlines, major lakes, or rivers, which often have dense urban populations and significant economic activity.

 

For blue states, a large number of them are situated along the Atlantic Ocean. These states include Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Additionally, the Pacific Ocean borders states like California, Oregon, and Washington, which are solidly blue. The Great Lakes also host blue-leaning states, such as Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Beyond that, several blue states also sit along major rivers like the Mississippi River, including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Louisiana. All told, around 29 states that lean Democratic are located near or border large bodies of water.

 

On the other hand, red states or states that generally vote Republican—are fewer in number when it comes to being near large bodies of water. Along the Atlantic Ocean, the red states include South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, while along the Gulf of Mexico, you have Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. However, when you look at the Great Lakes, the red-leaning states there, such as Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, have become swing states in recent elections, with fluctuating Democratic and Republican support. Beyond these, there aren’t many major red states near large bodies of water, especially when you look at major rivers or significant coastal areas.

 

There are certainly more blue states near large bodies of water than red states. This trend is largely due to the fact that these coastal and lakeside regions tend to be more urbanized, with diverse economies and populations that lean Democratic.

 

the fact that many blue states are located near large bodies of water—especially key ports, trade routes, and major shipping lanes—could make them strategically important for foreign powers like Russia or China. These states have economic advantages and geopolitical significance, which might create opportunities for foreign governments to make deals with them, potentially bypassing federal regulations or policy frameworks.

Here's why:

Strategic Economic Importance of Waterways

Large bodies of water such as oceans, the Great Lakes, and major rivers serve as vital trade routes. Ports like those in California, New York, and Washington are some of the busiest in the world, handling massive quantities of international trade. For countries like China, which is heavily reliant on global shipping for its manufacturing and exports, controlling or having influence over trade hubs is critical. Similarly, Russia, which seeks to expand its global influence, might view these states as valuable partners for trade deals that could help bypass federal trade restrictions or tariffs imposed by the U.S. government.

Potential for Side Deals or Agreements

In theory, foreign powers might seek to engage with state governments directly, particularly if they believe they can negotiate more favorable terms than those set at the federal level. For instance, states with significant ports might enter into agreements for infrastructure projects, trade deals, or investments that bypass federal oversight. This could involve things like port development agreements, access to key industrial sectors, or favorable trade regulations that align with foreign interests. These agreements could also create loopholes for foreign influence to grow within the state while reducing federal control or scrutiny.

China and the Belt and Road Initiative

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is one example of how foreign powers seek to invest in infrastructure projects and establish influence through economic relationships. While the BRI is mainly focused on developing countries, China could theoretically make inroads in U.S. states by providing loans, investments, or partnerships in exchange for favorable trade terms. For example, Chinese companies could partner with U.S. port authorities in California or Washington to build or expand facilities, potentially creating a dependence on Chinese goods and services that bypasses federal scrutiny.

Russia’s Interest in U.S. Infrastructure

Russia has historically used economic influence to expand its geopolitical reach, often focusing on key areas like energy and natural resources. While Russia's direct influence over U.S. states may be more limited than China’s, it could still form partnerships with blue states that have a significant interest in energy infrastructure or agriculture—sectors where Russia has potential leverage. For instance, blue states like California, Washington, and Michigan could be targets for Russian investment in energy or technology sectors that are tightly regulated at the federal level.

Challenges and Safeguards

However, it's important to note that any attempts by foreign powers to bypass federal regulations would be met with scrutiny and resistance from the federal government, national security agencies, and legal systems. The U.S. government has robust safeguards to prevent foreign interference, such as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviews transactions that could result in foreign control over critical infrastructure.

While state-level deals may seem attractive from a foreign power’s perspective, they would likely face significant challenges due to federal oversight, especially given the strategic nature of many of these bodies of water. Additionally, the political backlash from both the federal government and local populations in blue states would likely limit the feasibility of such side deals.

In theory, the presence of blue states near large bodies of water could offer incentives for Russia or China to make deals with these states in ways that circumvent federal regulations. However, due to the complexity of U.S. law, national security concerns, and the need for federal oversight, such deals would be extremely difficult to execute without attracting significant scrutiny. 

 

I believe the Democratic Party has had a lot of leverage being on the border of trade on the largest bodies of water. Although, Musk's financial contributions tend to be more strategic and issue-driven, such as supporting specific candidates or causes that could help his business interests, rather than donating to a broad range of blue states, his involvement in Wisconsin is bizarre. His involvement in states like Wisconsin may be more tied to particular elections or issues that directly affect his businesses or political stance. Musk's involvement in Wisconsin politics likely reflects a strategic approach to regulatory environments, clean energy policies, tax incentives, and the potential for influencing future legal decisions that could benefit his businesses. By supporting candidates or causes that align with his interests, he could shape a more favorable landscape for Tesla, SpaceX, and other ventures he has, potentially influencing state-level policies and regulations that directly affect his business. While it might seem politically motivated, Musk’s donations are likely part of a broader effort to protect and grow his business empire within the regulatory frameworks of individual states.

 

My point is, last night I was speaking about the tariffs and who it affects. Since the blue states control the ports, they are the ones who have to pay the tariffs. Trump’s focus is not on other countries. It’s the blue states. Think about it. Blue states have access to ports in which they make big money from unloading products from offshore entities. This stops. Those tariffs affect the ports and our national security. Trump could be punishing blue states that are seen as undermining U.S. security or enabling illegal trade. Tariffs could be used as a way to disincentivize states from continuing to allow foreign influence or bypassing security checks.

 

For example, if it were discovered that a blue state had been facilitating the entry of dangerous goods or circumventing federal regulations for the benefit of foreign nations,  tariffs or other trade restrictions would be a means to enforce national security. This would also serve as a warning to other states about the risks of prioritizing short-term economic gains over long-term security. Under Trump’s first term, the Trump administration seized a 250-ton, $3 million Chinese high-voltage transformer that was on its way to Colorado. It was taken to Sandia National Labs in New Mexico for reasons unknown.  What happened to it still remains a mystery. There are rumors that Trump seized more Chinese made transformers which some investigators speculate had a control mechanism to switch them off remotely from China.

 

Blue states potentially making deals with China or Russia to bypass regulations for financial gain could have serious national security implications, especially if it involves critical infrastructure or technology with embedded vulnerabilities. While it’s theoretically possible that states could attempt to sidestep federal regulations for economic gain, the federal government has significant powers to prevent such activities, and there would likely be public backlash if such schemes were exposed.

 

Elon, although he may not be going after blue states to make them red, through DOGE, has uncovered a lot of dirt on blue states and their financial dealings with foreign assets which could have triggered Trump to start the tariffs in the first place. Legally, he can’t do anything to them, due to state’s sovereign rights, however, tariffs would be the perfect solution to start the process of elimination. We have seen how Trump works. He causes a panic and then watches who starts crying. Then those that cream the loudest are exposed as participants in the scheme.

 

It’s no secret that China has been encroaching on America to control it. Same with Russia. Russian KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov, in the 80’s, blew the whistle on Russia’s attempts to infiltrate the United States universities to teach our students about marxism. Russia has a long-term goal of ideologically subverting the U.S. He described the process as “a great brainwashing” that has four basic stages. The first stage, he said, is called “demoralization,” which would take about 20 years to achieve. A slow process which they called ideological subversion, active measures and psychological warfare. Their goal is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

 

This of course was before the collapse of the Soviet Union. This project most likely was shelved as the funds went dry. However, China could have picked up the pieces and continued the barrage. Or Putin for that matter after Russia stabilized. As we look at the Universities and their liberal stances, we continue to see them breed young minds into acceptance of socialism. Being that America is socialist, given the fact 65% of all Americans are on some form of government pay. Include private pensions and we are at 75% of Americans who are not working. America is getting by on large corporations and borrowed time. The democrats could be working with China and Russia to destroy the United States from within. 

 

And why would they do that? Because the United Nations has been working with the World Economic Forum for years building what is called Agenda 2030 which is the great reset. This is a combined effort with the majority of countries that use the federal dollar to create a world order. One government, one army, one religion. The democrats have no issue with a new world order. The reason is simple. It aligns with their politics. And they do not care of America falls because it has to if we are to create this utopia society that Klaus Schwab wants. A society where you will own nothing and be happy. Except for the ones who is managing this utopia. They will own everything and be way more happier than you.

 

We are witnessing resistance to the Green New Deal. Especially from the Trump administration. Placing tariffs on all states, but really for the blue is definitely a strategic move to force the blue states that are using our ports as leverage, to stop their schemes is solid. No one has actually has seen this and that is why you guys follow me. Trump seems to be removing America from Europe’s control but clinging onto the Rothschild family. This is why he is supporting Israel. One can hope his support for Israel is just to buy time, but I doubt it. Regardless, always prepare for the worst and if you’re christian, the Bible says to not worry.

 

Sources 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/31/elon-musk-1-million-dollar-checks-wisconsin-voters-supreme-court-election

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-mysterious-case-of-the-missing-250-ton-chinese-power-transformer/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmXiapfCs8

https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/