Jason at Kings Island and the Rules of the Haunted House: Why Darbi Boddy Is Right About Islam Using American Freedoms to Undo Christian Culture in West Chester

The Window Needs Moving, and Someone Has to Pull It

I have known Ann Becker for a long time. She knows what it takes to stand in a public meeting, take the heat, and keep talking when the institutional machinery wants to shut down the conversation. That is why I listen when Darbi Boddy speaks. She has spent years crossing the state, appearing at school board meetings, and putting uncomfortable realities on the record about how certain Islamic communities in Western countries treat the American premises of free speech, free exercise of religion, and separation of church and state. A Christian people built those premises for a Christian culture. They were never designed as a one-way shield for a competing civilizational order whose own foundational texts and majority opinion in many of its societies reject the same liberties when the roles reverse.

West Chester needs people willing to say this out loud. Mark Welch is no longer a township trustee. The current board is Ann Becker as chair, Lee Wong, and Amanda Ortiz. The board needs clear-eyed leadership that doesn’t treat every demand for religious accommodation as automatically benign. Darbi has done the preparatory public-comment work candidates used to do before seeking office. She earned a seat once. The lawyers and the process found a way to remove her from the Lakota board after a civil protection order kept her from meetings for ninety days. I do not see that removal as a victory for order. I see it as a successful effort to silence the person who kept forcing the discussion the rest of the board preferred not to have.

Darbi Boddy’s Record and the Price of Speaking Plainly

Darbi was elected to the Lakota Local Schools Board of Education in 2021 on a platform of teaching the greatness of America and opposing critical race theory and related ideological imports. Lakota serves West Chester and Liberty Townships and is one of the largest suburban districts in southwest Ohio. Her tenure was contentious. She criticized suicide-prevention mandates she believed separated parents from children, questioned curriculum, and clashed repeatedly with colleagues. A civil stalking protection order fellow board member Isaac Adi obtained in 2023 prevented her from attending meetings with him present. After 90 days of absences, the remaining members declared them insufficient and voted her off in March 2024. She has continued speaking at other boards, including Xenia, and has faced lawsuits and counterclaims over public comment and First Amendment issues. She now leads Access Ohio, focused on parent rights and traditional American values.

People call her a bull in a China shop. Aggressive clarity is often required when institutions have already accepted the progressive framing that any scrutiny of Islamic political theology is bigotry. The same institutions treat Christian residual culture as the problem to be managed. Darbi keeps pointing at the asymmetry. Islamic leadership in many Western settings has stated, in plain language or through institutional practice, the goal of replacing Christian cultural dominance with Islamic norms. She refuses to let local politicians, including those in West Chester, pretend the observation is out of bounds.

The Legal Gambit: Freedom of Religion as a One-Way Shield

Lawyers are skilled at reinterpreting English and case law to fit the argument of the moment. The modern reading of “separation of church and state” is a prime example. The Founders intended to prevent the federal government from establishing a national church or interfering with the free exercise of existing Christian denominations. They did not intend a neutrality so absolute that a competing theocratic system could use the First Amendment as cover while its own doctrines prescribe death for apostasy, second-class status for non-believers, and legal supremacy for sharia.

Pew Research Center’s 2013 survey of Muslims in thirty-nine countries found overwhelming majorities in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, Southeast Asia, and parts of sub-Saharan Africa favoring sharia as the official law of the land, at least for Muslims. In Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Jordan, large shares of those who favored sharia also favored the death penalty for leaving Islam. Later Pew work has shown Islam as the world’s fastest-growing major religion between 2010 and 2020, driven primarily by higher fertility and a younger median age rather than mass conversion. In Europe, the Muslim share reached roughly 6 percent by 2020; projections with continued migration put it near 10 percent by mid-century. In the United States, the absolute numbers remain smaller, but the growth rate is among the highest of any region. West Chester is home to the Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati, a large campus with a prominent golden dome visible from I-75, which has grown to serve tens of thousands of families since it opened in the mid-1990s.

None of this is a conspiracy theory. It is demography plus doctrine. When a community whose median opinion in many source countries rejects the equal status of other religions uses the American guarantee of free exercise to expand its institutional footprint, while simultaneously pressing for speech restrictions on “Islamophobia,” the constitutional premise is being used against the culture that created it. Lawyers can draft the accommodation language. Politicians can call the resulting pressure “tolerance.” The practical result is the gradual displacement of the prior order.

My Experiment at Kings Island’s Jason: Blood Reign

I spent the 2026 Halloween season working as Jason Voorhees in the new “Jason: Blood Reign” maze at Kings Island’s Halloween Haunt. Before guests enter, they are told the rule: the monsters will not touch you. You have complete safety. Do not touch the monsters. Thousands of people waited, sometimes for hours, for the thrill of being scared while knowing they were protected.

The parallel to the political debate is direct. In the haunted house, guests know the rules protect them. Some guests, once they understand the protection is absolute, become rambunctious. They test the boundary. A few try to punch or kick the actor. They know the performer is forbidden from retaliating. The same dynamic appears when a radical religious order treats American free-speech and free-exercise rules as a shield while advancing practices and political goals incompatible with those rules. The aggressor is told he cannot be touched. He then lashes out, confident the defender is constrained.

Out of the tens of thousands of people I scared during the season, I turned every negative or hostile encounter into a positive, and that is consistent with most things that I get involved with. It was fun and rewarding to do it on a large scale; I tested what I wanted to challenge myself with.

I read body language—shoulders, facial expressions, the way a group clustered—before they reached my position. I used the strobe, the sound, the timing of the jump. People who knew exactly where I was still jumped. Some laughed afterward and admitted they had been gotten anyway. The aggressive ones still got the scare because the common purpose of the attraction was shared: they came to be frightened. The rules constrained my physical response, but they did not constrain psychological effectiveness.

That is the practical lesson. You do not have to break the Fourteenth Amendment or the First Amendment to defend the culture. You do have to understand the strategy of the other side and refuse to pretend the asymmetry does not exist. Darbi is doing that work in public meetings. The institutional response has been to use process and protection orders to remove her from the conversation. The lawyers did their job of reinterpreting the rules. The result is that the discussion she forced is harder to have.

The Psychology of the Protected Aggressor and What the Numbers Show

The people who waited in the long line outside Blood Reign wanted the experience. They did not want to be harmed. Some still behaved poorly once they believed the rules gave them impunity. That is ordinary human behavior under asymmetric constraint. Scale it to civilizational level and the pattern is recognizable. Groups that retain high in-group preference, higher fertility, and doctrinal rejection of equal religious liberty can expand under a host culture’s free-exercise rules while the host culture is told that reciprocal scrutiny violates its own principles.

The data do not require exotic interpretation. Pew’s global religious landscape work shows Muslim population growth outpacing every other major group from 2010 to 2020. Fertility differentials, not adult conversion, drive most of the increase. In many Muslim-majority societies, majorities continue to favor legal systems in which sharia has official status. Western polling of Muslim populations shows greater moderation on average, particularly among those born in the West, yet the institutional organizations and the source-country norms travel with the migration. Local officials who treat every request for accommodation as self-evidently compatible with American order are choosing not to examine the long-term trajectory.

Ann Becker has been on the other side of contentious meetings. She knows the difference between an ideology held in a living room and the same ideology defended under public scrutiny and procedural attack. Darbi’s style is more confrontational. That style is sometimes necessary to move the Overton window back toward the place where Christian cultural continuity is treated as the default rather than the problem. The progressive platform

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an author, political consultant, and strategic advisor based in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the creator of The Politics of Heaven—a unique framework that connects biblical theology, ancient history, and modern power structures to explain how moral alignment and spiritual forces shape global events. Blending real-world political experience with deep research into archaeology, UFO phenomena, and suppressed historical narratives, Hoffman offers compelling commentary on topics ranging from ancient civilizations and the Dead Sea Scrolls to modern populist movements, paranormal continuity, and leadership strategy in chaotic environments. As the author of The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business and the forthcoming Politics of Heaven, he brings a grounded yet provocative voice to media discussions, supported by firsthand experiences and a cross-disciplinary approach that bridges science, history, and theology. For interviews, speaking engagements, or expert analysis, visit richhoffmanbooks.com or contact directly via phone at 513-307-5815 or email at rhoffman@richhoffmanbooks.com. If you’ve seen the movie, Disclosure Day and want to talk about it and the implications of Presidnet Trump’s UAP disclosures, let me know and we can bring some color to your coverage. https://richhoffmanbooks.com/media-inquiries-broadcast-topics-and-contact-info/?frame-nonce=ad51e7ecba I do have a firsthand UFO encounter to discuss.and the legal class have made adherence to the rules nearly impossible for a civil society that wishes to remain itself. The rules were written by people who assumed a shared civilizational premise. When that premise is rejected by one of the parties using the rules, the defender must name the rejection.

Moving the Window Without Breaking the Rules

I am proud of the season I spent as Jason. The work was physically demanding. It required reading people under pressure and finding a way to deliver the intended experience even when some guests tried to weaponize the safety rules. The political parallel is not perfect, but it is close enough to be useful. The guests who behaved worst still left having been scared, because the shared purpose of the attraction overrode the temporary abuse of the rules. A society that still possesses a shared purpose—constitutional loyalty, individual responsibility, and the cultural inheritance that produced those things—can do the same. It requires people willing to speak the obvious asymmetries in public, to accept the personal cost, and to keep the discussion alive after the lawyers and the process have done their best to end it.

Darbi Boddy has been doing that. West Chester has the institutional space for it now that the prior trustee arrangement has changed. The argument matters more than the personalities. Voters ultimately decide whether the community remains American in more than name or whether it continues to treat every use of its own freedoms as equally legitimate even when the user does not reciprocate. I have seen the dynamic up close, under the mask, with a large sample of ordinary people. The rules can be used against you. You can still win the encounter if you refuse to pretend the rules were written for a different game.

Bibliography

Bat Ye’or. Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005.

Hirsi Ali, Ayaan. Infidel. Free Press, 2007.

Hirsi Ali, Ayaan. Nomad: From Islam to America. Free Press, 2010.

Hoffman, Rich. The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business. (and related works on individual responsibility and cultural continuity).

Ibrahim, Raymond. Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West. Da Capo, 2018.

Lewis, Bernard. What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Lewis, Bernard. The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. Modern Library, 2003.

Pew Research Center. “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society.” April 30, 2013.

Pew Research Center. “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050.” April 2, 2015.

Pew Research Center. “How the Global Religious Landscape Changed From 2010 to 2020.” June 9, 2025.

Spencer, Robert. The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS. Bombardier Books, 2018.

Spencer, Robert. The Critical Qur’an: Explained from Key Islamic Commentaries and Contemporary Historical Research. Bombardier Books, 2022.

Warraq, Ibn. Why I Am Not a Muslim. Prometheus Books, 1995.

Local reporting on Lakota Local Schools Board actions regarding Darbi Boddy (Cincinnati Enquirer, Dayton Daily News, FOX19, WXIX, 2021–2025).

West Chester Township Board of Trustees meeting records and official site, 2025–2026.

Kings Island Halloween Haunt 2026 materials on “Jason: Blood Reign.”

Footnotes

1. Darbi Boddy elected 2021; removed March 2024 after protection order produced ninety-day absence under Ohio Revised Code provisions allowing removal when absences are declared insufficient by two-thirds of the remaining board. See Cincinnati Enquirer, March–April 2024 coverage.

2. Pew Research Center, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” 2013. Regional medians for support of sharia as official law: South Asia 84 %, Middle East-North Africa 74 %, Southeast Asia 77 %, sub-Saharan Africa 64 %. Support for death penalty for apostasy among those favoring sharia reached 78 % in Afghanistan and was high in Egypt and Pakistan.

3. Pew Research Center, “How the Global Religious Landscape Changed From 2010 to 2020,” June 2025. Muslims increased by 347 million; share of world population rose to 25.6 %. Growth driven primarily by fertility and age structure.

4. Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati, West Chester Township, opened mid-1990s; large campus visible from I-75. Contemporary reporting describes service to tens of thousands of families.

5. Kings Island Halloween Haunt 2026 featured the licensed “Jason: Blood Reign” maze. Guest instructions explicitly prohibit contact with actors; actors are constrained from physical retaliation.

6. West Chester Township Board of Trustees as of 2026: Ann Becker (Chair), Lee Wong, Amanda Ortiz. Mark Welch, longtime trustee, did not continue after the 2025 election cycle.supplies the footnotes

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

No Simba Is Coming Back: The Lion King Metaphor for Leadership, Loyalty, and Leaving the Pride Lands

I received another round of texts and calls this week from people at the place where I spent twenty-five years. One of them came from a man I hired years ago, a man from Ghana who later introduced me to his children and, in time, began to treat me as a father figure in America. He is not the only one who has reached out. Several people have asked when I am coming back, whether I can fix what has become a nightmare, and whether there is any path for a return to the way things used to be. I appreciate the respect and the loyalty. It is an honor when someone from another continent decides you are the person he trusts that way. At the same time, the honest answer I need to give him—and everyone else who has written—is straightforward: go back and watch The Lion King. That is the clearest picture of what is happening, and it explains why I have no plans to return.

Twenty-Five Years and the Obligation to Set Everyone Up

I spent years trying to put people in a position where the paychecks would keep coming. That was the practical obligation. Mortgage payments, car notes, and ordinary life do not pause while leadership changes. I did what I could to arrange sustainable arrangements so that people who stayed would continue to receive regular pay for a year, two years, three years, or longer. From my side of the transaction, that was the success criterion. I left because the situation had become miserable for me personally, not because I wanted to abandon anyone. There are many ways to make money in the world; staying in a place that drains you is not required once the basic obligations have been met. I feel that I fulfilled those obligations as thoroughly as the circumstances allowed.

The man who considers me his American father was a leader on the machines and someone with whom the professional relationship grew into something more personal over time. When he told me years ago that God had directed him to come see me, I took that seriously. People of genuine faith do not say such things lightly. The same respect he showed then is present in the way he has reached out now. I value that. I also know that affection and loyalty do not change the structural facts of the place I left.

Scar’s Conspiracy and the Ruined Pride Lands

The Lion King (1994) remains one of the clearest popular stories about what happens when someone schemes for a title he cannot actually carry. Scar, Mufasa’s brother, conspires with the hyenas, engineers a stampede, and kills the king so he can seize the throne. Once he has the position, the Pride Lands deteriorate. The grass dies, the herds leave, and the remaining lions live under scarcity and fear. Scar’s rule is not an improvement; it is a slow collapse. The film makes the point without subtlety: taking the title does not confer the competence, the loyalty, or the capacity to sustain the kingdom. Ambition organized around grievance produces depletion rather than abundance.

That pattern appears in real organizations more often than people like to admit. Someone decides he can do the job better, works in the background to undermine the person currently holding it, and eventually obtains the role. The immediate result is often not improved performance but declining morale, reduced trust, and a workplace that feels worse for the people still inside it. Research on leadership transitions consistently shows measurable drops in engagement, trust, and retention after a change at the top. One global study found that after a reorganization, 88 percent of senior leaders believed the new structure would succeed while only 36 percent of employees agreed; only 22 percent of employees said they received adequate support to adapt. Other data indicate that poorly managed transitions can reduce employee performance by roughly 15 percent and that a substantial share of executive transitions are later judged failures. Communication often falls by about 20 percent in the first months after a CEO change as uncertainty rises. None of this is abstract when the people living it are calling and texting.

The Reality of Leadership Transitions

I have told people who reached out that I did my part. I arranged what I could so that paychecks would continue. Beyond that, I have no capacity or intention to re-enter the situation. I am busy. I am also taking time to recover from years of long hours and physical demand—time that was unavailable while I was responsible for keeping everyone paid. The desire for the former leader to return is understandable. Employees who trusted the previous arrangement naturally hope the person who made the place function will come back and restore it. In the film, Nala and others eventually find Simba and urge him to return. The difference is that Simba does return, confronts Scar, and restores the land. I am not that figure, and I have not left any door open for that role.

There is no Simba waiting to take the kingdom back. The place will continue in its current direction or it will not; that is now outside my control. People who need a regular paycheck can stay and work under the existing conditions. Those who find the conditions intolerable have the same option I exercised: they can leave and find another arrangement. I do not say that lightly. Changing jobs is disruptive. It is also sometimes necessary when the alternative is remaining in a declining environment run by people whose primary qualification was the desire for the title.

Why There Is No Simba Coming Back

I have no plans to return and save the pride from Scar. The years spent trying to set people up were already costly in personal terms. I did that work out of loyalty and a sense of obligation. Repeating it would not be healthy, and I have no desire to reopen that chapter. Greatness, for me, is now located elsewhere. Scar-type figures exist in many organizations; they scheme, obtain the position, and then discover that competence and care for the people under them are not automatically transferred with the title. The remaining employees have to navigate that reality themselves.

I appreciate every message that expresses affection or asks me to come back. It is good to be missed. It is also important to be clear. I fulfilled the practical duty of arranging sustainable pay where I could. I am not available to re-enter the role, and I do not expect that to change. For the man who calls me father in America, and for everyone else who wrote, the clearest reply remains the same: watch The Lion King again. Scar takes the throne through conspiracy. The Pride Lands decline under his rule. Simba eventually returns in the story. In this particular case, that return is not available. The circle of life continues either way, but it continues without me in that particular pride.

Notes

1. The Lion King, directed by Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff (Walt Disney Pictures, 1994). The film’s plot centers on Scar’s conspiracy to murder Mufasa, seize the throne, and the subsequent ecological and social collapse of the Pride Lands under his rule.

2. Standard plot summaries of The Lion King (1994) detail Scar’s alliance with the hyenas, the engineered stampede, the betrayal of Mufasa, and the later return of Simba. See also analyses of Scar as an archetype of toxic or subtractive leadership that obtains power through deception but cannot sustain the conditions that made the kingdom viable.

3. Bain & Company research (reported 2026) on organizational restructuring found large gaps between leader confidence and employee experience; only 22 percent of employees reported receiving sufficient support. Related findings appear in Gallup data on engagement declines after disruptive change and in studies of communication volume after CEO transitions (roughly 20 percent drop in the initial months). McKinsey and other sources have estimated that successful transitions reduce attrition while failed ones can reduce performance by double-digit percentages; estimates of transition failure rates commonly range into the 40 percent range within two years.

4. Leadership literature on succession and toxic leadership frequently uses narrative examples such as Scar to illustrate the difference between obtaining a title and possessing the capacity to lead. See also research on Leader-Member Exchange and engagement drops following top-level change.

Bibliography

Allers, Roger, and Rob Minkoff, dirs. The Lion King. Walt Disney Pictures, 1994.

Bain & Company. Research on organizational restructuring and employee adaptation (reported 2026).

Gallup. State of the Global Workplace reports and related analyses of engagement, change, and leadership levels.

Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. Studies on communication volume and uncertainty following CEO transitions.

McKinsey & Company. Research on executive transitions, retention, and performance outcomes.

Analyses of toxic leadership and narrative archetypes in The Lion King (various academic and popular treatments of Scar as manipulator versus competent steward).

Additional recommended reading: works on succession planning, employee trust after leadership change, and the practical limits of personal loyalty in organizational settings.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Martin Luther, Renegade and Prophet: A Canterbury Find, a Put-in-Bay Vacation, and the Pattern of the Uncompromising Voice

I found Lyndal Roper’s Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet in a bookstore in Canterbury, a few feet from the cathedral. It was sitting out front, high-quality English paper and binding, the kind of production that assumes people still sit with a serious book. It was not an American edition I could have easily pulled off a Barnes & Noble shelf or ordered in the usual way. I bought it, read it, and have returned to it because Luther remains one of the figures I feel an affiliation with, even while recognizing he was far more rigid than I am. The book does not sanitize him. It presents a medieval monk whose temper, inner conflicts, and absolute refusal to yield altered the course of Western Christianity. That combination of brilliance and destructiveness is worth sitting with.

The Man Behind the Theses

Roper begins with Luther’s upbringing in Mansfeld, a rough mining town. His father, Hans, was an ambitious entrepreneur who had risen in the copper trade and wanted his son to become a lawyer. Luther abandoned those studies after a thunderstorm terrified him into an Augustinian monastery. The decision was a betrayal of his father’s plans. Roper treats the psychological pattern seriously without reducing theology to therapy: the breakthrough on the righteousness of God was, in part, an attempt to resolve anxiety about a demanding father. At Luther’s first mass in 1507, his father attended the feast afterward and publicly questioned whether the storm had been a voice from heaven or an illusion of the devil. Luther carried that rejection for decades.

The posting of the Ninety-five Theses on October 31, 1517, is the moment everyone knows. Roper notes that the theatrical image of Luther hammering the document to the Castle Church door in Wittenberg is likely a later Protestant myth. The actual step was more bureaucratic—an invitation to scholarly debate, standard at the time, sent to his archbishop. What changed everything was the printing press. Within weeks the Latin arguments were translated into German and spread. Luther proved a master of the new medium. He wrote short vernacular pamphlets that spoke directly to ordinary people, bypassing the slow Latin channels of the church hierarchy. It was the sixteenth-century equivalent of going viral. I have made a similar observation about writing and distribution in my own work. The technology changes; the effect of reaching a mass audience that then acts on the information does not.

Christian Freedom and the Peasants

Luther unleashed a language of individual conscience and rebellion against certain authorities. When others applied that language more broadly, his reaction was hostile. During the German Peasants’ War of 1524–1525, peasants used his ideas of Christian freedom to demand relief from oppressive obligations. Luther did not champion them. He wrote Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, urging the princes to stab and slay without mercy. Roper treats this as one of the darkest chapters and explains the distinction Luther drew: Christian freedom was strictly spiritual. A Christian was free before God but bodily subject to secular rulers whom God had ordained to maintain order. Merging spiritual equality with social equality was, to him, a blasphemous distortion and a recipe for chaos. He was terrified of disorder and needed to distance himself from radical reformers such as Thomas Müntzer. His reformation was not to be a threat to the established political order. Political conservatism became a defining feature of much of subsequent Lutheranism, reinforcing the power of the German princes.

I see the longer pattern. Reformers and rebels appear, some seeking to purify or recover what they believe has been lost, others seeking to dismantle. Luther strengthened certain structures even as he broke others. Later figures, including those in the Marxist line, would try to make their mark by attacking the Christian inheritance more thoroughly. The evolution of those ideas is visible in our own election cycles. Luther wanted to stabilize, not dissolve, the social order under a corrected theology. Replacing the authority of the pope with the authority of the local prince was not a general liberation.

Marriage, Household, and the Limits of Accommodation

In 1525 Luther married Katharina von Bora, a former nun who had escaped her convent. The marriage was unprecedented for a man who had lived as a celibate monk. Roper tracks how it transformed his daily life. The former Augustinian house in Wittenberg became a bustling, chaotic household filled with children, students, servants, and guests. Katharina managed the finances, brewery, cattle, and overall solvency. Luther’s letters show real affection and respect; he sometimes called her his lord or boss. He came to argue that marriage and family life were the highest calling for a Christian, rejecting the medieval elevation of celibacy. I share that valuation of the household. At the same time, his view of women remained traditional and patriarchal. He expected obedience within the boundaries he defined. Liberation, where it occurred, occurred on his terms.

I have written elsewhere about the household division of labor and the pressures that later sought to redefine it. Luther’s position was shaped by his reading of scripture, including the account of Eve. He was not constructing a modern liberal society. He was preparing people for what he believed was the imminent end of the world. That apocalyptic urgency produced absolute intolerance of compromise. Modern readers who judge him solely by contemporary standards of gender roles miss the context and the purpose of the attack that has been directed at the traditional household for a long time.

Antisemitism, Language, and the Cost of Certainty

As Luther aged, his writings against the Jews became increasingly venomous. Roper does not treat this as a minor late-life prejudice that can be set aside. Early on he had hoped that once the gospel was clearly preached, Jews who had rejected a corrupt Catholic Church would convert. When they did not, disappointment turned to obsessive hatred. On the Jews and Their Lies advocated burning synagogues, destroying homes, confiscating books, and forced labor. Their existence as a community that read the same texts but rejected Christ was an intolerable threat to his certainty. The later consequences in Germany are well known and devastating. The same man produced the German Bible translation, widely regarded as a masterpiece that helped forge modern German. Working in the Wartburg after the Diet of Worms, he rendered the New Testament from Greek into German in eleven weeks, aiming for the cadence of ordinary speech—mothers at home, children in the street, men in the marketplace. His hymns, including “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” were memorable, emotional, and participatory. The communicator and the uncompromising polemicist were the same person.

At Marburg in 1529 he and Zwingli could not agree on the nature of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper. Luther carved “This is my body” into the table and refused to yield. That refusal fractured the Protestant movement even as it had been the engine that kept the Reformation from being crushed or reabsorbed. Without the obstinacy, the challenge to Rome would likely have failed. With it, broad coalition became impossible. Anyone who disagreed even slightly was doing the work of the devil.

My Own Difference with Luther, and a Conversation with Edwards

I feel an affiliation with Luther’s firmness and his willingness to stand on what he believed scripture required. I also recognize that I am more accommodating in practice. I have no expectation that people will convert to my view in any lasting way. They will agree to your face and do what they intend behind your back. I do not waste time trying to force the conversion. I state what I take to be the right answer and leave the rest to them. Luther went out of his way to demonstrate that he would not compromise, in part, I suspect, to resolve the old question of the demanding father and to prove the purity of his obedience to God rather than to men. I do not carry that particular burden in the same way. The result is that I can appear to compromise more than I do. The private calculation is different.

In thinking about these questions I have imagined a conversation with Jonathan Edwards, another figure who paid a price for refusing to adjust his convictions to the preferences of his congregation. Edwards was dismissed from Northampton in 1750 after opposing the halfway covenant practices that had grown up under his grandfather Solomon Stoddard. He spent his final years in Stockbridge. The pattern is familiar: the generation that benefits from the disturbance often rejects the person who caused it; later generations build the monument. Edwards, in the exchange I constructed, respected Luther’s boldness on justification and scripture while refusing to defend the writings against the Jews. He noted that rejecting human constructs is not the same as rejecting all order, and that the test remains whether a teaching agrees with the word of God. He also observed that the Anabaptists took Luther’s principle of scripture and conscience further than Luther himself would allow—believers’ baptism only, a voluntary church, no state coercion—and were drowned, burned, or crushed by both Catholic and Protestant authorities, including Lutheran princes. Their descendants include the Mennonites and Amish. The people who suppressed them are mostly forgotten. Edwards added that suffering proves sincerity, not correctness. A prophet who prospers in his own lifetime has usually told the crowd what it wanted to hear.

The Canterbury Book and the Put-in-Bay Recommendation

The physical book I bought in Canterbury still feels different from most American productions. England has its own political leanings, and I have no interest in monarchy, but the culture of serious reading and careful bookmaking remains visible in places. Finding Roper’s biography a few feet from the cathedral, in a bargain bin for five pounds, was a small pleasure. It is the kind of volume that rewards slow reading.

If I could arrange the time, my ideal use of the book would be a ferry to Put-in-Bay on South Bass Island in Lake Erie. An Airbnb or similar place with a porch, two weeks, the book, mornings with coffee or Mello Yello, afternoons with a basket of shrimp at one of the restaurants along the water, and nothing else scheduled. The island is reachable by ferry from the Ohio mainland. The setting is quiet enough for sustained attention. I am envious of anyone who can actually do it. For those who can, I recommend it without hesitation. Take Roper’s Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet, shut out the noise, and sit with the contradictions. The questions it raises—about authority, conscience, the household, the cost of certainty, and why some voices are rejected in their own time—are still live. They connect directly to the longer argument I have been making about how ideas are gated, how comfort is protected, and how the politics of heaven repeatedly collides with the politics of the crowd.

Footnotes

1. Lyndal Roper, Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet (Bodley Head / Random House). Contemporary reviews in The Guardian, The New York Times, and elsewhere describe the biography’s focus on Luther’s inner life, contradictions, childhood in Mansfeld, use of print, response to the Peasants’ War, marriage to Katharina von Bora, German Bible, and late antisemitic writings.

2. Jonathan Edwards was dismissed by the Northampton congregation in June 1750 after prolonged conflict over communion and church membership standards. He spent his remaining years at the Stockbridge mission and died in 1758.

3. Put-in-Bay (South Bass Island, Ohio) is accessible by ferry from mainland ports including Catawba, Port Clinton, and Sandusky. The island supports short-term lodging and waterfront dining.

Bibliography for Further Reading

• Lyndal Roper, Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet (2016).

• Lyndal Roper, Living I Was Your Plague: Martin Luther’s World and Legacy.

• Jonathan Edwards, Farewell Sermon (1750) and accounts of the Northampton dismissal (Dwight’s Life, contemporary council records).

• Standard histories of the German Peasants’ War, the Marburg Colloquy, and Anabaptist persecution in the 1520s.

• Accounts of the transmission of Aristotle through Islamic commentators into medieval Europe and the subsequent use by Aquinas.

• Council of Nicaea and later creedal developments on the Trinity (primary texts and standard church histories).

• Rich Hoffman, The Politics of Heaven (forthcoming) and The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

The Tesla Roadster, Blue Origin, and the Movies That Built the New Space Economy

I was very happy to see the Tesla Roadster demonstration. Teslas are the best-engineered cars in the world. The electric designation itself does not particularly move me; what matters is the engineering. When the Roadster drove upside down on a ramp using a suction system and then launched into the air on cold-gas thrusters—jumping over a line of other Teslas and landing under control—I thought immediately of the practical uses. Those kinds of features would be useful more often than people assume. It reminded me of the Lotus Esprit from The Spy Who Loved Me, the car that drove into the water and became a submarine. It reminded me of Batmobile concepts. Most of all it reminded me of the jet car from Hooper, one of my favorite films. I have always wanted something like that. When the production Roadster arrives, I expect to get one for myself and probably a few for family. The Cybertruck, the rest of the Tesla line, and this new Roadster confirm what I have said for years: Tesla is the greatest car company in the world, and SpaceX is the greatest company in the world.¹

The October Demonstrations and the Bezos Interview

The Roadster event took place on October 15, 2026, at the SpaceX test site in McGregor, Texas. The car used a multi-mode fan and ground-sealing system (drawing on SpaceX technology) to generate the downforce needed to cling to the inverted ramp, then cold-gas thrusters for the aerial maneuvers and the claimed 0–60 mph time of 0.81 seconds. Production is targeted for 2028. It is not a practical flying car for everyday traffic, but it is a serious demonstration of integrated vehicle and propulsion engineering.²

Around the same time, Jeff Bezos sat for an extensive interview with Bret Baier on Special Report from the Blue Origin facility in Cape Canaveral. I have been to that facility. Bezos has worked against Trump in the past, yet he is now aligned with the same capitalist push that is producing real hardware. The conversation was largely optimistic and focused on execution: a permanent lunar presence rather than a flags-and-footprints visit, routine cargo landings first, New Glenn’s return to flight, and the broader economic shift. Blue Origin has named one of its New Glenn boosters Never Tell Me the Odds, a direct reference to Han Solo’s line in The Empire Strikes Back during the asteroid-field sequence. That booster has already achieved successful landings and reuse. These are not abstract slogans. They are operating vehicles.³

The Films That Shaped the Builders

The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark came out close together and were written in ways that reinforced each other. Harrison Ford carried both. The asteroid-field escape under damaged conditions is the source of the “Never tell me the odds” line. The Raiders sequences—the well with the snakes, the desert fight near the flying wing, and the truck chase for the Ark—show the same tenacity: improvise, keep moving, finish the job under pressure. Those films, along with earlier work such as the Lotus submarine car in The Spy Who Loved Me, formed a generation that later built actual rockets and high-performance vehicles. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are the most visible examples, but the pattern is broader. The attitude was not “the odds are against it.” The attitude was to build the system that changes the odds.

I have watched the Blue Origin facility and the SpaceX operations at Boca Chica. The difference between those sites and the older institutional model is visible on the floor. The future workforce is not limited to people who followed a traditional path through the right degrees and the right political alliances. It includes people who can be trained from ordinary backgrounds—Waffle House shifts, mechanical work, or similar—onto a production cadence that builds flight hardware. The administrative economy that guaranteed a modest upper-middle-class living in exchange for compliance is losing ground. The next decade’s value is being created in companies that actually fly vehicles and manufacture advanced systems.⁴

Where the Money and the Work Are Going

When people ask me where to put effort or capital, I point to Tesla, SpaceX, and Blue Origin. The Roadster is more than a stunt; it is evidence that the same organizations building orbital vehicles are applying those methods to ground transportation. Bezos’s comments on lunar infrastructure, AI applied to physical manufacturing, and higher launch cadence describe a market that rewards execution over process. Traditional commodities, legacy military-industrial arrangements, and political career paths that top out in the low hundreds of thousands are not where the expansion is occurring. I have no interest in returning to earlier roles even if the opportunity reappeared. The work that matters is here.

I keep returning to those two films because the parallel is practical. The asteroid field and the desert chase both required precise control under failure conditions. The people now running the flight tests and production lines absorbed that lesson and applied it to hardware. The result is visible: reusable boosters that land, cars that can generate the forces needed for extreme maneuvers, and manufacturing systems that pull people into high-skill work faster than the old credentialed pipeline. That is the economy I am focused on. It is exciting, and I am looking forward to the Roadster when it is available.

Notes

1. Tesla Roadster demonstration, October 15, 2026, SpaceX McGregor, Texas facility. Livestreamed event showed inverted driving via suction system, aerial maneuvers with cold-gas thrusters (SpaceX collaboration), and sub-1-second 0–60 claims. Production targeted for 2028. Multiple contemporary reports (PCMag, The Verge, CNN Business, Business Insider) document the stunts and the distinction between demonstration capability and everyday road use.

2. Same event coverage. Specs discussed include multi-nozzle cold-gas thrusters, ultra-high-pressure air systems, and extreme acceleration. The demonstration was physical and attended, not AI-generated.

3. Bret Baier exclusive interview with Jeff Bezos, October 7, 2026, Blue Origin Cape Canaveral facility, aired on Special Report. Topics included permanent lunar base, New Glenn schedule, AI regulation with a light hand on tools rather than applications, and economic optimism. Blue Origin booster Never Tell Me the Odds references The Empire Strikes Back (1980); the vehicle has completed successful landings and reuse. See also Ars Technica, Reuters, and NASASpaceflight reporting on New Glenn flights.

4. On workforce and industrial cadence: public statements from Blue Origin and SpaceX leadership on production scaling, plus broader commentary on the shift from credentialed administrative paths to hands-on manufacturing in aerospace and advanced vehicles. The “Waffle House to flight line” observation is the author’s based on facility visits and industry pattern.

Bibliography

The Empire Strikes Back. Directed by Irvin Kershner. Lucasfilm, 1980.

Raiders of the Lost Ark. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Lucasfilm, 1981.

The Spy Who Loved Me. Directed by Lewis Gilbert. Eon Productions, 1977.

Hooper. Directed by Hal Needham. Warner Bros., 1978.

Tesla. Roadster event livestream and official materials, October 15, 2026.

Contemporary reporting on the Roadster demonstration: PCMag, The Verge, CNN Business, Business Insider, Statesman (Austin), October 2026.

Fox News. Bret Baier interview with Jeff Bezos, Special Report, October 7, 2026, from Blue Origin Cape Canaveral.

Ars Technica, Reuters, NASASpaceflight, and related coverage of New Glenn launches, booster Never Tell Me the Odds, and recovery operations (2025–2026).

Additional recommended reading: technical histories of reusable launch systems, analyses of the commercial space sector’s manufacturing model, and contemporary accounts of Tesla vehicle engineering and production.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Vote Yes on Ohio Issue 3: Lock Voter ID into the Constitution Before the Whisper Campaigns Confuse Enough People

Early voting is already underway in Ohio, and from what I am hearing on the ground, shenanigans and whisper campaigns are moving through the lines and the mailboxes. I just got off an important call with someone who is a major mover and shaker in Ohio politics—he is everywhere, he sees everything, and he does not want his name attached to this. What he told me matches what I have been picking up from the ground troops in Butler County, Warren County, and Hamilton County. Democrats know voter ID is popular. They know they cannot openly oppose it without looking like they want loose rules. So they are trying to play it both ways: smile and nod that identification is fine while quietly telling confused voters not to bother with Issue 3, or to vote no because “it is already the law.” That is the classic whisper campaign, and it is active right now.¹

What Issue 3 Actually Does

Issue 3 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on the November 3, 2026 ballot. It would add a new Section 5 to Article V of the Ohio Constitution requiring voters to present an approved form of government-issued photo identification to vote in person. Acceptable documents match current law: an unexpired Ohio driver’s license or state ID card, a U.S. passport or passport card, a U.S. military ID, an Ohio National Guard ID, or a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ID. There is an allowance for an alternative verification method if someone has a sincere religious objection to being photographed. For non-in-person voting, it sets a minimum standard—photo ID or, if authorized by law, a signature plus one other unique identifier.²

Ohio already requires photo ID for in-person voting under House Bill 458, which Governor Mike DeWine signed in January 2023 and which took effect that April. Issue 3 does not invent a new requirement for Election Day. It constitutionalizes the existing one. A future legislature could not simply repeal or water it down with a simple majority vote. Changing it would require another constitutional amendment and a statewide vote. That is the entire point.³

Why Identification for Voting Is Not Extreme

I have had to use my passport and driver’s license for things far less important than choosing who runs the state. Cross an ocean for work or family and the authorities want to know who you are. Get a job, board a plane, cash a check, buy a beer, rent an apartment—identification is routine. Yet when it comes to the franchise that decides taxes, schools, and Ohio’s direction, some people treat the same basic requirement as an attack. Democrats have spent years arguing that requiring proof of identity suppresses votes. The practical reality is simpler: they have structural problems winning without loose rules, non-citizen voting risks, and the ability to litigate or legislate the standards downward later. If you already need a government-issued photo ID to drive to the polls, the idea that you should not need one to cast a ballot does not survive ordinary scrutiny.⁴

Leaving It to the Legislature Is Not Good Enough

The next General Assembly can change current law. That is why the old moderate Republican approach of “trust the process and the statutes” is not sufficient. For decades, we have watched election rules become battlefields of lawsuits, emergency orders, and administrative discretion. Ambiguous statutes get stretched. Provisional ballots, signature mismatches, and mail procedures create friction that favors the side with better lawyers and more patience. Putting the core identification requirement into the Constitution raises the bar permanently. It is not radical; it is the same logic that put other foundational rules into the document so they cannot be quietly reversed when political winds shift.⁵

The Whisper Campaigns and the Ground Game

The person who called me said the effort is particularly active in the southwest counties. Democrats know Issue 3 polls well—recent surveys have shown support in the 60 percent range. They cannot run a loud “vote no” campaign without looking like they oppose basic election security. Instead, they are working the lines and the early-vote sites with the quiet message that it is unnecessary, that you should vote for the candidates and skip the issue, or that a yes vote somehow hurts something else. That is deliberate confusion. I have seen this pattern before. When an idea is popular with ordinary people and inconvenient for the institutional left, the response is rarely a straight argument. It is noise, procedural objections, and selective silence.⁶

I am not claiming every Democrat is coordinating a formal operation. I am reporting what reliable sources on the ground are seeing in Butler, Warren, and Hamilton counties right now. Early voting numbers are already moving. Some of the same people who spent years expanding mail and early voting procedures now hope low-information voters will not notice Issue 3 or will treat it as optional. It is not optional if you want the requirement locked in.

The Rest of the Ballot

While you are there, the usual local priorities still apply. In the Lakota area, vote no on the school levy. Higher taxes on the same system that hasn’t delivered better results aren’t the answer. Vote for Republican candidates aligned with the direction Ohio has been moving. And make sure you vote yes on Issue 3. Whether you vote early in person, by mail with proper identification, or on Election Day, the identification question protects the integrity of all the others going forward.

Why This Matters Beyond One Election

Democrats have treated election administration as a growth industry for three decades. The more moving parts—provisional ballots, extended cure periods, expansive mail rules—the more opportunities for friction that can be litigated or exploited. Ohio tightened the rules in 2023 precisely because the previous non-photo options and longer windows created unnecessary risk. Constitutionalizing the photo ID standard is the logical next step so that a temporary legislative majority cannot unwind it. I do not want the next set of “reformers” treating basic identity verification as optional again.⁷

Show up. Vote yes on Issue 3. Do not let the whisper campaign talk you out of the one item on the ballot that makes it harder for the usual games to continue. The constitution is where permanent rules belong. Everything else is negotiable. This should not be.

Bibliography / Further Reading

• Ballotpedia, “Ohio Issue 3, Require Voter Identification Amendment (2026)” and related 2026 ballot measure pages.

• Official Ohio Secretary of State ballot language, explanation, and arguments for and against Issue 3.

• Substitute Senate Joint Resolution 10 (2026) and the enrolled text of the proposed Section 5 of Article V.

• House Bill 458 (134th General Assembly), signed January 6, 2023; effective April 7, 2023—text, fiscal notes, and contemporary news coverage of the photo ID requirement.

• Suffolk University/USA TODAY Network Ohio poll (September 23–27, 2026) showing approximately 61 percent support for Issue 3.

• Ohio Republican Party materials supporting Issue 3 and contemporaneous statements from legislative sponsors (Theresa Gavarone, Jane Timken, and others).

• Analyses of photo ID laws and election administration from the Heritage Foundation, Honest Elections Project, and academic reviews of HB 458’s implementation.

• Historical context on Ohio election law changes, including drop-box limits, provisional ballot cure periods, and absentee deadlines under HB 458.

• Broader works on election integrity and administrative discretion (for example, studies of non-citizen voting risks, signature verification error rates, and the political economy of mail balloting).

• Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead—useful for the larger contrast between systems that reward clarity and responsibility versus those that thrive on ambiguity and managed outcomes.

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, writer, and host of the Overman Warrior Podcast / Executive Warrior Podcast, based in the Cincinnati / Butler County area of Ohio. He has written extensively on local and national politics, individual responsibility, and the cultural and institutional costs of managerial governance.

Footnotes

¹ Ground reports from Butler, Warren, and Hamilton counties during early voting (began October 6, 2026) describing selective messaging on Issue 3; consistent with the low-profile nature of organized “no” efforts noted in contemporaneous coverage.

² Ballotpedia, “Ohio Issue 3, Require Voter Identification Amendment (2026)”; official ballot language certified by the Ohio Ballot Board (August 2026); Signal Ohio and other explainers confirming the measure enshrines existing in-person photo ID rules and sets minimum standards for other methods.

³ House Bill 458 (signed January 6, 2023; effective April 7, 2023) established the current photo ID requirement for in-person voting and related absentee procedures. Issue 3 constitutionalizes the core in-person standard so that future statutory repeal would require another statewide vote.

⁴ Everyday identification requirements (driver’s license, passport, employment, travel) are routinely accepted; the same logic applies to the franchise. Ohio already issues free state IDs to those who need them.

⁵ Legislative referral via SJR 10 (passed Senate 22–9 on June 3, 2026; House 62–30 on June 10, 2026). Constitutional placement raises the amendment threshold compared with ordinary statute.

⁶ Suffolk University/USA TODAY Network poll (September 23–27, 2026) of 500 likely voters: 61 percent support, 31 percent oppose, 8 percent undecided. Coverage notes limited high-profile Democratic opposition and the measure’s popularity.

⁷ Contemporary reporting on HB 458 (AP, Cleveland.com, Democracy Docket, ACLU of Ohio analyses) details the shift from non-photo options to photo ID, shortened cure and return windows, and single drop-box limits. These changes reduced administrative discretion; constitutional entrenchment continues in that direction.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

The Jonathan Edwards Study Bible, the Corruption of Character, and Why Good Government Requires Good People

I have been saying this more and more lately: if you have not yet picked up a copy of the new Jonathan Edwards Study Bible: Experience Abiding Joy in Christ (NKJV), get one. Thomas Nelson released it on August 18, 2026, with Dr. Matthew Everhard as general editor, and it is one of the best things to happen this year. The paper smells wonderful. The binding, the Comfort Print type, the two-color printing, the inclusion of Edwards’ own Resolutions, and the study notes drawn straight from his sermons, treatises, and “Blank Bible”—everything about it invites serious engagement. I already had a solid Bible, but this one is different. It is a tool for the kind of long, disciplined conversations about Christian values and biblical order that I expect to keep having for hundreds of hours in the years ahead.¹

Biblical Foundations for Healthy Families, Churches, and Government

What is really at stake is not merely personal piety. The Bible records how a particular people, and then a wider civilization, survived more than a thousand years of human turmoil by clinging to values capable of building a healthy society. Translation history—from Hebrew and Greek through the Reformation and Martin Luther’s work into new European standards—matters, but the deeper point is functional: those values produce good families, good churches that help form good families, and, from among those people, a portion willing and able to serve in political office.² Good government does not appear by magic or by bureaucratic decree. It is downstream of character. Without good people formed by good families and churches, the supply of those fit for limited, constitutional office shrinks.

I have a granddaughter just over one year old. Watching her, and remembering the same stages with the other grandchildren, sharpens the contrast. Content aimed at children under two is still largely constructive: language, association, positive voices, basic formation. By the time a child reaches eight, nine, or ten, and especially the 10-to-13 and 13-to-16 windows, the cultural message shifts. “Adult” content is coded as sexually charged, reckless, and liberally sprinkled with cuss words. Children who want to be treated as grown-ups learn to associate maturity with those markers. We are careful what we pour into toddlers’ brains; we become careless, or even actively destructive, once they hit double digits. Then we express surprise when people in their twenties, thirties, and forties remain stuck in the same patterns—never growing up, treating foul language and sexualized recklessness as signs of sophistication.³

From Educational Under-Twos to Sexualized Teens: The Cultural Pipeline

This is not abstract. I watch the YouTube videos my teenage grandson (turning 15) chooses when he visits. I pay attention because culture follows what marketers push to each age cohort. Research confirms the scale. A 2025 report from the Children’s Commissioner for England found that 70 percent of young people had seen pornography before age 18, with more than a quarter first exposed by age 11 and some as young as six; social media platforms, not dedicated adult sites, were the dominant source. Common Sense Media, Thorn, and Ofcom data show substantial rates of sexual content and interactions among minors on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and related apps. Ofcom has repeatedly flagged TikTok and YouTube for feeding harmful content to large majorities of teens via recommendation systems.⁴ Algorithms do not merely reflect demand; they amplify it. Creators who want reach—and I know many of them—alter content toward whatever is trending. When the trend is sexualized, vulgar, or adversarial, that is what gets pushed.⁵

Algorithms as the Modern Adversary: Rewarding the Bad

Who controls the algorithm controls the content. TikTok (Chinese-owned), YouTube (Alphabet/Google), and similar platforms systematically reward material that maximizes engagement: outrage, sexualization, cussing, laziness framed as authenticity. Positive, formative, or explicitly “good” content is rarely the algorithmic winner. Internal evidence from whistleblowers and external audits (Center for Countering Digital Hate, academic studies of recommendation systems) shows platforms have repeatedly prioritized borderline or harmful material because it drives time-on-site and revenue. The result is a pipeline that takes children from constructive early programming and, within a few years, immerses them in the opposite. We then wonder why so many adults never exit the pattern.⁶

This is the modern version of an old story. In the Book of Job, the adversary (Satan) is granted permission to test Job’s loyalty. The figure is not a cartoon; the biblical picture includes a divine council and adversarial spiritual powers that operate through deception, cultural capture, and the redefinition of good. Today’s adversaries—whether understood spiritually, institutionally, or both—do the same work through media, education, and policy. Public schools teach compliance with whatever the current policy defines as good. When that definition rewards sexual openness, foul language, and mediocrity while punishing high standards or traditional formation, the output is predictable. “Good” becomes relative, socially managed, and hostile to excellence. People learn that being too good makes others look bad, so they stay mediocre or worse. Corruption, fraud, and waste in public office become rational strategies for advancement rather than moral failures.⁷

The Shortage of Good People and the Case for Small Government

My wife and I hear it constantly during election seasons: we need good people in office who will uphold the Constitution. The practical question is where those people come from. A society that has deliberately removed character formation from schools, rewarded the opposite through media algorithms, and redefined good according to the manipulators’ interests will not produce a deep bench of people capable of limited, constitutional government. Good people still emerge—statistical anomalies of family, church, and personal resolve—but they are scarce. Not everyone is interchangeable. Attributes differ. When we pretend otherwise and lower the standard so that bad people can hold power, the results are devastating.⁸

This is one of the strongest practical arguments for small government. Large government requires a continuous supply of competent, character-bound people to staff it. When that supply shrinks by design, expanding the state simply multiplies failure. The corporate-state complex has spent decades treating people as interchangeable inputs; the results show declining literacy and numeracy (NAEP data showing large shares of students below basic proficiency), eroded character metrics reported by teachers, and a persistent inability to reduce fraud and waste. We taught the next generation that corruption is how you get ahead, then wondered why public office is hard to staff with anyone who will actually fight it.⁹

Political Parties as Sorters of Character

Political parties exist, among other reasons, to sort. A party that attracts and elevates people of genuine character—and refuses to authorize the opposite—will outperform one that does not. I affiliate with the Republican Party in my county precisely because its stated goals still include sorting for better rather than worse. That sorting is imperfect and always under pressure, but the alternative is worse. When “good” is redefined by adversarial forces, the people who remain resolute become rarer and more identifiable. Everyone who is paying attention already knows who they are.

I do not believe God is stupid or passively all-seeing in a way that removes human responsibility. The biblical picture allows for adversarial powers that test, deceive, and exploit the desire to fit in more than the desire to be good. Most people prefer belonging to excellence. The result is a thinner stock of people ready for the duties of self-government. The remedy begins where Edwards began: with deliberate resolve, steady engagement with Scripture, and the formation of families and churches that still know the difference between good and its counterfeit. The new Study Bible is a practical aid to that work. Without returning to making good people on purpose, the vacancies, corruption, and cultural pipeline will continue. The plot to destroy good families, good people, and therefore good government has always been there. The difference now is how efficiently the tools of the age execute it—and how clearly the results are visible.

Notes

1. Thomas Nelson, The Jonathan Edwards Study Bible: Experience Abiding Joy in Christ (NKJV), general editor Dr. Matthew Everhard (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, August 18, 2026). Features include study notes drawn from Edwards’ works (with source citations to the Yale edition), Edwards’ seventy Resolutions, full-page essays on his theology and the First Great Awakening, and his miscellanies note-taking system. See also Matthew Everhard’s discussions of the project on the Unashamed Truth channel.

2. On the historical transmission of biblical values and their role in social order, see standard treatments such as Diarmaid MacCulloch, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (New York: Viking, 2010), and earlier works on the Reformation’s impact on European moral and political standards. Edwards himself argued that true religion produces the highest happiness and ordered life; see his Religious Affections and the Resolutions (1722–1723).

3. Personal observation of age-graded media targeting is consistent with long-term content analyses such as UCLA’s Center for Scholars and Storytellers longitudinal survey of values in children’s television (fame and image rising relative to community and benevolence across decades).

4. Children’s Commissioner for England, reports on children’s exposure to pornography (2023 and 2025 updates); Common Sense Media, research on teens and explicit/AI-generated material (2026); Thorn, Youth Perspectives on Online Safety (2025); Ofcom, findings on harmful content exposure via recommendation feeds for UK teens.

5. Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) reports on algorithmic amplification of harmful content; academic audits of TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommendation systems (e.g., studies showing rapid increase in toxic or misogynistic content after minimal engagement); BBC and other reporting on whistleblower accounts of platforms prioritizing engagement over safety.

6. Same sources as note 5; additional context in Ofcom regulatory findings and ISD Global analyses of search and recommendation bias on TikTok.

7. The Job narrative (Job 1–2) provides the classic biblical example of adversarial testing within the framework of divine sovereignty and a heavenly council. Edwards’ theology of spiritual conflict and the necessity of resolve appears throughout his writings and the new Study Bible notes.

8. Teacher surveys on declining student character (e.g., 2026 data showing majority of educators reporting behavioral and ethical decline); NAEP reading and math trends showing rising shares of students below basic proficiency; historical analyses of the retreat of deliberate character education from public schools after the mid-20th century.

9. On the removal of character and moral formation from public education and associated social trends, see B. Edward McClellan, Moral Education in America, and later data on literacy, civic knowledge, and ethical attitudes among youth (Josephson Institute reports and similar).

Bibliography

Everhard, Matthew D. Holy Living: Jonathan Edwards’s Seventy Resolutions for Living the Christian Life. Hendrickson, 2019 (and related lectures/videos on the Resolutions).

Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Yale University Press edition (edwards.yale.edu). Especially Religious Affections, sermons, and the Resolutions (1722–1723).

The Jonathan Edwards Study Bible: Experience Abiding Joy in Christ (NKJV). General editor Matthew Everhard. Thomas Nelson, 2026.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. Viking, 2010.

Children’s Commissioner for England. Reports on children’s exposure to pornography and online harm (2023–2025).

Common Sense Media. Research on teens, pornography, and AI-generated explicit material (2026).

Thorn. Youth Perspectives on Online Safety (2025).

Ofcom. Regulatory findings on harmful content recommendation to UK teens (multiple reports).

Center for Countering Digital Hate. Reports on algorithmic amplification of harmful and polarizing content.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Long-term trends in reading and mathematics proficiency.

UCLA Center for Scholars and Storytellers. Longitudinal studies of values conveyed in children’s and teen media.

McClellan, B. Edward. Moral Education in America: Schools and the Shaping of Character from Colonial Times to the Present.

Josephson Institute. Reports on the ethics of American youth.

Additional recommended reading: works on the divine council motif in biblical studies (e.g., Michael Heiser), studies of recommendation-system design and engagement incentives, and historical accounts of the First Great Awakening and Puritan moral formation.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Amy Acton’s Mother Calls Her a Liar: The Death Nail in a Campaign Built on Overdramatization

I think it was always going to be Vivek Ramaswamy. Ohio has moved, and the people who still believe they can turn the clock back to some polite, managed Republicanism are going to be disappointed. But when Amy Acton’s own mother steps forward just weeks before Election Day and calls her daughter a liar—disputing the very childhood story Acton has used to shape her public image—and Vivek’s campaign turns that into an ad, it is not a minor footnote. It is the final stake through a campaign that was already built on overdramatization, emotional appeals, and a refusal to confront reality.¹

The Mother’s Words and Why They Matter

Donna Arthur, identifying herself as Amy Acton’s mother and noting her past work in child and family services, said she loves her daughter but that Acton “has a serious problem. She is a liar. She lies about her past. She says she grew up living in a tent. None of that is true. She’s lied her entire life.” She urged Ohioans not to elect her, warning that life would only get worse.¹

Acton’s campaign and her brother, Philip Stearns, responded by highlighting the long estrangement—dating to 1978 when Acton was twelve—and the fact that her stepfather was indicted for sexually abusing her. Court records and earlier reporting, including Acton’s own 2019 interviews, support key elements of hardship and removal from the home. The mother stayed with the man until his death. That is a tragic family story, and I am not minimizing childhood trauma. But the mother is speaking now, as an adult, about the adult candidate’s character and truthfulness. When your own mother says you have been a liar your whole life and that the tent story is not true, conventional political wisdom says that is a disaster for the candidate. Why would any campaign lean into it if the basic facts were unassailable? It is awkward Thanksgiving material, and it is the kind of thing that sticks with undecided voters who already sense something is off.²

A Pattern of Overdramatization

This is not an isolated episode. During COVID, Acton, as Ohio’s health director under Mike DeWine, was the face of the lockdowns, school closures (Ohio was among the first), and business restrictions that crushed small operators while she and others projected certainty. She became emotional, pushed back against reopening, and ultimately resigned amid protests and legislative pushback, citing pressure to sign orders she opposed. Staff accounts described sensitivity to criticism and emotional reactions. She made a big deal out of everything, turning public health into a personal drama that made insecure people feel temporarily safe while the economic and educational costs piled up.

Vivek Ramaswamy isn’t holding back—launching a $4M ad dropping cold hard truths about Amy Acton straight from her own mother.
The left claims to hate fake narratives until their own candidates get exposed.
Voters deserve the truth. Ohio is ready for real leadership! 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/O2lxoYejLp
— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) October 21, 2026

More recently, at the Canfield Fair in early September, an armed man pushed through a crowd toward her, knocking people over. He had pistols, a Taser, and brass knuckles but was holding a phone or camera; weapons were not brandished. The campaign’s initial framing was of an armed individual lunging at her. It turned out to be a man who wanted to get closer—possibly for a picture or confrontation—but the overstatement fit the pattern. She has a history of elevating ordinary or mixed situations into crises that serve a narrative.³ ⁴

The Moderate Republicans and the Old Handbook

There are still Republicans in Ohio who wanted a return to the managed, polite version of the party—the Amy Acton types cite the George W. Bush-era playbook and claim Acton was simply following the established pandemic plan. They hoped the post-Trump world would settle back into something familiar where they retained more control. They are wrong. People rejected that approach years ago. They want the clarity and results orientation that Trump represents, not more of the same managerial caution that allowed problems to fester. Vivek Ramaswamy is an extension of that Trump-aligned direction for Ohio’s governorship. The old guard’s preference for continuity was never going to hold.

Democrats, by contrast, often select and elevate candidates who carry significant personal and psychological baggage. Acton is not unique in that regard. The party’s base has long rewarded emotional performance and narratives of victimhood over steady competence. When the candidate’s own mother is on record saying she needs help and cannot help others until she tells the truth, it confirms what many already observe: too many Democrat standard-bearers are not in a position to lead.⁶

Now her daughter? #VoteVivek pic.twitter.com/yLYOeylP5J
— Lee Thompson (@thompsonlee17) October 21, 2026

What This Means Weeks Before Election Day

The race is close on paper. Some polls have Acton ahead by a few points; others are tighter or show Ramaswamy edges. Betting markets and conventional wisdom have shifted at times, but the fundamentals of Ohio—Trump’s repeated wins and the desire for a break from lockdown-style governance—favor the Republican. This mother’s intervention does not invent new information so much as it crystallizes existing doubts. For voters who were on the fence or who simply do not want another round of overdramatized governance, it provides a clear signal from the person who raised her.⁵

I am not unhappy to hear it. It is rare for a family member to speak so directly, and when she does—even under the complicated circumstances of long estrangement and documented abuse—it carries weight. Acton has overdramatized her past and her present. As governor she would do the same with the state’s problems. Ohio does not need more of that. We need someone who will impose discipline, expand opportunity, and stop treating every challenge as a personal emotional event. Vivek was always the stronger bet. The mother’s words simply make the choice clearer for anyone still paying attention.

Bibliography / Further Reading

• Contemporary reporting on the Acton-Ramaswamy race and the October 2026 ad (Newsweek, Forbes, CNN, Washington Post, PolitiFact, Ohio Capital Journal, and local Ohio outlets).

• Acton’s own prior interviews and official records concerning her childhood and 2020 public health tenure (Youngstown Vindicator 2019; Ohio Department of Health orders; DeWine administration records).

• Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead — for the contrast between producers and those who live through narrative and emotion.

• Works on political psychology and the modern left’s preference for emotional framing (e.g., analyses of victimhood culture and institutional capture).

• Ohio political history and the post-2016 realignment of the Republican Party toward Trump-aligned priorities.

Footnotes

¹ Newsweek, “Amy Acton’s mother calls her ‘liar’ in brutal ad as Ohio race tightens,” October 20, 2026; Forbes, CNN, Washington Post, and multiple other outlets confirmed the video and subsequent Ramaswamy campaign acknowledgment of responsibility and $4 million promotion commitment.

² Court records from Mahoning County (1978) and contemporaneous reporting, including Acton’s 2019 Youngstown Vindicator interview and statements from her brother Philip Stearns, document the stepfather’s indictment on rape charges, removal from custody, and estrangement since age 12. See also PolitiFact and Ohio Capital Journal coverage, October 20–21, 2026.

³ Fox News, ABC News, and local Mahoning County reporting on the September 6, 2026 Canfield Fair incident involving Patrick Havas, who was armed with two pistols, a Taser, and brass knuckles but holding a phone/camera; campaign initially described it as an armed individual lunging at Acton.

⁴ Amy Acton served as Ohio Department of Health Director from 2019 to June 11, 2020, under Gov. Mike DeWine. Ohio was among the first states to close schools (March 2020). Stay-at-home orders, business closures, and the postponement of the March 17 primary (via Acton’s signed order) drew significant backlash, protests, and legislative efforts to limit her powers. Acton resigned citing political pressure on certain orders. See POLITICO, Washington Examiner staffer accounts, and contemporaneous Ohio news.

⁵ Recent polling (Marist October 15–18, 2026: Acton 50–43; BGSU/YouGov: 50–44; mixed with some Ramaswamy leads) shows a close race. Election Day is November 3, 2026. Ramaswamy is the Republican nominee, endorsed by President Trump; Acton is the Democratic nominee.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Soft Campaigns and Bloody Knuckles: Why the Administrative State’s Interchangeable-People Model Is Failing in 2026

There is a common thread running through the 2026 campaigns of Amy Acton in Ohio and James Talarico in Texas. Both operate on the premise that the candidate is largely optional. Public relations teams, controlled events, and background management can substitute for the person who is supposed to do the job. Talarico spent roughly nine to twelve days off the in-person trail in late September and early October with the flu—working by Zoom from home, citing contagion concerns and his Type 1 diabetes—while opponents circulated “missing” posters and called him missing in action. Acton has refused to debate Vivek Ramaswamy, limited cameras and open questioning at events, and run a tightly managed operation that keeps her from unscripted exposure. The underlying belief is the same one that has dominated corporate human-resources departments for years: people are interchangeable units, exceptional performance is not required, and the administrative layer can keep the machine running if the front person needs a sick day or prefers not to answer questions.

The Philosophy That Anyone Can Be Swapped

This is the practical application of a long-running idea that exceptionalism is a problem rather than a feature. In its Marxist and later administrative forms, the claim is that human beings can be treated like standardized inputs. One person can be replaced by another without meaningful loss, the way one can of soda can be swapped for another. Training, credentials, and process matter more than the specific individual who shows up and does the work under pressure. Corporate America absorbed large parts of this view. Human-resources manuals, wellness policies, and promotion criteria increasingly rewarded those who managed risk, took the approved time off, and avoided friction. The person who keeps working with split knuckles, stitches a cut with superglue rather than lose the day, or simply refuses to stop is treated as a liability rather than an asset.

I have spent enough time in environments that still require physical output to see the difference. My hands currently carry the evidence—cuts on top of older cuts, knuckles that have not fully healed because the work continued. That is ordinary in trades and in any setting where the job is not primarily the management of process. It is increasingly rare in the layers that set policy for everyone else. When the administrative state and the corporations that mirror it define acceptable behavior as calling out for the flu, taking extended leave for ordinary life events, and deferring to the background staff, they select for a particular temperament. They do not select for the temperament that built the capacity they now administer.

Campaigns as Public-Relations Exercises

The same selection shows up in politics. A candidate who can be kept off camera, shielded from debate, or replaced by staff for days at a time is easier for the professional class to manage. Acton’s campaign has cited security concerns rooted in her time as Ohio health director during the COVID period, along with what it describes as unfair attacks. Those concerns can be real. The pattern of refusing open formats and unscripted questioning is still a choice about how the candidate intends to operate. Talarico’s absence was explained as responsible behavior—he did not want to infect someone’s grandmother. Working remotely is feasible for many jobs. It is a different proposition when the job on offer is representing a state in a contested Senate race weeks before early voting. The opponents treated the gap as evidence of fragility. The defense treated it as ordinary employee sick leave. Both reactions reveal the expectation each side holds about what the role requires.

The older assumption was that the person seeking the office had to demonstrate the capacity to do it in public, under conditions that were not fully controlled. Money, staff, and messaging mattered, but they did not fully substitute for the candidate. The newer assumption, visible in multiple 2026 races, is that sufficient resources and message discipline can carry a controlled figure across the line. That assumption has been tested before. It does not reliably produce candidates who can function once the controlled environment ends.

Softness as Policy and Cultural Output

The preference for interchangeable, low-friction people has costs beyond any single campaign. Skilled trades in the United States face persistent shortages. Reports from industry groups project the need for well over a million new skilled workers annually through the mid-2030s, with training pipelines producing only a fraction of the required numbers. Electricians, mechanics, carpenters, and similar roles remain difficult to fill in multiple states. Part of the explanation is demographic and economic—aging workers, housing costs, the long prestige advantage given to four-year degrees after the GI Bill. Part of it is cultural. Decades of messaging treated physical, outdoor, or mechanically demanding work as lower status. At the same time, administrative and corporate environments normalized the idea that minor illness, injury, or discomfort should remove a person from the job rather than be managed around it.

I do not claim that every cut requires a clinic visit or that diabetes-related flu complications are imaginary. I do claim that a society which systematically promotes the people who treat ordinary hardship as disqualifying, and which sidelines those who continue working through it, will have fewer people capable of the output a first-rate economy and a competent government require. Foreign competitors do not need to invent this preference. They benefit when it is already embedded in hiring, promotion, education, and political selection. The Confucian-institute style influence operations and earlier Soviet efforts at institutional penetration are documented in specific cases. The broader softening is also a domestic story of prosperity, cheap credit, and status competition that raised consumption expectations while lowering the status of the work that once supported a single-income household in a modest house. Both layers operate at once.

What Gets Selected

The candidates and the corporate managers who treat the administrative layer as the real actor are not anomalies. They are the predictable product of rules that reward risk avoidance, message control, and the appearance of process compliance. When those rules dominate, the people who still measure themselves by whether the work got done—regardless of the condition of their hands—become harder to find and easier to marginalize. Campaigns that can be run substantially from Zoom or from behind a communications team test how far that model can be extended into elected office. The results in November will show how many voters still prefer the older expectation: that the person asking for the job should be able to do it in public, without the background apparatus fully substituting for them.

I have written elsewhere about the practical difference between people who impose their will on circumstances and people who manage the circumstances other people have already accepted. The 2026 races offer a clear comparison. One approach treats the candidate as a manageable input. The other treats the capacity to function under imperfect conditions as non-negotiable. The administrative state has spent decades selecting for the first. A country that wants to remain first-rate cannot afford to keep doing so indefinitely.

Footnotes

1. Contemporary reporting from October 2026 documents James Talarico’s multi-day absence from in-person campaigning due to the flu, his remote work via Zoom, his Type 1 diabetes, and the subsequent “missing” posters and commentary from Ken Paxton’s campaign and President Trump.

2. Reporting on Amy Acton’s Ohio gubernatorial campaign details her refusal to debate Vivek Ramaswamy, limited media access at events, and the campaign’s stated reasons involving prior security concerns and the nature of opposing attacks.

3. Industry analyses (Alliance for America’s Skilled Trades and related contractor surveys) project large annual shortfalls in skilled-trade workers through 2035, with training completion and entry rates lagging demand in multiple states.

Bibliography for Further Reading

• Contemporary news accounts of the Talarico absence and Paxton/Trump response (CNN, Fox News, Texas Scorecard, local Texas outlets, October 2026).

• Reporting on Amy Acton’s debate refusal and campaign access decisions (Columbus Dispatch, PJ Media, Daily Signal, Ohio outlets).

• Alliance for America’s Skilled Trades and Associated General Contractors reports on workforce shortages in construction and skilled trades.

• Historical accounts of the GI Bill’s effect on college attendance and the relative status of trades.

• Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (on industrialized human management and the reduction of individual variance).

• Victor Davis Hanson, essays on administrative growth, cultural expectations, and the divergence between institutional norms and practical output.

• Rich Hoffman, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business (on individual agency, toughness, and the difference between process management and imposed results).

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

The Family as the First Line of Defense: How the Attack on the Housewife and Traditional Division of Labor Was Social , Not Liberation

I have employed hundreds of women over the years—strong, competent, professional women who know how to get things done. I have been married for 38 years. I raised two daughters. My wife and I made a deliberate choice when we decided to have a family: I would handle the outside, she would handle the inside. That was not a limitation we placed on her. It was a division of labor we chose so that someone was always guarding the household. When relatives and others ridiculed her for staying home in the 1970s and 1980s, while feminism was telling women that staying home meant they were failing, we ignored them. Someone has to lock the door. You cannot have both adults out on the perimeter and leave the house unprotected. I have watched what happens when that protection is removed, and the results are not an advance.

The Promise Was Independence. The Result Was a Transfer of Influence

The public story was that women needed to leave the home so they could be free, earn their own money, and escape dependence on a husband. In practice, a large share of what followed was a transfer of daily influence from the husband and the household to a boss, an HR department, and a set of institutional rules that the family did not write. My wife has said many times that she could have done other things. We both could have. We chose not to because the alternative—two incomes at the cost of no one consistently present for the children—did not look like an improvement once the children arrived. The social pressure to treat that choice as backward was intense. It was not coming only from individual feminists. It aligned with longer-running efforts, visible in the science fiction of the 1950s and 1960s and in the practical politics of Fabian socialists and various Marxist currents, to weaken the independent household so that other institutions could shape the next generation more directly.

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World described a society in which reproduction is industrialized, children are conditioned by the state rather than raised by parents, and family bonds are treated as obstacles to stability. That was fiction. The policy and cultural pressure that followed in the real world was not. When both parents are required to work full-time to maintain a standard of living that one income once supported, the practical result is that children spend more hours under institutional supervision and less under the direct authority of their parents. That is not an accident of economics alone. Wage structures, tax treatment of households, housing costs, and cultural messaging all moved in the same direction for decades. Pew Research has documented the shift: the share of married or cohabiting couples with children in which both parents work full time rose substantially from the mid-1970s onward, while the male-breadwinner arrangement declined. The numbers describe what happened. They do not prove it was required for women’s well-being or for children’s.

What I Saw in the Experimental Neighborhoods

I grew up around some of the early versions of this experiment. There were planned communities in which both parents worked corporate jobs, the adults treated the neighborhood as an extended social and sexual network, and the children were largely unsupervised during the day. Key parties—where couples put car keys in a bowl and paired off with whoever’s keys they drew—were presented at the time as sophisticated “community relations.” The adults drank, used drugs, and told themselves they were progressive because no one was judging. The children in those neighborhoods were having sex with each other by early adolescence and experimenting with drugs. When I tried to keep some of them from going further down that path, I was treated as the problem by at least one of the mothers. She was an early feminist. She disliked me on principle. Her son had serious problems. I was one of the few consistent restraints in his life. That did not make me popular with her.

Those neighborhoods were not the majority experience, but they were not isolated either. Contemporary accounts from the early 1970s documented organized swinging among otherwise conventional suburban couples. The adults believed they were escaping repression. The children absorbed the practical lesson that adult supervision was intermittent and that sexual boundaries were negotiable. The same pattern appears, in updated form, among some of the young people I work with now. Teenagers talk openly about same-sex relationships as ordinary Friday-night plans. When I was their age, that would have produced immediate and serious consequences inside most families. Today it is treated as unremarkable because the institutional messaging—from schools, media, and corporate HR—has spent years defining dissent as bigotry. The kids did not invent the permission structure. They inherited it.

Corporate Rules, Dual Incomes, and the Compliant “Rebel”

The corporate environment that expanded alongside the dual-income norm added its own layer. Once both adults need the paycheck, the employer’s rules become household rules. Flag a pickup truck for a Bengals game, spend money on tailgating gear that costs more than some people’s weekly groceries, and still accept that you will not challenge the HR manual on sex, gender, or hours. The job funds the jerseys and the grill. It also funds the expectation that you will not treat the traditional division of labor as legitimate. Men who say they want to carry the full financial load so their wives can stay home are told they are exhibiting toxic masculinity. Women who prefer the arrangement are told they are letting down the sisterhood. Both messages treat the household’s own priorities as subordinate to an external ideological standard.

I have watched young people describe arrangements in which one spouse wants to pursue a same-sex relationship on the side while remaining married, and both parties treat the request as reasonable because “progressive society” has normalized it. That is not rebellion. It is compliance with the institutional script. The script has been consistent for decades: weaken the exclusive claims of marriage and parenthood, increase the hours children spend outside the home, and redefine resistance to the new norms as the actual threat. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy in the early 2000s was marketed as light fashion entertainment. It also functioned as desensitization. The same process had already occurred with the earlier campaign against the housewife. Ridicule the arrangement, associate it with backwardness, and present the alternative as both inevitable and morally superior. Enough people accepted the framing that the practical consequences—higher fixed costs for families, thinner parental presence, and greater institutional influence over children—became the default.

Family Competence Is the Prerequisite for Everything Else

If a household cannot maintain a coherent division of labor, protect its children from early sexualization and chemical experimentation, and transmit a workable standard of behavior, it will not produce adults who can maintain those things at larger scale. The observation is practical, not sentimental. I have spent enough time with both the earlier experimental neighborhoods and the current cohort of confused teenagers to see the continuity. The adults who left the doors unlocked because they wanted to be seen as progressive produced children who treated boundaries as optional. The institutions that later codified those optional boundaries as official policy simply scaled the same pattern. Strong families are not a guarantee of good government. The absence of them makes competent self-government harder, because the habits of responsibility, delayed gratification, and defense of one’s own were never practiced at the smallest unit.

None of this requires claiming that every woman must stay home or that every dual-income arrangement fails. It requires noticing that the campaign to treat the traditional household as a problem to be solved aligned with other efforts to reduce the independence of the family relative to employers, schools, and the state. The science-fiction writers who described state-controlled reproduction and conditioning were extrapolating from tendencies already visible in their own time. The tendencies continued. The results are visible in the young people who treat conformity to the new sexual and family norms as an act of independence, and in the adults who still believe that two full-time jobs plus institutional childcare was the liberation that was promised. It was a transfer. The household lost authority. Other institutions gained it. That was the point.

Footnotes

1. Pew Research Center analysis of Census data shows the rise in dual full-time working parents among couples with children and the corresponding decline in male-breadwinner households from the 1970s to the present.

2. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) depicts industrialized reproduction, state conditioning of children, and the elimination of strong family bonds as mechanisms of social control.

3. Contemporary reporting and academic accounts from the early 1970s documented organized swinging among suburban married couples, often framed by participants as an escape from conventional restraints.

Bibliography for Further Reading

• Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (1932).

• Pew Research Center, reports on parental work arrangements and family structure changes (various years, including recent analyses of dual-earner households).

• Stephanie Coontz, The Way We Never Were (on mid-century family norms and later revisions).

• Arlie Russell Hochschild, The Second Shift (on the practical division of labor after mothers entered paid work in large numbers).

• Contemporary accounts of 1970s swinging subcultures (Gilbert Bartell, Group Sex; period journalism in The New York Times and elsewhere).

• Victor Davis Hanson, essays on cultural continuity, family formation, and the consequences of institutional substitution for parental authority.

• Historical data on married women’s labor-force participation, 1940–2000 (Census-based summaries).

The pattern is not subtle once you have watched it operate at close range for decades. Have a good day. See you later.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Nate Silver’s 2026 Midterm Forecast Misses the Movement: Why the Ghosts of Tysons Corner Cannot Wait Out Trump

Nate Silver’s latest FLIPR model for the November 2026 midterms has Democrats at roughly 75 percent to take the Senate and 93 percent to take the House. Those numbers treat the election as a standard second-year reaction against the party holding the White House. I do not see it that way. Silver has been wrong before when the underlying conditions changed. The conditions have changed again. Trump did not create the political order we are living in. A large group of Americans who rejected the prior direction created the opening that Trump filled. That group is still here, and the administrative class clustered around Tysons Corner does not appear to understand why.

The Model Assumes the Old Midterm Pattern Still Holds

Silver’s framework, like most quantitative election models, leans on historical patterns. The president’s party tends to lose seats in the midterms. Voters register dissatisfaction with the status quo. Generic-ballot movement and polling in a handful of competitive states (Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and others) get translated into chamber-control probabilities. When the model shows Democrats leading by a few points in places Trump won comfortably in 2024, the simulation produces a blue wave.

I have watched enough of these cycles to know the pattern is not iron law. It assumes a normal presidency, normal opposition, and voters who treat the midterms as a routine check. Trump was not a normal candidate, and the coalition that put him in office was not reacting to ordinary policy drift. People watched the border, inflation, cultural institutions, and the administrative expansion and decided they wanted a different representative. Models that treat that choice as a temporary fever that cools after two years are modeling the wrong thing. They are modeling the expectation inside the permanent government that the fever will pass if they simply wait.

Watching the Permanent Government at the Tysons Corner Walmart

My wife and I have been to the Walmart in Tysons Corner enough times that we have a preferred parking level in the garage. The store sits inside a dense cluster of high-rises roughly 15–16 miles west of downtown Washington, near Langley and the concentration of defense contractors and intelligence-community support firms that define Fairfax County. It is not the freestanding big-box with the wide parking lot that most people picture when they hear “Walmart.” It is compressed vertically, stacked into the same footprint as the surrounding office and residential towers. The people shopping there are not primarily the ones who drive in from the farther suburbs for bulk groceries. A large share live and work inside the federal-contractor economy that expanded after 9/11 and never really contracted.

I have written a chapter about this place in The Politics of Heaven. The observation is not complicated. You watch people move through the freezer section for chicken nuggets and the wine aisle with the same expression I have seen in other high-density administrative centers. They are performing the motions of ordinary life while remaining largely insulated from the consequences that ordinary voters experience. Pensions are secure. Housing is expensive but stable for those inside the system. The work is process-oriented rather than output-oriented. When you talk to them, the default expectation is that presidents come and go, but the block of offices, contracts, and clearances remains. They will wait. They have waited before.

That expectation is visible in the way the midterm forecasts are discussed inside the same circle. Trump’s approval, gas prices, or a few state polls are treated as sufficient to restore the prior equilibrium. The deeper reason voters chose him—the desire for someone who would actually represent the people who do not live inside that equilibrium—is treated as noise. Silver’s probabilities reflect the same assumption at scale. The model does not need to assume conspiracy. It only needs to assume that the historical midterm reaction will reassert itself because that is what the people who live near the model’s data sources expect to happen.

Trump Was the Hand That Went Up, Not the Creator of the Demand

I have been around the Trump issue since the Tea Party period. The demand existed before he filled it. People wanted a representative who would treat the border as a border, treat the administrative state as something that could be constrained, and reject the idea that the United States should converge toward the European or coastal-institutional model. When someone raised a hand and said he would do the job, enough of them voted for him twice. The same people are still there. Some will stay home if the candidate is weak. Many more will show up if they believe the alternative is a return to the prior arrangement.

That is why I do not treat the current Senate and House probabilities as predictive. They rest on the idea that voters will punish the president’s party for the ordinary reasons and then accept whatever the permanent government produces afterward. The people I talk to outside the Tysons corridor do not describe their choice that way. They describe it as a decision not to accept managed decline, open-ended migration without assimilation, or the expansion of process jobs at the expense of productive ones. Those preferences do not expire on a fixed calendar. They persist until the underlying conditions change or until voters decide the representative they chose is no longer doing the job.

Steve Bannon and others have floated the third-term idea. That is a separate legal and political question. The more immediate point is that the coalition does not disappear when one person leaves the stage. The administrative class that believes it can simply outlast the current presidency and restore the previous operating rules is counting on a reversion that the voters who created the opening have not signaled they want. Fairfax County mansions and secure pensions are real. They are not evidence that the rest of the country has decided to fund them indefinitely under the old terms.

What the Numbers Are Actually Measuring

Silver’s model is transparent about its inputs: polls, fundamentals, historical midterm patterns, and expert ratings. Those inputs are useful when the electorate is behaving within historical ranges. They become less useful when a significant share of the electorate has already rejected the range. The 75 percent and 93 percent figures measure the current state of polling and the weight the model assigns to past midterm reactions. They do not measure whether the people who voted for enforcement, energy production, and institutional constraint have changed their minds. From what I see, they have not.

We will know more on election night. Models can be updated. Voters can be wrong about the consequences of their choices. What I do not expect is a simple return to the equilibrium that the people shopping at the Tysons Corner Walmart treat as normal. That equilibrium required the rest of the country to keep accepting arrangements they had already rejected. Trump was the available instrument. He was not the source of the rejection. Treating the midterms as the moment when the instrument is discarded and the prior arrangement resumes is the hopeful reading inside one corridor of the administrative state. It is not the reading I take from the voters who put the instrument in place.

Footnotes

1. Contemporary reporting in early-to-mid October 2026 placed Nate Silver’s FLIPR model at approximately 75 percent for Democratic Senate control and 93 percent for House control, consistent with the figures discussed here. The model incorporates polling averages, historical midterm patterns, and other fundamentals.

2. Tysons Corner (Fairfax County, Virginia) sits adjacent to major defense-contractor concentrations and roughly a short drive from CIA headquarters in Langley. The multi-level Walmart is a documented feature of the dense, high-rise development that replaced earlier suburban patterns in the area.

3. Post-9/11 defense and intelligence contracting expanded the economic footprint of Northern Virginia. Accounts of the region describe the concentration of firms, clearances, and related employment that remains visible in the local commercial landscape.

Bibliography for Further Reading

• Nate Silver, Silver Bulletin / FLIPR methodology posts and midterm forecast updates (2026), including discussions of historical midterm waves and polling inputs.

• Paul E. Ceruzzi, Internet Alley: High Technology in Tysons Corner, 1945–2005 (history of the defense-contractor and technology corridor).

• Tim Shorrock, Spies for Hire and related reporting on the privatization of intelligence and defense functions in the Washington region.

• Victor Davis Hanson, essays on administrative growth, cultural divergence between coastal/institutional centers and the broader electorate, and the persistence of voter preferences on borders and institutions.

• Contemporary coverage of 2026 generic-ballot movement and competitive Senate races (Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and others) from multiple polling aggregators.

• Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (on the distinction between productive enterprise and politically protected process).

• Local and regional reporting on Fairfax County demographics, federal contracting

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

	Rich Hoffman on Why I Support Flock Cameras: A…
	Bruce Jones on Why I Support Flock Cameras: A…
	Anonymous on Sheriff Jones, the Big Tent: …
	Anonymous on Islam Means Submission: Jonath…
	Anonymous on THE SYSTEM WAS NEVER DESIGNED…
	Anonymous on THE SYSTEM WAS NEVER DESIGNED…
	Rich Hoffman on Paradise Lost, Pickle Rick, Jo…
	Anonymous on Paradise Lost, Pickle Rick, Jo…
	Anonymous on Why Christianity Survived as a…
	Anonymous on Christianity as a Weapon of Wa…

The Window Needs Moving, and Someone Has to Pull It

Darbi Boddy’s Record and the Price of Speaking Plainly

The Legal Gambit: Freedom of Religion as a One-Way Shield

My Experiment at Kings Island’s Jason: Blood Reign

The Psychology of the Protected Aggressor and What the Numbers Show

Share this:

Twenty-Five Years and the Obligation to Set Everyone Up

Scar’s Conspiracy and the Ruined Pride Lands

The Reality of Leadership Transitions

Why There Is No Simba Coming Back

Notes

Share this:

The Man Behind the Theses

Christian Freedom and the Peasants

Marriage, Household, and the Limits of Accommodation

Antisemitism, Language, and the Cost of Certainty

My Own Difference with Luther, and a Conversation with Edwards

The Canterbury Book and the Put-in-Bay Recommendation

Footnotes

Share this:

The October Demonstrations and the Bezos Interview

The Films That Shaped the Builders

Where the Money and the Work Are Going

Notes

Share this:

What Issue 3 Actually Does

Why Identification for Voting Is Not Extreme

Leaving It to the Legislature Is Not Good Enough

The Whisper Campaigns and the Ground Game

The Rest of the Ballot

Why This Matters Beyond One Election

Bibliography / Further Reading

Footnotes

Share this:

Biblical Foundations for Healthy Families, Churches, and Government

From Educational Under-Twos to Sexualized Teens: The Cultural Pipeline

Algorithms as the Modern Adversary: Rewarding the Bad

The Shortage of Good People and the Case for Small Government

Political Parties as Sorters of Character

Notes

Share this:

The Mother’s Words and Why They Matter

A Pattern of Overdramatization

The Moderate Republicans and the Old Handbook

What This Means Weeks Before Election Day

Bibliography / Further Reading

Footnotes

Share this:

The Philosophy That Anyone Can Be Swapped

Campaigns as Public-Relations Exercises

Softness as Policy and Cultural Output

What Gets Selected

Footnotes

Share this:

The Promise Was Independence. The Result Was a Transfer of Influence

What I Saw in the Experimental Neighborhoods

Corporate Rules, Dual Incomes, and the Compliant “Rebel”

Family Competence Is the Prerequisite for Everything Else

Share this:

The Model Assumes the Old Midterm Pattern Still Holds

Watching the Permanent Government at the Tysons Corner Walmart

Trump Was the Hand That Went Up, Not the Creator of the Demand

What the Numbers Are Actually Measuring

Share this: