Category: Book Review

Thanksgiving, Family, and the Weight of Choices: Why Generations Rise or Fall Together

Thanksgiving is one of those rare moments in American life where everything slows down just enough for us to notice what really matters. The smell of turkey fills the house, football hums in the background, and for a few hours, the world’s chaos takes a back seat to mashed potatoes and pumpkin pie. I love this time of year. I love the family gatherings, the laughter, the jokes that only make sense to people who share your last name. But, Thanksgiving is also a fascinating study in human nature. You sit around that table and, without saying a word, you can see the weight of another year on everyone’s face—the triumphs, the mistakes, the quiet regrets.

What is family, really? People say it’s blood, but I think it’s more complicated than that. Family is biology, sure, but it’s also choices—every choice we make and every choice our kids make. And those choices stack up like bricks over time, building the life we live. Some people build palaces; others build prisons. Thanksgiving is where you see the architecture of those choices on full display.

When you’re born, you don’t get to pick your family. You’re handed a set of people and told, “These are yours.” But as life goes on, family becomes less about biology and more about decisions. Who you marry, how you raise your kids, what values you teach them—those choices ripple through generations. I’ve raised kids and now grandkids, and I can tell you this: the quality of a family gathering isn’t determined by the turkey on the table; it’s determined by the choices everyone made to get there.

I’ve seen families where bitterness hangs in the air like smoke because bad decisions piled up—wrong marriages, financial disasters, grudges that never healed. And I’ve seen families where people genuinely enjoy each other’s company because they made better choices. It’s not luck. It’s not fate. It’s choices.

I’ve always said this—and sometimes people look at me funny when I do—but I treat kids differently than I treat adults. Why? Because kids still have options. They haven’t stacked up a lifetime of mistakes yet. They’re like a blank canvas with endless possibilities. Adults, on the other hand, well… by the time you hit your 40s or 50s, the mistakes start showing. You can see it in their faces, in their posture, in the way they talk about life. Every bad decision leaves a mark.

I’ve sat at Thanksgiving tables and watched this play out. You see the cousin who married the wrong person, and now every conversation is about how hard life is. You see the uncle who spent his 20s chasing quick thrills and now looks like a relic of his former self. And then you look at the kids—bright-eyed, full of energy, thinking they’re invincible. They don’t know yet that life is a marathon, not a sprint.

That’s why I invest in kids. I talk to them differently. I try to steer them away from the mistakes that everyone else seems determined to make. Because if you can help a kid avoid even half the bad choices their peers make, you’ve given them a head start that will pay off for decades.

Life is like a marathon. At the starting line, everyone looks the same—bunched up, full of energy, ready to run. But five miles in, the pack starts to spread out. Some people are way ahead, others are falling behind, and the gap keeps growing. That’s what choices do.

And the stats prove it. By middle age, the spread is enormous:

• 41% of first marriages end in divorce, and the odds get worse with each attempt.

• The average U.S. household carries $105,056 in debt, with mortgage debt alone averaging $268,060.

• Over 40% of adults are obese, and the highest rates are among people in their 40s and 50s.

These aren’t random outcomes. They’re the result of choices stacked up over decades. The people who finish strong aren’t the ones who sprint early—they’re the ones who pace themselves, make smart decisions, and stay disciplined when everyone else is falling apart.

Here’s something I’ve noticed over the years: misery loves company. People who make bad choices don’t just suffer quietly—they want everyone else to make the same mistakes. Why? Because it makes them feel less alone. If you’ve wrecked your finances, married the wrong person, and let your health go, it’s comforting to see the next generation do the same. It’s almost like a twisted form of validation: “See? It’s not just me. This is how life works.”

But let’s be honest—it’s not “how life works.” It’s how bad decisions impact outcomes. And the numbers back this up. Divorce, debt, obesity—they’re all connected. Stress from debt leads to overeating. Relationship breakdowns lead to depression. Depression leads to bad health habits. It’s a cycle, and once you’re in it, climbing out feels impossible.

I’ve seen this at family gatherings. You hear the stories—another year of bills piling up, another kid in trouble, another health scare. And everyone nods like it’s normal. But it’s not normal. It’s the result of choices. And the sad part? People cling to the idea that something magical will fix it—a lottery win, a miracle from God, a quick fix that wipes the slate clean. But most of the time, that fix never comes.

Here’s the good news: the cycle can be broken. It’s not easy, but it’s possible—and it starts with the next generation. The key isn’t to make kids perfect. The key is to help them avoid the big mistakes—the ones that derail lives. Teach them that life isn’t about following the crowd. Because the crowd? The crowd is headed straight for debt, divorce, and diabolical outcomes.

So what do you do? You teach kids to think long-term. You teach them that every choice is a brick in the house they’re building. Pick the wrong bricks, and the house collapses. Pick the right ones, and you’ve got a fortress.

I tell my grandkids, “Don’t chase what everyone else is chasing. Most people are running toward misery and calling it fun.” I remind them that life is a marathon, and the people who finish strong aren’t the ones who sprint early—they’re the ones who pace themselves, make smart decisions, and stay disciplined when everyone else is falling apart.

And here’s the beautiful part: when you do this, you don’t just change one life. You change a family. You change a legacy. Because good choices ripple forward just like bad ones do. Imagine a Thanksgiving table where everyone is healthy, happy, and financially secure—not because they got lucky, but because they made choices that built that reality. That’s possible. I’ve seen glimpses of it in my own family, and it’s worth every ounce of effort.

Thanksgiving is more than turkey and football—it’s a mirror. Every year, when the family gathers, you can see the story of choices written on people’s faces. Some look vibrant, full of life, laughing easily. Others look worn down, carrying the weight of years of bad decisions. And it’s not just physical—it’s in the conversations. You hear who’s struggling with debt, who’s on their third marriage, who’s battling health problems.

But here’s the thing: Thanksgiving also gives us hope. It’s a chance to reset, to remind ourselves what matters. For a few hours, the bills and the stress fade away, and we just enjoy being together. And if we use that time wisely—not just to eat, but to inspire—we can plant seeds that change the next generation.

Family is a gift, but it’s also a responsibility. It’s not just about biology—it’s about choices. Every choice we make ripples through generations, shaping the lives of people who haven’t even been born yet. That’s heavy, but it’s also empowering. Because if bad choices can create misery, good choices can create joy.

So this Thanksgiving, as you sit around the table, look at the faces you care about and ask yourself: What legacy are we building? Are we passing down wisdom, or just repeating the same mistakes? Because the truth is, the cycle doesn’t have to continue. We can break it. We can teach our kids to run the marathon wisely, to pace themselves, to make decisions that lead to health, happiness, and freedom.

And if we do that—if we choose better and inspire better—then maybe, just maybe, the next Thanksgiving will feel different. The laughter will be louder, the smiles will be brighter, and the weight of bad choices will be replaced by the joy of good ones. That’s something worth being thankful for.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Communist Mamdani in New York: Its time to pull away the masks

The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City marks a turning point in American politics. For decades, the Democrat Party has flirted with socialist ideas under the guise of progressivism, soft-selling policies that inch toward state control while maintaining a capitalist façade. Figures like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden represented this strategy—identity politics and incremental reforms masking deeper ideological ambitions. But Mamdani’s victory strips away the pretense. Running openly as a democratic socialist, he secured 50.4% of the vote, defeating establishment candidates and signaling that the radical wing of the Democratic Party is no longer content to operate in the shadows.

This is not an isolated phenomenon. It is the culmination of decades of ideological conditioning in public schools and universities, where Marxist thought has been normalized under academic freedom. The result? A generation of voters who see socialism not as a foreign threat but as a moral imperative. Mamdani’s platform—price controls, free transit, and housing guarantees—echoes the promises of past revolutions. His rhetoric of affordability resonates in a city where 1 in 5 residents cannot afford $2.90 for transit fare, a statistic he cited during his Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump. But beneath the compassionate language lies the same economic logic that has historically led nations down the path of stagnation and authoritarianism.

To understand the implications of Mamdani’s rise, one must revisit the Cuban Revolution. In 1959, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara overthrew Fulgencio Batista, promising justice, equality, and prosperity. Initially, they were hailed as liberators—a narrative strikingly similar to Mamdani’s portrayal of them as champions of the working class. Yet within two years, Cuba declared itself a Marxist-Leninist state aligned with the Soviet Union, cementing a system that would devastate its economy and freeze its society in time.

The revolution’s human cost was staggering. Che Guevara personally oversaw firing squads at La Cabaña fortress, where at least 151 executions occurred under his orders, and estimates suggest 5,600 Cubans died by firing squad overall during the early years of communist rule.  These were not isolated acts of violence but systemic purges designed to eliminate dissent—a grim reminder that revolutions promising equality often deliver tyranny.

Economically, Cuba became dependent on Soviet subsidies, which accounted for 20–25% of its GDP. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, Cuba’s GDP plummeted 35% between 1989 and 1993, imports fell 75%, and caloric intake dropped by 30%, causing widespread malnutrition. The island remains a museum of mid-20th-century technology, with 1950s cars still on the roads—a testament to how communism halts progress. These outcomes were not accidents; they were the inevitable result of policies that prioritize ideological purity over economic reality.

New York City is not Cuba, but the ideological blueprint is eerily familiar. Mamdani’s proposals—free bus fare, price controls on groceries, and expanded public housing—mirror the early promises of Castro’s regime. These measures appeal to voters crushed by rising costs, yet history warns that such policies rarely solve the underlying problems. Price controls distort markets, leading to shortages and black markets. Free services strain public budgets, necessitating higher taxes or debt financing, which in turn discourage investment and innovation.

The danger lies not in the intent but in the trajectory. Once the state assumes responsibility for housing, transportation, and food, the logic of control expands. Businesses become targets for regulation, then expropriation. Property rights erode, and with them, the foundation of capitalist prosperity. This is not speculation; it is the documented pattern of every Marxist experiment from Cuba to Venezuela. The question is not whether Mamdani’s policies will work—they won’t—but how far they will go before the economic engine of New York stalls.

Against this backdrop, Donald Trump’s meeting with Mamdani on November 21, 2025, was a study in strategic restraint. Despite branding Mamdani a “communist lunatic” during the campaign, Trump extended an olive branch, emphasizing shared priorities like crime reduction and housing. “The better he does, the happier I am,” Trump remarked—a statement that projects confidence while hedging against failure.  This was not mere politeness; it was a calculated move to position himself as the voice of reason should Mamdani’s socialist experiment implode.

Yet beneath the cordiality lurks an ideological fault line. Trump represents a populist capitalism that thrives on deregulation and private enterprise. Mamdani embodies democratic socialism, which seeks to redistribute wealth and expand state control. Their meeting was less a dialogue than a prelude to conflict—a clash of systems that cannot coexist indefinitely. If Mamdani’s policies trigger economic decline, Trump will claim vindication, framing the episode as proof that socialism fails.  The stakes extend far beyond New York City; they touch the core of America’s identity as a capitalist nation.

The Mamdani election is not an anomaly; it is the logical outcome of decades of ideological drift. For years, the left has advanced Marxist principles under softer labels—progressivism, social justice, democratic socialism—while conservatives clung to a crumbling center. That era is over. The façade has fallen, and the raw contest between capitalism and communism is back on the political stage. History offers a clear verdict: societies that embrace Marxism stagnate, starve, and silence dissent. Yet history also warns that complacency is fatal. If America fails to articulate and defend the merits of capitalism—innovation, property rights, individual liberty—the allure of “free everything” will prevail, and the cost will be measured not in dollars but in freedom.

The fight ahead is not about bike paths or zoning laws; it is about the system that will define America’s future. Will we remain a nation of entrepreneurs and private property, or will we slide into the gray uniformity of state control? The answer begins in New York City, with a mayor who calls himself a democratic socialist but walks the well-worn path of Marxist revolution. The question is whether we have learned enough from history to stop it.  And what did anybody expect when generations of youth trained in public schools toward outright communism are now the voters picking representatives?  Of course, they will want communism; they have been told all their lives that capitalism is bad and that communism is the future.  And now the future is here.  Bernie Sanders was always the populist wing of Democrats, and if they had not pushed him aside for Hillary and Biden, a communist would have been their presidential candidate.  Communism is what Antifa has wanted.  It’s what most of the minority disruptions have been pushing for.  It’s what all taxation on private property seeks to impose.  And while people might be shocked to see how Trump handled Mamdani, it was nothing short of how fighters treat each other before a big match.  Trump showed graciousness before the gloves had to be put on.  But the fight will occur, and I think it’s a good time for it.  People need to see this communist attempt without the smokescreen of identity politics to hide it.  And rather than worry about the results, the choice is better when all the factors are known.  Because when people have had to deal with open communism, they have suffered and turned away from it.  And that will be the same result in New York, as well as everywhere.  Take away the façade and show things as they always, really, have been.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Trump’s War on Drug Cartels Is the Right Fight for America: Blow up more drug boats and dealers

For decades, America has tolerated a slow-motion disaster disguised as “due process” and “fairness.” While courts crawled at the speed of molasses, drug cartels pumped billions of dollars’ worth of poison into our communities. The result? Generations destroyed, families shattered, and a culture softened for collapse. President Trump’s decision to take the fight directly to cartel operations—blowing up drug boats in international waters—is not just bold; it’s necessary. This is not about policing petty crime. It’s about defending the United States from a military-grade invasion disguised as commerce. Fentanyl alone killed 73,960 Americans in the 12 months ending April 2025, according to CDC data. That’s more than the total U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam. When Trump authorized strikes off the coast of Venezuela, he signaled a new era: America will no longer play defense while cartels wage war on our soil. Critics in Europe wring their hands about “due process,” but let’s be clear—cartels are not misunderstood entrepreneurs. They are terrorist organizations, and their weapon is chemical warfare.

Why did it take so long to get here? Because cartels mastered the art of hiding behind our own institutions. They’ve turned the American legal system into their own version of a Trojan horse. Every time a kingpin gets caught, billions flow into law firms to stall extradition, manipulate loopholes, and buy influence. The Sinaloa Cartel alone generates up to $11 billion annually, and much of that bankroll fuels legal defenses and bribery. Lawyers addicted to cartel money are as dangerous as people with an addiction to heroin. This isn’t hyperbole—it’s systemic corruption. Court cases drag on for years, not because justice is complicated, but because money makes complexity profitable. Meanwhile, politicians posture about “comprehensive reform” while quietly pocketing donations from interests tied to the drug economy. The result? A judiciary that moves more slowly than a glacier, while cartels move faster than a hypersonic missile. Trump’s approach bypasses this charade. No more plea deals. No more courtroom theater. When a cartel boat crosses international waters loaded with fentanyl, it’s not a defendant—it’s a target.

If you think this is just about drugs, think again. Cartels are not mere suppliers—they are warlords. Since 2006, Mexico has recorded over 460,000 homicides linked to cartel violence, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. That’s nearly half a million lives erased in less than two decades. In 2021 alone, 18,000 people died in cartel-related conflicts. These aren’t sanitized numbers—they represent real atrocities: beheadings, bodies hung from bridges, families slaughtered to send a message. And it’s not confined to Mexico. Along the U.S. border, innocent Americans have been kidnapped, tortured, and killed—crimes that rarely make headlines because they don’t fit the narrative of “immigration reform.” Illegal immigration has been the perfect smokescreen for cartel operations, scattering enforcement resources and creating chaos by design. Every migrant caravan is a Trojan horse, hiding cartel scouts and smugglers among desperate families. This is not immigration—it’s infiltration. And every fentanyl pill that slips through is a bullet aimed at America’s future.

The time for half-measures is over. Trump’s strikes on cartel boats are a start, but they must be the beginning of a relentless campaign: destroy cartel mansions, burn their plantations, seize their offshore accounts, and dismantle their propaganda networks. Treat them as what they are—terrorists. Fentanyl is not a recreational drug; it’s a weapon of mass destruction. In FY2023, U.S. authorities seized 27,000 pounds of fentanyl at the southern border, a staggering 480% increase since 2020. That’s enough to kill every man, woman, and child in America several times over. Over 107,000 Americans died from overdoses in 2022, with fentanyl responsible for 70% of those deaths. This is not a market—it’s a battlefield. And the enemy is winning because we’ve been too polite to call this what it is: war. Trump called it. He acted. And for that, he deserves not just support but a mandate to finish the job. Blow up more boats. Raid more compounds. Cut off the financial arteries that keep this beast alive. America cannot afford another decade of courtroom theater while cartels wage chemical warfare on our streets. The choice is simple: escalate or perish.

History will judge this moment. Will we continue to let cartels poison our culture under the guise of “due process,” or will we fight back with the full force of a nation that refuses to die on its knees? Trump chose the latter, and that’s one of the reasons we elected him.  Drug dealing is not a harmless, free market enterprise; it is meant to feed the worst of any society, the slack-jawed losers who supply the poison and the diabolical menaces who use them, and make them both the moral imperative of all social structure.  Because of the United States’ power and its successful military, threats against it have taken the form of guerrilla warfare.  They have no plans to fight a direct war with America, but they indeed plan to subvert it, which has undoubtedly been the case of many socialist countries around the world, and yes, Mexico and Canada fall in that category.  They are OK to support a power like the drug cartels to cause the inward destruction of America, and even the lawyers play their part by putting their personal profit over the good of the nation.  Just like the drugs the cartels deal, the money that spawns from it has given significant amounts of wealth to the legal profession in America to keep the dealers out of jail, for the most part.  The drugs themselves aren’t the only addiction meant to exploit a culture to its own self-destruction, and many enemy countries to America have learned to use a much more passive-aggressive approach to military attack.  Venezuela certainly falls under that category.  So knowing all that, I would like to see more drug boats blown from the water.  I would like to see their drug mansions raided and destroyed.  I would like to see all drug assets eradicated and the perpetrators punished to the fullest extent.  Drug dealing and use is not an innocent crime; it’s the poison of society itself.  There is no innocent drug use when the destruction of human minds is the intent.  And when you look at the many socialist countries where many of these drug dealers spawn from, the endeavor is all too obvious.  They let the cartels be their military and chaos their agent of destruction as they seek to overthrow capitalism and to usher in communism as the replacement for sanity.  And in large sections of America, it has been working.  When you trace back the origin of many of the anti-ICE riots in America to its root cause, the perpetrators are primarily drug users who have had their minds poisoned by the cartels, and in many cases, they are proud of it.  The many members of all communist movements, in most cases, also have a relationship to drug use because, in their destroyed minds, they lose the ability to think for themselves and instead seek centralized authorities to do it for them.  And that is the reason why these drug dealers need a spectacular end to their life of crime and villainy.  And the Trump administration couldn’t destroy enough of them to make me happy.   But I am glad to see the intent headed in the right direction.  I am looking forward to a lot more blowing up of drug dealers, and if the Trump team ever wants any help, call.  It would be a privilege. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Future of Healthcare Is Regenerative: Repulicans need to redefine the discussion for 2028 and beyond

The American healthcare system is broken. Not just cracked or inefficient—broken. It’s a bloated, bureaucratic monstrosity built not to heal, but to manage decline. It’s a system designed to keep people sick just long enough to extract maximum profit from their suffering. And the worst part? It’s been institutionalized through policies like Obamacare, which entrenched a model that props up insurance companies, pharmaceutical giants, and hospital unions at the expense of innovation, affordability, and actual healing.

Let’s be clear: the Affordable Care Act (ACA) didn’t fix healthcare. It expanded coverage, yes, but it did so by inflating costs and embedding a rigid structure that rewards inefficiency. Since its implementation in 2010, the uninsured rate dropped from 16.3% to 8%—a 51% improvement. But premiums for employer-sponsored family plans surged from $13,770 to $22,463—a 63% increase. Deductibles rose 67%, and federal spending on healthcare ballooned from $814 billion to $1.5 trillion. That’s not reform. That’s a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to insurance companies.  A lot of money was made off the healthcare industry, but it did not improve people’s lives, which was the whole debate after the 2025 government shutdown.  Republicans really need to take away the emotional message that Democrats tried to exploit for a system built on pure insanity.

The ACA’s economic impact is staggering. Over the decade from 2023 to 2032, the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will reduce the deficit by 0.5% of GDP annually, totaling $1.6 trillion. But that reduction comes with a catch: it’s built on a model that sustains high costs and low innovation. It’s a system where a basic CAT scan can cost thousands, not because of the technology, but because of the insurance and administrative overhead baked into every transaction.  The system is built on taking advantage of sick people who can’t afford the diligence of skepticism.  The worst kind of exploitation.

The future of healthcare is regenerative medicine. It’s not about managing decline—it’s about reversing it. It’s about healing, restoring, and optimizing the human body using stem cells, gene therapy, and cellular regeneration. It’s about moving beyond the pharmaceutical treadmill and embracing treatments that actually work.  For instance, in placentas, which hospitals throw away after every birth, there are a lot of stem cells that can save lives and dramatically improve healthcare.  Yet, you didn’t hear Democrats saying anything like this during the shutdown, because for them, it’s all about the scam of healthcare costs and padding the pockets of their donors. 

Consider the case of Ohio State Senator George Lang. Diagnosed with stage four colon cancer—a death sentence under traditional protocols—Lang refused to accept the managed decline model. He sought out regenerative treatments, including stem cell therapy, and spent a small fortune traveling the globe to access care that should be available in every Walgreens in America. Today, his tumor is shrinking. He’s not dying—he’s healing. And he’s living proof that regenerative medicine isn’t science fiction. It’s science fact.

Stem cell therapy is already showing success rates of 60–70% in blood cancers and up to 80% in autoimmune and joint conditions. The National Cancer Institute confirms that stem cell transplants are effective in treating leukemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and other cancers. Yet these treatments remain out of reach for most Americans, locked behind regulatory barriers and insurance exclusions.

Why? Because the current system isn’t built to accommodate healing. It’s built to perpetuate illness. Pharmaceutical companies don’t profit from cures—they profit from chronic conditions. Insurance companies don’t thrive on competition—they thrive on predictable, inflated costs. Hospitals don’t want disruption—they want stability, even if it means stagnation.

Medicaid fraud alone costs the U.S. upwards of $100 billion annually. That’s not just waste—it’s theft. It’s money that could be funding regenerative research, subsidizing stem cell therapies, and building a decentralized, competitive healthcare model that puts patients first.

The regenerative medicine market is exploding globally. It’s projected to grow from $24.88 billion in 2025 to $148.42 billion by 2033—a compound annual growth rate of 25.09%. Over 3,100 companies are driving innovation, backed by $7.11 billion in investments from firms like Bayer, Merck, and Zimmer Biomet. The U.S. leads in patents, with over 430 filed in 2025 alone.

And yet, the FDA and insurance industry lag behind. Treatments that could save lives are stuck in clinical trial purgatory or only available overseas. Ivermectin, for example, is showing promise in cancer treatment by disrupting cancer stem cells and enhancing immune response. But it’s not available as a mainstream option because it threatens the status quo.

Republicans have a strategic opportunity here. Stop defending the old model. Stop arguing over the merits of Obamacare. It’s a dead system. Instead, embrace the future. Make regenerative medicine a campaign pillar. Show America that healing is possible—and affordable—when you unleash market forces and innovation.

JD Vance, as he gears up for 2028, should take note. This is a winning issue. It’s pro-life, pro-family, pro-freedom. It’s about giving people hope, not just coverage. It’s about making healthcare affordable by making it effective. It’s about taking away the emotional leverage Democrats have wielded for decades and replacing it with real solutions.

The insurance industry will adapt. They’ll have to. Just like energy is shifting toward decentralization and personal autonomy, healthcare must follow. The grid is outdated. The classroom is outdated. And the hospital is outdated. It’s time to reimagine the entire infrastructure.

Let’s build a system where every birth provides stem cells that can heal. Let’s make regenerative therapies as common as antibiotics. Let’s stop throwing billions at managed decline and start investing in managed recovery.

George Lang’s story is just the beginning. There are thousands more waiting for their chance—not just to survive, but to thrive. The science is here. The market is ready. All we need is the political will to make it happen.

Republicans, take the lead. Be the party of healing. Be the party of innovation. Be the party that ends the racket and restores the promise of American medicine.  Ohio is uniquely positioned to lead the charge in this transformation. Senator George Lang, drawing from his personal battle with stage four cancer, is preparing to introduce legislation that would make ivermectin and other emerging precancer treatments more widely available. His experience—traveling the world to access regenerative therapies that ultimately reversed his terminal diagnosis—has galvanized his commitment to reform.

This initiative gains even more momentum with the potential governorship of Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur who understands the science and the stakes. Under his leadership, Ohio could become a national model for healthcare innovation, breaking the stranglehold of pharmaceutical monopolies and insurance cartels. Imagine a future where ivermectin, stem cells, and other regenerative treatments are available at your local Walgreens—not just in elite clinics overseas.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility and politicization of our healthcare system. It also revealed untapped potential in treatments like ivermectin, which showed promise not only in viral suppression but also in inhibiting cancer cell replication. These discoveries, once dismissed, are now gaining traction among researchers and legislators alike. Lang’s proposed legislation would open the door to these therapies, allowing patients to access life-saving options before their conditions become terminal.

This is not just about Ohio. It’s about setting a precedent. If Ohio can pass laws that prioritize healing over decline, other states will follow. And if Republicans embrace this vision nationally, they can redefine the healthcare debate—away from coverage quotas and toward actual cures. It’s a chance to reframe the narrative, reclaim the moral high ground, and offer a future where healthcare is not a burden, but a blessing.  And, it would allow Republicans to take away from Democrats the moral argument of healthcare funding.  And once that is done, the Democrats would have nothing to stand on, politically. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Shutdown Standoff and the Filibuster Flashpoint: A Political Reckoning with American communists

Speaking with Bernie Moreno recently, it’s clear that the U.S. Senate is at a pivotal moment. The government shutdown, now entering its 40th day, has become a crucible for ideological warfare, with President Trump urging Senate Republicans to reconsider the filibuster rule to break the impasse and reshape the future of American governance.  I think Trump has a good idea, and that the nuclear option should be used, never to let Democrats have power again, so there is no reason to play nice with them.  Democrats, most of them, and around 10-15 Republicans are the enemy of our country and should not be given a seat at the table. 

At the heart of the standoff are three distinct factions: a Democrat Party increasingly defined by its progressive wing, a MAGA-aligned Republican base pushing for aggressive reform, and a centrist bloc of senators hesitant to abandon institutional norms. The Democrats, led by figures like Chuck Schumer and bolstered by progressives otherwise known as “communists” such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have refused to support any continuing resolution (CR) that doesn’t include a vote on extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits. Their strategy hinges on leveraging the shutdown to galvanize their base and preserve key health care provisions.  They are not that unlike the terrorists who bombed New York City with the 9/11 terrorist action.  If they destroyed commercial air travel to maintain socialized medicine, they are all for it.  They would love to harm the economy to slow down Trump ahead of the midterms.  These are the same people who wanted to use COVID to shut down the economy during Trump’s last year of his first term.  So this kind of economic terrorism is typical for them.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans, under Majority Leader John Thune, have proposed a compromise: advance the House-passed CR and amend it with a “minibus” of three long-term appropriations bills, extending government funding through January 30, 2026. This deal, which has gained traction among at least eight Democrats, includes a future vote on ACA subsidies—a concession aimed at breaking the deadlock.  As I have always said, healthcare is a nasty hill to die on, because we are on the precipice of significant changes.  The way healthcare is today is not how it will be tomorrow, and the cost structure needs to be completely reinvented.  For Democrats, healthcare is about controlling the lives of individual people in a mass way, and has nothing to do with caring for people. 

Yet, the filibuster remains the elephant in the room. Trump’s call to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for passing legislation has reignited debate over Senate rules. He argues that the filibuster is a relic that Democrats have weaponized to obstruct progress, and that Republicans must act decisively to secure election reform, border security, and economic stability. “If we do it, we will never lose the midterms,” Trump declared, pressing for one-day voting and voter ID laws.  He’s right, there is no reason to play fair with the Democrats.  They almost went nuclear during Biden’s term, except for two senators who prevented it. Otherwise, they currently have 49 senators who were willing to go nuclear when they had power, a clear warning sign to Republicans.  So, if the shoe is ever on their feet again, they will do it; therefore, there is no reason to play fair now.  Don’t give them a chance at terrorism in the future because they are already thinking about it.  We are only here now because we dodged a bullet then.  Don’t expect that to happen twice.

Despite Trump’s pressure, Senate leadership remains divided. Thune and others have resisted the nuclear option, citing the need to preserve minority rights and avoid legislative chaos. A limited carve-out—lowering the threshold to 51 votes for clean CRs—was floated but appears unlikely to pass.

The shutdown’s impact is severe: over 1,000 flights have been canceled, SNAP benefits have been disrupted, and $5 billion in arms exports to NATO and Ukraine have been delayed. Air traffic controllers are stretched thin, and federal workers remain unpaid. The crisis has exposed the fragility of government-dependent systems and reignited calls for the privatization of critical infrastructure.  I’m certainly one of those who think we should not have a government involved in essential services like air traffic control.  Airlines should provide their own employees, and they would do a better job.  Sticking the government in the middle of critical infrastructure is a really dumb idea.  And to make matters worse, the pay scale and attitude of these employees are already poor, as they are unionized, which should be outlawed for all government positions.  In a short time, AI will be able to do a much better job with air traffic control than humans anyway, so why should we ever allow the government to stand in the way of human necessity?  It’s an incredibly dumb idea. 

In this climate, the filibuster debate is more than procedural—it’s existential. For Trump-aligned Republicans, eliminating it is a strategic imperative to prevent Democrats from regaining power and advancing what they view as radical, anti-capitalist policies. For moderates and institutionalists, it’s a dangerous precedent that could unravel the Senate’s deliberative foundation.  And that’s where the future of America is anyway, with Democrats moving hard socialist and communist as a party, we can’t let them have a seat at the table.  We have to draw the line somewhere.  Let the moderates be the new left-wing party, but don’t play nice with the communists and give them fairness.  Because they will destroy our country if given a chance, and that is at the heart of the debate.  Look at what they have been willing to do with the air traffic controllers.  If they can bring down American infrastructure to maintain control over healthcare, then they certainly will.  Those kinds of Democrats can never again be allowed to vote for the filibuster rule, because the next time, they will get it.  It’s been a race to beat the other to the punch for a long time, and we happen to be fortunate to have this impasse happening while Trump is in the White House. 

The stakes couldn’t be higher. The outcome will not only determine the fate of the shutdown but may also redefine the balance of power in Washington for years to come, regardless of any short-term CR. Whether the filibuster survives or falls, the political landscape is shifting—and the next chapter in America’s legislative history is being written in real time.  And you don’t want to lose your country by playing nice with those who wish to destroy it.  It was interesting to speak with Bernie Moreno about his first year as a senator.  Of course, we didn’t talk about any of these kinds of details; he’s a very level-headed person who was reporting on the lay of the land in the Senate.  But what is obvious is that we already have three parties, and one of them certainly wants to destroy the concept of a capitalist America and to push everything into communist control, much the way China operates.  And it’s me saying it, along with Trump, that we don’t want to be a sucker on this, we need to play tough, and forget playing fair.  This is a game of beating the other side to the punch, and that other side are radical communists, as exhibited by the newly elected New York Mayor, Zohran Mamdani. In a world where people like that are debating the Filibuster, they will go nuclear.  We are fortunate to be in a time when fairness still prevails, and we should be wise in utilizing that power while we still have it. Because there is nothing less patriotic than letting hostile agents destroy your country, and in case it’s still not known to the vast majority, the Democrats are the enemy. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Evils of Corporate Culture: Why we love and hate them

One of the things that is most ill-defined in our country, and certainly in the world, is the understanding of why we tend to hate corporate culture.  Yet almost in the same sentence, we desire to be a part of them.  It’s actually pretty straightforward and obvious, which goes back to the foundations of capitalism and the work of Adam Smith in 1776, as well as the intrusive and corrosive nature of Karl Marx’s communism, which ultimately have led to many of the problems we see today.  We hate communism with the same ambiguity, and the reason in all cases is that corporations exist to allow the mediocre to feel validated in mass society, and that it shields them from the insults of competition.  Corporate cultures are often characterized by collectivism and are seldom driven by unique individuals with great vision.  By the time a company goes “corporate,” it loses that unique leadership that likely built the company into something publicly traded and valuable.  So when we say that something is “corporate,” we are saying that it is of less quality than something that isn’t.  Corporations allow mass collectivism to appear valuable by leveraging the efforts that built a company.   I’ve been thinking about this recently because I have had a front-row seat to a corporate takeover, and it has been astonishing to watch.  The people involved are really dumb.  And I don’t say that as an insult, but as an observation where individual intelligence is completely vacant from the minds of those involved, which is typically associated with stupidity or dumbness if taken in isolation.  But if many such people assert something, then there is a belief that a majority then gives validation, even to stupidity.  It’s one thing to read about these things happening in the world and to know the type of people involved.  But I usually have some insulation from this kind of thing by living my life, until those types of people stepped into my interaction by their own choice.  And I have had to establish their base reality, the only way that it can be defined, that they are dumb people looking for easy money in the world, and they accomplish this through mass collectivism, the same way that labor unions are a problem.  Wherever people hide value in groups, we see a loss in the quality of the visionary experience.  You don’t think of a boardroom as a group of people who solve big problems.  Typically, we think of a group of individuals who appease each other in a setting, at the expense of innovation.

I tend to support large organizations because their creation generates the flow of money, and I like money as a measure of a healthy society.  The more money a society has, the more corporations that create it, the more opportunities that society has to improve the lives of its people.  However, that is a very high-level assumption because, unfortunately, most people do not have positive corporate experiences, as many of the ideas we have about things are flawed from the start.  Even all the years of economic evolution that brought about the excellent book, The Wealth of Nations, there is always uncertainty in individuals about their ability to function in the world productively, so they seek joint relationships to hide in, and that is how the corporation came about as these ideas of capitalism and Marxism emerged as the world became smaller and easier to travel in.  Even if there were more opportunities for boldness and adventure, it was still the same kind of people who took them, leaving most of the rest of the world looking for a way to participate without the risk of actually doing so.  We prefer corporate jobs for the high pay we can earn within their structure.  But the pay usually comes at the cost of individual integrity.  You have to give up one thing to get the security of another.  And as human beings, we look down our noses at such a concession because we deem it inherently evil.  Evil because it destroys individuals, rather than enhancing them.

It’s not unusual for a family to applaud that a youthful personality has just joined a respected corporation at Thanksgiving Dinner.  The applause comes because we care about the young person and want them to have financial security.  But also in the back of our minds, we know that something is dying in that person, the ability to become all the dreams of youth as a unique individual.  Corporate environments are about giving voice to mediocrity for the benefits of mass collectivism. So that unique person we knew growing up will likely give up some of their dreams in the process of conformity.  They might gain an extensive paycheck, but in the process, they’ll lose their soul.  And we now understand this process well, having undergone many years of separating business from being run by kingdoms.  However, by default, the corporation evolved to give the mediocre a kind of unionized collective bargaining against the tendency toward cowardice, the act of waking up in the morning and having the courage to be an individual.  I know about such people, but I usually avoid them like a sickness until I had to speak to them often, when they came to my doorstep.  And it’s remarkable how typical dumbness is.  And when we say “dumbness,” we are referring to a lack of individual thought, where a person thinks something and acts on it without careful consideration. Instead, they feel a sense of unity for the preservation of the group, and their ambitions are collectively shaped through the force of numbers, rather than individual vision.  So, obviously, a corporation run by a board, even if there is a strong CEO, ultimately exists to sell mass collectivism to a consuming public, and we only notice when it impacts us, because there aren’t many pure examples of capitalism to measure real value against. 

We might like money, but there haven’t been enough examples of corporations that have survived due to corporate social responsibility efforts to give better examples of how things should be, or how humans should even make a living.  I’m talking about Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality again, the difference between back-of-the-train people and those who dare to live in the front.  The corporate environment was not intended to put the best in charge.  But to make mediocrity rule the masses through collective ambition.  The loss of individuality to the concept of just being another number.  And in the process, everything is less effective.  And so, there is this cheerleading effort by corporations to acquire privately owned companies, as the corporation and its inhabitants want to believe, through the force of confiscated resources, that they can be as good as the visionary owner.  But they never are, and that little secret rots them into their graves.  They may be able to buy a second home in Florida and have the nicest cars to drive.  They may make enough money to turn their kids into younger versions of themselves by sending them to a communist camp we call “college,” by saying we want to give those kids the best chance at life, when we secretly fear that they will grow up to be better than us.  There is a lot wrong with corporate thought and the people who have defined it over the years. Based on what I’ve seen of it, an entirely new definition for money-making needs to be introduced.  The faceless monster of corporate ownership is just an extension of Marxism that emerged in the void of any other definition at that time of its growth into everyday language.  And many of us really want to be associated with the corporate culture for the security of income.  However, it comes at the expense of individual integrity, and for that reason, we secretly view corporations as inherently evil.  However, since most of us lack the security of personal wealth and thought, we want to be associated with something so that, by default, other people won’t see what we really are.  And that we won’t be found out as phonies, even if that’s what we think each day when we get out of bed. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Lakota Voters Should Reject the Largest School Levy in Ohio History: Vote for Ben Nguyen and listen to my Friend, Jamie Minniear on 55 KRC

In the heart of Butler County, the Lakota School District is asking voters to approve what would be the largest school tax levy in Ohio history—a staggering $506.4 million bond issue paired with a permanent improvement levy. This proposal, if passed, would cost homeowners $208 per year for every $100,000 of appraised property value, with collections beginning in 2029. While district officials claim the net increase will be closer to $93.10 per $100,000 due to retiring debt, the reality remains: this is a massive financial commitment for taxpayers, especially seniors and working families already burdened by inflation and rising costs. The levy’s purpose? To demolish nine existing schools—some only 40 years old—and build four new elementary schools, while reducing the total number of buildings from 21 to 16. But many residents, including Jamie and Todd Minniear, leaders of the No More Lakota Taxes campaign, argue that this plan is fiscally irresponsible and prioritizes construction over classroom needs.

Jamie Minniear, speaking on 55KRC with Brian Thomas, passionately advocated for Ben Nguyen, a 2025 Lakota graduate and conservative school board candidate who opposes the levy. She described Nguyen as a sharp, creative thinker with fresh ideas for education reform and a deep understanding of the district’s challenges. Nguyen’s candidacy represents a new generation of leadership—one that values fiscal discipline, educational outcomes, and community engagement over extravagant spending. Jamie emphasized that the levy is not about improving teacher pay or classroom instruction; it’s about tearing down buildings and replacing them with new ones, regardless of whether they truly need replacement. She and Brian Thomas, the host, recalled his own experience attending classes in trailers and rundown buildings, yet still receiving a quality education. Her point was clear: education doesn’t require luxury—it requires commitment, good teachers, and community support.

The Minniear-led opposition has gained traction by highlighting the lack of transparency and misleading ballot language. While the ballot shows a 5.94-mill increase, the district claims the real impact will be 2.66 mills due to debt roll-off. This discrepancy has confused voters and raised concerns about the district’s communication strategy. Moreover, the district’s plan to reconfigure grade bands, shift students between buildings, and consolidate campuses has sparked anxiety among parents who fear disruption and overcrowding. Critics argue that the district should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, investing in teacher development, and enhancing academic programs—not launching a half-billion-dollar construction spree. The Ohio Facilities Construction Commission rated many of the buildings slated for demolition as “borderline” or “satisfactory,” further questioning the necessity of such drastic measures.

Ultimately, the levy represents a philosophical divide in the community: between those who believe more spending equals better education, and those who believe in doing more with less. Jamie Minniear and her husband Todd have galvanized a grassroots movement that champions responsible stewardship, local control, and student-centered priorities. Their campaign is not anti-education—it’s pro-accountability. They believe that rejecting this levy is the first step toward a broader conversation about what truly matters in public education. With Ben Nguyen on the ballot and a growing chorus of concerned citizens, Lakota voters have a chance to send a clear message: we support our schools, but we demand smarter solutions. On November 4, vote NO on the Lakota levy!

Rich Hoffman

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

Trump’s Big Beautiful Ballroom: Leading the world starting with real bathrooms

Of course, it’s been a suppression effort from the start, but that’s all behind us now.  Trump has torn down the East Wing of the White House and is building his Big Beautiful Ballroom, and Democrats are having a major meltdown over it.  But of course, the opposition isn’t about money, which the whole effort is being funded privately by Trump and his supporters; the goal is a continuation of what we have seen from Democrats going all the way back to the Clintons in the White House.  Remember when they would put sex toys on Christmas Trees when they were in the White House, and the scandal of them selling access to the Lincoln bedroom?  I’ve pointed it out here many times: the deliberate effort not to give speeches in the Oval Office and, as much as possible, to dethrone the role of the White House on the world stage, in their efforts to erase America and usher in the age of the global citizen.  Barack Obama was really obvious about taking as much of the Office of the White House —the role of the President of the United States — and diminishing it in the world, rather than propping it up.  And when we would point it out, it was called a conspiracy theory, a wild right-winged illusion!  But the truth has come out in the actions of Democrat presidents based on their behavior and their hatred of this Trump ballroom says it all, because it defies the logic of someone who wanted to be proud of their country.  It is conducive to someone who wants to see it destroyed.  And I say all this because my wife and I recently visited the White House, and I can report that the place is a lot different than when Biden was there. 

Remember when Biden would give speeches at that little film studio they did to replace the White House?  That was on purpose, to diminish the White House’s role in the world.  And they’ll tell you that much at the museum and visitors’ center for the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue, just to the east.  The White House was deliberately built small to avoid poking Europe in the eye.  We had built a nation that was throwing off the kingly role of government leadership, and the point was to downplay aristocracy as much as possible.  But we all knew what Trump was before we elected him.  Trump has always been about gold and showing off his winnings in the competitions of life.  And that’s one of the reasons we wanted him in the White House.  America was the world’s leading economy and offered the best opportunities for a good life to anyone who dared work for it.  And we wanted to inspire the world, not bend the knee to it, as Barack Obama had been doing.  When the White House was built, it was meant to send a message that Americans weren’t going to try to mimic the palaces of Europe, that America was planning to mind its own business, do the basic work of government, and retire to the countryside once the Executive jobs were done in the People’s House.  But that was a time when America was a new country trying to find its way.  What emerged defines the role of the White House, and it has needed something like a ballroom for a very long time.  Visiting the White House, nobody should be using a porta-potty for an important event. 

The new ballroom is over 90,000 square feet and costs around $300 million, with $200 million from private donors, including Trump himself.  Trump did get a legal settlement from YouTube for $22 million, which has gone toward the construction budget, so it’s a grand affair, being funded privately.  Certainly not by the taxpayers.  The goal is to have the ballroom finished by the end of Trump’s term in 2029.  The buzz out there says that only 25% of the public supports it, according to the Democrat suppression polls that are out there, which still hope to keep America in a state of depression.  That game is why Biden would speak at that weird little studio set rather than in and around the Oval Office.  They only used those traditional backgrounds when they had to.  But now everyone knows the game of suppression, that’s why Biden had people on his staff who would film themselves having sex in important buildings, a gay rights protestor was its spokesperson, the autopen became the real president that anybody could sign.  The decentralization of the White House was well at play during Biden’s term, which most reasonable people understand now was an overthrow of Trump’s first term.  And the point was to put him and the idea of a glorified and proud America out of the public eye.  And now, Trump is back and building a ballroom that would rival his private estate of Mar-a-Lago in Florida.  And it will be around for a long time.  It’s time that America stopped apologizing for being good and an inspiration to the downtrodden.  And start showing the world what adopting capitalism is all about, and why they should do it.  The ballroom should be their experience when visiting the White House, and when they leave, they should remember it for the rest of their lives. 

I recently sat down with a good friend of mine, Senator George Lang, and we talked about our years together fighting all kinds of issues.  His latest battle is one with stage 4 cancer, which many people consider a death sentence.  He doesn’t, and neither do I.  I think we have cures for cancer right now.  What we have is an oppressive healthcare system that wants people to die to rid the earth of their breathing presence.  And that same hatred is reflected in the attitude toward the White House.  Democrats want people sick and dependent.  And they want them to use the bathroom in a tent on the White House lawn when they visit.  But the senator and I agreed that we would celebrate him being cancer-free when we visited the White House together when the new ballroom opens, which tells you what he thinks about his chances of survival.  But by then, a lot will have changed for the better, and the White House improvements are just the cosmetic aspect of it.  America is learning to be what the world needs out of it.  And the bad guys who have been standing in the way are now getting run over.  So why appease them even slightly?  Why not build a grand ballroom with working bathrooms where people from around the world can come to the White House and be inspired to take capitalism home with them?  And George’s optimism about his own future isn’t rooted in blind sentiment and delusional hope, but in the facts of the matter.  Democrats have wanted American culture dead, and they certainly wanted to downplay the White House and its global significance.  We elected Trump to elevate the office because we didn’t like what Democrats had been doing to it during the Clinton years, during Obama’s time, and indeed when Joe Biden was inserted in as a stage puppet and his entire administration was run by consultants and public relations firms through the autopen.  As a country, we are turning away from all that, and the Trump Big Beautiful Ballroom is the result of that effort, which will usher in a whole new age for the world with America as the example of goodness, which is how it’s supposed to be.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Lakota Levy of 2025 is Just the First Step: Until there are conservatives on the school board, public schools will seek tax increases

I’m really proud of the interview I did with Senator George Lang just ahead of the election of 2025.  George, first and foremost, is a friend of mine, so I tend not to drag him into things I’m involved in, and when it comes to politics, he and I agree on most everything.  The only significant difference is that he tends to be more considerate of people than I am.  He gives the other side more of a voice than I think they deserve, because he’s a nice guy.  During our interview, when he said that he thinks of Lakota school board members Julie Shaffer and Kelly Casper as friendly people, I disagreed with him.  I think between the two of them at a drunken school board meeting out of town, you couldn’t find enough clothes to half-dress one mannequin in the back of a Dillard’s.  Lakota’s school board is very liberal, and those two individuals lead it, which is embarrassing.  And expensive.  But George is good to everyone.  He has his opinions, but he gives everyone a fair shake, and I often don’t get to show that to people.  Neither does he, as the Majority Whip of Ohio’s Senate, a significant position with considerable influence.  He knows that around me, he can be himself and that I won’t run off and talk about anything that we discuss privately.  It was pretty unique that I got to put him on camera and talk for an hour about everything, from the upcoming Lakota levy to his battles with stage 4 cancer.  However, to clear up some misconceptions people had about George and a donation he was shown giving for the pro-Lakota levy efforts, we conducted an interview together that I think was better than he could have achieved anywhere, by any modern media method, news outlet, or podcaster. 

The only people who do the level of interview at the level of what George and I did were someone like Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan, and I don’t think either of them could have done a better job.  George and I have known each other for several decades, but we had never sat down and just talked in front of the camera like that. What was captured was very useful to many people who wonder about various things.  I even asked George before the interview, “What’s off limits?  Is there anything you don’t want to talk about?”  He said quickly, “No, nothing, anything, and everything is on the table.”  So, we just talked like a couple of people and let others in to observe, and I was able to show them why I like George so much, even though he has evolved into a powerful politician and a prominent figure in Butler County politics.   And over the course of that interview, which was mainly about the upcoming Lakota levy, the most significant tax increase in the history of Ohio, I think he said a mouthful, which I completely agree with.  We all believe that the Lakota levy is going to crash and burn.  But don’t assume that this wasn’t their plan all along: to give the public a considerable blowout number and lose badly in an election.  Then, to say in the spring or summer that they listened to the public and came back with a reduced number.  Just because we defeated this levy in the 2025 election, it doesn’t mean it won’t come back in some form or another.  These public schools are only known for one thing: wasting tax money and asking the public for more, often on the back of property tax increases, to fund an overly progressive society. 

As George said, he thinks that the Lakota school board and its satellites, which include the treasurer and superintendent, are smart people.  I think what he calls “smart” is very maliciously manipulative, even evil.  But Genghis Khan was considered intelligent too, and so were most of the mass murderers of the world.  People thought that Jeffrey Dahmer was smart, even as he dismembered people in his kitchen and stored their remains in his refrigerator.  I would say that the Lakota school board members are very manipulative, which they have to be, given their liberal leanings.  Because people on the left often have to figure out how to get others to do things for them that they can’t do for themselves, they become pretty skilled at it over time.  However, as George and I reflected, this levy attempt is merely them dipping their toe in the water to see how the public reacts.  The details of that kind of election scope are why I think that interview is better than any other outlet could have pulled off, because we covered a lot of ground that most people would blank out after 15 minutes.  However, what we covered was essential to nearly every living, breathing human being, especially those residing in Butler County, Ohio.  It’s encouraging that in Butler County, an effective resistance to the Lakota tax increases has emerged in the No More Taxes group, which is fighting the Lakota levy.  And there are some really good people involved, and they have raised money not just for this levy, but for several upcoming ones as well.  However, for voters who have to show up and vote, they really need context on the scope of the problem.

So, how do we prevent more tax increases from being imposed in the future?  Well, don’t put liberals on the school board, and right now, there are four solid Democrats.  They call themselves other things to avoid the stigma of not being conservative in Butler County, but they are hard leftists on most policies.  And lefties love to waste money.  So, to stop wasting money, which Lakota already has a quarter of a billion dollar budget for a school, which I argue is just a dressed-up babysitting service, elect conservative school board members.  For this election, Ben Nguyen is the guy.  But in future elections, we need more people like Ben.  You need at least a three-vote majority, which we had for a while at Lakota.  And as soon as we didn’t, Lakota went for a tax increase.  That’s all they know to do—because they are liberals, and because liberals are never smart with money.  They might be manipulative, deceitful, scandalous, or monstrously unprincipled.  But they are spendthrifts who want to live off the efforts of others, starting with the real estate of Butler County.  Once Vivek Ramaswamy is the governor of Ohio next year, and Trump continues to dismantle the Department of Education and unleash the power of School Choice, all the public schools will have to change and do a lot more with less.  Their cost structure is significantly inflated due to their collective bargaining agreements, which stem from their union membership. We are all aware that unions often disrupt cost structures wherever they emerge, as they allow the mediocre to receive disproportionately high incomes.  And that is certainly the case at Lakota schools.  So, yes, the levy will likely fail in a big way on election day, provided people don’t sit on their hands and watch Netflix instead of voting.  People need to go out and vote.  But this is only step one.  People are going to have to dig in and fight to keep our taxes reasonably low until there is a new school board with conservatives on it.  Because, as sure as you are reading this, Lakota is planning the next levy, once the smoke clears from this one, because they have spent themselves into oblivion.  And only higher taxes can satisfy their never-ending hunger for more money to waste.

Rich Hoffman

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

John Bolton, and Many Others Need to Go To Jail: I would argue their punishment should be much worse

Of course, John Bolton should go to jail.  Trump put people like him in important positions during his first term to appease the never-Trumpers, and it didn’t work out.  And Bolton was given a good job —and a really important one —as National Security Advisor of the United States.  And what he did was take that job and abuse it to make Trump look bad personally.  He always intended to write a tell-all book, and he sent classified documents home to his wife and daughter for it while he was on the job. For that irresponsible and deeply political act, he needs to go to jail.  And I would argue, worse.  I think it’s a firing squad offense.  But Trump tried to bring in people like Bolton to do these jobs where there were better people out there.  And if Trump didn’t, we would probably still be dancing around the bowl with some of these guys.  But Bolton, like Clapper, Comey, Pelosi, Bill Barr, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, and a whole host of terrible people who played nice to his face but were detrimental backstabbers behind the scenes, openly plotted the destruction of our country.  What they did was far worse than Benedict Arnold’s betrayal of George Washington.  And Bolton committed his crime, thinking that there was no legal system on earth that would prosecute him.  It’s a little secret in the Beltway when you get out into the mansions of Fairfax, just a half hour or so outside the city on the other side of the Potomac.  They look at the executive that people put in the White House as something to wait out and overcome.  And laugh at them because of their lack of any real power.  This is where the idea of self-government, going back to the Bible’s Book of Judges, traces its roots.  How do you give someone the authority to run a society without denying the right to self-rule of the people who vote for people to represent them in high office?  In that ambiguity, people like John Bolton game the system for personal reasons, and they have been horrible for our country.

And notice how it goes, Bolton wrote a book about his classified information leaks, so it’s not like he can deny he did it.  There is plenty of evidence to indict him on.  I’ve been through that Grand Jury process, so I know what goes into prosecutors’ presentations of evidence to secure an indictment.  And for something like this, his book was the clear evidence.  But here’s the thing, and this is the trend of tomorrow: all this double-dipping and profiting off society’s scandals have to come to an end if we are going to lead the world as a capitalist nation.  And that is what is on the table.  It has been for years, but with Trump, we are talking about the first fundamental steps beyond a cosmetic effort at genuine self-governance.  How do you give through an election the power of an executive office to be effective while not trampling on people’s rights in the process?  John Bolton did not have the right to steal classified information for his book, then cry foul when he got caught, because he committed the crime with the “everybody does it defense.”  John Bolton must go to jail and pay for his crimes.  He needs his life destroyed.  But he’s not alone.  If you go to the Walmart out there at Tyson’s Corner in Fairfax, just down the road from the CIA, I would say 1 out of 4 people shopping there need to go to jail for their own abuses of the government for their personal profit.  The situation is that bad, and Trump and his team are just now beginning to clean it all up. 

Bolton lives about 10 miles from where I was talking about. I know how things go along that I-495 traffic pattern.  There are a lot of John Boltons out there, and when they are given opportunities to do good, they should.  If they choose to betray our country, then we must punish them to let others know what will happen to them under the same conditions.  And for clarity on this issue, it really helps people to have a good understanding of the Bible.  I really hate having conversations with people about the Bible where they immediately gravitate to the teachings of Jesus Christ.  That is usually because they haven’t read the Bible for themselves, but rather have just trusted some lazy pastor to translate it for them.  They might carry it around, but they never read it for what it is.  And in the stories of the Bible, there is the struggle for good government, whether on earth or in Heaven.  Even God has trouble with scandalous characters who betray him at every opportunity.  And the Bible struggles with this issue from cover to cover.  The tragedy of Jesus, and as some people say, the redemption is in the forgiveness of sin, as if to say, people will be people.  So let’s forgive them and move on.  Which is precisely why John Bolton thought he would get away with stealing classified documents and writing a book he hoped would make him rich, thanks to his access to the White House.  But in history, he is just one more Judas betraying someone trying to do something good.  It’s the exact nature as the Israelites worshiping Astaroth at the Temple with sex sacrifices until God punished them into worshipping only him, for their own good.  If not punished, they always strayed and betrayed, as many people do these days, because nobody ever wants the responsibility for punishing them. (1 Samual 7:4)

Bolton faces 18 felony counts related to the mishandling of classified information under the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. 793), specifically, eight counts of unlawful transmission of national defense information, for allegedly sending highly sensitive materials via personal email and messaging apps to unauthorized individuals.  This was learned about because the Iranians hacked his email account.  And we know that because we hacked Iran’s.  Then there are 10 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information, the keeping of classified documents, notes, and writings at his home.   He then used this information to write the book The Room Where It Happened, which was released in 2020, and the only defense Bolton had was that the Biden administration didn’t prosecute him because his book was cleared by the FBI before it was released.  Everyone learned about the Iranians hacking his account in 2021.  But since the government was decidedly anti-Trump at the time under the Biden administration, the authorities appear to have wanted Bolton to write a tell-all book negative about Trump to impact the next election cycle and solidify Trump’s exile from public office.  They never thought Trump would be back, or that people would vote for him as popularly as they did.  So they broke a lot of laws, betrayed our country in the worst ways possible, and felt free to shop at Walmart at Tyson’s Corner and buy $400 televisions for their oversized mancaves without a care in the world about their crimes.  So yes, he needs to be punished, along with many thousands of others who are just as bad, and they all have it coming.  And this is where forgiveness is not the correct method of justice.  Because if we turn the other cheek, they’ll just keep doing these evil acts.  I think our wrath has to draw inspiration from the Old Testament.  God would approve.

Rich Hoffman

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