Statement on New York Redistricting and Gerrymandering

The recent court ruling declaring New York’s 11th Congressional District unconstitutional highlights a problem that goes far beyond any single district or political party: gerrymandering undermines trust in our elections.

District lines should never be drawn to protect politicians or predetermine outcomes. They should reflect real communities, respect geographic continuity, and give voters a fair chance to choose their representatives—not the other way around.

While this ruling is an important corrective step, it should also serve as a reminder that “independent” processes are only meaningful if they are transparent, accountable, and insulated from partisan pressure. Fair maps are not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue—they are a democracy issue.

New Yorkers deserve congressional districts that are constitutional, competitive, and honest. Anything less weakens confidence in government and fuels the belief that elections are rigged before the first vote is cast.

Real reform means drawing maps that serve voters, not power

New York Has a Paid-Information Problem — And We’re Finally Addressing It

Right now, a massive amount of what New Yorkers see, hear, and believe is being shaped by paid influence masquerading as organic content.

Not journalism.
Not opinion.
Paid persuasion without disclosure.

Social media has become a marketplace where outrage, misinformation, and sexualized content are rewarded by algorithms and cash—while parents, kids, and working people are left to sort out what’s real on their own.

That’s not free speech.
That’s undisclosed commercial influence.

And New York has every right—and responsibility—to deal with it.

The Problem
• Over one-third of Americans now get news directly from social media platforms.
• A majority of younger users say they receive “news” from influencers, not reporters.
• Paid content is routinely not disclosed, even when money or incentives are clearly involved.
• Children are being exposed to algorithm-driven content that rewards dysfunction, not discipline.
• Fake outrage, rage-bait, manipulated clips, and click-farm content are financially incentivized.

We already regulate:
• Advertising
• Campaign finance
• Consumer fraud
• Gambling, alcohol, and tobacco marketing

But somehow, paid digital influence gets a free pass.

That ends now.

The Policy: NYS Digital Transparency & Youth Protection Act

This policy does not censor speech.
It does not ban opinions.
It does not target ideology.

It does one simple thing:

If you are paid to influence New Yorkers, the public has a right to know.

Key components include:

• Mandatory Paid-Influence Disclosure
Clear, unavoidable labels when money, compensation, or incentives are involved.

• Ban on “Stealth Sponsored News”
If content is paid for, it cannot be presented as independent reporting.

• Public Transparency Portal
A searchable archive of major paid influence campaigns targeting NY residents.

• Enforcement Against Deceptive Engagement
Fake reviews, bot amplification, hidden sponsorships, and fraudulent marketing treated as consumer deception.

• Youth Protections
Limits on algorithmic amplification and targeted advertising on state-managed school networks and devices.

• Deepfake & Synthetic Media Safeguards
Penalties for materially deceptive synthetic content used to mislead or manipulate.

• Digital Literacy Tools
Teach people—especially kids—how to spot manipulation, rage-bait, and paid deception.

Why This Matters

You can say whatever you want in New York.
You can criticize me, support me, hate me, or ignore me.

But if you’re being paid to push something, that’s no longer just speech—it’s commerce.

And commerce has rules.

This policy restores trust, transparency, and personal responsibility to the digital public square—without turning the government into a speech referee.

This Is About the Future

A society where:
• Kids think work is optional
• Truth is secondary to clicks
• Outrage is profitable
• Deception is rewarded

…is not sustainable.

New York can lead the country by proving you don’t need censorship to restore order—just honesty, disclosure, and enforcement of existing principles in a modern world.

Read the full policy here:
https://jsa2026.com/572-2/

“I’m not a good candidate. I’m the right one.”
— Jason S. Arnold, for Governor of New York

A Winnable Path for New York — Why an Independent Campaign Matters Now

New York voters are tired of being told they only have two choices — and both are failing them.

Based on recent public polling trends, voter registration data, and issue-based shifts we’re seeing across the state, it’s clear that a large and growing share of New Yorkers no longer feel represented by either major party. That frustration is not theoretical. It shows up in turnout, trust levels, and issue priorities — from affordability and public safety to foreign policy and government accountability.

While early head-to-head polls between the Democratic and Republican frontrunners show a familiar two-party split, those same polls also reveal something important: neither side is consolidating a true majority, and enthusiasm remains soft.

That’s where an independent campaign becomes viable.

What the data tells us

When voters are modeled in a three-way race — Democrat, Republican, and a serious independent option — the landscape changes:
• A large independent bloc emerges that is not loyal to either party
• Significant numbers of Democrats and Republicans express openness to an alternative focused on results, not party talking points
• The leading candidates’ support shows a clear ceiling, while the independent lane shows room to grow

This isn’t about slogans or personality politics. It’s about math, turnout, and trust.

Why this campaign connects

This campaign is resonating because it speaks to voters who feel ignored:
• New Yorkers crushed by the cost of living
• Families worried about safety but tired of empty rhetoric
• Voters uneasy with endless political dysfunction and foreign entanglements
• Independents, moderates, and working-class voters who don’t see themselves in party leadership anymore

I’m not running as “anti-Democrat” or “anti-Republican.”
I’m running for New Yorkers — with published plans, clear execution paths, and accountability that doesn’t depend on party loyalty.

This race is winnable — together

No independent wins alone. This path only works if New Yorkers come together across boroughs, regions, and backgrounds to demand something better than the same recycled choices.

If we unite around affordability, safety, dignity, and honest government — and refuse to be divided into red vs. blue — this race becomes competitive and winnable.

That’s not hype.
That’s math, momentum, and reality.

New York doesn’t need louder politics.
It needs better leadership.

Jason S. Arnold
Independent Candidate for Governor of New York

Official Statement from Jason S. Arnold

On U.S. Actions Involving Venezuela

There is a lot of noise right now surrounding Venezuela, and I want to be clear and honest about where I stand.

I do not believe this situation has ever truly been about drugs. Venezuela sits on some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and history tells us that energy, leverage, and geopolitics have always been at the center of U.S. involvement there.

I am also deeply concerned by reports that the United States has unilaterally entered another country, captured a sitting head of state, and brought him to the U.S. to face charges.

Even if a foreign leader is corrupt or criminal, there are international institutions and legal mechanisms designed to handle those situations. When the United States bypasses them and acts alone, we weaken the rule of law we claim to stand for and set dangerous precedents that can be used against us in the future.

America should be strong — but strength does not mean acting as the world’s police, judge, and jailer.

As Governor of New York, my focus is on protecting New Yorkers, restoring affordability, and rebuilding trust in government through transparency and restraint. Endless foreign entanglements, selective morality, and actions driven by resource politics do not serve the people of this state or this country.

We can stand for justice without abandoning due process.
We can pursue accountability without becoming reckless.
And we can defend American interests without pretending every intervention is righteous.

That is the standard I believe in — and the standard I will hold.

Jason S. Arnold
Candidate for Governor of New York
“I’m not a good candidate — I’m the right one.”

Why a Trump Endorsement Helps and Hurts in New York

A lot of people are asking what a Trump endorsement really does in a New York governor’s race—especially for Bruce Blakeman against Kathy Hochul.

Here’s the honest breakdown—no spin.

Where it helps
• It locks in the Republican base quickly.
• It brings media attention and fundraising energy.
• It gives clarity—voters know exactly where a candidate stands.

Where it hurts
• New York is a Democratic-leaning state with millions of independents.
• Donald Trump remains unpopular statewide.
• The endorsement turns the race into a binary fight, not a performance review.
• Swing voters—especially suburban and independent voters—tend to tune out or turn away.

What it really does
A Trump endorsement raises the floor but lowers the ceiling.
It helps win a party lane—but makes it harder to win the state.

That’s not a judgment. It’s math.

And this is why so many New Yorkers feel stuck choosing between options that don’t actually reflect their lives, their stress, or their priorities. The system keeps forcing national labels onto local problems.

BETTR exists because people are tired of that.
Tired of being told who they’re supposed to vote against instead of who’s actually going to work for them.

This isn’t about loyalty to personalities.
It’s about outcomes for real people.

If you’ve ever felt politically homeless, you’re not alone—and you’re exactly who BETTR was built for.

— Jason S. Arnold
Founder, BETTR
Independent Candidate for Governor of New York (2026)

I don’t regret my vote for President Trump.

I know — without hesitation — that had I voted for Kamala Harris, the country would be in a far worse place right now. On that, I’m clear.

But I also need to say this honestly:
something unhealthy came with this era of politics, and we need to talk about it.

Somewhere along the way, politics stopped being about ideas and started being about sides.
You’re either Republican or Democrat — and if you don’t choose one loudly enough, you’re treated like you’re wrong, weak, or the enemy.

I don’t like that.
I don’t think it’s healthy.
And I don’t think it’s sustainable.

When you hear about Republicans getting shot, Democrats getting shot, people being attacked because of a label — that should stop all of us cold. That’s not strength. That’s not conviction. That’s a country losing its balance.

What worries me most is this:
You now have Republicans and Democrats arguing against things they would have agreed with five years ago, simply because their party told them to. Not because they thought it through — but because they felt they had to pick a side.

That’s not leadership.
That’s not independence.
That’s conformity.

When I hear language like “we’re not playing pancake with these people anymore,” I don’t hear toughness — I hear confusion. I hear a politics that’s drifting away from persuasion and toward hostility.

And I’m being honest when I say this: I’m lost sometimes watching it unfold.

I respect what President Trump changed in the political landscape. He disrupted a system that deserved to be disrupted. He forced conversations that were long overdue.

But I don’t like the division that followed — where everything is zero-sum, everyone is an enemy, and there’s “no in between.”

There has to be an in between.

People should be allowed to think.
To agree where it makes sense.
To disagree where it doesn’t.
Without being told they’re traitors, extremists, or idiots.

That’s not weakness.
That’s maturity.

And if we don’t relearn that — no matter who wins elections — we all lose

Jason S. Arnold
Independent Candidate for Governor of New York (2026)

How Israel Became Treated as a “Religious Obligation” in America

This did not come from the Bible alone.
It came from a modern political theology, built deliberately in the United States.

⸻

1. The Bible Does Not Command Unconditional Support of a Modern State

This is the first truth that gets buried.
• The Bible speaks of the land of Israel in ancient, covenantal terms
• It does not command Christians to:
• Fund a modern government
• Support wars unconditionally
• Suspend moral judgment of state actions

Jesus never instructed:
• Rome to fund Judea
• Christians to back political power
• Blind loyalty to governments using God’s name

In fact, Christ consistently challenged political-religious authority, not endorsed it.

So the idea that:

“If you’re Christian, you must support the modern State of Israel”

is not biblical doctrine. It is political theology.

⸻

2. Where This Idea Actually Came From: American Christian Zionism

The belief you’re describing took shape in the late 1800s and early 1900s, mainly in America and Britain.

Key source:
• Dispensationalism — a theological framework
• Popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible (1909)

This theology taught:
• The return of Jews to Israel was required for end-times prophecy
• Supporting Israel became part of “God’s plan”
• Political events were framed as divine necessity

Important:

This belief is not universal Christianity
It is one interpretation, heavily American, heavily modern.

Most Christians globally — Catholic, Orthodox, many Protestants — do not hold this view.

⸻

3. How Politics Locked It In After 1948

After Israel became a state:
• The U.S. saw Israel as a strategic Cold War ally
• Evangelical leaders framed support as biblical obedience
• Politicians fused:
• National security
• Religious loyalty
• Moral guilt

Result:

Opposing Israeli policy became framed as opposing God.

That framing was politically useful, not theologically required.

⸻

4. How Guilt Became the Enforcement Tool

Over time, the messaging hardened into absolutes:
• “If you criticize Israel, you’re anti-Christian”
• “If you question aid, you’re antisemitic”
• “If you don’t support every war, you don’t believe the Bible”

That pressure forces silence, not faith.

And it does something dangerous:
• It weaponizes religion
• It removes moral accountability
• It erases Palestinian Christians, who are rarely mentioned

⸻

5. The Missing Truth Most Americans Never Hear

There are:
• Christian Palestinians
• Jewish Israelis who oppose their government
• American Jews who reject unconditional support

But their voices are inconvenient — so they’re pushed out.

The conflict is framed as:

God vs enemies

Instead of:

Governments vs people caught in between

⸻

6. The Honest American Position (Without Religious Guilt)

An American — Christian or not — can say this truthfully:

“I respect Israel’s right to exist. I respect Judaism.
But no government gets a blank check — financial, moral, or military — because of religion.”

That position:
• Is pro-faith
• Is pro-human life
• Is pro-American sovereignty
• Is anti-propaganda

That’s not betrayal. That’s responsibility.

⸻

Where did the connection come from?

Not from Jesus
Not from biblical command
Not from ancient Christianity

It came from:
• Modern American theology
• Cold War geopolitics
• Political fundraising
• Fear-based messaging

And once religion was tied to loyalty, questioning became taboo.

⸻

Why This Matters for Leadership

New York is home to:
• Jews
• Muslims
• Christians
• Atheists
• Immigrants from every side of this conflict

Leadership means lowering the temperature, not exploiting faith.

⸻

Bottom Line

Faith should guide conscience — not silence it.
Governments should answer to people — not hide behind God.

That’s the line that has been crossed.

⸻

Date: December 12, 2025
Campaign: Jason S. Arnold for Governor of New York (2026)

President Trump has floated the idea of using revenue from new U.S. tariffs to fund a $2,000 “American Dividend” payment for citizens.
The concept relies on collecting substantial money from import tariffs and redistributing part of it directly to households.

However, there are major hurdles:
• Congress has not approved it, and would need to authorize both the tariffs and the payments.
• Tariff revenue depends on trade volume, and economists say income from tariffs can fluctuate significantly.
• Payment programs of this scale typically require stable, recurring funding, not revenue that varies year to year.
• Some analysts warn that tariffs can raise consumer prices, which could offset part of the intended benefit.

So the idea has been pitched, but legally and practically, there is no mechanism in place yet to implement it.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2025/11/10/dont-spend-trumps-2000-a-person-tariff-dividend--check-just-yet/?utm_campaign=ForbesMainFB&utm_source=ForbesMainFacebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwdGRleAOAfr1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEejccHbbkcGAUKGT33Ub64lbUVOz4ZVjsInMKfv7P7WNy_9kvTeZPdMgAFDnc_aem_9QpiAzNNZ2TrrDWlL0rURg

On Nov. 9, former President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that “most Americans will receive a tariff dividend of at least $2,000.”
The idea is part of a broader proposal to use federal revenue generated from new tariffs to fund direct payments to U.S. households.
As of now, Congress has not authorized such a program, and no legislation is in place that would allow tariff revenue to be distributed as direct payments.
Economists also note that tariff revenue is dependent on trade volume and may not provide a consistent or guaranteed funding stream.


https://people.com/donald-trump-promises-2000-tariff-dividend-to-most-americans-11846416

Reports note that while many Republican lawmakers have been facing political pressure over economic concerns such as inflation, interest rates, and cost-of-living issues, former President Donald Trump has continued to argue publicly that the U.S. economy is performing strongly.
In recent statements, Trump has maintained that key indicators—such as market performance, consumer spending, or job numbers—show that the economy is “better than ever,” even as polls and analysts suggest that many voters are feeling financial strain.

https://www.aol.com/news/trump-doubles-down-economy-despite-100000085.html

New York State Gubernatorial — Mock Poll (Illustrative)

Field dates (mock): Aug 10–13, 2025
Sample: 1,000 registered voters (RV), mixed phone/SMS-to-web
Weighting: Region, gender, age, party ID, race/ethnicity, education, 2022 vote recall
MOE: ±3.1% (RV)
Turnout model: 2022 general baseline with modest GOP improvement in suburbs

Topline — 3‑Way Ballot (RV)
• Kathy Hochul (D) — 46%
• Elise Stefanik (R) — 32%
• Jason S. Arnold (I/Other) — 9%
• Someone else — 3%
• Undecided — 10%

Read: Mirrors typical D advantage statewide, Stefanik trails by low‑ to mid‑teens; Arnold shows early viability as the only candidate running a fully transparent plan.

Head‑to‑Head Scenarios (RV)

Hochul vs. Stefanik
• Hochul 48%
• Stefanik 35%
• Undecided 17%

Hochul vs. Jason S. Arnold
• Hochul 44%
• Arnold 38%
• Undecided 18%

Read: Arnold consolidates more independents and soft Democrats than Stefanik can, cutting the margin to single digits.

Region (3‑Way Ballot)
• NYC (approx. 31% of sample): Hochul 67 | Stefanik 15 | Arnold 6 | Und 9
• Downstate Suburbs (LI/Westchester/Rockland, 28%): Hochul 44 | Stefanik 36 | Arnold 11 | Und 7
• Upstate (41%): Stefanik 44 | Hochul 33 | Arnold 11 | Und 9

Read: Arnold’s 10–11% in suburbs & upstate is a credible early lane; growth path is independents + moderate Republicans + anti‑status‑quo Dems.

Party & Independents (3‑Way Ballot)
• Democrats: Hochul 77 | Arnold 8 | Stefanik 7 | Und 6
• Republicans: Stefanik 70 | Arnold 13 | Hochul 10 | Und 6
• Independents: Arnold 28 | Hochul 34 | Stefanik 24 | Und 12

Read: Arnold leads or competes for plurality among independents, the key to statewide viability.

Favorability (Fav/Unfav/Don’t know)
• Hochul: 45 / 49 / 6
• Stefanik: 33 / 52 / 15
• Jason S. Arnold: 24 / 16 / 60

Read: Arnold’s low negatives + high unknowns = big upside with name‑ID growth.

Top Issues (open-coded → grouped)
• Cost of living/inflation: 34%
• Crime/public safety: 18%
• Housing/affordability: 15%
• Taxes: 12%
• Migration/services capacity: 9%
• Transit/infrastructure: 6%
• Other: 6%

Issue Ownership (net trust)
• Cost of living: Arnold +3 vs Hochul, Arnold +9 vs Stefanik
• Crime: Arnold +5 vs Hochul, Stefanik +2 vs Hochul
• Housing: Arnold +4 vs Hochul, Arnold +7 vs Stefanik

Read: The “full‑plan transparency” message gives Arnold an issues credibility edge—especially on daily-life economics & housing.

Message Tests (net more likely – less likely)
• “Full transparency: every policy & Day‑One orders published now.” +23
• “Coney Island 2.0: tourism/jobs engine (Vegas+AC without the rot).” +14 (Downstate suburbs +19)
• “Whistleblower/transparency on waste, fraud, and no‑show work.” +18
• “Education SEZ/LEZ: local control, measurable outcomes.” +12
• “Mental Health First Act & first‑responder supports.” +11

⸻

Crosstab Highlights (selected)
• Women (RV): Hochul +17 vs Stefanik; Hochul +6 vs Arnold
• Men (RV): Hochul +4 vs Stefanik; Arnold +2 vs Hochul (independents drive this)
• Hispanic voters: Hochul +25 vs Stefanik; Hochul +11 vs Arnold (Arnold competitive on cost-of-living frame)
• Black voters: Hochul dominant; Arnold overperforms Stefanik on favorables by ~6 pts (low name ID = room to grow)
• White non‑college: Stefanik leads Hochul by 6; Arnold within 4 of Stefanik with “work, wages, housing” message
• Voters rating economy “poor”: Arnold 31 | Hochul 30 | Stefanik 28 (3‑way) — transparency + concrete fixes resonate

⸻

Questionnaire (12 items, neutral wording)
1. Reg voter screen (self‑reported)
2. Party ID & 2022 vote recall
3. Fav/Unfav: Hochul, Stefanik, Jason S. Arnold
4. Most important issue (open)
5. Head‑to‑head: Hochul vs Stefanik
6. Head‑to‑head: Hochul vs Jason S. Arnold
7. 3‑way ballot: Hochul / Stefanik / Jason S. Arnold / someone else / undecided
8. Confidence in each candidate to improve cost of living (0–10 scale)
9. Confidence to improve public safety (0–10)
10. Message test A (full transparency/Day‑One orders) — more/less likely/ no diff
11. Message test B (Coney Island 2.0 jobs/tourism plan) — more/less likely/ no diff
12. Demographics: age, gender, education, region, race/ethnicity, HH income

The Truth About Rosanne Boyland’s Death: Even J6 Defenders Admit It Was an Overdose

Tommy Tatum — a January 6 participant — continues to claim Rosanne Boyland was “murdered by police” and that the government hid “HD footage” proving it.
But here’s the reality no one in the media or fringe circles wants to admit:

⸻

1. The Official Ruling: Accidental Overdose
• The D.C. Medical Examiner determined Rosanne Boyland died of acute amphetamine intoxication (a fatal overdose) — not beating, not trampling, not murder.
• This conclusion has been reviewed in court documents, congressional records, and multiple independent investigations.

⸻

2. Fact-Checks Across the Spectrum
• FactCheck.org, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, and WaPo: All found no evidence of hidden HD footage or a murder cover‑up.
• The supposed “grainy footage” claim ignores that multiple camera angles were reviewed publicly and in court — none support Tatum’s version.

⸻

3. Even Right-Leaning Voices Agree

This isn’t just a “mainstream narrative.”
Prominent J6-sympathetic commentators and conservative outlets have acknowledged the overdose ruling:
• Julie Kelly (American Greatness): Focuses on prison conditions but does not dispute the overdose finding.
• Rekieta Law (Nick Rekieta): Conservative streamer; reviewed evidence, concluded there’s “no murder evidence.”
• The Gateway Pundit: Initially amplified rumors, later shifted to covering Boyland’s tragedy and addiction rather than alleging murder.
• Look Ahead America: A leading J6 advocacy group; fights for detainees’ rights but doesn’t back murder claims.

Even among Boyland’s own supporters, Tatum’s theory is fringe.

⸻

4. Why the Truth Matters

False claims don’t just smear the truth — they weaken legitimate calls for accountability.
The chaos of January 6 was real. The pain of the families is real. But inventing murder conspiracies dishonors both.

⸻

5. Claims of “Expertise”
• Tatum brands himself as a January 6 “footage expert,” promoting his own reviews of Capitol videos online.
• But his central claim about Rosanne Boyland — that she was murdered by police — has been repeatedly disproven by:
• The D.C. Medical Examiner’s autopsy (overdose).
• Multiple video angles reviewed by Congress, media, and independent analysts.
• J6 defense attorneys who did not pursue murder arguments in court filings.

If he’s wrong about this, how reliable is any of his “analysis”?

⸻

6. Was He Even Beside Her?
• Tatum claims he was physically next to Boyland when she died.
• No verified evidence — such as contemporaneous photos, video, or official witness statements — confirms this.
• His claim relies solely on his own testimony, which is contradicted by:
• Crowd-sourced video mapping of the tunnel area (Boyland’s position vs. Tatum’s known movements).
• Lack of corroboration from other defendants or witnesses present.
• Multiple J6 defendant accounts and court exhibits place different individuals near Boyland during her collapse.

⸻

7. Why This Matters
• Tatum’s personal credibility hinges on this claim. If he lied or misrepresented being next to Boyland, his entire “expert” persona collapses.
• By pushing a disproven murder narrative, he undermines legitimate J6 grievances (e.g., overcharging, prison conditions) and makes it easier for critics to dismiss all J6 concerns as conspiracy.

Our Stand

This campaign fights for transparency and justice — based on facts, not internet rumors.
New York, and America, deserve leaders who tell the hard truth — even when it challenges their own side.

https://x.com/benkaxton/status/1948747786096115910?s=46

#JSA2026 #AmericanDream #NYGovernor #TruthMatters #TurnNYRed