Category: Nature

I Disagree with Erika Kirk: Forgiveness is not an option, the world will never be the same

The psychology of the Charlie Kirk memorial service at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, will forever change America.  While I disagree with Erika Kirk, as she said she forgave her husband’s killer, I’m not that kind of person.  It might be a good “Christian” thing to do, but when it comes to professional religions, that’s where my off ramp is.  I might share values with people who have deep religious convictions, but I am not humble or forgiving.  And as I said recently in answer to what many tried to point out to me in the wake of the Charlie Kirk murder, I simply love war, fighting, and destroying enemies.  And I don’t want to live in a world, or in an everlasting state in Heaven, where I am not at war with my enemies and destroying them for the injustice they do in the world.  I would be bored to death.  But I get what she and the more than 277,000 people who filled up the football stadium and the surrounding area where the Arizona Cardinals play NFL games were thinking.  It was one of the most significant public memorials for a public political figure in history, and the impact of that violence had changed the American consciousness.  Many millions more people watched the proceedings all over the world, and it’s safe to say that life will never be the same after the murder and brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk.  Forgiveness is not appropriate.  But it’s a nice gesture.  For people seeking meaning in their lives and who had been considering organized religion, I think this event gave them a reason to take the plunge, and that America changed for the better in the wake of the tragedy.  Almost as if the whole terrible thing were part of God’s plan all along. 

But let’s talk about the many firings that have been going on of teachers and other public officials working for the government who have been celebrating this assassination.  We almost came to this point with President Trump when he was nearly shot in the same way at Butler, Pennsylvania.  Nobody should celebrate a murder of another person.  If the shoe were on the other foot, I wouldn’t celebrate the killing of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or anybody I can’t stand in politics.  The people celebrating the killing of a really good person in Charlie Kirk have no redeeming value.  They aren’t worth saving, or working with.  And any notions that Democrats had about living in a coexistence under government with such radical notions of right and left politics are now over.  They crossed a line, and people will never want to work with them again, because they showed themselves for what they really are: terrible people out for the destruction of the human race.  And perpetuators of a vile evil that deserves to be eradicated from society.  If there is any good that came from this horrendous murder, it is because of people’s unified reaction to it in a mass way.  There aren’t many people who could fill a stadium like that for a memorial service, and the silent majority that has always been out there has some extreme opinions on the matter.  Religion might tell them to forgive the vile creatures of evil disposition.  Erika Kirk might not have room in her grief to nurture conditions that combat evil itself.  But America will never go back to what it was, a country with a high tolerance for different beliefs, even if those beliefs were destructive and vile, as many of the thoughts of Democrats are.  There has always been an assumption of tolerance that has now been ripped away. 

It’s not a free speech protection to disclose to the world as a school teacher that you support violence where a public assassination took place, and to expect to keep their jobs.  It is a statement of what a lowlife the protestor is, and we don’t want to share space with those kinds of people.  We don’t want to see them at the grocery store.  We don’t want to work with them.  We don’t want our kids going to school with them and sharing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.  We don’t want to know about their dumb parents or their lives in any way.  We don’t want to share elections with them where they vote for open communists and socialists for political offices.  We have reached a breaking point, where, for too many years, we have been too forgiving of terrible people, and we have watched as they have grown in confidence in working against America’s values, to the point where it has made us miserable.  And while forgiveness is an admirable trait, I think of Joshua and the wrath of Yahweh in these kinds of times, and I don’t believe the father of Jesus wants such horrible people to continue to exist, and that we are justified to eliminate them from our lives because they are beyond redemption.  We may not go out and slaughter them all under the sword and put their heads on a pike for people to spit on, which is what my advice would be if I were talking at the Charlie Kirk memorial.  But we certainly don’t want to pay them with public money to do jobs in government if that is how they really feel.  The times of live and let live are now over. 

The corruption of the Israelites after the conquest of Canaan, as the Book of Judges begins to explore, especially in the story of Samson and Delilah, who he sought to use as an excuse to love, comes to mind.  You cannot unify with treachery.  They will seek to take away your strength at every juncture and to blind you to observe their vast evil by cutting out your eyes.  And they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.  And when the Jewish people failed to kill the evil doers in their society as God had instructed, and let them hang around and live in a shared space with them, God punished them many times over with their destruction.  Because they didn’t listen.  History has many Jezebels who became entangled in evil because society did not apply justice to their wicked deeds, and many people suffered unjustly as a result.  And I think the Charlie Kirk memorial was the end of the line for that mistaken approach over many thousands of years.  And that evil showed itself in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, and we have decided we don’t like it.  And we don’t want to employ them.  We don’t want to share a country with them.  We don’t want them clogging up our jails and our welfare system.  There is no saving such evil, and now that we know what they really think in polite society, it’s time not to be so courteous.  And this isn’t a time for forgiveness.  It’s a time to draw a line in the sand and not share the earth with such evil people who cannot be reasoned with.  We can’t live with cancer cells taking over our body and we can’t have people with such hate that killed Charlie Kirk roaming around our streets and sharing a box of chicken nuggets with us at a local Dairy Queen.  And the judgments that are about to come are healthy and correct.  But not forgivable. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Painted Concrete: Let the lover leave and learn the hard way

In the unfolding political drama of New York City, Zohran Mamdani has emerged as a compelling figure—a charismatic, progressive candidate whose platform promises sweeping reforms aimed at increasing affordability, promoting equity, and advancing social justice. As a self-described democratic socialist, Mamdani has galvanized a significant portion of the electorate, particularly younger voters and working-class communities, with proposals that include rent freezes, city-owned grocery stores, fare-free public transportation, and a $30 minimum wage by 2030. His campaign is not just a political movement; it is a cultural moment, a rebellion against the status quo, and a romanticized vision of a city reimagined through socialist ideals.

But beneath the surface of this enthusiasm lies a more profound concern—one that echoes through history and personal experience alike. The allure of radical change, especially when framed as a rebellion against perceived injustice, often blinds people to the long-term consequences of their decisions. Just as the excitement of an affair might tempt a spouse, voters may be seduced by the promises of a candidate like Mamdani, not because they fully understand or agree with his policies, but because they are rebelling against what they see as a broken system. The danger is not in the ideas themselves, but in the romanticization of rebellion, in the belief that anything different must be better.

And I would argue that sometimes the most effective way to confront such movements is not through resistance, but through allowance. Let the people vote for Mamdani. Let them experience the reality of his policies. Let them see, before it’s too late, what socialism and communism look like when implemented in a city as complex and economically diverse as New York. The goal is not to punish or shame, but to reveal—to strip away the green paint from the concrete and expose the cold, hard surface beneath.  When they say the grass is always greener on the other side, let them discover that it’s really just painted concrete, a cold and complex reality.

Mamdani’s platform is a communist one. He proposes freezing rent for nearly a million New Yorkers, building 200,000 affordable housing units, and strengthening tenant protections through expanded enforcement. He wants to create city-owned grocery stores that bypass traditional market mechanisms, eliminate bus fares, and provide free childcare for all children under the age of five. These ideas are undeniably appealing, especially to those struggling with the city’s high cost of living. But they also represent a fundamental shift away from market capitalism toward centralized control—a shift that history has shown to be fraught with unintended consequences.

I would attribute this lucrative challenge to the heartbreak of a cheating spouse. When someone is determined to leave, to chase the illusion of something better, no amount of pleading or logic will stop them. The best course of action, I would argue, is to open the window and let them go. Let them discover that the grass on the other side is not greener, but painted. Let them roll around in it and feel the concrete beneath. Only then will they understand the value of what they left behind.

This metaphor applies seamlessly to the current political climate. Mamdani’s rise is not just about policy—it’s about emotion, rebellion, and the seductive appeal of radical change. His supporters are not merely voting for a candidate; they are voting against a system they believe has failed them. They are climbing out the window, chasing a lover across town, convinced that the romance of socialism will heal their wounds. But romance fades, and reality sets in. The cost of these policies—economic stagnation, reduced investment, increased taxation, and bureaucratic inefficiency—will eventually become clear. And when it does, the pain will be real.

Rather than trying to stop this movement through opposition, a wiser strategy may be to let it unfold. Let Mamdani win. Let his policies be implemented. Let New York become the case study in what happens when idealism overrides pragmatism. This is not a call for sabotage or cynicism, but for strategic patience. Just as a parent might let a child touch a hot stove to learn a lesson, the city may need to feel the heat of socialism to understand its consequences.

This approach is not without risk. The damage could be significant, including economic decline, increased dependency, and a loss of competitiveness. But the alternative—prolonged resistance that only fuels the romanticism of rebellion—may be worse. By fighting against Mamdani’s movement, opponents risk turning him into a martyr, a symbol of suppressed hope. By letting him lead, they allow reality to do the teaching.

In business, this principle is well understood. Companies that fail to address cultural issues—such as a lack of motivation, poor work ethic, and resistance to change—cannot be saved by spreadsheets and whiteboards. They must confront the root of the problem, even if it means letting certain elements fail. Only then can proper restructuring occur. The same applies to politics. If voters are determined to embrace a candidate like Mamdani, let them. Let them see the results. Let them learn.

This strategy also respects the intelligence and autonomy of the electorate. It does not treat voters as children to be protected from themselves, but as adults capable of learning through experience. It acknowledges that people are not always honest with themselves or others, that they often need to see the consequences of their actions before they can change. It is a strategy rooted in respect, not condescension.

Mamdani’s campaign is built on the promise of a better life. He speaks to the pain of working-class families, the frustration of workers, and the despair of renters. He offers solutions that are bold, compassionate, and deeply appealing in their communist utterances. But he also represents a shift toward centralized control, higher taxes, and reduced market freedom. These are not just policy choices—they are philosophical ones. And they carry consequences that must be understood, not just imagined.

My advice—to let people go, to let them experience the consequences—is not about giving up. It is about choosing the most effective path to truth. It is about trusting that reality, not rhetoric, will ultimately shape public opinion. It is about believing that people, once they see the results of their choices, will return with a clearer understanding of what works and what doesn’t.

In the case of New York, this means allowing Mamdani’s vision to be put to the test. Let the city-owned grocery stores open. Let the rent freezes take effect. Let the buses run for free. And then, let the city measure the impact. Let businesses respond. Let investors react. Let residents feel the impact of these changes in their daily lives. The results will speak louder than any campaign ad or political debate.

This is not a strategy of cruelty, but of clarity. It is rooted in the belief that truth is the most potent force in politics. And sometimes, the only way to reach it is through experience. Just as a spouse who leaves for an affair may eventually return with a new appreciation for what they had, voters who embrace socialism will look back and see the value of market capitalism. But they must be allowed to make that journey.

Do not romanticize rebellion. Do not make it more appealing by resisting it. Instead, strip away the romance. Let reality do the work. Let people see the painted grass for what it is. Let them feel the concrete. And when they do, be there to help them rebuild—not with bitterness, but with wisdom.  Zohran Mamdani’s campaign represents a decisive moment in New York’s political history. It is a movement driven by hope, frustration, and the desire for change. But it is also a test—a test of ideas, of governance, and of the electorate’s ability to learn through experience. The best way to meet this moment is not through resistance, but through revelation. Let Mamdani lead. Let his policies be implemented. Let the city feel the consequences. And then, let the truth emerge. In that truth lies the path to real progress, grounded not in fantasy but in reality.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Department of War: Its time to take the fight to the enemy

In the realm of global power and national identity, the names we assign to our institutions carry profound meaning. They reflect not only the purpose of those institutions but also the philosophy and strategic posture of the nation itself. One such institution—the Department of Defense—has long stood as a symbol of American military might, yet its name belies a deeper issue. Originally known as the Department of War, its rebranding in 1947 marked a significant shift in how the United States viewed its role in the world. Today, as threats to American sovereignty and values grow more complex and aggressive, it is time to reconsider that change and restore the Department of War to its rightful place in our national framework.

The Department of War was established in 1789, shortly after the founding of the United States. Its mission was clear: to organize and execute military operations in defense of the nation’s sovereignty. It was a department built on the premise that America, as a free and independent republic, must be prepared to confront adversaries and secure its interests through strength and resolve. This clarity of purpose was essential in the early years of the republic, when threats were immediate and existential.

In 1947, following the end of World War II, the department was renamed the Department of Defense. This change was not merely semantic—it reflected a broader ideological shift. The United States, having emerged victorious and possessing unmatched military power, sought to reassure the world that it would not become an aggressor. The new name was intended to project restraint, signaling that America’s vast arsenal would be used only in defense. However, this rebranding coincided with the rise of globalism, the formation of the United Nations, and the beginning of America’s role as the world’s de facto police force. The Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War, and numerous Middle Eastern conflicts followed, many of which were rooted in ideological battles stemming from the post-WWII global order. Ironically, the Department of Defense presided over some of the most prolonged and controversial military engagements in American history.

The term “defense” implies passivity. It suggests that the United States will only act when provoked, that it will wait for threats to materialize before responding. This posture has led to strategic ambiguity and has emboldened adversaries who perceive America as hesitant or unwilling to assert its interests proactively. Consider the psychological impact of the name “Department of Defense.” It evokes an image of a nation on its heels, waiting for an attack before it responds. It suggests a reluctance to engage, a preference for negotiation over action, and a tolerance for provocation. This perception has allowed hostile actors—whether state-sponsored or non-state entities like drug cartels—to operate with impunity, confident that the United States will not strike unless directly threatened.

In contrast, the name “Department of War” conveys strength, readiness, and resolve. It signals to the world that America is prepared to take decisive action against those who threaten its sovereignty, values, or citizens. It projects a posture of deterrence, not weakness—a message that is sorely needed in today’s geopolitical climate. The world has changed dramatically since 1947. The threats facing the United States are no longer confined to conventional warfare. They include cyberattacks, economic manipulation, ideological subversion, and transnational criminal enterprises. These threats require a proactive, assertive response—one that is better aligned with the mission of a Department of War.

Take, for example, the growing influence of drug cartels operating across the southern border. These organizations are not merely criminal; they are strategic threats to American stability. They poison communities, undermine law enforcement, and exploit weaknesses in border security. Yet under the current “defense” paradigm, the response is often reactive and constrained by diplomatic considerations. A Department of War would approach such threats differently. It would recognize them as hostile actors and treat their actions as acts of aggression. It would empower the United States to take the fight to the enemy’s doorstep, rather than waiting for the damage to be done. This shift in posture is not about promoting violence—it is about restoring deterrence and protecting American lives.

The renaming of the Department of War was part of a broader globalist agenda that sought to integrate the United States into a centralized international order. Institutions like the United Nations and NATO were created to manage global conflicts and promote collective security. While these organizations have had some success, they have also constrained American sovereignty and led to costly entanglements. Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were all influenced by globalist ideologies—fighting communism, securing oil, promoting democracy. These conflicts drained American resources, cost countless lives, and often failed to achieve lasting peace. They were not wars fought for direct national interest, but for abstract global ideals.

The Department of Defense, under this paradigm, became a tool of global management rather than national defense. It was used to enforce international norms, protect foreign borders, and stabilize regions far from American soil. Meanwhile, domestic threats—like the rise of socialism, the erosion of personal freedoms, and the spread of narcotics—were often neglected. Renaming the Department of Defense back to the Department of War is more than a symbolic gesture—it is a strategic realignment. It reasserts America’s commitment to its own sovereignty and sends a clear message to adversaries: aggression will be met with force.

This change also reflects a broader philosophical shift. It rejects the notion that peace is the ultimate goal at any cost. Peace is valuable, but not when it comes at the expense of justice, freedom, or national integrity. A nation must be willing to fight for its values, and it must make that willingness known. Critics may argue that such a change is provocative, that it sends the wrong message to the international community. But who decided that America’s role is to usher in peace while others plot its downfall? Who said that restraint is more virtuous than resolve? These are questions worth asking, especially in a world where hostile regimes and criminal networks operate without fear of reprisal.

President Trump’s executive order to restore the Department of War is a bold and necessary step. It acknowledges the failures of the post-WWII globalist framework and seeks to correct them. Congress’s support for this initiative indicates a growing recognition that America must reclaim its strategic identity. When one visits the Pentagon—a massive, imposing structure across from the National Mall—it should represent a nation prepared to defend itself through strength, not hesitation. The Department of War, housed within that building, would embody the spirit of a sovereign republic willing to confront threats head-on.

The renaming of the Department of Defense to the Department of War is not about glorifying conflict—it is about restoring clarity, purpose, and strength to America’s military posture. It is about recognizing that the world is not always peaceful, that threats are real, and that the United States must be prepared to act decisively. This change marks the end of an era defined by globalist entanglements and passive defense. It signals the beginning of a new chapter—one in which America reclaims its role as a sovereign power, committed to protecting its people, its values, and its future.

In a world filled with hostile actors, weak governments, and ideological adversaries, the Department of War stands as a beacon of resolve. It tells the world that America will no longer wait to be attacked—it will act to prevent aggression, secure its interests, and defend its way of life. And that, ultimately, is the message that must be sent—not just through words, but through the very institutions that define our national character.

Rich Hoffman

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

I Hate the Communist Holiday of Labor Day: A.I. complains a lot less and works much more

I say it every year, and this year was no different.  I don’t like Labor Day, and I don’t celebrate it.  I think it is the only Holiday that I really don’t care for.  It’s a dumb, communist Holiday created by lazy people who don’t like to work.  Personally, I enjoy working.  I don’t have a lot of respect for people who don’t want to work, so I despise and can’t relate to the Union-created Holiday that celebrates taking time off work.  I had an interesting conversation with some brilliant people the other day, and we discussed AI and whether it would take over the world.  And my part of it was that I love AI, because Artificial Intelligence never takes a day off.  It is always ready to do work, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  It never says that something is too hard to do.  It never takes time off with FMLA, or brings a stupid doctor’s note to work, thinking that some pin-headed doctor has authority over the work that an employer needs done.  AI works, and it’s always cheerful about it, which I love.  Work is a measure of productivity, and why would anybody celebrate an unproductive culture?  Why do people think a culture can be good if it always takes off Saturdays and Sundays and never answers their phone during off-business hours?  I think Labor Day is ridiculous, and I’ll repeat it.  If we want to Make America Great Again, we need to start with its work ethic.  We have too many people who are lazy and complain about Mondays while celebrating Fridays because they get a chance to reach the weekend and can be off work. 

I really get tired of people telling me all the great things that unions have done for workers.  That term, “workers,” is a communist term that comes straight from the mouth of Karl Marx, Mr. “Workers of the world Unite!”  The premise of the union mentality is to deny work to an employer and to the market unless compensation is provided at a level they approve of, and collectively applied.  Given to all, equally, no matter how good, bad, or indifferent the worker may be.  So when we hear the Marx phrase about workers uniting, what they are doing is sticking together to lobby an employer to do less work and to get paid more for it.  And this has been a misguided idea that has put many companies out of business.  When workers dread Monday and look forward to Friday so they can escape their work, and then spend all the money they’ve made on leisure activities, such as boating on Saturdays, you have all the signs of a declining culture.  And I hear all this talk about America First jobs, which sounds fine on paper.  However, with only around 200 million workers in America, and a need for employment in an expanding economy of over a billion, having more people dread Mondays and look forward to the weekends so they don’t have to work is not the solution we need.  We need people who want to work and who enjoy working.  Not people who want to be paid a lot of money for barely doing anything.  The entitlement culture of collective bargaining involves withholding labor from an employer through collective force.  Unfortunately, most people have been taught the wrong way their entire lives about how to view work, and it shows up pathetically in their daily work ethic, which has really held back the American economy.

I hear the complaints, but what do I expect?  What do I think is a good example of work ethic?  Well, I would point out the Japanese as an obvious example.  They work hard in that culture, and they take things very seriously.  They have a very balanced culture, low crime rates, and are very industrious as a society.  When you arrive at the airport and a car is waiting for you, the driver rushes to the car to retrieve it.  He doesn’t walk with his pants half down while talking on the phone.  They take everything very seriously, including buying a pack of gum.  The complaints are that they are a stressed-out culture that puts in too many work days, and they don’t have sex enough.  Japanese women are repressed because their men spend too much time working.  That isn’t the case at all; those complaints come from a world that doesn’t want to live up to the expectations of the Japanese economy, which has done so much with a tiny island.  This idea of cheap labor is the union’s pitch to steer employers toward collective bargaining by controlling access to only certain kinds of labor, those who don’t want to work and have a boat sitting in their driveway, paid for after only 40 hours of work per week.  What idiot came up with the 40-hour work week?  And all the overtime rules?  It was union lobbying, and they want a pat on the back for bringing to the Middle Class all these protections from work against the elements of productivity, an employer.  I think we should be celebrating employers who make jobs.  Not workers who deny work to the world so they can sip beer on a lake, trying to catch a fish while listening to classic rock that is probably a communist song selling propaganda through entertainment, such as the dumb Beatles song, “Imagine.” 

Too much leisure time is detrimental to a culture, as well as to the people within it.  When we talk about the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the kids involved through that Discourse app, which is a gaming culture discussion platform, one thing that really jumps out with young people is how much effort they’ll put into their video games, but they don’t want to go to a job and actually do real work.  They’ll work hard and grind it out on a video game to get a new skin for their avatar characters.  But they don’t want to grind it out for a new house, a spouse, and a nice new car.  They live like rats and have been taught to be that way by a lazy society that values leisure time more than opportunities for labor.  So no, I don’t like Labor Day.  I’m not going to like it ever.  I will perpetually see it as an attack on American productivity to see so many people drop off the map and stop answering calls for business because they think the Labor Day Holiday gives them insulation from the realities of a productive society that needs a question answered at 9 AM on Labor Day.  AI answers the calls.  People, not so much so.  Which is why I think AI is so good.  If people want to work less, put in fewer hours, and demand more pay for their time, I’d rather deal with a robot or an AI program that does all that work and then some, without all the complaints.  I do love many of these technical breakthroughs that involve automation, because I hate to see manufacturing facilities with empty parking lots on a Saturday.  Or after 5 PM on a weekday.  To me, success is a complete shop at 2 AM or vibrant work on a Saturday with lots of cars in it.  And the best work environment is one where those who aren’t happy to see Fridays can work without other lazy people dragging them down.  There are too many lazy people in the world, and the world will be a lot better off if people worked more, not less.

Rich Hoffman

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

Ethics in Politics: Holding grudges won’t help win races, or maintain political management

Social interactions are at the heart of human discourse, and I speak from the perspective of someone who has spent a long time building relationships—not always easily, and certainly not always with universal approval. People often talk about love and unity, but I wouldn’t say I’m universally loved. In fact, I’m probably excessively hated by many, and I understand why. It’s not something I wake up hoping to change. I don’t start my day thinking, “I want people to love me today.” That’s not the goal. The goal is to make things work, and sometimes that means doing things others aren’t willing to accept. That’s when people get mad.

Recently, I’ve been vocal about supporting Ben Nguyen for the Lakota School Board. That’s stirred up some discussion. Lynda O’Connor has supported him, the former Lakota school board member who a lot of people are still very angry with.  I was at Ben’s fundraiser at Nancy Nix’s house, and Isaac Adi, another Lakota school board member was there too. I’ve seen Isaac at a few events, and we’ve had the opportunity to talk a bit. There has been tension between us, especially with the way his relationship with Darbi Boddy evolved, and how our policies got tangled up. That situation has many layers behind the scenes. If you want to talk ethics, you can justify being mad at people for what they do to each other.  I’ve been married for 37 years and have learned a lot about dealing with other people. I’ve dealt with all kinds of people—kids, grandkids, colleagues—and not everyone aligns with your goals. You have to find a way to make it work.

If you draw a hard line and say, “It’s my way or the highway,” you might be ethically correct, but you’ll lose people. And if you’re trying to influence something, losing people means losing effectiveness. Politics isn’t about making friends. When you’re trying to bring groups together, you can’t fall into the trap of friendship-based peer pressure. You have to rely on the strength of your ideas in a competitive environment. Politics isn’t a branding exercise. You can either withdraw from society or face the challenge of building teams to accomplish a task. It becomes dicey when political affiliations are based on relationships rather than ideas.

You want the best ideas to emerge. You want a competitive atmosphere where ideas collide. That’s the way you get an authentic system. You have to trust people to vote correctly, but only if you articulate your ideas properly. Sheriff Jones and I have supported other candidates within the Republican Party, and recently we have talked about the things we have in common. We want to help the Trump administration achieve its goals, even if there’s controversy—like the situation at the county jail over immigration policy. We agree on some things and disagree on others. We joke about it when we see each other to stay on ground we can work with. But ultimately, it’s not about building friendships or consensus. It’s about who can make the best argument.

Politics should be about argument, not popularity. If feelings get hurt in the process, that’s part of the election cycle. Politicians often use likability as a tool—they kiss babies, shake hands, and make themselves accessible to the public. But that’s just the first layer. You have to be confident in your ability to articulate a message. Many politicians get elected but don’t raise money or debate effectively. If you can’t engage with people who disagree with you, things fall apart. People get mad. I’ve had people mad at me just for being in a picture with Isaac. They say, “You know what he did to Darbi Boddy?” and assume that by being seen with him, I’m supporting him over her.

That kind of division doesn’t help a party win. There are all kinds of people with different thoughts. Isaac and I are not going to the movies together any time soon, but he represents a vote on the school board. He has opinions about how things should be done. I think he cares about kids and schools, even if I disagree with his methods. That’s what political faith is—believing in the process. If you base everything on popularity—“If you like me, vote my way”—you’re not making a real argument. You have to go further. If you can’t, things fall apart.

It’s essential to communicate with one another. Political candidates need to engage, not isolate. You don’t have to be best friends, but you need common ground. On immigration enforcement, for example, we can sit down and have a great discussion. It’s about positioning your statement and believing in what you’re saying. If you can’t win people over with your argument, people often fall back on popularity. That’s dangerous. You’re using your elected position to steer people through peer pressure, not persuasion.

That’s not sustainable. It’s why political parties struggle to work together. If you do that in your family, you’ll have a broken Thanksgiving dinner where people show up, but nobody likes each other. You might have money, but no real friends, they just hang around you for what they can get out of you. How you handle relationships determines your success in politics. Shared opinion has to go through the funnel of the party system. You can’t have 30% of people on one side and expect unity. You need at least 50% alignment. Even if you’re 40% apart on issues, you can still be on the same side of the line. Democrats are on the other side, and you have to be willing to work with people of different opinions.  Republicans might be at the center line of 50% and others are at 90%.  But their Democrat opposition might be at 40% on the other side of the line, and those kinds of Democrats and Republicans are closer together ideologically than the hard-core Republican at 90%.  But Republicans have to find a way to work with other Republicans if the party is going to do the work voters need. 

That doesn’t mean you abandon ethics or break promises. But you can’t get caught in “It’s either me or them.” That’s not a good place to make articulate arguments. Politics should be about fulfilling voter objectives. That’s the goal. I’ve disagreed strongly with how Isaac and Darbi’s relationship on the school board collapsed. It made me reluctant to get involved in school board issues again. But it’s not fair to someone like Ben Nguyen—a good young man who wants to make a difference. He’s trying to partner with other people to build something positive.

Looking at Isaac during Ben’s fundraiser, I  thought, “Maybe we can get another vote. Maybe we have a chance.” Not right away, but in the near future, we can build something. That’s how I’ve survived—by staying true to myself, relying on my ability to make an argument, and letting public debate shape opinion. It’s good to stay away from popularity contests. Fights don’t help anyone. They create a disjointed approach, and then Democrats win their spots because they unify—even if their ideas are really far apart.

Republicans need to figure this out, especially in school board races. When people see me in pictures with other political people they don’t like, they hold grudges. But that doesn’t solve problems. I want progress. I don’t care if people want to get a corn dog with me. What matters is whether they consider the arguments and make informed decisions. That’s what we’re trying to do—get the correct arguments into the public arena and give voters choices that reflect their lives.

Most people have excuses and fights along the way. However, it’s all aimed at uncovering the truth about what the public wants in representation. You have to trust that process. Make your case with confidence. Don’t rely on popularity. Don’t expect people to vote your way just because they like you. Win the argument. Let the best ideas rise. Let people make their own choices. That’s how things work out for the better and you get a civil society.  And much better political teamwork.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Killer Tyler Robinson: And his professional gamer, transgender lover

We know enough now of the killer, Tyler Robinson, to understand what happened in the assassination of Charlie Kirk.  The legal system will eventually catch up, and everything will come to light.  But what we have here is the confirmation that the trans movement is even more dangerous than we have been warning it to be.  The attempt by the radical Marxist left to desecrate the human temple of procreation has descended the world into madness and murder.  And when we study how a kid who looked to have had a pretty everyday life, with pretty standard parents and exposure to the finer things in life, could have fallen off the rocker so drastically, to the point where he was living with a guy in an apartment sexually, and that the guy was trying to become a girl.  And that the pressures of living that lifestyle outside of the gamer culture were too much to deal with.  And like a lot of these trans shooters have become, they turn to violence, in the case of Tyler Robinson of Utah, who was still a young person with all the options of life ahead of him.  That he would turn to obvious violence to eliminate a big personality directly associated with the Trump administration, in Charlie Kirk, as he spoke at a local college on the benefits of MAGA values, Robinson turned himself in to authorities after he essentially confessed to his father, and a Mormon family friend.  At 22 years old, his life was over the moment he pulled that trigger and then ran home to confess to his family and to his boyfriend.  Now that the lawyers have gotten a hold of him, he isn’t talking much, but his roommate is, Lance Twiggs—an aspiring professional gamer.  Based on the bullet casings left behind at the murder, Robinson was clearly down the rabbit hole of gamer culture that tends to lose touch with reality. 

No matter how smart you are, once you dip into the well of homosexuality and non-traditional sex with a member of the same gender, you can’t take it back.  Many people make this mistake in the early years before starting a family and having children.  And given the way Robinson grew up with very engaged parents, his father, who owned a family construction business, was also a 27-year veteran of the Washington County Sheriff’s Department.  So he had a duty to turn his son in, which is unusual.  But it also gives insight into just how difficult it would be to be close to parents who had spent a lot of their lives actively with him, going on vacations to Hawaii and Disney, on exotic fishing trips, and having a mother who was deeply involved in his life.  Taking trips to the Grand Canyon.  Getting good grades in school, maintaining a 4.0 GPA in high school.  Being close to his two younger brothers.  His grandmother described Tyler Robinson as being “squeaky clean.”  They were a Republican, Trump-supporting family, and they spoke every day, right up until the moment of the murder.  So what happened that such a kid with so many opportunities in life, and having a loving family, would grab a gun and pull the trigger on Charlie Kirk during a public speech at Utah Valley University?  The parents appeared to have done everything right, but how could such a kid fall off the edge like that, even to the point of killing someone so brutally in public, surrounded by thousands of other people?  We are dealing with a real evil here that is looming in the background.

I know quite a few people in law enforcement and several people who used to work for me are members of Trump’s Secret Service, so I have good understanding of security protocols, and as popular as Charlie Kirk is, his security should have never set that venue up like they did, where he was speaking from a tent down in a bowl with so many high distances in the background.  It allowed Tyler Robinson to get on top of a roof and take a sniper shot at Charlie Kirk just as the speech had turned toward trans rights.  When the bullet struck Charlie in the neck and blood poured out of the grotesque wound, nobody yet knew that the shooter was having a sexual relationship with a trans roommate, who would very shortly confess to the location of the gun and the radical left-wing politics of his lover.  I also recently hosted an event featuring Vivek Ramaswamy, which allowed me to meet his personal security team, who face similar challenges to those of Charlie Kirk.  Not having a presidential-level Secret Service is tough for these very popular people who speak under private security.  It’s always better to set up on a hill so that a bullet dropped from 200 yards would be much more dramatic than shooting down into a bowl, as it was at the college where this assassination took place.  But part of Charlie’s effectiveness was in being personable and vulnerable.  To put trust in the public and, through that trust, to reach them with the values of God, family, and the Trump administration.  Taking too many precautions at these public events would erode the purpose of engaging with the audience.  And Tyler Robinson took advantage of that vulnerability with an act of terror that would forever change the world.

So I’ll offer, which will come out as we learn more, that having a sexual relationship with a trans lover was too far of a jump for an otherwise normal kid in Tyler Robinson, who had done most everything expected of him right in life up until that point.  But the embarrassment that he felt in having that relationship was too much, and he sought to shelter himself from social judgment through left-winged politics.  And he and his lover could get away with it so long as they lived in the unreal world of professional gamer culture, which is home to many lost kids who struggle to function well in the real world.  In video games, you can easily switch genders with your avatars, and you can be as violent as you want without consequences.  And when you embarrass your family, you can hide in that world and shield yourself from judgment with Democrats and their social approach.  Once you cross that line sexually with another man, you can’t ever live it down, and many young people have been convinced to embarrass themselves socially in much the same manner.  And they can’t live with the result.  And they certainly don’t want to hear Charlie Kirk talk about the Bible and the benefits of family when they have made personal decisions that they can never take back or live with—further eroding their minds from reality.  And the really terrible thing about Tyler Robinson, now that we know more about him.  The further they are from their families, the more vulnerable they are to liberal influences, especially in colleges, once they move out and away from their families.  And becoming politically radicalized then becomes a replacement for the family they left behind, which they still crave desperately, and they’ll do anything for them, even kill.  When social judgments then become the enemy, to quiet the voices, they turn to violence, which is why so many of these trans shooters are turning to terror to express their anger at the world for judging them for their terribly bad decisions.  And it keeps happening because Democrats have justified their anger and bad choices to exploit their weakness for party power and control.  Leaving young kids feeling like they have no other option but to kill those who look down on them.  And if it can happen to Tyler Robinson, it can happen to anybody.  And there are many more people like him who are considering doing the same thing for the same reasons.

Rich Hoffman

https://www.signupgenius.com/go/10C0B4AA4A728A1F49-58659927-help#/

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

Butler Tech Must Fire Brandi Robertson: The Murder of Charlie Kirk has changed the world forever

Look at all that pride. Problem is, it’s the wrong kind. Brandi is in the middle of all those prideful people

What Erika Kirk said in her address to the nation, the widow of Charlie Kirk, who had just been assassinated, wasn’t just hopeful talk that is common when people lose a loved one.  The political left needs to understand what has happened here.  I don’t like to use the word “martyr.”  But this was a John the Baptist moment at the very least.  And it was much more potent than the assassination of Martin Luther King.  After this funeral, there will be Charlie Kirk laws.  There will be Charlie Kirk buildings.  There will be lots and lots of Charlie Kirk boulevards.  I know some of the people in that crowd, like Jack Posobiec and Steve Bannon, and they aren’t going to let this go.  Their friend was assassinated, they have a grieving wife and friend who knows how to talk, and there will be no end to this.  So it should come as no surprise that there is a lot of discussion about firing and chastising bankers, teachers, and restaurant owners who were caught celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk.  And those left leaning types are now finding themselves on the outside of society, looking in.  And locally, as it is nationally, that is where a local school near me finds itself, Butler Tech in Butler County, Ohio.  They have a teacher, Brandi Robinson, who a lot of students complain is entirely too liberal, and this language arts teacher there celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death online, and in the classroom, and there are demands for her termination.  Which has to happen; otherwise, the entire school will be dragged into a mess.  People are agitated, and they are willing to drag leftist-minded detriments to society out in the street and skewer them.  So there is no redeeming factor for Brandi Robinson of Butler Tech.  I appreciate the school and its goals.  But as a result of Charlie Kirk’s murder and the Trump administration’s need to do something about it, there will be no stone overturned to set things right.  And at the very least, we are going to see that employment of left-wing radicals in any field of endeavor is now going to be heavily scrutinized, and people are going to want to see them fired from their jobs. 

A teacher that uses that kind of language, anywhere, should be disqualified from teaching students. Not to mention context.

This didn’t happen overnight.  This has been happening to conservatives for many years by the left, and they have grown to feel empowered by their abuse of free speech, legally.  This isn’t a free speech debate.  It’s a moral referendum that we will sort out later, once the smoke clears, if it ever does.  Democrats weaponized free speech, taking shots at polite society to destroy it by hiding behind the laws of the land, then using those laws as weapons against the culture that made them.  And that is where Brandi Robinson finds herself at Butler Tech.  Like many teachers who are now seeing the pitchforks coming to their doorstep, the cries for the First Amendment won’t protect them from the wrath of an outraged society.  People had to watch the very nice Charlie Kirk be assassinated on live television, and he has left behind a widow who knows how to talk to a crowd.  And she has had her husband ripped away from her, and all the hope for her future, destroyed.  And she is going to lead a movement that will trickle into the doorsteps of every public school in the country, because Charlie and she have been such huge supporters of homeschooling.  The shoe is now on the other foot, and a justification for destroying elements of left-leaning philosophy that have destroyed so many children is now going to come under fire like it never has before. 

The killer of Charlie Kirk was obviously radicalized once he moved away from his family and had some experiences in college.  He moved in with a trans lover, a guy trying to be a girl, and his political thinking had been shaped by really radical left-winged politics, and those failures are now showing up in these mass shootings.  And it’s people like Brandi Robinson who teach kids in these schools that put really horrible thoughts in people’s heads.  And when there are significant social breakdowns, who is to blame?  Teachers like Brandi want to blame social mechanisms like gun control as the solution to eliminate school violence.  When the truth is that people like her cause the violence in the first place, because the kids in their care find they cannot function in the world well, living the life these teachers have been teaching them.  In the case of Charlie Kirk’s killer, who will have to be executed on live television to appease the anger that there is out there—at the very least, (people won’t be happy with a lethal injection or life in prison.  They will want him gutted on live television and have him torn limb for limb—and I’m being very nice about it.)  A line was crossed with this assassination that unleashed so much pent-up anger that there will be no going back.  Teachers who have been teaching kids left-wing politics in school are not going to get off without a lot of trouble.  Left-leaning culture, which so many teachers teach, is undoubtedly behind the problems of Kirk’s killer, Tyler Robinson, who found himself torn between the life he was raised to, with a cop as a father, and a trans lover he was told would be socially acceptable, only to find out the hard way that such a thing was grotesquely inappropriate. 

The students don’t have nice things to say about Brandi Robinson

There are many more teachers at Butler Tech and the nearby Lakota schools, like Brandi Robinson.  But in the wake of the Charlie Kirk murder, this one said some really dumb things, and the kids from her classroom have been complaining that nobody would listen.  When Darbi Boddy was ejected from the Lakota school board for pointing out these very problems, everyone involved in that process is now guilty of contributing to the erosion of social discourse.  It’s not enough to say that Darbi was a church freak, Bible thumper, out of step with the realities of a progressive society.  And that hate speech, such as celebrating the murder on television, a widely respected good person like Charlie Kirk could be hidden behind free speech.  Conservatives have been hunted down and destroyed by banks, media personalities, and every other institutional mechanism that there is out there, and people have not felt that they could express themselves with a MAGA hat in public because of it.  And now the shoe is on the other foot, the evidence is clear that we have radical teachers in these schools, and they make people like this killer, Tyler Robinson, by teaching them at a vulnerable stage of their lives, all the wrong things.  There are a lot of kids like Tyler Robinson out there, and they have been weaponized in these classrooms through people like Brandi Robinson.  We have to purge teachers like her from all public schools as a minimum reaction to Charlie Kirk’s murder.  And it doesn’t matter if staffing levels are challenging.  We can’t have people like that on the taxpayer payroll.  People should have listened when Darbi tried to point all this out.  She was a few years ahead of this very national issue.  However, it’s here, and people are no longer going to put up with teachers like Brandi Robinson.  Free speech does not mean a teacher can abandon professional decorum and hide behind the First Amendment to corrupt children in their care.  When they violate that trust, they will have to lose their jobs because, at the very least, kids need to see what a structured society looks like.  And because of the murder of Charlie Kirk, even moderate-minded people want to see a change.  And they are going to get it one way or another.  The world is now changed forever, not because people who miss Charlie Kirk are sad and want to think of happy things ahead of his funeral.  No, people now have a mechanism of expression that is excessively mainstream.  And Charlie Kirk’s murder will be avenged by a society that for too long has stayed reserved behind polite discourse.  And those days are now over.  Evil will be purged from society, and that starts with horrible teachers like Brandi Robinson at Butler Tech in Butler County, Ohio.

Rich Hoffman

https://www.signupgenius.com/go/10C0B4AA4A728A1F49-58659927-help#/

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

The Eternal Preponderance of Evil: We are under attack by a political order outside of time and space

I think out of all the things that happened this past week, a truly devastating week, during the usual 9/11 reflections of September 2025, was the brutal murder of 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska, who was fatally stabbed three times in the neck while riding a light rail in Charlotte, North Carolina.  She had just gotten off work at her pizza place job.  She sat down in front of a very shady-looking dude, totally unjudging.  Unpretentious.  Unprovoked.  She, with her family, had fled the Ukraine war and was falling in love with the security and opportunity in America when 34-year-old Decarious Brown, a 14-time prior violent criminal, decided to cut her throat for no reason.  The whole murder was captured on camera, so there was no doubt about what happened.  And it was fast, so fast that she hardly knew what happened to her.  The blood poured from her neck as she only had time to look up at the killer, as he said with blood dripping from his knife, “I got the white girl.”  Young Iryna only had time to look up at him, still holding her phone, which she had been looking at, minding her own business.  He walked away to get off the train with other people sitting around her, not even moving to help.  She passed out as the blood ran to the floor and smeared the floor of the train, ending the life of a bright young person who had everything going for her.  That life taken by someone who was a complete parasite on society, a vicious killer who was good for absolutely nothing.  As the video of the event was released, it quickly hit social media, and people were outraged and shocked, making it appear to be one of the worst things to happen to the public consciousness.  Not that these things don’t happen all the time, because they do.  But this one was a clear video, and there was no question about what had happened. And people were shocked.  Then, on live television streamed all over the world in real time, we saw the assassination of Charlie Kirk at a Utah campus where he was speaking. 

The Charlie Kirk story was so terrible that it overshadowed the story of poor Iryna Zarutska, pushing it off the front page.  People can only deal with so much, and what we were seeing on live television was too much.  The assassin of Charlie Kirk was Tyler Robinson, a young 22-year-old Antifa type who was so full of hate that he took the very purposeful steps of shooting the young crusader who is associated directly with the Trump administration in the neck during a very crowded campus speech where Charlie was simply talking to people, again, not provoking violence, but trying to build conversation.  I see the Iryna story as more tragic because Charlie Kirk is more of a casualty of war, and yes, we are at war.  Make no mistake about it.  But with Charlie, he’s such a good person, it was horrible to see him hit by a bullet in the neck and see blood pour out like a garden hose.  Everyone saw the killing, and if they didn’t see it live, they saw plenty of clips that were floating around social media.  And as I saw it, I thought immediately that there is a vast evil at work here.  This was more than just some random killers copying the news cycle.  This was a vast evil that has been working in the background for many thousands of years, using these vacant personalities to commit their misdeeds.  It’s not a conspiracy, but an understanding of how that evil works and how it uses dumb people, angry people, or compromised people to serve as its avatars in four-dimensional space.  And it was sending us a message.

The kind of evil we are dealing with is clearly identified in Ephesians 6:12, one of my favorite verses from the Bible.  And it’s precisely why Yahweh was seeking Joshua to lead the Israelites into the land of Canaan to destroy them, even down to the women and children.  Why God was so angry at the evil so present in Canaan, and still very much part of the political story of the modern-day Palestinian two-state solution, is in dealing with this perilous evil that is always working in the background.  To understand this evil, you must start considering that there are life forms in a multidimensional reality, which is a very real thing.  The Bible is unique in the world as a piece of literature that studies this evil over a very long period of time, and there is a politics of doom that is attached to its concerns for the human race.  And with the world turning toward Trump and the kind of freedom that America is providing the world, evil is showing itself in hostile personalities that are very real to us.  But serve as avatars for the intentions of evil, embodying a personality of interdimensional concern.  It can be everywhere all at once, and it often is.  And only the Bible truly captures this relationship with the human race, of immortal beings working through political concerns in four-dimensional life forms for a purpose unique to their reality.  Their interest in the human race is to rule over us with fear.  And we were starting to lose our fear of evil and had been turning toward optimism, so an attack on our security was its motivation.

And you can tell because of the mode of attack.  Within the same week, images of people being publicly assassinated by representatives of evil, either by slitting their necks or by shooting them in the neck, were seen by essentially the entire world.  And psychologically, the neck is a hidden fear we all have because it’s one of the most vulnerable parts of the human body.  So it was no accident that both of these terrible, very public killings were by the neck, where we saw the blood running out from their bodies.  These were statement killings by the nature of evil itself, working through agents of the human race, and attempting to regain control through fear, of all people, to serve a political order that exists outside our current time and space.  Of course, the individuals who committed these assassinations are responsible and must be punished brutally for their crimes.  And we must restore confidence to the families of the slain victims of these horrendous murders.  However, we are dealing with an ancient evil that seeks to maintain control over the human race, and it is there that we must direct our attention.  To understand it, we must first understand why Western Civilization was established after the initial attack on Canaan by the Israelites, led by Joshua.  And why was God so mad at the Israelites for falling short of his ambitious goals established by the Ten Commandments, which were at the battlefront of all those military campaigns while destroying the Canaanites.  And why God was so angry that mercy was given to anybody within those cultures.  God wanted them destroyed, utterly, completely, and without negotiation.  And today, we have the same quandary presented to us, which has shown itself in a vast evil that attacked all of us through these innocent victims, Charlie Kirk, a very popular personality directly associated with the Trump administration.  And the unfortunate story of the beautiful Iryna Zarutska from Ukraine, just minding her own business and living her life.  Their killings were a message to the rest of us in a desperate attempt to rule through fear.  And we must respond with the opposite, attacking that evil wherever it exists at every level of reality.  And we must be more ruthless than it is.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why I Support Michael V. Ryan for Butler County Commissoner Over Roger Reynolds: The Spooky Nook Sports Complex and vision for the future

In the ever-evolving landscape of local politics, decisions about leadership are rarely simple. They require reflection, vision, and a deep understanding of what a community truly needs to thrive. As someone who has stood by Roger Reynolds through difficult times and considers him a personal friend, my decision to endorse Michael Ryan for Butler County Commissioner was not made lightly. It stems from a clear-eyed assessment of the future of Butler County and the kind of leadership that can best guide us there.

A Legacy of Loyalty and Friendship

Let me begin by acknowledging my longstanding support for Roger Reynolds. I’ve stood with him through challenging moments, and I’ve always appreciated his dedication to public service. Roger has contributed meaningfully to Butler County, and I personally like him. But politics isn’t just about personal loyalty—it’s about choosing the right person for the right job at the right time. And in this moment, I believe Michael Ryan is that person. Roger has announced his run for this office knowing the political situation, and he did it anyway, ultimately making it more about what he wants and needs, over what is best for this commissioner seat. He has a desire to justifiably clear his name from a rough period of time. But in that process, he showed a lot of bad judgment in pushing away people who stood by him the strongest through that process, and we don’t need that kind of trouble in a commissioner office.

The Spooky Nook Sports Complex: A Symbol of Visionary Leadership

One of the most compelling reasons I’m supporting Michael Ryan is his instrumental role in the development of the Spooky Nook Sports Complex in Hamilton. Located on the site of the old Champion International Paper factory, this facility is more than just a sports venue—it’s a symbol of economic revitalization, community engagement, and visionary leadership.

Hamilton has long needed a spark to reignite its downtown economy, and the Spooky Nook project has provided just that. It’s the largest sports complex of its kind in North America, and it has transformed a once-depleted industrial site into a vibrant hub of activity. Michael says it’s the second largest, but who’s splitting straws?  It’s a pretty spectacular venue on the Hamilton, Ohio riverfront.  Weekends at Spooky Nook are packed with volleyball tournaments, basketball games, and conventions. The facility includes a hotel and event center, drawing visitors from across the country and injecting new life into local businesses.

This kind of transformation doesn’t happen by accident. It requires leadership that can bring people together, facilitate investment, and create a shared vision for the future. Michael Ryan, as Vice Mayor and City Council member, played a key role in making this happen. He didn’t just support the project—he helped create the conditions that made it possible.

The Power of Communication and Connection

Michael Ryan’s greatest strength is his ability to get people talking. In today’s political climate, shaped in many ways by President Trump’s deal-making influence, the leaders who succeed are those who can build coalitions, foster dialogue, and unite diverse groups around common goals. Michael Ryan is that kind of leader.

He’s personable, approachable, and genuinely interested in what others have to say. When you put him in a room with people from different backgrounds, he doesn’t create division—he creates conversation. That’s a rare and valuable trait in politics, and it’s one of the reasons why the Spooky Nook project was able to move forward. Investors felt confident that the city government would support their efforts, and that confidence was rooted in the kind of leadership Michael Ryan exemplifies.

A New Generation of Politicians

Michael Ryan represents a new generation of politicians—leaders who don’t wait for opportunities to come to them but actively seek out ways to improve their communities. He was elected in 2017, during Trump’s first term, and he brought with him a fresh perspective and a proactive approach to governance.

This isn’t the era of traditional politics anymore. The days of sitting in an office and waiting for constituents to come knocking are over. Today’s leaders need to be out in the world, building relationships, attracting investment, and thinking creatively about the future. Michael Ryan understands this, and he’s already demonstrating it—even before officially becoming commissioner.

Aviation and Economic Development

A perfect example of Michael Ryan’s forward-thinking approach is his involvement with Joby Aviation. He’s been working to establish connections with the Dayton International Airport area, where a new factory is being built to produce air taxis. This is cutting-edge technology, and it represents a major opportunity for Butler County to position itself as a hub for innovation and transportation.

Michael Ryan isn’t waiting for someone else to take the lead—he’s already out there, laying the groundwork for future partnerships and economic growth. That kind of initiative is exactly what we need in a commissioner.

The Contrast with Roger Reynolds

Again, this isn’t personal. Roger Reynolds has had his time in office, and he’s done some good work. But his approach is rooted in a more traditional style of politics—one that doesn’t always align with the demands of today’s rapidly changing world. His decision to run again feels more like an attempt to redeem his personal brand than a genuine effort to serve the community in new and innovative ways.

In contrast, Michael Ryan is focused on the future. He’s thinking about how to revitalize Middletown, attract enterprise zones to Hamilton, and create sustainable growth across Butler County. He’s not just reacting to problems—he’s anticipating opportunities and acting on them.

Leadership for the Right Reasons

Ultimately, leadership is about seeing and doing things that other people can’t do for themselves, or understand at the time. It’s about putting the needs of the community ahead of personal ambition, and I think with Roger Reynolds, he has a need for personal redemption because of what he’s been through.  But he’s had a chance to do things in the past and we know what we’ll get from him.  Michael Ryan has shown that he can do more, and is a fresh start. He’s not running for commissioner to boost his own profile, which comes naturally as part of the job—he’s running because he believes in Butler County and wants to help it reach its full potential.  He’s what the future looks like and he brings with him a lot of fresh perspective.

He’s already proven that he can attract investment, facilitate dialogue, and bring people together. He’s shown that he understands the complexities of economic development and the importance of proactive governance. And he’s demonstrated a commitment to transparency, collaboration, and long-term planning.

A Vision for Butler County’s Future

As we look ahead to the future of Butler County, we need leaders who can think big, act boldly, and unite our communities around a shared vision. We need commissioners who understand the importance of infrastructure, innovation, and investment. We need people who are willing to work around the clock to make our county a better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Michael Ryan is that kind of leader. His work on the Spooky Nook Sports Complex is just the beginning. He has the energy, the ideas, and the relationships to take Butler County to the next level. Whether it’s aviation, tourism, or enterprise development, he’s already laying the foundation for a brighter future.

Conclusion

So yes, I’ve supported Roger Reynolds in the past. I’ve stood by him, and I still consider him a friend. But when it comes to choosing the best person for Butler County Commissioner, my support goes to Michael Ryan. He’s the right leader for this moment, and I believe he will do an outstanding job.

If you haven’t visited the Spooky Nook Sports Complex, I encourage you to go. See for yourself what visionary leadership can accomplish. And when it comes time to vote, you won’t go wrong in supporting Michael Ryan—a leader who listens, connects, and delivers.  And has an eye for a future that people can really get excited about. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Public Discourse and Political Integrity: A Reflection on Warren Davidson’s Trenton Town Hall

In the heart of Butler County, Ohio, Congressman Warren Davidson recently held a town hall meeting at Edgewood Middle School in Trenton—a bold and commendable move in today’s politically charged climate. With approximately 500 attendees, the event was a rare opportunity for constituents to engage directly with their elected representative. Although I wasn’t able to attend due to scheduling conflicts, the proximity of the event to my home across the Great Miami River made me want to go.  I love Warren, and he’s usually spot on with his issues.  However, I would have liked to have been there to see the protesters who showed up, the ‘Tax the Rich’ types, because it became quite a media event. Still, the significance of the event and the reactions it provoked offer a compelling lens through which to examine the state of public discourse, political representation, and the ideological divides that continue to shape our communities.

Warren Davidson’s decision to host a live, unscripted town hall was gutsy. In an era where many politicians avoid direct engagement with constituents, preferring curated media appearances or controlled environments, Davidson’s willingness to face the public head-on deserves recognition. His district, which spans Butler County and parts of surrounding areas, is politically diverse. While former President Donald Trump won Butler County by a significant margin—roughly 60%—a vocal minority remains that opposes Davidson’s policies and broader conservative principles. These individuals, often aligned with progressive or left-leaning ideologies, represent a segment of the population that feels increasingly marginalized in a region dominated by Republican politics.

The town hall, however, was not without its challenges. Reports and social media coverage highlighted a group of vocal disruptors who attended the event with the apparent intention of derailing the conversation. Rather than engaging in respectful dialogue, these individuals resorted to heckling and creating distractions, undermining the very purpose of the town hall. While public debate is a cornerstone of our republic, there is a line between passionate disagreement and outright disrespect. As someone who has attended events featuring speakers with whom I disagree, I believe in maintaining decorum—listening, shaking hands, and finding common ground where possible. The behavior exhibited by some attendees at Davidson’s town hall was not only counterproductive but emblematic of a broader erosion of civility in political discourse.

The media’s portrayal of the event further complicated matters. Coverage focused heavily on the disruptions, framing them as indicative of widespread dissatisfaction with Davidson’s policies. This narrative, however, overlooks the broader context. The disruptive group represented a small fraction of the attendees—perhaps 20 to 30 individuals—yet their actions were amplified to suggest a larger movement. This kind of coverage plays into the hands of those seeking to challenge Davidson’s seat in the upcoming election, painting him as vulnerable despite strong support from his base. It’s a tactic often employed by those on the political fringes who hope to gain traction by manufacturing controversy rather than presenting substantive alternatives.

Davidson’s alignment with Trump on many issues, particularly fiscal policy, has made him a target for criticism. While Trump’s approach often involves aggressive spending to stimulate economic growth, Davidson has positioned himself as a fiscal conservative, advocating for reduced federal spending and greater accountability. This divergence has sparked debate within conservative circles, but it also highlights Davidson’s commitment to principle over party. His stance on limiting government expenditure reflects a belief in personal responsibility and economic discipline—values that resonate deeply with many in his district, including myself.

The disruptions at the town hall were not merely expressions of policy disagreement; they were symptomatic of a deeper ideological divide. The individuals who sought to hijack the event often espouse views rooted in socialist or Marxist frameworks, advocating for increased taxation and expanded government programs. Their arguments, while emotionally charged, lack practical grounding. Demanding higher taxes to fund expansive social initiatives without addressing underlying spending habits is akin to maxing out a credit card and blaming the employer for insufficient wages. Fiscal responsibility begins with managing expenditures, not simply demanding more revenue.

Moreover, the push for higher taxes often targets the wealthy under the guise of promoting equity. Yet this approach overlooks the broader implications of punitive taxation—namely, the disincentive to invest and innovate. Not understanding why investment occurs and what a lack of it does to a society as a whole.  The same individuals advocating for increased government spending are frequently those who struggle with personal financial discipline, projecting their frustrations onto systemic structures rather than addressing individual accountability. This mindset, while understandable in moments of hardship, ultimately undermines the principles of self-reliance and economic freedom that form the bedrock of American society.

The town hall also served as a microcosm of the broader political landscape. With Trump’s administration well underway, Democrats find themselves on the defensive, seeking avenues to regain relevance. The disruptions at Davidson’s event were not isolated incidents but part of a coordinated effort to challenge conservative leadership in regions where progressive influence has waned. These tactics, while effective in generating media attention, do little to foster meaningful dialogue or policy innovation. Instead, they contribute to a climate of polarization and mistrust, where political opponents are viewed not as fellow citizens with differing views but as enemies to be silenced.

Despite the noise, Davidson remained composed, demonstrating the kind of resilience and integrity that defines effective leadership. His willingness to engage with constituents—regardless of their political affiliation—speaks to a commitment to representation that transcends party lines. While I may not agree with every aspect of his platform, I respect his dedication to public service and his courage in facing criticism head-on.  I agree with most of his positions, but I was a much quicker yes on the Big Beautiful Bill than he was.  In a time when many politicians retreat from scrutiny, Davidson’s approach is both refreshing and necessary.

The media’s role in shaping public perception is crucial and cannot be overstated. By focusing on the disruptions rather than the substance of the town hall, outlets contributed to a distorted narrative that misrepresents the event’s true character. This kind of coverage not only undermines the communication process but also fuels division by amplifying fringe voices at the expense of constructive dialogue. It’s a reminder that media literacy is essential in today’s information landscape—citizens must critically evaluate sources and seek out diverse perspectives to form informed opinions.

Looking ahead, Davidson’s reelection prospects remain strong. The vocal minority that seeks to unseat him lacks the organizational strength and policy coherence necessary to mount a serious challenge. Their efforts, while loud, are unlikely to resonate with the broader electorate, which values stability, fiscal responsibility, and principled leadership. Davidson’s track record, combined with his willingness to engage directly with constituents, positions him well for continued service.

The Trenton town hall was a testament to the complexities of modern political engagement. It highlighted the importance of respectful discourse, the challenges of ideological division, and the resilience required of public servants in the face of adversity. While disruptions and media bias may cloud the narrative, the core message remains clear: representation matters, and leaders like Warren Davidson play a vital role in upholding the values that define our communities. As constituents, it is our responsibility to engage thoughtfully, maintain integrity, and contribute to a political culture founded on respect and accountability.  And to be thankful that there are politicians out there, like Warren Davidson, who are willing to do the job in the way that he does.

Rich Hoffman

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