Category: Archeology

‘Melania,’: The Billie Jean of Politics

The recent release of the documentary film Melania, directed by Brett Ratner and distributed by Amazon MGM Studios, offers a compelling behind-the-scenes glimpse into the life of First Lady Melania Trump during the pivotal 20 days leading up to President Donald Trump’s second inauguration in January 2025. This project, which followed her 2024 memoir Melania (published by Skyhorse on October 8, 2024), extends the intimate, personal narrative she began in print, providing viewers with unprecedented access to her daily routines, family moments, White House transition preparations, and interactions at locations like Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower.

The film arrives at a time when Melania Trump has stepped more visibly into the public eye, leveraging her platform to advocate for causes such as children’s welfare, anti-bullying initiatives (echoing her earlier Be Best campaign), and upward mobility. Her memoir, released just weeks before the 2024 election, framed her perspective on life in the spotlight, her Slovenian roots under communism, her modeling career, her marriage to Donald Trump, and her priorities as a mother and wife. The documentary builds on this, presenting her as a grounding influence on her husband—someone who brings elegance, class, and a measured outlook to the often chaotic world of politics. Observers familiar with her world note that her background, roughly aligned with those who came of age during the Reagan era, informs her values: a blend of capitalist ambition forged from escaping a communist system, combined with a deliberate choice to prioritize family over constant public engagement.

Attending the film’s opening day in a local theater proved surprisingly challenging; despite assumptions that theaters would be empty amid streaming dominance and polarized politics, the showing was packed, forcing seats in the handicap-accessible section to sit together. This turnout reflects broader enthusiasm among supporters, who view the project as more than mere entertainment—it’s a cultural artifact capturing a unique historical moment. Box office figures underscore this interest: the film opened to approximately $8 million domestically, marking one of the strongest theatrical debuts for a non-concert documentary in over a decade, far exceeding initial low projections of $3-5 million in some estimates.

The production’s scale has drawn scrutiny. Amazon MGM Studios acquired rights for a reported $40 million—the highest ever for a documentary—with additional tens of millions in marketing, leading to speculation about motives, including potential alignment with the administration given Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s past criticisms and recent shifts in media coverage. Melania Trump has described the work not strictly as a documentary but as an entertainment piece—a creative, observational portrait akin to a painting, allowing audiences to sit with her character amid major events. This framing emphasizes its artistic merit over pure journalism, offering a positive, aspirational view of leadership, family, and personal resilience.

Critics from the left have responded with notable aggression, including campaigns to suppress attendance or mock empty screenings in certain areas, echoing longstanding animosity toward Melania Trump. Much of this stems from her choices: a former fashion model who opted for a private life, raising her son as a dedicated homemaker while married to a billionaire, rejecting the societal push for constant careerism or public activism. Her beauty, poise, and “golden tower” existence—insulated yet purposeful—provoke resentment among those who see it as unattainable or unfair. Radical elements decry her as out of touch, yet her narrative promotes unity, positive thinking, and bridging divides, ideals she hopes to advance in her second tenure as First Lady.

This backlash reveals a deeper divide: one side embraces high standards, personal responsibility, and optimism, while the other clings to victimhood narratives shielded by government dependency or lowered expectations. The film’s positive portrayal—reliving inauguration day from an insider’s view, showcasing Mar-a-Lago elegance, and highlighting mutual respect in the Trumps’ partnership—challenges that. It suggests Donald Trump’s success owes much to Melania’s stabilizing influence; their union combines his bold energy with her grace, creating a dynamic suited to executive leadership.

Ultimately, the documentary and memoir together solidify a vision of America aspiring upward. They invite viewers to witness a high bar of excellence—strong families, positive momentum, and unapologetic success—and ask whether reconciliation across divides is possible without compromising those standards. History shows that extending hands has often meant lowering expectations to appease radicals, but this era signals a rejection of that path. The enthusiastic reception, despite polarized reviews, indicates many Americans are drawn to this message of inspiration over grievance.

Walking out of the theater after viewing the documentary Melania, the underlying reasons for our societal divisions became starkly apparent, revealing why true reconciliation may be impossible. Melania Trump, through this film, embodies a philosophy aligned with her husband’s lifelong approach: showcasing personal success as a beacon for others. She presents her life—marked by elegance, family devotion, and achievement—as a high bar, inviting viewers to aspire to similar heights. “Look at what I’ve accomplished,” the narrative implies, “and let me show you how you can do it too.” It’s an optimistic, empowering message rooted in positive thinking and upward mobility, offering a behind-the-scenes glimpse into a world of high standards and mutual respect within the Trump family.

Yet, this vision clashes irreconcilably with the core tenets of left-wing politics, which thrive on below-the-line thinking and perpetual victimization. Progressive ideologies prioritize lowering expectations across all facets of life, from labor unions that resist performance-based accountability to broader policies that dismantle judgments on behavior. The goal is a society where “anything goes,” shielded from scrutiny or consequences, allowing individuals to avoid the discomfort of striving. In this worldview, high achievers like Melania—beautiful, poised, and unapologetically successful—become targets of resentment. Her choice to live insulated in a “golden tower,” prioritizing motherhood and privacy over relentless public engagement, is seen not as inspirational but as an affront to those who demand equality through diminished standards.

The hatred directed at the film, the Trumps, and conservative politics stems precisely from this refusal to embrace low bars. Critics on the radical left reject any invitation to elevate themselves, viewing expectations as oppressive. They weaponize peer pressure, media campaigns, and even violence to maintain a status quo of minimal accountability, relying on expansive government to protect them from life’s demands. No amount of kindness or outreach can bridge this gap; as long as one side insists on stripping away standards while the other upholds them, division persists. This dynamic ensures ongoing discontent, where unity requires conservatives to compromise their values—a concession that history shows only erodes societal progress. Melania’s documentary, in highlighting this high-bar ethos, underscores that true advancement demands forcing elevation, not appeasement, even if it invites backlash from those unwilling to rise.  Which makes this a uniquely valuable work of art that everyone should see.

Beyond its political and cultural insights, Melania stands as a genuine work of art, masterfully capturing a singular perspective on life in the United States during one of its most transformative periods. The film peels back layers of privacy with deliberate, cinematic flair, offering intimate access to Melania Trump’s world while maintaining an aura of grandeur and mystique. The setup shots—particularly those at Trump Tower, the seamless transitions into motorcades, and the fluid movement through opulent spaces—evoke a sense of controlled revelation, where the viewer is invited in but never fully overwhelms the subject’s carefully guarded essence.

This approach strikingly recalls how Michael Jackson promoted his iconic videos and shared glimpses of his private life in documentaries like those surrounding Thriller or his personal specials. Jackson, too, balanced extreme fame with deliberate barriers—veils of security, secluded estates, and a projected image of positivity—to protect himself from constant intrusion while uplifting audiences through aspirational artistry. He let people peek behind the curtain just enough to humanize the icon, fostering connection without sacrificing enigma. In Melania, similar techniques unfold: the film grants behind-the-scenes access to high-stakes moments, yet it preserves her poise and detachment, turning personal vulnerability into inspiration.

A particularly revealing moment underscores this parallel. In the car during one of her travels, Melania shares that Michael Jackson is her favorite artist, with “Billie Jean” as her top song (alongside “Thriller”). The track plays, and she sings along quietly, even briefly, in a rare, unguarded display—echoing the Carpool Karaoke-style intimacy Jackson sometimes allowed in his own media moments. She recalls meeting him once with Donald Trump, describing him as “very sweet, very nice.” This scene isn’t mere filler; it humanizes her, showing a shared appreciation for Jackson’s method of blending private authenticity with mass appeal. By channeling that same strategy—projecting positivity, offering selective insight, and inviting upliftment—Melania crafts a presentation that feels wholesome and enduring.

Ultimately, this Michael Jackson-inspired approach to marketing her lifestyle and perspective proves remarkably effective. It transforms what could have been a dry political portrait into something engaging and aspirational, likely contributing to the film’s success in theaters and its anticipated streaming draw. Melania isn’t just a documentary; it’s a thoughtfully composed invitation to see excellence up close, much like Jackson’s legacy of turning personal narrative into global inspiration. Everyone should see it—it’s a compelling, artful reminder of how high standards and positive projection can resonate in turbulent times.

For those interested in exploring further:

•  Melania Trump’s memoir Melania (Skyhorse Publishing, 2024) provides the foundational personal account.<sup>1</sup>

•  Coverage of the film’s production and release details Amazon’s involvement and box office performance.<sup>2</sup>

•  Analyses of public reactions and political context offer broader insights into cultural divisions.<sup>3</sup>

The work stands as a testament to individual agency in turbulent times, reminding us that true unity requires elevation, not concession.

<sup>1</sup> Wikipedia entry on Melania (memoir), confirming October 8, 2024 release.

<sup>2</sup> Reports from The Hollywood Reporter and Variety on opening weekend earnings around $8 million.

<sup>3</sup> Various sources including The New York Times and The Guardian on Amazon’s investment and criticisms.

Rich Hoffman

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

Good and Bad Protests: It all comes down to free elections

In the realm of global politics, protests serve as a barometer of societal discontent, yet their legitimacy often hinges on the nature of the regime they challenge. Distinguishing between “good” and “bad” protesters requires an examination of context: are they rallying against an elected, representative government, or are they resisting tyrannical rule? This question came into sharp focus during the 2020 protests in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which erupted following the death of George Floyd in police custody on May 25, 2020. These demonstrations, part of the broader Black Lives Matter movement, quickly escalated into widespread unrest, including looting, arson, and clashes with law enforcement, resulting in an estimated $500 million in damages across the Twin Cities area.  In contrast, protests in countries like Venezuela, Hong Kong, and Iran have often been viewed through a different lens by the United States—supported as righteous uprisings against oppressive dictatorships. The key difference lies in the foundational principles of democracy, free will, and self-governance. Protests in the U.S. that aim to undermine policies enacted by a duly elected administration, such as those under President Donald Trump, border on sedition, while those abroad that seek to dismantle authoritarian structures align with American values of liberty and human rights. If we explore these distinctions, delving into historical and contemporary contexts, the role of money and culture in measuring societal value, the mechanics of representative republics versus mob rule, and the perils of communist influences attempting to exploit civil unrest for revolutionary ends.

To understand the Minneapolis protests, one must first grasp their origins and evolution. On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old African American man, was arrested by Minneapolis police officers on suspicion of using a counterfeit $20 bill. During the arrest, Officer Derek Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes, leading to his death, which was ruled a homicide.  Video footage of the incident, captured by bystanders, went viral, igniting outrage over police brutality and systemic racism. Protests began the next day, initially peaceful, with thousands gathering at the site of Floyd’s death on East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue.  However, by May 27, the demonstrations turned violent, with looting at stores like Target and Cub Foods, and arson setting fire to buildings along Lake Street, including the Third Precinct police station, which protesters overran and burned.  Over the following days, the unrest spread to Saint Paul and other cities, leading to 604 arrests, 164 arsons, and two deaths during the initial phase from May 26 to June 7.  The protests were characterized by demands for police reform, but they also included calls to defund or abolish police departments, which critics argued amounted to an assault on established law and order.

These events occurred against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s policies, particularly on immigration and law enforcement, which protesters often decried as oppressive. Trump’s approach emphasized strict border control, including the construction of a border wall and enhanced deportation efforts, aimed at enforcing existing laws passed by Congress.  In Minnesota, a state with significant immigrant communities, some protests intertwined racial justice with immigration issues, portraying federal policies as tools of suppression. Yet, from the perspective of election legitimacy, these protests challenged the outcomes of the 2016 election, where Trump was elected on a platform promising stronger law enforcement and border security. The 2020 election, which saw Trump lose amid widespread mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic, further fueled debates over electoral integrity. Claims of irregularities, such as unverified mail ballots and changes to voting rules by state officials without legislative approval, led to lawsuits and audits, though courts largely upheld the results.  Protesters in Minneapolis, by seeking to force policy changes through disruption rather than the ballot box, exemplified what some view as seditious behavior—actions that undermine a government chosen by the people.

Sedition, as defined in U.S. law under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, involves conspiring to overthrow or oppose by force the authority of the government or to prevent the execution of its laws.  Historically, sedition laws have been controversial, dating back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which criminalized false statements against the government amid fears of French influence.  These acts were repealed, but similar provisions resurfaced in the Espionage Act of 1917 and its 1918 amendments, targeting anti-war speech during World War I.  In modern times, sedition charges are rare due to First Amendment protections, requiring speech to incite imminent lawless action per Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).  However, the Minneapolis unrest, with its destruction of public property and calls to dismantle police forces enforcing federal and state laws, raised questions about whether such actions crossed into seditious territory. Critics argue that while peaceful protest is protected, violence aimed at policy overthrow bypasses democratic processes, echoing the point that these actions seek to subvert a government “picked by the people.”

Contrast this with protests in Venezuela, where demonstrators have long challenged the authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro. Since 2013, Venezuelans have protested against economic collapse, hyperinflation, shortages, and political repression under Maduro’s socialist government, which succeeded Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution.  Major waves occurred in 2014, following the attempted rape of a student and subsequent arrests, leading to 43 deaths and thousands of arrests.  In 2017, protests intensified over Maduro’s attempts to consolidate power, including dissolving the opposition-led National Assembly. By 2019, opposition leader Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president, sparking massive demonstrations against Maduro’s fraudulent re-election in 2018, where voter turnout was artificially inflated and opposition candidates were barred.  The U.S. supported these protests, recognizing Guaidó and imposing sanctions on Maduro’s regime to pressure for democratic restoration.  Unlike Minneapolis, these protests targeted a regime that suppressed elections, jailed opponents, and relied on violence to maintain control, aligning with U.S. interests in promoting self-governance.

Similarly, Hong Kong’s 2019 pro-democracy protests arose from opposition to an extradition bill that would allow transfers to mainland China, threatening the city’s autonomy under the “one country, two systems” framework established in 1997.  Beginning in March 2019, millions marched peacefully, but clashes with police escalated, involving tear gas, rubber bullets, and arrests.  Protesters demanded withdrawal of the bill, an inquiry into police brutality, and universal suffrage for legislative and chief executive elections.  The U.S. condemned China’s crackdown, passing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in November 2019 to support protesters and sanction officials.  These actions were seen as resistance to communist encroachment by the Chinese Communist Party, which imposed a national security law in 2020, leading to mass arrests and the erosion of freedoms. 

In Iran, the 2022 protests following the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody highlighted resistance to theocratic rule.  Amini, arrested for improper hijab, died on September 16, 2022, sparking nationwide demonstrations led by women removing veils and chanting “Woman, Life, Freedom.”  The regime responded with violence, killing at least 551 protesters, including 68 children, and arresting thousands.  The U.S. supported these protests by easing sanctions on technology to aid communication and condemning the repression.  Unlike U.S. protests, these aimed to dismantle a regime that denies free elections and enforces religious law through brutality.

The U.S. has historically backed such international protests as vehicles for promoting democracy and human rights.  In Venezuela, the Trump administration recognized Guaidó and imposed sanctions to isolate Maduro.  For Hong Kong, bipartisan legislation provided support against Chinese influence.  In Iran, statements and actions affirmed solidarity with protesters seeking freedom.  This aligns with America’s foundational values, where money measures initiative and ownership, fostering a culture of self-reliance and free will. In representative republics, citizens elect officials to enact policies, as in Trump’s immigration agenda, which prioritized enforcement to preserve national sovereignty.  Protests forcing change through violence confuse this with direct democracy, potentially leading to majority tyranny.

Election integrity is central to this distinction. The 2020 U.S. election faced scrutiny over mail-in ballots, with claims of fraud in swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania.  Audits and lawsuits revealed serious issues.  In contrast, regimes like Maduro’s rig elections, justifying protests as the only recourse.  Elections are rigged in other countries, and its hard to admit that it has been happening in America.  Concern about “mail balls made up in a Walmart parking lot” echoes debates over ballot security, highlighting why preserving electoral processes is vital to prevent insurrection.

Underlying U.S. protests, is communist infiltration via progressive politics.  Historical fears, like McCarthyism in the 1950s, targeted alleged communist subversion.  Today, claims persist of cultural Marxism influencing movements like BLM, seen as platforms to usher in socialism by undermining capitalism and family structures.  In Minneapolis, some viewed protests as exploiting civil rights for communist ends, contrasting with genuine struggles abroad against actual communist dictators.

The difference boils down to intent and system: U.S. protests against elected policies risk sedition, while those abroad against tyranny merit support. Preserving free elections, resisting infiltration, and valuing self-governance ensure America’s republic endures, unlike faraway places lacking such freedoms.

Bibliography

1.  Wikipedia. “George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul

2.  The New York Times. “George Floyd Protests: A Timeline.” https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-protests-timeline.html

3.  CNN. “How George Floyd’s death reignited a movement.” https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/us/gallery/george-floyd-protests-2020-look-back

4.  Wikipedia. “Protests against Nicolás Maduro.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro

5.  Amnesty International. “Human rights in Venezuela.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela

6.  Wikipedia. “2019–2020 Hong Kong protests.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Kong_protests

7.  Amnesty International. “Hong Kong’s protests explained.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/09/hong-kong-protests-explained

8.  Wikipedia. “Mahsa Amini protests.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests

9.  House of Commons Library. “Two-year anniversary of the Mahsa Amini protests in Iran.” https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/two-year-anniversary-of-the-mahsa-amini-protests-in-iran

10.  U.S. Code. “18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.” https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart1%2Fchapter115

11.  Cornell Law School. “Sedition.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sedition

12.  Wikipedia. “Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

13.  Wikipedia. “McCarthyism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

14.  The Heritage Foundation. “The Secret Communist Movement Inside America.” https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-secret-communist-movement-inside-america

Footnotes

1.  For more on the economic impact of the Minneapolis riots, see the Property Claim Services report estimating damages at over $2 billion nationwide.

2.  The U.N. Fact-Finding Mission on Iran documented extrajudicial executions during the 2022 protests.

3.  Historical sedition cases, like the Hollywood Ten, illustrate how fears of communism led to blacklisting in the 1950s.<|control12|>

Rich Hoffman

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

UFO Over West Chester, Ohio: Needing to know what we need to know

Witness statements indicated, “I was driving the northbound lanes of I-75 before Thanksgiving—just the steady crawl of rush hour through West Chester—when a shape where no shape should be caught my eye. Not a streak, not a flare, not the lazy oval of a blimp dragging an ad across the horizon, but a blue-gray rectangle that looked like someone had taken the idea of a stadium banner and carved it into geometry: thin, wide, and impossibly still against the evening sky. The first reaction was mundane: a banner tow. You see them every summer drifting over ballparks, or on fair weekends when traffic is thick, and attention is cheap. But banners have parents—a plane, a line, a sound. This object had none. It hung there, maybe five miles out over the Tylersville exit, tilted at roughly forty-five degrees of elevation, its edges too crisp to be cloud and too steady to be balloon. Ten minutes passed in that ordinary twenty-mile-per-hour way West Chester makes you count time. Then it vanished, not like a fade into haze or a slip behind trees, but like a television cut to black.”¹ ²

Dash cams make you honest in moments like that. One recorded the rectangle; a passenger kept describing it like a sign with no tether, and when the driver pulled up a tracking app, there was no aircraft to match the sightline or altitude. The account went into the National UFO Reporting Center—the place witnesses still go when something refuses easy categorization—as Report #194307, timestamped 5:02 PM local on November 22, 2025, with the witnesses noting “blue/gray,” “thinner than it was wide,” “not rising or descending,” and then the sudden “just vanished.” The details are banal enough to feel reliable—half a football field long, twenty-five yards tall, two observers—and they were posted publicly two days later, preserved among Ohio’s week of strange lights, triangles, and orbs, a familiar drumbeat to anyone who watches the sky and the database alike.³ ⁴

If you live between Cincinnati and Dayton, you learn two parallel languages for this kind of thing. One is the folklore of Wright-Patterson—the base up the road near Dayton, where Project Blue Book once lived. That’s the part of the Ohio myth that keeps a Blue Room and a Hangar 18 in the popular imagination, a Cold War apology of sorts, where pancakes analyzed as “terrestrial origin” and brake drums mistaken for meteors share archival space with seven hundred reports that stubbornly remain “unidentified.” The Air Force ended Blue Book in 1969, insisting they had found no threat and no proof of vehicles beyond current scientific knowledge, which is a bureaucratic way of saying: we saw a lot, we explained most, we couldn’t prove the rest. The legends survived anyway—Magruder’s alleged living alien, Goldwater denied access—and in every new sighting, the old echoes are never far.⁵ ⁶

The other language is more modern, even prosaic. Over the last few years, drone displays have taught us just how convincingly geometry can be painted onto the night. We’ve watched swarms draw logos and lattices, and we’ve seen how quickly human eyes—trained for jets and contrails—misread the choreography of coordinated LEDs. The Pentagon’s shift from “UFO” to “UAP” was meant to widen the frame and cool the fever, and some saner voices remind us that restricted airspace near bases and airports breeds both genuine hazards and exaggerated anxiety. In the more careful telling, many anomalies flatten into drones, balloons, or satellites—but not all of them, and the residue is where our curiosity lives.⁷ ⁸

So what do we do with a rectangle the size of half a football field, floating at a fixed altitude over one of Ohio’s densest corridors, unconnected to any tow, present for ten minutes, then gone? The instinct is to sort it into bins. First, the explainable: balloons can look rectangular when they present edge-on and when the light is low; banners misperceived from certain angles can hide their tow behind line‑of‑sight obstacles; even a drone swarm can, briefly, make you see a plane of light where none exists. NUFORC itself asks reporters to eliminate common misidentifications—such as Starlink trains, planetary brightness, and lens artifacts—before they submit, precisely because the database works best when the obvious is stripped away.³ ⁹ ¹⁰

Second, the engineered: a test article or a proof‑of‑concept flown where human attention is not just likely but guaranteed. There’s a plausible logic to public‑reaction tests—dense traffic, a holiday week, a shape that defies aerodynamics because lift, in a world of new propulsion methods, may no longer require wings, and then an exit, instant and clean, like a cloak or a switch. This is the territory where speculation about “anti-gravity” migrates from sci-fi to serious skepticism. Physicists will tell you—with justification—that gravity control would require overturning or bridging gaps in general relativity and quantum theory in ways that leave fingerprints in supply chains, training pipelines, and infrastructure long before you ever see a box in the sky. No such fingerprints exist in the open literature. But classified programs do not publish literature, and aerospace history is full of moments where rumors covered for stealth experiments—the F-117 era taught us that shadows can be policy.¹¹ ¹² ⁵ ²

Third, the truly anomalous: objects that violate expectations in ways that not only resist quick explanation but survive careful review. Congress has held hearings; videos have appeared of spheres surviving missile strikes; arguments rage between those who see proof of something nonhuman and those who see adversarial drones or doctored footage. In this climate, a rectangle over West Chester is a datapoint, not a revelation—proof only that ordinary observers can still capture experiences that are both specific and strange.¹³ ¹⁴

I keep returning to the witnesses’ matter-of-fact tone. They thought it was a banner. They looked for the plane. They checked a tracker. They watched ten minutes of banality turn into a cut‑to‑black. When you read enough reports, you learn to distrust melodrama and treasure the grocery‑list clarity: location, angle, size, color, duration, exit. And you notice patterns. The Middletown area has had its share—green lights, rotating clusters, sudden movements—sometimes later suspected as hoaxes, sometimes left open, but always recorded against the backdrop of a region that knows its sky is watched, both by enthusiasts and by institutions.¹⁵ ¹⁶ ⁴

West Chester isn’t a small place; nearly 67,000 people live there, more when you count commuters stacked north and south along the highway. Two reported this event publicly. You might read that as stigma or inattention or simply as the mathematics of surprise—most eyes look down in traffic, and most minds file anomalies under “not my problem.” I read it as exactly the reaction a test designer would want, if a test designer were the cause: enough witnesses to produce a credible record, not enough to produce a panic; a durable description; a fleeting presence. But I also read it as the kind of event that keeps the UAP conversation grounded in observation rather than theology. It happened; it was seen; it was logged; it remains unexplained.¹ ³ ¹⁷ ¹⁸

What I think—what I can responsibly think—is that the West Chester rectangle belongs in the small pile of structured, time-bound events with physical witnesses and minimal narrative inflation. It is not a banner because it lacked a tow; it is not a blimp because it lacked the telltale volume and motion; it is not a satellite or planet because it was near‑horizon, large, and dynamic; it might be a balloon if we can imagine a rectangular skin presenting edge‑on; it might be a projection if we can imagine sufficient power and stability in twilight air; it might be a test article if we can imagine the operational risk tolerance for flying a box over a suburban corridor. None of those conditionals settles into certainty. That’s the point.³ ⁹ ¹¹ ⁷

If you ask whether I think little green men took a leisurely hover over Butler County, I don’t. I think human curiosity and human capability—military, commercial, or hobbyist—explain most of what we see, and that the remainder is the frontier where we measure our assumptions. Project Blue Book concluded with the triad that has aged well: no threat proven, no extraordinary technology proven, no extraterrestrial vehicles proven. That’s not a denial; it’s an honest boundary. The rectangle over West Chester sits at that boundary, crisp against a November sky, now a record in a database, now a short local video, now a story told between rush‑hour brake lights, the kind of thing that keeps us looking up because for ten minutes—and then no minutes—it was there.⁶ ³ ⁵

And somewhere north on I-75, past the malls and office parks, a place that once housed America’s best cataloguers of aerial oddities bears the weight of our speculations. The myths around its hangars probably say more about us than about anything kept behind a badge line. But they remind us that Ohio has always been a stage for this theater: everyday people, skyward glances, reports written after kids are fed and dishes done, patience in the face of ambiguity. If the rectangle turns out, in five or ten years, to have been a test of optics or propulsion, we’ll nod and add a footnote. If it remains a rectangle without a parent, we’ll add a different footnote: seen, recorded, unexplained. That’s enough to warrant a paragraph in the ever-growing chronicle of UAP over America’s heartland, but not enough to satisfy the urges of curiosity and the need to know what we need to know.⁵ ⁶ ³

When you start connecting the dots across Butler County, the story becomes harder to dismiss. The West Chester sighting in November 2025 wasn’t an isolated anomaly—it echoes an almost identical event seven or eight years earlier over Monroe. That earlier case, often referred to as the “Middletown UFO,” even has video evidence circulating on YouTube. Two sightings, separated by years but sharing the same geometry and behavior, suggest a pattern rather than coincidence.

The Monroe incident carried an extra layer of irony for me. Just days before, I had recorded commentary criticizing the CIA, arguing that an unaccountable government agency posed a greater threat to society than any hypothetical alien landing at the old Lesourdsville Lake amusement park. Then, as if on cue, a highly defined UFO appeared in the sky over Monroe—right above the road, visible to anyone passing through. Was it occult synchronicity, a manifestation triggered by calling it out? Or was it a projection, seeded into the narrative to reinforce assumptions and steer public perception? Either explanation underscores a truth: the skies are not always what they seem, and the mechanisms behind what we witness may be far more psychological and technological than extraterrestrial.

In the case of West Chester, my view remains pragmatic. If you were an engineer testing cloaking or anti-gravity technology, you’d want real-world conditions—dense holiday traffic, a populated corridor, and proximity to a major Air Force base. You’d want to measure public reaction without announcing the test. And judging by the sparse reporting—two witnesses out of thousands—the experiment likely achieved its goal. That ratio is common in paranormal phenomena: many see, few speak. Stigma silences disclosure, and silence is the perfect cloak for those who prefer their work to remain invisible. In a society that should demand transparency, these events remind us how easily concealment thrives in plain sight.

—

Footnotes

1. NUFORC – West Chester Report #194307, details on date, shape, duration, and description (posted Nov. 24, 2025).

2. NUFORC – Ohio Index, showing the West Chester entry and contemporaneous Ohio reports on 11/22/2025. 1

3. NUFORC Databank (About/Indexes/Disclaimers) explains grading, common misidentifications, and posting practice. 2

4. YouTube: “UFO over West Chester, Ohio” (local upload summarizing the event and public interest). 3

5. HISTORY.com – “Does Hangar 18, Legendary Alien Warehouse, Exist?”, Wright‑Patterson lore, Roswell connections. 4

6. U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet – Project Blue Book (conclusions; 12,618 reports, 701 unidentified). 5

7. Scientific American – “The U.S. Drone Panic Mirrors UFO Overreactions,” context on drone/UAP misreads near restricted airspace. 6

8. Florida Today Op‑Ed – UAP video debate (sphere struck by Hellfire; interpretations vary). 7

9. NUFORC – “File a Report” guidance, checklist to avoid common misidentifications (Starlink, planets, lens artifacts). 8

10. NUFORC Homepage (Recent Highlights), public transparency, and investigation notes. 9

11. Freethink – “The search for anti-gravity propulsion,” survey of claims and physics constraints. 10

12. Flying Penguin analysis – “Gravitic Drones…”, skepticism about gravity‑control claims and the absence of supporting infrastructure. 11

13. USA Today – “UFO hearing video shows Hellfire missile fired at mysterious orb,” congressional UAP context. 12

14. Enigma Labs – Ohio sightings dashboard, trends, and regional density (Cincinnati/Dayton corridor). 13

15. WCPO – “Strange lights captured… appear to be a hoax” (Middletown, June 2023), local precedent and cautionary notes. 14

16. Knewz – “UFO in Ohio? Several Residents Report Seeing Strange Green Lights”, summary of the Middletown event and official reactions. 15

17. West Chester population profiles (CityPopulation/WorldPopulationReview), confirming township scale and density. 1617

18. UFO Index – Ohio (latest reports incl. Middletown references), shows regional cadence of events.

—

Bibliography

• National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC). “Sighting Report #194307 – West Chester, OH.” https://nuforc.org/sighting/?id=194307; “Reports for State OH.” https://nuforc.org/subndx/?id=lOH; “Databank.” https://nuforc.org/databank/; “File a Report.” https://nuforc.org/report-a-ufo/

• HISTORY.com. “Does Hangar 18, Legendary Alien Warehouse, Exist?” (updated June 30, 2025). https://www.history.com/articles/hangar-18-ufos-aliens-wright-patterson

• U.S. Air Force. “Unidentified Flying Objects and Air Force Project Blue Book – Fact Sheet.” https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104590/unidentified-flying-objects-and-air-force-project-blue-book/

• Scientific American. “The U.S. Drone Panic Mirrors UFO Overreactions.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-drone-panic-mirrors-ufo-overreactions/

• USA Today. “UFO hearing video shows Hellfire missile fired at mysterious orb.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/09/10/ufo-hearing-video-hellfire-missile/86073340007/

• Florida Today. “UAP video: Alien tech, drone test or military cover-up?” https://www.floridatoday.com/story/opinion/2025/09/14/uap-video-alien-tech-drone-test-or-military-cover-up/86076327007/

• Freethink. “The search for anti-gravity propulsion.” https://www.freethink.com/space/anti-gravity-propulsion

• FlyingPenguin. “Gravitic Drones From China: Classic Counterintelligence Pattern…” https://www.flyingpenguin.com/?p=64204

• WCPO‑TV. “Strange lights… appear to be a hoax” (Middletown, June 2023). https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/butler-county/middletown/ufo-sighting-in-middletown-strange-lights-captured-on-video-late-wednesday-night

• Knewz. “UFO in Ohio? Several Residents Report Seeing Strange Green Lights in the Night Sky.” https://knewz.com/ohio-residents-report-seeing-ufo-night-sky/

• CityPopulation.de / WorldPopulationReview. West Chester Township profiles. https://www.citypopulation.de/en/usa/ohio/admin/butler/3901783150__west_chester/ ; https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/ohio/west-chester-township

• UFO Index. “Ohio UFO Reports.” https://www.ufoindex.com/ohio

• YouTube. “UFO over West Chester, Ohio.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG0Nv8NVfzI

Rich Hoffman

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

I Have Written Over 8.1 Million Words Dedicated to Justice: Jack Smith needs more than jail

In the early 2010s, I found myself at a crossroads. I had spent years immersed in creative pursuits — writing screenplays, attending film festivals, and building a career in the entertainment industry. But something wasn’t sitting right. The characters I wrote about were fighting for justice, standing up against corruption, and defending the values of liberty and freedom. I realized that fiction wasn’t enough. The world needed real people to stand up and fight — not just stories. That realization led me to the Liberty Township Tea Party in Butler County, Ohio, where I began applying my skills to political activism.

I produced short videos on the 10th Amendment and illegal immigration — modest productions with a simple camera, aimed at educating and inspiring local citizens. These weren’t viral hits or high-budget documentaries. They were grassroots efforts aimed at sparking conversation and defending constitutional principles. But even these small acts of civic engagement drew the attention of powerful forces. The IRS, under Lois Lerner’s direction, targeted our Tea Party group, and I was swept into a campaign of intimidation and scrutiny. That moment changed everything. I abandoned my entertainment ambitions and committed myself fully to political writing and activism.  And looming in the background of the Lois Lerner activism was Jack Smith.

Since that turning point, I’ve written over 1200 words a day — every day — for more than 15 years. That’s millions of words, thousands of articles, and countless hours spent documenting, analyzing, and challenging the misuse of government power. My blog, Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom, became a platform for truth-telling, and my voice joined a chorus of others who refused to be silenced. I didn’t just write about politics — I lived it. I used my media connections to amplify the message, appearing on the radio and television, and producing daily videos to keep the conversation alive.  Since 2010, I’ve written more than 6.9 million words from daily writing alone. Additionally, I’ve authored three full-length books, contributing an additional 210,000 words, and published hundreds of periodical articles, totaling nearly 1 million more. Altogether, my body of work exceeds 8.1 million words, a testament to the discipline, passion, and relentless drive that fuel my efforts to challenge government overreach and defend the principles of representative government.  And when you do that much work, that’s why I’m able these days to speak on so many topics differently than anybody else does, anywhere in media, on any network, radio show, or podcast.

The catalyst for this relentless output was the abuse I experienced at the hands of the IRS and the Department of Justice — specifically under the influence of prosecutor Jack Smith. Smith, who later became a central figure in high-profile investigations, had long been part of a system that weaponized law enforcement against political dissent. His role in the IRS scandal, along with his broader pattern of targeting conservative voices, revealed a disturbing trend: the rise of a fourth branch of government, unaccountable to voters and hostile to the representative efforts of self-government.

Jack Smith’s actions weren’t isolated. They were part of a larger ecosystem of government overreach, where agencies like the FBI and DOJ operated with impunity. From spying on senators to leveraging investigations for political gain, these institutions strayed far from their constitutional mandates. The goal wasn’t justice — it was control. Figures like Letitia James in New York and James Clapper in the intelligence community, among others, followed similar paths, using their offices to suppress opposition and manipulate public perception.

This isn’t just about Donald Trump. It’s about every citizen who dares to speak out, organize, or challenge the status quo. Trump’s rise in 2015 and 2016 wasn’t a fluke — it was a response to years of systemic abuse. Americans saw the infection beneath the surface, and Trump pulled the scab off. What followed was a reckoning. The prosecutions, the media attacks, the relentless investigations — all of it was designed to punish dissent and preserve the power of entrenched elites. But it backfired. It awakened a movement that refuses to back down.

I’ve never been one to seek conflict, but I’ve always stood my ground. Whether facing bullies on the playground or bureaucrats in Washington, I don’t tolerate intimidation. Jack Smith and Lois Lerner made the mistake of targeting me — and I’ve spent the last decade making sure their actions don’t go unanswered. I’m not alone. Millions of Americans have joined this fight, demanding accountability, transparency, and a return to constitutional governance.

The pursuit of justice is finally catching up. Smith, James, Clapper — they’re all facing scrutiny, and rightly so. This isn’t about revenge. It’s about restoring trust in our institutions and sending a message that abuse of power will not be tolerated. I’ll continue writing, filming, and speaking out — not because I enjoy conflict, but because I believe in the promise of America. We are a nation of laws, not of men. And when those laws are twisted to serve political ends, it’s our duty to resist.  And in my case, it’s not just to lash back, but to hold the wrongdoers to unforgivable scrutiny and to destroy the lives of the perpetrators because of what they did.  I learned in those days of 2010 that you don’t fight people like this on turf they control, which is the courtrooms, with lawyers in their pocket, and judges they play golf with.  A system they built from the ground up to create terror among an unsuspecting population prone to blind trust.  I turned to writing because many of them are too dumb to have thoughts of their own, and they can’t defend an expanse of thoughtful debate.  At that point, their actions fall apart very quickly once people can scrutinize their efforts in relation to the discussion. 

So my method has been very effective.  Millions and millions of words are doing that work on my behalf all hours of the day, day in and day out, to all who care to contemplate questioning the system that people like Jack Smith have controlled for far too long.  And I am very proud of that role, with each of these prosecutions that have been released now that we are into the first year of Trump’s presidency.  I would have loved a more glorious and dramatic revenge for all that I have seen and experienced.  However, in whatever form justice may come, I have always been deeply committed to it.  I never forget or forgive anything, and I did all this essentially over just those two videos that the IRS scrutinized me over.  I have many other revenge plots working in the background over various issues that I will never get over, and I will see justice for all of them in due time.  Many tell me that I should forgive people, that all this hate hurts me.  I tell them that those thoughts are absolutely untrue.  I love getting revenge on bad people, and I think it is very healthy to express it, rather than suppressing it under some social expectation of forgiveness.  It is much better to express your hate than to be consumed by it.  And all these actions I have taken over the years toward the justice of people like Jack Smith are just the beginning.  But you can bet that I am happy to see people like him starting to fall from grace.  He deserves it.  And there are many more to come; either Trump will do it legally, or we’ll find some other means.  They should feel lucky that a system of law and order protects them, because what would otherwise be a lot harder on them, and much more spectacular, would be a ruthless act of revenge.  But regardless, justice is coming for them all, because it has to.

Rich Hoffman

We’re rebuilding the school board. Good management is the best way to defeat tax increases.

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

Juneteenth is a Dumb Holiday for Lazy People: It was Republicans who freed the slaves

We have too many holidays as it is; we certainly don’t need one more where everyone stays home and looks out the window.  People need to work more, and not emulate the lazy Europeans and their excessive time off lifestyle.  I was pretty surprised to learn this year, in 2025, when June 19th arrived, that it was a federal holiday and all the banks, along with many large companies, were closed.  It was a Thursday, essentially in the middle of the workweek, and everyone was gone from the office, which I found shocking.  The Juneteenth Holiday was in effect from when it was passed in 2021, and for some reason, it became a thing this year.  Last year or the year before, I didn’t notice it much.  But this year, it seemed oddly out of place, being placed alongside other holidays like Memorial Day, Labor Day, and the Fourth of July.  Juneteenth is a holiday created by lazy people using racism as a mask to hide their lack of engagement.  Democrats made it to hide the sin of their slave holding past in an attempt to appease their current desires to work less and follow the Marxist trend to have as many days off a year, and to follow Europe, where all the countries have some level of socialism to them, into a stagnant economy with short work weeks and very little productivity.  I hear it all the time from people I deal with in Europe, they think Americans work too much and are constantly stressed out.  They think it’s smart to take more days off, have more extended vacations, and stay home from work every time they have a runny nose.  I disagree vehemently.  I think people should work much more than they do now and for far more extended hours.  We can’t have the most GDP and strongest economy in the world unless you are willing to outwork everyone else.

It was stunningly irresponsible for many of the large companies I was aware of, including Juneteenth as a day off for their employees.  You have to be kidding.  It’s part of that whole DEI push that has been so destructive.  As if by recognizing the holiday created by the Biden Administration to appease voters they think would vote for them because of the color of their skin, to honor the end of slavery, those companies would prove that they weren’t racists.  By bending the knee to radical Marxism and communism that have been exported into communities of color to take advantage of any past hard feelings, the belief is that unearned guilt can be relieved.  But that is the fool’s perspective who doesn’t know their history.  It was Republicans who freed the slaves.  It was Democrats who kept them, so those of us who were never supportive of slavery, and I am certainly one of them, were never guilty of slavery.  Instead of a name like “Juneteenth,” it should be Frederick Douglass Day or General Grant Day.  Or “thank you, Republican Party Day.”  “Not Juneteenth.”  The name itself is embarrassing, and comes from a Marxist background from radicals within America who hate the country and want to bring it down from the inside out.  By recognizing the holiday with a lazy day off, we give Democrats cover for the sins they committed with slavery and allow them to gain merit in appeasing minority communities hoping to win votes by giving them a day off in remembrance of what they want to establish as the unwarranted start to a country built on slavery. 

Marxist groups are behind all this as their ideology from Karl Marx established the attack of communism throughout the world to attempt to stir up the disenfranchised to rise against their current governments.  And that is the case in just about every corner of the world.  And in America, the Marxist groups behind the Juneteenth holiday are part of that ridiculous 1619 Project that was popular at the time to rewrite history around the premise that America and its economy should have never been created because it was built on the back of slavery.  When the truth is that, without America coming along, slavery would likely still be practiced commonly in the world.  It was the creation of the American Constitution that paved the way for the world to remove the practice of slaves in all economies, which had been going on everywhere up to that point for many thousands of years.  It was the American North and specifically the Republican Party that emerged to end slavery.  It was highly controversial at the time.  It wasn’t just America practicing slavery. Instead, slavery had been inherited from the English, the French, and the Spanish in the regions they controlled in North America.  And it was the Revolutionary War that created the conditions for America to be born as a nation, and to take those territories away from those other countries that practiced slavery.  Once the federal government could be elected to use a political party to create a mass movement against slavery, it was the Republican Party that led a war against southern Democrats to free the slaves.  We shouldn’t call the ending of slavery Juneteenth Day; it should be in honor of the Republican Party.  And specifically, President Grant, a great war general and president who was too fair to everyone. 

It was The New York Times Magazine that launched this idea in 2019, marking the 400th anniversary of the arrival of enslaved Africans in the English colony of Virginia, and attempting to reframe the creation of America as a country, thereby undercutting its foundation.  The Juneteenth holiday is a way to trick people into buying into this ridiculous nonsense with a day off work to celebrate, then validate their argument.  But it’s just another excuse for people who don’t like to work to create another holiday to justify being unproductive under the guise of a good cause.  The world doesn’t need more time off work.  It needs to work harder.  And people need to know their history.  Republicans freed the slaves, and if not for America, there would still be slaves.  It took a free country for the world to see what free people would be like.  Until that occurred, nobody understood what “freedom” meant.  And it took another century for the Republican Party to come along and challenge a long-term European standard of slave labor to provide work for economies.  During the age of invention, as machines could perform work relieving humans of tasks, the human race could finally have that debate.  So, if we are going to celebrate something, it needs to be that Republicans freed the slaves in the newly created nation of America.  But we already celebrate freedom on the 4th of July, so we don’t need another useless holiday for people to sit around and eat nachos by the pool.  People need to get back to work.  We need to dump this useless Holiday of Juneteenth so that we can get to the banks when we need them.  How dare those idiots think that it was appropriate to shut down all the banks in the middle of a work week?  What a stupid and reckless thing to do.  That tells you a lot about just how woke our banking system is when they take off for Juneteenth.  And that is a whole problem of its own. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Case of Emily Nutley: Why do so many teachers want to have sex with their students

Let’s talk about Emily Nutley, the 43-year-old former head counselor and director of academic services at St. Xavier High School, the prestigious all-boys Jesuit Catholic school in Cincinnati, Ohio, who pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual battery on April 7th, 2025.  She had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student who eventually got tired of her and told authorities about the scandal, which prompted an investigation, and the prosecution of the case by Melissa Powers, who I think is a fantastic prosecutor.  It wasn’t hard to prove the merits of the case since Nutley sent the student nude pictures of herself to his cell phone, so that pretty much was that.  But why, here as a young woman who was married with three kids, she had a master’s degree and lived in a very nice neighborhood in Mason, Ohio.  She had a great job.  Everything looked on the outside to be a pretty perfect life.  So why would she throw it all away to have a sexual relationship with a kid?  With so many options, why would she make such a horribly bad decision that would ruin her for the rest of her life?  And here’s the real issue: if she hadn’t pushed the relationship to the point that she did, where the kid got tired of her, how long would it have gone on, because it was the student who said something?  How many of these cases are going on that nobody will ever find out about because there hasn’t been a whistleblower?  And when there is a whistleblower, how many get covered up by the administrators trying to protect the school’s reputation?  In my experience, a lot.  There are a lot of Emily Nutleys out there.  I know the type of “pro teacher” employee that Emily Nutley was.  They are very common and prone to the same behavior; this is no isolated incident.

This case reminded me of when I was in high school a long time ago.  We had a Spanish teacher who was about the same age as Emily, at the end of her childbearing years and was hot to trot with all the emerging maleness of high school.  She was very willing to help certain guys in class with their homework.  She was well perfumed and would unbutton her shirt when she’d lean over you to help with something you were working on.  Very awkwardly, in front of the whole class.  And she was very willing to show off her goodies and lay them on your shoulder when she explained things to you.  My friends and I called her Senorita Slut because it was apparent she was climbing the walls with sexual tension.  This kind of thing is by no means new.  Emily Nutley isn’t the first and certainly won’t be the last.  And I’d say that her situation is quite common.  When you start talking to people in these schools, behind the polite decorum of professionalism, there is a lot of sex going on.  There is teacher-to-student sex.  Teacher to teacher sex.  And there are a lot more cases of teacher and parent sex than many people would like to admit to.  The teacher is explaining to a parent the conditions of their kid in class, and before long, they are exchanging phone numbers and sending each other nude photos over coffee at Starbucks.  If they don’t have a firm grip on their values, people fly off the handle pretty fast, which was undoubtedly the case with Emily Nutley.

I feel sorry for the former teacher; Emily’s life is ruined, and she’ll never recover.  Watching her plead guilty in court with her dad there to support her is just a train wreck of serious mistakes that any rational person should be able to avoid easily.  But she threw it all away for nothing, and now she will never be able to put it behind her.  In court, she attempted to place the blame on her husband for neglect, indicating that her sexual frustrations were because he wasn’t fulfilling his husbandly duties.  But what does she expect as a person in her 40s with three kids and many social requirements that a school teacher living in Mason is expected to live up to?  Sex for mature adults is not easy to come by, so life has a way of chipping away at people.  That doesn’t mean that you take up sexual residence with a student in your school.  Why him and not one of the many options for sex with just about anybody that’s out there these days?  It’s a lot easier now than when I was in school with Senorita Slut.  So why did she do it, and what can we do to protect ourselves from it?  And my answer to that is that you can’t do anything about it.  It’s a systems failure.  It’s what happens when people get together and is part of our biological coding.  When an intellectual mind fails to overcome biological desire, bad things happen.  And in public and private school settings, no matter how much money parents are paying for an excellent education, there is a desire for sex among human beings with each other.  And the more we rationalize surrendering to animal behavior in society, the more people like Emily Nutley are going to start sending naked pictures of themselves to their students.

I think at least 10% of the adult population of any education system has sexual activity going on with either the students or other adults in the school.  At least.  The only way that people like Emily Nutley get caught is that things get out of hand and someone says something.  Most of the time, the relationships fizzle out.  When we learned in Lakota that a superintendent had sexual fantasies about sex with some of the students that they shared, which came out in a police report, a window into that world was all too clear.  Sex in educational endeavors was common.  Putting aging women in a room full of emerging young men with their whole sexual lives in front of them is a dangerous combination.  And when you couple that to porn addiction among adult males and the lowering of social standards, you have a hazardous combination of things that are impossible to manage.  As I said, our education system is grotesquely broken, and I gave up on it long ago.  This case has an aggressive prosecutor in Melissa Powers.  It had naked pictures of the teacher sent to the student, the whistleblower.  And it had a confession by the perpetrator.  Her husband divorced her.  She lost her job.  Her kids will never forgive her.  And she currently awaits sentencing.  But without the whistleblower.  Without the prosecutor.  This would be just one more widespread occurrence in all schools, where humans desire to express themselves sexually to other people for a whole bunch of really dumb reasons.  And yeah, I feel sorry for Emily Nutley.  In many ways, she was doing what a progressive society encourages.  And she followed those rules to this complete social destruction, and she has lost everything in the process.  But even more than that, there are lots of these things going on; our education systems are not safe places. Instead, they are some of the most dangerous places, and the predators who hold master’s degrees are well paid, have families, and prestigious titles in society.  But behind it all is a lot of scandalous behavior from bored minds seeking fleshly affirmation, even at the promise of self-destruction.

Rich Hoffman

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

I Like the FBI A Lot More Today: With Kash Patel in charge, we’re a lot better off

This is another one of those spike-the-football moments that I usually don’t do.  But when it comes to the FBI, they deserve it.  I have not been a big supporter of them all this time, so they are lucky to have Kash Patel as their director.  The FBI has too often abused its power and shown that it cannot be trusted, and I thought the only way to deal with it was to let it go, dismiss the entire department, and start over with something else.  After they were caught doing this multiple times, having someone like Kash Patel run them was the only way to keep them around.  It wasn’t that long ago that I did a piece on CNN that dealt with James Comey at the height of his career. Once President Trump fired him a few months into his first administration, I accurately described the former FBI Director as a bad person.  I’ve done a lot of media over the years, but that CNN spot is one that I am proud of because of the circumstances under which it occurred.  Trump had just fired Comey, I think it was May of 2017, just a few months into the first term of President Trump, for mishandling the illegal email case of Hillary Clinton.  But deeper than that, Comey was leading a series of coups against Trump, especially regarding the Russia hoax that would become the central issue of his entire first presidency.  So CNN came to Cincinnati to talk to hard-core Trump supporters about whether or not they still trusted Trump after firing the Boy Scout image of James Comey.  The bet at the time was that people would turn on Trump because they liked Comey so much.  But the CNN broadcast ran into a buzz saw in Butler County politics for Anderson Cooper’s show live on the air when the camera and question was on me, did I think that Comey lied about what he had done and I had essentially told them yes, using a spy novelist metaphor.  Comey was more fiction than fact. 

After the cameras were off and we were all in the parking lot where the interview had been shot, which was a sports bar that was very popular in Fairfield, Ohio, I had some hard talks with the producers that they found astonishing.  These CNN producers were friendly people; we had gotten to know them well because before that, they had given us a kind of party where we watched the James Comey hearings together before the interview later that night, which they thought was going to be a slam dunk against Trump’s corruption.  Over that duration, they had taken a particular liking to me and wanted to know what I thought about many things.  As I usually do, I was more than happy to give them plenty of answers.  So we were talking after the interview, and they were stunned by what I had said, which is that I thought Comey lied in his testimony and was an open activist against Trump in trying to perform a coup against him.  Also at that time was the thought that the Russian dossier was accurate and that Trump had been caught with prostitutes allowing them to urinate on him while staying in Russia on business.  I told them that no way that story was true, which turned out to be accurate, because Trump would never allow himself to be urinated on by dirty prostitutes.  He’s way too clean for something like that.

And this was before we learned what we did about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the two senior FBI employees working directly for Comey who had an illicit affair and comforted each other with a series of text messages assuring the young woman that the FBI had the power to stop Trump, no matter what.  So what I was saying to these CNN producers in this parking lot was mind-blowing stuff for them.  They had complete trust in our American institutions and thought it was impossible for a career appointment like Comey, leading one of our most important institutions, to show himself untrustworthy.  They couldn’t understand it but liked me and thought I said many brilliant things.  So, they couldn’t understand how I could feel the things I did about the FBI.  Well, I was right about everything, as I usually am.  And everyone learned some hard lessons.  But the important thing was that I was right about it when it was very unpopular to suggest such a thing.  We are in a different world now, 8 years later.  And I would say that I certainly did my part to get that truth out and to start turning some of these noes into yeses regarding the issue of trusting Trump.  We had to go through some actual cleansing, and ultimately, it was good that we’ve now had Trump for eight years and are going for four more, essentially.  Otherwise, the Director of the FBI would be a much more conventional pick.  However, only someone like Kash Patel could reform the FBI as it has been needed for decades.  Trump appointed Christopher Wray to replace Comey, but he wasn’t much better.  And he would turn out to lead the FBI to further try to destroy Trump after he left office in raiding his home at Mar-a-Lago and taking the classified documents that Trump had kept for himself after his first term, which he had every right in the world to do. 

One of the first things that President Trump did upon winning the White House for the third time was to get back the documents that were taken from him in the Mar-a-Lago raid of his home in 2022.  From the time that I gave that CNN interview, to the time that the boxes taken from Trump were restored to him just a few days ago, we saw enough out of the FBI to see that they had become a fourth branch of government that had drifted away from voter oversight and had become highly corrupt and power hungry.  And the only way to save them was to put Kash Patel in charge so that he could reform them completely.  I had thought they were beyond reform, but even I like the FBI now that Kash Patel is in charge and Pam Bondi is running the Justice Department.  I have never been an anti-government person.  But I expect my government to be run by good people, and institutional preservation is not warranted when good people are hard, if not impossible, to find.  So, for the FBI’s sake, they are lucky that Trump won.  They get a chance to live again under Kash Patel.  And with him in charge, I like the FBI much more than I did before Kash was sworn in.  Now that he has been sworn in, I can get behind the FBI in ways I haven’t in over four decades.  But the lesson here is that you should listen when I tell you something, even if it sounds pretty wild and unbelievable.  And if you do, you’ll find that life is a lot easier for you, no matter what it is.  Lessons learned is wisdom gained.

Rich Hoffman

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

Rats in MAGA Hats: The FBI has to be punished for what they did on January 6th, lying about their 26 paid informants at the heart of all the trouble

There is a lot that will change, and keep in mind that as hurt as everyone was over the CR from Congress, nobody has seen anything yet in that regard.  Congress should have never packed that bill entirely of so much nonsense; the CR should have been presented as one page and provided with it a plan.  When we talk about D.O.G.E with some of the wealthiest people in the world volunteering their time to bring sanity to the process, don’t expect there not to be broken eggshells.  This will not be politics as usual on any front.  And I would say to all those involved in putting together that 1500-page monstrosity full of garbage that the Democrats wanted, remember, they did not win the election.  America turned them away.  So act like it when thinking about spending money.  All the pain that everyone is going through is better than jail or worse.  So tighten up your belts, shut your mouths, and thank God a Constitution is protecting you from the punishment you deserve for the way you have screwed over all of us for years.  It will get very pushy, but it’s for everyone’s good.  This is why it is good for Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk to be independently wealthy and to be attached to the Trump administration voluntarily because they can afford to be critical of horrible government efforts like this December CR that otherwise would have been passed mainly unnoticed by the public for over 100 billion dollars of additional debt to fund the government only for two more months.  In February, they’d all be back doing the same stupid stuff and looking for another global distraction to keep stupid media from reporting the details. And that whole process would continue, spending another trillion dollars in debt every 100 days and tying us all closer to the enemies of the world financially who want to destroy us.  No, it’s time to start saying no and sticking with it.

And that same mentality has to be enacted regarding the FBI.  Everyone is fortunate that we are talking about putting Kash Patel in a position to head the FBI and clean up all this mess.  Now we know for sure, beyond speculation, that the FBI had over 26 informants working the crowd for January 6th 2021 and that Christopher Wray lied about it to Congress. That’s why the day before that information was released to the public, the FBI Director announced that he would resign. Many people wanted him to stay on for his full ten-year term to shield them from further investigations.  But Wray doesn’t want or need any of that.  He’s already in trouble for participating in trying to destroy Trump, the guy who picked him to be in that role after Trump had to fire Jim Comey, and with Trump back in the White House, there is no future for Wray.  He played an evil, dangerous game of letting the Biden administration weaponize the government, and now they have all been caught.  His best option is to resign, take himself off the map, and run for the hills, which is what he’s doing.  That leaves a lot of bad guys exposed in the wake, and as to that, tuff tootles.  They did the crime; now they can do the time.  It’s not going to be nice; what happens to them?  And there will be a lot more media overall than there was over this continuing resolution that Congress tried to push through. 

January 6th, we always suspected, was a set-up job, standard practice for the three-lettered government agencies over many decades.  People were upset that there was election fraud and that they were going to lose President Trump to vast government corruption.  So they showed up to protest it, as they had a right to do.  The FBI decided to try to work the situation to its advantage by putting paid informants, 26 of them, at the Capitol and instigating trouble by leading the effort to vandalize and destroy property, which Ray Epps was essentially caught on camera doing.  Christopher Wray denied that he had any FBI assets at the site and that the accusations of such misconduct were purely conspiratorial.  Few believed him.  However, in December of 2024, we learned otherwise that there were 26 such people the January 6th committee had not interviewed or anybody for that matter.  We know the names.  We know what their financial compensation was.  We know everything except who told them to do what and what they told the angry mob to do to provoke violence and start a scandal they hoped would lay cover fire for their coup against a people’s picked government.  Trump was the pick of voters, and they played their part in running a coup against him to maintain control of the government against the people of our nation and the voting system we use to establish authority.  This is all nasty stuff to add to a series of horrendously terrible things.  That’s how it will be for a while; I’ll be reporting a series of horrible things that must be punished aggressively and without mercy.  Otherwise, we won’t have a future as a country. 

Yes, the FBI lied to us, as has most of the government.  And the January 6th prisoners have to be released as soon as possible, and they deserve recourse against those who put them in jail.  All those who participated in orchestrating that coup against Trump and then tried to incite violence to cover up the attempt and put the shoe of violence on the other foot have to be punished brutally.  And some out there will wonder if it needs to be that excessive.  Hey, it doesn’t matter if it’s a small or big culture; if people do wrong, they must be punished.  And pushing them out of their jobs and getting them out of the culture you want to fix is the first big step.  Many people have done wrong that has to be removed, starting with Christopher Wray.  But there will be many more to come and remember as you watch them cry and scream like little kids who didn’t get candy at the checkout line.  They are lucky we are so righteous.  Because they deserve it.  But continuing with the mess they created and expecting to slide fake money under the door to pay for it all is not how we will do things in the future.  Our government must work for our country’s people; it must serve them.  Not the other way around.  The people do not serve the parasites who have been running it.  And we are putting a stop to it.  That’s why we elected Trump, and he understands that.  And he has committed to the job.  And that’s how the spaghetti in the kitchen will be made with D.O.G.E.  Placating evil with friendships got us into this mess.  Now, there is going to be pain, lots of it.  And nobody has seen anything yet.  Get ready because 2025 is going to be a wild, historic year.  But more than anything, it’s all necessary because so many did so many bad things leading up to this.  And honestly, they are lucky to be alive after what they did. And in this case, they put rats in MAGA hats and tried to use that ruse to commit a vast series of crimes.  And they got caught.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Trump Won: Brand building is the key to establishing and maintaining relationships

So many important lessons can be learned from the Trump election of 2024.  But, the reason Trump won has yet to be talked about much.  The assumption is that Elon Musk came in at the last minute, after the assassination attempt in July, and put many millions of dollars into Trump’s campaign as the world’s richest man.  But to assume that, you would have to believe that money wins elections and that those who raise the most money and spend it will win the election.  Of course, the media, which sells ads and makes its money off politics during elections, wants everyone to think that.  But it wasn’t true.  Kamala Harris spent on her 2024 campaign 1.5 billion dollars and ended up, at the end of it, millions of dollars in debt.  She spent more than she had, which was a lot.  Who in their right mind gave her money who had that kind of money?  I could have told them they were wasting their time.  Wait, come to think of it, I did tell them.  But they didn’t listen.  Reports say that Trump spent much less than that, hovering around the 1 billion dollar mark, which is what many think it takes to run for president these days, but I’m not even sure that is the case.  But the bottom line is that Kamala spent a lot of money and didn’t move the needle in any kind of positive direction.  So why?  That’s the most critical question.  If Trump and Kamala spent even more money, why did the money spent work more for one, not the other?  So you can’t say that Elon Musk bought Trump the election, that would not be accurate. Instead, something much more important happened, and Trump did a masterful job at it, as we would all expect. 

A person’s brand is one of the most essential attributes of their personality; it’s how people come to know you and what they think of you when you aren’t around them anymore.  In everything you do in life, you must build your brand and use it to gain cooperation from your peers.  I have a very strong brand presence on many fronts.  For instance, I was having a fancy dinner with many people with strong opinions about my brand.  We were all ordering dessert, and the people with us at this dinner were from all over the world.  So I ordered a cake with many special effects to demonstrate how extraordinary the desserts were at this dinner and encourage our guests to be a little daring.  After all, I figured my brand was so good that I could handle a little wildness.  So I ordered a special cake, which came out with dry ice spewing everywhere. A tree made of cotton candy came out on top of it.  Those combinations of things made my dinner guests laugh because of the contrasts.  They were not very “manly” things to do and seemed like something they would never expect coming from me.  But that’s also why the Trump Dance works for Trump at rallies; it contrasts his tough guy image.  That image is his brand, and it’s how people learn the nature of the values of the advocate.  Without a brand image to maintain, my ordering the cake and the reaction to it would have just been about food.  But I made it into something else to advance why we were having the dinner together in the first place, as a team-building event that people would not soon forget. 

Trump has been one of the best in the world at building and applying brands.  His family name, Trump, is recognized worldwide and establishes quality and luxury for those who see it.  Trump built the brand over a long period and, about ten years ago, decided to use it to put America on its back and to Make America Great Again.  When people saw the Trump Brand anywhere in the 80s and 90s, they think of wealth and luxury, which is a way for Trump to take The Power of Positive Thinking and apply it to wealth generation.  So when Trump decided to run for office in 2015, he just brought his brand with him and beat Hillary Clinton based on the strength of his brand, as he spent a fraction of the money most campaigns would to win such a high office.  When he disrupted the system and everyone in the world came after him, Trump used his brand to rise above the critics in a way only his extensive, positive brand would have allowed.  Like my story about the cake, if you have a strong brand, you can provoke much action that either supports or contrasts it.  For my dinner guests, expecting an uncompromising gunslinger to shoot anybody who does injustice is a sharp contrast to sitting there eating a chocolate cake with pink cotton candy all over the top.  Showing such a moment of comparison within my brand earns trust because it contrasts my customary behavior.  But without the brand, there wouldn’t be any opinions or jokes to evolve a dialogue of trust that was needed for such a moment.  On a much larger scale, Trump used his brand to carry the lofty goal of Making America Great Again into a value system people felt they could invest in.  And they did.

One of my favorite campaign items from the 2024 election is a Trump 2024 switchblade.  I obtained it under unusual conditions, and it was undoubtedly one of the best souvenirs of Trump I had ever seen during the election.  Trump’s name was on everything, from knives to hats to shirts, flags, glasses, anything and everything.  And that was because Trump had built a brand that gave value to obtaining those items.  That Trump knife would be just another knife if it didn’t have Trump 2024 written on it.  On the other hand, Kamala spent a lot more money trying to create an impression, but her brand didn’t have roots in which people could invest.  So, as she tried to make an impression on voters, she did not have a brand that people could understand and invest in.  Nobody was rushing out to buy a Harris hat or shirt.  But people were flocking to buy a Trump hat.  They couldn’t make enough of them.  And in the end, that is what ended up mattering most.  Even though Elon Musk spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the MAGA movement and Trump himself, it was Trump who built a brand worth investing in.  Without the brand, the money was tossed to the wind like drunk gamblers in a casino late at night. The brand allows people to invest in the person who built it, for better or worse.  But once you have the brand, you can use it to sell ideas to people who have enough rooting to grab on and take action.  And the Democrats, they didn’t do any of that.  They tried to create impressions but had no substance behind their brand to sell an idea.  That caused them to toss much money at the effort only to have it wasted because there was no brand worth investing in.  So the ideas that Democrats had couldn’t be sold to a public so empty that they’d buy any impression.  When it came to Trump, people bought into a brand he had built for over 4 decades, and he put it all at risk to become president.  And as a result, the brand outlasted the attempts to destroy it.  Now, with that brand value, America can do as Trump’s brand indicates: to Make America Great Again.  When people see that term, they think of quality, wealth, and tenacity.  And the nation can rally to the cause because a brand can sell the idea and sustain the results.  Rather than just creating more false impressions that people have become long weary of.  And this will be the case for politics over the coming century.  It’s not enough to spend money. Instead, the money has to have a brand that people want to invest in and make it their own. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Democrats Do Not Respect Civilian Oversight: The disaster of Kamala Harris skipping the Al Smith Dinner

As we get down the stretch of the 2024 election, the big takeaway and primary reason that many Democrats have peeled away from the party only to join Republicans is that a ruse has been exposed that was long concealed.  Democrats with a foundation of Marxism never respected voters’ opinions.  They ultimately adopted the globalist policy of rigged elections to gain and hold power.  They never intended to win people over with a compelling argument about their political platform.  Their entire political strategy has been essentially high school politics; you were either a cool kid or weren’t.  And if that were the case, then you would be cast from society, a society they controlled.  No, what they lost most over the last four years has been their brand.  Nobody wants to be one of the cool kids if what you get is a Democrat.  That was particularly revealing when Tulsi Gabbard announced at a recent Trump rally that she was joining the Republican Party.  Trump has been fantastic at opening up the big tent of the Republican Party in ways that no other Republican in history could have, leaving it indeed a party of the Americans.  When you consider that Robert F. Kennedy joined Trump’s campaign with the intention of a critical position in the White House and Elon Musk suddenly became a Tea Party kind of Republican, the Trump campaign has just been fantastic down the stretch.  Trump has done everything that could be done to bring people into support of him, especially with people of color and among the immigrant population.  There have been a lot of great moments, but I think one of the best will be remembered by the Al Smith Dinner of 2024, where Trump was brilliantly funny.  Most of all, he showed up, but Kamala Harris didn’t. 

Democrats are playing a game they thought would work, and it is consistent with their actions over the past three or four decades.  But Trump exposed it with all his persuasive live performances, especially at the Al Smith Dinner.  When Trump went to the one in 2016, Hillary Clinton was there, and she went and spoke.  She didn’t do very well, but she figured it didn’t matter at that time.  The machine would win for her, so she showed up and did her part.  Trump was great that year, too, but this time, he was outstanding.  But Kamala Harris didn’t show up, and instead sent in a video with a kind of Saturday Night Live skit to help carry Kamala over the top.  Democrats are like that kid who didn’t study for the big test and showed up expecting to cheat on someone’s paper.  Democrats weren’t prepared to run a real campaign for power in America.  They counted exclusively on election theft to win, like all the other Marxist countries in the world presently do, and they were so disrespectful about it that they picked a candidate in Kamala Harris who would do whatever they told her to and run her campaign from concealment the entire time.  Because they have such little respect for the democratic process and the self-government concept of Americans in general, they were not able to compete when Trump made the campaign truly about competency and representation.  The strategies of personal destruction suddenly didn’t work at all with Trump because he didn’t need the Democrats to crown him one of the “cool kids.”  He already was one.  Trump has changed the definition of a cool kid over the last eight years.

The Al Smith Dinner was embarrassing for Kamala Harris because it was so out of step with the nature of the 2024 campaign.  There was no compelling argument to make on behalf of Democrats, causing them to leave the party, such as what Tulsi Gabbard and many others have done.  Just think about how many people have done the same thing all across the country, and they know what will happen in this election.  Now that the close of the election is near, even the big media outlets understand what will happen.  They tried to run the same closet campaign for Kamala that they did for Biden the first time, but people aren’t buying into it.  There is no COVID to cover for their massive attempts at election fraud, and most anybody who isn’t a crazy lunatic of anti-American sentiment is voting for Trump.  And as I have said all along, it will all come down to engagement.  Trump has engaged voters who are excited to vote for him.  Kamala Harris has a few fringed cat ladies and a hamster.  But nobody else.  Trump will break into the seventy millions.  Kamala will be lucky to get out of the sixties.  Trump will win the popular vote because there won’t be the same opportunities to cheat that were so common in 2020.  And the Democrats are panicking over it.  Even CNN has figured out that they will have egg on their face if they support Kamala, who had a particularly disastrous performance there, too, with Anderson Cooper.  When the smoke clears from this one, people will wonder how so many people got it all wrong, and they’ll point to that disastrous Al Smith Dinner with the video contribution by a weird Saturday Night Live skit as the root cause. 

I know quite a few Secret Service Agents, and they report that they can’t see the forest for the trees.  Even with all that I have said, they fear that Kamala Harris will win anyway because they genuinely think the “machine” of politics is truly in charge.  And I tell them they are too close to the situation to be objective.  But plenty of people want to argue with me and believe that Kamala Harris will win as a propped-up asset of the machine, and she thinks so, too.  That is until she was heckled at a recent rally where people broke out into a Trump chant, and she became furious about it.  I hear what everyone says about the machine being in charge.  But in America, that is not acceptable, and Trump has done everything that can be done to unite the country behind the Republican Party, which will have a significant impact up and down the ticket in general for all races.  I see significant losses for Democrats that will wipe them out generationally and even perhaps as a viable political party.  After all this, they may join the Whigs in history as they don’t represent the American people but a globalist ideology that most people find repulsive once they find out what it is.  And the Democrats were exposed through competition for really the first time.  Voters have been looking for someone like Trump to expose this shell game for a long time, and essentially, this is the first time that the stress fractures exposed Democrats for what they have always been hiding.  And it was never more evident than when Kamala Harris skipped the Al Smith Dinner in 2024, even with Chuck Schumer sitting right next to the podium where the speeches were given.  In a friendly venue, she couldn’t even perform there.  But Trump did, and did it very well, leaving no doubt who the winner of the presidency would be.  And history will never forget it.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call