Month: September 2025

Public Discourse and Political Integrity: A Reflection on Warren Davidson’s Trenton Town Hall

In the heart of Butler County, Ohio, Congressman Warren Davidson recently held a town hall meeting at Edgewood Middle School in Trenton—a bold and commendable move in today’s politically charged climate. With approximately 500 attendees, the event was a rare opportunity for constituents to engage directly with their elected representative. Although I wasn’t able to attend due to scheduling conflicts, the proximity of the event to my home across the Great Miami River made me want to go.  I love Warren, and he’s usually spot on with his issues.  However, I would have liked to have been there to see the protesters who showed up, the ‘Tax the Rich’ types, because it became quite a media event. Still, the significance of the event and the reactions it provoked offer a compelling lens through which to examine the state of public discourse, political representation, and the ideological divides that continue to shape our communities.

Warren Davidson’s decision to host a live, unscripted town hall was gutsy. In an era where many politicians avoid direct engagement with constituents, preferring curated media appearances or controlled environments, Davidson’s willingness to face the public head-on deserves recognition. His district, which spans Butler County and parts of surrounding areas, is politically diverse. While former President Donald Trump won Butler County by a significant margin—roughly 60%—a vocal minority remains that opposes Davidson’s policies and broader conservative principles. These individuals, often aligned with progressive or left-leaning ideologies, represent a segment of the population that feels increasingly marginalized in a region dominated by Republican politics.

The town hall, however, was not without its challenges. Reports and social media coverage highlighted a group of vocal disruptors who attended the event with the apparent intention of derailing the conversation. Rather than engaging in respectful dialogue, these individuals resorted to heckling and creating distractions, undermining the very purpose of the town hall. While public debate is a cornerstone of our republic, there is a line between passionate disagreement and outright disrespect. As someone who has attended events featuring speakers with whom I disagree, I believe in maintaining decorum—listening, shaking hands, and finding common ground where possible. The behavior exhibited by some attendees at Davidson’s town hall was not only counterproductive but emblematic of a broader erosion of civility in political discourse.

The media’s portrayal of the event further complicated matters. Coverage focused heavily on the disruptions, framing them as indicative of widespread dissatisfaction with Davidson’s policies. This narrative, however, overlooks the broader context. The disruptive group represented a small fraction of the attendees—perhaps 20 to 30 individuals—yet their actions were amplified to suggest a larger movement. This kind of coverage plays into the hands of those seeking to challenge Davidson’s seat in the upcoming election, painting him as vulnerable despite strong support from his base. It’s a tactic often employed by those on the political fringes who hope to gain traction by manufacturing controversy rather than presenting substantive alternatives.

Davidson’s alignment with Trump on many issues, particularly fiscal policy, has made him a target for criticism. While Trump’s approach often involves aggressive spending to stimulate economic growth, Davidson has positioned himself as a fiscal conservative, advocating for reduced federal spending and greater accountability. This divergence has sparked debate within conservative circles, but it also highlights Davidson’s commitment to principle over party. His stance on limiting government expenditure reflects a belief in personal responsibility and economic discipline—values that resonate deeply with many in his district, including myself.

The disruptions at the town hall were not merely expressions of policy disagreement; they were symptomatic of a deeper ideological divide. The individuals who sought to hijack the event often espouse views rooted in socialist or Marxist frameworks, advocating for increased taxation and expanded government programs. Their arguments, while emotionally charged, lack practical grounding. Demanding higher taxes to fund expansive social initiatives without addressing underlying spending habits is akin to maxing out a credit card and blaming the employer for insufficient wages. Fiscal responsibility begins with managing expenditures, not simply demanding more revenue.

Moreover, the push for higher taxes often targets the wealthy under the guise of promoting equity. Yet this approach overlooks the broader implications of punitive taxation—namely, the disincentive to invest and innovate. Not understanding why investment occurs and what a lack of it does to a society as a whole.  The same individuals advocating for increased government spending are frequently those who struggle with personal financial discipline, projecting their frustrations onto systemic structures rather than addressing individual accountability. This mindset, while understandable in moments of hardship, ultimately undermines the principles of self-reliance and economic freedom that form the bedrock of American society.

The town hall also served as a microcosm of the broader political landscape. With Trump’s administration well underway, Democrats find themselves on the defensive, seeking avenues to regain relevance. The disruptions at Davidson’s event were not isolated incidents but part of a coordinated effort to challenge conservative leadership in regions where progressive influence has waned. These tactics, while effective in generating media attention, do little to foster meaningful dialogue or policy innovation. Instead, they contribute to a climate of polarization and mistrust, where political opponents are viewed not as fellow citizens with differing views but as enemies to be silenced.

Despite the noise, Davidson remained composed, demonstrating the kind of resilience and integrity that defines effective leadership. His willingness to engage with constituents—regardless of their political affiliation—speaks to a commitment to representation that transcends party lines. While I may not agree with every aspect of his platform, I respect his dedication to public service and his courage in facing criticism head-on.  I agree with most of his positions, but I was a much quicker yes on the Big Beautiful Bill than he was.  In a time when many politicians retreat from scrutiny, Davidson’s approach is both refreshing and necessary.

The media’s role in shaping public perception is crucial and cannot be overstated. By focusing on the disruptions rather than the substance of the town hall, outlets contributed to a distorted narrative that misrepresents the event’s true character. This kind of coverage not only undermines the communication process but also fuels division by amplifying fringe voices at the expense of constructive dialogue. It’s a reminder that media literacy is essential in today’s information landscape—citizens must critically evaluate sources and seek out diverse perspectives to form informed opinions.

Looking ahead, Davidson’s reelection prospects remain strong. The vocal minority that seeks to unseat him lacks the organizational strength and policy coherence necessary to mount a serious challenge. Their efforts, while loud, are unlikely to resonate with the broader electorate, which values stability, fiscal responsibility, and principled leadership. Davidson’s track record, combined with his willingness to engage directly with constituents, positions him well for continued service.

The Trenton town hall was a testament to the complexities of modern political engagement. It highlighted the importance of respectful discourse, the challenges of ideological division, and the resilience required of public servants in the face of adversity. While disruptions and media bias may cloud the narrative, the core message remains clear: representation matters, and leaders like Warren Davidson play a vital role in upholding the values that define our communities. As constituents, it is our responsibility to engage thoughtfully, maintain integrity, and contribute to a political culture founded on respect and accountability.  And to be thankful that there are politicians out there, like Warren Davidson, who are willing to do the job in the way that he does.

Rich Hoffman

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

Jen Psaki Says We Don’t Need Prayer: Would gun control have saved poor Iryna Zarutsk

It’s not enough to pray anymore. That’s what we keep hearing, and it’s what Jen Psaki said on her show after the tragic shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis. A trans-identifying individual walked into a place of worship and safety and shattered lives. And while the media tries to frame this as another gun issue, another mental health crisis, another moment for policy debate, the more profound truth is being ignored. We’re watching a society unravel because it’s been taught to outsource its soul to the government.

Who is more valuable in our society?

This wasn’t just a shooting. It was a symptom. A symptom of a culture that’s been told it doesn’t need to believe in anything higher than itself. It doesn’t need family, doesn’t need faith, and doesn’t need personal responsibility. Just laws. Just feelings. Just government. And when Psaki says prayer isn’t enough, what she’s really saying is: don’t trust God, trust us. Trust the system. Trust the people who’ve been failing to protect our kids for decades.

But we’ve seen what happens when people put their faith in government over God, over family, over community. We’ve seen the rise in violence, in confusion, in identity crises. We’ve seen kids who don’t know who they are, who’ve been told they can be anything, do anything, change anything—even their biology—and then collapse under the weight of that illusion. And when they do, when they lash out, when they hurt others, we’re told it’s society’s fault. It’s guns. It’s a mental illness. It’s everything but the ideology that created the conditions.

The shooter in Minneapolis wasn’t just mentally ill. He was a product of a political culture that celebrates victimhood and confusion. He was someone who had been told that feelings are truth, that identity is fluid, that morality is subjective. And when you build a society on those foundations, you get chaos. You get violence. You get kids who don’t just feel lost—they act on it.

And then the media steps in. They sanitize it. They politicize it. They use it. Every tragedy becomes a tool to exert more control, enact more laws, and expand government. But the people pushing these policies aren’t the ones raising strong families. They aren’t the ones teaching kids discipline, faith, and resilience. They’re the ones telling them they’re victims who need help, that they need the state to be their parent.

You don’t see this kind of violence coming from strong family units. You don’t see it in communities that teach self-respect and personal responsibility. You see it where people have been trained to outsource their identity to politics. Where they’ve been told that the government will make them feel safe, feel wealthy, feel whole. But it can’t. It never could.

And that’s why the Second Amendment matters. That’s why guns matter—not just as tools of defense, but as symbols of self-reliance. When you take away people’s ability to protect themselves, you’re not just making them vulnerable physically—you’re making them dependent emotionally. You’re telling them they need someone else to keep them safe. And that message is dangerous.

Because the people who want to run society through centralized control are often the least equipped to do so, they’re not grounded. They’re not stable. They’re not empowered. They’re often the very people who’ve been broken by the system they now want to expand. And when you give administrative power to people who are emotionally unstable, ideologically confused, and disconnected from reality, you get dangerous outcomes.

We’ve seen it in cities run by big government. High crime. High victimization. Low accountability. And every time something terrible happens, the answer is always the same: more laws, more control, more government. But that’s not the solution. The solution is empowerment. It’s strong families. It’s faith. It’s a community. It’s teaching kids that they are responsible for their own lives, their own choices, their own futures.

I’m showing this interview again, because this is the law enforcement attitude that every community should have. We must punish criminals, aggressively.

And yes, it’s guns. Because guns represent the ability to say, “I will protect myself. I will protect my family. I will not wait for someone else to do it.” That’s not violence. That’s virtue. That’s a strength. That’s what built this country.

The shooter in Minneapolis didn’t have that strength. Robert Westman had confusion. He had an ideology. He had a system that told him he was a victim and then gave him no tools to rise above it. And when you combine that with mental illness, with identity instability, with political manipulation, you get tragedy.

And then you get people like Psaki telling us that prayer isn’t enough. We need laws. That we need government. But what we really need is truth. We need to stop pretending that feelings are facts. That identity is whatever you want it to be. That morality is optional. We need to stop raising kids in a culture of confusion and start growing them in a culture of clarity.

Because every time we ignore these truths, we create more victims. More shooters. More tragedies. And every time we politicize those tragedies, we move further away from the real solutions. We don’t need more laws. We need more courage. More conviction. More community. More faith.

And yes, we need prayer. But we also need action. Not the kind of action that expands government power, but the kind that builds personal power. That teaches kids to be strong, moral, and responsible. That teaches them that they don’t need the government to be their parent. They need to be their own person.

That’s the only way we stop this cycle. That’s the only way we protect our kids. That’s the only way we build a society that doesn’t just survive—but thrives.

And what is anybody to make of Decarlos Brown Jr., who stabbed in the neck a very young and beautiful Ukrainian refugee, just minding her own business?  What kind of evil provokes a person to stab someone to death without any provocation?  Would gun control have stopped that terrible crime on a Charlotte, North Carolina, train?  The killer had 14 prior cases; he was sentenced to six years in North Carolina prison for robbery with a dangerous weapon, breaking, and larceny.  He had a history of mental illness and homelessness.  So what would have kept him from killing young Iryna Zarutska, who came to America to escape the ravages of her war-torn country?  Only to be ruthlessly stabbed in the neck three times and to die just because she sat down in front of a killer riding a train, in a city that should be somewhat safe, by perception compared to places like New York or Los Angeles.  These killers are creations by Democrats and their platform of putting feelings above empowerment, leaving in their wake dangerous personalities in society that cannot manage themselves.  Democrats have been soft on crime, assertive on victimization, letting their supporters believe that degraded personalities can thrive in society, that a big daddy government will carry them forward.  But when that doesn’t happen, these personalities turn to violence.  And they believed that because they believed in the politics of Democrats who were soft on crime, soft on punishment.  And most importantly, soft on self-empowerment.  There is no amount of laws in the world that can correct these kinds of personalities, and no gun law would have saved poor Iryna Zarutska.  And gun control would assume that we could trust Democrats to run a healthy society, which we know from vast amounts of evidence, not to be the case.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Autopen and the Question of Presidential Legitimacy: Institutions must prove their position

In the modern American presidency, the act of signing a document is far more than a bureaucratic necessity—it is a symbolic gesture of authority, responsibility, and direct engagement with the nation’s governance. Whether it’s an executive order, a pardon, or a piece of legislation, the president’s signature represents the culmination of deliberation and decision-making at the highest level. However, the increasing use of the autopen, a mechanical device that replicates a signature, has sparked significant controversy, particularly under President Joe Biden. Critics argue that the autopen undermines the authenticity of presidential actions, mainly when used amid concerns about the president’s cognitive acuity and physical presence. The image of a machine signing off on decisions that shape national policy evokes a sense of detachment and raises questions about who truly holds power in the executive branch. While the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel ruled in 2005 that a president may authorize a subordinate to use an autopen to sign legislation, and courts have upheld its legality, the optics remain troubling for many Americans. The legal framework may be sound, but the symbolic implications of a mechanical signature—especially in moments of national crisis or political tension—can erode public confidence in the presidency itself.  And in the case of the Joe Biden presidency, it allowed for a shadow government to run the White House in a way that, looking back on it, was simply unacceptable. 

The autopen controversy is not an isolated phenomenon; it is part of a broader historical pattern of questioning presidential legitimacy, often fueled by conspiracy theories and partisan distrust. During Barack Obama’s presidency, the “birther” movement gained traction, alleging that Obama was not born in the United States and was therefore ineligible to serve as president. Despite the release of his long-form birth certificate and multiple independent verifications of its authenticity, critics continued to claim it was digitally fabricated. Figures like Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona amplified these claims, arguing that the document contained layers inconsistent with 1960s technology. These allegations were not thoroughly debunked by forensic analysts, even though they were dismissed in court; yet, they persisted in the public imagination. We have since witnessed, with judicial activism, the liberal leanings of the courts to be activists of their own, as if they hold the fate of the human race under their black robes of injustice.  The endurance of such theories reveals a troubling trend: when legal and factual rebuttals fail to quell doubt, the issue becomes less about truth and more about belief. The birther controversy laid the groundwork for a culture of skepticism toward federal institutions, where even the most basic credentials of leadership could be called into question. This skepticism has since evolved into a broader distrust of democratic processes and the legitimacy of elected officials, creating fertile ground for future controversies, such as those surrounding the autopen.

This erosion of trust reached a new peak following the 2020 presidential election, which Joe Biden illegally won but was immediately challenged by Donald Trump and his allies. Over 60 lawsuits were filed contesting the results, nearly all of which were dismissed for lack of evidence or standing—even by judges appointed by Trump himself.  Again, judicial activism was revealed to be a significant issue that had not been previously well understood.  The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency declared the election “the most secure in American history,” yet many Americans remained unconvinced, and for good reason. The belief that the election was stolen became a rallying cry, not just against Biden, but against the entire machinery of government. In this context, the autopen took on symbolic significance. For some, it represented a presidency run by unelected aides, rubber-stamping decisions without the president’s full awareness or engagement. The idea that a president could be physically or mentally absent while critical decisions were being made by staffers or machines fed into a broader narrative of institutional decay and manipulation. Whether or not this perception is accurate, it underscores a crisis of confidence in the executive branch. The legal validity of the autopen is beside the point for many critics; what matters is the perceived absence of genuine leadership and the fear that democratic institutions are being manipulated behind closed doors. This perception has real consequences for the health of American institutionalism.

At the heart of these controversies lies a fundamental question: What does it mean to govern legitimately in a democratic society? Is it enough for presidential actions to be technically legal, or must they also be visibly accountable and transparent? The use of the autopen, the birther movement, and the disputes over election integrity all point to a more profound anxiety—that the American people are losing control over the institutions meant to serve them. If a president can be propped up, decisions made by anonymous staffers, and signatures affixed by machines, then where does sovereignty truly lie? These are not just partisan concerns; they are constitutional ones—the Constitution vests executive power in the president, not in machines or unelected aides. While the courts may uphold the legality of these practices, the court of public opinion demands something more: clarity, honesty, and a renewed commitment to democratic principles. Without that, the pen—whether wielded by hand or machine—risks becoming a symbol not of leadership, but of detachment. Restoring trust in the presidency requires more than legal compliance; it demands visible engagement, transparency, and a reaffirmation of the values that underpin American society. In an age of digital signatures, remote governance, and increasing automation, the challenge is not just to preserve legality but to maintain the human connection between leaders and the people they serve.  This, in turn, highlights the core of the problem: a signature by autopen is not enough.  Having a body in the White House is not enough.  Leadership is not just cosmetic.  What is considered legal goes even beyond what a judge ultimately rules is or isn’t.  There was gross manipulation on this trust issue that goes well beyond Biden’s presidency.  The door was opened with Obama, even before him with Clinton.  What could courts do to justify illegitimacy, and could a conspiracy of judges, who secretly want to rule over all society, cover up illegitimate mechanisms of automation, which were clearly tested during the insertion of Biden as the President into the White House?  Obviously, it was not enough, and people rejected the premise. Now, Trump has a mandate to correct all these falsehoods that were given credence and are now considered hostile topics in most polite households, which is a very new thing.  The assumption was that if an institution could validate a belief in legitimacy through signature, the courts, or the media, then actions would be deemed legal.  Yet that is not the case.  An action is not legal unless it is backed by honest elections with proof that people genuinely believe what the institutions are saying.  Judges must demonstrate that they are committed to upholding justice.  Elections must demonstrate that they are honest and accurately representing the voters.  And we have to see a president signing documents.  Not just that an autopen did it in darkness with a 25-year-old aide carrying out the orders of the Democrat Party while Joe Biden wandered around outside trying to catch butterflies.  And that raises questions about everything that has happened over the last decade.  And why Trump has a mandate to correct it.  And to fix it all. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Lakota’s Levy is the Most Expensive in Ohio’s History: Meet Ben Nguyen who is a solution for the future

After I met Ben Nguyen and endorsed him for the Lakota school board for the upcoming November 2025 election, the business of why he was running evolved into a community priority.  Ben is a young man who wants to stay in the school district, but with the loan amount that is looming with the approval of this massive levy from Lakota, the easy math is projecting the debt burden alone to be an imposition of $1.2 billion onto the economy of the Lakota school district, which is outrageously too much.  The amount of economic growth that the community would need to generate to offset the cost of this levy is unrealistic, and it would certainly set the course for the kind of decline that most affluent areas experience over their lifetimes.  Things have been relatively good in West Chester and Liberty Township for several decades, mainly because we have had a strong political commitment to prevent excessive taxation.  That has kept things somewhat affordable, but it’s a delicate balance that requires constant political pressure to maintain low taxes.  Butler County itself has a lot of Republicans in it, and republicans don’t like taxes for big, ballooning government.  It has been a significant number of years since the Lakota school district attempted to put a levy on the ballot, mainly due to the brand damage that the school itself would have incurred, as we have maintained a sharp resistance to excessive taxation within the school district.  However, Lakota has been waiting until it had a four-member majority of Democrat-minded big spenders, and it now has that, and it is taking its shot with the most expensive school levy attempt in Ohio history.  And what they want now isn’t all.  If they can pass this levy, they have an operations levy in mind that will also be enormously expensive.  So Ben and I discussed all this on camera, because people want to know some of these details that newspapers and yard signs never get to tell the complete story. 

Even though Ben has just graduated from Lakota, he had a great experience at the school. He loves his community and wants to stay in it, attending college at Miami University.  And start a family in his hometown.  However, the problem is a math problem: at the current rate of inflation and interest rates, the already average cost of a home in the Lakota school district is around $450,000.  By the time Ben graduates and wants to start a family in his mid-20s, those exact costs will be in the $ 600,000 range, and the math doesn’t work out.  And that will all be without the price of this Lakota levy.  Adding that $ 1.2 billion debt liability to the community would be the end for many residents who are fixed-income types, and it would significantly shorten the list of people who could afford to buy into the community.  And as we drive around cities with former opulent homes and wonder how they become crime-ridden slums, this is how that process begins.  A good place to live is started.  People get comfortable with things and stop monitoring costs, and they elect Democrats.  Democrats get on school boards and city councils, and start voting for excessive spending, wrap their communities in debt obligations, and poof, a slum is born.  The economy collapses.  The values drop.  And everyone loses a lot of money, and the only opportunities people see for themselves are crime.  It’s essentially the story of Middletown, Ohio, just to the north of the Lakota school district.  There are numerous examples throughout the city of Cincinnati.  However, due to the kind of people in Butler County who lean towards Republican politics, we have managed to prevent that cycle up to this point.  But the danger is looming.

So as Ben and I sat down together to shoot a video so we could talk about all these things, one of his key reasons for running for the school board is to keep the taxes low so that he can afford to stay in the school district and to raise a family here, as he grew up.  As a young man with natural political gifts, he wasn’t trying to overachieve; he was trying to save his community from excessive taxation.  And in my opinion, that is a very noble quest that is mature well beyond his years.  As I spoke to him, it was clear that his intelligence is precisely what the Lakota school board needs.  We discussed a variety of topics, including the support of current school board member Isaac Adi and past board president Lynda O’Connor. Many believe those endorsements are liabilities to him, suggesting that we need to present a completely fresh start as a Republican Party approach.  But when you’re dealing with these kinds of issues, you have to be able to unite people of drastically different levels of Republican politics.  In a two-party system, 50% of anything will have people very wide apart on most political matters.  However, on things they can agree on, the political system must be able to rally people toward a shared objective.  And high taxes and the defense against them is one that most Republicans can relate to.

Ben and I covered a lot of topics that should make it very easy for voters to get behind him.  With him on the school board, there is a chance to really shape the future with some reasonable management.  However, it will take more than just Ben Nguyen; there will need to be more people to join him, otherwise, he will be outvoted by the same individuals who have just proposed the most significant tax increase in Ohio’s history.  And even if this one is defeated, Lakota will try again and again until it passes with spring votes, summer votes, or anything it takes, until they catch people off guard and can manage to extract more taxes from the community.  And once they do that, the impact on the community will start its decline.  So this isn’t just a fight to elect a very young man, Ben Nguyen, to the Lakota school board.  This is a fight to keep the cost of living low enough for people to afford it, so that our community won’t follow so many others into their decline due to over taxation.  If left alone, Democrat types who end up in these political offices over time will do as they are in Lakota, asking for outrageous amounts of money with no end in sight.  And if we want to manage that process, we have to have people like Ben Nguyen on the school board.  He needs to get elected, and our community needs a plan to elect two or three more like him, so that there is a clear majority that can vote and prevent tax increases.  Ben isn’t against school funding.  However, as we discussed, Lakota has a $250 million yearly budget, which should be sufficient to operate a school that teaches children.  The community well supports Lakota schools as they currently are.  The purpose of this levy and the tax burden that comes with it is to facilitate more wasteful spending, including building new schools that will require more staff to run, and that means more people on payroll, inflating an already high budget.  So, Lakota needs to hear from the community, no more taxes.  And they need a school board that can work with what they already have.  And Ben Nguyen looks to be a first step in that direction.  And after speaking with him, I can’t wait to vote for him.  And after you hear him talk, I think you will feel the same.

Rich Hoffman

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

I Endorse Ben Nguyen for Lakota School Board: What a smart young man with a great future

Ben Nguyen is in good company.  When Nancy Nix invites me to her house to meet people she thinks will be the future of politics, she has a pretty good track record.  And I felt bad; I was running late when she invited me over to listen to a speech from a bright young man by her pool, as I had in the past.  I was stuck on an overseas call, and the time zones didn’t match up to the schedule Nancy had given me.  But when I did arrive, it was just in time to hear a speech by Ben Nguyen, a former student at Lakota schools who had just graduated and was now running for the school board.  And as I watched him speak, he had picked a spot by her pool to talk to the crowd that was just like another young overachiever, J.D. Vance.  A few years ago I had listened to the future Vice President give a very similar speech as Ben did from that very spot, which was before he was even running for the senate seat, and of course Nancy was right about him.  Ben also reminded me of another bright young mind who she promised me had a great future in politics, which was Vivek Ramaswamy.  I think of these guys as young, even though they were in their late 30s when I first met them, because, to me, they are.  I’m not a young person, so everyone seems young to me.  But Nancy Nix has a knack for finding good people in the crowd and getting behind them with a bit of help.  I was not surprised to learn that Ben Nguyen was an intelligent young man, and I enjoyed listening to him speak about why he was running for the Lakota school board in the November 2025 elections. 

Essentially, Ben is against the upcoming Lakota levy, which is the most expensive school levy in the state of Ohio.  He is also against indoctrination in public schools, and he has fresh experience, having just left school to learn what is really going on.  And he wants to do good things in life with his obvious talents.  He has siblings still attending Lakota schools, so he is concerned about public education in general.  He plans to do many things in the future, as his life is currently an open book.  However, to run and win the school board seat would be historic; he would undoubtedly be one of the youngest ever to do so.  But as I listened to him speak, he possessed the wisdom of a much older person, and he was only going to improve with time.  I had just recently watched Bernie Moreno give a similar speech from almost the same spot in Nancy Nix’s backyard, and he’s close to my age.  And Ben sounded just as well-versed politically, and he was very articulate and well-spoken.  He’s already a better political figure than most people who have been doing this kind of thing for three or four decades.  As I thought about Ben, I was skeptical due to his age as I drove to Nancy’s home.  I am one of those people who think it’s better to be old and broken, looking like a wet towel discarded in the sun, than a beautiful young person with everything working, because of the essential ingredient of wisdom.  Wisdom is hard to get, and it’s worth the age it often takes to get there, and what you lose along the way.  So I’m not automatically impressed with young people.  However, it was clear that Ben Nguyen was something special because he possessed a remarkable amount of wisdom at a very young age, which was evident in his family background, as he discussed.

And he was right in his speech about why someone like him needed to be on the Lakota school board.  I have been intensely critical of the public education system.  My thought on it was to erase everything John Dewey ever did and to start the concept of education anew in American culture.  I don’t think people are nearly as educated as they should be, and I deal with a lot of people every day who hold advanced Master’s and PhDs.  People aren’t that smart in our culture, and it disgusts me.  I’m not excited to support more of the kind of education that leaves people so ill-prepared for the world.  However, to Ben’s point, the current school board does not represent the kind of people who live in Butler County, Ohio. If we are going to have a public school funded by taxpayer money, we should have representatives on the school board who represent us.  After speaking with Ben, I think he would be great, and I will certainly be voting for him.  Needless to say, I fully endorse him and would love to see him win a seat in this upcoming election.  It would be a step in the right direction.  I’ve been a part of a lot of campaigns to put members of the school board in place to represent conservatives, but the efforts have been discouraging, leaving me wanting to blow up the whole system with charter schools and the elimination of the Department of Education as a whole.  But Ben Nguyen reminds me of why I have worked for good school boards in the past, and his personality appears to be well-suited to withstand the intense scrutiny that comes with the job.

Isaac Adi was also there to show support.  Isaac is a current school board member for Lakota, and he consistently votes in favor of Republican positions.  But he’s currently the only one.  He and I have seen each other at a few events since the highly publicized fallout he had with Darby Boddy, a school board member I had supported a lot and still do.  The pressure of those positions, by the whispers that come into them, is hard to deal with, and I wanted those two to work better together instead of against each other.  And Isaac was one of the reasons I no longer thought school board races were worth dealing with.  But seeing him there to support Ben, I thought the beginnings of something good were forming.  Of course, to get a good school board, it would take a lot more than just Ben Nguyen.  However, this was a good start, because until there is a good school board, Lakota schools will continue to mismanage money and ask for tax increases, as they have more in mind than just this bond levy on the November ballot.  They are also considering an operations levy in the very near future, and we don’t want a liberal school board rubber-stamping more spending, as they have been doing.  We need smart people who are willing to engage in lively debate and continually ask essential questions. With Ben Nguyen in that school board role, I see a lot of opportunity for good things to happen.  However, people will have to show up and vote for him because the Democrats are counting on a low turnout to maintain the status quo on the school board.  So people are going to have to rally behind Ben.  And after hearing him speak and explaining what he wants to do and why, the Lakota school district would be in a much better position.  And Ben Nguyen is certainly somebody voters can get excited about.

Rich Hoffman

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

Proverbs 22:7: Why America rules over the rest of the world

It is a topic that has come up a lot, especially since Trump has been trying to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine and end the war there.  Why the United States?  Why do we get to set a dollar standard?  Why do airports have to speak English universally?  Why is it that the United States thinks it needs to be, or can be, involved in the world’s affairs?  How can the world be equal if the United States consistently views itself as the best or wealthiest country in the world, and that somehow gives it power over all other countries?  And the answer is simple: only the United States has adopted capitalism as an economic model, while all other countries in the world have some degree of socialism in their economies, which restricts their financial growth.  A friend of mine recently brought this to my attention with a nice quote from Proverbs 22:7, which says, “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.”  And that’s very true.  If a country penalizes itself from wealth creation, it loses the ability to be equal in any discussion.  And being poor, especially by choice, will always leave a member of a negotiating party at a disadvantage.  America has the power that it does because it’s a rich country, and it’s rich because of capitalism.  And you’d think other countries would have woken up to that fact, because they are poor by choice.  The reason America has the power and influence it does is that it has a population of only 300 million, yet it produces the largest GDP in the world, competing directly with countries like China and India, which have populations of over a billion each.  Because all other countries in the world have adopted Marxist ideas, they have limited their wealth generation and ultimately their influence at the table regarding the fate of the world.

The issue of fairness arises frequently in these discussions.  Is it fair that the world is designed like this, where human beings are valued more for their wealth than for their better values, which reflect power and influence?  It’s a matter of leverage; people in the world want money and will do this or that or something else to get it.  And when too many artificial restrictions are created to access money, then naturally, people with less of it are on the wrong side of any negotiations.  So, by choice, those who have very little money are in that position because they chose to do other things than make money, and the world does not honor their choice. We have invented money and wealth as measures of achievement, and in all human cultures, achievement is highly respected.  Gaining wealth is a measure that, by default, is universally understood by all people.  And to lobby for making some other value more critical, such as compassion for the weak, or valuing vacations over working too hard, will ultimately leave the one without money at a disadvantage, leveraged by those who do control the money, because they have more of it.  Money comes in many forms but what the book of Proverbs has always struggled with as a foundation of Christianity for instance, because even Jesus struggled with this problem by attacking the vendors at the Temple which led to his crucifixion, is that the meek are overlooked and often oppressed by the rich people of the world, and that everlasting life in Heaven might give them relief from that reality.  This is a debate that has been ongoing since the beginning of time, but the rules have remained unchanged—he who owns the gold rules.

Trump has been effective because he understands how to control leverage in negotiations, as he always puts himself on the side of smart money.  And whoever does that will win the argument every time.  Not some of the time.  All of the time.   And the question of fairness is then a universal law that is the same here as it would be on the other side of a black hole in space, on the other side of reality.  This rule would never change.  The Bible struggled with the same idea: what power does the Lord in Heaven have over the earth if people will do anything for money and what it can buy.  And the answer is a hard one, because money represents wealth creation and how people measure such things in polite society.  The rest of the world has chosen to rebel against the premise of money, and they counted on peer pressure to create other value systems that the world respected, such as transgender rights, or helping people experiencing poverty when people have been deliberately made poor with terrible social policy.  For instance, because of capitalism, a poor person in America is infinitely wealthier than a person in a Marxist hellhole, like some African country that has deliberately suppressed capitalism.  Their poor state is a result of a desire to control wealth creation, so that people can be ruled over, and that they won’t acquire personal wealth to compete with their overlords.  When a government seeks to exert power over its people, it must limit their access to wealth so that private individuals cannot undermine the government’s authority over them.  So that decision ultimately constricts their ability to generate wealth. 

Trump has spent his life accumulating wealth, and his ability to do so has given him the capacity to negotiate at multiple levels.  Being rich for him means he gets to win the argument.  And from that perspective, he can command the world to sit at his feet, as the members of NATO remarkably did in front of his desk in the Oval Office recently, after Vladimir Putin came to Alaska to visit with Trump after quite a spectacle.  The world came to Trump to appease him because of the power of the American economy.  And because they don’t have money themselves, due to poor economic decisions, they find themselves at a disadvantage in the discussions they have with all other parties.  With all the talk about Russian power and military might, it’s worth noting that they don’t have a very robust economy, which leaves them at a disadvantage at the negotiating table.  People can talk about how mean Putin is as a tyrant, but because of his need to maintain control over his people, the Russian economy is too restricted and always at a disadvantage to a capitalist country like the United States.  And when push comes to shove, the capitalist country will always outleverage the authoritarian government that has put too many barriers on personal wealth.  So that is why America plays the role in the world that it does.  Fairness is a sentiment, not a value.  It’s an intellectual observation that doesn’t align with the realities of the world.  Jesus might have struggled with the same issue involving the money changers at the temple, as many are declaring that America shouldn’t have the kind of power in the world that it does.  However, it has that power because humans use money to measure value, and value is derived from the things we do.  And when things are restricted by policy, then who is to blame?  Or, if individuals refuse to work, they are always at a disadvantage in life compared to those who work hard and have financial means.  Who is to blame?  America has given upward mobility to many people through the premise of freedom.  And that is why the United States has a better leverage position over all other countries that are too restrictive on individual wealth creation.  And in that moral quandary is the ethics of wealth creation, and why the world is much better off because of it.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Line in the Sand: Sheriff Jones holding Ayman Soliman in the Butler County Jail

It is probably the most crucial topic in the world at the moment: the question of police and their impact on a prosperous society.  It just so happens that I had an excellent example of the effects of good police work in my own backyard with Sheriff Jones and the Butler County Sheriff’s department, as they were the center of controversy, as the very controversial inmate, Ayman Soliman, was being held at the Butler County Jail awaiting his trial date for his asylum case.  Radical groups have pressured Governor DeWine to have Soliman released from the Butler County jail.  Soliman has been the cause of considerable controversy, and it’s interesting to see who has rallied to his cause.  Rioters tried to shut down a bridge in downtown Cincinnati over Soliman’s arrest.  And at the Butler County jail, there have been protestors attempting to block roads, which has led to the arrest of several stringy-haired socialist types from the radical left.  Soliman himself, as Sheriff Jones told me when I sat down with him to discuss this case, indicated that a significant amount of pretension about Ayman Soliman has emerged while he has been in jail, a self-importance that has led to trouble, inspiring disciplinary action.  Soliman had been a Muslim chaplain from Egypt at the Children’s Hospital in Cincinnati, where he was arrested during a routine check-in.  Soliman had his asylum revoked in early June 2025, and on July 9th, after 3 hours of questioning by ICE officials, he was arrested and put into the Butler County Jail under an ICE contract.  Homeland Security, under the new enforcement guidelines of Kristi Noem, confirmed that Soliman was on the FBI terror watchlist for a direct connection to the Muslim Brotherhood.  And that this background was triggered years earlier when he tried to get a job at the Oregon Department of Corrections in Umatilla. 

When Sheriff Jones and I spoke, his understanding of his job is to follow the law, not to make it.  And based on Soliman’s past, there was a lot in it that was very sketchy.  He might be innocent.  It might be unfair.  At best, the case looks to be that the Obama administration and that of Biden were very loose on crime and allowed for controversial immigrants like Ayman Soliman to live in America illegally as a Muslim religious leader, where he holds an MA in Islamic Studies from Egypt and has pursued advanced degrees, including an MDiv in Islamic studies and Muslim Chaplaincy and a PhD in Islamic Studies.  During the 2011 Arab Spring uprising, Soliman participated in student protests and worked as a freelance journalist, during which he was arrested multiple times by the Egyptian authorities.  After being beaten and tortured in custody in Egypt, he fled to America seeking asylum and had been living in the background for many years, leading up to that questioning in Blue Ash, Ohio, before landing in the Butler County Jail.  The point of the matter is that under Trump’s administration, specifically the much-improved Homeland Security under Kristi Noem and the ICE enforcement of Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar,  Ayman Soliman was high on the list of cases to deal with for a reason.  And from Sheriff Jones’ perspective, he has to trust the federal law that put that inmate in his jail.  He can’t allow a mob to persuade him in his police work, and since the arrest of Ayman Soliman, that has been the clear intention of the radical left to lobby Governor DeWine in the hopes of putting pressure on Sheriff Jones to release the Muslim spiritual leader. 

So, the topic is why good police work is important.  Why federalizing the police in Washington, D.C. was a good thing and why Chicago needs to do the same.  Why is it great that the Trump administration blew up a drug trafficking boat from Venezuela?  And why Sheriff Jones was all that stood between chaos and law at the Butler County Jail in holding this suspicious person that the Trump administration flagged on a terror watch list because of his background with the Muslim Brotherhood front group Al-Gam’iyya al-Shar’iyya, an Egyptian nonprofit providing medical aid and charity services.  Recently, a letter was presented to Governor DeWine with 1,100 signatures on July 25, 2025, urging his intervention in the Butler County jail. However, Jones was quick to dismiss any executive orders that DeWine might attempt to initiate, with an open refusal to listen to the governor.  Jones instead stated that he worked for the people of Butler County, who could re-hire or fire him at their discretion.  And that they were the highest authority, not a state governor, which has shocked many people.  But Sheriff Jones, and this isn’t the only occasion, has stood firm under tremendous pressure.  So this was indeed a powerful story that needed to be examined.  And why was Butler County at the center of this international incident?  I personally attribute this to the six terms in office that Sheriff Jones has had, as well as the stability of law enforcement that has existed under his leadership.  The Butler County Sheriff’s department, I think, is one of the best in the country, and Sheriff Jones is undoubtedly one of the best that there is anywhere, and because of that fabulous police presence, Butler County as a region has thrived in ways that are unique in the world. 

I consider the Butler County Jail to be a well-run business.  I’ve visited there several times, I’ve toured the jail, eaten the food, and observed the booking process.  It’s undoubtedly one of the best jail systems in the state of Ohio and is clearly one of the best in the country.  And saying all that, it’s one of the best in the world.  Ayman Soliman should consider himself fortunate that he’s in the Butler County Jail until his next immigration court date set for December 15, 2025, and there are other legal challenges to be pursued in October.  There are numerous complications, but what it has all revealed is the kind of people working in the background to undermine U.S. law. If not for strong figures like Sheriff Jones, chaos would be running rampant.  Having him at the center of this international story is very beneficial for the overall Trump administration’s objectives of cleaning up America from the kind of people trying to destroy it in the background.  Seeing the liberal groups and the communist organizations that have rallied to the defense of an Islamic holy man attached to a third-tier terror watch list has been unnerving because Sheriff Jones’ adherence to law and order has forced those voices to reveal too much about themselves.  And to show the rest of the world how hostile to peace and Western civilization that they really are, including popular publications as Rolling Stone magazine.  Knowing Sheriff Jones as I do, I know he shares with me a genuine desire to have a law-and-order society, especially on the topic of illegal immigration.  He and I have been advocates for better border security for over 20 years.  And finally, with the Trump administration, there is someone committed to the cause.  And Sheriff Jones is undoubtedly ready to step in and do what he can to make that border security successful.  And it was great that he drew that line in the sand under tremendous pressure from the Governor’s office in Ohio to push chaos away and hold the line.  This has a lot to do with why so many people enjoy success in Butler County, because there are great police officers there who keep the evil people hiding in the shadows.  And under the Trump administration, they are finally willing to enter those shadows and arrest the characters hiding there.  And there will be a lot more good to come.  However, for now, Sheriff Jones has Ayman Soliman in the Butler County Jail, which is beneficial for all of us, including him. It’s much better than the treatment he will get in Egypt for reasons they understand best.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Federalizing the Police is a Great Thing: We can trust Trump to give power back

With all the talk about federalizing the police in cities with excessive violent crime, an underlying flaw in thinking is revealed.  Chicago is a creation of liberal politics that is out of control.  Over Labor Day weekend 2025, 58 people were shot across 37 separate incidents with eight fatalities.  And that has become all too normal in that progressive city, where crime has been incentivized and police are hard to find.  Washington, D.C., was just as bad before Trump federalized the police force there and put National Guard troops on the streets to supplement the police, and crime has been driven down to nearly zero.  In the District of Columbia, Trump can do that, and even the very Democrat mayor Muriel Bowser has enjoyed the results.  She has not been a Trump supporter and has instead worked against him in the past.  But even she can see the noticeable results.  So we’re dealing with a shell game that is consistent among many other topics, but it has been exposed here because Trump was able to control the situation in the District of Columbia, as opposed to the theory of putting ground troops into other cities in the nation.  That some evil people are trying to destroy the United States by using our own laws and terminology against us, which is being exposed in Chicago by the resistance to do in that violent city what Trump has done in Washington, D.C.  Democrats don’t want to solve the problem of crime in places like Chicago.  They want the crime, and that is what emerges from the resistance that J.B. Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, has been caught up in as he violently opposes Trump sending the National Guard to reform the streets of Chicago as well.  With crime levels at the rate that they are, a national emergency is more than justified, which gives Trump a clear path to send in the troops. 

Should we be cheering on such an effort?  After all, I’m very suspicious of police powers.  Based on the Constitution, should we even have a standing army? I would be inclined to say no.  However, here is a situation where we already have policing forces on the payroll, and they aren’t doing much else.  And we have police unions that restrict the recruiting and retention of current police forces, which are obviously not enough to deal with the crime incentives in big cities.  And you have criminal elements who use the potential of violence to gain control over other people.  And when people are afraid, traditionally, they vote for big government Democrats to save them.  That’s the theory anyway, that’s what political people believe.  So there are hostile, anti-American forces working behind an assumption of constitutional protections who want to use the rules to bring down American society.  And where they can, they use crime as a destabilizing force to undo everything legally, even to the point where lawyers seek to protect the criminals and the criminally minded, rather than a peace-loving society that is thriving.  In the case of Trump sending troops into Chicago, the governor is furious and is utilizing legal retaliation to stop it.  For his politics, and those of the Democrat party, they need 58 people shot over Labor Day weekend.  They want eight people to die every weekend.  To stay in power within political orders, they need trouble so that people vote for them to save them from that trouble.  And once you understand that, you will see that open borders are meant to overwhelm voting opportunities, that drug policy is there to deliberately poison Americans to the point of killing them.  And violent crime is a direct attack against a society that values private property over state-controlled assets.  If people have to turn to the government to protect their property, a communist dream is then realized, which is the point.

I would go several steps further and take away the gun-free zone status of cities like Chicago and let good guys with guns shoot bad guys with guns, and things would straighten up really fast.  But short of that, something has to be done, and when you have National Guard troops and other military units always ready to engage violence somewhere in the world, then why not send them in to these dangerous cities to clean up crime?  Is federal independence more valuable than those 58 lives?  That is the question that has been imposed on us.  Should we have independence when the cost of that independence is lives that fall victim to violent crime?  That is the question that we are tasked with behind the criminal conspirators who want the crime to shatter our society.  J.B. Pritzker wants to run for president and position himself as everyone’s dad, a parental government figure.  So he needs the crime so that he can have a reason to run on a political platform of saving people.  But if they are already saved and self-reliant, then why would anybody vote for Democrats?  That is their problem, and Trump exposes it by taking away the crises and fixing them, leaving Democrats exposed in ways they can’t handle.  But should we federalize our police forces by eroding states’ rights?  Once they take such power, then why would someone like Trump ever give it back? 

Same interview on YouTube

If the same question were posed during Obama’s administration or Biden’s, I would not trust federal forces to do anything in any community.  It would be a power grab that would be unacceptable.  But in Trump’s case, he has earned a level of trust that only hard knocks could provide, and it is different.  I think it’s the only way to solve the crime problem, and I want to see federal troops in every crime-ridden city, putting an end to all crime problems.  I also want to see the military ending the drug trade and specifically the power drug cartels have in all American cities.  They should all be eradicated, and we should invade other countries like Mexico, Colombia, and Peru and clean up all crime organizations involved in the drug trade and in human trafficking.  And once the world is cleaned up, we can talk about separating federal powers from states’ rights issues.  I am confident that Trump will respect constitutional limits and return power to the states and cities once the issue is resolved.  But, if it were up to Democrats, federal police forces would only be strengthened because their ultimate aim is to give the government the power over private property.  So when J.B. Pritzker complains about Trump overstepping his authority, it’s actually the plan that Democrats hope to have by supporting crime, to push society into just this kind of concession.  Only under Democrat rule does that kind of authority become tyranny.  But under Trump, it’s freedom.  Freedom from crime.  Freedom to own and maintain private property.  Freedom to not be killed while walking down a city street.  The crime is there to tempt society into giving big government control over to private ownership and to have people applauding as it is ushered in.  But what’s different with Trump is that he can resist the temptation to make such policies permanent once the problem is solved, and that is what Democrats really fear.  Trump will address the issue and restore that power once the task is completed.  Which Democrats can’t afford to see happen.  Yes, Democrats are willing to see people die to make their point.  And if those people don’t die of violent crime, then why would anybody vote for any Democrats, ever?  That’s what we are dealing with.  

Rich Hoffman

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

Gavin Newsom is Lost: Why Democrats have nobody like Trump

Gavin Newsom has been in the news frequently lately, and he has something to say about almost everything.  And nobody believes any of it.  As governor of California, and this isn’t a political comment, just a logical one, he lost all credibility during COVID and has barely managed to hang on despite several challenges in a state that leaned far left, when it was fashionable.  But we are talking now about a world where Democrats have lost around 2.5 million registered voters and Republicans have gained about as many, and that is just a few months into Trump’s second presidency.  Gavin Newsom is a phony, like many politicians who have gotten away with it over the years, and if politics hadn’t changed as much as we’ve seen, Newsom could probably be considered a candidate for president in 2028, which he clearly aspires to be.  However, he has a poor track record, culminating in the LA fires.  But it was the way he handled COVID that set his future in stone.  The people in California won’t let him live it down, let alone a national campaign.  COVID-19 changed many people and the way they think about politics.  Today’s baby-kissing politician could be tomorrow’s lockdown governor violating all our personal rights over some virus released from China.  And of all the lockdown governors, Gavin Newsom was one of the worst.  It’s almost comical to watch him now trying to build a campaign for the Democrat Party’s presidential nomination.  That is obviously what his plans are, but the political order changed under his feet, and he seems lost to capture any message, because all the old stuff just isn’t working.  The buzzwords have died, and he has no new ones to offer.  Leaving him bouncing around from topic to topic aimlessly. 

The difference between President Trump and everyone else is essentially authenticity.  Trump can drop an F bomb during a speech, and people can relate to it.  Gavin Newsom can do the same, and people perceive it as insincere.  And that’s what’s new now, Trump is a product of the times and the people.  Politicians like Gavin Newsom are completely do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do types who count completely on manipulating the public to exist.  And people are too battle-hardened to accept that premise anymore.  And, there is too much media these days for shaky commentary.  With all the podcasts and startup news shows, especially on Trump’s Truth Social media platform, politicians like Gavin Newsom cannot withstand the constant scrutiny.  In the past, when there were only a few news stations and some talk radio to discuss these topics, Newsom got away with having a shiny exterior because there was never any time to get into the details.  But not these days.  And Trump has shown the world what a real person in a powerful position can accomplish.  And nobody the Democrats have will be able to duplicate it.  And Newsom is among the best that the Democrats have to offer.  They have big problems that are worth considering.  Watching Newsom try to adjust is actually very revealing because it points to a much deeper problem for all Democrats.  Why don’t they have their own version of Trump?  Well, because the new standards require authenticity as a person, not the kind of showboating that was once accepted as usual.  And Democrats as a party have sought to exploit people through emotions.  They have not actually done anything.  The world is looking for doers, not more administrative types who lock down their states, then get caught at social gatherings drinking wine as the world burns down outside. 

Gavin Newsom, in a remarkably short time, as he has been trying everything to capture a national audience, has appeared on the Charlie Kirk Show, attempting to appeal to Trump voters, and has since turned to the radical left, becoming as anti-Trump as anyone could be.  He’s tried to be overly friendly, radically mean, even violent, trying to draw a crowd.  And it’s just not working.  And that’s the main problem.  With Trump, nobody doubts what he’s thinking, and he built that brand over a long time with constant repetition.  Gavin Newsom has changed many times, and nobody really knows who he is, because he’s so inconsistent on topics.  I recall when Gavin Newsom was one of the first to join Trump’s Truth Social platform, going where voters who wouldn’t vote for him were, and trying to win them over.  He has maintained a relationship with Sean Hannity to appear more appealing.  He has tried to debate DeSantis, and that didn’t work well.  He’s tried everything, and nothing has worked, leaving him scrambling now that the clock is ticking toward the midterms and Democrats are bleeding support.  Not gaining any.  And this isn’t just a Newsom problem, but a party problem that even Republicans have.  Politics has changed a lot over the last five years, since establishment types tried to exile Trump and his supporters forever.  And what ended up happening was that it strengthened, and a new standard was set that few politicians who came before could follow.  What is going on behind the scenes is literally revealed in the nervous hand movements of Newsom, which are evident during interviews and give away a lot that nobody sees when the cameras aren’t rolling. 

In sales, it’s a fine line between enthusiasm and overemphasis.  And when someone knows they are selling something that people don’t want, they have to resort to body language to emotionally pull the people they are talking to past the doubt phase, and into the subconscious utterances of hand movements.  Using the hands a lot in communication is an attempt to remind the person you are talking to that you could grab them forcefully and make them listen to you.  Excessive hand movement is a big no in communication, as it forces the people listening to put up emotional barriers. And if the person using hand movements is trying to lie or manipulate an audience, it becomes quickly exposed by overplaying the situation.  In Trump’s case, he believes in the products he has sold, so his communication works, and people can feel it.  With Newsom, he clearly doesn’t, as he is constantly changing his positions and approach.  He doubts it himself, so he tries to hide it with excessive hand movements.  And instinctively, people think of his hands as something that is trying to attack them, so they put up barriers to that reception.  It’s a major turnoff for people listening to a politician like that.  In the past, the media would cover the distance, but they can no longer do so, as they have lost their power too.  There are many differences now compared to when Newsom first started as governor.  And it will only get worse for him and all Democrats.  And Democrats have nobody else but Newsom.  There isn’t anybody coming up in the background.  All the buzzword politics have worn out, leaving them completely unprepared.  And that desperation in messaging is now showing itself in rapid succession.  All they have is an attempt to tear down President Trump and his accomplishments.  They have nothing to offer as a replacement.  And in knowing that, they have a desperate message that can’t go anywhere, and is losing support by the day.  And even worse, their track record is horrendous, especially in California.  Blue states and cities have performed poorly, so Democrats have a lot of huge problems.  And after all that we’ve been through to get here, it’s actually fun to watch. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Link Between Mass Killers and Pot: Robert Westman was a drug user who worked at a pot dispensary

There has been plenty of time to cover this story, but few have, as they are hesitant to address the topic due to its inconvenience.  But there are a lot of reasons why I have a visceral hatred of pot and its consumption, marijuana specifically.  And you can’t discuss mass shootings such as the one committed by Robert Westman recently, where he shot up a church full of children, killing two of them and injuring 17 others, including three elderly workers, during a prayer, without talking about drugs.  The 23-year-old was a trans kid, and there have been a lot of shootings recently that also involved trans kids, obviously having a hard time adjusting to what society has informed them through popular culture, and the nature of human reality.  That is one area where reality collides with the brick wall of social engineering, which goes drastically against biological nature.  But that’s not the root cause of the problem here, and if you study the trend behind the school shootings, it becomes undeniable that the consumption of marijuana is common among all of them.  In this case, with Robert Westman, as of a few months ago, he was working at a marijuana dispensary called RISE that sold medical cannabis.  He also sold handmade skateboard accessories with a girlfriend at local markets as recently as last year.  He was a constant vapor, so much so that he thought he would get cancer from his active consumption.  So this kid was one of those stringy-haired druggie types having a hard time coping with reality and turning to drugs often.  Even mentioning as much in the many notes he left behind.  If you have watched the kind of people who shop at these dispensaries for drugs, whether medical or recreational, they are not our society’s best.  Very little good is ever going to come from people who indulge in recreational drug use—and saying that brings up the real problem that certainly deserves such scrutiny. 

I’ve heard all the debates, and I remain a hard no on recreational marijuana use.  It’s the dumbest thing a society could endorse.  At least one of them, for reasons nobody is talking about.  In some people, the active ingredients in marijuana and other drugs produce psychopathic thoughts that are dangerous.  These active ingredients can trigger reactions in individuals who already have underlying conditions.  And politically, we have a lot of people who want to make money off people’s consumption of pot, because they justify that people are going to do it anyway, so why not make some tax money off it?  It’s a free world; who is anybody to tell other people how to live their lives?  So even Republicans have moved to support recreational marijuana and to legalize it in states that fall for the scam.  And before you know it, there are all these dispensaries going up everywhere, lowering the sidewalk appeal of all other businesses, justified as free market enterprise.  So, for the qualifier, I am against all drug use, even alcohol.  I would say it’s wrong to get an after-work drink to knock the edge off just as much as smoking dope from legal marijuana recently purchased from a dispensary.  Anything that is impairing your mind is dangerous and should be avoided.  When I hear that pot is legal and that should settle the matter, it only represents to me a bad decision by stupid people to legalize a hazardous drug that, in a certain percentage of the population, has a bad reaction to it, and they turn into mass killers.  Most, if not all, of the most recent mass killers had a relationship to marijuana, and the frequency of their killings could be graphed to the same rate of state legalization, where more of the wrong kind of people had easier access to the drug.  In the case of Robert Westman, he was so seduced by the druggie lifestyle that he chose to work at a dispensary.  He could have worked at McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, anywhere.  He decided on the RISE dispensary. 

So why is it so dangerous?  Well, since the beginning of human records, people have consumed drugs to alter their state of mind.  And in that drunken or impaired state, a mind loses its resistance to outside forces, which are always present.  And let’s just put it politely, a mind has a much easier time communicating with quantum characters.  Life forms that live in other-dimensional space.  Some cultures refer to them as demons, while others consider them angels.  Some cultures, such as Islam, call them gin.  Some cultures, such as the Japanese, refer to them as kami.  Shamans in Peru refer to them as ghosts just hanging out beyond our conscious existence, whom they communicate with directly through ayahuasca consumption.  There are spiritual forces that are just as common as mosquitoes, who are ever present everywhere we go, and once you lower your intellectual defenses just a little bit with drunkenness or inebriation from some pot smoke, you find all kinds of really dumb ideas starting to pop into your mind because you lose your resistance to those influences, the drunker you are.  And pretty soon, you are just as dumb as local school board members, such as in my community, at the Lakota school board, dancing naked on table tops at education conferences, and passing out puking and drunk in the bathroom with their panties vanquished to chaos. 

We refer to such influences from outside the logical mind as evil.  And in our society, through mental impairment, we are giving access to our lives to these many evil forces by legalizing intoxicants, such as marijuana.  Oh, I know, the Indians smoked pot, and a lot of other things.  The Canaanites used a lot of drugs.  So did the Egyptians.  Everyone does.  But what happened to all those cultures? An aggressor defeated them.  The root cause of most trouble in all societies from the beginning of time has been in drug consumption and the inherent effects of intoxication on the minds of the participants.  So when you know that this kid, Robert Westman, was doing drugs.  And you see the messages he left behind, such as himself looking in the mirror and seeing a devil, you are seeing a kid stepping away from the rails of his parents, who were divorced, and indulging in intoxication, being vulnerable to the many lifeforms that roam outside of our conscious thoughts.  Lowering those resistances to those characters opens the door to many negative consequences.  And most people don’t go so far.  Those destructive thoughts might pop into their heads, but they logically resist them, as they were taught to do by a healthy parental structure of family support.  But some people can’t, and this kid looked to be one of them.  All the signs were there, but we did not see them because of the legalized nature of marijuana.  We were told we couldn’t judge him as he became a her.  And he was hanging out with the stringy-haired skateboard crowd, which history says is probably experimenting with drugs, such as pot.  And politically, we took away the taboo of pot use by making it legal, because we wanted the tax money.  But in the process, we took away our logic to judge various degrees of intoxication and to call it bad, because we legalized it.  But that doesn’t change the danger that comes from altering a mind that was built to resist such influences.  Then, to make it vulnerable to intoxication that unleashes evil into the participants on a scale that the human race has underestimated.  And if we really want to understand mass violence, we have to understand drug consumption and why people do it.  And what happens when they do? 

Rich Hoffman

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