Category: America First Policy Institute

We Are Not Better Together: The illusion of leadership

Let’s clear some things up right now, because I’m tired of hearing the term.  We are not better together.  More minds do not make something better.  These are dumb, communist ideas by outside influencers who have tried over time to slide dumb ideas about how society should be structured under the door and have left us with a lot of garbage like that term to muddle through.  I receive numerous emails from people, and someone sent me one of those LinkedIn links to a statement from a consultant group about leadership, as if to refute my position on the matter. I had to give that person a healthy dose of reality.   More is not always better.  More administrative minds do not improve processes. Instead, you often get the opposite; usually, you end up with more of a mess than any improvement.  If you want to improve something, identify your leader and then listen to them.  But don’t think that a bunch of useless people meandering through life can come together and improve something.  It never works.  The concept of teamwork has been grossly misused to incorporate elements of Marxism over the years through our public education system, and it was always a flawed idea. I think the reason for this was best captured in books like Robert Persig’s ideas on the Metaphysics of Quality.  His metaphor of people who sit in the back of a moving train is a particularly apt one that accurately reflects the truth in this matter.  Good leaders are at the front of the train where things can be seen as they are happening.  But most of the world sits in the back, where it’s safe, and analyzes data that has already passed.  It can be helpful information, but that’s not leadership.  And the communist societies of the world have tried to sell cowardice that way to make the timid feel like they were equal to good leaders.  And they are not. 

That is where most consultants get things wrong, and LinkedIn is full of those types of people who attend all the business seminars and listen to all that “team building” nonsense, such as the idea that no one person has all the answers and that more minds are better than just one.  What causes trouble in cultures that need leadership is the presence of committees, where administrative types try to lead an organization from the back of the train, rather than from the front, where they belong.  And often up front, where things are scary and coming fast, most people don’t have the guts to live there.  They always pick where it’s safe and build their 9-to-5 lives around the value of analysis, often from the caboose of a train, complete with lots of spreadsheets and graphs, but without the voice of leadership to guide the timid toward greatness.  Good leaders are listened to, not debated with.  So, any culture that wants to succeed needs to hear more than hold hands in the back of the train while the world outside moves quickly.  Leadership is not safe; it’s usually hazardous, and it requires a lot of toughness that most people never develop in their lives.  That doesn’t make those people useless.  However, they are unable to lead because they never developed the stomach for the rigors of the leadership task.  They have come up with all kinds of excuses why failure is best elevated in group consensus rather than the responsibility of leadership at the front of the train, where things are much more dangerous.

I’ve heard every excuse in the book as to why most people prefer the back of the train as opposed to where leadership lives, at the front.  They say, people, say dumb things like, “I don’t want the stress and want to avoid a heart attack.”  Or they will point to the need for time to decompress after work.  All they are doing is telling the world that they aren’t tough enough to be a leader of an organization and that they prefer the back of the train, where things are safe, and where they can share the experience with others holding hands for safety and security.  And it’s those types of people who want to believe that more is better and that no one mind is better than a collective whole.  This is the kind of flawed thinking that assumes the United Nations is better as a one-world government than the individual results of leadership that come from the United States, for instance.  You don’t see that the United Nations has accomplished much over the years to bring the kind of peace it has always intended.  It takes a strong individual country like the United States to provide that leadership.  And that same mentality could be applied to every organization; if a strong leader isn’t leading it, it is, to some degree, inefficient and destructive.  The only real way to pull off the illusion that more is better is to stop the train, which is impossible in day-to-day life.  But for the fantasy to work, the trains of life can’t be moving so that all those in the back can analyze data and make decisions in time to do something about it, which is unrealistic.  Trains are constantly moving, and they require sharp, focused minds to be at the front of the train, leading everyone at the cutting edge. 

I’m usually nice to people who send me stupid ideas like this one, the LinkedIn warriors who buy into all the corporate placations created by consultants who are leeching off the profitability of the few.  Consultants like teachers do what they do not because they are good or the best in their field.  Occasionally, you find an exception, but not very often, certainly not often enough to alter the statistical analysis.  What you get are people who lack the courage to lead an organization and try to sell companies on a scam that more analysis from the back of the train will help a struggling company.  However, as soon as the consultant leaves with their misguided ideas of ‘better together,’ the organization falls back into its previous state because it failed to identify its leaders and place them in the correct positions to succeed.  And success is usually found by shutting up and listening to a leader, not in building consensus with a bunch of people in the back of the fast-moving train who are too timid to do what it takes to lead people.  To conceal their timidity from the world, they have adopted these misguided notions about leadership, none of which are accurate.  And they have made a mess out of the world at every level.  So, if you really want to fix anything, figure out who you are: either a back-of-the-train analysis cruncher who likes things safe and secure, or a daring, cutting-edge type who will go it alone and make decisions where they matter, and tell people behind them what to do and when to do it.  If you find a good leader, you’ll find a successful organization.  However, once that leader is gone, the people are left without direction and powerless to improve their lives, and this is the case in almost every circumstance.  We are not better together.  We are better when those people shut up, and listen to the leader among them.  And then, and only then, does everything get better for everyone.

Rich Hoffman

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

Too Much Compliance Will Destroy Your Business: When they put a gun to your head, don’t follow their rules

One of the most foolish things anyone can be is too compliant.  It’s one thing to follow the rules, as everyone agrees to them.  However, compliance for its own sake is a misguided approach.  People should question reality more, and they certainly should question the kind of people who make the rules by considering the cost of those rules.  Many individuals in the world create rules that primarily benefit themselves and rely on a group of people who are too compliant to question those rules, thereby fueling a great deal of evil in the world.  I interact with many people in high-compliance industries, so what I’m talking about is based on a lot of personal observation that is a serious impediment to productive enterprise, and it’s such a problem that it deserves a topic of its own.  Something that doesn’t get dealt with nearly enough.  When a robber holds a gun to your head and says, “stick ’em up.”  And then proceeds to rob you of everything you’re worth, leaving you entirely at the mercy of the villain; that’s a bad thing.  Then, once the robber has robbed you and you have complied with everything they said, hoping that they would then reward you by letting you live another day, everything you gave up would be expected to pay that price.  But the robber shoots you in the head anyway.  We could point to many times in history where this kind of thing happens, nice, compliant people end up dead and thrown away like dogs, just because they did what they were told to do by people making rules intentionally meant to get control over masses of people for malicious purposes.  And as much as it’s uncomfortable to hear, many of the rules we have in society were made by people with bad intentions. 

So in high-compliance industries, like finance or the legal profession, doing what you’re told to do is a bad idea.  Because the rules never favor the person with a gun to their head.  So if you do what they ask you to do, don’t be surprised when they shoot you after they’ve robbed you blind.  As I have said many times and have made it quite clear in my book, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, the rules in the world are often made by the losers so that they can have a world that makes them competitive to their betters, people who actually know what’s going on.  Many people in the world are not very intelligent, and they want to feel equal to those who are exceptionally skilled. To achieve this, they often enter professions that involve creating rules, thereby feeling more equitable.  And if allowed, which they have been in America to far too great an extent, they will ruin society as a whole.  And people, most people are too lazy to question the rules that are made for them, so they fall on the crutch of compliance to justify their laziness.  “I was just doing as I was told,” as if to justify evil with the merit of following directions.  This isn’t the kind of rule following that would make it logical not to go out and kill people, or not to speed down a sidewalk with a motorcycle that is crowded with people as a reckless operation.  This is an overly litigious society full of know-nothings who hide their cowardness behind too many rules and regulations to the point of personal destruction that they use to feed off the very few in life who actually do anything. 

The way to win against those who count on compliance to rule the world is to do what they don’t expect you to do.  Do not let the hoop setters dictate the battlefield, as they intend to impress observers by setting them on fire as you jump through them.  Do not be compliant with the rules that those types of people make, and allow them to rule over you with the fake value of compliance.  Because once the show is done, they will do away with you, as people have always done through history, and that is, they’ll shoot you in the head anyway.  After they’ve taken everything you’re worth.  The people holding a gun to your head are not ever going to be your friends.  They aren’t concerned about your well-being.  You can appease them with niceness and hope to be given a break.  You must reclaim from them what you have given away through compliance.  You need to break the rules they have set up to trap you by being defiant and forcing them out of their comfort zone if you genuinely want to win at life.  You will never win if you follow the directions of those who wish to destroy you.  Playing by the rules that evil people come up with will only lead you to your own destruction, because these are the kind of people who live off the lives of others.  They are ruthless beyond logic, and they exist in the multitudes.  So don’t be a sucker, and certainly don’t be compliant.  To me, being a sucker and being compliant mean the same thing.  Nothing good comes from it, and your eventual destruction is all those rule makers really care about. 

Obviously, I’m speaking to a lot of people here.  I’m thinking of several things at once that are equally applicable, involving many hundreds of people directly and many thousands indirectly. I take opportunities like this to speak to them all at once.  And when you take the gun out of the hands of the bad guys and turn it on them to pull the trigger ruthlessly, everyone will understand why.  But as a general practice, it’s worth pointing out that you can’t make America Great Again if those who aren’t very great are making rules that punish good people from doing good things in the world.  If bad people are making the rules, we will have a bad society.  We enjoy Trump in the White House because he understands how to turn these rules against the perpetrators, and he has made a lot of money over the years by exploiting the systems that bad people have created against them, which is what everyone should be doing.  Don’t follow the rules that bad people have made.  Do not be compliant with fools.  The world needs more good people to push back against stupidity.  And that is far more valuable than following directions when someone puts a gun to your head.  Remove that gun before they get too comfortable, and turn it back on them.  And use that gun to save yourself, and the goodness you have in you to make the world better.  The world can always lose a few more parasites, and most of the rule makers in the world are nothing more.  We’d all be better off with fewer of them.  So, don’t feel bad about taking their evil intentions and turning them against them.  And be ruthless in the process.  They deserve it.  They asked for it.  And for God’s sake, don’t listen to their cries for mercy.  Destroy them, because that’s what is best for the world. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Truth Kamala Harris and All Democrats, Can’t Handle: In ‘107 Days,’ every day only eroded support

There is more that has been exposed than just the rise of the MAGA movement against a backdrop of authority figure Marxism.  And that was a theme that kept coming to me as I read Kamala Harris’s new book, 107 Days.  Yes, it is garbage, but I’ll read anything, just as I’ll listen to just about anybody, so I can make reasonable conclusions about things, even if it’s from people I don’t like or agree with on much of everything.  And her book is complete with the worst kind of fiction; it’s presented as a fact when the actual content is blisteringly fantastical in its scope.  And this is true of everything from the radical political left, where they think something and can make it so with the power of their observing it.  Such as deciding one day that a man is a woman.  That anal sex is just as natural as vaginal intercourse, that the rest of the world is equal, when in reality, they struggle to make bubble gum wrappers.  And that all facts and figures can be manipulated until reality is forced to agree with them at the point of mass authority rule over a docile and complicit society that has never grown up and away from their parents, and wants an overwhelming government power to rule over their perpetual insecurities. What has fallen apart most devastatingly for the Marxist left, for which the world’s socialist and communist governments have emerged to various degrees, is the sting of reality.  And that is what Kamala’s book most clearly conveys: the degree to which they have lied to their own faces, denying the nature of reality itself, which they are at war with.  The political left despises the truth about the world, and they have been at odds with it; if there is anything that is most devastating to their movement, it’s that all their fantasies have fallen apart under the scrutiny of reality. 

So let’s revisit this notion that I talked about extensively at that time, and which is the essential theme of Kamala Harris’s book, which she has said while on her media tour, giving the whole thing away under press questioning, there is nothing Kamala could have done with more time to run that could have helped her.  Her entirely fictional premise was that if only she could have run a regular campaign, she could have performed better in the 2024 election.  She could not have done better than she did; in fact, for every day she was in the presidential race, she bled support.  She didn’t gain it.  The more people heard from Kamala Harris, the less they liked her.  She wouldn’t have been able to build any support; her campaign was a complete fabrication created by people who thought they controlled the entire narrative and could autopilot her into office, just as they had been running Joe Biden’s campaign all along.  Kamala was not very likable; she came across as someone who had slept her way to the top, and people didn’t like her.  Her best support was the day she announced she was running, once Joe Biden had been pushed out.  Before many people heard her talk, there were a certain number of not very well-informed people who would vote for her because she was a woman of color, and nothing else.  Her most popular day in the campaign was the first day.  On day 107, as the book attempts to erase, her support had eroded as more people heard her talk and got to know her a bit.  The more she opened her mouth, the less people liked her. 

Kamala Harris, in her book, repeatedly mentioned that the 2024 election was the closest in history, which is another example of Democrats seeking something to rally behind.  Trump won 312 electoral votes to Kamala’s 226.  Most of the states where Harris won were states with very loose election laws, such as those allowing mail-in ballots and not requiring voters to show ID at the polling booth.  So when we talk about Trump having a landslide, 312 is a pretty significant number these days, given that things are so heavily leveraged to favor Democrats, at least until President Trump came along.  That’s also why Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College so they can mass manipulate the way we count votes so that a few states with loose laws can win.  As I say all the time, if Democrats don’t cheat, they can’t win, because they are the seriously minority party in America, and they have only kept things close through election fraud.  In the popular vote, Trump had 77,302,580 million votes to Kamala’s 75,017,613.  That is out of 155,238,302 total voters, which is a very high number.  But lets just call it as they say it is, out of all the voters that there are in America, with a population of 342,034,432 million including all the people who are under 18 and can’t yet vote, where would Democrats close that gap of the 2 million that they fell short on, assuming you had a clean election with no election fraud whatsoever?  And that is the real problem that planners faced when making the decision to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris.  They had that plan all along, and they used that June debate with Trump to set up the real story.  It was a desperation shot to put in a woman at the last minute and hope that the math worked in their favor.  But they knew the truth all along.

In 2020, Trump received 74,216,154 votes, just three million fewer than his 2024 total, which was 77,223,615, while Joe Biden received 81,268,924.  Where were all those voters in the 2020 election?  The answer is, of course, that roughly 10 million, likely more, of the votes for Democrats were produced illegally by mail-in ballots cast under the new Covid rules, and the election was rigged entirely from the top down.  The FBI knew it because they assisted with the effort at the Capitol Building on January 6th, when people arrived extremely angry that Trump was being pushed out of office.  The FBI planted over 274 people into the audience to provoke them into violence so that the narrative of the election fraud could shift to some made-up insurrection and put people on their heels to the massive reality that the election had been stolen.  And we can prove it because Democrats were caught not being able to duplicate the numbers of the 2020 election when the rules had returned to normal in 2024.  And if states that voted for Kamala over Trump had to play by more rigorous rules, with voter ID and much more restricted mail-in balloting, they would have lost even more voters than they actually did, which is likely overstated by more than 5 million votes.  Because there aren’t that many people dumb enough to vote for Democrats, and they know it.  The illusion they have lived with through election fraud and a media that sold their socialist fantasy as a reality has been eradicated from the public scene, and they have no means of stopping that process.  And Kamala’s book only spells it out grotesquely for them, rather than changing the nature of reality in the way they wish it would be.  More time for Kamala Harris would have eroded her numbers even more.  But they couldn’t afford to have Joe Biden run again and come nowhere close to his original 81 million with a performance 10 million less.  People would have been outraged by the obviousness of it all.  So their best shot, Democrats, of concealing the election fraud of 2020 was to hope that Kamala would change the numbers because she was a woman and because she was a person of color, which gave her a few throwaway votes.  But the more people heard from her, the less they liked her, and there was nothing she could have done to change that.  And that is the truth of all future elections. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Arrest of James Comey: Bring a sword, don’t turn the other cheek

I feel like spiking the football on the James Comey indictment and arrest that occurred just shy of his statute of limitations expiring after five years, at the end of September 2025.  His crimes are actually far more extensive than the obstruction of justice and lying to Congress that they put his way.  And once again, I think one of the best experiences I have ever had in life was the period I spent as the foreman of a grand jury, so I know very well what kind of cases prosecutors bring forth and how the evidence is presented and discussed.  And how a grand jury handles multiple cases, not just one.  You get a chance to talk to a lot of legal people and see how different prosecutors react to other cases.  So I can understand why there was reluctance to prosecute James Comey.  There is a whole Deep State of career political people who could make life very difficult for future administrations, because in their minds, Trump will come and go.  Many of these individuals believe they will have entire careers in government and will last through many future presidents, so they approach them with a tongue-in-cheek attitude, as if our system of management from the White House were an inconvenience that they sneer at.  And they treat the rest of us the same, as if the power of the Administrative State was far superior to the voters whom they are supposed to serve.  James Comey and the government workers like him think they are superior to the basic intellect of the average American and that they can lie to our faces and not face any punishment for the deceit.  And with James Comey, I called him out a long time ago, in May 2017, just a few months into Trump’s first term, where I was one of the first people in the country to call him a liar.

CNN was looking to dislodge Trump supporters from the new president at the time, so they came to Butler County to speak to a hard-core group of Trump advocates.  We met at a local sports bar and watched live on television, with CNN producers, as Comey testified after Trump fired him from his role as FBI Director.  This was an all-day event, and later that night, we would gather on Anderson Cooper’s show to share our reactions to the testimony.  CNN hoped that Butler County would start to doubt their support for Trump with the horror of firing Comey, who at the time was thought of as America’s squeaky-clean Boy Scout, beyond refute.  But what I said shocked the producers, and they let me know it after the cameras were off and the live feed had concluded.  I said when asked on the air that I thought James Comey was more like Eliot Ness from the famous Al Capone mob cases in Chicago.  But what he turned out to be was more like Ian Fleming, the James Bond novelist.  And that the FBI Director was more inclined to fiction, which I thought was a nice way of saying that he was a liar.   Well, at that time, that was a shocking statement, and that was one of the last television interviews that I ever did.  Before that, I appeared frequently on radio and television; producers would seek my opinion on various topics, and I would offer it.  But after that, things changed dramatically.  I didn’t care because my own media efforts were much more potent.  I found it much more rewarding to express my thoughts than to try to fit into a producer’s narrative.  However, that fracture indeed occurred that night after the CNN segment.

That was 8 years ago, and the information was self-evident.  It took that long to reach justice in indicting James Comey.  And like most deceitful people who get caught in these terrible scandals, he sought mass collectivism to shield himself from personal judgment.  To show what a manipulative loser he really is before this indictment, which he knew was coming, he put out a video attempting to get support from Taylor Swift’s audience, hoping to manipulate pop culture soothsayers to his side, and to pit them against Trump.  This is actually a much more dangerous trait that indicates a deeper problem at the FBI and how they handle cases in a mass society.  We’ll talk about the way the FBI planted 274 agents into the J6 crowd to accelerate activism and cause trouble.  The FBI has been picking winners and losers for a long time, grossly abusing its authority in multiple cases.  Which is why they thought they’d get away with this Russian story on driving Trump out of office.  So yes, I saw it well in advance and I said so on national television, and I turned out to be right about everything, even when the world took a hard turn toward regime suppression just a few years later in 2020 with Covid and election fraud to throw Trump out of office.  It seemed that the bad guys truly had the kind of control that James Comey thought shielded them from reality.  And that he and the FBI could abuse their power to maintain a political order that they thought was more appropriate, a Taylor Swift kind of progressivism, they were going to impose on us whether we liked it or not.

So this is actually a grave crime, not just an FBI Director who went bad and abused his power to throw out an elected official from the White House that he disagreed with.  This is about a fourth branch of government that thinks it exists beyond voter approval, and this goes back to the killing of JFK and the getting rid of Richard Nixon.  And that’s why it was so absurd to everyone when Trump was elected that he would actually last, let alone serve a second term.  The CNN guys that night told me in the parking lot that we were all living in a bubble with our support of Trump, and that it was a regional issue.  That the rest of the world would disregard us as backward and out of touch.  And it made me so angry that I stopped answering calls from media producers and participating in their shows, because they all pretty much thought the same way as these people at CNN.  And after eight years, they all turned out to be very wrong, and I was right.  And they are all on the way out, and my position is stronger than ever, and it all feels pretty redeeming.  So I’m thrilled to see bad things happening to James Comey, and I want to see even more happen to people who are just as bad as he is.  Those who believe that an unelected form of government should be allowed to hold power need a reality check, and that’s what’s happening now.  It’s not revenge for what these same people did to Trump and many of us who supported him.  Although revenge is very appropriate, I would encourage people not to turn the other cheek, as Jesus said in Matthew 5:39, but to do as Jesus said in Matthew 10:34: ‘Do not bring peace, but a sword.’  We must fight evil wherever we find it, and James Comey was a facilitator of evil, hiding behind a deceitful façade.  And he has to be made an example of, and I am thrilled to see that day arrive.

Rich Hoffman

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

Violent Video Games and Furry Culture: Why so many trans kids are becoming killers

I would probably never know about this “furry” culture of sexual deviants if it weren’t for my grandchildren.  My oldest grandson came across them online while researching video game information.  Furries, as they are called, are people who like to dress up in animal costumes in public.  And that’s important because the killers of Charlie Kirk and his boyfriend were participants in this culture, as they would dress up for conventions and play video games that involved anthropomorphic animals having sex.  And of course, as the furry condition is a tremendous psychological concern for public health, we are dealing with a homosexual relationship with a couple of guys who had built up so much hate for the godly purity of Charlie Kirk that they made a move to murder him on a college campus.  And we are seeing a trend among many killers who are going through the same problem, killing people, as video games have desensitized them to killing without any genuine concept of consequences.  If you have read the text messages between Tyler Robinson and his boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, who is in the process of trying to convert to a woman, you will find that they were bizarrely out of touch.  So much so that people naturally think it was a fake narrative created by the deep state to hide the real killers, because it seems so outlandishly coherent, considering this kid just committed one of the most memorable assassinations the world has ever seen.  So a transsexual element is at play yet again, in addition to the furry culture obsession.  The killer of the Minneapolis church attack was a trans kid, and we know now that the assassination threat against Bret Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court was a man trying to become a girl.  So what’s going on here, and how is the gaming culture producing all these young killers?  It’s a question that goes way beyond free speech. 

I’m far from a person trying to reform the video game industry, but we’re no longer talking about Pac-Man here when we talk about video games and how they try to stand out from a very harsh crowd in the marketplace.  I saw the recent Wolverine preview for an upcoming video game, and it’s really very violent.  I have been alarmed at the level of violence in video games as developers have gotten away with more and more violence; there is no question of a desensitizing effect.  The popular game of Fortnite has more cartoon violence, but Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, and now this Disney-owned Marvel game, Wolverine, are very violent, where bones are ripped from the bodies of victims ruthlessly.  It is not a stretch to think that a small percentage of the population that plays these games is being desensitized to violence and is losing touch with reality.  I’ll repeat it, I used to write screenplays and I would submit them to studios and agents in the 1990s.  And I had a lot of mainstream people tell me that my screenplays were too violent for a mainstream audience, which Hollywood was a part of at that time.  They had a responsibility to the public good, that’s what they told me.  They would say to me I was a talented writer, but that resorting to so much violence took away from that talent, and they had a responsibility to the public not to be so graphic.  Then I saw Kill Bill and other Tarantino movies, and I mentioned to them that my work wasn’t any more violent than Tarantino’s.  And there really wasn’t an answer except that they said Tarentino’s violence was more comic book, and not as realistic as mine.  So, a line was being drawn, and watching that preview for Wolverine certainly was the result.  The self-censorship in the entertainment industry was ending about the time I mentioned, and it has devolved into what we see today, which is a very violent entertainment culture. 

For young people without strong father figures or good family structures, video games can distort reality.  And this Tyler Robinson supposedly came from a loving family.  Once he developed a sexual relationship with another young man, and they started crossing lines that society would judge them harshly over, they retreated into the violent world of video games, and we know that because those traits were marked on the shell casings from the gun used to murder Charlie Kirk.  We should be all over these traits because they keep repeating, the mode of operation for many of these killers is that they are involved in transexual practices and spend their free time on violent video games.  And when you spend many hours playing violent video games like Lance Twiggs did, there is a desensitization toward violence that ultimately becomes a psychological problem.   When kids delve into this rabbit hole, a trait emerges from this furry culture: the idea that people can be anything they want if only they wish it.  It’s consistent to make mistakes in a video game, where, if you wish, you can change the avatar of your character into anything you want to be.  And that is without question happening in these trans cases, where people make mistakes their families might look down on them for, and they turn to furries or trans sex to change their public image from mistakes they are ashamed of.  When society has opinions about those mistakes, they retreat into the world of video games, where you can be anything you want, you can change your name, and you can hide from society behind mass violence.  Given the frequency of these occurrences, this is a significant problem. 

This is one of those cases where treacherously evil acts are hiding behind conservative values, such as limited government oversight of the video game industry, allowing market forces to work out the problems.  Or to have a libertarian approach to sexuality.  We are told by those creating vile content that more oversight of these industry norms is intrusive.  Therefore, the attacks are occurring behind the values we advocate as businesspeople and conservative, market-driven economic values.  We’re not supposed to have an opinion on this topic because we support free markets, and in the free market, people want violence.  Just as we are supposed to accept that people want to smoke dope, or do other detrimental behaviors, that do not suit healthy mass psychology.  But that’s the thing, and it goes back to my days of writing scripts, when I was told that something was too violent, the standard was to go back and make the scenes less so, but just as impactful.  Violence is often used to make a point forcefully.  It can be necessary, but it can also serve as a creative crutch to avoid the details of actual artistic integrity.  Just like grotesque sex, violence is lazy in trying to appeal to our animal instincts.  And killing is a primal instinct we all have.  But we are expected to overcome that violent trait for something better.  And when we have artistic expression that feeds the fears and anxieties of a young generation with various insecurities, bad things can and do happen.  This video game culture is feeding them in a very negative way, and some of them are turning to actual killings.  And they are becoming desensitized to the world, especially once they start really embarrassing themselves with sexual practices they could never get their families to accept, and changing their public image like a video game avatar never solves their insecurities.  And before they turn to suicide, they are turning to mass social violence, which video games helped fuel their fantasies.  And we are now seeing a whole generation turning to violence and perversion to hide their mistakes, which they have never learned to deal with.  And it’s a really big problem that won’t go away on its own.

Rich Hoffman

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

Nancy Nix and I Discuss Friendships, Corruption, and the Future of Politics: Why we can’t support Roger Reynolds for Butler County Commisioner

Nancy Nix and I have strong feelings about Roger Reynolds’ decision to run for Butler County Commissioner.  We have been very supportive of Roger after he found himself in a lot of trouble with a court case that accused him of abusing his office.  While we believe what happened to him was not fair, and we have both worked to help him restore his name, we have been surprised by his behavior, especially his attempt to return to public office in the way he is.  Politically speaking, we have moved on to the next generation of consideration and have selected Michael Ryan to be the next Butler County commissioner in a race that presents some challenges.  It involves an incumbent, so support for a challenger needs to be focused and have the backing of the party.  And now that Roger Reynolds, aware of these difficulties, has decided to split the vote even further, making it even harder for Michael Ryan, it has a personal aspect to it that Nancy and I chose to discuss in front of a camera, rather than on the sidelines somewhere.  Nancy had stood by Roger throughout his court case and was really the only friend he had left in county politics.  So when he turned around to sue her for his old job back, after she had stepped in as Butler County Auditor to make sure his old office didn’t fall off the rails, the hurt was quite defined.  We both wanted to see good things happen to Roger, but the way he was going about trying to restore his name was an all-too-grotesque reminder of what had gotten him in trouble to begin with.  Because, in truth, even though we feel that what happened to Roger was unfair, the cause of the problem in the first place was a personality issue that was now manifesting itself, working against the people who had tried to help him the most in the first place, and it was alarming to discuss.

Roger is not a political newcomer.  He understands what he’s doing by joining the commissioner race this late in the process, which is the same kind of self-centered action that got him into trouble in the first place.  Even if you have political enemies within the Republican Party, how you deal with that problem says a lot about the kind of person you are.  And that personality trait is what now has Nancy and me talking as an answer to the many people who think that we should automatically support Roger Reynolds because he decided to run for public office, due to our previous support.  While our opinions about the case didn’t change, the court case process did reveal elements of Roger’s character that give us pause.  I can promise I would never find myself in the situation that Roger Reynolds did.  I have a lot of enemies who are always looking for me to stumble upon something, and that is part of the cutthroat world we live in.  And when it comes to the testimony that was most damaging to Roger Reynolds in his dispute against Sheriff Jones and Ohio Attorney General David Yost, it was his personality that ultimately turned out to be his downfall.  The love of seeing his name in lights after winning a political seat and the feeling of redemption that such an office brings with it.  Obviously, the need to run for public office is mainly for Roger Reynolds, not for the benefit of the seat.  Because Nancy Nix stepped into his old auditor role and has done an excellent job, the job performance in that position actually improved, and the people of Butler County were well served in the exchange. 

And that is where things start getting nasty in this commissioner race.  Nancy and I have been thinking about the next generation, the kind of politicians who have a clean slate and many years ahead of them.  And we endorsed Michael Ryan because of the extended runway he has ahead of him, which doesn’t have court cases and corruption charges attached to it.  And honestly, as cutthroat as politics can be, I doubt Michael Ryan will ever find himself in the kind of trouble that Roger Reynolds did, because he knows how to work with people instead of against them.  One thing that got Roger in trouble, which is why Nancy and I decided to take a pass on him for an endorsement for the commissioner job, is that he seems to like the titles that politics gives him too much.  That certainly came out in the trial.  The testimony that Jenni Logan, the former treasurer of Lakota schools, showed in his trial was embarrassing to me.  As it turned out, I still supported Roger, but with considerably less enthusiasm.  Knowing Jenni as I have for many years, there are elements of that conversation that should have never happened.  I would never find myself in that same trouble, that is for sure.  And that is a sign of a deeper problem that Roger Reynolds needs to work out.  Private sector work is a good place to do that kind of thing.  Getting back into party politics in a helpful way would be another.  However, attempting to emerge with a crash-and-burn strategy to recover name recognition was the kind of bad decision that made the trial, with Jenni Logan’s testimony, so damaging. 

For Nancy, as we discussed on camera, the breaking point came when Roger sued her to regain his old job and decided to turn against her.  It deeply hurt her.  As we were talking, her eyes welled up as she fought back tears.  It took a lot of courage for her in the height of that political situation to go against the logic of self-preservation and to stay by Roger’s side during that complex court case, as a friend.  Because that same arrogance that got him in trouble in the first place was now being turned on her, because the title of a job that doesn’t pay that much was much more important to him.  And now, as she was trying to build a team in politics that actually got along and worked together for the benefit of voters in elected offices, Roger was seeking redemption by tearing it all apart for his own purposes.  And while we can certainly understand wanting to restore a name, we don’t understand burning down positive things as a means to do it, which is why he found himself in court in the first place.  We all have political enemies.  Some of them are vicious.  I have a lot of nasty enemies who would love to bring significant harm to me if they could.  But it’s up to me not to fall into those traps.  Nancy Nix is a very popular and influential character.  She has the Vice President of the United States just a phone call away, as well as Vivek Ramaswamy and many other national figures of great significance.  The chance to make the kind of mistakes that Roger made is frequent, yet she avoids them and maintains a good reputation, despite the desires of her political enemies to see her downfall.  And that begins with being a good person in all phases of life, not in seeking a public position to hide personality flaws at the expense of taxpayers and voters in general.  And that is why Nancy and I had a conversation about why we couldn’t support Roger Reynolds for this Butler County Commissioner position.  There are steps that he could have used and teams he could have been a part of building.  But instead, he went for the kind of slash-and-burn strategy that got him into trouble to begin with, which was a decision he clearly made on his own, regardless of the cost.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Arrest of James Comey: It’s time for justice

Nobody should be surprised by the arrest of James Comey.  Of course, it was proper to let the statute of limitations run just short of 5 years, then arrest the old FBI director, letting him think he was going to get away with his crimes, of lying to Congress and obstruction of justice.  Comey purposely misled lawmakers during the Russian probe into Crossfire Hurricane, and it wasn’t forgivable.  You can’t have a law and order society if those who are supposed to be caretakers of that law and order are committing crimes, and James Comey clearly did.  And he’s not the only one.  But Comey started a lot of the Deep State activism against Trump, and the rest of us with a reckless disregard for the truth and he has to be punished for it.  And we knew that when Trump pushed Pam Bondi to move on some of these indictments, this was all going to go down.  It’s time.  The stall tactics of the career bureaucrats, who were expecting to wait out Trump’s term, have revealed an arrogance that needs to be broken up.  They can’t be allowed to conduct themselves as they have and resist justice.  With people we expect to run these investigations, such as Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, this unique window was only going to open up for a short time, and now is that time.  The expectation that people like Comey could commit crimes and stall the results and sit on a beach somewhere waiting out the previous administration until voters simply removed them is over.  As I have said, and this is key, from the beginning.  You can’t throw people like Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon in jail without expecting punishment.  These people tried to destroy Trump’s life just for daring to be in politics, and now he has the authority of the American people behind him to set right all these many wrongs, starting with Jim Comey.

Scum bag

I will be talking about it a lot, my now-famous CNN segment where I said live on the air to Anderson Cooper’s audience that Comey had lied in his first testimony in May 2017, when Trump first fired him.  At that time, it was a very scandalous thing to say.  Not that I cared much, because I had my own media outlet that was much more popular than any of those mainstream ones.  So my punishment for saying what I did about Comey put me in the radical right-wing crazy column, and everyone stopped asking me to appear on television and radio shows after that CNN segment.  And all I said was that I thought Comey was more inclined to fiction when saying anything.  I was pretty nice about saying that the former FBI Director was a lying scum bag.  However, people had a hard time getting their minds around that idea because Comey projected a Boy Scout-like honesty that defied the reality of him.  And people wanted the illusion.  And the Deep State took note, figuring they could get away with anything.  And the arrogance of Comey continued to escalate.  And the career types who are in these jobs were cheerleading the demise of Trump from their way too comfortable jobs.  They conspired against the hand-picked administration and thought we were all fools as they manipulated the FISA courts, expecting us all to just sit on our hands and let it happen.  They thought we were suckers who would not fight back.  And they ended up stealing an election just a few short months after the testimony that got Comey in all the trouble he is in now.  These charges are not the only ones for which he is guilty.  But the trend was evident at the time, and now, in hindsight, there were a lot of crimes that were committed against Trump and the idea of an open election that is impossible to ignore.

This idea of stalling out investigations, as seen with Pam Bondi in the Department of Justice and Kash Patel, is reminiscent of what Comey used to do.  And people like Dan Bongino helping in the background, that the system was designed to hide people like Jim Comey from justice was going to be allowed to stand.  It was a dumb concept that was never going to work.  I have been very forgiving of Pam Bondi.  It takes a few months to learn some of these jobs, especially when all the employees who report to you are sandbagging.  You don’t want to prosecute unfairly, and Trump certainly didn’t want to win office and start throwing his political rivals in jail.  But, they asked for it.  And after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, after the attempted assassination of Trump, there simply is no other option.  We can point to the killers and send them to the firing squad.  But there is an entire system behind them of these career Deep Staters who are really causing all the trouble in the world, and justice has to point in their direction, starting with one of the worst of all, James Comey.  He lied and hid his malice behind a “golly gee” Tayler Swift façade, like he’s the dad in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, instead of a conniving villain trying to protect the pensions of career leeches off taxpayer dollars. 

And the public will reward Trump with the arrest of Jim Comey, and they’ll expect many more to be prosecuted as well.  The best way to undo the system is to crush it and let it collapse.  Let the media have a meltdown over what they thought was a protected class of criminals, the career bureaucrats, such as James Comey, who were protected by government unions into perpetual activism and could lie, cheat, and steal because all the laws were rigged to favor them.  And to get away with their crimes, all they had to do was outlast the elected office holders who would come and go.  They were protected by a media driven by the same labor union mentality, which led them not to criticize their brothers and sisters in government, but instead to criticize the elected representatives who send those people to Washington to work on their behalf, only to rotate out every four years or so.  Arresting Comey is the start of something truly outstanding and orderly.  No longer can career political figures hide in the background and get away with horrendous legal tampering, as we saw happen with the former FBI Director.  And he won’t be the last, but is just the first.  And that’s how it should be, given this long history.  It was eight years ago that I interviewed on CNN, where I stated that Comey was a liar.  It has taken this long to have him finally arrested for his crimes, and that is with someone like Trump in the White House.  These crimes are committed because there is an expectation of being too nice, and the criminals have been taking advantage of that gullibility for too long.  And they expected it to continue perpetually.  But we all have an obligation to a law and order society, and that starts by not letting these criminals get away with it, and to hide behind union cards and mass collectivism.  And with that in mind, James Comey is just the very first.

Rich Hoffman

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

Carrying the Weight of the World: Trump’s UN Speech and earning the right to be blunt about escalators

Who wouldn’t love the UN speech of 2025 that President Trump gave, as the escalator broke as soon as he and Melania put their feet on it?  That’s the world we are living in, and obviously, the escalator incident was no accident.  Employees joked about the escalators’ malfunctioning leading up to that speech as a radical means of protest, hoping to garner more funding for the United Nations, as if additional resources would solve all the problems.  Instead, Trump and his wife walked up the escalator without a whole lot of drama and gave a speech that essentially wiped the smile off the face of a very radical world that has failed dramatically since the creation of the UN after World War II.  It wasn’t the usual speech of placation that often accompanies these kinds of things, with calls for unity, peace, and all that kind of rhetoric.  No, Trump had earned the right to call out everyone, right in front of their faces, and tell them what a bunch of low-life characters they all were.  And that is what earning the right by carrying the weight of the world earns you.  And why Trump changing positions on Russia is so important, because only by earning that trust, by enduring the weight of the world, can a person like Trump say the things he does in public.  The UN speech was a remarkable statement by a world that the United States was clearly leading.  All nations were not there equally.  Running the world by committee has turned out to be a disaster, and it took someone like Trump to point it out.  Not through the media with some passive-aggressive protest, but live, to their faces.  And while everyone was on their heels from what he was saying, they complained that the UN doesn’t work, and neither do its escalators or its teleprompters.  Technical sabotage was meant to throw Trump off his game, but it ultimately played to his advantage.

But to earn that right to be as blunt as Trump has been, carrying the weight of the world comes first, and when people wonder why people like Melania Trump and her husband would want to trade in their life of the rich and famous for this demanding job of being President of the United States, the answer comes from speeches like the one Trump gave.  Watching their faces on the 9/11 ceremony this year, the day after Charlie Kirk, a former friend of theirs, was assassinated in cold blood, was obviously hard for them.  And on the day of the speech, the would-be progressive assassin Ryan Wesley Routh was convicted on all counts in trying to plot the murder of Trump at his golf course, just a few months after the attempted assassination of the President at Butler, Pennsylvania, that drew blood, but had only clipped his ear.  Charlie Kirk wasn’t so lucky, and that was obviously weighing on Trump as he and his wife went through the rituals of 9/11 ceremonies to pay tribute to the most significant act of terrorism that ever occurred on American soil.  More terrorism on a larger scale than the escalator sabotage at the UN, but the same in principle.  And the knowledge that after someone of good character had just been killed on a college campus, many on the Democrat side of politics cheered about it, and to discover that so many of our public school teachers were happy that Kirk was dead, and were gloating about it.   The weight of all that evil when you are in a job like the one in the White House can really make you not want to get up out of bed in the morning.

Then, to add to that, the deceit of Vladimir Putin of Russia, who has been saying one thing about peace all along, while turning around and killing many thousands of people on both sides, ruthlessly can really shake your faith in any kind of relationship.  Even Benjamin Netanyahu has been deceitful in his platitudes of peace, while turning around and acting contrary, being very aggressive, knowing that the United States would always bail him out of any trouble he got into.  So he was picking fights anyway, putting Trump in a terrible position.  The evil that people showed, and being in a position to see it so bluntly, was really wearing on the President, as it does most people who find themselves in that perspective.  Leadership is hard when you know so much truth that most people get to dance through without too much thought.  And that leads to the question of why anyone would want to be a leader of anything, whether it’s the President of the United States or the CEO of a company.  Why would anybody want to put themselves through the ordeal of all the trouble?  Especially when they are wealthy and could choose otherwise?  Knowing the worst in people, because your perspective reveals it to you, why would anybody want to do it?  To know too much and to carry around so much weight, knowing the level of hatred in the world around you.  Most people never encounter this kind of situation because their relationships maintain an illusion of civility.  But Trump is seeing the raw evil that can come from people, and he never gets a break from it.  It’s tough to use the Power of Positive Thinking to overcome such menacing negative thinking, and the Democrats are the party of negativity and below-the-line victimization.

Well, you do it so that you get a chance to go to the United Nations and tell them all what you think of them.  You endure the pain of life so that you can throw it in their faces.  And in doing so, you make the world a bit less crappy because of the people in it.  The United Nations was a failure from the start, but it was able to hide its poor performance behind the evils of humanity.  And as long as people kept the speeches nice, nobody talked about the tough stuff.  And everyone could party on the town, buying prostitutes while away from home, and go to fancy restaurants without any real cares in the world.  But to pull that off, everyone needs to be equally trashy and guilty of the crimes that the world enjoyed.  But by carrying the weight of the world the way that Trump does, from a leadership perspective, he can break protocol and tell people what he thinks of them, because everyone he’s talking to knows they can’t do the same.  Their guilt weighs heavily on their minds, burdening them with the truth of it all.  And that is why it’s worth being in a leadership position.  And without all the pain and the desire to carry it from the White House, nobody earns the right to talk about the real problems.  And this United Nations meeting would be just one more eventless charade.  But because Trump has suffered through some terrible weeks where the worst that people can do to each other was made evident, and he smiles his way through it like nothing in the world can bother him, he earns the right to be critical of escalators that don’t work, or global organizations that fail just as spectacularly.  And that he can broker peace with the biggest nations of the world, who are up to no good, because he has been willing to carry the burdens of knowledge that comes from really knowing the deceit that people are capable of.  And we are all better off for it.

Rich Hoffman

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

I Love War: The greatest joy in life is destroying your enemies

Erika Kirk’s statements at the memorial service for her husband were nice, but it has been something that has come up in my direction many more times than a few this past week.  I am more aligned with what President Trump said about his enemies: I hate them.  I don’t want to get along with them.  And I would be bored to death in life if I didn’t have someone to fight.  The idea of going to Heaven and sitting around playing a harp on a cloud all day for eternity is not appealing.  Forgiving enemies is not something I will ever do.  I love war, and I love being in fights with other people.  I love to destroy my enemies.  That destruction either happens fast or it happens over a great many years, depending on the circumstance.  But one way or another, the destruction of my enemies is something that is going to happen, and I spend a lot of my life thinking about it.  The idea of waking up every morning, sipping coffee, and watching the dew gather on blades of grass without having to fight is incredibly dull to me, and I would not be happy.  So even though the concept of Christianity is to forgive your enemies and all kinds of platitudes that I think were incorrectly interpreted over time into organized religion, that is where my thoughts end on these kinds of things.  I may share a lot of values with very religious people, but if there is no conflict involved in communicating those ideas, then I lose interest really fast.  Because to me, the fight is the only thing that matters, and if people aren’t fighting, they aren’t trying to get to the truth of a matter. 

Human beings are so deceitful; they have numerous value systems that protect their motivations behind the creative lies that surround their lives intensely.  That is the first problem with a society of peace: a lot of truth gets buried behind deceit.  When people ask me why I can sniff out so much truth about things, and have over a long period of time, it’s because I like to fight for that truth about people.  The pressure of conflict brings about the truth in people and exposes them from their hiding places.  In my experience, that is the only way to understand what people are all about truly.  Otherwise, they will conceal their true thoughts behind the façade of polite society.  If you love the truth, you have to love the means of extracting it from society in general, and the only real way to do that is through conflict.  People often reveal a great deal about themselves through conflict that they would otherwise conceal.  Along with war, I love uncovering the truth about things.  Whatever that truth may be.  I love war because I love the truth, and you can only learn it through conflict.  Because people, all people, will lie to protect their version of the truth until their dying day, if they are allowed to.  The reason for conflict is to settle differing ideas about things.  And to avoid war is to suppress the truth about what those things might be in favor of some common understanding that is usually a watered-down version of reality.  So the assumption of peace is the surrender of the truth, as people are willing to fight for it.  And that lowers the value of a society in general as a result. 

I suppose this has arisen recently, before Erika Kirk made her statements, because many truly reprehensible individuals believed they had some leverage over me.  And they have been very frustrated by my reaction to their aggressions.  Most people conduct strategies assuming that peace is the motivating factor in a human being.  To wake up in the morning and be left alone so that everything is just perfect.  I don’t see the world like that.  If there isn’t something to fight, then I’m bored.  So when I have a lot of enemies trying to plot my demise, I am far happier than if everyone just left me alone.  Many people are frustrated by my approach because they assumed, like most people, that I would do anything for peace.  They should have done their homework.  Ever since I was a little kid, most of my thoughts have been about war and fighting someone over something.  That’s why I love politics.  That’s why I love the business world.  That’s why I like most things, because they involve people, and those people are often at cross-purposes with each other. I love uncovering the truth behind concealed smiles and handshakes.  I never sit down with people and look for common ground or ways to enjoy another person.  I want to challenge them, with everyone, and to discover what it is they don’t want to be known for to the world.  I never assume that my interactions with anyone will be peaceful, and if they are, I lose interest in those people quickly.  In my youth, I wore army fatigues everywhere, under every circumstance, because they reminded me of my love for constant fighting.  I never wanted to join the military to “serve.”  Serving others was always a misguided idea because what if, in doing so, those people were found to be unworthy of my dedication, which is a common discovery in all institutionalism.  However, the fighting aspect has always been appealing. 

The teachings of Jesus are appealing ideas on the surface.  But if you like the truth of a matter, you will either be killed for it, as Jesus was, and John the Baptist was, and as was Charlie Kirk, and many others.  Or you will have to fight everyone, and like it.  And that means everyone, because most people are very deceitful even within their families.  There are plenty of fights, and if you want to know the truth about things, you’d better be willing to fight for it.  Fighting is more than just the physical aspect, because humans are very emotional creatures; they create many layers of deceit in their lives to protect themselves from the harm of judgment.  And the more people you deal with, the more deceit you can expect to be exposed to.  The only way to get to the truth of anything is through conflict, in stripping away the things people use to protect themselves so you can get to the foundation of their intellects.  Such a thing is never given up voluntarily; you have to pound away at their defenses to know who they really are, which only happens under duress.  So, if many people have found that they now have a handful with me, they should have thought about things a bit more carefully.  I am only thrilled when the world around me is on fire, and that is how it will always be with me, even in Heaven.  Heaven to me would be at the gates of Hell putting evil’s heads on a pike and spitting on their tortured bodies.  Everyone else can play a harp at the golden gates of Heaven and sing songs to each other in a quest for peace.  Which, for me, is the same as serving an obligation toward dishonesty.  Only in war do people really tell the truth, even in Heaven.

Rich Hoffman

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

We Were Meant to Fight for the Bible: Not to get along with the devils of life, but to slay them

I’ve had what I can only describe as one of the worst weeks of my adult life. Not because of global events alone—though the assassination of Charlie Kirk and other disturbing developments certainly cast a shadow—but because of the personal weight of it all. It’s not the first time I’ve faced a week like this, and I’ve long since abandoned the illusion that life is meant to be luxurious or stable. Comfort, for those who fight for goodness, is not part of the equation. Life, at its core, is a battleground for ideas, for virtue, for truth. And when evil shows itself, as it often does, the only response is to stand firm and keep moving forward with a tenacious mind to defeat it.

For years, I’ve carried my Bible with me across the world. It’s not a crutch, nor a talisman—it’s a companion, a collection of wisdom that transcends time and geography. It has traveled with me through many airports, across countries, and into countless moments of philosophic contemplation. I consider it one of the greatest literary achievements of human intellect, not because it is flawless in form, but because it captures the essence of what it means to be human, striving toward the divine. It is a book that has shaped civilizations, inspired revolutions of thought, and anchored the moral compass of entire cultures.

My study of religion has been deep and wide, touching on comparative theology, mythology, and the psychology of belief systems. I’ve explored Hinduism, Buddhism, ancient tribal mythologies, and the spiritual frameworks of indigenous societies. I’ve read the Golden Bough and other seminal texts that attempt to decode the human relationship with the eternal. But none of these, in all their richness and diversity, have articulated the human struggle for goodness with the clarity and power of the Bible. It is not merely a religious text—it is a blueprint for civilization, a philosophical foundation upon which the most successful societies have been built.

Western civilization, with all its flaws and triumphs, emerged from the soil of biblical thought. The Bible did not just inspire personal piety; it gave rise to systems of law, ethics, governance, and human rights. It provided a framework for understanding the nature of life beyond primal survival. It allowed humanity to step beyond the dog-eat-dog existence and begin to dream of peace, justice, and purpose. The philosophies that emerged from biblical foundations—Judeo-Christian ethics, the sanctity of life, the dignity of labor, the value of truth—are not accidental. They are the fruits of a worldview that sees life as a sacred struggle, not a playground.

When we attempt to remove the Bible from our cultural foundation, we do not simply erase a book—we unravel the very fabric of our civilization. The degradation of social norms, the rise of hatred toward those who speak of God, family, and moral responsibility, are symptoms of a deeper sickness: the rejection of the very ideas that made our society possible. Why would anyone hate a man who speaks of goodness, of biblical values, of the importance of relationships rooted in truth? Because rebellion against the good is seductive. It promises freedom but delivers chaos. It offers novelty but strips away meaning.

There are many religions in the world, and many have contributed to the human story. Islam, Buddhism, and countless others have shaped cultures and guided lives. But when measured by the success of civilizations—by their ability to sustain peace, foster innovation, and uphold human dignity—the biblical worldview stands alone. It is not a matter of superiority in doctrine, but in outcome. Societies built on biblical principles have thrived, while those that rejected them have often descended into tyranny or stagnation. This is not a coincidence; it is a reflection of the power of truth.

The Bible does not promise comfort. It does not coddle the reader with easy answers or indulgent philosophies. It calls us to be warriors for goodness, to fight for what is right even when the world is falling apart. It teaches that life is not meant to be enjoyed passively but lived actively, with purpose and conviction. The stories within its pages—of struggle, redemption, sacrifice, and triumph—are not mere allegories. They are the roadmap for a life well-lived, a society well-ordered, and a soul well-formed.

Even in the midst of a miserable week, when everything seems to be unraveling, I find truth in the biblical perspective. It reminds me that suffering is not meaningless, that hardship is not failure, and that the pursuit of goodness is the highest calling. We are not here to be comfortable. We are here to fight for what is right, to build what is good, and to stand against what is evil. That is the essence of human existence, and it is captured more powerfully in the Bible than in any other literary or philosophical tradition.

Civilizations rise and fall, but the ideas that sustain them endure. The Bible has endured because it speaks to the deepest truths of the human condition. It does not shy away from pain, conflict, or complexity. It embraces them, transforms them, and uses them to point toward something greater. It is not a relic of the past—it is a guide for the future. And any society that seeks to thrive must return to its wisdom, not as dogma, but as a foundation for thought, action, and community.

We are living in a time when the foundations are being shaken. The rejection of biblical values is not leading to liberation—it is leading to confusion, division, and decay. The intellectual persistence that once defined our culture is being replaced by emotional reaction and ideological chaos. But there is still hope. There is still a path forward. And it begins with a return to the truths that have stood the test of time.

To fight for goodness is to embrace the struggle. It is to reject the lie that life is meant to be easy and to accept the challenge of living with purpose. The Bible teaches us that goodness is not a feeling—it is a discipline. It is a choice made daily, in the face of adversity, and in defiance of despair. It is the path of the warrior, not the tourist. And it is the only path that leads to true peace.

So even in the worst of weeks, I hold great respect for the Bible—not as a comfort, but as a compass. It points all society toward what matters. It reminds me of who I am and what I love to do, to fight, not for myself, but for the world that could be, if only we had the guts to be what we were meant to be.  We were not designed to sip lattes at Starbucks and to swat at bugs that land on our foreheads.  We were meant to step into the gaps in life and to fight the evil that resides there, without fear.  And with ruthlessness.  We are not meant to get along with the devils of life.  We are meant to slay them.  And to build the foundations of civilizations on their defeated corpses.  And to plant our flags of justice into the eye sockets of their decapitated heads.  Not to love our enemies, but to defeat them so that even the soil that captures their blood withers under our quest for justice.  And that the entire universe will shudder by our intentions for truth, justice and the AMERICAN way.  And no other way.

Rich Hoffman

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