Category: Computers

The Heart to Take Away Hearts: Taking a stand against mediocrity in Ohio

The 2025 redistricting process in Ohio has emerged as a pivotal moment in the broader national battle over congressional control, with implications that stretch far beyond the Buckeye State. On October 31, the Ohio Redistricting Commission unanimously approved a new congressional map that shifts the balance of power decisively toward Republicans, giving them a projected 12-3 advantage across the state’s 15 districts. This outcome was the result of a tense, behind-the-scenes negotiation between Republican and Democratic leaders, including Governor Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Auditor Keith Faber, and legislative appointees like Rep. Brian Stewart and Sen. Jane Timken. Democrats on the commission—Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio and House Minority Leader Dani Isaacsohn—reluctantly supported the map, citing the threat of a more extreme 13-2 GOP-dominated map if negotiations failed. The new map redraws key battlegrounds: Rep. Greg Landsman’s OH-1 district now leans Republican (54%-47%), Marcy Kaptur’s OH-9 shifts to a 54.5%-45.5% GOP tilt, while Emilia Sykes’ OH-13 becomes slightly more Democratic at 52%-48%. These changes reflect a broader national trend, where Republican-led states, such as Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina, have aggressively redrawn maps to consolidate power, often under direct encouragement from President Donald Trump. Ohio’s redistricting, however, was not entirely unilateral; constitutional reforms passed in 2015 and 2018 required bipartisan approval for maps to remain valid for a full decade. The compromise avoided a costly referendum that could have frozen the existing 10-5 map and delayed the 2026 primaries, potentially costing taxpayers $50 million.

The political personalities behind Ohio’s redistricting drama reflect the ideological fault lines within the Republican Party itself. Senator Bernie Moreno, a staunch Trump ally, predicted early on that Ohio Republicans would push for a map that reduced Democrats to just two seats. His comments echoed the sentiments of Rep. Warren Davidson and State Senator George Lang, both of whom have expressed frustration with what they perceive as excessive compromise with Democrats. Davidson’s own district, OH-8, has long been a textbook case of gerrymandering, stretching from Troy to majority-minority communities in Hamilton County, effectively diluting Democratic votes. Lang, known for his “business-first” approach, has remained relatively quiet on the specifics of redistricting but is widely seen as aligned with the GOP’s strategic goals. Secretary of State Frank LaRose, meanwhile, played a key role in supporting the bipartisan map, arguing that it reflected Ohio’s political geography and avoided a chaotic referendum fight backed by “dark money special interests”. His stance, however, has drawn criticism from grassroots activists and legal watchdogs, many of whom argue that the map remains a gerrymandered artifact of one-party rule. Former Attorney General Eric Holder, chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, called the map “a gerrymander placed on top of another gerrymander,” though he acknowledged it preserved Democratic incumbents’ ability to compete.  And when you get a compliment from Eric Holder, you are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

Nationally, Ohio’s redistricting fits into a broader pattern of mid-decade map manipulation driven by Trump’s directive to Republican governors and legislatures. Texas led the charge, redrawing its map to flip five Democratic seats, followed by Missouri and North Carolina, each adding one GOP-leaning district. Ohio’s shift adds two more Republican-leaning districts to the national tally, bringing the potential GOP gain to nine seats before the 2026 midterms. Democrats have responded in kind: California passed Proposition 50, a ballot measure allowing the legislature to redraw its map to add five Democratic seats, countering Texas’s move. Virginia and Illinois are also considering redistricting maneuvers, while states like Indiana and Florida have begun legislative discussions under pressure from Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. The redistricting arms race has triggered lawsuits, referendums, and constitutional amendments across the country, with the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on the Voting Rights Act poised to reshape the landscape further. In this context, Ohio’s 12-3 map is seen by many Republicans as a strategic win, while Democrats view it as a defensive maneuver to preserve viability in key districts. The bipartisan nature of Ohio’s deal, although rare, underscores the high stakes and complex trade-offs involved in redistricting under the Trump-era political landscape, which is a good thing.  The Trump White House understands the situation.

Ultimately, Ohio’s redistricting saga reveals the tension between political pragmatism and ideological purity. Democrats like Dani Isaacsohn and Nickie Antonio have defended their votes as necessary to preserve competitive districts and avoid a worse outcome, even as activists accuse them of capitulation. Republicans, meanwhile, remain divided between hardliners like Moreno and Davidson, who favor aggressive gerrymandering, and institutionalists like DeWine and LaRose, who prioritize stability and legal defensibility. The map itself, while favoring Republicans, does not guarantee outcomes; Democrats have won in GOP-leaning districts before, and the 2026 midterms will test the durability of these new boundaries. What’s clear is that redistricting has become a central battlefield in the fight for congressional control, with Ohio playing a critical role in shaping the national narrative. As Trump’s second term unfolds, and as Democrats mobilize to counteract GOP gains, the redistricting wars will continue to define the contours of American democracy. Whether Ohio’s compromise map proves to be a tactical success or a strategic misstep remains to be seen—but it has already become a case study in the politics of power, representation, and the enduring struggle between exceptionalism and mediocrity.

The fundamental flaw in compromising with Democrats during redistricting—especially under the guise of fairness—is that it inadvertently empowers the very mediocrity that exceptional societies must resist. While it may appear noble or politically sophisticated to preserve all viewpoints and accommodate ideological diversity, the reality is that mediocrity, when institutionalized, becomes a corrosive force. It stifles innovation, suppresses excellence, and erodes the competitive spirit that drives societal advancement. Democrats, often aligned with collectivist ideologies like socialism and Marxism, have historically championed policies that prioritize equality of outcome over merit-based achievement. In doing so, they mask mediocrity as compassion, and fairness becomes a Trojan horse for cultural stagnation. When Republicans yield ground in the name of bipartisanship, they risk legitimizing this mediocrity and weakening the foundations of a high-performing society. Authentic leadership demands the courage to elevate exceptionalism—not dilute it. Redistricting is not merely a cartographic exercise; it is a strategic opportunity to shape the future. If Republicans fail to assert dominance when the political terrain allows it, they may find themselves governed by the very forces they sought to contain. The Ohio map, while a tactical win, reflects a deeper philosophical hesitation—a reluctance to confront mediocrity head-on. And in that hesitation lies the danger of losing the war for cultural and political excellence.  So, while many think it was good to play nice with Democrats, the danger lies in compromise when standards are set and social norms are established.  A failure to take away the heart of mediocrity in a society advancing for greatness might appear to have a merit of its own.  However, in the context of achievement, it undermines the very foundation of excellence we strive for.  And in going forward with these mechanisms of government strategy, when you get a chance to put your foot on the throat of the enemy and put them out of existence, we should do it. Playing fair with Democrats if it brings down your entire society is not a good thing.  It might make those lunches with colleagues more approachable, less tense.  However, by letting mediocrity prevail over logic, nobody is enjoying a better life under the influence of compromise.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Hidden Game: How Sports Betting is Giving Power to the Mob and the NFL

This is a story that quickly disappeared: the NBA gambling scandal.  However, one of the great things about money is that it reveals a lot about the people who want it. In the gambling world, where easy money is a prospect for those who are lazy, the character of all endeavors is relatively easy to reveal.  And it’s not just the NBA; I would say the rigged games in favor of betting odds are much worse in the NFL.  In the age of legalized sports betting, the question isn’t just who will win the game—it’s whether the game itself is being played fairly. As billions of dollars flow through betting platforms and fantasy leagues, the integrity of professional sports is under more scrutiny than ever. Recent scandals in the NBA and questionable officiating in the NFL have reignited concerns that games may be influenced not just by athletic performance, but by money, power, and even organized crime.

The NBA was rocked by a recent FBI investigation led by Kash Patel, which exposed a network of players and insiders allegedly involved in illegal gambling activities. The scandal implicated figures like Chauncey Billups, Terry Rozier, and Damon Jones, who were accused of sharing confidential injury information to manipulate betting outcomes. The scheme reportedly involved rigged poker games backed by mafia families and the use of cheating technologies like altered shuffling machines and hidden cameras.

This wasn’t just a case of players making side bets—it resembled insider trading. Athletes and coaches acted as “tippers,” passing non-public information to bettors who profited from the edge. The FBI’s involvement underscores the seriousness of the issue and suggests that this may be just the beginning of a broader crackdown.

The idea that sports can be rigged isn’t new. The infamous 1919 Black Sox scandal involved eight Chicago White Sox players who were accused of throwing the World Series in exchange for money from gamblers. Pete Rose, one of baseball’s greatest hitters, was banned for betting on games while managing the Cincinnati Reds, even back then.  These days, it can only be thought to be much, much worse.

In the NBA, referee Tim Donaghy admitted to betting on games he officiated and providing inside information to mob-connected bookies. His case revealed how easily a single official could influence the outcome of a match through foul calls, clock management, and momentum shifts.

Organized crime families like the Genovese, Gambino, Lucchese, and Bonanno have long used sports betting as a tool for money laundering and manipulation. With the legalization of sports betting in many states, the opportunities for corruption have only grown.  And would a referee be inclined to rig a game through penalties to cover a margin?  I would think the answer is an emphatic yes, and that it’s a problem that the NFL itself has very little control over.  Players aren’t welcomingly encouraged to criticize the referees.  They may disagree with the calls, but if they want to play the game, they have to honor the game within the game—the sports betting that is the real fuel for the industry. 

While basketball and baseball have their own vulnerabilities, the NFL may be the most susceptible sport to manipulation. Why? Because of the nature of clock management and the subjective power of referees.

In football, a single penalty can stop the clock, reverse a touchdown, or shift field position dramatically. Referees have enormous discretion in calling holding, pass interference, and roughing the passer—penalties that can change the momentum of a game in seconds.

A recent study from the University of Texas at El Paso found that referees disproportionately favor teams with large fan bases, such as the Dallas Cowboys and Kansas City Chiefs. This bias isn’t necessarily intentional, but it reflects the subtle pressures officials face in high-stakes environments.

One of the most glaring examples of potential manipulation came during the Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ matchup against the Detroit Lions. Tampa Bay, a team that had been gaining momentum and sitting at 4-1, faced a Detroit team also vying for NFC dominance.

The game was riddled with controversial calls:

• A missed tripping penalty on Baker Mayfield, who was clearly impeded while scrambling.

• A fourth-down catch by Cade Otton that was reviewed twice—despite NFL rules prohibiting double reviews.

• A reversal of a completed catch into a turnover on downs.

• Multiple missed defensive holding calls and phantom illegal contact penalties.

Mayfield, known for his competitive fire, publicly criticized the officiating, saying, “I work my ass off… when things I don’t deem are fair, I’m going to let somebody know.”

These calls didn’t just affect the scoreboard—they disrupted Tampa Bay’s rhythm, shifted momentum, and arguably changed the outcome of the game. For fans who know their team well, the inconsistencies were glaring.

The NFL is a multi-billion-dollar entertainment empire. When one team dominates the standings early in the season, it can lead to reduced viewer engagement and betting activity. A close, competitive playoff race keeps fans watching, betting, and spending.

If Tampa Bay had continued its winning streak, it could have created a lopsided picture in the NFC. By slowing their momentum—intentionally or not—the league maintains parity and keeps the narrative exciting. This benefits advertisers, sportsbooks, and the league itself.

Legalized betting has created a new layer of influence. Referees, who earn significantly less than star players, may be more susceptible to corruption. Even if the league itself isn’t orchestrating outcomes, individual officials could be incentivized to make calls that favor betting interests.

At some point, fans must ask: Is the NFL a sport or a scripted entertainment product?

Like professional wrestling, where outcomes are predetermined to maximize drama, the NFL may be leaning into narrative manipulation. Injuries, rivalries, and comeback stories make for compelling television—but when officiating inconsistencies align too neatly with betting odds, it raises eyebrows.

This doesn’t mean every game is rigged. Players still compete fiercely, and many games are decided by skill and strategy. However, the influence of money, media, and betting creates an environment where manipulation is not only possible but also profitable.

Legal sportsbooks have helped uncover scandals, such as the lifetime ban of NBA player Jontay Porter for betting violations. But they also create conflicts of interest. Integrity monitors like Sportradar and Genius Sports are financially tied to the leagues they’re supposed to oversee.

Betting is now embedded in broadcasts, apps, and team partnerships. Fans are encouraged to wager on everything from coin tosses to player stats. This normalization of gambling makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish between sport and speculation.

Despite these challenges, some teams still manage to win. Tampa Bay, led by Baker Mayfield and a strong coaching staff, has shown resilience. Even when calls go against them, they find ways to compete.

But it’s harder. When referees disrupt momentum, call phantom penalties, or ignore obvious infractions, it forces teams to play not just against their opponents—but against the system itself.

Professional sports are no longer just games—they’re entertainment products shaped by money, media, and betting interests. Fans must approach them with a critical eye, understanding that while the athleticism is real, the forces behind the scenes may not be.

The NBA scandal is a wake-up call. The NFL’s officiating inconsistencies are a warning. And the rise of legalized betting is a game-changer.

Enjoy the games. Cheer for your team. But remember: the real game is always happening off the field.

Rich Hoffman

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

Bill Gates Walks Back Climate Alarmism: A Reckoning Years in the Making

Even if Trump is playing nice with Bill Gates these days, I’m still firmly in the camp where the Microsoft founder needs to be in jail for all that he did.  I remember it well, and I reported it here in a way that no other news outlet in the world did at the time, as it was happening.  Even Rush Limbaugh was slow to see what was happening.  But I said that it was a scam the day that Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci walked into the Oval Office and told President Trump to shut down the economy in the United States, which he did for a few weeks.  But by then, the damage had been done, and lots of very liberal governors of states had taken the sucker bait and followed, and it was really terrible.  Bill Gates needs to pay for his very active role in creating that crisis.  Created I say because we know that Covid was created by gain of function research to jump to hosts in ways that nature does not provide, so it was a bioweapon that had roots running into the DOD that Dr. Fauci knew all about and a lot of people died as a result of this virus that was created in a Chinese lab and let loose in the world on purpose, not by accident.  All the evidence points in that direction, and Bill Gates was one of the key insiders involved in the whole tragedy.  Few figures have polarized public opinion in the 21st century like Bill Gates. Once hailed as a visionary technologist and philanthropist, Gates’ role during the COVID-19 pandemic and his aggressive climate activism have drawn intense scrutiny. However, politics have changed significantly over the last five years, and now Gates realizes he has been excluded from almost everything, and he wants to get back in.  So he has been groveling to President Trump and is starting to walk back his ridiculous climate change proposals, which is quite extraordinary considering his level of tyrannical commitment.  He tried to rearrange our entire society.  So any walk back from him is astonishing, and very telling.  Now, in late 2025, Gates has released a memo that marks a significant shift in his stance on climate change—one that critics argue is a strategic retreat rather than a genuine change of heart.

In October 2025, Gates published a 17-page memo ahead of the COP30 climate summit in Brazil. In it, he argued that climate change, while profound, is not the apocalyptic threat many activists claim. He emphasized that:

• Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise.”

• The focus should shift from temperature targets to improving human welfare.

• Investments should prioritize poverty, disease, and economic development over emissions reduction

This pivot was immediately seized upon by climate skeptics and political figures, including President Donald Trump, who declared on Truth Social:

“I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue.”

Despite the celebratory tone from skeptics, Gates pushed back, calling Trump’s interpretation a “gigantic misreading.” He reaffirmed his belief that climate change is a serious issue, but argued that the “doomsday outlook” has led to the misallocation of resources.

“Every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives.”

Gates’ reputation suffered a significant blow during the COVID-19 pandemic. His advocacy for lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and digital surveillance tools, such as Microsoft Teams, was seen by many as overreach. Critics argue that Gates, alongside Dr. Anthony Fauci, played a central role in shaping a global response that devastated economies and civil liberties.

• Gates was accused of using the pandemic to push a technocratic agenda.

• His ties to gain-of-function research and vaccine monopolies raised ethical concerns.

• Public trust in Gates plummeted, with many calling for accountability and even criminal charges.

Climate Change: From Alarmism to Adaptation

Gates’ climate activism has long centered on achieving net-zero emissions. His 2021 book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster laid out a roadmap for decarbonization. But in 2025, Gates now argues that:

• The worst-case scenarios are no longer plausible.

• Technological innovation has already begun reducing emissions.

• Economic growth and health infrastructure are better defenses against climate impacts.

This shift aligns more closely with Elon Musk’s pragmatic approach to climate and energy—focusing on innovation rather than regulation.

Gates’ recent dinner with President Trump lasted over three hours and reportedly focused on global health, innovation, and pandemic preparedness.  While Gates has criticized Trump’s cuts to USAID, he appears to be recalibrating his public posture to remain relevant in a political landscape increasingly dominated by populist skepticism of climate alarmism.

One of the most striking elements of Gates’ memo is his implicit endorsement of adaptation over mitigation. He suggests that humanity has the tools to thrive—even in a warming world. This echoes broader conversations about terraforming Mars and using technology to reshape environments, rather than surrendering to climate fatalism.

Critics argue that Gates’ technocratic worldview—where unelected billionaires shape global policy—poses a threat to democracy. The COVID response and climate mandates are seen as examples of how centralized control can override individual freedoms.

“You can’t let tyrants rule. You have to have market pressures and competitive elections to check power.” Rich Hoffman

Bill Gates’ pivot on climate change is not just a policy shift—it’s a reckoning. It reflects the limits of technocratic influence and the resilience of democratic accountability. Whether Gates is genuinely rethinking his views or simply repositioning himself politically, the public response underscores a broader demand for transparency, humility, and checks on power.  If we had not elected Trump and put him back in office, people like Bill Gates would be running the world right now.  A lot of hard lessons were learned, and we are a lot better off now than we were. Trump is the kind of person who can keep everyone close, allowing him to negotiate effectively with them.  I think it’s very appropriate that President Trump is taking credit for this issue with Gates.  He could do a lot more to embarrass the techno geek.  However, this is a powerful position for Gates and the Climate Change hoax in general.  The world is not coming to an end because of artificial intelligence.  We could terraform the entire planet if we want to, as we are planning to do in other places around the solar system as we speak.  For Gates, it was always about control.  He wanted to control the management of the human race through techno tyranny, and he played President Trump as a sucker who trusted him during his first term.  So Gates has a lot of embarrassment coming.  And I would argue that there would be a lot of jail time.  However, his admission is a significant development and a major shift in the world toward a much stronger economy.  The walls on this ridiculous control mechanism are coming down, and people like Gates have lost power because of our free elections in America.  That’s why managing elections is so important; you can’t trust anybody to do anything right.  And if you don’t have secure polls or a way to elect someone like Trump to office, and Bill Gates clearly didn’t think that such a thing was possible, and that he’d get away with everything because he had enough money to insulate himself from that grim discovery, then these people will always threaten the entire human race.  In this case, due to the Trump election, we dodged a major catastrophe, and we should feel pretty good about Bill Gates walking back his previous statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

Republicans Played Too Nicely in the Election of 2025: Who to blame in the West Chester Trustee race

It is a bit surprising to listen to everyone’s post-election analysis, where they think Democrats did a lot better than they actually did.  In West Chester, Ohio, there is a lot of chest beating that Democrats found themselves in a lot of seats, especially the West Chester Trustee position, where I went to bed feeling like my guy, Mark Welch, the incumbent who has done a good job, came in third in a six-person race for two spots, was going to win.  There was a Trojan horse effect there, where the average person didn’t know who the Democrats were.  In the West Chester race, that certainly would be the case.  Mark was a Republican-endorsed candidate, but there wasn’t much advertising for the Democrats running, as they hoped to slip under the radar without the general public knowing who they were.  I still felt Mark was strong enough to win anyway.  I might have had disagreements with the way that Republicans set themselves up for this election.  But I wasn’t surprised by anything in Virginia, New York, or California.  Where Republicans ran away from President Trump, Republicans lost to Democrats, and it’s pretty much that simple.  Republicans, the same old Never Trump types, a year after his magnificent election, tried to go it alone, and they lost.  I hear a lot of analysis, and they are all mostly missing the point.  The Republican Party traditionalists still don’t want to admit what MAGA America really is.  The West Chester race, like the Lakota levy issue, truly captured a national sentiment worth mentioning.  I’ve spoken to Mark, and he’ll have the opportunity to do many great things.  Meanwhile, West Chester was warned what electing a bunch of Democrats would do, which is what the Lakota school board has been experiencing.  And people are going to have to learn some hard lessons. 

But here’s the deal.  While I support and endorse various candidates, and I certainly did endorse Mark Welch, I disagreed with the “niceness” campaign.  Mark is a nice guy, but everyone has to remember he won as a Tea Party conservative, and the Republican Party at that time was led in that effort by a scrappy George Lang, who when pressed can be pretty ruthless to those he runs against.  It was the Tea Party types who went out and fought to put Mark on the Board of Trustees of one of the most successful communities in America, and he has been great in that position.  Over time, people have forgotten what it took to get there and what it takes to keep a community great.  New York is going through that same cycle. Over time, people get complacent when things are stable for a long time, and they dare to make changes that might sound “nicer.”  And when it comes to me and many political people, there are always these tagalongs who aren’t very savvy, and they certainly don’t like me.  When I see Mark at an event and speak to him, there are always those who swoop in after me and ask him why he gives me the time of day.  There are lots of whispers in the ears of some of these people who want to believe that the world is something other than what it is, and that I should not have a place in it.  But I’ll tell you what, if I were managing Mark Welch’s campaign, he wouldn’t have lost.  I would have advised him to be a lot more competitive and a less smiling, more angry, Mark.  The belief was that Mark needed to get Democrats to vote for him, so he needed to be more like Lee Wong, whom conservatives thought of as safe to vote for, but who would undoubtedly receive a bleed over of Democrat votes.  The belief was that in West Chester, if you wanted to win the trustee seat, Democrats would have to step over and vote for Mark. 

But in truth, as it was everywhere in the country, it’s the MAGA base that supports Trump that everyone had to tap into.  Because even there, there are already Democrats who have left the party and are voting for Republicans because of Trump.  So, in Mark’s case, and this is the fault of all those people who whisper in his ear when I leave the room, playing “keep away” with these office seats is not the way to win.  Democrats are trying to sneak under the door, and Republicans are trying not to look too mean to win over Democrats.  When the real desire is for MAGA Republicans to grow in number, and people in West Chester would have loved to know that Mark was much more MAGA than just being a nice guy incumbent.  The reason why Mark didn’t pull out one of the two top spots was engagement.  The MAGA people, the old Tea Party types, weren’t excited about this election cycle, so they stayed home.  And Democrats were desperate for relevancy, so they worked the polls, mailed out their mailers, knocked on doors, and tried to sneak under the door wherever possible so people wouldn’t know who they were.  Mark worked hard, but the people around him were on their heels, and that was obvious.  They were on cruise control and wanted him to play keep away, to not do anything that might steer away those Democrats that they are so afraid of. 

This year, more than other years, I have been doing a lot of video coverage of important political figures, not because I’m some radical right winged maniac, as those people who were whispering to Mark criticisms toward him for even talking to me, but because I know what I’m talking about and I always know how to handle these kinds of things with an excellent track record.  If someone listens to me, they will have a significantly better chance of winning their issue, regardless of who they are.  I’m so good at it that lots of people want to pay me a lot of money to do it, but I look down my nose at that kind of business, because I don’t respect people who take money for something that is essentially part of our republican form of government.  It should be a labor of love, in my opinion, not something you profit from.  So I already don’t respect a lot of those types of people who are critical of me.  Everything gets back to me, so I know who those people are.  And I think so little of them that I don’t even waste my time speaking with them at a lot of those events.  I see them as a waste of time.  They don’t understand the game, and they don’t respect the people who vote.  They are busy trying to make the world into what it isn’t.  Because they like Democrats secretly, and they don’t want to fight them, they want to get along with them.  I advocate destroying them.  Why wouldn’t you want to destroy people who are trying to ruin our civilization?  And I understand that a lot of the people I’m talking about don’t think of things on a vast scale for the actuality of existence.  That’s the only way I think.  So do I care if they find my outlook repulsive? Absolutely not.  I see them as a waste of time, and they have a lot to learn about life.  And when they give bad advice, as they certainly have been, don’t be surprised when your guy loses.  Republicans lost in races they could have won because they were too nice to Democrats.  And it’s that simple. 

Rich Hoffman

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

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

Doug Horton in His Own Words: The Joy of Taking a Shower in Liberal Tears

I’m not the kind of person who spikes the football.  However, just before the Lakota levy attempt in 2025, school board member Doug Horton posted a video (shown here) where he emphasized the last levy won by Lakota back in 2013.  That was a swipe at me personally, so I have to address it, specifically.  He also indicated another Democrat talking point that has been circulating for many years, and that is that I, and about a dozen other anti-levy people, are a vociferous minority who do not represent the rest of the community.  So his message is not to listen to us and vote for his monstrous tax proposal because we love children.  However, these days, many more than a dozen people are opposed to the Lakota tax spending addictions.  And there are a lot more than I who take a position and help out during these political campaigns.  In this case, I had very little to do with the official campaign.  I do the things I always do, but with many more people working on the campaign, and they are brilliant and organized individuals.  And I’m proud of the great work they did.  And that effort is only going to grow in the future, especially with a successful defeat of the Lakota levy, the first one since 2013, which barely, and I mean barely, squeaked by.  Back then, it was Sheriff Jones who stepped over the line to support the public school teachers because he was still mad at the Tea Party effort to make public sector unions illegal in Ohio, which was the side I was on.  It was due to Sheriff Jones’ support that the 2013 levy passed by just a tiny bit, and another hasn’t passed since then. 

And why should a levy pass? It’s not like the community isn’t giving Lakota enough money.  They have a budget of over a quarter of a billion dollars per year, and for their collective bargaining contracts, that’s not enough for their insatiable desires.  It took about a decade, but Sheriff Jones and I are mostly on the same page, and that’s how the ball bounces in politics.  And for this levy attempt, and any others that Lakota proposes in a declining enrollment district with education changing dramatically in the years to come, that’s how it’s going to be.  This leaves people like Doug Horton on the extreme outside, and because he made the statements he did, we must address his point of view as a costly school board member and as a proper representative of the poor management currently on the board.  For many years, we had something of a conservative on the board who worked with everyone to keep more taxes off the ballot.  We even managed to get a majority on the board to control costs, which Horton referred to.  And I found some of his comments incredibly out of touch, especially regarding Darby Boddy, the conservative school board member whom Lakota, as an organization, lobbied hard to remove, literally the moment she was sworn in.  If Doug Horton is worried about Lakota headlines not being negative in the national media, then don’t support superintendents who have sex fests on Craigslist and tell the police that he fantasized about engaging with children who were going to the school at the time.  Horton proposes ignoring the problems so they can receive good press, pass tax increases, and gloss over trouble for the greater good of the school brand, which is a kind of fake sentiment that is at the heart of many problems when raising children.  A topic we could spend many books writing about, given its incorrect point of view. 

Doug Horton and many others in the background have worked hard to destabilize the school board so that they could get rid of the conservatives and essentially get to this big facilities plan, which has been in the planning phase since Trump’s last term, a very long time.  And they believed that if only they had enough liberals on the school board, the community would pass the levy.  And my thoughts have been for a long time to let them have the school board, let them try to run a levy, and let that levy crash and burn when they find out just how many people in the community are against them, many more than just a dozen or so.  In the case of this levy, the defeat was even more than I thought; it lost 60% to 39%.  I thought our side might get into the high 50s.  I was impressed to see it hit 60 in a down-year election, where engagement was naturally low.  It was actually a good simulation of what we expect Lakota to do next, and that is try to slide another levy under the door in May when people want to forget about school and turnout is low, or in August when nobody is thinking about politics.  Turnout was not very vigorous for this election, and still, Lakota lost massively, so that’s a good start for the tax defenders.  And it proves something even more profound that I knew we had to get to once we essentially kicked the control of the school board over to the liberals.  They needed to see what I’ve been telling them all along, which they obviously pay attention to, because Doug Horton essentially announced it to the world as a matter of fact.  People are not with them; they are against them in massive ways.  And they never believed it because they don’t speak to people outside their social circles, which are proportionally very small. 

The biggest problem with our conservative majority is that we let them play the game of division; they got our people all fighting each other with the belief that, in the vacuum, they would regain power and win the hearts of the public.  And Doug Horton does represent the rest of the board, especially Julie Shaffer and Kelly Casper, in his point of view, and that is the public would spend money on their dumb ideas if only I weren’t around, or a dozen or so noisy people, which they have justified to themselves as a small minority.  What reality says, however, is that those voices represent a majority of the Butler County population, and as I said would happen, when given a chance to talk, they would voice their opinion at the ballot box.  And they did, they crushed the Lakota levy.  I don’t think about it too much, but when I see videos like his, it’s a grotesque reminder of just how stupid some of these people are, and it really makes me sick that they are my neighbors.  I’ve lived in the area longer than most of these pro-levy types have been alive, and I will be around long after all of them are gone.  To me, they are the unwelcome noise of a thriving community, where people come from other places and bring their misguided ideas with them, which are socially very destructive.  But when things get tough, I like to let people show what they have, and he certainly did.  And rather than warn them not to pass a levy, I’m fine to let them try, which they did.  And what I said would happen, happened.  And it was because a lot more than a dozen people got information to the voters that helped them make the right decision.  And the amount of support we have had in that effort has grown over the years; it hasn’t declined.  The real solution lies in young people like Ben Nguyen, who was just elected to the school board, and I think will bring many good ideas with him, along with healthy and intelligent debate.  And we’ll need about three or four more like him to push off all these ridiculous liberals.  But first, they had to be exposed for what they were.  And they have, so now it’s time for a lot more work, focusing on school board building rather than defending our property values against those who are clearly out of touch and not very smart.

Rich Hoffman

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

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

The Lakota Levy of 2025 Goes Down in Flames: How the rest of the country looks ahead of the Midterms

There weren’t too many surprises in the elections of 2025, locally or nationally.  The trend of the country can best be stated in the Lakota school levy of 2025, where their $500 million proposal to tear down a bunch of buildings and replace them with new ones for really no reason told the story of voter sentiment.  While it might seem wise not to get too excited about election results ahead of the midterms, so as not to take the edge off voter engagement, because you want to inspire your side to go and vote, the races around the rest of the country told the story very well.  In areas like New York, Virginia, California, and New Jersey, the never Trumpers were trying to go it alone and win elections without Trump, and we saw where that got everyone.  Predictable losses, and as for Mamdani in the New York mayor race, that is a trend happening in a lot of mature areas where open communism has been taught through the public school system, and people have become complacent to the economic math, and susceptible to free stuff.  That was certainly the case in West Chester where I live regarding the trustee race there.  West Chester has been very successful and people turned to the hard left in what they think is compassion.  But it says more about community cycles than it does the real place voters reside, as an average.  And for that, the Lakota levy, with a very vigilant beat, says where most of the country stands, and the way they will vote in the upcoming Midterms.  As to Trump’s warning that Democrats will win if Republicans don’t learn to play hardball, he’s right.  But voters want to vote for hard-hitting winners, and the Democrats have put the loser label on their own party.

The shutdown by the Democrats tells that whole story of what they know about themselves.  It was a desperate attempt to out-leverage Trump, and they have lost in a big way there, making it Democrats who wouldn’t pay for military troops, or SNAP benefits.  The grotesque nature of giving away free things to desperate or overly comfortable people doesn’t have the appeal that it used to.  People as a whole have shown that they want MAGA Republicans, not Dick Cheney Republicans.  The more MAGA, the better, which paves a clear path for the upcoming Midterms.  In the chess game of redistricting the maps of states to pick up more seats for Republicans, or whether Democrats can do the same in California, or other places, the lesson is, people are people and Democrats can’t win if they don’t cheat.  They just don’t have the numbers.  The final votes for the Lakota levy were 60,81% against, to 39.1% for, which is a good sampling of where the entire country is on the Midterm sweep.  While the Lakota levy is a public school sample that is regional, the assumption of how Democrats might leverage their position is reflective of national politics and the general demographics.  I have said many times that if you take away the cheating, Democrats are likely only 25% of the country.  The rest of the country, 75% of whom agree on most things, just want to see things not get in their way.  Democrats in the Lakota school district assumed that more people were with them because they only speak to their social networks.  So they overestimated their chances.  They are in a state of denial, just as they were over the Schumer Shutdown, that their ability to give away free stuff would get them more votes without the help of election fraud and illegal immigration.  But that hasn’t turned out to be the case.

Welcome to the Doug Horton Lakota School Board

One of the dangers of a thriving community, such as what we have in the Lakota school system, where people from all over the country want to move to it to enjoy its success, it’s the same kind of reason that New York City has a lot of diverse people and when you break things down to a lot of choices, such as what it was for the West Chester trustee race where everyone running only obtained around 20% of the vote it captures in people the indecision that they feel when given a choice based on the spectrum of sentiment that people possess.  But when it’s a single issue where it’s either good or bad, as in the case of the Lakota levy, then the decision is a lot clearer.  People are messy, and when Democrats recruit them to their cause, they have numerous entry points of value.  But even with an infusion of people moving into a region from all over the country, which is certainly the case with the Lakota school district, it’s still the mature residents who have always been in the region that hold the cultural power of maintaining an area’s value.  And that will be the case nationally for the Midterms.  Whatever hopes that Democrats have gained through cheating the system, with illegal immigration, shut down extortion, mail-in voting fraud, any way they could utilize to close the gaps just don’t work when it forces them actually to perform.  When people are given a choice, as in the Lakota levy, there is no playing nice with the other side; people will decisively pick the winner, which is a lesson all Republicans should utilize. 

A big mouth who wants big taxes

Just as in the concessions on the redrawing of the congressional map in Ohio were promoted as a good thing for all sides involved, playing nice isn’t going to win elections.  And playing nice with Democrats in Ohio over the congressional map isn’t going to help win the Midterms.  Trump is right, and Republicans need to learn from him.  When they try to play nice, they lose, to the many ways that Democrats cheat, even if the fraud is in packing high-density areas with demographics that might be inclined to socialism, such as in New York, and even in West Chester, Ohio.  But since the number of actual Democrats isn’t a very high proportion, as shown in the very diverse community of Lakota schools, where a vast amount of the population is represented, and when given a real choice, will pick the winning message, even if it’s not the popular message, but the winning one.  That is how Trump won in 2024, and that is how the Midterms will be won, and voters will pick in favor of the Republicans, if the GOP doesn’t get into all this playing nice stuff.  The only side that benefits from playing nice is the Democrats.  They are always vulnerable because they are the minority in situations involving physical confrontations.  They win when Republicans play fair and friendly.  It’s part of their fraud mechanism.  And if there was anything to learn from this 2025 election, it’s that, where Trump was not on the ticket, Republicans lost.  Where GOP politics ran away from Trump, as they certainly did in Virginia, Republicans didn’t perform well.  Playing nice only feeds Democrats and their chances.  But not playing nice helps give voters an accurate emotional representation in GOP politics.  And that was certainly the case with the Lakota levy of Butler County.  How many times have people told me that the opposition forces need to be nicer to the bad guys?  A lot!  But the opposition forces didn’t listen, and they played hardball, as was deserved.  And the issue wasn’t even close.  That is the model for the rest of the country: play hardball, take away the cheating mechanisms of Democrats, and they can’t win.  The shutdown of the government was a desperate attempt by them to find their footing, and it didn’t work, forcing them to concessions they would rather not admit to.  And going into the midterms, that is the way that Republicans can pick up seats, not just hold their majority.  But don’t play nice; only losers do that.  When you have the means to win, do it, and don’t apologize for it.  Or feel sorry for the other side.  Because when the shoe is on the other foot, they aren’t nice, but ruthless, and they never look back. 

Rich Hoffman

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

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

How to Pick Up Women: Not hiding in the herd like a coward

I have several people in my life who are young and are just starting to be interested in girls, an anxiety that most men never get over. Forget about the modern attempt to rewrite human behavior; biology is biology.  Women, in the form of young girls, are meant to establish upon the human race a survival of the fittest kind of competition that is intended to inspire greatness.  I’ve told the story more than once about how I met my own wife; it was under very challenging circumstances, and I’m the type of person who doesn’t yield to anything.  Nothing is off limits to me.  So, I saw her in a car on a date with another guy, and I knocked on the window, essentially asking her to marry me.  And we’ve been married now for nearly 38 years.  I would advise all young people concerned about attracting young girls to be confident and direct.  Because here’s the secret.  Women don’t like slugs.  If you are outgoing, most women will want to leverage whatever attractiveness they have to reel you in, as they desire those qualities in their own family building and for their future children.  They may not be consciously aware of all that, but their essential biological necessity establishes it in their behavior quite clearly.  I think one of the wisest movies in the history of cinema came from the movie Scarface, starring Al Pacino, during the pool scene.  Tony Montana’s friend wanted to pick up a pretty girl at the pool and was being very obvious about his sexual intentions.  Tony tried to warn him not to be improper with her, but he did it anyway. He talked to her for a minute, then stuck his tongue out in a sexually suggestive manner, as if all the young woman wanted was sexual pleasure, and she slapped him. 

After that scene, Tony tried to help his wounded friend by telling him that in America, you have to make money first.  Then the women will love you.  But not until then.  Make some money, show that you are successful, and getting women will be no problem.  That is generally true in most cases.  No matter how much radical liberals try to rewrite human behavior, that basic biological necessity holds.  If you are confident, women in the form of young girls will see a basic ingredient for success, and they will find a way to make room for you under any condition.  Because the chances are, anybody they might happen to be dating, probably isn’t very confident.  Another rule is that any mildly attractive woman is likely attached to someone, but most of the time, until she’s around 35 years old, she is always looking for someone better.  Always, even on their wedding day.  This is why many women are drawn to successful individuals.  It’s the way that the human race is wired to sustain itself perpetually forward.  The privilege to sexual interaction can be psychologically constructed toward perpetuation, but that won’t stop a wandering eye from always zeroing in on someone who has the potential for great success.  So I always tell young people, ‘If you want girls, make yourself useful, and they’ll find you.’ You won’t have to go looking for them.  If you are a successful young person, you won’t be short on opportunities.  However, you must be the genuine article. If you dress for success and try to smooze over unsuspecting women at the club with too much cologne and a cheesy outfit, they’ll discover real quick that you aren’t what you sold yourself to be, and they’ll check out fast and move on to someone else.

Of course, I’m not talking about girls when I’m talking about girls.  But essential ingredients regarding the human race.  Women are often the standard bearers for all existence. If you want to be associated with a good one, you have to be a person they think of as good.  And most women are disappointed with the men in their lives, because our society teaches boys to be not very good men.  Boys learn all the cosmetic stuff, but when it comes time to change the oil, they are lost.  I have a friend in his fifties who is recently divorced.  He’s a demolition derby driver, professionally, so he knows how to tear down a car and rebuild it from the ground up.  He does it for fun almost every day of the week and throughout the weekend.  Once word got around that he was no longer married, he had about 40 different girls half his age wanting to date him; it was really out of control.  Now he’s not that wealthy by any means.  However, he knows how to work on cars, and most of them have cars that need to be repaired, so he possesses skills that the other men in the millennial age group don’t have.   And the girls are very aggressive about solving that problem by wanting to date my friend.  As I joke with him, I say that being able to change oil is like being a millionaire in this overly progressive society, where feminism has been a joke and a massive failure.  He is the evidence of that.  You can’t hoodwink skills over fake charm; women figure it out really fast. 

However, that same approach essentially carries over into all aspects of life.  You can’t fake it, whether you are dealing with women or men; people are people, and they judge each other based on these essential truths.  And once you understand this, it’s good to separate yourself from the herd by not chasing around traits that you think will make you likable, but are essentially a waste of time.  I often discuss the Metaphysics of Quality, particularly regarding the back-of-the-train types, which are most people.  Where you always want to be is in the front of the train, where it takes courage to be.  Of course, women will be more attracted to you there, as opposed to the back, where all the others are hiding.  But it’s not just women; all people respond similarly, even if they themselves don’t have that kind of personal courage.  They are attracted to those who do.  So, it’s best in life not to associate yourself with others who are considered losers, but are hiding that trait under some premise of collectivism to disguise their cowardly behavior, which reveals them to be back-of-the-train types, rather than leaders from the front.  As Tony Montana said in Scarface, to get the women in America, you have to make the money.  But even more than that, you have to be willing to emerge from the crowd and show a confidence that can achieve success, whether it’s making millions of dollars or just being able to change the oil in a car.  Apparently, millennial women are very stressed about being able to change oil. The bar for success has significantly lowered over the years, as it used to be that all young men could change their own oil.  But being able to do something better than everyone else is the key to getting opportunities in life.  And those who separate themselves from the masses have much better lives, in just about every case. 

Rich Hoffman

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