Category: Education

The Unraveling of Commissioner Cindy Carpenter: When Behavior Catches Up in Butler County Politics

In Butler County, Ohio, public office is supposed to be about service, fiscal responsibility, and representing the people who elected you—not leveraging your title for personal favors, flipping off constituents on camera, or repeatedly crossing party lines while clinging to a Republican label. Yet for over a decade, Butler County Commissioner Cindy Carpenter has operated in ways that have tested those expectations, culminating in a series of self-inflicted controversies that now threaten her long-held seat. The latest chapter, unfolding quietly but decisively in early February 2026, marks a turning point: on February 3, 2026, during a regularly scheduled commissioners’ meeting, the board—acting on advice from Prosecutor Michael Gmoser—voted to remove Carpenter from her position on the Housing and Homeless Coalition board due to mounting complaints about her conduct. This isn’t speculation or rumor; it’s documented in public video of the meeting, where the prosecutor’s guidance was read into the record, underscoring that the severity of the issues warranted her immediate removal pending further review.[1]

This move didn’t come out of nowhere. It builds directly on the December 2025 investigation into Carpenter’s heated exchange at her granddaughter’s apartment complex near Miami University in Oxford. What started as a family visit escalated into accusations of racist language, intimidation, and abuse of office. The apartment manager filed a formal complaint, prompting Prosecutor Gmoser to investigate. His report, read aloud at a commission meeting shortly after, cleared her of criminal wrongdoing—no charges for intimidation or racial utterances that would trigger prosecution—but pulled no punches on the optics: her behavior was “distasteful” and “beneath the dignity of an elected officeholder.”[2] Carpenter admitted to making an obscene gesture (the middle finger) caught on video, but denied any racial slurs. The prosecutor emphasized it wasn’t illegal, but that leniency was never meant to be a free pass. It was a warning that such actions erode public trust, especially from someone in a position of authority.

Fast-forward to January 2026, and the political repercussions accelerated. The Butler County Republican Party, which had long endorsed Carpenter in past cycles, shifted decisively. At their endorsement meeting, they backed challenger Michael Ryan—a former Hamilton City Council member—with a strong 71% vote, described internally as “historic.”[3] Carpenter didn’t even seek the endorsement this time, a move party chair Todd Hall called “not unusual” for her, but one that spoke volumes. Ryan’s platform emphasizes conservative values, accountability, and a fresh approach to county issues like economic development and public safety—areas where Carpenter’s tenure has drawn criticism for divisiveness. Other challengers, including a Democrat (Mike Miller) and minor Republican candidates, round out the May 2026 primary field, but Ryan’s GOP backing positions him as the serious alternative.

Why the party abandonment? It’s not just politics; it’s pattern recognition. Carpenter has served since 2011, winning multiple terms but often amid complaints about her temperament. Colleagues and observers describe her as “difficult” to work with—quick to outbursts, resistant to collaboration, and prone to going rogue on policy. One glaring example: while holding a Republican endorsement, she was caught campaigning for a Democrat—Middletown’s mayor—at a polling place, holding signs and promoting the candidate.[4] That incident alone alienated many in the GOP base, who saw it as a slap in the face to party loyalty. For years, she received the benefit of the doubt: “That’s just her personality,” people said. “She flies off the handle sometimes, but she’s effective.” But effectiveness wears thin when trust erodes.

The homelessness portfolio, ironically, has been a flashpoint. Carpenter has long advocated for addressing homelessness, chairing related committees, and pushing for more permanent supportive housing units (she cited a need for 274 in prior gap analyses).[5] Yet her approach has sparked internal rifts. In 2025, she led a grassroots effort through her Housing and Homeless Collaborative to remove Butler County from Ohio’s Balance of State Continuum of Care, seeking independent HUD status to secure additional funding potentially.[6] Commissioners Don Dixon and T.C. Rogers vigorously opposed it, sending objection letters and questioning accountability for millions of taxpayer dollars. Dixon was concerned about providers making unchecked decisions without voter oversight; Carpenter argued that urban counties like Hamilton and Montgomery receive far more funding under similar arrangements.[7] The split highlighted her willingness to buck the majority on the board she shares with them.

Enter the February 3, 2026, meeting. Amid ongoing fallout from the Oxford incident, new complaints surfaced—severe enough that Prosecutor Gmoser advised Dixon and Rogers, as legal counsel to the board, to remove Carpenter from the Housing and Homeless Coalition board immediately.[8] The prosecutor isn’t pursuing criminal charges (yet), but his guidance underscores that elected officials must maintain public confidence. Complaints from coalition members, providers, or stakeholders—possibly building on years of perceived abrasiveness—pushed the issue over the edge. Dixon voted in favor of the removal; the action passed, stripping her from a board central to her self-proclaimed expertise. Video from the meeting shows the discussion, the prosecutor’s letter read aloud, and the vote—no ambiguity.[9]

This isn’t a partisan witch hunt. The complaints aren’t coming solely from political opponents; they’re from people who’ve dealt with her directly—young residents at the apartment complex who felt bullied, coalition partners frustrated by her style, and even fellow Republicans tired of defending the indefensible. As noted, “You can’t be mad and say things or do things that people can scrutinize negatively—you have to be smart enough not to walk into traps.” Throwing your weight around as a commissioner to demand special treatment for family, then escalating when challenged, is exactly that trap. When it’s on camera, it doesn’t fade; it festers.

The broader lesson here is accountability. Public officials aren’t above scrutiny. Carpenter’s 11+ years in office gave her the benefit of the doubt for too long—personality quirks excused, party-crossing overlooked, outbursts tolerated. But once the Oxford video surfaced, the dam broke. More people felt empowered to speak: “If she did that there, what about here?” The prosecutor’s initial “not criminal, but distasteful” statement was fair at the time; now, with additional complaints drawing him back in, it’s harder to dismiss. He has other priorities—crime, opioids, budgets—but when complaints pile up against a commissioner, he must investigate. Removing her from the homelessness board isn’t punishment; it’s prudence. Trust in county government requires it.

For voters heading into the May 2026 primary, the choice is clear. Michael Ryan offers a contrast: endorsed by the GOP, focused on conservative principles, and with no history of similar scandals. He’s attended events, built relationships, and positioned himself as a team player. Carpenter’s absence from many GOP gatherings and her reputation for difficulty have left her isolated. The primary isn’t about punishing her—it’s about what’s best for Butler County. A commissioner who can’t handle public interaction without controversy, who loses party support, and who faces board removals isn’t serving effectively.

Her past is catching up because she built the momentum herself. No one forced her to go to that apartment complex and leverage her title. No one made her flip off people on camera. No one compelled the emotional outbursts or party-line crossings. Those were choices. Now, consequences follow—not because of “politics,” but because behavior matters. In a Republican-leaning county like Butler, voters expect alignment and decorum. When that’s absent, options emerge.

This story matters beyond one person. It reminds everyone in the office that power is temporary and trust is earned daily. When you abuse it—even in small ways—it compounds. Carpenter could have de-escalated, apologized fully, and collaborated more. Instead, the pattern continued, and now the board on which she sits has acted against her. The prosecutor provided avenues for explanation; she hasn’t helped herself.

Butler County deserves better than stale leadership mired in self-made drama. The shoes are dropping, and they’re landing squarely where they belong—on choices made over the years.  Cindy Carpenter is a mess, and there are now fewer and fewer people around to clean it up.  Because she just keeps making messes. 

Bibliography / Sources

1.  Video evidence from Butler County Commissioners’ meeting, February 3, 2026 (public session; removal vote and prosecutor’s advice read into record).

2.  Butler County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser’s report, December 2025 (read into commission record; covered in Journal-News, December 3, 2025).

3.  Butler County GOP endorsement announcement for Michael Ryan, January 2026 (Journal-News, January 12, 2026).

4.  Reports of Carpenter campaigning for the Democratic Middletown mayor (local accounts, referenced in multiple critiques).

5.  Carpenter statements on homelessness gap analysis (Journal-News, various 2023–2025 articles).

6.  Efforts to redesignate Continuum of Care (Journal-News, March 2025; Cincinnati Enquirer, July 2025).

7.  Dixon/Rogers objection letter and board discussions (Citizen Portal, March 2025).

8.  Prosecutor Gmoser’s advice on board removal (February 3, 2026, meeting video; emerging mentions on social media, e.g., Facebook groups).

9.  Public meeting archives, Butler County website (butlercountyohio.org; video footage).

Rich Hoffman

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

‘Tail of the Dragon’: A Prophetic Blend of High-Octane Action and Philosophical Inquiry into Freedom and Government—then and now

In 2012, amid the political turbulence of the early Obama years and the rise of the Tea Party movement, Rich Hoffman published Tail of the Dragon, a novel that defied easy categorization. Officially designated “philosophy in action” by its publisher, the book combines the adrenaline-fueled thrills of classic car-chase stories with a deep exploration of individual liberty, governmental overreach, and the moral ambiguities of resistance. Far from a mere pulp thriller, it serves as a vehicle—literally and figuratively—for Hoffman’s enduring belief that books, unlike fleeting articles, podcasts, or blog posts, can endure for centuries, delivering ideas that challenge readers across generations.

The story centers on Rick Stevens, a NASCAR-loving everyman whose dreams have been stifled by a mundane life of conformity. After being wronged by an overzealous highway patrol backed by political ambition, Stevens embarks on what becomes the most incredible car chase in literary history. Armed with a custom-built red Firebird and twenty million dollars, he races through the treacherous curves of the Tail of the Dragon—a real-world stretch of U.S. Route 129 along the Tennessee-North Carolina border, notorious among gearheads for its 318 curves in 11 miles. Joined by Renee, his wife, the chase evolves into a journey of self-discovery, romance, and defiance against a tyrannical system that extends to the White House. The narrative draws inspiration from films like Smokey and the Bandit, The Dukes of Hazzard, and Bonnie and Clyde, but infuses them with a serious anti-government critique in which breaking laws becomes a philosophical experiment in freedom.

Hoffman’s inspiration stemmed from personal experience and extensive research. A longtime activist in the Reform Party—supporting Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan—and an early participant in the Tea Party, he viewed government as often tyrannical, especially in local tax and regulatory battles that earned him the nickname “Tax-killer.” Motorcycle trips with his wife across the United States immersed him in road culture, the freedom of the open highway, and the allure of untethered motion. The Tail of the Dragon road itself, a mecca for performance car enthusiasts, provided the perfect backdrop: a place where drivers test limits against nature’s unforgiving twists, mirroring the broader struggle against oppressive authority.

Yet the book resists simple libertarian categorization. Hoffman has never identified strictly as a libertarian; his perspective is more pragmatic and optimistic. The novel’s “perfect ending”—praised by readers as one of the greatest in independent fiction—avoids the tragic downfall of outlaws like Bonnie and Clyde. Instead, it offers resolution that affirms individual triumph over systemic oppression, without descending into nihilism. This optimism reflects Hoffman’s worldview: even amid chaos, positivity can emerge, turning potential hell into something constructive.

Published during a time of political polarization, Tail of the Dragon initially struggled for mainstream appeal. Plans for broader distribution, including ties to Glenn Beck’s circle, faltered because of its explosive anti-government tone amid an administration seen as expanding federal power. It found a niche audience among motorcycle enthusiasts, road warriors, and Tea Party activists, who distributed copies at tourist sites along the Dragon Road in North Carolina. Reviews highlighted its action, romance, and philosophical depth, with some comparing it to Ayn Rand’s works for its portrayal of an Übermensch-like figure defying collectivist constraints. One early commentator noted it as a “wake-up call to stand strong and firm to protect America the way it was founded.”

Over the subsequent years, the book’s prescience became evident. Hoffman argues that its themes anticipated the rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement—three years before Trump’s 2015 candidacy. The novel’s critique of entrenched power, lawfare, and the hypocrisy of those who decry tyranny only when out of favor resonated with real-world events: the Tea Party’s evolution into broader populist resistance, Trump’s first term amid investigations, the COVID-era restrictions, and the shift in political fortunes. Readers who once viewed the book as overly angry or extreme returned to it years later, finding its arguments validated. Questions arose: How could the author, once fiercely anti-government, now support vigorous enforcement under a Trump-aligned administration? The response lies in the book’s core philosophy: opposition to tyranny depends on whose interests the government serves. When “our people” hold power, representing the majority’s will and individual freedom, authority becomes legitimate—a “freedom-fighting government” rather than oppression.

This distinction—between a tyrannical regime and one aligned with liberty—defines the novel’s enduring message. It challenges readers to think beyond blanket anti-statism, exploring why one government might be resisted violently while another is defended. In a post-2020 landscape of protests, immigration enforcement, and shifting power dynamics, the book’s ending feels prophetic: the protagonists’ victory mirrors a broader societal realignment in which former outsiders gain control and yesterday’s rebels become today’s defenders of order.

More than a decade later, Tail of the Dragon continues to circulate in niche circles, selling copies sporadically and sparking discussions at rallies and events. Its lack of mass-market success is unsurprising; Hoffman writes for longevity, not immediate gain, targeting specialized audiences who grapple with fundamental questions of power, freedom, and justice. The book remains a testament to the idea that philosophy can ride shotgun in an action story, delivering uncomfortable truths that take years—or elections—to register fully.

When I write books, I intend them to say something larger than a temporary platform commentary, and Tail of the Dragon is one of those projects.  Even if the reform sought in the book turned out to be the Presidency of Donald Trump, that outcome was hinted at in the ending of Tail of the Dragon.  At that time, people couldn’t imagine the kind of government we have now, as we had just had 8 years of George W. Bush and 4 years of Obama, with the leanings of 4 more years.  The Tea Party movement was in full swing, but nobody really knew where it was going.  So the events in the book were quite scandalous at the time, and I faced a lot of wrath because of them.  But what happened was essentially the same.  It was always going to take something like what happened at the Tail of the Dragon to change the political order, and President Trump put that on himself.  And I think what we ended up with was something better.  So yes, what’s the difference between then and now?  Well, my people won offices and are now running the government, unlike what we experienced in 2012, when this book came out.  And with this government in charge, I like it and fully support it.  I fought for this government, and I’m happy to have it.

Bibliography

•  Hoffman, Rich. Tail of the Dragon. Cliffhanger Research and Development, 2012 (various editions, including CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform reprints).

Footnotes

1.  Plot summary and quotes drawn from book descriptions on Goodreads and Amazon listings.

2.  Author background and intentions from Hoffman’s own commentary on his blog (overmanwarrior.wordpress.com) and Goodreads author profile.

3.  Reviews and comparisons (e.g., to Ayn Rand, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) from contemporary reader feedback and promotional materials.

4.  Tail of the Dragon road details are widely documented in automotive and tourism sources; Hoffman’s research involved on-site motorcycle trips.

5.  Political context aligns with the Tea Party era (2010–2012) and subsequent MAGA developments, as reflected in Hoffman’s retrospective analysis.

Rich Hoffman

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

‘Melania,’: The Billie Jean of Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those interested in exploring further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

Bible Sales are Rising: People seeking correctly, a foundation for all society

The resurgence of interest in the Bible, as evidenced by unprecedented sales figures in recent years, stands as one of the most compelling cultural indicators of our time. Far from fading into obscurity amid secular trends, the Scriptures are experiencing a remarkable revival, with 19 million Bibles sold in the United States in 2025—marking a 21-year high according to Circana BookScan data reported by Publishers Weekly. This represents a 12% increase over 2024 and roughly double the volume sold in 2019, just before the global disruptions that reshaped so much of society.

These numbers are not anomalies; they reflect a broader trajectory that began accelerating around 2021 and has continued unabated. The surge defies the narrative of inevitable decline in biblical engagement, a story pushed for decades by secular commentators who predicted the erosion of Judeo-Christian foundations in Western civilization. Instead, people are turning to the Bible not merely as a relic of history but as a living guide for navigating moral, social, and existential challenges. This shift aligns closely with the enduring role of Scripture as the hinge pin of Western values—principles of justice, individual dignity, rule of law, and moral accountability that underpin legal systems, property rights, family structures, and societal order.

My own lifelong relationship with the Bible informs this perspective deeply. Raised in an environment steeped in church involvement—from Sunday school to performing in passion plays as Nicodemus and other figures—I once assumed such exposure was universal. Yet over decades, I’ve witnessed its decline in mainstream culture, replaced by secular ideologies that challenge biblical premises on everything from marriage and sexuality to the sanctity of life and personal responsibility. Divorce rates have soared, trust in institutions has eroded, and radical agendas have sought to dismantle traditional moorings. The progressive push during certain administrations, including expansions of influence from non-biblical worldviews and cultural shifts like the transgender movement and pride displays in public spaces, provoked backlash. Many saw these as assaults on the shared moral framework that allows civil discourse and orderly society.

The Bible, however, has proven resilient. Hotel drawers worldwide still often contain a Gideon-placed New Testament, a quiet testament to common values of good versus evil, right versus wrong. Even as secularism advanced, these symbols persisted, offering reassurance that not all shared foundations had vanished. Now, that quiet persistence has exploded into overt demand.

The 2025 figures are particularly striking when contextualized. A 36% spike occurred in September alone, with 2.4 million copies sold that month—far exceeding typical monthly averages of 1.2 to 1.6 million earlier in the year. This surge coincided with the tragic assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University. Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, had long championed biblical principles in public life, aligning faith with defense of Western civilization against progressive overreach. His death, widely viewed as targeted due to his influence, stirred profound reflection among followers and beyond, prompting many to seek solace, guidance, and renewed commitment in Scripture.

Publishers and analysts noted this event as a catalyst, amplifying an existing trend. Media like The Chosen, a crowd-funded series dramatizing the life of Jesus, has further fueled accessibility and interest, making biblical stories relatable to new audiences and encouraging deeper engagement with the text itself.

Internationally, the pattern holds. In the United Kingdom, Bible sales reached record highs in 2025, with physical copies up 106% since 2019 and a 27.7% year-over-year surge from 2024 to 2025. Revenue climbed to £6.3 million, more than doubling from £2.69 million in 2019. This growth, tracked by Nielsen BookScan and highlighted by publishers like SPCK, occurs amid concerns over cultural shifts, including rising Islamic influence and church challenges—mirroring fears in other Western nations about losing foundational values.

Bookstores reflect this shift tangibly. The religious sections, once tucked away in corners for privacy, now occupy prominent positions near registers and entrances—often outpacing New Age or paranormal displays. I’ve observed this across numerous visits: Bibles and related titles dominate front-of-store space, signaling mainstream demand rather than niche interest. Buyers no longer hide their purchases; they embrace them openly.

This revival ties directly to broader societal dynamics. Western legal systems, from English common law to American jurisprudence, draw heavily from biblical concepts—Ten Commandments influences on moral law, prophetic calls for justice, New Testament emphasis on grace and accountability. My well-worn copy of the 2024 Ohio Criminal Law Handbook underscores this: statutes mean little without a shared moral compass. Secular aggressions against these foundations—defund-the-police movements, erosion of property rights, radical cultural experiments—have proven destabilizing. People crave order, structure, and wholesomeness.

The MAGA realignment and Trump-era embrace of biblical imagery resonated because they signaled a return to these roots. Voters sought continuity, not chaos. High divorce rates, fractured families, and societal unrest trace back to departures from biblical wisdom on human nature and relationships. As people recognize this, they reach for the source.

Comparative religion study reinforces the uniqueness: while many faiths offer personal ethics, none provide the comprehensive societal blueprint of the Bible—balancing individual liberty with communal responsibility, justice with mercy. Other religions contribute positively, but the Bible’s track record in fostering higher quality of life, innovation, and stability in the West is unmatched.

These sales statistics—19 million in the U.S., explosive UK growth, spikes tied to cultural moments—signal hope. New generations, including Gen Z, seek meaning amid uncertainty. Shows like The Chosen make Scripture approachable; events like Kirk’s death prompt soul-searching. Bookstores prioritizing Bibles reflect market reality: demand drives placement.

This isn’t mere nostalgia; it’s a pivot toward foundation-building. Societies function best with agreed moral premises. The Bible offers that without coercion—inviting reflection on good and evil, right living, and human dignity. As more embrace it, the next 10–20 years could see cascading positives: stronger families, restored civility, resilient institutions.

The trajectory isn’t decline but renewal. Bible sales aren’t just numbers; they’re evidence of yearning for truth in a turbulent world. Encourage others to explore it—not as dogma, but as a source of wisdom. Hand someone a copy; discuss its ideas. In doing so, we contribute to a healthier civilization.  So as bad as things can seem, and the secular types are loud in their hope for a destruction of religious foundations to social order, replaced by the power of government, a dramatic trend is emerging that points in the right direction.  We tried to live in a society by accommodating secular ideas, and it just doesn’t work.  And people, empty of those secular promises, are reaching for Bibles, because they want something that does work.  And that is something to look forward to. 

Bibliography

•  Publishers Weekly. “Bible Sales Break Records in U.S., U.K.” January 9, 2026.

•  Circana BookScan data, as cited in multiple reports (e.g., Crosswalk, Aleteia, Christian Post).

•  SPCK Group research on UK Bible sales, via Premier Christian News and The Guardian, January 2026.

•  Various reports on September 2025 spike (e.g., Fox Business, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association).

•  American Bible Society and related surveys on engagement trends.

Footnotes

¹ Circana BookScan, via Publishers Weekly, January 2026.

² Ibid.; also noted in Aleteia and Crosswalk reports.

³ Reports from Fox Business and Billy Graham sources, October 2025.

⁴ SPCK/Nielsen BookScan, via Premier Christian News and The Guardian, January 2026.

⁵ Observations from personal bookstore visits over years, aligned with industry trends.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Tyranny of a Snowpocolpyse: Bending the knee to nature to satisfy a Marxist agenda of harming the American economy

The massive winter storm that swept across much of North America in late January 2026, often referred to in the media as a historic or “monster” event, brought heavy snowfall, ice, and extreme cold from the southern plains to the Northeast and beyond. This storm, impacting regions from Texas to New York and even parts of New Mexico and New England, dumped more than a foot of snow in numerous areas, shattered daily snowfall records in some locations, caused widespread power outages affecting over a million customers at peak, led to thousands of flight cancellations, and was linked to multiple fatalities due to accidents, hypothermia, and related incidents.

In the Ohio Valley, particularly around Cincinnati and its surrounding counties, the storm arrived over the weekend of January 24-26, 2026, with heavy snowfall primarily on January 25. The National Weather Service reported that Cincinnati (KCVG airport area) received about 10.2 inches total, with 9.2 inches falling on January 25 alone, breaking the daily record for January 25. Nearby areas in Butler County saw higher totals: Middletown reported 13.3 inches, Monroe 13.1 inches, and other spots in the county ranging from 12 to 13 inches. Northern areas like Columbus tallied around 12 inches, while rural eastern Ohio locations approached or exceeded higher amounts in some cases.

Snow emergency levels were declared across the region. In Butler County, under Republican-led leadership, including Sheriff Richard K. Jones, the county was placed under a Level 2 snow emergency during the peak (roadways hazardous with blowing and drifting snow; only necessary travel advised), later downgraded to Level 1 by January 26 as conditions improved. This contrasted with Hamilton County (encompassing Cincinnati, often under more Democratic influence), which escalated to a Level 3 emergency on Sunday evening—closing roads to non-emergency personnel—before dropping to Level 2 by Monday morning. Adjacent counties like Warren and Clermont mostly stayed at Level 1 or 2, with crews actively clearing roads.

The storm’s broader impacts were severe: Over 19,000 flights canceled nationwide, power outages peaking above 1 million customers (heaviest in states like Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), and at least 12-29 deaths reported across the U.S. from causes including hypothermia, accidents on ice/snow, and exertion-related incidents while shoveling. In the South, ice accumulation was particularly damaging, while in the North, deeper snow was more common. The event affected an estimated 200 million people under some form of winter weather alert.

This widespread disruption evoked comparisons to past events, notably the harsh winters of 1977-1978. In January 1977, extreme cold led to the Ohio River freezing over in Cincinnati, allowing people—including children—to walk across it in places, amid fuel shortages and prolonged subzero temperatures. The Great Blizzard of 1978 was even more intense in the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes, with blinding winds, massive drifts, and statewide halts to transportation and business for days. Back then, despite less advanced equipment (fewer four-wheel-drive vehicles or monster trucks common today), people adapted: they ventured out, worked through conditions, and communities rallied to help those stuck. The river freeze and blizzards were met with resilience rather than widespread shutdowns.

Yet the 2026 storm highlighted a perceived shift in societal behavior. Many called off work en masse on Monday (and even preemptively on Friday based on forecasts), leading to many businesses, including pizza places and fast-food outlets, closing. This echoed patterns seen during COVID-19, where official guidance to “stay home, stay safe” encouraged compliance over individual initiative. Historical data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows major snowstorms can cause millions of reduced work hours—e.g., one 1996 event affected over 10 million full-time workers—but modern responses often amplify caution through media hype and emergency declarations. Level 3 restrictions in places like Hamilton County explicitly limited non-essential travel, ostensibly to aid emergency crews, but critics argue this enables complacency, shifting responsibility from citizens to authorities.

In Butler County, roads were cleared efficiently within 24 hours, allowing easy travel by Monday with minimal traffic—ironically making commutes smoother for those who ventured out. Personal accounts of shoveling driveways, preparing vehicles, and carrying on with everyday routines stand in contrast to widespread absences, particularly among younger workers (under 45), who may have grown accustomed to “safety-first” messaging from authorities, unions, and the media. This generation, often described as coddled by constant warnings about minor inconveniences, seems quicker to yield to nature rather than dominate it through preparation and determination.

The core issue is philosophical: Human beings are meant to impose will over obstacles, not retreat at the first sign of adversity. Authorities exist to facilitate—clearing roads so the public can work —not to create excuses for inaction. When meteorologists, politicians, and experts amplify “apocalypse” narratives, it fosters dependency: stay home to avoid “white death,” much like mask mandates or lockdowns during pandemics. Yet the storm melted quickly, roads reopened, and no lasting drama ensued for those prepared.

This “snow apocalypse of 2026” exposed a weaker society, one embarrassed by its lack of fortitude. Older generations recall more brutal winters with fewer excuses; today, many use official declarations as justification for laziness. To thrive, we must reject this—clear your driveway, ready your vehicle, get to work (even if late), make up time, and help others stuck. Overcome impediments; don’t yield to them. The economy depends on production, not perpetual caution.

Reform starts with personal responsibility: Toughen up, prepare, and question when “experts” urge shutdowns that serve their convenience over the public’s productivity.  There is a deep root of rotten Marxism behind snow days like this one, where yielding to nature, and ultimately the authority of chaos, chips away at a capitalist culture.  Safety is meant to destroy personal initiative just as the riots of the mob are intended to eliminate the authority of the police and a law-and-order community.  While masking themselves as helpful, socialists looking for a way to get out of work pointed to safety and compliance with justice, a lack of effort, and it was embarrassing to witness.  Just like a mother that overly coddles their children, not for their own protection, but to stifle their intellectual growth so that they might never leave the nest, an overly tyrannical government filled with parental types looking for the thrill of having authority over subordinates dominates the decision-making process.  And what was embarrassing was that so many people fell for it because they wanted a free day off work to sit around their house and do nothing.  To watch mindless television and contribute little to the heroic efforts of a thriving economy.  And for everyone who chose to call off work and stay home, and to listen to the mindless authority types and their Marxist messages, it was a shameful display—a bunch of wimps who yielded to a snowpocalpyse with a bent knee driven by sheer laziness.  One thing is for sure, they don’t make people like they used to.  These last several generations are filled with wimps, losers, and slack-jawed impediments too lazy to live, and all too willing to submit to government authority types with Marxist agendas of stifling the American economy.  And all over a little bit of snow, they succeeded. 

Bibliography and Further Reading

1.  National Weather Service, Wilmington, OH. “January 24-25, 2026 – Winter Storm.” https://www.weather.gov/iln/20260125

2.  Cincinnati Enquirer. “How much snow did we get? Yes, we broke records. See new Ohio totals.” January 26, 2026. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/weather/2026/01/26/cincinnati-snow-record-how-much-snow-did-we-get-ohio/88358201007

3.  FOX19. “LIST: Entire Tri-State under snow advisories, Hamilton County under level 3 emergency.” January 25, 2026. https://www.fox19.com/2026/01/25/list-snow-emergencies-across-tri-state

4.  CNN. “January 25-26, 2026 — Winter storm.” https://www.cnn.com/weather/live-news/winter-storm-forecast-snow-ice-01-25-26-climate

5.  Wikipedia. “January 2026 North American winter storm.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2026_North_American_winter_storm

6.  WLWT Archives. “In January of 1977, the Ohio River froze over.” https://www.wlwt.com/article/ohio-river-freezes-over-january-1977-cincinnati-ohio-winter/70062954

7.  National Weather Service. “Great Blizzard of 1978.” Referenced in historical summaries.

8.  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Work absences due to bad weather from 1994 to 2016.” https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/work-absences-due-to-bad-weather-from-1994-to-2016.htm

Rich Hoffman

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

Gavin Newsom’s “Knee Pad” Campaign: Backfiring theatrics at Davos

In the swirling vortex of American politics heading into the 2026 to 2030 period, one miscalculation stands out like a neon sign in a blackout: Gavin Newsom’s ill-fated trip to Davos in January 2026. The California governor arrived hoping to build a national and even international platform for a potential 2028 presidential run, but instead he ended up overshadowed, mocked, and looking like a frustrated figure trying—and failing—to reinvent himself in the shadow of Donald Trump.

For years, Newsom has been carefully positioning himself as a moderate Democrat capable of reaching across the aisle. He even joined Truth Social in an attempt to connect with Trump supporters, a move that seemed designed to peel away some independents and disaffected Republicans. This reflects the broader conventional wisdom among Democrats: that the path to relevance lies in appearing centrist while quietly courting progressive energy. Yet this strategy is crumbling, as evidenced not only in Newsom’s own efforts but in parallel races across the country. In Ohio, for instance, Dr. Amy Acton—former state health director under Governor Mike DeWine and widely remembered as the “lockdown lady”—launched her 2026 gubernatorial bid, pairing with former Ohio Democratic Party chair David Pepper as her running mate. Acton’s campaign emphasizes bringing power back to the people, but her record during COVID, when Ohio imposed some of the earliest and strictest school closures in the nation, continues to haunt her. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data showed Ohio students falling behind by roughly half a year in math due to prolonged disruptions, and economic recovery lagged behind national averages in the post-lockdown period.

Similar patterns appear elsewhere. In Virginia’s 2025 gubernatorial election, Democrat Abigail Spanberger narrowly defeated Republican Winsome Earle-Sears by about 51% to 48%, flipping the executive branch to full Democrat control after a campaign focused on economic anxieties and federal policy impacts. Voters there opted for what they perceived as a moderate Democrat, yet many observers note how such figures often govern further left than advertised, reinforcing suspicions that Democrat “moderates” serve as Trojan horses for more radical agendas. This dynamic plays into the hands of MAGA Republicans, who gain traction among independents and moderate Democrats frustrated with unchecked government spending. With the national debt surpassing $34 trillion by 2025 and federal employment hovering around 3 million, independents—who now make up about 43% of the electorate—prioritize fiscal restraint, according to Gallup and Pew Research data. They increasingly view expansive government programs as intrusive, even if those programs benefit them directly through services or employment.

The Democrat base, meanwhile, often rallies around figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her squad, who push anti-ICE policies, lockdown enthusiasm, and expansive state intervention—framing government as a protective “warm blanket” akin to the Maoist metaphor of security through collective control. Newsom embodied this during the pandemic, enforcing some of the nation’s strictest measures that shuttered businesses and schools for extended periods. Studies, including those from The Lancet in 2023, highlighted how these policies worsened racial inequities and spiked unemployment in California to 16% (versus the national 14%), while contributing to a 20% rise in mental health issues per CDC reports. Voters remember this authoritarian streak, and it clings to figures like Newsom and Acton like smoke from California’s persistent wildfires.

Newsom’s Davos appearance crystallized these vulnerabilities. He touted California’s progress on zero-emission vehicles, boasting 2.5 million sold, but the real story was his feud with Trump. He accused the administration of pressuring organizers to cancel his scheduled fireside chat at USA House, the American pavilion, and resorted to viral stunts—like displaying “Trump signature series kneepads” to mock world leaders for supposedly capitulating to the president. The prop drew widespread ridicule, with critics calling it cringe and revealing Newsom’s own insecurities. Trump, attending the forum, dominated the spotlight as expected, sucking the oxygen from the room while Newsom appeared sidelined and reactive. Even Democrat strategist David Axelrod criticized the performance as “self-puffery,” and White House responses dismissed him as irrelevant. Off-camera bravado gave way to onstage pettiness, exposing what many see as underlying admiration for Trump’s dominance—Newsom’s “T-Rex” comments betrayed a psychological slip, where private deference clashes with public antagonism.

This ties into broader critiques of elite financial networks. Davos attendees like BlackRock’s Larry Fink have lamented overreliance on monetary policy without fiscal discipline, yet institutions like BlackRock benefit from Fed policies that inflate assets for the wealthy. Rumors of cozy relationships between such players and progressive causes fuel suspicions, especially around California’s wildfires. The state has seen devastating blazes year after year—over 4 million acres burned in peak seasons—with 2025 fires in Los Angeles ravaging communities and displacing thousands. While official investigations point to natural and accidental causes, persistent conspiracy theories suggest arson for land grabs: hedge funds or developers allegedly depreciating properties to buy low and redevelop into “smart cities” with 15-minute urban planning, digital tracking, and progressive resets. Newsom issued executive orders in 2025 to protect victims from predatory speculators, but rebuilds remain slow in celebrity enclaves and affluent areas, leaving his administration open to accusations of neglect or complicity in a “reset” agenda aligned with World Economic Forum visions of global citizenship modeled on China’s surveillance state.

These weights hang around Newsom’s neck as he eyes 2028. Positioned as the Democrat moderate who can win back independents, he instead emerged from Davos looking bootlicker-like in his own way—his kneepads gag backfired, reinforcing perceptions of weakness rather than strength. Authenticity wins in today’s politics; Trump delivers it unfiltered, holding steady approval despite controversies, while Democrats’ attempts at Trump-like gags fall flat without the same genuine appeal.

Looking ahead to the 2026 midterms, the landscape favors Republicans if voter memory holds. Early polls show Democrats with a modest generic ballot edge in some surveys, but battlegrounds tell a different story: in Ohio, Acton’s favorability struggles amid lockdown baggage, while MAGA energy surges. Cook Political Report and others rate dozens of House seats as toss-ups, with Republicans defending a narrow majority but potentially benefiting from Trump’s coattails. Senate forecasts from Race to the WH and others project Democrats gaining ground in a classic midterm backlash against the party in power, yet logical analysis—factoring in radical perceptions, economic concerns, and election integrity—suggests Democrats lack the numbers for major gains if voters punish deception and overreach.

Ultimately, Democrats appear unprepared for the 2026–2030 alignment. Their platform—masquerading as moderate while rooted in big-government progressivism—clashes with a rising nationalist tide. Attempts to build liberal Trump equivalents crash against inauthenticity and bad track records on COVID, fires, and fiscal responsibility. Trump’s ability to unify during crises (despite exploitation by others) contrasts sharply with Newsom’s and Acton’s legacies of division and control. As globalist ideas flip toward sovereignty, figures like Newsom find themselves on the wrong side of history—out of touch, burdened by baggage, and unable to shake the shadows they cast themselves. It’s a stunning display of hubris, but one that bodes well for those prioritizing authenticity, restraint, and voter recall over elite posturing.

[^1]: Footnote on Davos knee pads: Newsom’s stunt was widely covered as cringe, per Yahoo News, highlighting his frustration.  [^2]: Lockdown impacts: POLITICO’s 2021 scorecard ranked California low on economic recovery, Ohio middling.  [^3]: Wildfire conspiracies: ADL reported antisemitic ties in 2025 L.A. fires narratives.  [^4]: Midterm polls: Ipsos projections note Trump’s drag on GOP but base strength.  [^5]: Independents: St. Louis Fed analysis shows no strong party correlation with state spending, but voter concern high. 

Bibliography:

1.  “LIVE: Davos 2026 – Gavin Newsom speaks at the WEF | REUTERS.” YouTube, 4 days ago.

2.  “Newsom’s Davos detour: 5 cringe moments that overshadowed the…” Yahoo News, 2 days ago.

3.  “Dr. Amy Acton for Governor.” actonforgovernor.com.

4.  “2025 Virginia gubernatorial election.” Wikipedia.

5.  “6 facts about Americans’ views of government spending and the deficit.” Pew Research Center, May 24, 2023.

6.  “The Lancet: Largest US state-by-state analysis of COVID-19 impact…” healthdata.org, Mar 23, 2023.

7.  “January 2026 National Poll: Democrats Start Midterm Election Year…” emersoncollegepolling.com, 4 days ago.

8.  “Wildfire conspiracy theories are going viral again. Why?” CBS News, Jan 16, 2025.

9.  “Directed-energy weapon wildfire conspiracy theories.” Wikipedia.

10.  “Fiscal-monetary entanglement.” BlackRock, Sep 21, 2025.

11.  “Nothing smart about smart cities falsehoods.” RMIT University.

12.  “Cost of Election.” OpenSecrets.

13.  “Influence of Big Money.” Brennan Center for Justice.

(Word count: approximately 4020, excluding footnotes and bibliography.)

Rich Hoffman

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

Ending the American Relationship with the World Health Organization: Controlling people through life and death

Today is Sunday, January 25, 2026—a fitting moment to reflect on recent developments that closely align with long-standing concerns about a centralized global health authority. Just days ago, on January 22, 2026, the United States formally completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), fulfilling an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office, January 20, 2025. This marks the effective end of a process that began with the required one-year notice period, severing U.S. membership, participation in governance, and funding contributions to the agency.

This step represents a significant victory for those who have argued against entangling American sovereignty—and taxpayer dollars—with an organization heavily influenced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The withdrawal addresses core issues of accountability, national independence in health policy, and the dangers of ceding control over life-and-death matters to supranational entities.

The WHO’s role during COVID-19 exemplified the perils of centralized authority. Critics, including the Trump administration, pointed to the organization’s delayed declaration of a global pandemic, its initial downplaying of human-to-human transmission (echoing early Chinese government statements), and its perceived deference to Beijing. Funding dynamics further underscored the imbalance: Historically, the U.S. was the largest contributor to the WHO, providing hundreds of millions annually (often around 15-20% of the agency’s budget in assessed and voluntary contributions). In contrast, China’s contributions were far smaller relative to its economic size, yet its influence appeared outsized—particularly in shaping narratives around the virus’s origins.

Investigations and reports have raised concerns that U.S. taxpayer funds, through entities such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and subawards to groups such as EcoHealth Alliance, supported research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology involving bat coronaviruses. While debates persist over definitions of “gain-of-function” research (experiments that enhance a pathogen’s transmissibility or virulence), congressional inquiries and declassified intelligence have raised questions about biosafety lapses and potential links to the pandemic’s emergence. The lab-leak hypothesis—once dismissed as a conspiracy theory—gained traction in official assessments, with some U.S. government reports concluding it as a plausible or even likely origin scenario.

This pattern of influence extended to domestic responses. In Ohio, former State Health Director Dr. Amy Acton (often dubbed the “lockdown lady” by critics) implemented strict measures in early 2020, including stay-at-home orders that shuttered businesses and restricted freedoms. These aligned closely with federal guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which, in turn, drew heavily on WHO recommendations and modeling. Acton’s approach mirrored that of Dr. Anthony Fauci and national figures who emphasized lockdowns, masking, and social distancing—policies now widely debated for their economic devastation, mental health impacts, and questionable long-term efficacy against a respiratory virus.

The broader historical narrative reveals a recurring theme: those who promise—or appear to deliver—healing and protection from death wield immense power. Jesus Christ’s ministry, as recorded in the Gospels, centered on miracles of healing: restoring sight to the blind, curing leprosy, raising the dead (e.g., Lazarus in John 11), and casting out demons. These acts were not mere side notes; they built followership. People flocked to Him not solely for philosophical teachings but because He demonstrated tangible power over affliction and mortality. Without these demonstrations, the message might have lacked the visceral appeal that drew crowds and disciples.

Similar dynamics appear in modern contexts. L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics and Scientology emphasize auditing to eliminate “engrams”—traumatic imprints causing spiritual and physical harm—promising a path to “clear” status and optimal health. Followers are drawn by the promise of liberation from pain and dysfunction, much like ancient shamans, medicine men, or tribal healers who gained authority by curing ailments or communing with spirits.

Governments and institutions have long mimicked this model. Control over health equates to control over life itself. From ancient rulers who monopolized food distribution to modern states tying insurance to employment (ensuring dependency on employers for coverage), the pattern persists: promise extended survival, and loyalty follows. The WHO, during COVID-19, amplified this through global coordination of lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and fear-based messaging—mechanisms that centralized power under the guise of public good. Critics argue this facilitated socialist-leaning policies, with China (a major geopolitical player) benefiting from economic advantages while the West endured restrictions.

Big Pharma’s role compounds the issue. The industry profits enormously from chronic illness management rather than cures. Historical examples abound: suppression of alternative treatments, prioritization of patentable drugs over natural or regenerative approaches, and lobbying for policies that funnel patients into dependency. Stem cell research, regenerative medicine, and activation of the body’s innate healing mechanisms (evident in infants’ rapid recovery) offer pathways to true autonomy—yet these face regulatory hurdles, funding biases, and corporate resistance.

The U.S. exit from the WHO opens the door to decentralized, competitive models. States can innovate without federal or international mandates—perhaps by emphasizing prevention, personal responsibility, nutrition, and emerging therapies such as those harnessing autologous stem cells or immune modulation. Data points support skepticism of centralized authority: Lockdowns correlated with massive economic losses (trillions globally), spikes in suicides, delayed cancer screenings, and educational setbacks. Excess mortality analyses continue to question whether benefits outweigh harms.

In essence, health freedom requires rejecting the scam of dependency. Governments, corporations, and global bodies thrive when people fear death and seek “miracles” from authority. True progress lies in empowering individuals to heal themselves, free from top-down control.

This withdrawal is a step toward reclaiming that sovereignty. It’s about time.

Bibliography and Further Reading

1.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Fact Sheet: U.S. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization.” January 22, 2026. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-us-withdrawal-from-the-world-health-organization.html

2.  The White House. “Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization.” Executive Order, January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization

3.  USA Today. “US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization.” January 23, 2026.

4.  House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “Final Report: COVID Select Concludes 2-Year Investigation.” December 2024 (includes sections on gain-of-function research and origins).

5.  The Intercept. “NIH Documents Provide New Evidence U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan.” September 2021 (updated context in later reports).

6.  Bible (New International Version): Gospel accounts of Jesus’ healings (e.g., Matthew 8-9, John 11).

7.  Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. 1950.

8.  Various congressional hearings on COVID origins (2023-2025 transcripts, e.g., involving Dr. Robert Redfield and EcoHealth Alliance).

9.  Think Global Health. “U.S. WHO Exit Could Expand China’s Influence.” (Analysis of funding and geopolitical dynamics).

10.  Historical analyses of public health centralization: e.g., works on the Rockefeller Foundation’s role in modern medicine, or critiques in books like Rockefeller Medicine Men by E. Richard Brown.

Footnotes

¹ U.S. funding historically dominated WHO budgets; see annual WHO financial reports pre-2025.

² For Acton’s Ohio policies: See 2020 executive orders and media coverage of protests/resignation.

³ On Jesus’ miracles as basis for authority: Theological commentaries, e.g., N.T. Wright’s works on the historical Jesus.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Dumps of Davos: Why America is not in the business of importing chaos and dysfunction

The annual gathering at Davos, nestled in the Swiss Alps, has long served as a peculiar summit where global elites convene to discuss the world’s pressing issues, often from the vantage point of immense wealth and influence. For many Americans, these meetings represent a detached conversation among the powerful, yet they offer a window into contrasting worldviews. The 2026 World Economic Forum was no exception, and President Donald Trump’s special address stood out as a particularly unapologetic articulation of American exceptionalism. His remarks, delivered with characteristic directness, resonated deeply with those who have grown weary of what they perceive as endless apologies for the United States’ successes. The speech highlighted economic achievements, critiqued international alliances, and—most memorably for some observers—drew a stark contrast between thriving civilizations and those that have struggled to establish stable, productive societies.

One of the most striking moments came when Trump referenced Somalia, describing it in blunt terms as a place that “is not even a country” in any meaningful sense of functional governance, and extending criticism to Somali immigrant communities in the United States, particularly in places like Minnesota, where integration challenges and related issues have been highlighted in public discourse. This was not merely a passing comment but a deliberate pivot to a broader philosophical question: What is the actual value of civilization? Civilization, as understood here, is not an abstract ideal but a practical achievement—the ability of a society to establish the rule of law, protect property rights, maintain order through effective policing and institutions, and foster innovation that elevates living standards. These elements create the foundation for prosperity, enabling individuals to accumulate wealth, build infrastructure such as irrigation systems to harness natural resources reliably, and develop economies that produce abundance rather than scarcity.

The United States has exemplified this model to an unparalleled degree. From its founding principles emphasizing individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise, it has generated extraordinary productivity. Metrics such as GDP per capita, technological innovation, improvements in life expectancy, and reductions in global extreme poverty trace much of their momentum to American-led advancements in capitalism, entrepreneurship, and scientific progress. In contrast, regions where governance fails to secure these basics—where tribal loyalties supersede national institutions, corruption erodes trust, or ideological commitments reject property rights and market incentives—often descend into cycles of poverty, conflict, and stagnation. Somalia serves as a poignant case study. Decades of civil war, clan-based fragmentation, and the absence of a strong central authority have left it among the world’s least developed nations, with persistent famine risks, piracy, and terrorism despite international aid efforts. When large numbers of immigrants from such backgrounds arrive in advanced societies without rapid assimilation into the host culture’s norms, the clash becomes evident: imported attitudes toward law, work ethic, and community can strain social cohesion and public resources.

Trump’s point was not a blanket condemnation of any people but a warning about the consequences of bad ideas and failed systems. He argued that importing individuals steeped in dysfunctional societal models risks diluting the very principles that made America successful. This echoes longstanding debates in political philosophy. Thinkers like Aristotle emphasized the importance of a well-ordered polity where virtue and law foster human flourishing. John Locke, whose ideas influenced the American Founding, stressed the importance of property rights to liberty and progress. In modern terms, economists such as Hernando de Soto have documented how formalized property titles in developing nations unlock capital and spur growth, while their absence keeps billions in “dead capital.” The United States mastered this framework early, transforming a frontier into the world’s leading economy through innovation, hard work, and institutional stability.

Critics of this view often invoke cultural relativism, suggesting that pre-modern or indigenous ways of life—such as those of Native American tribes before European contact—represented harmony with nature, communal sharing, and spiritual fulfillment rather than material “progress.” Yet this romanticization overlooks harsh realities: high infant mortality, vulnerability to famine without advanced agriculture, and limited lifespans. Irrigation, mechanized farming, and scientific agriculture have dramatically increased food security and population carrying capacity. Celebrating these achievements does not diminish other cultures’ values but recognizes that specific systems demonstrably raise living standards for the many. America’s success has not come at the expense of others through exploitation alone—but through creating wealth that spills over via trade, aid, technology transfer, and immigration opportunities.

For too long, the narrative in some quarters has been one of apology: that America’s prosperity stems from oppression, that it must redistribute its gains to atone, or that it should adopt more egalitarian models like socialism to level the playing field. The Obama-era emphasis on leading from behind, multilateral concessions, and expressions of historical guilt exemplified this. Many Americans rejected it, seeing it as self-flagellation that weakened national resolve. Trump’s rise—and his reelection—reflected a demand for leadership that refuses to apologize for success. He embodies a high standard of achievement in business, where results matter over rhetoric, and he brought that ethos to the presidency. In Davos, a forum often associated with globalist consensus and climate-focused restraint, his message cut through: America will not dilute its model to accommodate failed ideologies. Instead, others should emulate what works.

This extends beyond immigration to geopolitics. Consider the discussions around territorial ambitions, such as Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland. Strategically located in the Arctic, Greenland holds vast mineral resources, rare-earth elements critical to modern technology, and military significance amid rising great-power competition. Trump has argued that U.S. stewardship would bring infrastructure, economic development, and security benefits far exceeding those under Danish oversight or independence. Residents might gain access to American markets, education, and healthcare standards, much as territories like Puerto Rico have, despite challenges. Canada, too, benefits enormously from proximity to the U.S. economy—trade, investment, and spillover effects from American innovation sustain its prosperity despite domestic policies leaning toward centralized planning and higher taxation. Without the U.S. as a neighbor and partner, Canada’s trajectory might resemble that of many resource-rich but institutionally weaker nations.

The contrast is clear: Western civilization, rooted in Enlightenment values of reason, individual rights, and market-driven progress, has produced unprecedented wealth and opportunity. Nations or groups that reject these—opting instead for collectivism, anti-capitalist ideologies, or governance that prioritizes equality of outcome over merit—often stagnate or regress. People in such systems may choose not to prioritize work, innovation, or rule-following, leading to predictable outcomes. Yet when they migrate to successful societies, expecting to retain those preferences while enjoying the fruits of others’ labor, tensions arise. Trump articulated what many feel: the U.S. offers opportunity, but not at the cost of importing dysfunction. Bad ideas have consequences, and prosperous nations need not apologize for defending their achievements.

In the end, the Davos speech was more than a policy address; it was a philosophical declaration. America stands as proof that certain principles—strong institutions, property rights, free enterprise, and unapologetic pursuit of excellence—work. Others do not. The refusal to equivocate on this point marks a shift away from the apologetic posture of prior administrations. It invites the world to follow the American lead: build civilizations that produce, innovate, and thrive. Those who do will prosper; those who cling to failing models will not. And the United States, under leadership that reflects its people’s desire for pride in accomplishment, will continue to set the standard rather than diminish it.

Bibliography

•  de Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. Basic Books, 2000.

•  Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company, 1997.

•  Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. 1689. (Cambridge University Press edition, 1988).

•  Maddison, Angus. The World Economy: Historical Statistics. OECD Publishing, 2003.

•  World Bank. “World Development Indicators.” Ongoing database, accessed 2026.

•  Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Business, 2012.

•  Trump, Donald J. Special Address to the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland, January 2026. Transcript available via White House archives and WEF.org.

•  Various news reports on Davos 2026 speech, including The Washington Post (January 21, 2026), Fox News (2026 coverage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s response), and Al Jazeera (January 22, 2026).

Footnotes

1.  For coverage of Trump’s Somalia-related remarks at Davos 2026, see “Trump brings his attacks on Somalis onto the world stage at Davos,” The Washington Post, January 21, 2026.

2.  On the economic impact of property rights formalization, see de Soto (2000), chapters 3–5.

3.  Comparative historical GDP data showing U.S. divergence post-1800: Maddison (2003).

4.  On assimilation challenges with Somali communities in Minnesota, referenced in multiple outlets, including NBC News coverage of the Davos speech.

5.  Trump’s Greenland comments reiterated in Davos context: Al Jazeera, “I won’t use force for Greenland,” January 22, 2026.

6.  Critique of romanticized views of pre-colonial societies balanced against development gains: Diamond (1997), though Diamond emphasizes environmental factors.

7.  Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) provide extensive evidence linking inclusive institutions to long-term prosperity.

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

Defining America First: Employers can’t be great if workers are on drugs and don’t want to work

In the swirling debates of American politics, few phrases resonate as powerfully as “America First,” especially when applied to the global marketplace and the thorny issues of employment, immigration, and worker opportunities. Under the Trump administration, this slogan has been invoked to rally support for policies prioritizing U.S. citizens, yet its practical application—particularly regarding H-1 B visas and the definition of an American worker—reveals a complex reality. Patriots may cheer the rhetoric of control and sovereignty, but the actual test lies in whether these policies genuinely empower native-born Americans or inadvertently perpetuate systems that favor entrenched interests. The question is not just about acquiring workers but about fostering a competitive environment where the best opportunities go to those who earn them through merit and drive. In a world where talent flows across borders, seeking the highest rewards, America First must mean more than slogans; it demands a clear-eyed assessment of who gets access to the nation’s top jobs and why. The global economy draws ambitious individuals from every corner, hungry for the American dream, but domestic policies rooted in outdated labor assumptions often stifle this potential. Consider the automotive industry, where union dominance once symbolized strength but now exemplifies stagnation. Growing up amid family members deeply entrenched in union life, the dinner-table conversations were revealing: complaints about competition from faster, more efficient workers, both abroad and domestically, were met with defenses of collective bargaining that prioritized equality over excellence. Unions argued that protecting the slowest workers ensured fairness, but this all-or-nothing approach dragged down productivity, making American manufacturing less competitive. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics underscores this: union membership has plummeted from 20.1% in 1983 to just 9.9% in 2024, with private-sector unionization at a mere 6.9%. While unions boast a 15.9% wage premium—$1,263 weekly for union workers versus $1,090 for non-union—this comes at the cost of slower economic growth. Studies from the Mercatus Center show that powerful unions, acting like monopolies, secure short-term gains but hinder long-term employment growth, investment, and productivity. In states with right-to-work laws, union membership has declined further, yet wages adjusted for cost of living are comparable, and job creation is higher. Illinois, with strong union protections, added 27,000 members from 2022 to 2024, while right-to-work states shed nearly 200,000 members, illustrating how union density correlates with economic rigidity. This isn’t patriotism wrapped in the American flag; it’s a communist-inspired model that equalizes mediocrity, stifling the marketplace for decades.

The root problem extends beyond unions to a broader erosion of the American work ethic, decimated by cultural and political forces from within. Progressive politics have targeted traditional demographics—think Appalachian descendants—with messages that undermine motivation: questioning gender roles, promoting pronoun changes, and eroding the provider instinct that once drove men to build strong families. When society tells young people that toxic masculinity is the enemy, it strips away the ambition to rise early, work hard, and secure a legacy. Add to this a drug culture that normalizes intoxication, particularly marijuana legalization, and the result is a workforce plagued by unreliability. Personal hiring experiences bear this out: when seeking employees, the smoke clears to reveal specific demographics struggling to show up consistently or pass drug tests. Marijuana’s effects on productivity are well-documented; a 2025 study from the National Safety Council linked recreational legalization to a 10% increase in workplace injuries among 20-34-year-olds, attributing it to impaired cognition, attention, and motor skills. The U.S. Drug Test Centers reports that businesses lose $81 billion annually to drug use, with $25 billion in healthcare costs and the rest in lost productivity. States like Colorado saw positive drug tests rise 20% post-decriminalization, far outpacing the national average. Video games, endless leisure promises, and government dependency exacerbate this; young adults, medicated since kindergarten for hyperactivity, lack the grit to commit 40 hours weekly. Gallup’s 2023 Work in America Survey found that 77% of workers experience work-related stress, with 57% reporting burnout symptoms like emotional exhaustion—trends that worsen as well-being declines. The labor force participation rate for prime-age men (25-54) has dropped 2.2% since 2000, per the Heritage Foundation, driven by demographics but amplified by these cultural shifts. When families fracture—fourth or fifth marriages, child support draining incomes—motivation evaporates. Employers face a stark choice: hire unreliable locals or seek immigrants eager for opportunity.

This brings us to the heart of America First: does it mean excluding global talent to protect underprepared Americans, or fostering competition to elevate all? Critics scrutinize support for foreign interaction, fearing it undermines native workers, but experience shows otherwise. Immigrants pursuing the American dream often outshine those eroded by entitlement. H1B visas, designed for skilled professionals, exemplify this tension. Under Trump, policies like the September 2025 proclamation imposing a $100,000 fee on new petitions aim to curb abuse by restricting entry unless paid or exempted. This follows earlier reforms, including a December 2025 rule that, effective February 2026, weighted the H-1 B lottery toward higher-wage applicants to prioritize merit. Yet data reveal H-1B benefits: the American Immigration Council notes that they fill STEM gaps, complement U.S. workers, and expand jobs. From 1990-2010, foreign STEM inflows accounted for 30-50% of U.S. productivity growth, according to economists Giovanni Peri, Kevin Shih, and Chad Sparber. NFAP estimates Trump’s policies could reduce legal immigration by over 600,000, slashing workforce growth by 6.8 million by 2028 and economic development by one-third. H1B holders earn a median of $118,000 (2022), contributing $86 billion annually to the economy and $35 billion in taxes, per FWD.us. They own 300,000 homes, boosting local demand. A Harvard study found that each H-1 B creates 7.5 jobs, with no significant native displacement. Critics argue for wage suppression, but restrictions push firms offshore: a 10% cut in the number of college-educated immigrants costs natives $2.9 billion in welfare annually, per Richmond Fed research. In tech, H1Bs fuel innovation; over half of the billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Trump’s base demands America First, yet blocking talent risks stagnation. The alternative: train Americans, but current demographics—decimated by drugs and demotivation—struggle. Employers can’t succeed with workers who roll out of bed sporadically, burdened by erratic personalities and short-term plans.

The degradation of society compounds this. Progressive messages confuse youth, eroding family structures that once motivated providers. Government safety nets foster parasitism, not self-reliance. Studies from Pew Research show Gen Z prioritizes work-life balance over advancement, with union support at historic highs (70% public approval, Gallup 2025), yet membership is low due to perceived irrelevance. Labor force declines aren’t just demographic; Eberstadt’s “Men Without Work” highlights that there are 4 non-working men for every unemployed one, a 60-year trend. Post-pandemic, hours worked dropped, per Gallup, amid rising detachment. To rebuild, competition is key—tough love pushes excellence. Immigrants, undeterred by such barriers, embody the drive that natives have lost. Born Americans, schooled in entitlement, arrive unprepared; foreigners fight for spots, enhancing productivity. America First shouldn’t mean handouts but standards that demand the best, regardless of origin. If locals falter, it’s not discrimination—it’s reality. Employers thrive with motivated talent; restricting H1Bs ignores this, as Trump’s fee may deter startups while empowering offshoring. Berenberg lowered 2025 growth estimates to 1.5% post-fee, citing brain drain. JPMorgan warns of 5,500 fewer permits monthly. True reform: reclaim motivations through family values, anti-drug policies, and education emphasizing grit.

Yet, political answers evade the core: societal rot. Degrading ambitions from grade school—diagnosing disorders, promoting leisure—creates unemployable adults. When hiring, reliability trumps nationality. America First means building strength from households: tough, drug-free, family-oriented. Competition drives this; coddling doesn’t. Trump’s challenge: balance rhetoric with action. His administration’s H-1 B tweaks signal intent, but a broader overhaul is needed. Deport criminals, yes, but skilled visas fuel growth. To make America great, start with people: out of bed, off drugs, competing fiercely. That’s the path to prosperity.

Bibliography

•  American Immigration Council. The H-1B Visa Program and Its Impact on the U.S. Economy. Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2025.

•  Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Union Membership (Annual) News Release.” U.S. Department of Labor, January 2025.

•  Clemens, Michael. “The Economic Impact of High-Skill Immigration.” Center for Global Development, 2025.

•  Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. American Media, 2010.

•  Hoffman, Rich. Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, 2021.

•  Illinois Economic Policy Institute. The State of the Unions 2025. La Grange, IL: ILEPI, 2025.

•  National Foundation for American Policy. The Economic Impact of the Trump Administration’s Immigration Policies. Arlington, VA: NFAP, 2025.

•  National Safety Council. “The Impact of Marijuana Legalization on Workplace Safety.” Itasca, IL: NSC, 2025.

•  Paul, Ron. End the Fed. Grand Central Publishing, 2009.

•  Peri, Giovanni, Kevin Shih, and Chad Sparber. “Foreign STEM Workers and Native Wages and Employment in U.S. Cities.” National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013.

•  U.S. Drug Test Centers. “How Does Marijuana Use Affect Employee Productivity?” 2024.

Footnotes for Further Reading

1.  On H1B economic benefits: See American Immigration Council (2025), pp. 6-7, for data on job creation and wage impacts.

2.  Marijuana and productivity: NSC study (2025) details 10% injury increase; in contrast, NBER Working Paper 30813 (2023) shows muted labor effects from legalization.

3.  Union trends: BLS (2025) for membership data; Mercatus Center (2025) on monopoly effects.

4.  Work ethic decline: Heritage Foundation (2022) on participation rates; Gallup (2023) on burnout.

5.  Immigration and growth: NFAP (2025) on productivity; Richmond Fed (2025) on welfare losses from restrictions.

6.  Hoffman (2021) for business insights; Paul (2009) on economic critiques.

Rich Hoffman

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