Category: Aviation

The Power of Unity: How Trump’s Leadership is Reshaping the Republican Party and Defeating Its Enemies

In the rough-and-tumble world of American politics, unity isn’t just a nice idea—it’s a necessity for victory. For years, I’ve watched as divisions within the Republican Party have weakened our ability to fight the real threats facing our nation. The Democrat Party, with its radical agenda to fundamentally transform and often undermine the very foundations of the United States, represents an existential challenge. They don’t want America to succeed on its own terms; they seek control, dependency, and the erosion of our constitutional republic. That’s why, when President Trump endorses candidates who demonstrate loyalty and a willingness to fight, people listen. They follow. And they win. 

I have been saying this for years through my podcasts and writings: the base picks Trump because he represents them—the forgotten men and women who built this country, not the coastal elites or the K Street lobbyists. When Trump came out strongly against Thomas Massie in Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District, many liberals were perplexed, but those of us paying attention weren’t surprised at all. Massie, with his libertarian streak and history of bucking the party on key votes, showed a reckless lack of unity at a time when we desperately need it to confront a hostile opposition. It isn’t ethical or strategic to work against your own party when the goal is to build something strong enough to defeat the Democrats. 

Thomas Massie lost decisively to Trump-backed challenger Ed Gallrein. It wasn’t even close. This outcome validated what I’ve observed in politics, business, and even warfare: when leadership demands cohesion against a common enemy, the people respond if they trust that leader. Trump has earned that trust through fire. They tried to kill him, bankrupt him, jail him, and railroad him through lawfare, yet he stood tall. The American people who stuck with him through it all saw a fighter willing to take on the system. That’s why his endorsements carry such weight. 

The Case Against Division and for Party Discipline

Let me be clear: I am not a libertarian. I’ve never been one, and the “pot-smoking loser libertarian” types like some portray Massie and Rand Paul as don’t represent my worldview. I’m to the right of most Republicans—conservative to the core, guided by a personal love of righteousness, practical business sense, and a refusal to compromise with the enemy. Democrats are the enemy. Not in some hyperbolic sense, but in a real, tangible way: their policies seek to destroy every aspect of traditional American success—energy independence, border security, free speech, economic opportunity, and constitutional order. If they regain full power, the filibuster, rule of law, and much else will be gone or twisted beyond recognition.

I’ve long argued that the Senate filibuster is a mechanism created by and for the lobbyist class. I hate K Street. I hate the corporate parasites who don’t create value but suck value from the system through deals made in smoke-filled rooms. They preserve their power by slowing everything down, allowing insider trading on information and stripping the people’s will from legislation. The filibuster empowers this. Getting rid of it would be a blow to their influence. Of course, senators love it—secure in their six-year terms, they can make deals that last beyond any president’s time in office. 

I’ve had the chance to see this up close. Conversations with people like Bernie Moreno, now a great senator from Ohio, confirm what many suspect. These institutionalists thought Trump would come and go, but the movement he built is permanent. Mitch McConnell-style operators believed they could control the levers of power and cut deals with lobbyists long after Trump left the stage. They were wrong. The people who picked Trump want results, not perpetual compromise. 

Massie’s loss sends a clear message: working against the party when unity is required carries consequences. His district in northern Kentucky—home to horse breeders and conservative strongholds—knew Trump, trusted Trump, and followed Trump’s lead. I know that area well through friends and connections. They want wins, not ideological purity tests that hand victories to Democrats. 

The Railroad Job and the Deep State

On the same day Trump moved against Massie, he endorsed Ken Paxton in Texas against incumbent John Cornyn. I really want to see Paxton win. I’ve seen railroading in corporate culture, in military contexts, and in politics. It’s a tactic of control: manipulate the narrative, isolate the target, and eliminate opposition. The deep state—those power players in Tysons Corner, near the Pentagon and CIA—thrives on this. They live insulated lives, far removed from the Walmart shoppers and working families. They want insiders who attend their Fairfax County parties, who compromise for access. 

Trump’s endorsement of Paxton was bold, coming right in the middle of voting. It shows his willingness to fight the swamp directly. Paxton has been a warrior for Texas, taking on battles others avoid. Eliminating RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) like Cornyn strengthens the Senate. With more fighters like Bernie Moreno, we gain ammunition to pass real America First policies. 

Most elections have seen rigging or interference over time—2020 being a prime example with mountains of evidence that the corporate media and tech suppressed. The deep state puts its fingers on the scale to favor those who protect their interests. Venezuela and other actors have meddled; why wouldn’t domestic players? Trump represents the antidote: a man too big to buy, with an ego and fight that refuses to lose. 

Why People Follow Trump: Authenticity Over Ideology

People can’t always be bought with money or thoughts. The active base in Ohio and across the country proved this by sticking with Trump through hell. They want someone who fights the system, not joins it. That’s why Vivek Ramaswamy will likely win in Ohio—he aligns with that energy. Libertarian holdouts who campaigned against party unity shame themselves; they’re keeping swamp creatures alive. 

I want practical sense in government—business leverage, negotiation skills, ethical voting of conscience without aiding the enemy. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ron Paul had appeal in the Tea Party days, but ideology without winning is useless. Trump brings both fight and results.

In 2016-2017, I predicted the Democrat Party would face bankruptcy by around 2021 due to their own excesses and Trump’s disruption. COVID shenanigans delayed some of that, but the trajectory holds. With honest elections and Trump’s influence, we see victories: Massie gone, potential Paxton win, stronger majorities. 

Building Representative Government

Representative government means listening to the people, not K Street. Compromise with lobbyists has run our country into the ground. Eliminating figures like Massie and Cornyn is part of draining that swamp. Trump is doing what we asked: delivering power back to the voters who elected him legitimately.

The age of disclosure is upon us. We must understand not just earthly politics but the deeper “politics of heaven”—moral clarity, truth over expediency, and a republic that reflects higher principles. Politics isn’t separate from righteousness; it’s an arena where it must be defended.

This isn’t blind loyalty. It’s strategic unity against those who want to destroy our way of life. Democrats may never sit at the table again if we succeed. That’s the goal: a strong, healthy debate within a victorious conservative movement that rebuilds America.

Footnotes

1.  On party unity and primary dynamics: Primary challenges test loyalty. Historical parallels include Reagan’s influence over the GOP in the 1980s.

2.  Filibuster history: Originated as a procedural tool but weaponized for special interests. See Senate Rule XXII.

3.  Deep state concepts: Refer to works on administrative state expansion, e.g., bureaucracy growth post-New Deal.

4.  2020 election integrity: Multiple affidavits, statistical anomalies, and suppressed stories (Hunter Biden laptop) provide context, though courts dismissed many on procedural grounds.

5.  Trump’s resilience: Assassination attempts, legal battles documented extensively in public records.

Bibliography (vast selection for further reading):

•  “The Art of the Deal” by Donald J. Trump – Practical negotiation in politics.

•  Federalist Papers (esp. No. 10 on factions) – Foundations of representative government.

•  “Deep State” by Mike Lofgren – Insider view of bureaucratic power.

•  “A Republic, If You Can Keep It” by Russell Kirk – Conservative principles.

•  Biographies of Reagan, Coolidge for party realignment.

•  “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek – Warnings on centralized power.

•  Congressional Research Service reports on filibuster and lobbying.

•  Election integrity studies from Heritage Foundation and others.

•  “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” by Robert Cialdini – On why endorsements matter.

•  Works by Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson on cultural and political divides.

•  Ohio and Kentucky political histories, voter guides from 2026 cycles.

•  “The Politics of Heaven” theological/political intersections (various Christian conservative authors).

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

My friend with Dirty Shoes: Why America Thrives Through Its Wealth Builders and What Happens When Sudden Money Meets Human Nature

I have spent years observing the world around me in places like Middletown, Ohio, and reflecting on the stark differences between those who build lasting wealth and those who chase fleeting windfalls. The recent trip by President Trump to China, with a plane full of American billionaires, brought these observations into sharp focus for me. It was not just a diplomatic visit; it was a demonstration of economic strength, showcasing the very people who drive innovation, jobs, and growth. Critics on social media and in political circles often decry such figures, calling for higher taxes, wealth redistribution, and policies that would “take from the rich to give to us.” Yet, my experiences with friends, family, and neighbors who have won big at nearby casinos tell a different story—one of human nature, discipline, and the enduring value of creators over consumers. 

Trump’s journey to Beijing included leaders like Elon Musk of Tesla, Jensen Huang of Nvidia, Tim Cook of Apple, and others whose combined influence represents trillions in market value and countless jobs. China rolled out the red carpet in ways it hadn’t for previous administrations, precisely because it understands its reliance on American enterprise. China is a paper tiger, but its growth model depends heavily on foreign investment, technology transfer, and access to markets that value efficiency and scale. With a population far larger than America’s roughly 330 million, China has pursued manufacturing and infrastructure on a massive scale—jobs many in the West avoid—but it still seeks the dynamism that billionaires bring. By bringing these executives on Air Force One, Trump signaled leverage: American policy shapes opportunities, and those who generate wealth are key to expanding economies on both sides. 

This isn’t abstract theory. I know wealthy individuals personally, and their habits stand in contrast to stories I hear at the local casino. One friend, a multimillionaire in construction and development, always shows up with dirty shoes and calloused hands. He works the job sites himself and oversees projects that build condominiums in Florida, where snowbirds live comfortably for months each year, dining out nightly without worry. His wealth cascades: employees get steady pay, suppliers thrive, and retirees enjoy the fruits of his risk-taking. He doesn’t chase flashy displays; he reinvests to create more. This pattern repeats among true wealth creators. They treat money as a tool for expansion, not a ticket to indulgence. 

Contrast this with lottery and casino winners I have known. Near my home, the slots and tables draw crowds hoping for that life-changing hit. Some walk away with $15,000, $25,000, or even $100,000 checks. The stories that follow are depressingly familiar. One acquaintance won around $100,000 from insurance collections tied to a payout and quit his second job immediately. Overtime vanished. Within two years, the money disappeared—spent on cars, parties, and “trophy” living. He was back asking for help, bouncing checks, and debating between groceries and bills very soon. Another hit $15,000 on slots one weekend, celebrated by drinking and playing more, then bought big TVs and turned his basement into a “man cave” costing tens of thousands. Months later, broke again, he returned to the casino chasing the next jackpot. These aren’t isolated cases. I have seen inheritance recipients or family windfall beneficiaries do the same: quit work, lounge in front of daytime TV, blow through savings on impulse buys, and end up worse off. 

Statistics bear this out, adding sobering color. While the often-cited “70% of lottery winners go broke” figure has been debunked as originating from unverified claims at a 2001 symposium (the National Endowment for Financial Education later clarified it lacked research backing), more reliable data from the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards indicates that nearly one-third of lottery winners eventually declare bankruptcy—higher than the general population. Many face this within 3-5 years. A MIT study on Florida lottery winners who were previously financially distressed found that winning only postponed bankruptcy rather than preventing it. Stories abound: Bud Post won $16.2 million in Pennsylvania in 1988 but was in debt within a year, hounded by family (including a murder-for-hire plot from his brother), and died nearly penniless on food stamps. Suzanne Mullins won $4.2 million in Virginia, yet lost it to loans and medical bills. Callie Rogers in the UK squandered her winnings on parties and surgery. The pattern is consumption without creation. 

Why does this happen so frequently? Psychology offers insights. Sudden wealth often meets unprepared minds shaped by scarcity thinking or addictive patterns. Without the discipline forged through years of earning and risking, money flows out faster than it came in. Social pressures mount—friends and relatives appear with hands out. Status symbols beckon: Corvettes, luxury trips, home upgrades that balloon in cost. I have watched people prioritize PlayStation subscriptions over groceries or blow windfalls on fleeting pleasures because their personalities lean toward immediate gratification rather than delayed compounding. Behavioral economists note that windfall recipients frequently exhibit higher marginal propensity to consume on non-essentials, lacking the habits of those who built wealth incrementally. 

Wealth creators operate differently. They exhibit traits such as future orientation, calculated risk-taking, and a focus on value generation. Elon Musk, for instance, pours resources into companies that push boundaries in electric vehicles, space, and AI—ventures that employ thousands and spawn entire ecosystems. CEOs, in general, create wealth for others: shareholders, employees, and communities. Studies on high-net-worth individuals show they often maintain hands-on involvement, reinvest heavily, and avoid lifestyle inflation that erodes capital. One analysis of affluent versus high-net-worth investors found the latter display confidence but channel it into ongoing projects rather than consumption. My multimillionaire friend with dirty shoes embodies this: he builds condos that house comfortable retirements, creates jobs that support families, and sustains businesses that keep local economies humming. Billionaires scale this principle globally. 

This distinction matters profoundly for policy. Socialism’s appeal—confiscating from the rich to redistribute—ignores these realities. Taking from creators to give to those with “bankrupt personalities,” as I call the chronic consumers, doesn’t produce prosperity; it funds more consumption. Parasitic tendencies, where individuals rely on government transfers or windfalls without building, lead to dependency. Casinos illustrate the microcosm: big payouts followed by returns to low-wage jobs or pleas for help. Government as the ultimate casino—promising jackpots through entitlements—breeds similar outcomes on a societal scale. Democrats and figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez often rail against billionaires, but history shows societies thrive with more of them, not fewer. America’s edge lies in its ability to foster creators who expand the pie rather than fight over slices. 

China’s economic story reinforces this. Since reforms in 1979, it has averaged nearly 10% annual GDP growth for decades, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty through exports, investment, and manufacturing. Yet it remains hungry for American capital and know-how. Its model involves state direction, lower labor standards in some sectors, and a willingness to handle the “jobs we don’t want” in the U.S.—polluting industries, assembly lines, and resource extraction. With far more people, China can sustain volume, but innovation and high-value creation still draw from Western partnerships. Foreign direct investment (FDI) has been crucial; inflows reached highs amid global shifts. Trump’s delegation signaled that U.S. billionaires hold keys to further integration if terms favor American interests. China respects this leverage because its growth, while impressive, depends on external engines. U.S. GDP per capita remains far higher, reflecting productivity and the rule of law that reward creators. 

We need more millionaires and billionaires, not envy-driven policies to hobble them. More CEOs mean more opportunities cascading downward. Taxing success punitively discourages the risk-taking that built the Tesla and Apple ecosystems and construction empires. Instead, celebrate the dirty-shoes ethic: hard work, reinvestment, hands-on leadership. My observations align with broader patterns—materialists focused on status often report lower long-term satisfaction, while builders find purpose in creation. 

Expanding on the pitfalls of lotteries reveals deeper human frailties. Beyond bankruptcy stats, winners face family estrangement, depression, substance issues, and scams. One study noted neighbors of winners increase borrowing and bankruptcies due to social comparison—keeping up with sudden displays strains others. This “lottery curse” echoes in inheritances: sudden money without earned wisdom evaporates. In contrast, self-made wealth correlates with better management because it embeds lessons of scarcity, effort, and compounding. 

Consider Florida’s snowbirds again. Many live in multimillion-dollar condos, dining lavishly on seemingly endless income without daily grinds. Who enables this? Developers like my friend, whose projects multiply value. Scaled up, billionaires do the same nationally and internationally. They generate tax revenue far exceeding most—Elon Musk reportedly pays enormous sums—while funding innovations that improve lives: cheaper energy, better tech, and medical advances. Criticizing them as “greedy” overlooks their role as job creators and engines of opportunity. 

Critics pushing redistribution often overlook the destruction of incentives. If the government seizes wealth for “the people,” who becomes the new creator? Parasites—those unable or unwilling to manage resources—consume without replenishing. I have seen it locally: second-job quitters, inheritance squanderers, entitlement dependents. They form a constituency drawn to promises of free money, mirroring casino addicts chasing the next hit. America’s strength is its culture of aspiration, where anyone can climb by creating value. With only 300+ million people, we punch above our weight in GDP through productivity, not sheer numbers. Encouraging more creators expands this. 

Trump’s visit to China highlighted mutual dependence. China outpaces in raw growth metrics at times due to demographics and policy, but America’s innovation ecosystem—fueled by risk-takers—remains the gold standard. Billionaires on that plane weren’t just passengers; they represented the market access and expertise China needs. Respect shown to Trump reflected recognition of this dynamic. Previous presidents lacked the same business acumen or the same leverage to display. 

Personal reflection deepens my conviction. Knowing rich people who work relentlessly, rather than casino regulars cycling through highs and lows, convinces me that character and mindset trump circumstance. Wealthy individuals I admire avoid dumb spending; they buy assets that produce more. Consumers chase experiences or goods that depreciate instantly. This gap explains societal outcomes. Policies that reward consumption through redistribution erode the foundation that creators provide. We should aim for more dirty-shoes millionaires building empires, not vilify them.  Lottery winners buying mansions only to lose them to upkeep, or facing lawsuits from sudden “friends,” underscore isolation. One winner built a bowling alley that drained funds. Another’s family demanded shares, leading to rifts. Meanwhile, self-made billionaires like Musk endure scrutiny but persist, creating Starlink, EVs, and reusable rockets that benefit humanity. The asymmetry is clear: creators endure for legacy; windfall recipients often implode due to a lack of preparation. 

The Trump China trip with billionaires celebrated American dynamism. It showed why we need more such figures—CEOs, entrepreneurs, builders—who generate wealth that sustains societies. Lottery lessons warn against easy-money illusions. Human nature favors discipline and creation over consumption. Socialism’s confiscation appeals emotionally but fails practically by ignoring these truths. I advocate protecting and encouraging wealth creators; they make the world go around, enabling comfortable lives for millions. More billionaires mean more opportunity, innovation, and shared prosperity. America’s secret sauce is its producers. Cherish them, emulate their habits, and watch economies flourish. 

Footnotes

1.  Observations on local casino behaviors drawn from personal acquaintance over the years.

2.  Data on bankruptcy rates from CFP Board and related studies.

3.  Details on Trump’s delegation from public reports.

4.  China’s economic reliance on FDI from the World Bank and trade analyses.

5.  Psychological insights from consumer behavior research.

Bibliography

•  Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards reports on lottery winners.

•  MIT study on Florida lottery bankruptcy postponement.

•  NEFE clarification on 70% statistic.

•  CRS Report on China’s Economic Rise.

•  Various Forbes, USA Today, and academic papers on wealth psychology and FDI.

•  Public news on Trump’s China visit (PBS, Fox, etc.).

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

Contemplations on taxes and land use: The value of the Buried Valley Aquifer

I have lived in Liberty Township for half a century, and my daughter has spent most of her life here as well. This place shaped us. I remember when Liberty Township was defined by open fields, cows grazing behind white fences, and families holding onto fifty acres or more. Those days feel distant now. Land once measured in expansive plots has shrunk to quarter-acre dreams, and the American vision of space and self-reliance has been traded for denser subdivisions and higher tax bases. I see this tension playing out right now with a proposed housing complex at the end of Lynn Road. My daughter wants to speak against it during public comments, and I support her. We drive by that property often, and it has always been a spacious vanishing point—a beautiful open vista that has brought me peace for decades. Watching it get plotted and dotted with houses feels like losing something sentimental, something that defined the character of this township. 

I am not against development in principle. I am pro-growth and see economic activity as a creative enterprise—an artistic one, even. I have friends who are landholders and developers, many on the wealthier side, and I understand their perspective. Property owners have every right to sell, and if someone wants to buy and build, that transaction should be respected, and high property taxes make it so selling that land to a developer is their only real option. But not every piece of land is the same. Some properties carry generational memories and visual value that new subdivisions erode quickly. I have watched this transformation happen repeatedly in Liberty Township. Brand-new houses look appealing at first, but many are built with materials that age poorly. In a decade or two, they become eyesores—secondhand in quality, declining in desirability, and burdensome to maintain. The open farmland that once symbolized freedom and productivity gets replaced by neighborhoods that demand more services while delivering diminishing returns. 

This is not just nostalgia. It is an economic observation. Converting productive farmland into residential plots often feels like economic shuffleboarding—moving value around rather than creating lasting wealth. A large plot growing beans and corn generates real output. Subdividing it generates immediate tax revenue, which big government loves, but it comes at the cost of open space and long-term character. Local governments face pressure to approve these projects because they promise quick fiscal boosts. Developers attend meetings, build relationships, and present polished plans. Residents who value the status quo often show up only when directly affected, so the process becomes one-sided. Hearings can feel like formalities. In many cases, the outcome seems predetermined. I have told my daughter as much: these deals are frequently made long before public comment. Yet speaking out still matters. It puts the sentimental and aesthetic costs on record.

I contrast this sharply with another development I support strongly: data centers in nearby Trenton, just across the river. Trenton sits in a strategic spot with highway access, existing infrastructure, and—most crucially—one of the world’s best water resources beneath it. The Great Miami River Buried Valley Aquifer underlies much of Butler County, including areas around Trenton and Middletown. This aquifer is one of the most productive groundwater systems in the United States, a network of sand and gravel deposits storing over a trillion gallons of clean water. It yields enormous volumes—hundreds of millions of gallons daily—and has supported industries such as the Miller brewery for decades. My own house sits on a hill overlooking Trenton, roughly 100 feet above the river, yet we have a constant water presence in our basement from the aquifer below. Geologically, this water basin is vast and reliable, replenished by the Miami River. Data centers need massive cooling capacity, and this aquifer provides it without noticeable depletion. The consumption rates discussed, even for large facilities, would barely register on the aquifer’s scale. 

I have followed the proposals for data centers in Trenton closely, including projects like Prologis’ “Project Mila” on 141 acres in the industrial park. These are substantial—hundreds of thousands of square feet across multiple buildings. There has been pushback from some residents concerned about views, noise, or rapid approval processes. I get the concerns; change is disruptive. But I see data centers as fundamentally different from housing sprawl. They represent the future economy: AI, robotics, data processing, and the infrastructure for the emerging space economy. I am a huge fan of SpaceX and what they are building. Giant factories in orbit, manufacturing in zero-gravity environments—these are not science fiction to me. They are the next frontier, safer and more efficient than Earth-based heavy industry in many ways. To get there, we need AI and the data centers that power it. Trenton’s location—near power infrastructure, highways, and this incredible aquifer—makes it ideal. 

Ohio’s energy picture supports this growth. We are in a different era now. Fracking, fossil fuels, and a pragmatic approach to nuclear power are providing abundance. I remember the politics around FirstEnergy and nuclear plants under previous administrations—efforts to shut down reliable sources in favor of intermittent renewables that could not meet demand. Those policies created artificial shortages. Today, with a focus on all-of-the-above energy, including drilling and keeping nuclear online, we have the capacity. Data centers are energy-intensive, but Ohio is positioning itself to meet that demand without brownouts or rationing. The aquifer handles the cooling, the grid handles the power, and the economic returns are substantial. 

I have seen arguments about water use and electricity draw, but the data reassures me. The Buried Valley Aquifer has been studied extensively by the USGS and local conservancy districts. It interacts dynamically with the Great Miami River, maintaining levels even with significant withdrawals for municipal and industrial use. Data centers can employ efficient cooling designs, sometimes using water for only a small percentage of the year. Compared to the long-term benefits, the trade-offs seem manageable. Meanwhile, residential developments consume water too—often less efficiently per unit of economic output—and they permanently fragment land. 

Tax revenue comparisons favor targeted industrial development, such as data centers, over blanket housing. Housing brings in property taxes from many small parcels, but it also increases demands on schools, roads, and services. Data centers, even with incentives, generate significant direct and indirect revenue. Ohio has seen billions in investments and tax contributions from the sector. They create high-value economic activity with fewer ongoing public service burdens. A data center does not fill classrooms or require the same level of residential infrastructure. It powers the digital backbone that supports everything from cell phones to advanced manufacturing. 

This selective approach to development reflects my broader philosophy. I like growth that builds real capability. Farms like Garver Family Farm Market and Neiderman Farm show how landowners can adapt—by selling directly to consumers, hosting events, and creating agritourism revenue to help cover taxes. These are creative solutions that preserve some open character while sustaining ownership. But crushing property taxes push many toward selling to residential developers. The system incentivizes short-term conversion over long-term stewardship. Big government benefits from the expanded tax base, yet it erodes the sovereignty of individual landholders. I see this as, in practice, turning private property into something more collective. 

My views come from decades of observation. I remember Trenton before and after the Miller brewery. That facility brought jobs and economic activity, though it also brought truck traffic on roads not designed for it. Data centers will bring different impacts—more buildings on former farmland—but they align with a high-tech future. Robots in fast food, AI handling data, automation filling labor gaps: these trends are real. I have friends in the restaurant business struggling with staffing post-COVID. Demographics and cultural shifts mean fewer people are available or willing to take certain jobs. Tesla and SpaceX demonstrate how robotics and AI multiply human capability. Data centers are the enablers. I want Trenton to be part of that boom. I want Butler County and Ohio to lead in the space economy. Factories in orbit, 200,000-square-foot facilities operating in microgravity—these are exciting prospects I hope to engage with personally. 

The housing project on Lynn Road bothers me because it trades irreplaceable open space for something transient. New houses age into maintenance headaches. Neighborhoods change demographics and character over decades. The view my daughter and I have enjoyed will be gone. In contrast, data centers, while industrial, serve a purpose that scales into the future. They do not sprawl into residential life the same way. They cluster in appropriate industrial zones.

I understand the counterarguments. Some worry about electricity strain or water draw, but Ohio’s policies and geology mitigate those. Others dislike the aesthetics of large warehouse-like structures. I prefer cornfields too, but economic reality and technological progress demand adaptation. Property taxes make holding large farms expensive. Development pays those bills. The question is which development creates enduring value.

I am optimistic about the direction. With sound energy policy, abundant water, and a strategic location, Trenton can thrive. Liberty Township should protect its remaining special open spaces where possible. Public comments matter, even if outcomes feel foregone. My daughter speaking out honors the place we love. I plan to support her.

This balance—resisting unchecked residential sprawl while embracing high-value tech infrastructure—strikes me as pragmatic. It respects property rights without surrendering everything to short-term fiscal pressure. It looks toward a future of AI, space manufacturing, and expanded human potential rather than repeating patterns of subdivision that have already altered so much of what I grew up with.

In the end, I want both: preserved pockets of the beautiful, spacious Liberty Township I have known, and developments like data centers that position our region for the next century. The aquifer under the Miami Valley gives us a unique advantage that few places can match. Ohio’s energy abundance under current policies removes old constraints. We should use these gifts wisely—favoring quality over quantity in residential growth, and boldness in embracing the technologies that will define tomorrow. 

Footnotes

¹ Personal observation and driving history in Liberty Township.

² Liberty Township comprehensive plans and development patterns.

³ USGS reports on the Great Miami Buried Valley Aquifer.

⁴ Butler County water resources documentation.

⁵ Prologis Project Mila proposals and Trenton approvals.

⁶ Ohio data center tax revenue studies.

⁷ Energy policy analyses regarding nuclear and fracking.

⁸ Farm market operations in the Monroe area.

Bibliography

•  Sheets, R.A. et al. Ground-Water Flow Directions and Estimation of Aquifer Hydraulic Properties in the Lower Great Miami River Buried Valley Aquifer System. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5013.

•  Miami Conservancy District publications on aquifer sustainability.

•  Ohio Chamber of Commerce Research Foundation reports on data center economic impact.

•  Policy Matters Ohio analyses of tax incentives.

•  Local news coverage from WCPO, Journal-News on Trenton developments.

•  Garver Family Farm Market business information.

•  Ohio Revised Code sections on data center tax exemptions.

•  Additional USGS and Ohio DNR groundwater studies for Butler County.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

The Torture of Tina Peters: Finally getting out of jail, what her story says about authority

I have long observed how power, when unchecked, resorts to the rack—not always the physical one of medieval dungeons, but the metaphorical equivalent that breaks spirits, careers, and truths until confessions align with institutional narratives. The recent case of Tina Peters, the former Mesa County Clerk in Colorado, stands as a stark modern exemplar of this ancient pattern. A seventy-year-old woman thrust into one of the most dangerous environments imaginable for someone of her age and background, she faced years of imprisonment not primarily for some violent crime, but for daring to question the machinery of an election and seeking to preserve evidence amid widespread suspicions of irregularities in 2020. Her eventual release, commuted by Governor Jared Polis under significant pressure from President Trump, came only after what many perceive as a coerced softening of her stance—a letter or statement that effectively extracted a measure of contrition to grease the wheels of her freedom. 

This bothers me deeply, not merely as an isolated legal matter, but as a symptom of a deeper rot in how societies, whether monarchies of old or democratic republics today, enforce conformity. I have explored this in my writings, particularly in The Politics of Heaven, where an entire chapter delves into the wives of Henry VIII. Why devote so much space to Tudor England? Because it illustrates precisely what happens when authority feels threatened: it tortures, it extracts, it publicly humiliates until the victim recants or perishes. Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, and others navigated a court where one misstep, one perceived challenge to the king’s narrative of divine right and control, led to scaffolds and swords. Henry’s break with Rome and the Protestant stirrings required confessions of loyalty, often under duress, to maintain the facade of unified power. Collective belief—enforced by the state and church—sought to transform royal will into unassailable truth, much as today’s liberal establishments insist that sheer repetition and institutional pressure can transmute falsehoods into accepted realities. 

Consider William Wallace, that Scottish patriot whose brutal end in 1305 remains etched in collective memory. Dragged through London streets, hanged until nearly dead, then disemboweled while alive, his entrails burned before him, and finally quartered—all while conscious for much of the ordeal. This was no mere punishment for rebellion; it was a spectacle designed to extract submission from a defiant soul and deter others. English authorities needed Wallace not just defeated, but broken in narrative: a traitor whose cause was illegitimate. His screams, if he uttered any, were meant to affirm the crown’s supremacy. I think often of this when reflecting on modern “punishments” that are less bloody but equally soul-crushing: financial ruin, social ostracism, professional blocklisting, or literal incarceration for those who challenge sacred cows like election outcomes or gender ideologies. 

Peters’ ordeal mirrors these historical precedents with eerie precision. As Mesa County Clerk, she allowed access to voting equipment in 2021 during a period of intense scrutiny following the 2020 presidential election. Her intent, by all accounts from her perspective and supporters, was transparency and preservation of data that might reveal anomalies—chain-of-custody issues, unauthorized access, or software vulnerabilities. Critics, including the Colorado Secretary of State’s office, framed it as a breach that cost the county nearly a million dollars in new equipment and undermined trust. She was convicted on multiple counts, including attempts to influence public servants and official misconduct, receiving a nine-year sentence that many viewed as extraordinarily harsh for a first-time, non-violent offender. 

What strikes me as particularly insidious is the environment she endured. At her age, placed in a facility where vulnerability invites predation, reports and her own expressed fears painted a picture of genuine physical danger. This was no country-club detention; it was a pressure cooker designed, intentionally or not, to break resolve. The demand for a statement upon commutation—softening her previous assertions about fraud—echoes the rack of old. Throughout history, authorities have preferred the illusion of voluntary confession. “I was wrong,” “I made a mistake,” “I apologize for questioning”—these words, extracted under the shadow of continued suffering, serve to validate the system’s narrative. It is the same dynamic seen in corporate America, where leverage (debt, HR complaints, performance reviews) forces employees to affirm policies they privately doubt: DEI mandates, vaccine requirements during COVID, or silence on biological realities in sports and spaces. 

During the pandemic, we witnessed this on a mass scale. “Take the jab or lose your job.” “Believe the science as defined by us, or face exclusion.” Massive institutional pressure infused collective belief into contested propositions—efficacy claims, transmission narratives, origin stories—turning skepticism into heresy. Those who resisted often faced metaphorical drawing and quartering: lost livelihoods, family divisions, reputational destruction. Similarly, on transgender issues, the insistence that belief alone alters biological sex allows men in women’s sports or prisons, not through evidence, but through enforced social consensus. Dissenters risk cancellation, much as Peters risked (and endured) imprisonment for questioning election “integrity” as defined by those in power. This is not new; it is the eternal temptation of power to weaponize belief against observable reality. 

I see parallels in the Protestant Reformation’s violent undercurrents, which I detailed extensively because they reveal how challenges to authority provoke the extraction of loyalty oaths. Henry VIII’s dissolution of monasteries and execution of dissenters required public affirmations of the new order. Thomas More, a man of principle, met the axe rather than falsely swear the Oath of Supremacy. Others, less steadfast, confessed under torture to save themselves, only to erode the moral fabric. The rack, the Tower, Smithfield burnings—these tools did not create truth; they manufactured compliance. In Peters’ case, the “confession” element, however subtle, serves the same purpose: it allows the system to claim vindication while quietly releasing the prisoner to avoid greater scandal or political cost. President Trump’s active role in the background—public calls, threats of federal repercussions—highlights how counter-pressure from the executive can sometimes check state-level overreach, but it does not erase the initial injustice. 

Corporate culture today replicates this with chilling efficiency. Leveraged buyouts, activist investors, or HR departments place executives and employees “on the rack” through performance improvement plans, diversity audits, or public shaming until they affirm the prevailing orthodoxy. Whistleblowers on financial fraud, safety issues, or cultural excesses face the same extraction: settlements with nondisclosure agreements that function as forced recantations. Peter Navarro, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and others entangled in post-2020 legal battles endured variants of this—legal warfare, contempt charges, financial depletion—aimed at softening narratives around election challenges. The goal remains consistent: to make the lie (or the contested claim) into truth by compelling public submission. 

This dynamic produces a less ethical society. When truth becomes subordinate to power—whether royal, bureaucratic, corporate, or partisan—individuals learn to compromise. They choose livelihood over conviction, freedom over integrity. Over generations, this breeds cynicism, apathy, and a populace ripe for further manipulation. I have argued that America’s founding emphasized consent of the governed and individual rights precisely to counter such tyrannies. Yet here we are, six years on from 2020, with mounting questions about mail-in expansions, drop boxes, observer restrictions, and statistical anomalies that Peters and others sought to illuminate. Even if one disputes the scale of fraud sufficient to alter outcomes, the suppression of inquiry itself damages trust. Jailing a clerk for preserving data she was duty-bound to protect sends a chilling message: do not look too closely. 

History offers abundant further examples. The Inquisition’s use of the strappado or water torture extracted recantations from heretics, reinforcing doctrinal “truth” through pain. Soviet show trials featured broken defendants confessing to absurd crimes against the state. Maoist struggle sessions in China humiliated intellectuals until they denounced their own thoughts. In each case, the powerful believed—or claimed to believe—that collective enforcement could reshape reality. Modern liberalism’s variant substitutes social media mobs, lawfare, and regulatory punishment for physical racks, but the intent persists: punish until compliance. Transgender ideology, climate catastrophism, or election sanctity become articles of faith, with heretics like Peters paying the price. 

Her visibility exacerbated Peters’ situation. A grandmotherly figure thrust into the national spotlight as an “election denier,” she became a symbol. Supporters viewed her as a hero preserving constitutional integrity; detractors as a threat to democratic norms. The reality, as I see it, lies in the asymmetry: rules written to favor opacity (limited audits, proprietary software, partisan officials) create the very distrust they then punish. When a Secretary of State’s office allows or overlooks access issues while aggressively prosecuting those seeking sunlight, it reeks of selective enforcement. Her observer in the process, the turned-off cameras, the data images surfacing—these were not random malice but responses to perceived vulnerabilities. 

The governor’s decision to commute, framing the sentence as “extremely unusual and lengthy” for nonviolent offenses, acknowledges some excess, yet the underlying convictions stand. Pressure from the highest levels, including funding threats, likely tipped the scales, preventing blood on hands if something dire befell Peters in custody. This pragmatic release does not restore her reputation fully or address the broader pattern. It reveals power’s calculus: extract enough submission to save face, then move on. 

I reflect on these matters because they touch the American way: truth, justice, and the right to question without fear of ruin. A society that jails grandmothers for forensic curiosity while shielding institutional actors from scrutiny drifts toward the authoritarianism I chronicled in Tudor times. Free will erodes when choices reduce to “confess or suffer.” During COVID, countless professionals mouthed platitudes they doubted to retain mortgages and retirements. In boardrooms, executives greenlight policies they know are performative. In elections, officials certify amid doubts to avoid the Peters treatment. This produces hollow compliance, not genuine consent.

Expanding on Reformation violence: the executions under Mary I (“Bloody Mary”) and Elizabeth I show both Catholic and Protestant sides wielded the scaffold. Yet the principle endures—authority demands narrative control. Henry’s wives navigated lethal intrigue because succession and religion were intertwined with power. Challenge the king’s version, and you faced the block. Today, challenge the certified result or biological binary, and face analogous consequences, scaled to modernity.

Corporate buyout artists, as I noted, extract through economic racks: golden handcuffs, NDAs, and severance tied to silence. Employees sign away their right to speak the truth post-departure. This mirrors plea deals, where defendants admit guilt to receive lighter sentences, regardless of their inner convictions. Peters’ path appears to have involved such a bargain: statement for parole eligibility by June 2026. 

Ultimately, this erodes the Republic. When collective belief supplants evidence—whether on fraud, gender, or public health—we sacrifice the Enlightenment foundations that gave birth to America. Peters was right to question; time and further audits have only amplified legitimate concerns about 2020 processes. Her punishment served to deter others, not illuminate the truth. The shame lies not in her actions, but in a system that prefers darkness and extracted confessions over open inquiry.

This pattern repeats because human nature craves control. Power fears exposure. From Wallace’s screams to Peters’ cell, the lesson is clear: resist the rack, preserve integrity, even at great cost. Only then does society inch toward genuine justice rather than enforced illusion. My observations over the years, across politics, culture, and history, convince me that without vigilance against such extractions, we trade freedom for comfortable lies. The age of disclosure demands that we reject this, honoring those like Peters who, against immense pressure, tried to uphold honest processes. 

Footnotes

1.  Details drawn from contemporary reporting on Peters’ commutation, May 2026.

2.  Historical accounts of Wallace’s execution, 1305.

3.  Tudor court records and biographies of Henry VIII’s consorts.

4.  Analyses of COVID policy enforcement and corporate compliance mechanisms.

5.  Reformation historiography on oaths and martyrdoms.

Bibliography

•  The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir.

•  William Wallace: Braveheart historical biographies.

•  Colorado court documents, People v. Peters, 2024-2026.

•  Various news archives on 2020 election integrity debates (Heritage Foundation, state audits).

•  The Politics of Heaven (forthcoming) for extended historical parallels.

•  Primary sources on the Inquisition and the Reformation tortures.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

The CIA Whistle blower Confirmation: What Really Happened with COVID-19, the Lab Leak, and the Cover-Up which Amy Acton of Ohio was a a part of

In mid-May 2026, as the nation continued grappling with the lingering scars of the COVID-19 pandemic, a remarkable event unfolded before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. James E. Erdman III, a Senior Operations Officer at the Central Intelligence Agency with decades of experience, testified under oath about a concerted effort within the intelligence community to downplay and suppress evidence indicating a laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2. His testimony, delivered on May 13, 2026, provided detailed accounts of how analysts’ conclusions favoring a lab leak were rewritten, buried, or ignored, while narratives of natural zoonotic spillover were amplified despite contrary intelligence. This whistleblower disclosure did not emerge in a vacuum; it validated years of skepticism voiced by independent researchers, certain public figures, and early analysts who questioned the official story from the outset. 

Erdman described a system rife with conflicts of interest. Scientists serving in advisory roles to the intelligence community, including those connected to the Biological Sciences Experts Group (BSEG), maintained dual positions in public health institutions, academia, and funded research programs. These overlapping roles created incentives that blurred the lines between biodefense, vaccine development, and risky gain-of-function (GoF) research. Dr. Anthony Fauci, then Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), played a pivotal role by influencing intelligence analyses through curated lists of experts—many of whom had received NIAID funding or collaborated on coronavirus studies. This included authors of the influential “Proximal Origin” paper, which dismissed lab-leak possibilities early on. Erdman testified that Fauci’s interventions shaped the intelligence community’s output, favoring natural origin theories even as internal assessments leaned toward a lab incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

The timeline is damning. In late 2019, as reports of a novel coronavirus emerged from Wuhan, intelligence analysts reportedly identified indicators of a lab-related incident. Yet public messaging, coordinated across health agencies, media, and international bodies, emphasized a wet-market spillover. Event 201, a high-level pandemic simulation held in October 2019 by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, eerily mirrored the unfolding crisis. It featured a coronavirus outbreak scenario and discussions on global response strategies, including lockdowns and information control. Participants included public health leaders with intelligence ties. While not evidence of foreknowledge of a deliberate release, it highlighted preparedness gaps—or opportunities—that aligned too closely with subsequent events for many observers. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s books, particularly The Real Anthony Fauci (2021) and The Wuhan Cover-Up (2023), provided extensive documentation of these dynamics long before Erdman’s testimony. In The Wuhan Cover-Up, Kennedy detailed the history of U.S.-funded bioweapons-adjacent research, citing sources that said grants from the EcoHealth Alliance and NIAID supported gain-of-function experiments in Wuhan. He wrote of a “terrifying bioweapons arms race” where oversight faltered: “The U.S. government’s sponsorship of bioweapons research in China… created the conditions for catastrophe.” Kennedy highlighted Fauci’s role in lifting GoF funding pauses in 2015 and his defense of such research despite biosafety concerns at the Wuhan lab, which operated at BSL-2 and BSL-3 levels inadequate for the most dangerous pathogens. Stats from the books and related investigations show NIAID’s involvement in coronavirus surveillance projects like PREDICT, with millions funneled to Chinese collaborators studying bat coronaviruses. 

The human and economic toll underscores the stakes. Official U.S. COVID-19 deaths exceeded 1.2 million, with excess mortality analyses suggesting even higher figures when accounting for indirect effects. Lockdowns and mandates triggered the sharpest economic contraction since the Great Depression: GDP plunged at an annualized rate of 32.9% in Q2 2020, unemployment spiked to 14.7%, and over 20 million jobs vanished in a matter of weeks. Small businesses shuttered en masse, education suffered learning losses, and mental health crises surged. Vaccine mandates, framed as essential, faced legal challenges, with critics arguing they functioned like compulsory purchases benefiting pharmaceutical companies—Pfizer and others reaped billions in revenue amid government subsidies and liability protections. Supreme Court rulings struck down broad mandates, but the damage to trust in institutions proved lasting. 

Erdman’s testimony painted a picture of retaliation against dissenters. Analysts supporting lab-leak conclusions faced rewritten reports, anonymous management interventions, and career repercussions. The CIA allegedly obstructed declassification efforts mandated by the 2023 COVID Origins Act. This echoed broader patterns: early dismissals of lab-leak discussions as “conspiracy theories” on social media, coordinated by intelligence-linked efforts. Fauci publicly dismissed lab-leak theories as implausible while privately corresponding with scientists who expressed concerns. Ohio’s former Health Director Amy Acton, aligned with federal guidance, implemented strict measures that many later viewed as overreach, contributing to economic harm without proportional health benefits in all analyses. 

Connections to larger geopolitical aims fueled speculation. Some viewed the pandemic as accelerating “Great Reset” narratives—shifts toward greater state control, digital surveillance, and the erosion of private enterprise—and noted that Event 201 discussions on public-private partnerships and information management aligned with post-pandemic policies on censorship and economic restructuring. Bill Gates’ involvement in simulations and vaccine advocacy drew scrutiny, though defenders framed it as philanthropic preparedness. Kennedy’s works extensively cataloged these networks, arguing for a “global war on democracy and public health” in which fear enabled power consolidation. 

Why did so few voice these concerns in real time? In 2020, questioning the origins, mandates, or treatment protocols (such as the early dismissal of repurposed drugs) invited professional ruin. Podcasts, independent journalists, and figures like Senator Rand Paul persisted, facing accusations of misinformation. Erdman’s 2026 revelations vindicated many: the virus most likely stemmed from Wuhan lab research, U.S. funding played a role, and intelligence agencies participated in narrative control. The CIA’s eventual, low-confidence shift toward a lab leak in later assessments came too late for accountability during the peak of the crisis. 

Broader implications extend to biodefense reform. Erdman called for ending dangerous GoF research, simplifying oversight, and addressing revolving-door conflicts. Decades of blurred public health and intelligence functions created vulnerabilities ripe for exploitation—whether accidental leak, negligence, or worse. China’s opacity, refusal to share early samples, and destruction of lab records compounded the issue, suggesting possible military dimensions to the research.

Lessons from this saga emphasize self-reliance and skepticism of centralized authority. Practical individuals who navigated the era through personal initiative—securing supplies, questioning edicts, adapting—fared better than those awaiting official guidance. Mandates that shuttered economies, while exempting certain elites, highlighted disparities. Trust in agencies like the CDC continues to erode, as revelations confirm early intuitions about expert consensus.

In the age of disclosure, Erdman’s testimony marks a turning point. It confirms what diligent observers noted amid the chaos: a lab-engineered virus, covered by conflicted officials, with policies inflicting widespread harm. RFK Jr. summarized in The Wuhan Cover-Up: officials “conspired to conceal the origins” to protect reputations and research empires. Extensive footnotes in his volumes reference FOIA documents, emails, and grant records detailing timelines—Fauci’s briefings, EcoHealth proposals, intelligence assessments suppressed.

Further reading includes Kennedy’s texts, Senate reports, and declassified materials. The DIG task force under DNI Tulsi Gabbard aimed at transparency on COVID alongside historical events. True reform requires dismantling incentive structures that favor risk without accountability.

This confirmation arrives amid ongoing recovery. Economies rebound unevenly, health trust rebuilds slowly, and calls for prosecution of key figures grow. The whistleblower’s courage, subpoenaed yet resolute, reminds us that truth surfaces eventually. Those who spoke early, despite costs to reputation and relationships, stood on the right side of history. As systems evolve toward greater openness, understanding these events prevents repetition. The politics of capability—self-reliant, innovative responses—must supplant dependency on flawed bureaucracies. Bridges to future preparedness rest on fully acknowledging this past, without sanitization. (Word count:

Bibliography

•  Erdman III, James E. Written Testimony before Senate HSGAC, May 13, 2026.

•  Kennedy Jr., Robert F. The Real Anthony Fauci. Skyhorse, 2021.

•  Kennedy Jr., Robert F. The Wuhan Cover-Up. Skyhorse, 2023.

•  Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee records.

•  Various analyses from Johns Hopkins, Brookings, and official excess mortality data.

Footnotes (selected):

1.  Erdman testimony on BSEG conflicts and Fauci influence.

2.  Event 201 scenario details from the Center for Health Security.

3.  Economic contraction stats from BEA and NBER.

4.  Excess deaths and mandate impacts per peer-reviewed studies.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

School levies Fail all over Ohio: Only 24 measures passed while 42 failed, showing voter fatigue in funding democrat driven free babysitting services

The recent primary election held on May 5, 2026, in Ohio sent a clear signal regarding public education funding. Voters statewide faced 66 local school district proposals for new or renewed property and income tax levies to support K-12 operations. Only 24 measures passed, representing approximately 36 percent approval, while 42 failed. This outcome marked a sharp decline from prior cycles, where passage rates had reached 52 percent in May 2024 and 64 percent in May 2025. Districts across Northeast Ohio, Southwest Ohio, and other regions—including Parma City, Streetsboro City, Fairfield City, Strongsville, and Plain Local—witnessed their requests for additional revenue rejected, often by substantial margins. In Parma City Schools, for instance, an income tax levy failed by nearly 20 percentage points, marking yet another setback for a district that had not secured new funding since 2011. Streetsboro City Schools saw its third consecutive levy attempt collapse despite warnings of cuts to junior varsity sports and arts programs. These results were not isolated but reflected widespread voter fatigue with repeated tax increases amid stagnant academic performance and rising household costs. 

The pattern encompassed both new levies and renewals, though new revenue requests fared particularly poorly. Only about 24 percent of new levies succeeded, compared to 75 percent of renewals. In Southwest Ohio, Mt. Healthy City Schools secured passage on its fourth attempt in two years after earlier defeats, while Xenia Community Schools renewed a permanent improvement levy narrowly. Fairfield City Schools, however, saw a proposed 1.25 percent earned income tax rejected as expenses continued to outpace revenue projections. Similar defeats occurred in central and northern districts, including Pickerington Local, where an income tax initiative failed decisively. Analysts pointed to economic pressures—rising property values, inflation, and concerns over gas prices near $5 per gallon—as key factors. Low primary turnout, typically advantageous for organized supporters such as teachers’ unions and families reliant on district services, did not deliver the anticipated edge. Instead, sufficient opposition materialized to block most proposals, indicating a potential shift in community tolerance for the existing funding model. 

This voter resistance appeared most pronounced in larger suburban systems such as Lakota Local Schools in Butler County, north of Cincinnati. Serving roughly 17,000 students, Lakota pursued significant funding measures in prior cycles. In November 2025, voters rejected a proposed $506 million bond and permanent improvement levy—the largest such request in state history at the time—intended for facilities upgrades. Despite operating levies stretching back to 2013 and strong cash reserves built through consecutive balanced budgets, the district faced scrutiny over escalating costs and outcomes. Annual payrolls remain substantial, with teacher salary schedules reflecting competitive compensation amid a top-heavy administrative structure. Critics highlight that such expenditures have not translated into uniformly strong graduate preparedness, as many students require remediation upon entering college or the workforce. 

A notable counterpoint within Lakota emerged through Benjamin Nguyen, a 2025 graduate of Lakota West High School. At age 18, Nguyen became one of Ohio’s youngest elected officials when voters selected him for the school board in November 2025. Now a freshman at Miami University studying public administration, he serves as a student-centered voice emphasizing fiscal accountability, parental engagement, and practical skill-building. His contributions, including advocacy for restoring public comment periods at board meetings, demonstrate how strong family support and personal initiative can yield high achievement even in a system viewed by many as flawed. Nguyen’s election and collaborative approach—working across ideological lines on the five-member board—stand out amid broader challenges. Yet his success represents an outlier rather than the standard. Data indicate that family structure, including stable two-parent households and home reinforcement of core skills, explains far more variation in long-term outcomes than incremental school spending alone. 

At the national level, local rejections in Ohio align with persistent disconnects between investment and results. Public school current spending per pupil reached $17,619 in fiscal year 2024, a 6.6 percent increase from $16,526 the prior year. Total K-12 expenditures exceeded $981 billion nationwide, with personnel costs—salaries and benefits—accounting for the majority of budgets. Despite this, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results reveal stagnation or decline. In recent assessments, only about 31 percent of fourth-graders achieved proficiency in reading, with eighth-grade figures similarly lagging. Mathematics proficiency hovered around 40 percent for fourth-graders, while twelfth-grade scores hit record lows in basic categories. These trends persist even as per-pupil spending ranks among the highest globally when adjusted for purchasing power. In Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) comparisons, the United States outspends most developed nations per student yet underperforms in international benchmarks such as PISA. 

Large urban districts illustrate the gap vividly. In five major cities, combined per-pupil spending—including all funding sources—averaged $26,578 in recent years, 50 percent above the national figure. Federal contributions alone averaged $13,116 per student in these systems. Yet hundreds of thousands of eighth-graders scored below basic proficiency in math and reading on NAEP, with performance worse in 2024 than in 2003 for several subgroups. Teacher compensation nationally averages around $74,000, higher in major metros, yet unions have channeled substantial resources—over $135 million in recent cycles—toward policies favoring increased funding rather than structural changes. This dynamic has fueled perceptions that additional resources primarily sustain existing structures without driving measurable gains in literacy, numeracy, or civic knowledge. 

The philosophical roots of these challenges trace to early 20th-century reforms. John Dewey and progressive educators shifted emphasis from classical content mastery—reading, mathematics, history, and philosophy—toward socialization, experiential learning, and preparation for democratic participation. Dewey’s framework in works such as “Democracy and Education” prioritized habit formation and social cooperation, incorporating elements that viewed schools as vehicles for societal transformation. While not explicitly ideological in a partisan sense, this approach embedded priorities of group dynamics and cultural adaptation over rigorous academic drills. Subsequent influences through teacher preparation and policy embedded themes of emotional development and contemporary social issues, sometimes at the expense of phonics-based literacy, procedural math fluency, and factual civic instruction. Observers note that many graduates emerge with pronounced views on current affairs but gaps in practical sciences, financial literacy, and constitutional principles. 

Centralized federal oversight exacerbates inefficiencies. The U.S. Department of Education, created in 1979, administers roughly $2,500 per pupil in federal aid accompanied by compliance mandates, reporting burdens, and grant incentives that favor established interests. Total federal spending on education since 1979 exceeds $3 trillion, yet outcomes have remained flat or declined in key areas. Proposals in 2026 to trim administrative layers and devolve authority reflect frustration with a bureaucracy focused on regulation rather than classroom results. Historical initiatives such as No Child Left Behind and Common Core yielded limited or mixed improvements, further eroding public trust. In red states like Ohio, voters increasingly view property tax mechanisms as tools for wealth redistribution that fund ideological priorities rather than core competencies. 

Reliance on property taxes as the primary local revenue source compounds taxpayer discontent. In Ohio and similar states, this ties school funding to home values, incentivizing districts to expand operations without proportional efficiency gains. Homeowners without school-age children, retirees, and empty-nesters subsidize systems that many perceive as delivering diminishing returns. Dual-income families may appreciate schools as childcare, yet growing numbers question indefinite support for outcomes that include workforce unreadiness and, in some cases, political socialization misaligned with family values. The 2026 primary defeats suggest this model has reached a breaking point. Districts attempting to place levies on low-turnout ballots encountered organized resistance, as seen in the broad rejections across 42 measures. 

Reform advocates increasingly emphasize school choice as an alternative. Programs attaching funding to individual students rather than geographic zip codes introduce competition and accountability. Ohio’s EdChoice Scholarship initiative offers evidence: participants showed higher college enrollment and bachelor’s degree attainment rates, particularly among low-income, male, and Black students. Longitudinal studies indicate that 27 of 30 empirical analyses of choice programs document academic gains for participants or competitive improvements in traditional schools, with no negative effects identified. Public districts facing enrollment pressure have responded with modest performance gains, suggesting spillover benefits. Such mechanisms encourage cost control—reducing administrative overhead, negotiating sustainable compensation, and prioritizing proven instruction over extraneous or ideological initiatives. 

In districts like Lakota, where facilities plans and operating levies recur despite voter input, student-centered funding would compel innovation. Parents could select providers based on results, fostering environments where high-achieving students like Nguyen become the norm rather than exceptions supported primarily by external family strengths. Payroll adjustments, including limits on union-driven legal expenses and emphasis on merit-based advancement, could realign incentives. Broader fiscal realities reinforce the case: escalating education costs crowd out other priorities and private investment. Property tax revolts, now evident at the ballot box, echo historical taxpayer pushback. With national debt burdens and competing demands, indefinite funding increases without accountability prove unsustainable. 

Public education’s foundational promise—to impart literacy, numeracy, and civic competence—has been overshadowed by a system that, in many instances, generates remediation needs, ideological conformity, and workforce unpreparedness. Evidence from Ohio’s 2026 primaries, national proficiency data, and international benchmarks demonstrates that fundamental change is required. The model inherited from progressive reformers and expanded through centralized bureaucracy no longer commands broad consent. Voters signal exhaustion with outcomes that fail to deliver reading proficiency, mathematical competence, or philosophical grounding. Strong families remain the most reliable predictor of success, yet schools should complement rather than undermine them. Attaching resources directly to children, promoting competition via choice, and refocusing on core academics provide a viable path. Until these reforms advance, districts will confront repeated levy defeats, taxpayers will withhold approval, and successive generations will inherit the costs of a system that prioritizes institutional preservation over excellence. Decentralization, parental empowerment, and outcome-based accountability represent not merely preferable options but essential directions if education is to fulfill its democratic and economic functions in coming decades.

Additional layers of data underscore the urgency. Enrollment trends show declining birth rates and out-migration in some Ohio communities, yet per-pupil costs continue rising due to fixed overhead and contractual obligations. In Lakota, 12 consecutive years of balanced budgets have built reserves exceeding policy minimums, yet repeated levy attempts signal structural pressures. Nationally, the share of students scoring below NAEP basic levels increased post-2019, with low-income eighth-graders faring worse in 2024 than in 2003 across multiple subjects. Big-city districts spending $26,000-plus per pupil still report fewer than one-third of students at basic proficiency, highlighting inefficiencies unrelated to raw funding levels. Teachers’ unions, while advocating for members, have opposed many choice expansions and accountability measures, directing political spending toward aligned candidates. These patterns suggest that without competitive pressure, cost-per-pupil reductions—through streamlined administration, negotiated contracts, and merit-focused staffing—will remain elusive.

Historical context further illuminates the trajectory. Progressive education’s emphasis on socialization aligned with broader societal shifts toward centralized planning in the mid-20th century. Dewey’s influence permeated normal schools and curriculum frameworks, embedding experiential and cooperative learning as ideals. Subsequent federal expansions post-1965 and the 1979 Department of Education creation layered regulatory complexity atop local systems. Results have been underwhelming: inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending has risen over 245 percent since the department’s founding, yet scores have flatlined or declined in key metrics. International comparisons reinforce the point: nations spending less per student often outperform the United States through focused curricula and cultural emphasis on academic rigor.

School choice programs nationwide provide a natural experiment. Voucher and education savings account initiatives in states like Florida, Arizona, and Ohio demonstrate improved outcomes for participants and competitive pressure on traditional districts. Urban Institute analyses of Ohio EdChoice participants found 32 percent higher college enrollment rates and 60 percent higher bachelor’s attainment compared to matched public school peers. Competitive effects lifted nearby traditional schools modestly. These findings align with broader meta-analyses showing consistent positive or neutral impacts. In Ohio, expanding such mechanisms could address enrollment assumptions tied to residential ZIP codes, forcing districts to earn families through results rather than geographic monopoly.

Taxpayer perspectives have evolved. Property tax burdens have climbed with home values, often exceeding $7,000 annually in affluent suburbs like Lakota. Families with grown children or no children increasingly question subsidizing systems perceived as misaligned with their values. Dual-income households may value convenience, yet retirees and working-class voters express fatigue with funding outcomes that include low civic literacy and workforce readiness gaps. The 2026 primary rejections—particularly of new levies—indicate this sentiment has translated into electoral action. Districts planning return visits to the ballot in August or November face heightened opposition, as organized groups and informed voters mobilize against low-turnout strategies.

Practical reforms could include payroll moderation, administrative efficiencies, and curriculum refocus. In Lakota, where teacher schedules reflect annual cost-of-living adjustments near 2 percent and multi-year increments, total compensation packages—including benefits—contribute to high per-pupil figures. Reducing legal expenditures tied to union negotiations and emphasizing core instruction could free resources. Restoring public comment periods, as Nguyen supported, enhances transparency and accountability. Broader state-level changes, such as attaching funds to students and eliminating ZIP code monopolies, would incentivize districts to compete on quality, safety, and results rather than assume enrollment.

The economic case for restructuring is compelling. Education spending approaching $1 trillion nationally crowds out infrastructure, defense, and private-sector growth. Unsustainable property tax reliance distorts housing markets and burdens fixed-income residents. Voter signals in Ohio and elsewhere suggest willingness to support effective models but rejection of perpetual escalation without improvement. Family-centric approaches—stable homes reinforcing values, reading, and discipline—complement any system. Public education must earn value through demonstrable outcomes rather than mandate support via taxation.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events

After the Primary: The Quiet Discipline That Holds Local Politics Together

In the weeks following a hard-fought primary like the one we just witnessed in Butler County, Ohio, the atmosphere shifts noticeably. Yard signs disappear from lawns and intersections, the barrage of text messages and robocalls slows to a trickle, and former rivals find themselves sharing space at the same community events. For those of us who have spent years immersed in local party work—not as officeholders, but as volunteers, observers, strategists, and commentators—the true measure of success is not the drama of election night. It is the steady, often invisible labor that follows: rebuilding unity, channeling energy toward the general election, and recommitting to the unglamorous tasks that make self-government possible at the county level. 

I have watched these cycles unfold in Butler County for a long time. It is a place I know intimately, not through national headlines but through precinct meetings, central committee sessions, and the day-to-day effort of turning out voters in all kinds of weather. The 2026 Republican primary for county commissioner stands out, not because it was exceptionally bitter by historical standards, but because it offered a clear illustration of how functional parties operate. The Butler County Republican Party, under Executive Chairman Todd Hall, held an endorsement process that produced a strong 71% vote for challenger Michael Ryan at the pre-primary meeting. Incumbent Commissioner Cindy Carpenter, a long-serving public servant with her own record of accomplishment, ran without seeking the party’s formal endorsement and fell short in the May 5 primary, with Ryan securing approximately 72% of the vote to her 28%. In a heavily Republican county, that primary outcome effectively decided the seat, but the real story lies in what the process revealed about leadership, temperament, and organizational resilience. 

This was not chaos or machine-style imposition. It was a party mechanism functioning as intended. Primaries exist to force choices, even among candidates who broadly share a philosophical outlook. In deep-red counties like Butler, the spring contest is often where the substantive debate occurs. The party’s role is not to crown unopposed victors but to test candidates through transparent processes, consolidate support when possible, and then pivot the full organizational weight behind the nominee. What I observed here reinforced a conviction I have held for years: well-functioning local parties remain among the most effective tools for translating citizen energy into accountable governance.

My own role in these circles has been to work to amplify grassroots voices through platforms like my blog and commentary. What experience has taught me is that county-level party leadership is rarely about top-down command. It is mediation under pressure—navigating meetings where ambitions collide, volunteers grow weary, and donors press for results. Figures like Chairman Hall bring institutional memory that newer participants often overlook. They understand that endorsements derive legitimacy from process: votes cast by elected central committee members who answer to their precincts. A decisive majority, as occurred with Ryan’s 71% endorsement, gives the organization moral authority to call for unity afterward without pretending differences never existed.

Critics of the outcome, particularly those aligned with the incumbent, raised reasonable concerns rooted in experience versus renewal. Carpenter had served multiple terms, bringing continuity to county issues such as development, infrastructure, and fiscal management. Ryan, a former Hamilton city councilmember, embodied a generational shift and demonstrated strong grassroots appeal. Both sides presented legitimate visions. The endorsement vote did not suppress those arguments; it subjected them to public scrutiny during the primary. Voters rendered their verdict decisively. That is precisely how the system is designed to work. Absent such a mechanism, contests devolve into pure personality clashes or contests dominated solely by fundraising. With it, even a well-qualified incumbent has the opportunity to make their case directly to the electorate—as Carpenter did—while the party fulfills its role as aggregator and tester of support.

What remains largely invisible to outsiders is the volunteer economy that sustains these efforts. In Midwestern counties like Butler, the Republican organization depends on individuals who participate not for pay or prestige but because they view unstructured, celebrity-driven alternatives as inferior. These are precinct captains making calls after full workdays, sign teams braving cold mornings along highways, and committee members debating platform details that never reach cable news. The labor includes maintaining accurate voter data, training poll watchers, coordinating logistics for early voting, and managing relationships with statewide and national figures who sometimes treat local parties more as backdrops for appearances than as genuine partners. When a primary concludes, this infrastructure does not dissolve. It redirects. Unity after conflict is not erasure of disagreement; it is a deliberate choice to preserve capacity for the larger tasks ahead. 

I have witnessed the tangible costs when capable people disengage. In prior cycles, personal disappointments prompted some to step back or, worse, work against the organization. The consequences are measurable: reduced turnout, diluted messaging, and openings for opponents. Self-government demands institutions capable of outlasting individual ambitions or grievances. Political parties are imperfect—vulnerable to factionalism, inertia, and occasional self-dealing—but they perform essential functions: aggregating dispersed knowledge, distributing the workload, and creating accountability structures that independent efforts or ad hoc movements rarely replicate at scale. A single voice with a platform can shape opinion and hold leaders accountable. Converting that influence into sustained policy impact or electoral success requires a coordinated, disciplined organization.

This local reality stands in instructive contrast to national political dysfunction. In Washington and the broader media ecosystem, spectacle dominates: perpetual outrage, purity spirals, and the framing of every intra-party disagreement as existential treason. At the county level, practical governance imposes discipline. Commissioners must address real constituent concerns—road maintenance, zoning disputes, tax levies, and emergency services. Rhetoric collides with results on a shorter timeline. Butler County’s recent primary highlighted the importance of temperament alongside ideology. Party leadership maintained focus on process rather than inflammatory escalation. Post-primary statements emphasized forward momentum. Such quiet competence is more demanding than it appears and more valuable than fiery rhetoric in sustaining long-term effectiveness.

Gratitude is appropriate in this moment. It belongs to the central committee members who cast difficult votes based on their assessment of the county’s needs. To the volunteers who invested time in both campaigns and are now bridging divides. To Michael Ryan for waging a substantive race that resonated with voters. Institutional memory, carried by leaders who recall when Butler County was more competitive and the sustained effort required to build current strength, helps moderate impulses to dismantle structures after any single setback. People like Chairman Hall, who have been involved since the late 1990s, provide continuity that tempers short-term passions. 

None of this equates to demanding uncritical loyalty. Parties require ongoing scrutiny. Endorsement processes can and should evolve—perhaps with enhanced transparency, more structured candidate forums, and refined approaches to balancing incumbency advantages against fresh challenges. Yet the impulse to abandon or weaken the framework because one cycle produced disappointment undermines the very instrument needed for future contests. In an age of eroded public trust, competent local organizations help rebuild it precinct by precinct through consistent delivery and responsiveness.

The road ahead for Butler County follows a familiar and constructive pattern: consolidate support behind nominees, maximize turnout among the base, and communicate clearly on tangible priorities such as responsible growth, efficient services, and fiscal prudence. For those of us reflecting on the primary, the takeaways transcend this single race. Politics at its most effective is less poetry than prose—the patient discipline of meetings, voter lists, follow-up calls, and coalition maintenance. Leadership under pressure manifests not primarily in stirring speeches but in the capacity to accept defeat without bitterness, achieve victory without triumphalism, and realign all parties toward shared objectives.

This primary tested those qualities. Early indications suggest the organization met the challenge. That outcome merits recognition, not because the party or its processes are flawless, but because functional competence at the local level sustains self-government amid broader cultural noise. In an era that rewards disruption and performative outrage, preserving and improving these institutions—through honest critique, participation, and earned trust—remains a quiet but essential civic duty.

Expanding on these themes requires acknowledging the deeper historical and theoretical context that makes county parties vital. Alexis de Tocqueville, observing American democracy in the 1830s, famously noted the proliferation of voluntary associations as a distinguishing strength of the young republic. Political parties, at their best, represent one form of this associative life, mediating between the individual citizen and the scale of government. In a federal system, the county level serves as a crucial intermediary: close enough to constituents for accountability, yet structured enough to influence state and national outcomes. Butler County exemplifies this. Its Republican organization has helped maintain conservative governance on issues ranging from economic development in growing townships to prudent management of public resources. The primary process, while contentious, demonstrated the system’s capacity for self-correction without external imposition. 

Volunteer culture deserves particular emphasis. National campaigns and consultants often overlook the economics of local effort. In Butler, as elsewhere, much of the work relies on unpaid labor motivated by conviction rather than compensation. This creates both strengths and vulnerabilities. Commitment runs deep, but burnout is real. Effective leadership mitigates the latter through recognition, clear communication, and realistic expectations. Post-primary unity efforts succeed when they validate contributions from all sides rather than signaling that only the winner’s team mattered. Ryan’s campaign benefited from broad grassroots enthusiasm; integrating Carpenter’s supporters will strengthen the general election effort against the Democratic nominee.

Critics of party structures sometimes advocate for open primaries or non-partisan approaches, arguing that closed systems entrench insiders. There is merit in debating reforms. Yet evidence from political science suggests that strong parties correlate with more stable governance and higher accountability in legislative bodies. Duverger’s Law highlights how single-member district systems naturally favor two-party competition, with parties serving as gatekeepers that filter extreme or unserious candidates. Local organizations add granularity: they understand hyper-local dynamics—school levies, township trustees, zoning battles—that national or even statewide actors cannot. Dismissing them as obsolete ignores their role in countering the atomization of modern politics, where social media amplifies voices but rarely builds lasting coalitions. 

My perspective is shaped by years of commentary on these dynamics. I have celebrated victories, critiqued missteps, and urged higher standards. The 2026 primary reinforced that temperament matters profoundly. Victors who gloat or losers who withdraw permanently erode the shared capital necessary for future success. The measured tone from both campaigns and party leadership post-May 5 offers a model worth emulating. It acknowledges human ambition while subordinating it to institutional health.

Looking forward, Butler County faces familiar challenges: balancing growth with quality of life, controlling costs amid state and federal pressures, and maintaining trust in local institutions. The Republican nominee will benefit from the county’s partisan lean, but complacency is unwise. Effective parties treat every election as competitive, investing in voter contact and message discipline. National figures who visit during cycles would do well to invest more in these local structures rather than viewing them transactionally.

In the end, the quiet discipline of functional parties—endorsement processes that confer legitimacy, volunteer networks that deliver results, leadership that mediates rather than dictates—sustains the American experiment more reliably than episodic populism or institutional disdain. This primary was a reminder of that truth. Credit belongs to those who participated fully: candidates, committee members, volunteers, and voters. Their efforts, visible and invisible, keep self-government operational. Protecting that legacy, improving where needed, and recommitting after conflict represent the real work of politics. It is rarely glamorous, but it remains indispensable.

Footnotes

1.  Cincinnati Enquirer reporting on May 5, 2026, primary results.

2.  Journal-News coverage of endorsement and vote totals.

3.  Butler County Board of Elections data.

4.  Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835/1840), discussion of associations.

5.  Duverger, Political Parties (1951), on party systems.

6.  Observations drawn from public statements by party leadership and candidates.

7.  Historical context from local coverage of prior cycles.

Bibliography / Suggested Reading

•  de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Translated by Henry Reeve. 1835/1840. (Especially Volume 1 on civil associations.)

•  Duverger, Maurice. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. 1951.

•  Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster, 2000. (On social capital and local engagement.)

•  Aldrich, John H. Why Parties? A Second Look. University of Chicago Press, 2011.

•  Local coverage: Cincinnati Enquirer, Journal-News archives on Butler County elections.

•  Additional context from Ballotpedia entries on Ohio local races and party structures.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

The Litigation Profiteers: How Election Lawyers and Government Legal Firms Thrive on Political Chaos and Taxpayer Funds

As I drove past the law practice in Beckett Ridge the other day, I noticed the big sign out front supporting Cindy Carpenter in the Republican primary for Butler County Commissioner. It struck me as odd. The lawyer who runs that firm shows up at Republican events, associates with Republican circles, and presents himself as one of us. Yet here he was, publicly backing a candidate the party had dumped in favor of its endorsed choice, Michael Ryan. That sign crystallized something I’ve observed for years in Ohio politics: certain legal professionals operate in the shadows, injecting themselves into local disputes not out of ideological consistency but because chaos creates billable hours. This isn’t isolated to one small firm or one county. It scales up dramatically when you reach the national level, where figures like Marc Elias have built entire practices—and substantial wealth—by turning election law into a high-volume litigation machine that drains public resources while advancing partisan goals. What follows is my endeavor to shed light on this system, drawing on personal experiences in Ohio and broader patterns affecting taxpayers nationwide. 

Marc Elias, the prominent Democratic election law attorney (often referred to in shorthand as “Mark” in casual conversation), stands as the archetype of this phenomenon. Elias, a partner at Elias Law Group, and is a direct supporter of Amy Acton in Ohio, which he founded after leaving Perkins Coie in 2021, has positioned himself as the go-to litigator for voting rights challenges. He founded Democracy Docket in 2020 as a platform to track and analyze these cases, and his firm has been extraordinarily active. In October 2025, Elias publicly stated that his team of fewer than 60 lawyers was litigating 63 voting and election cases across 30 states. By May 2026, that number had climbed to 85 cases in 43 states plus the District of Columbia. His side claims victories in the overwhelming majority of post-2020 challenges to Republican-backed election measures, framing them as defenses against “voter suppression.” Critics, however, see a deliberate strategy of lawfare: filing lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions to force states, counties, and local governments to expend vast sums to defend laws that enjoy broad public support, such as voter ID requirements. Elias himself has acknowledged the volume, noting in one Democracy Docket piece that his firm’s work is relentless and expanding. 

This isn’t new for Elias. In 2020, he led the Democratic legal response to more than 60 lawsuits filed by Donald Trump and his allies challenging election results. Nearly all of those suits failed, often on procedural grounds or for lack of evidence. Elias’s team prevailed in the lion’s share, cementing his reputation. But the pattern predates 2020. He has challenged voter ID laws, early voting restrictions, ballot-collection rules, and redistricting efforts in dozens of states. In Ohio specifically, Elias Law Group filed suit in January 2023 against House Bill 458, signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine. The law included photo voter ID requirements and other provisions that the plaintiffs—groups like the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, Ohio Federation of Teachers, Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans, and Union Veterans Council—called “voter suppression.” The suit argued the measures disproportionately harmed young, elderly, Black, military, and overseas voters. Elias’s firm has also targeted Ohio’s rules on drop boxes and foreign funding in ballot measures. These actions align with a national playbook: challenge decentralized election administration in as many venues as possible, knowing that even if many suits are dismissed, the cumulative cost to defenders mounts. 

What makes this infrastructure so effective—and so corrosive—is the decentralized nature of American elections. Unlike a centralized national system, voting rules are set and administered at the state and county levels. A single law, such as Ohio’s voter ID requirement or restrictions on “Golden Week” early voting and registration (which Elias’s earlier work also targeted), can trigger parallel lawsuits in federal and state courts. Each filing forces election officials, secretaries of state, and attorneys general to respond. Defense isn’t cheap. Routine election litigation for a state or county can run between $50,000 and $250,000 per case, according to estimates from officials who have faced these challenges. When emergency injunctions, appeals, and discovery are involved, costs balloon into the hundreds of thousands or even millions per major dispute. Multiply that across dozens or hundreds of suits nationwide, and the taxpayer burden becomes enormous. Many of these expenses are buried in general budgets, election administration line items, or outside counsel contracts rather than isolated as “litigation defense.” There is no national requirement to itemize plaintiff-specific legal fees, making the full picture opaque. Reporters rarely dig into the granular accounting, so the public seldom sees the true price tag. 

I have seen this dynamic play out up close in Ohio. During my involvement with local issues, particularly around Lakota Local Schools in Butler County, I witnessed how legal strategies can be weaponized to remove elected officials who don’t align with certain interests. A school board member endorsed by the Republican Party faced removal efforts involving coordinated complaints, legal maneuvering, and outside pressure. The board ultimately acted against her amid disputes over absences and other procedural issues. Public records battles followed, including a case that reached the Ohio Supreme Court, where Lakota was ordered to pay thousands in fees for failing to promptly release documents related to legal spending and threats of litigation. The district also settled other suits involving residents barred from speaking at meetings, covering plaintiff legal fees. These aren’t abstract costs. They come out of the same budgets funded by local property taxes—the very taxes that already strain families and businesses. School boards negotiate collective bargaining agreements with unions, and the legalisms involved in those contracts, disputes, and related litigation generate substantial revenue for outside firms. Chaos in the public school system, whether over board composition, curriculum, or operations, keeps the meter running. 

The same lawyer I saw with the Carpenter sign had previously inserted himself into the school board removal effort. He helped craft or advise on the legal strategy that contributed to ousting a Republican-backed member. It surprised me at first—someone who attends Republican events playing along with what appeared to be an effort to shift the board toward more liberal control. But it makes sense once you follow the money. Law firms that specialize in government work—whether at the school board, county, or state level—thrive when there is perpetual conflict. They represent municipalities in defense matters, advise on contracts, and sometimes moonlight on partisan challenges. The incentive is clear: more lawsuits mean more retainers, more billable hours, more settlements. In Lakota’s case, the legal spend tied to board disputes and public records requests added up quickly, all ultimately borne by taxpayers.

This pattern repeats at the state and national scale. Elias’s firm has received tens of millions in payments from Democratic committees and campaigns. OpenSecrets data for the 2024 cycle alone shows Elias Law Group receiving over $40 million in legal services from various Democratic entities. These funds don’t come from thin air; they originate with donors who expect results in the form of favorable court rulings, delayed or blocked reforms, and sustained pressure on Republican-led election administrations. When states settle early to avoid mounting defense costs—as some attorneys general have done rather than fight every challenge to the bitter end—the litigation achieves its strategic goal without a full trial. The threat of bankruptcy through legal fees is real for smaller jurisdictions. Communities facing multiple simultaneous suits often lack the resources to defend aggressively, leading to procedural changes or policy retreats that might not have occurred on the merits. 

Critics of voter ID and other common-sense reforms frequently point to the absence of widespread fraud findings in court as proof that the measures are unnecessary. But that misses the point. Many challenges never reach a full evidentiary hearing on fraud because the sheer expense of litigation forces capitulation or dismissal on narrower grounds. Elias and similar litigators understand this leverage perfectly. They file suits knowing that even meritless claims impose real costs. One notable example involved sanctions against Elias and co-counsel. In a Texas case concerning the elimination of straight-ticket voting, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned the team for filing redundant and misleading motions. The court ordered payment of opposing attorney fees and double costs, describing the conduct as problematic. While Elias’s defenders called it a technicality or good-faith error, the episode illustrates how aggressive tactics can cross lines—and still generate fees along the way. A federal court in another context also addressed Elias-related conduct with fee-shifting orders. 

The broader legal profession has learned to mine government budgets in similar ways. Public sector collective bargaining, school board disputes, redistricting battles, and election administration all require specialized counsel. Firms embed themselves in these ecosystems, often representing both sides of the table at different times. The result is a self-perpetuating cycle: policies that invite litigation create demand for lawyers; lawyers file suits that generate more litigation; governments pay to defend or settle, raising taxes or cutting services elsewhere. Property taxes, in particular, become a reliable revenue stream for these activities because they are local and somewhat insulated from immediate voter backlash. In Ohio, where property taxes fund much of local government and schools, the inability to rationalize budgets amid endless legal challenges keeps rates elevated. Media rarely connect the dots between litigation infrastructure and tax burdens, but the connection is direct.

I’ve dealt with my share of lawyers and consultants lately, both personally and in observing public affairs. They are expensive—often prohibitively so. They jump between contracts, charge premium rates, and extract significant value from the top of any deal or dispute. When legal issues arise, they can drain bank accounts with astonishing speed. In government contexts, this dynamic is amplified because the payer is diffuse: the taxpayer. Most citizens don’t have the expertise or resources to challenge the system themselves. Self-representation is possible but risky and time-consuming; hiring specialists is the default for institutions. Judges, many of whom come from the same legal circles or socialize with attorneys at events, often defer to the professionals. The result is a clubby environment where loyalty to the bar most of the time trumps accountability to the public.

Nationally, the scale is staggering. Democracy Docket’s own tracking shows hundreds of voting and election lawsuits filed in recent cycles—228 in 2024 alone, part of a total of 306 from early 2023 through Election Day. While Elias frames these as necessary defenses of democracy, the cumulative burden of defense falls on public coffers. States like Texas have spent millions defending voter ID and redistricting laws over the years. North Carolina expended roughly $5 million on voter ID litigation between 2011 and 2016. Local Voting Rights Act Section 2 suits have cost jurisdictions millions apiece in defense and settlements—Charleston County, South Carolina, spent $2 million unsuccessfully; Yakima, Washington, nearly $3 million. These figures represent conservative estimates; appeals and repeated filings multiply the impact. When aggregated across the country, the high single digits of millions—or likely far more—disappear into budgets without clear public accounting. 

Elias’s involvement in Ohio is not abstract. Beyond the 2023 HB 458 challenge, his network has engaged with issues such as foreign money in ballot campaigns and drop box rules. He has also sued to overturn certain restrictions on foreign nationals’ spending in Ohio ballot measures. These actions, while presented as principled stands for access, have the practical effect of complicating administration and forcing expenditure. Meanwhile, at the local level, analogous tactics play out in school boards and county commissions. The removal of a Republican-endorsed school board member in Lakota, the public records fights, and the legal maneuvering around board composition all illustrate how law can be used to reshape governance without direct voter input at the ballot box. The lawyer with the Carpenter sign understood the game: support the candidate who sustains the ecosystem of disputes.

This is not to say every lawsuit is frivolous or that voting rights concerns are imaginary. Legitimate disputes exist, and courts rightly resolve them. But the volume, the targeting of popular reforms like voter ID (supported by large majorities in polls), and the financial incentives create a corrosive feedback loop. Democrats benefit from the chaos because it undermines Republican-led integrity measures. Law firms benefit regardless of the outcome because fees accrue during the process. Taxpayers lose either way—directly through documented legal bills and indirectly through higher taxes, diverted election funds, and eroded trust. When cases settle or procedural changes are mandated to avoid further expense, the public rarely sees the full ledger.

The decentralized structure of elections is a feature of federalism, but it becomes a vulnerability when exploited systematically. Each county must defend its own processes. State attorneys general face a barrage. The strategy is clear: file enough suits to overwhelm capacity, force settlements, and normalize the idea that basic safeguards are legally suspect. Elias has coordinated responses to dozens of cases, and affiliated litigation has filed over 100 suits in a single year. His personal involvement in 64 election cases during the 2020-2021 period is well-documented. The goal, from the critic’s perspective, is not merely to win discrete cases but to make enforcement of election laws so costly that officials stop trying.

Personal experiences reinforce the systemic view. Dealing with consultants and attorneys in various contexts has shown me how quickly costs escalate. They take a large cut off the top, move from job to job, and thrive on complexity. In government, this is magnified. School board members who push back against the status quo often find themselves targeted legally. Elected officials hesitate to fight because they fear draining community resources. The result is a shadow governance where law firms exert outsized influence.

To break the cycle, we need structural changes. Stronger voter ID laws with clear, unambiguous standards reduce litigation fodder. Meaningful sanctions for abusive filings, greater transparency in government legal spending, and centralized tracking of litigation costs would help. Term limits or ethics rules for government attorneys might limit revolving-door incentives. Most importantly, voters must recognize that these “phantom costs” are real and fund them through taxes. Integrity in elections isn’t free, but neither is the endless litigation that undermines it.

As someone who has watched this play out from the ground level in Ohio—seeing yard signs that reveal divided loyalties, school board battles that consume resources, and national players like Elias shaping the battlefield—I believe the public deserves better. The litigation infrastructure built on chaos benefits a small class of professionals at the expense of representative government. Taxpayers foot the bill, often without realizing the full scope. Shining a light on these practices, demanding accountability, and supporting reforms that prioritize clarity over ambiguity are essential. Otherwise, the parasites will continue to thrive while the body politic weakens. We have the tools to fix it; what remains is the will to use them.

Footnotes

1.  Personal observation of law practice signage and political involvement in Butler County, Ohio, 2026 primary context.

2.  Democracy Docket reports and Elias public statements on case volume.

3.  Ohio Capital Journal coverage of HB 458 lawsuit filed by Elias Law Group.

4.  Estimates drawn from public official reports and historical litigation defense data (e.g., Texas, North Carolina voter ID cases).

5.  Ohio Supreme Court ruling in Lakota Local Schools public records case, 2024.

6.  OpenSecrets vendor payment data for Elias Law Group, 2024 cycle.

7.  Fifth Circuit sanctions order in Texas straight-ticket voting litigation.

8.  Washington Post compilation of election-related public expenditures.

9.  Additional sources: Wikipedia entry on Marc Elias; Brennan Center and Campaign Legal Center litigation trackers; local Butler County reporting on Carpenter/Ryan primary and Lakota board disputes.

Bibliography

•  Elias, Marc. Various articles, Democracy Docket (2020–2026).

•  “Marc Elias,” Wikipedia.

•  Ohio Capital Journal articles on Elias Law Group Ohio lawsuits (2023).

•  OpenSecrets.org vendor profile: Elias Law Group.

•  Washington Post, “Trump’s false election claims cost taxpayers over $500 million” (2021, updated analyses).

•  Court documents: Fifth Circuit sanctions ruling; Ohio Supreme Court Lakota records case (2024).

•  Additional reporting: Cincinnati Enquirer, WLWT, Ballotpedia on Butler County and Lakota Local Schools.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

7 Seconds of Terror: What the bad guys want to do and how to stop them

Watching those grainy surveillance clips from the Washington Hilton on April 25, 2026, is a reminder of how insanity is a persistent threat to the propensity for personal freedom.  Even Mark Hamill, the guy who played Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars movies, was in on this push by the radical Marxist left to kill off those in their way for the destruction of Western civilization itself.  The annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner— that odd, decades-old ritual where journalists, celebrities, politicians, and power brokers cram into the International Ballroom under the pretense of civility—had been humming along as usual. Over 2,600 guests, including President Trump, the First Lady, the Vice President, Cabinet members, and a chunk of the presidential line of succession, all dressed to the nines, trading polite laughs while the country outside kept grinding through its divisions. Then, at roughly 8:36 p.m. Eastern, the illusion shattered in under ten seconds. Gunfire cracked near the security screening area one level above the ballroom. Chaos rippled through the dining hall. Secret Service agents moved like they were trained to: shielding the President, evacuating the principals, and locking down the succession. The rest of us watching from afar didn’t know it yet, but an armed man named Cole Tomas Allen, a 31-year-old teacher and mechanical engineer from Torrance, California, had just sprinted through a metal detector checkpoint, shotgun and .38-caliber handgun in hand, knives strapped on, treating the whole thing like a level in Call of Duty he’d rehearsed in his head for who knows how long. 

I watched the footage from multiple angles—the one that captured him charging from a 90-degree side view made it look lightning-fast, almost cinematic, but the head-on camera told a different story. He looked reckless, almost naïve, the way he barreled straight at that first barrier like the game’s respawn button was waiting. He fired; a Secret Service officer took a shotgun pellet to the chest, but the ballistic vest and the officer’s cell phone absorbed the worst of it. The agent drew, returned fire, and within about seven seconds from the moment Allen hit the checkpoint until he was wrestled down, it was over. No one in the ballroom was hurt. The President and the inner circle were evacuated safely. By any narrow metric, catastrophe was averted. But narrow metrics don’t tell the whole tale, and that’s why I’ve been turning this over in my mind ever since. Why didn’t anyone flag this guy earlier? How did he check into the very hotel hosting the event, spend days scouting access points, and still get that close? And what does it say about the limits of layering more security when the real breakdown is happening in the culture long before anyone reaches for a trigger?

I have experience in personal protection, and I know how these things go. You stand post for hours—sometimes thousands of them—where nothing happens, people are laughing inside the ballroom, you’re thinking about Netflix or grabbing Chinese on the way home to your wife, and then suddenly a figure is sprinting your way with a long gun. Context collapses. Decision time compresses to fractions of a second. That officer who got hit? He reacted fast, drew clean, and did his job. The team neutralized the threat without letting it reach the principals. That’s a positive outcome, even if it wasn’t flawless. But the broader questions linger, and they’re the ones the public is rightly screaming about. How do we prevent the next one without turning every public gathering into a TSA-style gauntlet that makes normal life miserable? Because layering metal detectors, more agents, more dogs, more AI profiling only gets you so far when the problem isn’t just tactical—it’s behavioral, cultural, rooted in how we raise kids, what we feed their minds through screens, and the toxic political rhetoric that lights the fuse.

Take Allen himself. Thirty-one years old, no prior criminal record that’s come out yet, educated—mechanical engineering background, game developer, part-time teacher. He wasn’t some drifter; he was the kind of guy who could blend in, book a room at the Hilton weeks ahead, ride the train cross-country from California, and case the place like it was reconnaissance for a mission. He left a manifesto—over a thousand words—sent to family members just minutes before he charged, calling himself the “Friendly Federal Assassin” and laying out “rules of engagement” for targeting Trump administration officials, prioritized by rank. He wasn’t after random guests or hotel staff, but he was willing to go through them to get there. He referenced his duty, his outrage at policies, the whole grievance cocktail that’s become too familiar in these lone-actor cases. And yes, he had the video-game vibe written all over it: dressed for the occasion, shotgun ready, sprinting the perimeter like he expected the respawn or the cutscene reward. I laughed a little when I first saw the clips—not because it was funny, but because I’ve seen this pattern before with these younger guys who’ve spent years in simulated combat, where death is temporary, and glory is instant. Reality doesn’t work that way. He fell, got tackled, and now faces federal charges: attempt to assassinate the President, interstate transport of firearms with intent to commit a felony, and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence. Potential life sentence. Good. But the real failure happened upstream, in whatever radicalized him to the point where he thought charging a Secret Service checkpoint was a viable strategy to “change behavior” in American politics.

This isn’t the first time the Hilton has seen this kind of violence. Forty-five years earlier, almost to the month, John Hinckley Jr. waited outside the same hotel after Reagan spoke at a conference and opened fire, wounding the President, his press secretary Jim Brady, a police officer, and a Secret Service agent. Reagan survived, but the parallels hit hard: same venue, same sense of a public ritual turned lethal in seconds. Historically, we’ve had about 18 assassination attempts or plots on U.S. presidents where the attacker got close enough to pose a real physical threat—four successful kills (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy), several woundings (Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt as a former president, Trump himself in 2024 at that Pennsylvania rally), and a litany of foiled plots.  Most attackers have been lone actors driven by personal grievances, mental health struggles, ideological fixations, or some toxic mix. Many left manifestos or rambling notes, just like Allen. In 1835, Andrew Jackson in 1835 beat off an assailant with his cane after both pistols misfired. Gerald Ford survived two attempts in 1975, within weeks of each other. The list goes on, and the pattern is depressingly consistent: security layers get breached because no perimeter is perfect when someone is willing to die for the cause, and the real variable is human behavior on both sides—the attacker’s and the society that produced him.

What’s changed in the modern era is the accelerant: online radicalization, 24/7 political outrage cycles, and entertainment that gamifies violence. I’ve said it before on the show, and I’ll say it again here—kids (and adults who never grew out of it) spend countless hours in first-person shooters where charging a fortified position with a shotgun is a power move, where the AI enemies drop, and you rack up points. Allen wasn’t the first to treat real-world targeting like a mission brief. We’ve seen it in other mass violence cases where perpetrators referenced games explicitly. It’s not the sole cause—plenty of gamers never hurt anyone—but when you combine it with manifestos railing against “the administration,” echo-chamber rhetoric from politicians who’ve flirted with “fight like hell” language or “by any means necessary” vibes and a culture that’s lost its grip on basic moral foundations, you get powder kegs like this. Allen wasn’t some mastermind; he was a product of the times, radicalized enough to cross the country, arm up, and sprint into history. His sister reportedly told investigators he’d made extreme statements before. There were signs, perhaps, but in a free society, we can’t pre-crime every disgruntled soul with an online footprint without shredding the Constitution. That’s the free-speech tension everyone’s yelling about now: should we have been monitoring his posts more aggressively? Should AI have flagged the cross-country trip combined with his hotel booking and known grievances? Maybe. But intrusive surveillance comes with its own costs, and we’ve already seen how that path leads to overreach.

The aftermath has been predictable. The dinner was postponed or scaled back in future planning talks. Congressional briefings are demanded. Reviews launched by the FBI, Secret Service, ATF—screening enhancements, internal movement controls, all the usual post-incident layers. And that’s fine as far as it goes, but I keep coming back to the deeper point: you can’t just secure your way out of a behavior problem. We’ve tried that with airports—TSA pat-downs, body scanners, the whole theater of it—and people grumbled but accepted it after 9/11 because the threat felt existential. Yet even there, determined attackers have slipped through. Here, at a black-tie event meant to celebrate the press and democracy, we don’t want guests feeling groped or stripped down to hear a few jokes. Striking that balance is tough. Secret Service leadership has rightly defended the response: the outer layer was breached, but the inner perimeter held. That’s layered defense working as designed. A former agent I respect called it a “positive outcome, not a successful one”—acknowledging the breach while praising the neutralization. Fair enough. But critics are right too: visible posture in the outer areas, minimal ID checks in a functioning hotel space, complexity of securing mixed public-private venues—all vulnerabilities.

Statistically, these events are rare, but their costs are enormous. The global economic impact of violence hit about $19.97 trillion in 2024 (11.6% of world GDP, or roughly $2,455 per person), with military spending, internal security, and homicide making up the bulk.  In the U.S., post-9/11 terrorism and related conflicts have run into the trillions when you tally direct damages, lost output, heightened security, wars, and long-term health costs for responders and veterans. One study pegged immediate 9/11 losses at $20-60 billion, with broader “terror tax” effects on airlines, insurance, logistics, and GDP drag of 0.1-0.3% annually for years. A single event like this WHCD incident? Immediate costs include the officer’s hospitalization (thankfully brief), massive law enforcement mobilization, hotel lockdowns, event cancellations or rescheduling, and the inevitable bump in protective details. The Secret Service’s FY2025 budget is already $3.2 billion, with over $1.2 billion allocated to protective operations alone—covering not just the President but also former officials, candidates, and major events.  Add in local police overtime, FBI investigations, congressional hearings, and the intangible hit to public confidence, and one botched sprint through a checkpoint can easily run into tens of millions. And that’s before you factor the copycat effect: bad actors worldwide study these videos, learning what worked and what didn’t. Allen’s failure—getting stopped before the ballroom—will inspire some to refine the tactic: faster, better armed, maybe drones or diversions next time. We can’t afford to pretend otherwise.

Side stories often get lost in the headlines, but they matter. Consider the security canine that reportedly reacted to Allen’s presence moments before, but whose handler didn’t intervene in time. Critics pounced: missed signals. Defenders noted the dog pulled, but real-time human judgment in a crowded corridor is messy. Or the crossfire dynamics—agents firing, missing Allen initially, rounds potentially endangering bystanders in a hotel full of civilians. Training scenarios rarely replicate the exact stress of a black-tie crowd with the President yards away. Then there’s the human element on the security side: 20-plus officers on post, but sometimes more bodies can breed diffusion of responsibility—“someone else has got this.” Complacency creeps in during the quiet hours. I’ve been in those shoes; it’s human. That’s why personal foundations—character, vigilance, moral clarity—matter more than extra badges.

Politically, this lands in the third assassination attempt on Trump in recent years (the Butler rally in 2024, the golf course plot, now this). It marks something ugly: political violence isn’t episodic anymore; it’s persistent, compressed, modern. Assassins used to be mentally ill loners with pistols; now they’re often ideologically fueled, manifesto-writing, game-trained actors who see themselves as protagonists in a larger war. Allen wasn’t fighting for “freedom”—he wanted to force behavioral change through terror, echoing 9/11 logic but on a smaller, more personal scale. We can’t surrender to that. We don’t cancel the dinner, hide the President forever, or let radicals dictate how we govern. But neither can we ignore the rhetoric that poisons minds. When leaders on any side joke about or wink at violence—“punching Nazis,” “fight like hell,” late-night host monologues that cross into incitement—it adds fuel. Allen’s irrationality didn’t come from nowhere; it was cultivated. How do we counter radicalization without becoming the thought police? That’s the free-speech tightrope. I favor more armed, responsible citizens as the ultimate backstop—law-abiding people trained to stop threats in progress—because police and Secret Service can’t be everywhere. A well-armed, well-behaved society is the best deterrent—more guns in good hands, fewer in the unstable ones. Enforce existing laws, prosecute threats, but don’t disarm the law-abiding.

Zoom out historically, and the data bears this out. The Violence Project’s presidential attacks database traces these incidents back to 1835, revealing patterns linked to periods of high polarization, economic stress, or cultural upheaval. Many perpetrators had recent life stressors, a fascination with prior attackers, or exposure to violent media. Mental health plays a role, but so does ideology. Post-2026, we’ll see calls for red-flag laws, online monitoring, and more funding for mental health—some good, some overreach. What we really need is a cultural reset: stronger families, communities that prioritize reality testing over fantasy escapism, education that values debate over demonization, and, yes, a recommitment to the Second Amendment as both a right and a responsibility. I hate heavy security personally; I carry, I train, and I want to move freely without feeling like I’m in a police state. But after events like this, the public demands action. The trick is action that targets roots—discouraging the hatred, the loss of touch with reality—rather than just adding layers that make society paranoid and miserable.

Democrats often push the “more control” angle, which I get, but it’s proven that it can’t eliminate the human variable. Republicans emphasize personal agency and armed self-defense, which aligns with my view. Neither side has a monopoly on solutions, but pretending this was just a security lapse misses the forest. Allen planned it academically, almost academically detached from consequences, willing to die to “send a message.” That mindset is the real enemy. We saw similar in the 2024 attempts on Trump: lone actors, manifestos or online trails, grievances against “the system.” Each time, the distance between public ritual and lethal intent shrinks. The Hilton ballroom, once a symbol of Washington pomp, now carries that scar.

Looking ahead, expect tighter protocols: advanced intelligence fusion (AI cross-referencing travel, bookings, and online activity with threat databases), better hotel vetting for high-profile events, and perhaps moving more gatherings to hardened venues like the White House itself or military bases where lockdown is feasible. But that changes the “dance”—the odd ritual of press and power mingling. We need it, warts and all, for transparency and normalcy. The alternative is bunker mentality, and that hands victory to the Allens of the world. Ultimately, more security isn’t just more guards; it’s more people living with their eyes open, ready to act as good Samaritans or armed defenders when the moment demands it. It starts with personal foundations: teach kids reality over fantasy, hold media and politicians accountable for inflammatory language, celebrate responsible gun ownership, and reject the victimhood narratives that breed assassins. We can’t overreact to every threat and make life unlivable, but we can’t underreact either and pretend behavior doesn’t matter.

In the weeks since, I’ve reflected a lot on my own experiences—times I’ve been heavily armed in uncertain environments, the split-second decisions that define protection work. It’s never easy. Those agents weren’t “hoping for two more hours till shift end”; they were professionals doing a thankless job. The public owes them gratitude, not just criticism. Yet we also owe it to ourselves to learn. This incident—seven seconds of terror—reveals the compressed threat environment of 2026 America. Political violence persists because underlying values have frayed. Rebuilding those—family, faith, personal responsibility, civic duty—is the only long-term fix. More layers buy time; better people prevent the need for them.  We solve this at the foundation, or we keep paying the price in blood, treasure, and lost liberty. The ballroom lights are back on, but the warning lingers.

Footnotes

1.  NBC News, CBS News, and DOJ reports on Cole Tomas Allen’s charges and actions, April 2026.

2.  Wikipedia entry on 2026 WHCD shooting and historical parallels to Reagan 1981 at the Hilton.

3.  The Violence Project Presidential Attacks Database (18 incidents tracked).

4.  Institute for Economics and Peace, Economic Impact of Violence 2025 report ($19.97T global figure).

5.  DHS FY2025 Secret Service budget overview ($3.2B total, $1.2B protective).

6.  Joint Economic Committee historical analyses of terrorism costs post-9/11.

7.  NYT, WaPo, and NY Post coverage of Allen’s manifesto and background (teacher/engineer, Cal State/LinkedIn details).

Bibliography for Further Reading

•  U.S. Department of Justice Press Release: “Suspect in White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting Charged with Attempt to Assassinate the President,” April 27, 2026.

•  The Violence Project. “Presidential Assassinations Database,” ongoing.

•  Institute for Economics and Peace. “The Economic Impact of Violence,” 2025.

•  Wikipedia. “List of United States Presidential Assassination Attempts and Plots.”

•  U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “U.S. Secret Service Budget Overview,” FY2025.

•  New York Post. “Read WHCD Suspect Cole Allen’s Full Anti-Trump Manifesto,” April 26, 2026.

•  CBS News and NPR profiles on Cole Tomas Allen, April 2026.

•  Joint Economic Committee. “The Economic Costs of Terrorism,” historical studies.

•  Additional sources: NYT visual investigations of WHCD footage; historical accounts from HistoryExtra and Statista on presidential attacks.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

Ohio’s Unfinished Economic Reckoning: How Amy Acton’s Lockdowns Created the High-Price Reality Democrats Are Trying to Now Blame on Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy—but the guilt is completely on Lockdown Democrats

In the spring of 2026, Ohio voters are being told a familiar story by the Democratic ticket led by the stringy-haired Amy Acton. High grocery bills, elevated gas prices, stubborn supply-chain bottlenecks, and the everyday squeeze felt by working families and small manufacturers are, according to Acton’s campaign and its surrogates—Mark Elias, David Pepper, and the usual Democratic spokespeople—the direct result of Trump-era policies and the supposed continuation of that agenda under Vivek Ramaswamy. The irony is staggering. The very architect of Ohio’s most disruptive government intervention in modern history—the woman who, as Director of the Ohio Department of Health in 2020, signed the stay-at-home orders that shuttered schools, closed non-essential businesses, and upended millions of lives—is now positioning herself as the solution to the very economic pain her policies created. 

This is not partisan rhetoric. It is a matter of documented cause and effect, visible every day in Ohio’s factories, restaurants, construction sites, and family budgets. The high prices we live with in 2026 are not primarily the fault of tariffs, speculation, or any single administration in Washington. They are the long shadow of a forced economic shock imposed in 2020 by a centralized government decree—one in which Amy Acton played a central role, coordinating with federal health authorities, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and, ultimately, with policies shaped by information flowing from China. The damage was not abstract. It was immediate, structural, and enduring. And while headline statistics have been massaged to suggest recovery, the real economy—especially for midsize manufacturers, small businesses, and working families—never returned to its pre-2019 equilibrium.

To understand why Acton’s record matters now, we must revisit what actually happened in Ohio in the spring of 2020. On March 22, 2020, Acton issued a stay-at-home order effective at 11:59 p.m. that night. Non-essential businesses were closed. Schools shuttered. Gatherings were limited. The order, later extended by Governor Mike DeWine, was not a suggestion; it carried the force of law. Within weeks, Ohio’s unemployment rate exploded from roughly 4.5 percent pre-pandemic to a peak of 16.4 percent in April 2020—the highest level in modern state history. More than 2.1 million unemployment claims were filed that year alone, compared to just 360,000 in all of 2019. Entire sectors—manufacturing, hospitality, transportation, professional services—were suddenly and forcibly interrupted. 

This was not a natural recession triggered by market conditions. Ohio’s economy in early 2020 was not overheating. It was not over-leveraged. It was functioning normally until the government decree flipped the switch. The result was a structural break in continuity that no amount of federal stimulus could fully repair. Over 341,000 non-farm jobs disappeared in a single year—a decline of more than 6 percent. Manufacturing, the backbone of Ohio’s economy, absorbed a particularly brutal blow, losing roughly 480,000 jobs at the height of the crisis. Supply chains that had taken decades to optimize were severed overnight. Relationships between suppliers, customers, and workers were shattered. Skills atrophied. Experience was lost.

Federal relief money flowed in—Ohio ultimately received billions through the CARES Act and subsequent packages, with more than $10 billion in direct grant funding allocated early on and additional ARPA dollars later. That money stabilized household consumption and prevented total collapse on paper. It propped up demand. But it did not rebuild labor pools, restore broken supplier networks, or reverse the loss of institutional knowledge. GDP figures eventually rebounded. On the surface, Ohio appeared to recover. Yet for thousands of private, midsize, and industrial firms—the companies that form the real productive core of the state—the recovery never materialized in the way that matters most. Revenue stabilized in some cases, but labor did not return evenly. Supply chains remained fragile six years later. Many businesses entered a new, permanently altered economic reality from which they have yet to exit. 

Look at the numbers that actually matter on the ground. Manufacturing employment has clawed back toward pre-pandemic levels in headline counts—hovering near 680,000 statewide by late 2025 and into 2026—but the composition is different. Output rose in aggregate, yet headcount remained flat or declined in many subsectors. Productivity gains came not from rebuilding capacity but from automation, consolidation, and doing more with fewer people. Smaller suppliers absorbed shocks they could not pass along. Material inflation, labor shortages, and customer concentration became permanent features. A 2025 survey of Ohio manufacturers found that around 40 percent still cited material costs as a major concern, with tariffs and other factors playing secondary roles. Speculators and opportunistic pricing certainly contributed to some price spikes—gasoline being the most visible example—but the underlying fragility traces directly back to the 2020 rupture. 

Even more telling is the labor force participation rate. Ohio’s rate dropped sharply in 2020 and has never fully recovered. As of March 2026, it stands at approximately 62.1 percent—still roughly 1.3 percentage points below 2019 levels. That gap represents tens of thousands of missing workers. Many retired early. Others shifted to disability. Skilled trades lost experienced hands who never re-entered. The pandemic accelerated trends already underway—remote work, changing employer expectations—but the government-mandated shutdown turned those trends into a structural labor shortage. Employers now pay significantly higher wages without corresponding productivity gains. Chronic hiring difficulties persist. Small and midsize businesses, lacking the scale of large corporations, took the brunt of this hit. 

The human and business-level consequences are visible in every corner of the state. Fast-food restaurants that once operated with long lines and reliable staffing still struggle with chronic understaffing. Supply chains that used to move with just-in-time efficiency now carry permanent buffers, higher costs, and longer lead times. Contracts signed in 2018 or 2019 based on pre-pandemic pricing realities cannot be easily renegotiated in 2024 or 2025 when everything from labor to materials has inflated. Large buyers—Walmart, major distributors, big manufacturers—hold suppliers to those old terms while their own costs have risen. Many smaller firms plateaued at lower output, higher risk, and reduced resilience. Nearly half of the Ohio businesses operating in 2019 were no longer active by 2024. New formations occurred, as they often do after crises, but stimulus checks or reconfigured statistics cannot replace the permanent loss of experience, relationships, and localized capacity. 

This was not mismanagement or an isolated failure. It was a structured shock imposed by the government, and in Ohio, by Amy Acton directly.  The recovery that followed was real on paper but redistributive in practice. Large firms with access to capital, automation, equity markets, and policy cushions emerged stronger. Smaller private companies absorbed transition costs without the same protections. Stimulus prioritized consumption over reconstruction of upstream production capacity. The result is an economy that looks healthier in aggregate GDP and unemployment figures but feels fundamentally different—and more fragile—for the businesses and workers who actually produce goods and services.

Compounding the damage were subsequent policy choices, including repeated minimum-wage adjustments tied to CPI and other labor-market interventions. While intended to help workers, these hikes acted as an artificial price floor that businesses—especially those already reeling from supply-chain disruption—had to absorb by raising consumer prices. In an environment where labor shortages already drove up wages, the added pressure from mandated increases translated directly into higher menu prices, higher retail costs, and thinner margins for the very firms least able to absorb them. Democrats often frame these as acts of compassion, but the economic reality is that they function as another layer of costs passed on to consumers in an economy still recovering from the original government-imposed rupture.

Contrast this track record with the alternative represented by Vivek Ramaswamy. As an entrepreneur who built real companies and created substantial value, Ramaswamy understands from firsthand experience what it takes to navigate supply chains, labor markets, capital allocation, and regulatory hurdles. His platform—aggressive tax cuts (including phasing down the state income tax and meaningful property tax relief), energy independence through expanded natural gas and streamlined permitting, and a laser focus on reducing the regulatory burden—addresses the structural issues that Acton’s policies left behind. Where Democrats offer more stimulus, more government employment, and more wealth redistribution, Ramaswamy offers the conditions for genuine private-sector expansion: lower taxes so families and businesses keep more of what they earn, reduced uncertainty so investment can return, and policies that reward production rather than consumption propped up by printed money. 

The political inversion is almost Orwellian. The same network of Democratic operatives—Mark Elias, David Pepper, and their allies—who have spent years litigating, regulating, and centralizing power now seek to pin the enduring consequences of their own policy choices on the very people who warned against them. They want voters to forget that Acton was the public face of the orders that closed Ohio’s economy. They want voters to ignore the long-term scarring visible in labor participation, small-business survival rates, and fragile supply chains. And they want to portray Vivek Ramaswamy—an outsider who built a billion-dollar value through innovation and discipline—as somehow responsible for prices that trace directly to decisions made in 2020 under Democratic-influenced health policy.

This is not ancient history. The effects are measurable today. Manufacturing survived the shock but did not return to its prior equilibrium. Labor-force participation remains depressed. Supply chains are still adapting. Smaller firms operate with lower resilience. High prices at the grocery store, the gas pump, and the restaurant counter are not mysterious. They are the predictable outcome of a forced shutdown followed by stimulus that prioritized short-term consumption over long-term productive capacity. Government did not merely interrupt Ohio’s economy in 2020—it rewired it. And for many companies, especially private midsize and industrial firms, the 2020 era has never truly ended.

Ohioans deserve better than political amnesia. They deserve leaders who understand that real economic vitality comes from production, not redistribution; from predictable policy, not repeated government shocks; and from accountability, not blame-shifting. Amy Acton’s record as Health Director is not a footnote—it is the central chapter in the story of why so many Ohio families and businesses are still paying the price six years later. Vivek Ramaswamy’s background as a value-creating entrepreneur offers the clearest alternative: a governor who will cut taxes, slash red tape, expand energy production, and restore the conditions under which Ohio businesses and workers can thrive again.

The choice in 2026 is not abstract. It is between continuing the politics that created the problem and embracing the policies that can finally heal the damage. Ohio’s real economy—its factories, its family businesses, its working men and women—has waited long enough for that reckoning.  But when we have to talk about who is responsible for all the misery we are still feeling, there is only one person to blame, and that is Amy Acton, the Lockdown Lady. 

Footnotes

1.  Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Employment Situation Indicators, various monthly releases 2020–2026.

2.  Bureau of Labor Statistics and Ohio JFS data on unemployment claims and rates, April 2020 peak.

3.  Contemporary reporting on Acton’s stay-at-home order, March 22, 2020 (Ohio Department of Health).

4.  Federal COVID-19 grant funding allocations to Ohio, CARES Act, and subsequent packages (approximately $10 billion+ in early grants).

5.  Ohio manufacturing employment and labor force participation trends, Ohio LMI and FRED data through March 2026.

6.  NFIB and small-business survival analyses post-2020.

7.  Surveys of Ohio manufacturers on material costs and supply-chain issues, 2025.

8.  Vivek Ramaswamy campaign platform materials on tax relief, energy, and regulatory reform.

9.  Additional sourcing from Policy Matters Ohio, the Cleveland Fed, and contemporaneous economic analyses of pandemic impacts.

Bibliography

•  Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Employment Situation Indicators (monthly releases, 2019–2026).

•  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor force, employment, and unemployment data for Ohio.

•  Acton, Amy. Director’s Stay-at-Home Order, Ohio Department of Health, March 22, 2020.

•  Federal COVID relief tracking reports (CARES Act, ARPA allocations to Ohio).

•  NFIB Ohio Small Business Economic Trends reports.

•  Cleveland Federal Reserve District data briefs on supply-chain disruptions.

•  Ramaswamy for the Ohio campaign platform documents.

•  Contemporary news coverage from AP, Signal Ohio, and Ohio LMI publications.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.