Michael Ryan Wins in the Primary for Butler County Commissioner: What a victory of 72% over 28% says about political reality

Michael Ryan’s decisive victory in the 2026 Butler County Republican primary for commissioner marks a significant shift in local politics, reflecting voter demand for genuine conservatism, accountability, and fresh leadership. I have followed these races closely for years, and this outcome stands out as a clear repudiation of entitlement politics and a triumph for the kind of candidate who earns support through hard work and integrity. With final unofficial results showing Ryan capturing approximately 72% of the vote to Cindy Carpenter’s 28%, the primary essentially decides the seat in this heavily Republican county.

Butler County, Ohio, is in the southwestern part of the state, encompassing communities such as Hamilton, Middletown, Fairfield, and Oxford (home to Miami University), as well as numerous townships. Its population exceeds 390,000, with a strong manufacturing and agricultural base alongside growing suburban development. The Board of Commissioners oversees a substantial budget, infrastructure projects, economic development, public safety, and human services. For decades, the board has operated under Republican dominance, making the GOP primary the real contest. Winning it virtually guarantees victory in November against the unopposed Democrat Mike Miller.

Cindy Carpenter had served as commissioner since 2011 and was seeking a fifth term. Her tenure focused on human services, public health, and fiscal matters, but it was marred by controversies that alienated many in the party base. Incidents included a heated confrontation at a Miami University-area apartment complex involving her granddaughter, where she was accused of leveraging her position, using inappropriate language, and displaying aggressive behavior captured on video. Investigations cleared her of criminal wrongdoing but highlighted conduct deemed “distasteful” and “beneath her elected position.” Additional complaints arose, including allegations of aggressive conduct at a housing coalition meeting. Even the county sheriff publicly expressed concerns about her behavior.

A particularly damaging episode involved Carpenter campaigning for a Democrat in the Middletown mayoral race, crossing party lines in ways that many viewed as disloyal. This move, combined with her decision not to seek the Butler County Republican Party endorsement, signaled a disconnect. She appeared to operate with an entitled mindset, assuming incumbency alone would carry her through. Her campaign signs, some in blue tones reminiscent of Democratic aesthetics, and limited fundraising—only about $7,700 compared to Ryan’s over $46,000—underscored a lack of broad support.

In contrast, Michael Ryan entered the race as a former Hamilton City Council member with a background in business and community service. He positioned himself as a true conservative caretaker focused on fiscal responsibility, job creation, lower taxes, and practical governance. Ryan methodically built support: he secured the Republican Party endorsement with a striking 71% in the first round of voting, an early and historic show of strength. Major figures lined up behind him, including Auditor Nancy Nix, who endorsed him at a fundraiser when it still carried risk; Congressman Warren Davidson; State Representative Thomas Hall; and others, such as George Lang. These endorsements validated his approach and reassured voters that change could be safe and effective.

I endorsed Ryan early, well before the primary heated up. Having known him for years, I saw in him the sincerity and dedication often missing in politics. He raised money effectively, attended events tirelessly, engaged voters across the county, and maintained a positive, bridge-building demeanor even amid challenges like sign theft. His campaign emphasized family values, economic growth, and responsiveness—qualities that resonated deeply in a county frustrated with the status quo. The watch party on primary night, held at the Premier Shooting facility with a speakeasy-style back area, overflowed with supporters. The room was packed; people had to turn sideways to navigate. Energy filled the space as results rolled in.

Congressman Warren Davidson attended and shared insights from his experience in large districts. We discussed the political savvy required at every level and how Ryan had grown into a polished figure capable of uniting people. Davidson’s presence underscored the race’s importance, and his admiration for Ryan’s development over the couple of years spoke volumes. Other supporters like Darbi Boddy added to the festive, optimistic atmosphere. It felt like a genuine celebration of earned success rather than entitlement.

The results confirmed what grassroots momentum had suggested. With 100% of precincts reporting in unofficial tallies, Ryan’s 72%-28% margin was overwhelming and, for some, embarrassing to the incumbent. Early voting and election-day observations showed Carpenter’s team attempting a last-minute sign blitz, but it failed against organized, enthusiastic Ryan volunteers who kept their ground game strong. The Republican slate card proved crucial, as it often does; voters seeking vetted candidates found Ryan prominently featured through party processes and independent media coverage.

This victory carries broader lessons for politics, especially local races. Party systems matter because they help aggregate preferences in a diverse society. People differ on countless details—concrete versus asphalt, tax priorities, development approaches—but effective governance requires building majorities. Dismissing the party as irrelevant or operating as a “RINO” critic while undermining it rarely succeeds. Ryan demonstrated the opposite: he worked within the system, earned endorsements through respect and effort, and presented a positive vision.

Background on Butler County’s political landscape adds context. The county has long leaned conservative, supporting Republican candidates at high levels, including strong support for Trump in recent cycles. Yet local frustrations with taxes, growth management, infrastructure, and perceived insider politics have grown. Projects involving economic development, public safety, and services will benefit from new energy. Ryan has signaled readiness to hit the ground running, with ideas on efficiency, accountability, and forward-thinking initiatives already in motion during the campaign. His experience on Hamilton council involved practical decision-making on budgets and community issues, preparing him well for county-level responsibilities.

Roger Reynolds, former county auditor, briefly entered the race but withdrew after the party endorsement went decisively to Ryan. His last-minute alignment with Carpenter, including sign placement, highlighted lingering personal grievances but ultimately underscored the party’s unified shift. Voters rejected that approach. In an era where authenticity matters more than ever, Ryan’s consistent message and character won out.

I am proud to have supported him from the beginning. When Nancy Nix announced her endorsement at a fundraiser, it took courage because challengers to incumbents often face skepticism. Yet as momentum built—through articles, videos, conversations, and events—support snowballed. Thousands accessed information in the final days, researching Ryan’s record and deciding he represented the change they sought without chaos.

Looking ahead to the general election in November 2026, the focus shifts to implementation. Ryan will face minimal opposition, allowing emphasis on transition planning. Priorities likely include continuing fiscal stewardship amid state and federal shifts, addressing housing and development thoughtfully, enhancing public safety, and promoting economic opportunities in a region balancing rural roots with suburban expansion. His fresh perspective promises to inject optimism and results-oriented governance.

Politics at the county level profoundly affects daily life: road maintenance, emergency services, property taxes, zoning, and more. When voters sense entitlement or disconnection, they respond, as seen here. Carpenter’s campaign assumed voter inertia; Ryan proved engagement and sincerity prevail. This race reminds us that traditional political games—relying on name recognition, minimal effort, or media insiders—have diminished effectiveness in an era of an informed electorate.

The night of the primary embodied hope. A full room of dedicated Republicans, conversations with leaders like Davidson, and the visible relief and excitement on supporters’ faces painted a picture of renewal. Ryan’s wife and family shared in the moment, grounding the victory in personal commitment. For those involved in politics, the takeaway is clear: do the work, be genuine, build coalitions, and respect the process. Ryan exemplified this, turning potential obstacles into advantages.

As someone who values conservative principles of limited government, individual responsibility, and community strength, I see Ryan’s win as validation. Butler County deserves leadership that listens, acts prudently, and prioritizes residents. With the primary behind us, anticipation builds for his term starting in 2027. Many good projects and ideas wait in the wings, ready for execution. And because of this election, a lot of good things will happen.

Footnotes

1. Journal-News reporting on final unofficial results showing Ryan at 72%.

2. Cincinnati Enquirer coverage of fundraising disparity and endorsements.

3. Ballotpedia profiles on candidates and race background.

4. Accounts of Carpenter controversies from multiple local news outlets.

5. Party endorsement details and 71% vote.

6. Observations from the watch party and interactions with Davidson.

Bibliography / Further Reading

• Journal-News (Hamilton, Ohio): Multiple articles on the primary, results, and candidate profiles (2026).

• Cincinnati Enquirer: Coverage of the commissioner race, fundraising, and controversies.

• Ballotpedia: Entries for Michael V. Ryan, Cindy Carpenter, and Butler County elections 2026.

• Ryan for Butler official campaign site: Policy positions and updates.

• Butler County Board of Elections: Official results and candidate filings.

• articles on local politics and endorsements.

• Additional context from county commissioner office descriptions and historical election data.

This primary will be remembered as a turning point in which voters chose character, preparation, and vision over incumbency. Michael Ryan earned this victory, and Butler County stands to benefit. The hard work of the campaign now transitions to governance, with high expectations and strong support. It is a positive development for the future.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

The Great Public School Meltdown: Cleveland’s Teacher Layoffs, the Property Tax Revolt, and Why the Socialist Education Model Is Predictably Collapsing

Everybody who’s been paying attention to Ohio politics—and especially those of us in Butler County—knew this day was coming. The headlines out of Cleveland this month hit like a ton of bricks: the Cleveland Metropolitan School District just laid off 410 full-time employees, including 146 teachers, as part of a brutal budget reckoning. The board voted unanimously on April 14, 2026, amid protests and tears, to slash staff and close or merge another 29 schools as part of its “Building Brighter Futures” plan. CEO Warren Morgan called it necessary—declining enrollment (down about 50% over the last 20 years, while staffing only dropped 31%), massive deficits projected to hit $49 million by 2029, even after these cuts, and the need to avoid state fiscal oversight. They’re saving around $50 million a year for now, but the writing’s on the wall. This isn’t some isolated crisis in a struggling big-city district. It’s the tip of the spear for what’s happening across Ohio and the country. Public education as we’ve known it—the endless money pit funded by confiscatory property taxes, union contracts, and the fantasy of government-as-parent—is hitting the wall hard.

I’ve been saying it for years, and now the reality is playing out in living color. Listen to the young mom who spoke up during one of those emotional video conferences and parent meetings that went viral after the layoffs. She’s exactly the kind of parent I’ve described a thousand times—the insecure 30-something or early-40s mom who grew up in the system herself, outsourcing her kid’s upbringing to the school as a free babysitting service. “It breaks my heart,” she said, voice cracking, “for her and her family and our own life… she was such a staple… I can’t believe they can just come in here and take these people’s jobs away because we are lacking money.” She talked about how the teacher had become a fixture in her son’s life, how it hurt knowing the frontline people doing the real work were the ones getting cut while “people in the office making six figures” stayed fat and happy. Classic. She represents millions of parents who fell in love with their kids’ teachers because they can’t—or won’t—invest that time and energy themselves. They treat educators like extensions of their own fragile egos, demanding the community throw infinite cash at the system so they can live their lives guilt-free. It’s heartbreaking on a human level, sure. But it’s also the predictable outcome of a model built on bad incentives from the start.

Here in Butler County, where I live, the property tax debates are raging right now. Reappraisals are driving values up 13-25% in some spots, especially in those “20-mill floor” school districts where taxes spike automatically with home values. The county commissioners rolled back some inside millage and boosted homestead exemptions for seniors, but the pressure is enormous. Statewide, there’s this citizen-led push for the “Ohio Eliminate and Prohibit Taxes on Real Property Initiative”—a constitutional amendment to outright ban property taxes on land, buildings, crops, the works. The group Ax Ohio Tax has been gathering signatures like crazy, claiming they’re on pace with around 305,000 so far toward the 413,000 needed from 44 counties by July 1 to make the November 2026 ballot. Experts say it’s a long shot—it might not quite get there, and even if it does, it probably won’t pass. But the fact that it’s this close tells you everything. Young families in their 20s and 30s, looking at home prices inflated by years of easy money and government distortion, aren’t signing up to pay sky-high taxes on overvalued properties to fund a system that’s failing their kids anyway. The pyramid scheme is cracking. Property taxes have been the golden goose for schools—funding billions locally across Ohio—but people are burnt out. They see the results: kids who graduate (or don’t) are barely able to read, think critically, or function without government crutches. And they’re done.

This isn’t new. I’ve been hammering on it in Butler County levies and school board fights for years. Public schools were never really about education in the classical sense. They were a Progressive Era invention—part of the same 1913 income tax and New Deal fantasies that sold socialism as compassionate central planning. “Bring your kids to us,” the pitch went. “We’ll teach them while you go live your life.” It was always an attack on the family unit, a way to weaken parental influence and reprogram children en masse to worship government. Look at the outcomes: by every measure, it’s been a disaster. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores—the Nation’s Report Card—paint a grim picture. In 2024, only about 30% of fourth-graders were proficient in reading nationally, down from previous years. In big urban districts like Cleveland, it’s even worse—single-digit proficiency in some subjects for certain grades. High school seniors? Just 35% proficient in reading, 22% in math—the lowest in decades. About 64% of fourth-graders overall can’t read proficiently. Literacy stats are brutal: over half of U.S. adults read below a sixth-grade level. We’re spending $15,000–$18,000 per pupil in Ohio (higher in some districts), yet we’re churning out young adults who can’t think for themselves, who lean Democrat for the first decade of their lives until reality smacks them, and who struggle with basic life skills. Thomas Edison didn’t come out of public school. Innovators and independent thinkers rarely do. The system produces dependents.

And the parents are demanding more money? Many of them are products of that same system—taught that wages should be universal, that showing up and playing on the computer while gossiping about TV shows counts as “work,” that teachers deserve disproportionate pay, time off, and security because… reasons. Unions have locked it in: collective bargaining on the backs of property taxpayers, no real differentiation between good and bad teachers, and ideological capture that skews heavily Democrat. Progressive politics in the staff lounge becomes progressive indoctrination in the classroom—how to “legally steal” or view success as oppression. If you last in that environment into your 30s and 40s, you probably absorb it. The peer pressure and government paycheck mentality do the rest.

The Cleveland story is playing out everywhere. Northeast Ohio districts are warning of more cuts. Enrollment declines, lost state funding, failed levies, and pressure for property tax reform are squeezing budgets. Akron, Columbus—same issues. The Trump administration is accelerating the national rollback. They’re shrinking the Department of Education, moving programs to states and other agencies, pushing school choice hard, and returning power where it belongs: to parents and local control. No more federal bureaucracy pretending one size fits all. It’s happening fast—executive orders, budget shifts, Workforce Pell Grants for real skills instead of four-year indoctrination factories. The fantasies of 1913 and the New Deal are over. People are waking up. The new generation sees that home values aren’t what they’re cracked up to be when the tax bill arrives. They don’t want to subsidize a failing babysitting service forever.

Here’s the psychological angle I’ve talked about before: a lot of these Levy supporters and heartbroken parents are insecure about their own upbringing. They project that insecurity onto the system, demanding the community parent their kids so they don’t have to confront their own shortcomings. Teachers become emotional surrogates. “Don’t cut her—she’s family!” But it’s not sustainable. No amount of money fixes a model built on coercion and low expectations. Good teachers exist, sure. But the structure rewards mediocrity and ideology over results. Competition is the only answer. The future is school choice: money follows the child—private models, charters, homeschooling, vouchers—parents pay or direct funds to what works. Schools will have to compete for enrollment the way businesses compete for customers. Zip-code monopolies are dying. That drives down per-pupil costs, raises quality, and forces adaptation. Districts clinging to the old union-heavy, top-heavy model (Cleveland’s audit called out administrative bloat) will shrink or reform.

I feel for the laid-off teachers on a human level. Many went into it with good intentions. But the system they defended—endless funding via property taxes, no accountability—created this cliff. Parents like that young mom in Cleveland thought the money was perpetual, that socialism’s promises would hold. They weren’t taught basic economics: you can’t confiscate wealth forever without consequences. When homeowners top out, when young buyers say “no more,” when results don’t match the rhetoric, the house of cards falls. Cleveland isn’t the end—it’s the beginning. More districts across Ohio will face the same. The state legislature has been trying to get ahead of it with reforms, easing the addiction. Republicans see the writing on the wall; many Democrats are still in denial.

The broader truth? Public education hasn’t served America well. It was never designed to create strong, independent people. It was designed to create compliant citizens who mimic government worship. We’ve got generations now waking up damaged—barely literate, debt-laden if they went further, dependent on the very system that failed them. Strong countries need strong individuals who can read, reason, innovate, and stand on their own. Public schools haven’t delivered that at scale. The game is over for perpetual funding. It’s rolling back, and the adjustment will be painful. There will be tears—lots of them—from parents, teachers, unions. But reality doesn’t care about feelings. You can’t say you weren’t warned. I’ve been saying it for years in these pages, in Butler County fights, in every levy debate. People lashed out, called names, and wouldn’t hear it. Now the grim reality is on their doorstep.

The solution isn’t more money. It’s choice, competition, and parental responsibility. Venture your own child—don’t outsource to a stranger in a failing system. The private model works because it has skin in the game. Parents pay or direct funds; schools earn trust or lose students. That’s how excellence returns. Ohio is at the precipice. The property tax scheme is falling apart nationwide as valuations outpace wages and young families revolt. Cleveland’s 410 layoffs are a preview. Multiply that mom’s heartbreak by millions, and you see the emotional wave coming. But on the other side? Better education, stronger families, real opportunity.

I know a lot of the players in these fights. I’ve seen the good families fighting corruption, the dedicated teachers swimming upstream, the parents waking up. The Rooster-style projectionists in media will spin this as “cruelty” or “underfunding,” but the numbers don’t lie: high spending, terrible results. Democrats assume everyone shares their weaknesses—endless government dependence. They don’t get that many of us built lives without it. Vivek Ramaswamy types—successful, disciplined, family-first—represent what’s possible when you reject the excuses.

Footnotes

1. Cleveland19.com, “Cleveland Metropolitan School District to cut 410 full-time jobs,” April 15, 2026.

2. Signal Cleveland reporting on CMSD board meeting protests and parent reactions, April 2026.

3. Ballotpedia, “Ohio Eliminate and Prohibit Taxes on Real Property Initiative (2026).”

4. NAEP/Nation’s Report Card data releases, 2024-2025 (reading/math proficiency trends).

5. Butler County Auditor reports on property tax billings and reappraisals, 2026.

6. U.S. Department of Education announcements on returning authority to states, 2025-2026.

7. Ohio Capital Journal and related coverage on property tax abolition efforts, March-April 2026.

Bibliography

• Cleveland19.com and Signal Cleveland articles on CMSD layoffs and consolidations (April 2026).

• Ballotpedia entry on Ohio property tax abolition initiative (2026).

• National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Reading and Math reports (2024-2025).

• Butler County Auditor’s Office, property tax reform guides and billings data (2025-2026).

• U.S. Department of Education press releases and budget summaries on Department restructuring (2025-2026).

• Ohio Capital Journal, Columbus Dispatch coverage of tax reform and education funding debates (2026).

• Hoffman, Rich. The Politics of Heaven (forthcoming 2027).

• Additional sources: State audit of CMSD administration; NWEA and EdWeek analyses of post-pandemic scores.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

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

Marijuana Use at the High Place of Tel Arad, Israel: The problem with legalizing communication with inter-dimensional entities

I promised more context for why I hate the legalization of marijuana so much, and in the case of mass society, intoxicants. It’s not enough to say that drugs should be illegal; people need to understand why. And for me, it’s a battle of consciousness and who controls your thoughts. How can people, for instance, fight for small government and the benefits of an intelligent republic, but then surrender all thought through intoxication over to other forces that invade your personal sovereignty, and the most important at that, our minds and the thoughts that those minds produce? When smoke filled the air of an inner sanctum, it was never accidental. It was engineered. In the eighth century BCE, at the Judahite fortress shrine of Tel Arad, roughly thirty-five miles south of Jerusalem, two limestone altars stood before the threshold of the “holy of holies.” Laboratory analysis of the charred residue on those altars has now told us plainly what ancient worshipers were inhaling: on one, frankincense blended with animal fat to volatilize its perfume at higher temperatures; on the other, cannabis mixed with animal dung to slow‑burn at lower temperatures, releasing a psychoactive aerosol sufficient to induce altered states. The compounds identified—THC, CBD, CBN, terpenes, and terpenoids—leave no doubt that the cannabis inflorescences were burned not for fragrance but for ecstasy.¹ ² ³ ⁴ 1 2 3 4

That is the kind of hard, physical evidence that strips away modern euphemisms. At Tel Arad, cannabis was a ritual technology. It was the apparatus by which priests or officiants crossed the threshold from sober perception to trance, much as frankincense, sourced via Arabian trade routes, made the sanctum smell like heaven even as cannabis smoke tuned human minds to hear it.¹ ³ ⁵ 1 3 5 The shrine’s use window, ca. 760–715 BCE, places it squarely in Judah’s political and religious turbulence, between the First Temple’s glory and the Assyrian pressure, when competing cults and high places dotted the land. The Arad altars stood not in a marginal folk‑site but in a fortress on the southern frontier—a liminal place in geography and consciousness.² ⁵ 2 5

The broader archaeology of Canaan corroborates that mind-altering substances were embedded in ritual. In the Late Bronze Age cemetery at Tel Yehud, archaeologists recovered imported Base‑Ring jugs shaped like poppy heads whose residues test positive for opium—likely associated with funerary rites and the cult of the dead, whether to raise spirits or ease the passage.⁶ 6 Across the Near East, ecstasy was not a fringe practice; it was a cultivated technique. Tel Arad’s twin altars memorialize that technique at the threshold of the inner sanctum, where incense regulated the smell and cannabis regulated the state of mind.¹ ³ 1 4

From that ancient record, one conclusion emerges that remains relevant today: cannabis was used to override sober cognition in a sacred framework. It did not sharpen judgment; it sought communion—voices, visions, feedback from a realm beyond ordinary waking life. Whether you interpret those experiences as genuine encounters with non-human intelligences or as products of hyper-stimulated neural circuitry, the public‑policy implication is the same. Normalizing marijuana enshrines altered consciousness as a cultural good. The more potent the product and the wider the adoption, the more a society tunes its public square toward ritualized disinhibition.

You can see the continuity of this logic in India’s long bhang tradition. Bhang, a paste made from cannabis leaves, has been woven into festivals like Holi and Maha Shivaratri for centuries, with references in Vedic literature and Ayurvedic lore and with colonial observers documenting its ubiquity.⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰ 7 8 9 10 Contemporary estimates run in the millions of annual consumers around major festivals, placing cannabis within a sacred calendar rather than on the margins of culture.⁸ 8 In visual culture, the art that issues from such states is strikingly consistent across continents: charged neon geometrics, entity‑forms, fractal mandalas—repertoire that echoes shamanic cosmologies from Siberia to Amazonia and now saturates modern psychedelic aesthetics. The continuity of motifs suggests a continuity of effect: the same kinds of altered states produce the same types of visions.

But where ancient priests burned cannabis to induce ecstasy within a small, controlled ritual community, modern legalization scales that effect to whole populations. That is where archeology’s lesson collides with public health. If cannabis is a portal, the portal’s throughput matters. Epidemiology repeatedly associates heavier or earlier cannabis use with increased risk of psychotic outcomes, observing dose‑response effects: meta‑analysis finds the heaviest users have odds ratios near 3.9 for schizophrenia or related psychoses compared with non‑users.¹¹ 11 A 2025 synthesis applying Hill’s criteria argues there is a high likelihood cannabis contributes to schizophrenia development overall, with a pooled OR ≈ 2.88 and roughly two‑fold greater risk for adolescent users.¹⁴ 12 More granular clinical work shows that in diagnosed schizophrenia, cannabis use is tied to increased positive symptoms (hallucinations, delusions) and higher excitement, even as negative symptom patterns can vary; no causality is claimed, but the association is robust.¹³ 13 And among people with schizophrenia, cannabis use is significantly associated with some suicide‑related outcomes, including elevated odds of attempted suicide and increased hazards for suicide death.¹⁵ 14

Jurisdiction-level studies add a societal lens. After U.S. recreational legalization (2009–2019), modeling shows +5.8% injury crash rates and +4.1% fatal crash rates in the aggregate, controlling for factors like unemployment, speed limits, seat‑belt use, rural miles, and alcohol trends—effects vary by state, but the direction is worrisome.¹⁶ ¹⁷ 15 16 Systematic reviews converge on negative road‑safety impacts in most studies, and national surveys now find 4–6% of drivers self‑report driving within an hour of cannabis use, with risk perceptions conspicuously more lenient than for alcohol.¹⁸ ¹⁹ 17 18 None of this proves that every consumer will suffer harm; it demonstrates that scaled access increases measurable externalities—most acutely among young men, high‑potency users, and those who combine cannabis with alcohol.¹² ¹⁸ 19 17

So why invoke Tel Arad in a twenty-first-century legalization debate? Because it reveals what cannabis was for in a culture that canonized sacred space: it was for ecstasy, for crossing boundaries, for letting something else participate in one’s thinking. If you grant the metaphysical possibility that those “somethings” are genuine non-human intelligences, then mass legalization looks like opening a wide conduit into a population’s decision-making machinery. If you deny that and call the entities neural artifacts, the conclusion hardly changes: repeated entry into states that mimic external agency undermines habituated sovereignty and clarity—what a civilization requires for law, craft, and self-government.

There is also a moral claim at stake. Cultures thrive on lucidity—on earned competence and honest accountability. We do not need to romanticize intoxication because it looks antiquarian. Tel Arad was not quaint. It was precise. One altar perfumed the sanctum; the other hijacked cognition. Judah’s priests were innovating in ritual engineering, not engaging in harmless herbalism. The residue composition—the dung matrix, the cannabinoid profile, the deliberate temperature control—shows purposeful design to modulate consciousness.¹ ² ³ 1 2 3 That is the legacy modern marijuana culture inherits: techniques to create porosity. Legalization, commercialization, and age-neutral marketing scale porosity to a level ancient officiants never imagined, and the data on psychosis and road safety tell us the cost.

For these reasons, I reject marijuana as a cultural good. The Tel Arad shrine is a fossilized warning: cannabis has been a conduit into ecstasy in high places for a very long time, and cultures that survive do not hand their sovereignty to smoke. The way forward is not to sacralize intoxication, but to honor clarity—frankincense is fragrant; cannabis is psychoactive. The former perfumes a room; the latter reprograms it. Tel Arad did both. We should do neither.

David Jay Brown and Sara Phinn Huntley’s The Illustrated Field Guide to DMT Entities: Machine Elves, Tricksters, Teachers, and Other Interdimensional Beings (2025) brings this conversation into sharp modern focus. Structured like a naturalist’s handbook for hyperspace, the book catalogs 25 distinct entity types encountered in DMT and ayahuasca experiences—from self-transforming machine elves and mantis insectoids to reptilians, gray aliens, fairies, nature spirits, and divine forms like Grandmother Ayahuasca and the Virgin Mary. Each chapter includes encounter narratives from trip reports and scientific studies, rich descriptions of behavior, appearance, and the messages or teachings they impart, accompanied by visionary artwork from artists such as Alex Grey and Sara Phinn Huntley herself 1 2. The field guide poses a profound question: Are these beings mere constructs of the human psyche, or are they independent intelligences inhabiting other dimensions? That question lies at the heart of every cross-cultural psychedelic tradition, from Tel Arad’s cannabis altars to global shamanic rites.

The guide has not only attracted readers interested in visionary art or entheogens but has also gained credibility through endorsements from figures like Graham Hancock and through guest appearances by Brown and Huntley on platforms like the “Rebel Spirit Radio” podcast 3. Meanwhile, mainstream voices like Joe Rogan regularly revisit “DMT astronauts”—individuals who deliberately seek these entities for spiritual insight or practical guidance—and discuss whether contemporary governments and institutions might align with such interdimensional “high priests” to influence mass consciousness 4 5. This book is a frontier consideration into a new science of analysis and reinforces the core argument: humanity’s engagement with psychoactive smoke—from ancient altars to modern DMT breakthroughs—is not benign. It is a politics of consciousness intervention, where the line between personal sovereignty and external mental imposition is perilously blurred. And it’s very dangerous, and should under no rational endeavor, should ever be legalized in a serious society.

Footnotes

1. Arie, Rosen, Namdar (2020), GC‑MS identification of THC/CBD/CBN; animal dung/fat matrices; dating and functional interpretation. 1

2. Science News coverage of the shrine context, the cannabis–dung mixture, and THC levels consistent with altered states. 2

3. Taylor & Francis newsroom summary highlighting frankincense chemistry (boswellic acids) and deliberate psychoactive use of cannabis. 3

4. Times of Israel report: cannabis “to stimulate ecstasy” and implications for Temple ritual analogs. 4

5. Sci. News overview of shrine chronology, fortress border function, and compositional findings. 5

6. Biblical Archaeology Society: Tel Yehud opium residues in Base‑Ring jugs; cult‑of‑the‑dead context. 6

7. Wikipedia (summary with sources) on bhang as an edible cannabis preparation and festival use. 7

8. Firstpost explainer on Holi and bhang’s historical embedding; contemporary practice estimates. 8

9. IndiaTimes feature with Vedic/Ayurvedic references and colonial documentation of bhang. 9

10. SAGE review on the historical context and research state of cannabis use in India. 10

11. Marconi et al. (2016) meta-analysis: dose‑response; OR≈3.9 for heaviest use vs. non-use. 11

12. JAMA Network Open invited commentary (2025) summarizing evidence and Ontario cohort demographics; rising PARF after medical legalization. 19

13. eClinicalMedicine IPD meta-analysis (2023) associating cannabis use with higher positive and excitement dimensions in schizophrenia. 13

14. Biomolecules (2025) systematic review applying Hill’s criteria; overall OR≈2.88; doubled adolescent risk. 12

15. Psychological Medicine (2025) meta-analysis: cannabis use in schizophrenia linked to attempted suicide and suicide death hazards. 14

16. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (2022): legalization associated with +5.8% injury crashes and +4.1% fatal crashes in aggregate. 15

17. IIHS bibliography summary of the same study’s methodology and state heterogeneity. 16

18. MDPI systematic review (2023) concluding negative impacts of legalization on road safety in most studies; risk profiles. 17

19. AAA Foundation (2024) fact sheet on DUI‑C prevalence (~4–6%), risk perceptions, and sex differences. 18

—

Bibliography

Arie, E.; Rosen, B.; Namdar, D. (2020). Cannabis and Frankincense at the Judahite Shrine of Arad. Tel Aviv, 47(1), 5–28. 1

Bower, B. (2020). An Israeli shrine may have hosted the first ritual use of marijuana. Science News. 2

Farmer, C. M.; Monfort, S. S.; Woods, A. N. (2022). Changes in Traffic Crash Rates After Legalization of Marijuana. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 83, 494–501. 15

Marconi, A., et al. (2016). Meta-analysis of the Association Between the Level of Cannabis Use and Risk of Psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42(5), 1262–1269. 11

Argote, M., et al. (2023). Association between cannabis use and symptom dimensions in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. eClinicalMedicine, 64, 102199. 13

Pourebrahim, S., et al. (2025). Does Cannabis Use Contribute to Schizophrenia? Biomolecules, 15, 368. 12

Mulligan, L. D., et al. (2025). Cannabis use and suicide in schizophrenia. Psychological Medicine, 55, e79. 14

González Sala, F., et al. (2023). Effects of Cannabis Legalization on Road Safety: A Literature Review. IJERPH, 20(5), 4655. 17

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (2024). Cannabis Use, Public Health, and Traffic Safety (Fact Sheet). 18

Biblical Archaeology Society (2022). Narcotics used in Canaanite Cult: Opium in Late Bronze Age Graves. 6

Firstpost (2025). The Big ‘Bhang Theory’: Why Indians drink bhang on Holi. 8

IndiaTimes (2023). On Holi, a look at the tradition of using bhang and its legality. 9

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change: From Alarmism to Adaptation

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

• The worst-case scenarios are no longer plausible.

• Technological innovation has already begun reducing emissions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

Why People Play on the Smartphones: Proper methods of modern communication

I’m only sharing this because it was pretty helpful for others to hear what I had to say to an astute young professional who has a problem playing on his phone during important meetings and discussions with high-level people. I understand the mystery of why people play on their cell phones all the time, and, in all honesty, I don’t blame them. I also have grandchildren who are entering that teenage phase, and, of course, kids would rather lose themselves in their phones than talk to someone at a kitchen table. It’s a relatively new phenomenon, and it has social psychologists pretty upset because of what it says about human behavior. But I get it. I understand. However, just as with many of the things I have been talking about lately —back-of-the-train people and the essential leadership needs that only a human being can provide —we have to use all the tools available to us. And in my example to the young professional, I explained that I love to wear sunglasses in public, but I consciously don’t when I know I’ll have to talk to a lot of people. By choice, I avoid wearing sunglasses because I want to engage with others and use my eyes to express myself. Even with all that’s going on, I chose to do videos with all my articles to show people that it’s not AI producing the material, but a living person walking with them and talking. People can see my eye contact even though I look all over the place. People can at least see my eyes, and AI programs can’t communicate like I can in a public presentation. I purposely, even though I’d rather not, speak to people without sunglasses so that people can see and trust what I’m telling them.

And that’s why it’s a good idea not to retreat to your cell phones when you are in a group, talking to a lot of people. But why do people do it? Why would they rather communicate with the smartphone than speak to a perfectly good person right in front of them? If you go to a business meeting, half of the people, if the meeting is long, spend a lot of time checking their phones rather than talking to the real people who are present. But why? Well, it goes back to my sunglasses example, and a lot of the things I have been saying lately about social engagement and value, which have been on purpose for my audience. I like to keep noisy people out of my life, who I call time eaters. And when I go out in public, I almost always bump into people I know, or who want to talk to me for one reason or another. So I wear sunglasses in public so that people can’t lock eyes with me and drag me into a conversation I don’t want to be in, because I’m always busy thinking about something important. I don’t ever have leisure time to talk to other people about nothing. So to avoid getting sucked into meaningless conversation, I wear sunglasses to protect myself from making eye contact with anyone who might use their eyes to get my attention and lock me into a conversation. It’s the same reason that you can go to a crowded movie theater and nobody wants to sit next to each other if they can avoid it. People, if they have a choice, no matter where in the world they are, especially in America, where there is an assumption of personal freedom, will choose to have their own thoughts rather than be captured by others’ concerns.

This translates into the new technology of smartphones, which can give you all kinds of interesting information that you can choose to consume or not. When people scroll through their text messages rather than listening to the person in front of them, they select information they control rather than deal with the randomness of another person outside their control. It’s all about personal autonomy with cell phones. People want to maintain their personal space rather than surrender it to other people. This is why teenagers, not yet fully responsible for their own lives, want to lose themselves in smartphone interaction. They can’t yet make all their own decisions in life, so the smartphone gives them that illusion, just as the video game experience does. People prefer to think about what they want to think about, when they want to, even if the text message they are reading is just simple information that doesn’t lead to anything significant. And the live person in front of them might be much more critical and say things infinitely more lofty than anything happening on someone’s smartphone. But the freedom of choice is what people like and why they would rather interact with a smartphone than a real person. People, more than anything, want the freedom of choice. And if given the option, from teenagers to high-powered business executives, will choose choice over a forced engagement with another human being they may not care much for, or want to interact with, such as in my sunglasses story. To protect their own thoughts and keep the world at bay, they look for control over what they think through their smartphones, which are always there to provide a nice distraction.

But as I told the young hotshot executive, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. If you want to be an effective communicator, put the cell phone down when you want to express yourself to other people. Don’t let them know that there are other things more important to you than what they are saying. If you want to be an effective communicator, you have to use everything, even your nonverbal expressions, to sell your ideas. Otherwise, they will tune you out because if you are busy on your phone, you break that one-on-one interaction. Put your phone down and don’t play with it so you can make other people listen to you when you have something important to say. But don’t be surprised if people tune you out for their own protection if you give them an excuse to break social engagement. For the same reason I provide videos for all my written articles, modern technology, especially AI, has made it so people never know if a real person is actually saying things. And in my case, I let people see my eyes while I’m talking, and I even walk rather than sit in a chair for a podcast, because people can see my hands and my pace of walking with a moving background going by, which is very hard for AI to replicate. And once people know that all that information is something they can trust, they can listen to what I am saying in a way they can believe in. And if you are hiding behind technology yourself, you can’t win over that trust to communicate what you need to. So that is why playing on your smartphone while in conversation with others is not a good idea. And it’s also why people do it. I don’t take it personally. I get it. I actually like that about the human race: they seek their own space over shared space with others when given a choice. But if you want to be a good communicator, you can’t hide behind sunglasses or your smartphone. You have to actually look people in the eye and make them interact with you.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Truth Kamala Harris and All Democrats, Can’t Handle: In ‘107 Days,’ every day only eroded support

There is more that has been exposed than just the rise of the MAGA movement against a backdrop of authority figure Marxism. And that was a theme that kept coming to me as I read Kamala Harris’s new book, 107 Days. Yes, it is garbage, but I’ll read anything, just as I’ll listen to just about anybody, so I can make reasonable conclusions about things, even if it’s from people I don’t like or agree with on much of everything. And her book is complete with the worst kind of fiction; it’s presented as a fact when the actual content is blisteringly fantastical in its scope. And this is true of everything from the radical political left, where they think something and can make it so with the power of their observing it. Such as deciding one day that a man is a woman. That anal sex is just as natural as vaginal intercourse, that the rest of the world is equal, when in reality, they struggle to make bubble gum wrappers. And that all facts and figures can be manipulated until reality is forced to agree with them at the point of mass authority rule over a docile and complicit society that has never grown up and away from their parents, and wants an overwhelming government power to rule over their perpetual insecurities. What has fallen apart most devastatingly for the Marxist left, for which the world’s socialist and communist governments have emerged to various degrees, is the sting of reality. And that is what Kamala’s book most clearly conveys: the degree to which they have lied to their own faces, denying the nature of reality itself, which they are at war with. The political left despises the truth about the world, and they have been at odds with it; if there is anything that is most devastating to their movement, it’s that all their fantasies have fallen apart under the scrutiny of reality.

So let’s revisit this notion that I talked about extensively at that time, and which is the essential theme of Kamala Harris’s book, which she has said while on her media tour, giving the whole thing away under press questioning, there is nothing Kamala could have done with more time to run that could have helped her. Her entirely fictional premise was that if only she could have run a regular campaign, she could have performed better in the 2024 election. She could not have done better than she did; in fact, for every day she was in the presidential race, she bled support. She didn’t gain it. The more people heard from Kamala Harris, the less they liked her. She wouldn’t have been able to build any support; her campaign was a complete fabrication created by people who thought they controlled the entire narrative and could autopilot her into office, just as they had been running Joe Biden’s campaign all along. Kamala was not very likable; she came across as someone who had slept her way to the top, and people didn’t like her. Her best support was the day she announced she was running, once Joe Biden had been pushed out. Before many people heard her talk, there were a certain number of not very well-informed people who would vote for her because she was a woman of color, and nothing else. Her most popular day in the campaign was the first day. On day 107, as the book attempts to erase, her support had eroded as more people heard her talk and got to know her a bit. The more she opened her mouth, the less people liked her.

Kamala Harris, in her book, repeatedly mentioned that the 2024 election was the closest in history, which is another example of Democrats seeking something to rally behind. Trump won 312 electoral votes to Kamala’s 226. Most of the states where Harris won were states with very loose election laws, such as those allowing mail-in ballots and not requiring voters to show ID at the polling booth. So when we talk about Trump having a landslide, 312 is a pretty significant number these days, given that things are so heavily leveraged to favor Democrats, at least until President Trump came along. That’s also why Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College so they can mass manipulate the way we count votes so that a few states with loose laws can win. As I say all the time, if Democrats don’t cheat, they can’t win, because they are the seriously minority party in America, and they have only kept things close through election fraud. In the popular vote, Trump had 77,302,580 million votes to Kamala’s 75,017,613. That is out of 155,238,302 total voters, which is a very high number. But lets just call it as they say it is, out of all the voters that there are in America, with a population of 342,034,432 million including all the people who are under 18 and can’t yet vote, where would Democrats close that gap of the 2 million that they fell short on, assuming you had a clean election with no election fraud whatsoever? And that is the real problem that planners faced when making the decision to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris. They had that plan all along, and they used that June debate with Trump to set up the real story. It was a desperation shot to put in a woman at the last minute and hope that the math worked in their favor. But they knew the truth all along.

In 2020, Trump received 74,216,154 votes, just three million fewer than his 2024 total, which was 77,223,615, while Joe Biden received 81,268,924. Where were all those voters in the 2020 election? The answer is, of course, that roughly 10 million, likely more, of the votes for Democrats were produced illegally by mail-in ballots cast under the new Covid rules, and the election was rigged entirely from the top down. The FBI knew it because they assisted with the effort at the Capitol Building on January 6th, when people arrived extremely angry that Trump was being pushed out of office. The FBI planted over 274 people into the audience to provoke them into violence so that the narrative of the election fraud could shift to some made-up insurrection and put people on their heels to the massive reality that the election had been stolen. And we can prove it because Democrats were caught not being able to duplicate the numbers of the 2020 election when the rules had returned to normal in 2024. And if states that voted for Kamala over Trump had to play by more rigorous rules, with voter ID and much more restricted mail-in balloting, they would have lost even more voters than they actually did, which is likely overstated by more than 5 million votes. Because there aren’t that many people dumb enough to vote for Democrats, and they know it. The illusion they have lived with through election fraud and a media that sold their socialist fantasy as a reality has been eradicated from the public scene, and they have no means of stopping that process. And Kamala’s book only spells it out grotesquely for them, rather than changing the nature of reality in the way they wish it would be. More time for Kamala Harris would have eroded her numbers even more. But they couldn’t afford to have Joe Biden run again and come nowhere close to his original 81 million with a performance 10 million less. People would have been outraged by the obviousness of it all. So their best shot, Democrats, of concealing the election fraud of 2020 was to hope that Kamala would change the numbers because she was a woman and because she was a person of color, which gave her a few throwaway votes. But the more people heard from her, the less they liked her, and there was nothing she could have done to change that. And that is the truth of all future elections.

Rich Hoffman

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

Starship SN10: A Turning Point in Human History

It’s a remarkable thing to witness history being made, especially when it doesn’t receive the attention it deserves. That’s precisely what happened with SpaceX’s Starship SN10. Against all odds, and despite a series of setbacks, SN10 completed its mission, withstood the stress tests, and landed a fully intact craft in the Indian Ocean. It wasn’t perfect—there were damaged components, mysterious explosions, and some tough engineering challenges—but it worked. And that’s the point. It worked well enough to prove something extraordinary: that this vehicle, this Starship, is more robust than anyone expected. And that robustness is precisely what we need if we’re serious about going to the Moon, to Mars, and beyond.

Starship SN10 didn’t just fly—it endured. It burned through the atmosphere, held together under pressure, and landed with controlled precision. That’s not just a technical achievement; it’s a philosophical one. It’s a statement about what’s possible when you push boundaries, when you accept failure as part of the process, and when you keep going anyway.

Let’s talk about what actually happened. Starship SN10 launched from Boca Chica, Texas, and demonstrated its full capabilities. It wasn’t just a test flight—it was a stress test. Engineers deliberately pushed the limits. They removed some heat shield tiles to see how the stainless steel would react to hotspots. They pushed the flaps to the edge of their tolerances. They wanted data, and they got it. That’s how you improve a spacecraft. You don’t play it safe. You push it until it breaks, and then you figure out how to make it stronger.

Previous missions had ended in explosions. SN8, and SN9, had spectacular failures. But each one taught SpaceX something new. That’s the beauty of iterative engineering. You fail fast, you learn fast, and you build better. SN10 was the culmination of those lessons. It didn’t just survive—it performed. Even with one flap malfunctioning and a mysterious explosion near the edge of the bay, it managed to stay stable, burn through the atmosphere, and land close to its intended target. That’s not luck. That’s engineering.

This mission was critical. It wasn’t just about proving that Starship could fly—it was about proving that it could be trusted. That it could be repeatable. That it could be the backbone of a new space economy. And yet, where was the coverage? Where was the excitement? Back in the days of NASA’s space shuttle program, every launch was a media event. It was on every channel. It was a national moment. But Starship? It barely made a blip in mainstream news.

That’s bizarre. Because what SpaceX is doing is arguably more significant than anything NASA did during the shuttle era. This isn’t just about sending astronauts into orbit. This is about building a reusable, scalable, interplanetary transport system. This is about making space travel routine. And yet, the only people who seem to care are the science geeks, the tech enthusiasts, the Comic-Con crowd. I’m one of them, proudly. I build my day around every Starship launch. Because I know what it means. I know what’s at stake.

I’ve watched every launch. I’ve felt frustrated when things blow up. I’ve celebrated the small victories. And this one—SN10—felt different. It felt like a turning point. It felt like the moment when things started to work. The payload simulations worked. The Starlink satellite dispenser inside the craft functioned with pinpoint precision. The reusability goals were achieved. This wasn’t just a test—it was a proof of concept. And it worked.

This is the moment people will look back on and say, “That’s when it changed.” That’s when space travel stopped being a dream and started being a reality. That’s when we stopped talking about going to the Moon and started planning it. That’s when Mars stopped being science fiction and started being a destination.

Of course, none of this happens without technology. And that brings us to AI. There’s a lot of fear around AI—people worry about Skynet, about machines becoming conscious, about losing control. Science fiction has been warning us for decades. And those fears are worth thinking about. We shouldn’t let technology get away from us. We need to stay in control. But we also need to embrace it.

AI is how we get to space. It’s how we process the massive amounts of data needed to run these missions. It’s how we make things repeatable, reliable, and scalable. The computing power we have today makes the Apollo missions look like kids’ toys, with the technology of a laser pointer. We’re operating on a whole different level now. And AI is the key to unlocking that level.

Take self-driving cars, for example. They’re not just a convenience—they’re a shift in how we live. They free up time. They make commutes more productive. They change the way we think about transportation. And that same shift is happening in space. The commercial space enterprise is poised to become a thriving economy. It’s going to require hard work, innovation, and yes, AI. Because humans can’t do it all. We need help. And AI is that help.

Starship SN10 was just the beginning. Starship 11 is already in the pipeline. Engineers are learning from SN10, making adjustments, and preparing for the next flight. Elon Musk has hinted that Starship 12 or 13 could launch by the fourth quarter of 2025 or early 2026. That’s rapid iteration. That’s how you build a space program, not with bureaucracy, not with delays, but with action.

And it’s not just about launches. It’s about deployment. It’s about getting to the point where Starships are flying like buses—routine, reliable, and everywhere. That’s the vision. That’s the goal. And it’s achievable because SN10 proved it.

We’re talking about the Artemis program. We’re talking about putting people on the Moon. And whatever people believe about past moon landings—whether they think it was real, staged, or somewhere in between—we’re going back. And this time, it’s not about beating the Russians. It’s about building a future. It’s about expanding humanity’s reach. It’s about survival.

There’s a segment of the population that doesn’t want to leave Earth. They’re comfortable here. They worship the planet. They fear change. However, if you genuinely care about humanity, you must think bigger. Elon Musk says it best: if we want to preserve human consciousness, we must venture into space. We have to take our intelligence, our creativity, our spirit—and let it grow beyond Earth.

That’s what Starship is about. It’s not just a rocket. It’s a symbol. It’s a foundation. It’s the first step toward a multiplanetary civilization. And SN10 was the proof that we’re on the right path.

Even under stress, even with problems, SpaceX pulled it off. That means we have stability. That means engineers can trust the system. That means we can innovate. We can take chances. We can improve. And that’s how progress happens.

This was a milestone. A pinnacle moment in human history. And it didn’t get enough coverage. We need to discuss this. We have to celebrate it. We have to recognize it for what it is: the beginning of a new era.

Starship SN10 wasn’t just a successful flight. It was a statement. It was a declaration that space is open for business. That humanity is ready to expand. That our past does not limit us—we’re driven by our future.

And it’s happening fast. The rate of acceleration is astonishing. Every launch gets better. Every mission teaches us something new. And every success brings us closer to the stars. I love every one of these launches. I build my day around them. Because I know what they mean. I know what they represent. I’m eager to see more. Starship SN10 was a success. Not just technically, but philosophically. It proved that we can accomplish complex tasks. That we can push boundaries. That we can dream big—and make those dreams real.

Rich Hoffman

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

Lakota’s Levy is the Most Expensive in Ohio’s History: Meet Ben Nguyen who is a solution for the future

After I met Ben Nguyen and endorsed him for the Lakota school board for the upcoming November 2025 election, the business of why he was running evolved into a community priority. Ben is a young man who wants to stay in the school district, but with the loan amount that is looming with the approval of this massive levy from Lakota, the easy math is projecting the debt burden alone to be an imposition of $1.2 billion onto the economy of the Lakota school district, which is outrageously too much. The amount of economic growth that the community would need to generate to offset the cost of this levy is unrealistic, and it would certainly set the course for the kind of decline that most affluent areas experience over their lifetimes. Things have been relatively good in West Chester and Liberty Township for several decades, mainly because we have had a strong political commitment to prevent excessive taxation. That has kept things somewhat affordable, but it’s a delicate balance that requires constant political pressure to maintain low taxes. Butler County itself has a lot of Republicans in it, and republicans don’t like taxes for big, ballooning government. It has been a significant number of years since the Lakota school district attempted to put a levy on the ballot, mainly due to the brand damage that the school itself would have incurred, as we have maintained a sharp resistance to excessive taxation within the school district. However, Lakota has been waiting until it had a four-member majority of Democrat-minded big spenders, and it now has that, and it is taking its shot with the most expensive school levy attempt in Ohio history. And what they want now isn’t all. If they can pass this levy, they have an operations levy in mind that will also be enormously expensive. So Ben and I discussed all this on camera, because people want to know some of these details that newspapers and yard signs never get to tell the complete story.

Even though Ben has just graduated from Lakota, he had a great experience at the school. He loves his community and wants to stay in it, attending college at Miami University. And start a family in his hometown. However, the problem is a math problem: at the current rate of inflation and interest rates, the already average cost of a home in the Lakota school district is around $450,000. By the time Ben graduates and wants to start a family in his mid-20s, those exact costs will be in the $ 600,000 range, and the math doesn’t work out. And that will all be without the price of this Lakota levy. Adding that $ 1.2 billion debt liability to the community would be the end for many residents who are fixed-income types, and it would significantly shorten the list of people who could afford to buy into the community. And as we drive around cities with former opulent homes and wonder how they become crime-ridden slums, this is how that process begins. A good place to live is started. People get comfortable with things and stop monitoring costs, and they elect Democrats. Democrats get on school boards and city councils, and start voting for excessive spending, wrap their communities in debt obligations, and poof, a slum is born. The economy collapses. The values drop. And everyone loses a lot of money, and the only opportunities people see for themselves are crime. It’s essentially the story of Middletown, Ohio, just to the north of the Lakota school district. There are numerous examples throughout the city of Cincinnati. However, due to the kind of people in Butler County who lean towards Republican politics, we have managed to prevent that cycle up to this point. But the danger is looming.

So as Ben and I sat down together to shoot a video so we could talk about all these things, one of his key reasons for running for the school board is to keep the taxes low so that he can afford to stay in the school district and to raise a family here, as he grew up. As a young man with natural political gifts, he wasn’t trying to overachieve; he was trying to save his community from excessive taxation. And in my opinion, that is a very noble quest that is mature well beyond his years. As I spoke to him, it was clear that his intelligence is precisely what the Lakota school board needs. We discussed a variety of topics, including the support of current school board member Isaac Adi and past board president Lynda O’Connor. Many believe those endorsements are liabilities to him, suggesting that we need to present a completely fresh start as a Republican Party approach. But when you’re dealing with these kinds of issues, you have to be able to unite people of drastically different levels of Republican politics. In a two-party system, 50% of anything will have people very wide apart on most political matters. However, on things they can agree on, the political system must be able to rally people toward a shared objective. And high taxes and the defense against them is one that most Republicans can relate to.

Ben and I covered a lot of topics that should make it very easy for voters to get behind him. With him on the school board, there is a chance to really shape the future with some reasonable management. However, it will take more than just Ben Nguyen; there will need to be more people to join him, otherwise, he will be outvoted by the same individuals who have just proposed the most significant tax increase in Ohio’s history. And even if this one is defeated, Lakota will try again and again until it passes with spring votes, summer votes, or anything it takes, until they catch people off guard and can manage to extract more taxes from the community. And once they do that, the impact on the community will start its decline. So this isn’t just a fight to elect a very young man, Ben Nguyen, to the Lakota school board. This is a fight to keep the cost of living low enough for people to afford it, so that our community won’t follow so many others into their decline due to over taxation. If left alone, Democrat types who end up in these political offices over time will do as they are in Lakota, asking for outrageous amounts of money with no end in sight. And if we want to manage that process, we have to have people like Ben Nguyen on the school board. He needs to get elected, and our community needs a plan to elect two or three more like him, so that there is a clear majority that can vote and prevent tax increases. Ben isn’t against school funding. However, as we discussed, Lakota has a $250 million yearly budget, which should be sufficient to operate a school that teaches children. The community well supports Lakota schools as they currently are. The purpose of this levy and the tax burden that comes with it is to facilitate more wasteful spending, including building new schools that will require more staff to run, and that means more people on payroll, inflating an already high budget. So, Lakota needs to hear from the community, no more taxes. And they need a school board that can work with what they already have. And Ben Nguyen looks to be a first step in that direction. And after speaking with him, I can’t wait to vote for him. And after you hear him talk, I think you will feel the same.

Rich Hoffman

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

I Tried to Tell Them: Why consultants often fail

It’s been a little time now, but I suppose it’s appropriate to spike the football a bit and talk a bit more about the details of why I wrote my book, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business. I had in my life at that time a lot of people who were really gunning for me, literally. They did many terrible things, and their world has crumbled around them, leaving them surprised by the consequences. However, I had already informed them of what was going to happen in my book, which is one of the reasons I wrote it. I really wanted to be fair, but the bloodthirsty nature of people provoked a lot of bad behavior that has since collapsed, and there was always something of a science to it. So they can’t say they weren’t warned. And it really is simple. One of the key metaphors in The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, which has achieved what I wanted out of it as a book on business that can help a select few understand why success or failure occurs, is the use of Wild West metaphors to put everything into context. Why are some people successful while others aren’t? There is a real shell game in the world of people who seek equality and inclusion, who don’t want to admit to themselves the facts of this very distinct reality. It takes courage to be successful, and you can’t replicate that with process improvements and administrative handholding. And most of the world doesn’t want to believe that, so I had to write it down in a way that would predict the future. And that future is now before many people who are finding their personal destruction quite a surprise. So I explained it to them beforehand.

I love Wild West towns and the idea of them on the open expansion of the American idea. A vast horizon of opportunity coming together to form a city of ambition, unleashed by capitalist ideas. Wild West towns were unique to the American experience for many reasons, and I find them infinitely fascinating as a result of human need. And upon their formation, of course, there were always bad guys trying to get a lot for very little and were willing to bring significant harm to people for their own profit. So, in that way, how could you bring security to a town without hampering the ambitions of people seeking capitalist outcomes? And to do so without letting bad guys take everything that was made. Successful towns established a law and order that centered on gunslingers fighting it out in duels, and good guys like Doc Holiday, Wyatt Earp, and Wild Bill Hickock would meet the bad guys in the street and be willing to risk their lives to shoot their nemesis dead. And as long as the bad guys were removed from harming good people, a town would grow and thrive. But without such characters, evil would overrun the process and everything would fall apart. And that is pretty much true in any endeavor that human beings involve themselves in, even to this day. You can’t fake courage, and others need to survive in the world and lead good lives. It all starts with a few unique personalities who have abundant courage and the skill to defeat all others. Gunfighters come to mind in the concept of fast draw for obvious reasons; they are a uniquely American invention that points directly to why the United States has the largest GDP of any country in the world, especially considering the relatively small number of people contributing to the economy.

The trick is, once a town was formed, then what? In those cases of success, there were always plenty of parasites who would come into the city and try to establish rules to maintain order without losing the courage that the town was founded on. In historical terms, these “Dandies” and “Bounty Hunters,” as I call them, are contemporaries of today’s consultant class, which is quite extensive, who attempt to feed off the carcass of those who have come before them and to steal the profit of their lives ruthlessly. And they expect everything to work out well. My response to all these occasions, including before I wrote that book, is to, as the gunslinger, get on my horse and leave town, not sharing the crime-fighting of the town’s profits with the newcomers. Usually, the gunslinger would move from town to town once success set in, as tag-alongs would then create an administrative barrier. Instead of a gunslinging gunman, towns would then form a sheriff and a court system. Although things were never quite as good, more people could join in stabilizing a town’s economy. Gunslingers were not welcomed once things were working well, as collective-based people would then want to share in the glory of success without having the courage to propel it forward with their own sentiments. Consistently, these parasites would seek to steal success from those who created it, without expecting that success to fail in their hands. However, it never works out that way; yet, after many thousands of years, people still expect a different outcome. So I wrote my book to explain why that outcome never changes. Success is directly attached to courage, and you can’t fake that.

I have dealt with people who think they are the most intelligent individuals in the world at many levels, and their ruthlessness has been very easy to overcome. Usually, these people come out of the consultant classes, and they have a belief that collective administration can replace courage in process improvement, and it just doesn’t work that way. And no matter what the tag-alongs try to do, when faced up against courageous personalities, they can not compete. This was the reason that Wild Bill was shot in the back of the head in Deadwood, South Dakota. The town did not want law and order. They wanted crime to thrive, and they wanted an administrative mechanism to rule instead of a reputable gunman. And that is the typical reaction that most people have toward the few who actually achieve success in the world. Once they see success, they try to shoot the person who made it possible dead, and throw their bodies off the side of the road into an unmarked grave. They steal the wealth and hope to mimic success. However, they never quite manage to do it. Knowing all this, I have not allowed anybody to sneak up on me, which has robbed them of the opportunity to steal what I have created. They are pretty surprised by the results. But if only they had listened, I told them well beforehand how it was going to be. And it is always that way. Courage beats collectivism every time. And collectivism allows those with fake courage to appear bold. But you can’t change the heart of what people are. They either are, or they aren’t. And everyone knows the difference. Courage can’t be duplicated, just as a gunfighter can stand in a dusty street and face down a bullet intended to kill them, and laugh at the danger. While others hope they can hire a sheriff to do that hard work for them. But it’s never quite the same. It takes courage to achieve true success. And the truth is, there just aren’t many in the world who have real courage. And when they find they can’t fake it, they get very frustrated when they lose because the illusions of the world couldn’t hide the truth about their bland natures. That’s why I wrote the book. As I often say about some of the books I like most, there may be only 20,000 to 30,000 people in the world who read such books, and only 4 of them understand it. I tend to write books like The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business for those who do. And to let the other 20,000 people scratch their heads in confusion, because that is about the ratio of people in the world with real courage and an opportunity to be successful at the things they do. Success is not for everyone; you can’t fake it. And yes, I tried to tell them.

Rich Hoffman

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

	vwells34 on Where Evil Lives in Butler Cou…
	Rich Hoffman on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Mysterious London Stone: S…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Rich Hoffman on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Forbidden Archaeology…
	Rich Hoffman on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…
	Anonymous on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: