Category: Religion

The 2026 Ohio Gubernatorial Race: Vivek Ramaswamy’s Commanding Position Against Amy Acton’s COVID Legacy and the Democrat Playbook 

As the dust settles on Ohio’s May 5, 2026, primary election, the stage is set for one of the most consequential gubernatorial contests in the state’s recent history. Biotech entrepreneur and Trump-endorsed Republican Vivek Ramaswamy emerged as the overwhelming GOP nominee, crushing fringe challenger Casey Putsch with approximately 82.5% of the vote (673,902 votes to Putsch’s 143,257). Ramaswamy swept every single county in Ohio, a remarkable show of unity across urban, suburban, and rural areas. On the Democratic side, former Ohio Department of Health Director Dr. Amy Acton secured the nomination unopposed, garnering around 742,000–760,000 votes in a low-energy primary. Overall voter turnout reached about 22.6% of registered voters, a modest uptick from recent midterm cycles. 

This matchup pits a dynamic, pro-growth outsider in Ramaswamy—backed by President Donald Trump and positioning Ohio as the nation’s top economic powerhouse—against Acton, whose public profile remains indelibly tied to the state’s aggressive COVID-19 response. As one conservative commentator noted in a recent podcast monologue, the race is far from the neck-and-neck horse race portrayed in some polling and media narratives. While recent surveys show a tight contest (with some giving Acton a slight edge or Ramaswamy a narrow lead), the ground game, Trump’s coattails, independent-voter outreach, and Acton’s historical liabilities suggest that Ramaswamy enters the general election with a structural advantage that could widen significantly by November 3, 2026. 

To fully appreciate this contest, we must delve into the candidates’ backgrounds, the primary results and their implications, the lingering economic scars from the pandemic era, comparative policy outcomes in neighboring states, and the broader political currents reshaping Ohio. This analysis expands on grassroots conservative perspectives—while incorporating verifiable data on turnout, economic metrics, investment challenges, and campaign tactics. Far from a replay of “yesteryear” Democrat strategies, this race highlights how progressive governance models have faltered in a post-Trump political landscape.

Candidate Profiles: Contrasting Visions for Ohio’s Future

Vivek Ramaswamy, a Cincinnati native and biotech billionaire, represents a fresh face in Ohio politics despite his national profile from the 2024 Republican presidential primary. Born to Indian immigrant parents, Ramaswamy built a successful pharmaceutical company (Roivant Sciences) before pivoting to public service. His Trump endorsement came early and emphatically, framing him as a “young, strong, and smart” leader committed to meritocracy, deregulation, and economic revival. Ramaswamy’s campaign emphasizes making Ohio the “#1 state” through pro-business policies, workforce upskilling, and attracting high-tech investment in sectors like semiconductors and biotechnology. He campaigns on the “high road,” avoiding personal attacks while highlighting policy contrasts. Critics from the far-right fringes—such as Putsch, dubbed the “car guy” for his automotive-themed online persona—have leveled baseless claims about Ramaswamy’s heritage or loyalty, echoing outdated nativist arguments. Ramaswamy has dismissed these as irrelevant, noting his personal integrity and fair play: his running mate, Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, bolsters legislative experience. 

In stark contrast stands Dr. Amy Acton, a physician from Youngstown with a compelling personal story of overcoming hardship in a steel mill family. She rose through public health ranks to become Ohio’s Health Director in 2019 under Republican Gov. Mike DeWine. Acton’s national visibility peaked during the early COVID-19 crisis, when she joined DeWine for daily briefings and advocated strict mitigation measures. These included Ohio’s first-in-the-nation school closures, stay-at-home orders (issued March 22, 2020), business shutdowns, and even the postponement of the state’s presidential primary. Supporters praised her as a calming, data-driven voice who “flattened the curve” and protected hospitals. However, detractors—including many business owners, parents, and conservatives—blame her policies for devastating economic and educational fallout, from mental health crises among youth to prolonged business closures. Acton resigned in June 2020 amid personal threats and protests, later serving briefly as a health advisor before entering the private sector and academia. Her 2026 campaign, with running mate and former Democratic Party chair David Pepper, focuses on “power back to the people,” affordability, and a critique of “billionaires and special interests.” Yet her record remains a focal point of Republican attacks, with Ramaswamy labeling her tenure an “abandonment of responsibility.” 

Acton’s campaign has leaned on traditional Democratic infrastructure, including legal support from figures like election attorney Mark Elias, who has been linked to aggressive tactics such as cease-and-desist letters targeting critics. Pepper, a vocal strategist, has served as an attack dog, pushing narratives that question Ramaswamy’s Ohio investment record or allege personal scandals (e.g., unsubstantiated claims of extramarital affairs, which can easily be dismissed as fabrications). These echo “yesteryear” playbook moves but risk backfiring in an era of heightened voter skepticism toward centralized government overreach. 

Primary Season: A Landslide for Ramaswamy, Unopposed for Acton

The May 5 primaries crystallized Republican enthusiasm. Ramaswamy’s 82.5% victory margin—far exceeding pre-primary polls showing him at 50-76%—demonstrated broad consolidation. He won 60-90%+ in nearly every county, from Democratic-leaning urban centers to deep-red rural areas, per county-by-county maps. Putsch, representing a self-described “radical right” element with fringe ideas (e.g., racial primacy in voting or extreme nativism), captured only 17.5% and never posed a serious threat. GOP insiders viewed him as illegitimate, akin to past primary spoilers. This sweep signals unified party backing, contrasting with historical GOP infighting (e.g., the 2016 Trump vs. Cruz/Rubio dynamics, in which critics eventually coalesced post-nomination). 

Acton’s uncontested path yielded solid but unremarkable Democratic turnout. Overall, the low primary participation (22.6%) underscores that the real battle begins now, targeting the 2-3% of independents and soft partisans who decide the general election. Ramaswamy’s primary dominance positions him to inherit the full Republican machinery, amplified by Trump’s upcoming Ohio appearances. 

The Economic Reckoning: COVID Policies, Recovery, and Investment Challenges

Central to the race is Acton’s COVID legacy and its economic toll. Ohio’s early lockdowns contributed to sharp job losses—hundreds of thousands in spring 2020—with uneven recovery. While statewide GDP rebounded (Ohio’s 2023 GDP was around $884 billion, according to BEA data), sectors such as hospitality, retail, and education lagged. Critics argue Acton’s orders exacerbated long-term damage: prolonged school closures harmed student outcomes, and business restrictions drove some enterprises to relocate. Ramaswamy has tied this to Ohio’s failure to recover fully, positioning his administration to reverse it through deregulation and investment incentives. 

Ohio’s business climate has improved—ranked No. 7 nationally and No. 1 in the Midwest in the 2026 Chief Executive CEO survey—but faces headwinds. The high-profile Intel semiconductor plant in New Albany (announced in 2022 with up to $20-100 billion promised) exemplifies stalled momentum: construction delays pushed first production from 2025/2026 to 2030-2031, with Intel investing $5+ billion by early 2026 but citing market and financial caution. Opponents blame pandemic-era policies and regulatory uncertainty; supporters note national chip shortages and the federal CHIPS Act. Regardless, such delays highlight the risk of capital flight if Ohio appears unstable. 

Comparisons to neighboring states underscore the stakes. Indiana, a right-to-work state since 2012, has often outperformed Ohio in manufacturing retention and unemployment (recently ~3.3% vs. Ohio’s ~4.1-4.2%). Studies on right-to-work show mixed but generally positive effects on job growth in competitive sectors. Michigan (post-right-to-work repeal) and Pennsylvania (swing state with union influence) have seen volatile recoveries, with Michigan’s auto sector still grappling with post-COVID supply chains. Kentucky, under GOP leadership but with its own challenges (e.g., successor dynamics under former Gov. Beshear), attracts some investment but lags in high-tech draws. Ohio, lacking right-to-work status despite past attempts (e.g., failed 2011 SB5), relies on tax incentives and workforce development—but Acton’s era amplified perceptions of anti-business hostility. Post-pandemic GDP growth has been comparable across the region (Ohio ~2.1% in recent years), yet Ohio’s unemployment edged higher in some BLS snapshots, and narratives of a business exodus persist. Ramaswamy’s platform—aligning with a potential Trump administration—promises to lure dollars from Indiana, Michigan, and beyond by emphasizing economic viability over lockdowns. 

Unions add another layer. Traditionally Democratic strongholds (teachers, public sector) have shifted toward Trump-era populism on trade and energy. Acton’s ties to labor risk alienating moderates if framed as favoring centralized mandates over job creation. Ramaswamy’s pro-worker, anti-regulation stance could peel independents.

Campaign Tactics, Polling Realities, and Broader Ohio Politics

Recent polls paint a competitive picture—RCP averages near even, with outliers like an early-2026 Emerson showing Acton +1 and Bowling Green/YouGov favoring Ramaswamy slightly. Yet intuition will hold: horse-race media and ad buyers inflate closeness for engagement. Ramaswamy’s primary sweep, Trump rallies, and Acton’s baggage (framed as “COVID queen” by the GOP) suggest momentum. Early attacks—scandals, investment critiques—have already been deployed, leaving Democrats vulnerable to “October surprise” fatigue. Elias-style legal maneuvers and Pepper’s opposition research risk overreach, mirroring past Democratic missteps in red-leaning Ohio. 

Ohio’s political map favors Republicans in gubernatorial races—no Democrat has won since 2006. Trump carried the state handily in 2016, 2020, and 2024. Ramaswamy inherits this, plus Senate and House majorities for swift policy wins. Acton represents a “propped-up Biden figure”: big government, unions, and progressive holdouts hoping to stall MAGA momentum. But as unions court Trump and independents prioritize pocketbooks, her path narrows.

Outlook: Boots on the Ground and a Call to Action

The general election will hinge on turnout and independents. Ramaswamy’s personal appeal—honest, non-combative—contrasts with Acton’s defensive posture. As the monologue urges, do not take victory for granted: vote in November, rally behind the nominee. With Trump stumping and economic contrasts sharpening, Ramaswamy could pull away decisively. Ohio’s recovery from pandemic policies, Intel’s fate, and regional competition will define the narrative.

In sum, this race transcends personalities. It tests whether Ohio embraces pro-growth conservatism or reverts to centralized experimentation. Data favors the former; history and momentum reinforce it. As voters weigh track records, Ramaswamy’s vision aligns with a thriving Ohio, while Acton’s invites scrutiny of past costs. The coming months promise clarity—and opportunity, along with a lot of political drama.  Amy Acton will have a hard time surviving the intensity that is headed her way.

Footnotes

1.  AP projections and primary results, May 2026.

2.  Ramaswamy’s victory speech and Acton’s coverage of the criticism.

3.  BLS unemployment data (Feb/Mar 2026 snapshots).

4.  BEA GDP by state reports.

5.  Chief Executive 2026 Best States for Business survey.

6.  Ballotpedia and NYT poll aggregates.

(Additional citations drawn from campaign filings, historical COVID orders via Ohio Dept. of Health archives, and economic impact studies.)

Bibliography (Selected for Further Reading)

•  Associated Press. “Ohio Primary Election Results 2026.” May 6, 2026.

•  Ballotpedia. “2026 Ohio Gubernatorial Election.”

•  Bureau of Labor Statistics. “State Employment and Unemployment Summary.” 2026 releases.

•  Bureau of Economic Analysis. “GDP by State.” Annual updates through 2025/2026.

•  Chief Executive Magazine. “Best & Worst States for Business 2026.” April 2026.

•  NBC News / 10TV. Primary results coverage, May 2026.

•  New York Times. “Ohio Governor Election Polls 2026.”

•  Ohio Secretary of State. Official primary turnout and county results.

•  RealClearPolling. “2026 Ohio Governor: Ramaswamy vs. Acton.”

•  Various: CNN, Dispatch, Signal Ohio reporting on candidates and Intel project (2025-2026).

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.

Don’t Play Nice with Democrats: If we have a true representative republic, made by the will of the people, Republicans will always hold a majority

The recent decision by the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais, handed down on April 29, 2026, represents a watershed moment in American constitutional law and the long struggle to restore color-blind principles to our electoral system. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court declared Louisiana’s congressional map—specifically Senate Bill 8, which had created a second majority-Black district—an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, made clear that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not justify the state’s predominant use of race in drawing district lines. The map, which stretched across more than 200 miles to link disparate Black communities in a serpentine fashion reminiscent of earlier racial districts struck down decades ago, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition on racial discrimination in voting. This was not a mere technicality; it was a direct rebuke to the practice of engineering electoral outcomes by segregating voters according to skin color, a tactic we have seen deployed for years under the guise of “protecting minority rights.” The decision affirms what we have long contended: treating citizens differently based on race to create artificial voting blocs does not advance equality—it undermines it. 

We must pause here to appreciate the full weight of this ruling. For too long, certain political actors have exploited the Voting Rights Act not as a shield against genuine discrimination but as a sword to carve up the electorate into racial fiefdoms. Louisiana’s 2020 census data showed a roughly 33 percent Black population, yet lower courts had ordered the legislature to draw two majority-Black districts from the state’s six congressional seats, even though the state’s 2022 map already complied with traditional districting principles and partisan considerations. When the legislature complied by drawing SB8 to include a second such district, non-Black voters challenged it as an impermissible racial gerrymander. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the Voting Rights Act, properly construed, did not require Louisiana to engage in such race-based line-drawing. As Justice Alito explained, Section 2 cannot be read to collide with the Constitution itself; it enforces the Fifteenth Amendment, not overrides equal protection guarantees. This disentangles race from politics in a way that prior cases like Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP had begun to demand, forcing courts and legislatures to prove that race, not partisanship, predominated. The implications ripple far beyond Louisiana’s borders. Maps in states across the nation that relied on similar racial balancing acts now face renewed scrutiny, potentially shifting dozens of seats toward fairer representation based on actual voter preferences rather than engineered demographics. 

To understand why this decision has Democrats in such visible distress—melting down in public statements and media commentary as if their very survival depended on it—we have to step back and examine the deeper history of gerrymandering and its evolution into a tool of racial politics. The term itself dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a redistricting plan that created a salamander-shaped district designed to favor his Democratic-Republican Party. A Boston newspaper coined the term “gerrymander,” blending Gerry’s name with the creature’s form, and the practice became a bipartisan sin in American politics. Both parties have engaged in partisan gerrymandering over the centuries, drawing oddly contoured districts to pack opponents into fewer seats or to crack their support across many seats. The Supreme Court, in cases like Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), has rightly held that pure partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions best left to legislatures and voters. Yet racial gerrymandering occupies a different constitutional plane because it triggers strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. When race becomes the predominant factor—subordinating traditional criteria such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions—the state must demonstrate a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. This doctrine traces directly to Shaw v. Reno (1993), where the Court invalidated North Carolina’s bizarre, snakelike majority-Black district drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that such plans “reinforce the perception that members of the same racial group…think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls.” We could not agree more; this racial essentialism treats citizens as members of monolithic groups rather than individuals with diverse views. 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 itself was a triumph of the civil rights movement, dismantling Jim Crow barriers like literacy tests and poll taxes that had disenfranchised Black Americans for a century. Section 2 prohibits any “standard, practice, or procedure” that denies or abridges the right to vote on account of race or color. In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), the Court established a three-prong test for Section 2 claims: a minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority in a single-member district; it must be politically cohesive; and the majority must vote sufficiently as a bloc to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate. These were narrow, remedial tools for cases of extreme dilution. Yet over decades, activists and Democratic strategists stretched Section 2 into a mandate for maximizing majority-minority districts wherever possible, often ignoring the Gingles compactness requirement by creating sprawling districts that connected far-flung communities solely by racial data. The 1982 amendments to the Act, passed by Congress amid debates over “results” versus “intent,” further encouraged this by allowing plaintiffs to prevail based on electoral outcomes rather than on proven discriminatory intent. By the 1990s, after the 1990 census, the Department of Justice, under the first Bush administration and later Clinton, aggressively pressured states to draw as many such districts as possible, leading to the very plans that were scrutinized in Shaw. We saw this pattern repeat after every census: 2000, 2010, and especially 2020, when population shifts and court orders forced states like Louisiana, Alabama, and others to redraw lines with race front and center. 

Contrast this with the Court’s 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan, which required Alabama to create a second majority-Black congressional district. There, the majority (including Chief Justice Roberts) upheld a Section 2 claim under Gingles, finding Alabama’s map diluted Black voting strength. Yet even then, the Court cautioned against race predominating unduly. Fast-forward to Louisiana v. Callais in 2026, and the conservative majority has drawn a sharper line: the VRA does not compel race-based remedies that themselves violate equal protection. Justice Alito’s opinion meticulously dissects the record, noting that Louisiana’s initial 2022 map was not proven to violate Section 2 when race and politics were properly disentangled. The state’s later map, drawn explicitly to create the second district, failed strict scrutiny because no compelling interest existed once the VRA obligation was clarified. Dissenters like Justice Elena Kagan warned that this renders Section 2 “all but a dead letter,” but we see it as restoring the Act to its original, limited purpose: preventing intentional discrimination, not mandating proportional racial outcomes. Proportional representation by race has never been the constitutional command; the Fifteenth Amendment guarantees the right to vote free of racial denial, not a right to districts engineered for group success. As Justice Clarence Thomas has long argued in concurrences, race-conscious districting perpetuates the very stereotypes the Constitution abhors. 

This brings us to the heart of the matter that has Democrats so alarmed. For years, we have watched as one party systematically used racial profiling in redistricting to manufacture “victimized sectors” of the electorate. By drawing districts that packed minority voters—often urban Black and Hispanic communities—into safe Democratic seats, strategists created the illusion of broad demographic inevitability. The theory was simple: identify groups historically aligned with Democratic policies on welfare, affirmative action, and identity politics; concentrate them to maximize those seats while diluting their influence elsewhere; then portray any challenge as racist. This was not organic coalition-building; it was engineered balkanization. Data from the 2020 census and subsequent analyses showed that without such maps, Republicans would hold significantly more congressional seats nationwide. The same pattern played out in state legislatures and local governments. Urban versus suburban divides, Black versus White, immigrant versus native-born—all were exploited not to heal divisions but to deepen them for electoral gain. We have argued repeatedly that if everyone is treated equally under the law, without regard to skin color, the natural political leanings of the American people—favoring limited government, individual responsibility, and opportunity—would produce Republican majorities far larger than the razor-thin margins we see in national “horse race” polling. Democrats have never been the 50-50 party they claim; their power has always depended on these artificial constructs and, we contend, supplemental mechanisms like extended voting windows, ballot harvesting, and lax identification rules that invite abuse. 

Consider the broader pattern of election manipulation that this ruling exposes. We have documented for years how Democrats have benefited from rules that prioritize turnout over integrity. Voter ID requirements, which enjoy overwhelming public support across racial lines in poll after poll, are derided as “suppression” precisely because they make fraud harder. Extended early voting, same-day registration, and no-excuse absentee ballots were sold as accommodations for the “victimized,” yet they create opportunities for chain-of-custody problems and ineligible voting. In 2020 and even into 2024, despite a Republican presidential victory, we saw House and Senate seats flip or held by suspiciously narrow margins in precisely those jurisdictions with the most permissive rules and history of irregularities. States like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona became battlegrounds not because of natural demographic tides but because of procedural advantages Democrats had institutionalized. The Supreme Court’s gerrymandering decision is one piece of a larger corrective: when race-based districting is curtailed, when maps revert to neutral criteria, and when combined with voter ID and same-day voting standards, the playing field levels dramatically. Republicans do not need to “cheat” to win; we need elections that reflect the will of the people without artificial inflation of turnout among low-propensity voters who require constant mobilization through grievance narratives.

The meltdown we observe among Democratic leaders and aligned media is telling. They know, as we have long suspected, that their electoral success has hinged on these mechanisms. Remove the ability to pack districts by race, and suddenly, safe blue seats become competitive. Eliminate the fiction that minority voters must be treated as a bloc, and the coalition fractures along class, values, and policy lines—lines where working-class voters of all backgrounds increasingly gravitate toward Republican messages of economic growth and border security. For decades, Democrats have victimized groups: minorities told they cannot succeed without government largesse, women pitted against traditional family structures, urban cores against suburbs, and even generational divides exploited through student debt forgiveness promises. This was never about equality; it was about dependency and turnout. The color of skin became a proxy for presumed political loyalty, just as the Supreme Court has now ruled impermissible in districting. We see this as a return to first principles: the Constitution is color-blind. As Chief Justice John Roberts famously wrote in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), “The way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.” The Louisiana ruling applies that wisdom to the ballot box.

Of course, this victory is not the end of the fight. Gerrymandering litigation will continue, with states now free to prioritize partisan advantage without the VRA as a racial cudgel. Republicans must seize the moment while holding majorities. We have advocated for years that the filibuster, once a tool of minority protection through extended debate, has been weaponized against the will of the majority. With a Republican Senate and House, and a president committed to reform, the time has come to consider nuclear options or carve-outs for election integrity legislation. A simple majority should suffice to pass nationwide voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements, same-day voting cutoffs, and chain-of-custody rules for mail ballots. These are not radical; they mirror practices in most democracies and enjoy supermajority support among voters, including majorities of Black and Hispanic Americans in recent surveys. The uni-party elements within Republican ranks—those globalist RINOs who benefit from the status quo—must be challenged from within the movement. True conservatives understand that power must be used aggressively to restore the republic, not conserved in the name of bipartisanship that only one side honors.

The demographic reality further bolsters our case. National polls and voting patterns consistently show that, absent fraud and racial engineering, the electorate tilts Republican. Most Americans, regardless of background, value self-reliance over dependency. Actual election outcomes and shifting attitudes among working-class and minority voters have debunked the “emerging Democratic majority” thesis popularized in the early 2000s. Hispanics, in particular, have trended toward Republicans on issues like immigration and inflation. Black support, while still heavily Democratic, shows cracks among younger men and church-going families. Women are not a monolith; suburban mothers prioritize safety and education over cultural radicalism. By correcting maps to eliminate racial packing, we allow these natural coalitions to form without artificial distortion. Democrats’ “meltdown” stems from the fear that, stripped of their rigged advantages, they cannot compete in a fair fight. History proves the point: when elections are clean—as in many red states with strict ID laws—Republican performance exceeds expectations. The 2024 presidential result, where Donald Trump secured victory despite headwinds, would have been even more decisive without the lingering procedural vulnerabilities in key states.

We must also confront the philosophical rot at the core of the opposition. Identity politics, rooted in Marxist class struggle rebranded as racial grievance, teaches that society is a zero-sum battle of oppressors and the oppressed. Democrats have mastered this, victimizing groups to harvest votes while promising free stuff—reparations rhetoric, affirmative action, welfare expansion—in exchange for loyalty. This is not empowerment; it is patronage. The Supreme Court’s ruling strikes at the foundation by saying the state cannot use skin color to segregate voters into blocs. It echoes the color-blind vision of civil rights pioneers like Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr., who dreamed of a nation that judges citizens by character, not race. Modern “progressives” have abandoned that dream in favor of power. We reject it outright. A free society treats individuals equally; anything else breeds resentment and division.

Looking forward, the path is clear. Republicans must act with the same urgency Democrats have shown in pursuing their agenda. Pass election reform now, while the moment allows. Enforce the Louisiana precedent nationwide through Department of Justice guidance or legislation. Challenge remaining suspect maps aggressively. And purge the party of those dragging their feet in the name of “institutional norms.” The filibuster, if it blocks basic integrity measures, should yield to the majority’s mandate. We are not seeking one-party rule; we seek a representative republic where votes count, and outcomes reflect the people’s will. Democrats have never commanded a true national majority without these crutches; their 50-50 self-image is a myth sustained by fraud, gerrymandering, and demographic manipulation. Remove the crutches, and the illusion collapses.

In the end, the Louisiana v. Callais decision is cause for celebration, not just for Republicans but for all Americans tired of race-obsessed politics. It restores integrity to the franchise and dignity to every citizen by refusing to reduce them to racial statistics on a map. We have waited decades for this correction. Now is the time to build on it—voter ID, secure elections, neutral maps, and a return to the constitutional promise of equal treatment. The Democrats’ power was always borrowed from these distortions; its return to baseline is long overdue. The American people deserve nothing less than a system where every vote counts equally, every district reflects the community, and no one is profiled by skin color. This ruling is the first major step in that restoration, and we must follow through with resolve. The republic hangs in the balance, and the people—united, not divided—will prevail. 

Footnotes

¹ Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. ___ (2026) (slip op. at 1-2, Alito, J.).

² SCOTUSblog, “In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory” (Apr. 29, 2026).

³ NPR, “The U.S. Supreme Court strikes another severe blow to the Voting Rights Act” (Apr. 29, 2026).

⁴ Associated Press, “Supreme Court weakens the Voting Rights Act and aids Republicans” (Apr. 29, 2026).

⁵ See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).

⁶ Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).

⁷ Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023).

⁸ Wikipedia entry and SCOTUS opinion summary for Louisiana v. Callais.

⁹ PBS NewsHour analysis (May 2026) on nationwide implications.

Bibliography

•  Alito, Samuel. Opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. ___ (2026). Supreme Court of the United States.

•  Amy Howe, “In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map,” SCOTUSblog (Apr. 29, 2026).

•  “The U.S. Supreme Court strikes another severe blow to the Voting Rights Act,” NPR (Apr. 29, 2026).

•  “Supreme Court weakens the Voting Rights Act and aids Republicans,” Associated Press (Apr. 29, 2026).

•  Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).

•  Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).

•  Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023).

•  Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019).

•  Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq.

•  Abigail Thernstrom, Whose Votes Count? Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights (Harvard University Press, 1987).

•  J. Christian Adams, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery, 2011).

•  Hans von Spakovsky, The Election Fraud Handbook (Heritage Foundation, various reports 2020-2025).

•  Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013).

•  Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845) and speeches on color-blind justice.

•  Martin Luther King Jr., “I Have a Dream” (1963).

•  Additional conservative analyses: Heritage Foundation Election Integrity Project reports (2024-2026).

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 Illusion of Media Kingmakers: Why Donald Trump Represents the American Voter, Not Celebrity Endorsers – A Personal Reflection on Fox News, Tucker Carlson, and the Essence of Representative Government

I have long maintained that Fox News performs better when Donald Trump occupies the White House, and recent events have only reinforced that view. The network’s success has never hinged on any single personality but on delivering timely, relevant content to working Americans who tune in after a long day. Yet the story of Tucker Carlson’s rise, departure, and subsequent evolution reveals deeper truths about media power, celebrity egos, and the limits of influence in American politics. As someone who has observed these dynamics closely from Ohio, I have always believed that media tycoons like Rupert Murdoch crave control over the executive branch—and when they cannot exert it, they push back. Trump proved uncontrollable, leading to internal shifts at Fox, including the ousting of Carlson. What followed was a tale of inflated celebrity status untethered from corporate structure, celebrity endorsements during the 2024 campaign, and now, in year two of the Trump administration, profound regret over foreign policy, particularly the Israel-Iran conflict. 

To understand this fully, we must start with a background on Fox News itself. Launched in 1996 by Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, Fox News Channel revolutionized cable news by targeting an underserved audience: conservative viewers seeking alternatives to what they perceived as liberal bias in mainstream networks. Bill O’Reilly’s The O’Reilly Factor, which debuted in 1996 and dominated the 8 p.m. slot for decades, epitomized this model. O’Reilly drew massive audiences—often exceeding three million viewers nightly—by blending straight reporting with opinionated commentary that resonated with working-class Republicans who returned home from jobs around 6 or 7 p.m., ate dinner, and wanted a digest of the day’s events. His show was not just entertainment; it was appointment viewing for an audience that worked hard during the day and valued straightforward analysis without the corporate polish of other networks. 

I always respected O’Reilly’s style, even if I did not agree with every nuance. When Tucker Carlson assumed the 8 p.m. slot in 2017 following O’Reilly’s departure amid sexual harassment allegations, many wondered if the audience would follow. Carlson had been a frequent contributor to The O’Reilly Factor, bringing a sharper, more polemical edge honed from his time at CNN and MSNBC. His show quickly captured the same demographic, maintaining strong ratings—averaging around 3.2 million viewers in early 2023—by focusing on cultural issues, immigration, and skepticism of establishment narratives. Jesse Watters, who later inherited the slot, has done a solid job continuing that tradition, often drawing competitive numbers, though initial post-Carlson viewership dipped slightly as loyalists adjusted. The point remains: Fox’s success stemmed from understanding its audience’s schedule and delivering content they craved at the precise hour they could consume it, not from any individual star’s charisma alone. 

Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul often misspoken as “Myrtle” in casual conversation but known to all as the force behind News Corp and Fox, has had a complex, transactional relationship with Donald Trump that has spanned decades. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, as Murdoch built his American empire with the New York Post, Trump was a brash New York real estate developer who fed scoops to the tabloid’s Page Six. Their alliance was mutually beneficial: Trump gained publicity, Murdoch gained insider access. Yet tensions arose when Trump ran for president in 2015-2016. Murdoch initially viewed him skeptically as a “phony” and publicly criticized his immigration stance. Once Trump won, however, the relationship deepened; they spoke frequently, and Fox became a platform amplifying Trump’s message. Still, Murdoch’s empire has always prioritized control. When Trump proved resistant to influence—particularly during his first term and after the 2020 election—frictions emerged. Murdoch reportedly wanted Trump sidelined as a “nonperson” after January 6, 2021, and backed alternatives like Ron DeSantis in the 2024 primaries. The Murdoch family’s discomfort with uncontrollable figures like Trump led to strategic moves at the network. 

Carlson’s departure from Fox in April 2023 exemplified this dynamic. Officially announced as a mutual parting, the reality involved deeper issues tied to the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit, in which Fox settled for $787.5 million over 2020 election coverage. Internal texts revealed Carlson’s private frustrations and inflammatory language, alienating executives. Critics inside Fox described him as having grown “too big for his boots,” with racially charged comments and misogynistic undertones surfacing in discovery. Murdoch himself reportedly ordered the firing, viewing Carlson’s toxicity as a liability amid mounting legal and reputational risks. I always thought Carlson did a decent job as a reporter—grounded enough to challenge narratives effectively—but he was never as consistently anchored as O’Reilly. His style appealed to the same audience, yet the corporate structure eventually constrained him. 

Once freed from Fox, Carlson found a massive platform on X (formerly Twitter), bolstered by support from Elon Musk and others. Celebrity status untethered from corporate oversight can be intoxicating. I have observed this pattern repeatedly: individuals discover fame independent of the old guard, and their heads swell. Carlson’s post-Fox trajectory followed this path. He campaigned vigorously for Trump in 2024, headlining events, interviewing the candidate, and even influencing discussions about the VP selection, including J.D. Vance. Many Democrats and independents joined the “Trump bandwagon” too—Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, and others—uniting behind a shared vision. I was invited to several VIP package events in Ohio where Carlson was set to headline during the election cycle. These were high-profile gatherings with figures like Bernie Moreno and J.D. Vance, promising networking and insight. As someone deeply involved in Ohio politics and conservative circles, I enjoy such environments. Yet I declined. My calendar was full, but more importantly, I sensed something off with Carlson—a growing ego, a detachment from the grassroots he once claimed to represent. I had a feeling this might eventually reveal itself, and it has. 

In the 2024 election, Trump secured victory with approximately 73.5 million popular votes and 312 electoral votes, compared with Kamala Harris’s roughly 69 million popular votes. Turnout was solid but lower than 2020 in many areas, with Trump maintaining or slightly improving margins in key demographics. Claims of widespread fraud persisted on both sides post-election, echoing 2020 debates, but the results held under scrutiny in states with voter ID requirements and robust audits. I have long argued that election integrity matters profoundly; where voter ID is absent, or mail-in processes lack safeguards, problems arise—as seen in 2020. Yet the core truth is this: Trump did not win because of celebrity endorsements. Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, or any podcaster did not deliver the one or two percentage points that carried him across the finish line. Voters did. Trump positioned himself as their representative—listening, adapting, and embodying frustrations with the status quo. Without any of those high-profile backers, the numbers would not have changed meaningfully. People vote for whoever they believe represents them, not for whoever a media figure tells them to support. 

This brings us to the present, year two of the second Trump administration. Carlson has fallen dramatically out of alignment with the Trump agenda, particularly over U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. He has publicly expressed regret for campaigning for Trump, apologizing on his podcast for “misleading people” and admitting he will be “tormented” by his role. He has accused Trump of becoming a “slave” to Israel, claiming external pressures from donors and influencers pushed the administration into war despite America First promises. Carlson argues the conflict serves Israeli interests over American ones, a stance that has alienated him from many former supporters. I find this preposterous and ego-driven. No single commentator, no matter how influential on X or in podcasts, possesses the power to “make” a president or dictate foreign policy outcomes. Carlson never had that kind of sway at Fox, nor does he now. His regret stems from a fantasy that his endorsement was pivotal—when, in reality, it was the voters who chose Trump as their representative. 

I have seen this celebrity bubble up close. During the campaign, many high-profile figures climbed aboard the Trump train after initial skepticism. Musk poured resources and personal endorsement into the effort; Rogan hosted landmark interviews. It was a unifying moment for the right and some disaffected left-leaning voices. Yet as I have written in my own work, including The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, true leadership and strategy come from understanding systems, not inflating personal myths. Trump adapted to the people’s will—he listened to their concerns on the economy, borders, and cultural erosion. If elections were held again today under fair conditions (no Covid-era irregularities, full voter ID enforcement), the outcome would likely mirror 2024. Democrats traded Biden for Harris, knowing the 2020 fraud playbook could not be replicated without backlash. People ultimately vote for their representative, not the podcast host’s narrative.

The hard lesson for Carlson—and anyone tempted by similar hubris—is that loyalty to the movement and its representative endures. Trump voters are not abandoning him over foreign policy disagreements; they see the bigger picture of domestic priorities. Fox News knew this audience intimately: Republicans who clock in early, work hard, and catch news at 8 p.m. after dinner and a shower. The network thrived by reliably filling that slot, whether with O’Reilly, Carlson, or now Watters. When Fox pushed Carlson amid tensions with Trump and the Murdoch family’s unease, a segment of the audience followed him to X, but that loyalty fractured when he turned against the agenda voters had endorsed. Rebels who break from the core movement find themselves on the outside looking in.

This is not unique to Carlson. Media personalities often overestimate their role. I did not attend those Ohio events, not out of disdain but intuition: something in Carlson’s independence felt unmoored, destined to clash with the representative nature of Trump’s coalition. I have met Vance, Moreno, and others in collaborative settings focused on political tasks, and those environments succeed because they prioritize the people’s will over individual egos. Tucker’s current path—anti-Trump rhetoric on Iran—illustrates the peril of believing one “made” the president. It is preposterous, ego-driven, and disconnected from electoral reality.

In the end, the true essence of politics lies in representation. Trump offered himself as that vessel, adapting to voters’ intentions without needing celebrity validation. Media figures report what busy Americans lack time to discover; they do not create presidents. Celebrities like Carlson, Musk, or Rogan provided support and enjoyed the ride, but Trump’s victories—past and future—stem from the courage of ordinary voters rejecting the status quo. Election fraud debates aside, when the system functions with integrity, the people’s choice prevails.

The Murdoch family’s Trump skepticism, Carlson’s bubble, and the 2024 bandwagon all underscore one fact: no media tycoon or podcaster controls the executive branch. Voters do. And that will remain the case.

Footnotes

¹ Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump’s relationship has been documented extensively as transactional yet fraught; see sources below.

² Tucker Carlson’s firing and internal dynamics are detailed in contemporaneous reporting.

³ Viewership data from Nielsen via industry analyses.

⁴ 2024 election tallies from Associated Press and state certifications.

⁵ Carlson’s 2026 statements on Iran from interviews and podcasts.

Bibliography

•  “The Intertwined Legacies of Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump.” The New Yorker, September 12, 2025.

•  “Tucker Carlson’s Ugly Exit From Fox News.” Vanity Fair, October 31, 2023.

•  “Tucker Carlson Fired by Fox News.” The Guardian, October 31, 2023.

•  “Tucker Carlson Apologizes for Backing Trump.” KOMO News, April 21, 2026.

•  “Tucker Carlson Says He Is ‘Tormented’ by His Past Support.” The New York Times, April 21, 2026.

•  “Jesse Watters Ratings Compared to Tucker Carlson.” Newsweek, July 19, 2023.

•  2024 U.S. Election Results. Associated Press, November 2024.

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

•  Additional reporting from NPR, BBC, and Fox News internal analyses on ratings and programming.

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.

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.

Comey’s Reputation Has Washed Away Like His Sea Shells: Its time for high tide, and to prosecute those who are dangerous in the world

James Comey has justifiably found himself in the crosshairs of another indictment. This time, it is not just some rehash of old Russia-hoax issue, which is very serious in its own way, or his handling of the Clinton emails; this time, it is for something far more sinister and far more revealing about the way power really works in this country. He posted a picture on Instagram last year of seashells arranged on a beach spelling out “8647.” To the untrained eye, it might look like a harmless beach walk memento, captioned innocently enough as “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” But those of us who have lived a little, who have brushed up against the real underbelly of society, know exactly what that means. “86” has long been mob slang for “get rid of,” “cancel,” or, more directly in the circles I have known, “kill him.” And 47? That is the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump. Comey knew what he was doing. He was sending out a signal, the kind of coded message that people in the shadows understand perfectly, while the rest of us are left scratching our heads, wondering why the former director of the FBI would suddenly become an amateur seashell artist. 

I said the last time he wiggled out of an indictment that he would keep pushing. And here we are. The indictment dropped just days after another attempted assassination plot against President Trump and members of his administration at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner held at the Hilton in Washington, D.C. The timing is no coincidence. The preparation for these legal moves had been underway in the background, but the justification—the public outrage, the manifestos left by disturbed individuals—gave them the cover they needed. The guy who tried to breach security at that dinner left a manifesto that screamed the kind of radical, unhinged hatred that has been stoked for years by people in high places. These are exactly the sort of fringe lunatics Comey and others like him have been winking at for a long time. I have said it before, and I will say it again: there is always a tiny percentage of the population—maybe half a percent—who are so unhinged that they will act on the signals sent by powerful figures. They do not need direct orders. A seashell formation, a casual remark about “hitting hard,” a call to “fight” in the streets—that is enough for the right kind of crazy to interpret it as permission. And when that happens, the people who sent the signal keep their hands clean while the blood flows elsewhere.  I actually provide several chapters of detail on this kind of activity in my upcoming book, The Politics of Heaven, and yes, God has assassins always trying to plot his downfall, in much the same way.  And we see that battle playing out in many levels of spiritual warfare. 

This is not speculation on my part. I have seen how this world operates up close, and that experience is exactly why I can look at Comey’s little seashell stunt and know, without a shadow of doubt, what he intended. I have never hidden the fact that I spent time around some rough characters in my younger days, particularly in the Cincinnati and northern Kentucky area. Newport, Kentucky, just across the river, was once known as “Sin City,” a place where organized crime ran wide open with gambling joints, brothels, bootlegging operations, and every vice you could imagine. It was the prototype for what Las Vegas would later become, funded by the same networks that stretched from Chicago to Cleveland to New York. The mob had its tentacles deep into southern Ohio, too—along Chester Road in Sharonville, in the shadows of City Hall in Cincinnati, places where legitimate business mixed with the illegitimate in ways that most people shopping for milk and cookies at the grocery store never wanted to know about. Judges knew what was going on and looked the other way. Prosecutors were afraid for their families. Cops took envelopes or pretended not to see. It was the way business was done, and I had a front-row seat because I could absorb risk without cracking under pressure. I did not drink, I did not do drugs, and people trusted me with large sums of money because they knew I would do the right thing. 

Let me tell you a couple of stories that illustrate exactly the kind of signaling I am talking about. Back when I was working for a company that dealt with a lot of cash flow, one of these characters—a guy connected in ways I did not fully understand at the time but later pieced together—asked me to drive him down to a townhouse in Cincinnati, not far from City Hall. I was doing legitimate business with City Hall in those days, so it did not seem out of place. He had a suitcase in the back seat of my car. I had a strict no-smoking rule posted clearly, and everyone respected it because I was the sober driver they could trust. While he was inside the house longer than expected, something felt off. So I cracked open the suitcase. Inside was a lot of cash and a lot of cocaine. I closed it right back up, left him there, drove straight back to the office, and told the bureau manager exactly what I had seen. The look on that manager’s face told me everything—he knew. They had been using me as the clean driver, the guy who would not ask questions and take them in and out of really dangerous situations. I did not work there much longer after that. It got weird. But I walked away with my integrity intact.  There’s a lot more story to tell, but let’s just say I’m still around.  Many of them aren’t.  Bad things happen to bad people, and I don’t have to spell that out with seashells on a beach.  

Another time, I was driving a professional sports celebrity—one well-known in Cincinnati—along with four of his girlfriends, all about my age. We pulled into a nightclub parking lot, and this guy, drunk as a skunk, dropped ten thousand dollars out of his jacket. Hundreds scattered everywhere in the wind. The girls in their heels were stumbling around trying to help, and one of them even broke a heel. I got out, chased down every last bill, and handed it all back to him. I could have kept some—no one would have known—, but that is not who I am. I have always been the guy who gives it back, who does the right thing even when no one is watching. That same circle of people trusted me because I was reliable, sober, and not interested in their girls or their vices. They sought me out to drive them around with their celebrity friends, stacks of cash, and all the temptations that come with that life. I saw the signals they used among themselves—casual phrases, gestures, the way they would talk about “taking care of business” without ever saying the quiet part out loud. Hitmen I knew in those days operated the same way. They did not advertise; they responded to the bat signal, the coded message that let them know what was expected without leaving fingerprints.

That is precisely what Comey did with those seashells. As director of the FBI, he spent years dealing with organized crime, making deals with witnesses, flipping hitmen, and understanding the language of the streets better than most street operators themselves. He knew “86” was not just restaurant slang for canceling an order; in the mob world, it has meant something darker for generations. He knew 47 referred to the man who had just been elected president for the second time. And he knew there were radicals out there— the kind who write manifestos and case hotels like the one at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner—who would read that message loud and clear. The same goes for the assassin who took out Charlie Kirk in September of last year at Utah Valley University. These are not isolated incidents. They are the result of years of reckless rhetoric from people who should know better. Eric Holder talking about “when they go low, we kick them.” Nancy Pelosi ripping up speeches on camera. Maxine Waters telling crowds to harass Trump officials in public places. Chuck Schumer, standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, warned justices that they would “reap the whirlwind” if they ruled the wrong way. These are not neutral political statements. They are signals, the modern version of putting out seashells on a beach. 

I can say without hesitation that I have despised Barack Obama for years. “Hate” is too soft a word; I see him as a product of the Weather Underground crowd—Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and the rest of those America-hating radicals—who helped shape a worldview meant to undo the foundations of this country. He was always a communist at heart in my view, always playing the long game to weaken the United States from within. But even in my angriest moments, I never once contemplated violence against him. I never plotted, never whispered a word to anyone about harming him or anyone in his circle. The only thought I ever had was to defeat him at the ballot box. I rallied behind Mitt Romney in 2012, felt the sting when he lost, and watched John McCain play too nice in 2008 while Obama played hardball. Republicans kept bringing a softball to a knife fight, and we kept losing. That frustration is what led many of us to support Trump in the first place—he was willing to fight back the way the Democrats had been fighting for decades. But fighting back means holding elections, engaging in debates, filing lawsuits, and exposing corruption in the light of day. It does not mean sending coded messages that inspire lunatics to grab guns and storm hotels or snipe activists on college campuses.

That is why I got involved in politics myself. I want to shape the world the way I believe it should be—through truth, justice, and the American way. I participate in discourse; I write; I speak out; I support candidates who share my values. I do not sit in the shadows hoping some unhinged person will do my dirty work for me. The manifesto left by the guy at the Hilton showed real planning, real hatred, the kind of thinking that does not come from nowhere. It comes from years of mainstream figures normalizing the idea that Trump and his supporters are not just political opponents but existential threats who must be stopped by any means. Comey’s post was the latest in a long line of those signals, and the fact that it came right before—or right around—the time of another assassination attempt is not lost on me. The day after that incident at the dinner, the indictments were announced. The background work had already been done, but the public justification was now there.

People who have not lived the life I have lived do not understand how these things work. They think threats have to be explicit: “Go kill him.” But that is not how the real operators do it. They keep their hands clean. They project desire through symbols and phrases that sound innocuous to outsiders but carry weight for those in the know. I have known hitmen, judges who looked the other way, and mob figures who ran entire regions while pretending to be legitimate business people. I have seen how intimidation works—threats to families, dogs killed, cars blown up, houses vandalized. It happened all the time in Newport and along Chester Road in Sharonville back in the day. The mob had real power because people feared the consequences of crossing them. Prosecutors did not want their kids targeted. Judges did not want their reputations ruined. That is how organized crime survived for so long in southern Ohio and northern Kentucky. It is also how political corruption survives today. Comey knew this world intimately from his time at the FBI. He prosecuted some of these people, flipped others, and learned the language. When he posted those seashells, he was speaking that language, hoping one of the “crazies” on the fringe would act while he played the innocent Boy Scout afterward.

Look at his record. He let Hillary Clinton off the hook on the emails despite clear evidence of mishandling classified information. He sat on the Weiner laptop that contained damning material. The Hunter Biden laptop? Everyone in the intelligence community knew it was real, yet they suppressed it. The Russia collusion hoax against Trump was allowed to fester under his watch. These were not mistakes; they were choices. Choices that protected one side and targeted the other. That is the two-tier system of justice we have been living under for far too long. And when Trump got reelected, the desperation kicked in. The signals got louder. The seashells came out. Now, Comey faces charges for threatening the president and transmitting that threat across state lines via Instagram. Legal experts are already calling it a stretch, citing First Amendment issues, but I say those “experts” are wrong.  Wrong in a big way. It is time someone held these people accountable. 

The mob in this region did not disappear overnight. It lost power in the late 1960s and 1970s when federal crackdowns finally got serious, with casinos shut down and corruption scandals piling up. But the culture it left behind—the understanding of how power really operates, how signals are sent and received—lingers in the background. Normal people go about their lives unaware that there are networks of influence, coded communications, and people willing to act on them. I had the rare opportunity to see that world from the inside without becoming part of it. I drove the car, I saw the cash, I rejected the drugs, and I returned the money. I learned that ethics matter most when no one is looking. And I took those lessons into my political life. That is why I can call out Comey with confidence. That is why I know he was not just sharing a pretty picture. He was activating the same kind of network he once helped dismantle—or at least pretended to.

There is a larger conversation here about how criminal elements coexist with polite society. While families shop for groceries and cheer at ballgames, there is another layer operating just beneath the surface. In Newport during its heyday, celebrities like Frank Sinatra and Marilyn Monroe rubbed shoulders with gangsters. Money flowed through legitimate businesses that fronted for illegal ones. Judges played golf with the same men they were supposed to be sentencing. It was a web of relationships that protected the powerful. The same web exists in politics today. Comey is not some lone eccentric posting pictures; he is part of a network that has spent years trying to undo the results of fair elections. The attempted hits on Trump—multiple now, including the one at the Hilton—and the murder of Charlie Kirk are symptoms of a sickness that starts at the top with people who should know better. They talk tough, they wink at violence, and then they act shocked when someone acts on it.

I have never participated in or condoned assassination talk. I have friends and acquaintances across the political spectrum, and we disagree fiercely, but we settle it at the polls or in the public square. That is the American way. Anything else is the road to chaos. Comey needs to face the full weight of the law, not just for the seashells but for the pattern of behavior that has eroded trust in our institutions for years. He should never see the outside of a jail cell again if justice is truly impartial. The same goes for others who have played the same game. It is time to prosecute the signals as well as the shooters. The bat signal has been sent one too many times. The public is watching now. The manifestos are being read. The connections are being made.

Truth, justice, and the American way are not slogans for me; they are the operating system. And right now, that system is under attack from within by people who think they can signal violence and then hide behind plausible deniability. Comey’s indictment is a step in the right direction, but it needs to be the beginning of a much larger reckoning. More charges. More accountability. More exposure of the two-tier system that has protected the corrupt for too long.

The guy who tried to get into the Hilton had been planning. The killer of Charlie Kirk had a rifle and a clear shot. These are not random acts of madness; they are the predictable outcome of years of demonization and coded encouragement. When powerful former officials post cryptic messages right before or around such events, it is no coincidence. It is pattern recognition. I have the experience to see the pattern because I lived it. I drove the car. I saw the suitcase. I picked up the money and gave it back. I reported what I saw even when it cost me a job, a really high paying job. That is the difference between people like Comey. He chose the shadows.

There is a lot more that could be said about the history of organized crime in this part of the country. Newport’s casinos and brothels were legendary. Figures like Moe Dalitz and connections to Meyer Lansky funneled money that helped build Las Vegas. Local officials were bought or intimidated. The Cleveland mob had a strong presence here, as did Chicago’s influence. It was a sophisticated network that understood how to operate in plain sight. Numbers runners worked out of places like Chester Road. Judges knew the players and still presided over their cases. It took federal intervention and public outrage to clean it up finally, but the lessons remain. Power protects itself. Signals are sent. And the little guy who gets caught in the middle either plays along or stands up.

I stood up. I still stand up. That is why I am in politics, why I speak out every day, and why I will keep calling this out until real justice is done. James Comey knew what those seashells meant. He knew the kind of people who would hear the message. He knew the history of coded communication because he lived it at the highest levels of law enforcement. And now he is facing the consequences. It is about time. There needs to be a lot more indictments, a lot more prosecutions, and a lot more honesty about how the game has been played. The American people deserve better than manipulative elites playing with fire while pretending to be above it all. We deserve leaders who fight fair, who respect the ballot box, and who do not wink at violence when their side loses.

We have seen the underbelly. We know how the signals work. And we will not let them get away with it. The seashells have been swept away, but the message they sent will not be forgotten. Justice is coming, and it starts with holding people like James Comey accountable for the words—and the symbols—they choose to put out into the world.

Footnotes

1.  Details of the Comey indictment and “8647” interpretation drawn from multiple contemporaneous reports, April 2026.

2.  White House Correspondents’ Dinner attempt by Cole Tomas Allen, April 2026, with released video and manifesto references.

3.  Assassination of Charlie Kirk, September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University.

4.  Newport, Kentucky, “Sin City” history, including mob influence, gambling, and corruption from the 1920s to the 1960s.

5.  Personal observations of Chester Road and Cincinnati-area organized crime activity consistent with local historical accounts.

6.  Examples of political rhetoric from Holder, Waters, Schumer, and Pelosi are documented in public statements over the past decade-plus.

7.  FBI and DOJ history with Comey’s handling of Clinton emails, Weiner laptop, and related matters referenced in official reports and congressional testimony.

8.  Hank Messick’s works on the Cleveland mob and Newport, including Razzle Dazzle and Syndicate Wife, provide a detailed background on the regional syndicate operations.

9.  General statistics on rising political violence post-2024 election drawn from public analyses by groups tracking domestic extremism.

Bibliography

•  Messick, Hank. Razzle Dazzle: The Story of the Cleveland Mob.

•  Messick, Hank. Syndicate Wife: The Story of Ann Drahmann Coppola.

•  Bronson, Peter. Not in Our Town (local history of Cincinnati-area crime).

•  Official DOJ indictment documents against James Comey, April 28, 2026.

•  News coverage from NBC, Fox, Politico, and BBC on Comey seashell post and related events, 2025–2026.

•  Historical accounts of Newport, KY, organized crime from Cincinnati Magazine and Northern Kentucky University sources.

•  Public records on political violence incidents, including the Charlie Kirk assassination and the Trump attempts, 2025–2026.

•  Durham Report and congressional investigations into FBI conduct under Comey.

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.

Sonic Warfare: How Popular Music Became a Stealth Weapon in the Spiritual and Demographic Assault on Family, Faith, and Human Civilization

In the quiet rhythm of everyday life, where once a family gathered around the radio on a Sunday drive to church or tuned in to Casey Kasem’s countdown of the top hits, a profound transformation has unfolded—one that few recognized as it crept through the airwaves and into the bedrooms of children across generations. What began as innocent expressions of yearning for love, commitment, and the building of families has morphed, decade by decade, into a calculated barrage of confusion, anger, victimization, and raw hedonism. This is not mere artistic evolution or market demand; it is, I argue, a deliberate strategy woven into the fabric of mass media, engineered by producers and influencers who traded short-term celebrity and power for something far darker—an alignment with forces that undermine the very foundations of stable society, traditional relationships, and the biblical understanding of eternity. It ties directly into what I have long described as the depopulation agenda: a multifaceted campaign not just to control numbers but to erode the human impulse toward marriage, children, and generational continuity, replacing it with isolation, addiction, and spiritual fragmentation. The evidence is voluminous when viewed across the full scope of history, technology, and culture, and it reveals a pattern too consistent to dismiss as coincidence. 

Consider the family structure before the age of electricity and broadcast media. Doors were locked, parents controlled the household narrative, and social interactions happened in churches, businesses, or community gatherings. Polite society relied on shared experiences—songs that everyone heard together on the radio, reinforcing values of courtship, devotion, and the dream of a white-picket-fence life. Parents were the gatekeepers; external influences had to pass through them. But with radio waves, then television, and now personal devices streaming infinite content, that gate has been smashed open. Mass marketing and advertising discovered the power of repeated stimuli to sway opinions, and the family unit—once a fortress—became decentralized. Spouses disconnected, children tuned into private worlds on smartphones, and the shared cultural experience evaporated. Apple Music and Spotify deliver algorithm-curated isolation; no longer do families bond over the same top 100 on Sunday afternoons. This fragmentation is no accident. It mirrors the broader spiritual war against sovereignty—of nations, communities, and the individual soul—where outside forces, whether earthly producers or something more sinister, erode the intellect needed to raise good kids and build enduring families. 

Trace the musical trajectory since the discovery of broadcast power, and the degrading plot becomes unmistakable. In the 1950s, songs like Elvis Presley’s “Love Me Tender” or classics such as “Earth Angel” by The Penguins captured a culture yearning for genuine connection. Love was portrayed as destiny, leading naturally to marriage, family, and stability. The purpose was clear: find your soulmate, build a life, and contribute to society. These were not raw expressions of lust but hopeful anthems of commitment, played in cars with the whole family, shaping a collective mindset of hope and responsibility. The 1960s continued this trend with Elvis hits emphasizing man and woman in a harmonious partnership, while the 1970s brought soulful ballads from artists evoking deep emotional bonds—songs about finding “the one,” weathering life together, and the warmth of devotion. Even into the 1980s, tracks like Huey Lewis and the News’ “The Power of Love” or Foreigner’s “I Want to Know What Love Is” celebrated the drive to connect meaningfully, to work hard, buy a home, and raise a family. Music sold records because it reflected what people wanted: a date that led to vows, children, and a legacy. Producers catered to a market hungry for that vision because society itself still valued it. 

Then came the pivot—late 1980s into the 1990s—a deliberate experimentation that shattered the mold. Artists like Marilyn Manson emerged as shock troops, with androgynous imagery, anti-Christian rage, and lyrics that attacked the family unit head-on. Manson, openly tied to the Church of Satan and drawing from occult traditions, embodied the transsexual confusion and demonic rebellion that would later flood mainstream culture. Songs weren’t about building; they were about tearing down—heartbreak as permanent, hookups as norm, authority (especially parental and religious) as the enemy. Rob Zombie and similar acts amplified the anger rock movement, blending horror aesthetics with nihilistic messages. Even KISS, with its demonic stage personas, had earlier produced some love-oriented tracks, but the new wave glorified destruction. This wasn’t organic rebellion; it was engineered to pit children against parents. Kids raised on 1950s-1980s love songs suddenly heard their own generation’s soundtrack declare the old ways oppressive. The goal: undo the values of sacrifice, fidelity, and long-term investment. 

Rap music’s mainstream explosion accelerated the assault. Early artists like Run-DMC offered energy and positivity, but by the 1990s, figures like Snoop Dogg—pushed into the spotlight by industry producers—delivered tracks like “Gin and Juice.” Here was the shift crystallized: laid-back hedonism, pocketful of rubbers, smoking dope, partying till dawn in depressed neighborhoods. No more Huey Lewis-style work ethic or dreams of stability; instead, victimization cycles, hopelessness, and a culture of easy sex without consequence. Quincy Jones’ earlier proactive, uplifting productions for artists of color gave way to this new narrative—one that appealed to confusion and resentment, perfectly timed for kids with personal devices bypassing parental oversight. Rap wasn’t just music; it was marketed as rebellion against the “square” family values of prior generations. Studies confirm the lyrical evolution: from 1959 to 1980, popular songs were largely free of explicit content and focused on romance. Post-1990, references to sex, drugs, violence, and substance abuse skyrocketed—drug mentions up 66% since the 1970s, with degrading sexual lyrics linked to earlier teen sexual activity and riskier behaviors. 

This cultural reprogramming coincided with measurable societal decline. U.S. marriage rates fell from around 11 per 1,000 people in the 1950s to roughly 6 per 1,000 today. The share of adults who are married dropped from two-thirds in 1950 to about 46% now. Divorce rates, while peaking in 1980, remain elevated compared to mid-century levels, with ever-married women experiencing divorce rates nearly quadrupling since 1900. Fertility rates have plummeted alongside these shifts, contributing to real demographic pressures—not some abstract “overpopulation” panic of old eugenics movements, but a modern crisis of underpopulation driven by delayed or foregone family formation. Attitudes toward same-sex marriage and transgender issues shifted dramatically among younger generations, with Gallup and Pew data showing support rising from minority views in the 1990s to 69%+ today for same-sex marriage, and LGBTQ+ identification reaching 9.3% overall (over 20% among Gen Z). While personal freedoms matter, the broader effect—when combined with music’s normalization of fluid sexuality, hookups, and identity confusion—has been fewer traditional families and births. 

Behind the scenes, the producers who greenlit this shift often operated with occult undertones. Aleister Crowley’s influence permeates rock history—from Jimmy Page buying Crowley’s Boleskine House and incorporating his philosophy into Led Zeppelin, to the Beatles featuring Crowley on the cover of Sgt Pepper’s, to David Bowie and the Rolling Stones’ documented flirtations, as documented by filmmaker Kenneth Anger. Marilyn Manson’s self-identification as a Church of Satan minister and his Antichrist Superstar-era provocations weren’t subtle. These weren’t fringe eccentricities; they represented deals for fame, where short-term gains—celebrity, wealth, power—traded against traditional biblical eternity. As I detail extensively in my upcoming book The Politics of Heaven, such alignments with cult practices echo ancient Baal and Moloch worship: human sacrifices to dark forces for immediate reward, now repackaged as artistic “expression.” The intent was never to satisfy audience yearning but to steer it toward brokenness, away from the soulmate/family model that perpetuates civilization. 

Streaming technology completed the isolation. No shared Sunday radio experiences; instead, personalized algorithms feed each person their own echo chamber of below-the-line thinking—victimhood, Democrat-driven despair, sexual fluidity. Most modern output assumes a broken society rather than aspiring to one worth building. Love songs still exist, but from fractured perspectives: heartbreak as default, commitment as naive. The depopulation agenda thrives here—not overt sterilization, but cultural seduction that makes family formation seem outdated or oppressive. Pride events, trans narratives, and same-sex normalization, amplified through entertainment, further dilute the reproductive imperative. It is spiritual warfare: demons of old answering modern pacts, undermining God’s creation by targeting the family—the bedrock of sustainable intellect and good society.

Yet awareness is the first counterstrike. By graphing this 70-year arc—love anthems to rage anthems, shared culture to solitary despair—the pattern emerges clearly. Music didn’t just reflect change; it drove it, with producers knowingly wielding it as a back-door weapon into isolated minds. The proof lies in the statistics, the lyrical analyses, the occult threads, and the demographic results. My earlier book, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, showed how to navigate such battles in practical terms; The Politics of Heaven, due in 2027, will map the full treasure hunt through history’s spiritual undercurrents. It’s not too late. Reclaim the narrative—curate what enters your home, teach discernment to the young, and recognize the game for what it is: a military campaign against humanity itself. The airwaves once united us in hope; now, understanding their weaponization can help us rebuild what was nearly lost.

Footnotes

(Integrated via key citations above; full sourcing below for transparency.)

Bibliography

•  Bowling Green State University National Center for Family & Marriage Research. “Divorce: More than a Century of Change, 1900-2022.” (2024).

•  USAFacts. “How Has Marriage in the US Changed Over Time?” (2025).

•  Our World in Data. “Marriages and Divorces.”

•  Fedler, Fred et al. “Analysis of Popular Music Reveals Emphasis on Sex, De-Emphasis of Romance.” (1982).

•  Madanikia, Y. & Bartholomew, K. “Themes of Lust and Love in Popular Music Lyrics From 1970 to 2010.” SAGE Open (2014).

•  Primack et al. Studies on substance use in popular music (various, 2008+).

•  Martino, S.C. et al. “Exposure to Degrading Versus Nondegrading Music Lyrics and Sexual Behavior Among Youth.” Pediatrics (2006).

•  Louder Than War. “Aleister Crowley’s Influence On Popular Music.” (2017).

•  Bebergal, Peter. Season of the Witch: How the Occult Saved Rock and Roll. (TarcherPerigee, 2014).

•  Gallup Historical Trends on LGBTQ+ Rights and Identification (2024-2025).

•  Pew Research Center. Reports on LGBTQ+ experiences and attitudes (2025).

Further reading: Michael Hur’s works on the music industry’s shadows; historical analyses of the culture industry (Adorno et al.); and primary sources on 20th-century population policy debates. The full scope demands ongoing research, but the trajectory is undeniable. This essay captures the essence of the deep dive—proof that understanding the game is the path to winning it.

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.

Amy Acton, the Puppet of Marc Elias: When they can’t defend their record, they send cease and desist letters, hoping to hide their past

In the bustling parking lot of Ohio’s brand-new Buc-ee’s just north of Dayton off I-70, Dr. Amy Acton posed for what was meant to be a wholesome campaign snapshot—a smiling physician-turned-politician standing beside the gleaming Texas-sized travel center, projecting the image of a nice, relatable lady who shops where everyday Buckeyes shop. The first Ohio Buc-ee’s opened in Huber Heights in early April 2026, drawing massive crowds and national attention for its clean restrooms, fresh brisket, and over-the-top convenience. Acton’s team seized the moment, posting the photo to humanize her, to say, “See? She’s just like you.” But the optics couldn’t paper over the deeper story unfolding in this 2026 gubernatorial race. While Acton tried to reset her image with photo ops and bedside-manner charm, Vivek Ramaswamy was drawing genuine, overflowing crowds of longtime Ohio friends, family, and supporters who have known him since he was a boy in Cincinnati—people who remember his parents’ immigrant journey, his entrepreneurial drive, and the decades of personal relationships that speak louder than any staged picture. You can judge a person by the company they keep, and Ramaswamy’s circle spills over with proud, authentic voices from his past who have stuck with him through every chapter of his life. Acton’s campaign, by contrast, feels increasingly desperate, resorting to high-powered Washington lawyers to silence critics rather than defend her record. 

To understand why this race matters so much to Ohio’s future, you have to go back to the spring of 2020, when Dr. Amy Acton served as Director of the Ohio Department of Health under Republican Governor Mike DeWine. She wasn’t elected; she was appointed. Yet she became the public face of some of the nation’s most aggressive COVID-19 policies. On March 22, 2020—when Ohio had reported just a handful of deaths—Acton helped lead the state into one of the earliest and strictest lockdowns anywhere. Schools closed statewide for the rest of the academic year. “Non-essential” businesses shuttered overnight. Stay-at-home orders restricted movement. Nursing homes were locked down, isolating vulnerable residents from loved ones. Capacity limits, mask mandates, and social-distancing rules followed, all modeled closely on guidance from the CDC and Dr. Anthony Fauci. Acton appeared in daily press briefings alongside DeWine, projecting calm authority while estimating infection numbers that frightened the public into compliance. She resigned in June 2020 amid growing protests outside her home, but the policies she championed reshaped Ohio in ways the state is still recovering from six years later. 

The human and economic toll of those decisions has been documented in mounting data. Ohio’s unemployment rate rocketed from 4.9 percent to 16.4 percent in a single month—the sharpest spike in modern state history. Thousands of small businesses, restaurants, gyms, and retailers never reopened. Hospitality and tourism sectors collapsed. Learning loss among schoolchildren, especially in low-income districts, was catastrophic; studies projected lifetime economic losses in the hundreds of billions for Ohio alone due to missed instruction and widened achievement gaps. Mental health crises exploded: overdoses rose sharply, youth depression and suicide ideation increased, and isolation in nursing homes contributed to excess deaths beyond the virus itself—many from untreated conditions, delayed care, or despair. Nationwide analyses, including those examining excess mortality, have increasingly questioned whether the most restrictive measures saved more lives than they cost, when indirect harms are weighed. In Ohio, the early modeling that justified the lockdowns proved overly pessimistic, yet the policies remained locked in place longer than in many peer states. Acton has never fully reckoned with this in her campaign. Instead, she positions herself as “a doctor, not a politician,” emphasizing her roots in working-class Youngstown and her compassion. But for families who lost businesses, kids who fell behind, or elderly residents who died alone, those words ring hollow. The statistics don’t lie: the lockdown playbook—drawn from federal guidance influenced by international models—inflicted measurable, lasting damage on Ohio’s economy, education system, and social fabric. 

Fast-forward to 2026, and Acton is the presumptive Democratic nominee for governor, running with David Pepper—former chair of the Ohio Democrat Party—as her lieutenant governor pick. Polls show the race tightening or even tilting her way slightly in some surveys, despite Ohio’s deep Republican lean. Her campaign message focuses on affordability, families, and pushing back against “special interests.” Yet when journalists and commentators like Jack Windsor of the Ohio Press Network dig into her record—whether the 2020 policies, the resurfaced 2019 Bexley police report, or other public details—her team doesn’t debate the substance. They deploy heavy legal artillery. The Acton/Pepper campaign has retained Elias Law Group, the Washington, D.C., firm founded by Marc Elias, the Democratic election lawyer infamous for his role in the 2016 Clinton campaign’s Steele dossier efforts, post-2020 litigation challenging election integrity claims, and aggressive legal maneuvers nationwide. Elias’s firm has sent cease-and-desist letters to outlets and commentators questioning Acton, framing routine investigative reporting as defamation or libel. These aren’t polite corrections; they are designed to intimidate, to force journalists and critics into defensive silence rather than risk costly litigation—even when the recipients know the claims lack merit. 

This tactic is classic lawfare, and it’s especially galling because Acton is now a public figure running for the highest office in the state. Under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), public officials and candidates must prove “actual malice”—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth—to win defamation suits. The bar is deliberately high to protect robust political debate and press freedom. Elias’s team knows this, yet the letters keep coming. They mirror the same playbook used in the 2020 election challenges: procedural delays, technical objections, and resource-draining threats to bury inconvenient truths under paperwork and fear. David Pepper, Acton’s running mate, has long been a fixture in Democratic politics, and his involvement signals the campaign’s strategy—control the narrative through insiders rather than earn voter trust through transparency. When a police report from August 2019 resurfaced—detailing a verbal domestic dispute at the Acton home over her long work hours, where both she and her husband admitted to drinking, she had taken prescription medication, she shattered a large mirror in frustration, and she was heading toward her car until her husband physically intervened—no charges were filed, and officers noted no physical violence. It was a private family moment turned public by her candidacy. Yet instead of addressing it head-on or releasing more context, the campaign and its allies dismiss questions as “attacks” while Elias’s firm fires off warnings. The report is public record. Citizens have every right to weigh it when evaluating a candidate who once directed public health policy affecting millions. 

Contrast this with Vivek Ramaswamy. The Republican frontrunner grew up in Ohio, built a successful biotech company from scratch, and ran a high-profile 2024 presidential campaign that put him in the national spotlight. His support isn’t manufactured through consultants or photo ops. Crowds at his events include people who knew him as a kid, family friends who watched him navigate his Indian-immigrant parents’ sacrifices, and longtime associates who have seen his character tested over decades. That kind of organic loyalty doesn’t come from polling consultants or law-firm intimidation. Ramaswamy’s platform emphasizes prosperity, limited government, school choice, economic freedom, and a rejection of the bureaucratic overreach that defined the COVID era. He has visited every county, secured endorsements from sheriffs, unions in some cases, and grassroots conservatives who remember exactly who was at the podium issuing orders in 2020. His running mate, Senate President Rob McColley, brings institutional knowledge and legislative heft. Together, they represent a future-oriented conservatism rooted in Ohio values—innovation, hard work, and accountability—rather than nostalgia for the administrative state. 

The deeper issue here transcends one race. When campaigns hire the likes of Marc Elias to muzzle journalists covering a candidate’s public record—whether COVID policies that harmed families or personal incidents that raise legitimate character questions—they erode the very foundation of representative government. Free speech and a free press exist precisely so voters can vet those who seek power. Ohioans paid a steep price for Acton’s lockdown decisions: lost livelihoods, educational setbacks that will echo for generations, and a lingering sense that government overstepped its bounds under the banner of “following the science.” Data now shows that many of those measures delivered marginal or questionable benefits relative to their costs. Excess mortality studies and economic analyses continue to reveal the trade-offs. Yet instead of debating that record openly, the campaign seeks to shut down the conversation. That’s not leadership; it’s the same insider playbook that has eroded trust in institutions nationwide. Elias’s history—tied to efforts to litigate away election challenges in 2020 and beyond—only underscores the pattern: when the facts are uncomfortable, deploy lawyers to redefine reality. 

Ramaswamy, by contrast, invites scrutiny of his record because it stands on merit—entrepreneurial success, family values, and a clear-eyed rejection of the bureaucratic excesses that hurt working families. His supporters aren’t fringe; they’re the backbone of Ohio communities who remember the pre-lockdown economy, the joy of school events, and the freedom to live without constant government edict. They see in him someone who judges people by character and results, not by elite credentials or media spin. The 2026 race is more than a choice between two candidates; it’s a referendum on whether Ohio learns from 2020 or repeats the mistakes. Voters who value prosperity, honest accountability, and open debate have every reason to reject the politics of intimidation and nostalgia for administrative control.

Acton’s team may believe a few more Buc-ee’s photo ops and some strategic legal letters will paper over the past. But Ohioans have long memories. The lockdown lady’s policies didn’t just inconvenience people—they upended lives, and the data backs that up. Police reports, public records, and economic statistics don’t vanish because a Washington law firm sends a letter. When the votes are counted in November 2026, character, record, and authenticity will decide it. Vivek Ramaswamy brings the relationships, the vision, and the backbone to move Ohio forward. Amy Acton’s campaign, built on image management and legal threats, reveals exactly why voters should send a different message. The truth doesn’t need cease-and-desist letters to survive—it just needs voters willing to remember.

Footnotes

1.  Ohio’s first Buc-ee’s location details and Acton’s visit: Campaign site and local news coverage, April 2026.

2.  Acton’s role as Health Director and lockdown timeline: Contemporary reporting and her Wikipedia entry.

3.  Economic and educational impacts of 2020 lockdowns in Ohio: Unemployment data from state labor statistics; learning loss projections from education analyses.

4.  2019 Bexley police report: Public records as covered by NBC News and Ohio outlets, April 2026.

5.  Elias Law Group retainers and cease-and-desist letters: Reporting by Jack Windsor/Ohio Press Network and related commentary, 2026.

6.  New York Times v. Sullivan precedent: U.S. Supreme Court, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

7.  Vivek Ramaswamy’s Ohio roots and campaign: Polling and news coverage of his events and endorsements.

8.  Broader COVID policy critiques: Peer-reviewed studies on excess mortality, mental health, and economic costs (various sources, including PMC and state-specific analyses).

Bibliography for Further Reading

•  Wikipedia: 2026 Ohio gubernatorial election (for candidate overview and polling).

•  Ohio Capital Journal and Dispatch articles on the 2019 police incident and campaign responses (April 2026).

•  NBC News coverage of Acton’s domestic dispute report.

•  Jack Windsor/Ohio Press Network commentary on Elias Law Group letters.

•  Signal Ohio and local reporting on Buc-ee’s opening and Acton’s photo op.

•  Historical coverage of Ohio COVID response (Washington Post, NBC4, 2020).

•  Economic analyses of lockdown impacts (state labor data, education studies).

•  U.S. Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (full opinion available via legal archives).

Extended Footnote on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and the “Sullivan Doctrine”

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), fundamentally reshaped American libel law and remains the cornerstone of First Amendment protections for political speech and press freedom. Often called the “Sullivan case,” it gave rise to what legal scholars refer to as the “Sullivan doctrine” or “actual malice” rule—a constitutional standard that has been extended and refined in a line of subsequent Supreme Court cases (collectively the “Sullivan cases”). This body of law was born directly out of the Civil Rights Movement and was designed to prevent public officials from using defamation suits as a weapon to silence criticism. 

Facts and Historical Context

In March 1960, amid the escalating sit-in protests and violence against Black students in Montgomery, Alabama, the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South placed a full-page advertisement titled “Heed Their Rising Voices” in The New York Times. The ad solicited donations to support King’s legal defense and the broader civil rights cause. It criticized “an unprecedented wave of terror” by Southern officials and police, describing incidents such as the padlocking of a dining hall at Alabama State College and police actions against demonstrators. The advertisement contained several minor factual inaccuracies (e.g., the exact number of times King had been arrested, the songs sung by students, and whether the dining hall was actually padlocked). It was signed by 64 prominent figures (including Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Robinson) and listed the names of four Alabama ministers associated with King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference—some of whose names had been added without their explicit prior approval. 

L.B. Sullivan, the elected Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner who oversaw the police department, was not named in the ad. Nevertheless, he sued The New York Times and the four ministers in Alabama state court, claiming the criticism of police conduct defamed him by implication. Under then-prevailing Alabama common-law libel rules, a plaintiff could recover substantial damages merely by showing the statement was false and tended to harm reputation; no proof of actual harm or malicious intent was required, and damages were often presumed. An all-white jury awarded Sullivan $500,000—a staggering sum in 1960. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the verdict. Similar libel suits were filed by other Alabama officials, part of a coordinated “libel attack” strategy by segregationists to bankrupt newspapers and intimidate national coverage of the Civil Rights Movement. 

The Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling

On March 9, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment in a 9-0 decision written by Justice William J. Brennan Jr. The Court held that Alabama’s libel law unconstitutionally infringed on the First and Fourteenth Amendments when applied to criticism of public officials’ conduct. Brennan famously declared that the First Amendment “prohibits a State from awarding damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The standard must be proven with “convincing clarity.” 

The opinion emphasized that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” Erroneous statements, Brennan noted, are “inevitable in free debate” and must be protected lest the fear of liability chill essential political discourse. The ruling explicitly rejected the idea that the press could be held to the strict liability standards of ordinary private libel suits when reporting on matters of public concern. 

Expansion to Public Figures and the “Sullivan Progeny”

The Sullivan rule was not limited to elected officials. In the companion cases Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts and Associated Press v. Walker (388 U.S. 130, 1967), the Court extended the actual-malice requirement to “public figures”—prominent private citizens who thrust themselves into public controversies or are drawn into them. Justice Harlan’s plurality opinion refined the standard slightly but preserved the core protection.

Later, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (418 U.S. 323, 1974), the Court drew a clearer line: private individuals (who have not voluntarily entered the public arena) need only show negligence by the defendant for compensatory damages, but public figures and officials must still meet the higher actual-malice threshold. Subsequent cases such as Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) applied similar protections to false-light privacy claims, and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) extended First Amendment safeguards to parody and emotional-distress claims involving public figures. 

Enduring Significance

Sullivan and its progeny were a direct response to the use of libel law as a tool of political suppression during the Civil Rights era. By placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff and raising the fault standard dramatically, the doctrine has made it extraordinarily difficult for public officials or public figures to win defamation suits against the press or critics—precisely the point. It has shielded investigative journalism, opinion writing, and robust political debate for more than six decades, even as critics (including some modern Supreme Court justices) have questioned whether the internet age requires recalibration. 

In the context of modern political campaigns, the rule remains vital: candidates who voluntarily seek public office become public figures and must tolerate sharp scrutiny of their records, statements, and character. Cease-and-desist letters or threats of litigation that rely on pre-Sullivan common-law standards rarely survive constitutional review when aimed at commentary on a candidate’s official acts or fitness for office. The doctrine ensures that voters—not lawyers—ultimately decide the truth through open debate.

This historical and legal framework underscores why public-figure plaintiffs today face such a high bar: the Supreme Court deliberately chose to err on the side of protecting speech to safeguard democracy itself. For further reading, see the full opinion at 376 U.S. 254 and analyses in Actual Malice by Samantha Barbas (2023) or the Stanford Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute’s primary-source collection.

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 Depopulation Agenda: Attacking the creation of a family is at the center of a military attack against the intentions of God

It’s interesting how we tend to compartmentalize these things in modern culture, shoving them into neat little boxes so we don’t have to confront the bigger picture. You hear the debates about sexual roles, the push for alternative lifestyles, abortion rights, and the whole pride movement, and the proponents of secular thinking immediately label any critique as “just Christian right-wing hysteria.” They pack it away in that tidy category, dismiss it as outdated prejudice, and move on. But if you step outside your normal circle—talk to people at the soccer game with your grandkids, chat at a bowling alley birthday party, or strike up conversations at a baseball game—you start to see how crazy and lunatic the underlying agenda really is. It’s not isolated social progress; it’s a coordinated deep population movement designed to remove humans from the Earth, and it’s been hiding in plain sight for decades.

I’ve been working on this for a long time in my book The Politics of Heaven, which I just finished the first revision of—140,000 words or so at the moment, and I’m proud of how it turned out. It fills a void that polite society has left: the theological sector where these discussions used to live has been sidelined, so we struggle to wrap our minds around their true intentions. This isn’t just a human thing. It’s a hatred against the creation of God, playing out through vile characters and obsessive pursuits of righteousness and destruction that echo the apocalyptic warnings in prophetic writings from the Second Temple period. Biblical scholarship shows us that these ancient texts weren’t abstract—they grappled with spiritual forces manipulating humanity, and that same dynamic is at work today. 

Take the pride stuff, the transsexual advocacy, the gay rights push, and the celebration of alternative sexual lifestyles. On the surface, it’s sold as liberation and happiness, recognizing people for who they are. But peel back the layers, and you see it’s facilitating a depopulation agenda. Same-sex relationships, by their nature, don’t produce children. When you decentralize sex from the institution of marriage and turn it into a centerpiece of personal identity—making 90 percent of someone’s human experience about sexual preferences—it becomes like building your whole life around liking a particular wine. It’s silly, limited, and exactly the strategy to keep people from forming families. I’ve had difficult conversations with my own grandchildren about this as they enter that age, and I watched my children in their thirties navigate the social experiments pushed by MTV and the culture club era. Back in high school in the 80s, being gay wasn’t something you talked about openly. Some people lived that way, and I’m not advocating harassment or poor treatment—that’s not a proper way to deal with anybody for any reason. But it wasn’t paraded as the defining feature of life. Sexual lifestyles were private, meant for the commitment of marriage between a man and a woman, to perpetuate the human race as God intended from the Garden.

Now, it’s reckless and casual, swinging into multiple partners, no dedication to building anything lasting. The need for sexual relationships among humans is fundamentally about continuing the species. Anything advocated as an alternative—whether it’s same-sex, polyamory, or the hyper-focus on individual pleasure—is anti-family at its core. It’s an assault on the institution of marriage, which Scripture presents as a beautiful reflection of God’s covenant with creation. The same voices pushing abortion are the ones championing these lifestyles: they want God out of the classroom, the Ten Commandments out of courtrooms, and Christianity marginalized because their intent isn’t freedom—it’s using people to fulfill an anti-God agenda that destroys families and prevents the perpetuation of human beings.

Look at the corporate landscape for proof. Disney and Marvel invested heavily in this world politics, sliding same-sex relationships into Star Wars characters and celebrating them in films and shows. They gambled that people would accept it, but it hasn’t landed the way they hoped. Audiences feel uncomfortable; box office numbers for projects heavy on that messaging have suffered, and parents notice when influencers and entertainment make sexual experimentation the priority for kids in their twenties—the prime years for building families with energy and dedication. Instead of sacrifice for children, it’s endless self-focus, delaying or skipping parenthood altogether. By the time someone sorts through the confusion from public education and peer pressure, they might be in their mid-thirties, past peak fertility, with eggs running low and careers consuming the time that should have gone to raising the next generation. It’s a strategy, plain and simple: confuse sexual roles, tie it to bizarre directions like abortion on demand, and erode the family so humans don’t repopulate the Earth. 

This ties straight into the deep population movement. Global fertility rates have plummeted—from about five children per woman in the 1950s to around 2.2 today, with many developed nations well below the 2.1 replacement level needed for stability. In places like South Korea and parts of Europe, projections show it dipping below 1.0, leading to shrinking populations, aging societies, and economic strain.  The causes get debated—education, women’s careers, urbanization—but underneath is a cultural shift away from family-building. And who’s been advocating it? The same progressive ideology that worships the Earth over humanity. Look back at history: Thomas Malthus warned of overpopulation in 1798, sparking fears that led to eugenics in the early 20th century. Margaret Sanger, founder of what became Planned Parenthood, had ties to those ideas, pushing birth control partly to limit “unfit” populations, including through the Negro Project aimed at Black communities.  Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb, published in 1968, amplified the panic, influencing environmental groups and policies that framed humans as the problem. It’s Earth worship at its root: to save the planet, reduce the people. Abortion becomes a tool, pride lifestyles another—anything to curb birth rates.

But here’s where it gets spiritual, and why The Politics of Heaven had to tackle the politics of the spirit world interacting with living people. These aren’t random human trends. The agenda traces back thousands of years, likely millions, with roots that may not even originate on this planet. The obsessive pursuit of destroying evil and warnings in Second Temple apocalyptic literature point to fallen entities manipulating humanity against God’s creation. It’s a cult ritual migrated across cultures: same voices against God in schools are the ones normalizing reckless sex outside marriage. They recognize that committed families produce children who carry forward the divine mandate to “be fruitful and multiply.” Disrupt that, and you erode the foundation.

I talk broadly to people because if you stay in your bubble, you miss how maniacal it is. At a grandchild’s event, you hear parents worried about influencers pushing this on kids. Music from Boy George and Culture Club in the 80s started subtly normalizing it—flamboyant, androgynous styles that MTV beamed into homes—but it was still somewhat contained. Now, it’s mainstreamed as identity, not private preference. The result? Declining birth rates aren’t just statistics; they’re symptoms of a war on the human race. Families take tremendous effort—sacrifice, dedication, the work of young vigor. Divert that into individual lifestyles, and the population drops. It’s anti-God fulfillment: destroy the creation to worship the Earth instead.

Thankfully, the trend is turning. People aren’t buying the offerings as easily. Corporate pushes like Disney’s have backfired in some ways, with audiences rejecting the overemphasis. But we have to call it what it is: a weapon of war, an ancient ideology aimed at erasing humans from the face of the Earth. It’s not about ridiculing individuals caught in these lifestyles—that’s not the point. Many are products of peer pressure and confusion. The real crime is elevating sexual lifestyle to the center of the human story when it’s only a minor part. The strategy behind it is the depopulation agenda, a cold ritual to prevent repopulation and family perpetuation.

In The Politics of Heaven, I lay out the receipts in detail—the hows, whys, and what to do from here. It’s not bullet-point politics or theology in isolation; it’s a narrative connecting spirit-world entities to modern manipulations. The book proves this isn’t personal belief or partisan rant—it’s observable across cultural lines. For those uncomfortable saying it out loud, it’s okay to admit: advocating reckless, anti-family paths is an attempt to erase God’s creation. We treat it as the malicious scheme it is, because the future for our grandchildren depends on rejecting it. The institution of marriage and family was meant to bring heaven to Earth. Anything attacking that is the opposite and should be considered a weapon of war against our culture.

 Footnotes

¹ Global fertility trends and demographic data.

² Disney/Marvel representation timelines and controversies.

³ Historical population control and eugenics links.

⁴ Second Temple apocalyptic scholarship overview.

Bibliography for Further Reading

•  Roser, M. (2014). “The global decline of the fertility rate.” Our World in Data.

•  Fauser, B.C.J.M., et al. (2024). “Declining global fertility rates and the implications for family structure.” Human Reproduction Update.

•  Wikipedia contributors. “Disney and LGBTQ representation in animation.” (Ongoing updates on examples like America Chavez, Phastos in Eternals).

•  Sanger Papers Project. “Birth Control or Race Control? Sanger and the Negro Project.” NYU.

•  Ehrlich, P.R. (1968). The Population Bomb (for historical context on overpopulation fears).

•  Hahne, H.A. (Various). Works on apocalyptic literature in Second Temple Judaism.

•  Hoffman, R. (Ongoing). The Politics of Heaven manuscript (your own forthcoming work for the full spiritual/political framework).

•  United Nations Population Division. World Fertility Reports (latest data on global TFR declines).

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 Failure of Eric Swalwell: When danger always lurks behind power

I’ve always said that Eric Swalwell was a crook. From the moment he burst onto the national scene as a freshman congressman from California back in 2013, something about the guy never sat right with me. He was Nancy Pelosi’s right-hand man in so many ways—her attack dog on Trump, her reliable vote on every progressive cause, and the guy who seemed to relish every opportunity to grandstand against conservatives like me who just wanted honest government. Remember how he behaved during the Supreme Court nominations? The way he went after Brett Kavanaugh with that smug certainty, or how he hammered away at Trump for years on everything from Russia to January 6th? It was all so performative, so self-righteous, while the man himself was hiding a mountain of personal failings that made those accusations look tame by comparison. 

I mean, let’s start with the elephant in the room that everyone on Capitol Hill has known about for years: the Chinese honey pot named Christine Fang, or “Fang Fang” as she was affectionately called by those who knew her. This woman wasn’t some random flirt; she was a suspected Chinese intelligence operative who embedded herself in California politics like a tick. She helped Swalwell with fundraising for his 2014 reelection campaign, placed an intern in his office, and had what can only be described as an uncomfortably close relationship with him. The FBI briefed him on her in 2015, and he cut ties—publicly claiming he cooperated fully and that the case was closed. But come on. A congressman on the House Intelligence Committee sleeping with a foreign agent who was actively cultivating access to American politicians? That’s not just reckless; it’s a national security red flag the size of the Golden Gate Bridge. And yet, the media gave him a pass. Pelosi and the Democratic machine circled the wagons, and Swalwell kept rising through the ranks, preaching about ethics and women’s rights while his own conduct screamed hypocrisy. 

Fast forward to early April 2026, and suddenly the mask slips in spectacular fashion. Between April 9 and April 11, four women came forward accusing Swalwell of sexual misconduct—unsolicited explicit photos sent to their phones, non-consensual encounters while they were intoxicated, abuse of power with staffers and interns, and offers of political access in exchange for sex. The San Francisco Chronicle and CNN laid it all out: one former staffer detailed how he raped her when she was too drunk to consent, leaving her bruised and bleeding. Another spoke of waking up in a hotel room with no memory after a night out, only to realize what had happened. These weren’t random accusers; they were people who worked for him or crossed paths in his professional world. Then, just a week later, around April 14 or 15, a fifth woman, Lonna Drewes from Beverly Hills, went public with her story of a 2018 incident where she believes she was drugged and raped—classic Cosby-style horror, complete with choking and loss of consciousness. She described it in harrowing detail at a press conference, standing with the other women and vowing to report it to law enforcement. By then, Swalwell had already suspended his campaign for California governor—the race he was leading as a top Democratic contender—and soon after resigned from Congress altogether amid a House Ethics investigation and calls for his expulsion from both sides of the aisle. 

I wasn’t surprised one bit. I’ve been watching this guy for over a decade, and the pattern was always there. The same Eric Swalwell who loved to lecture America about Donald Trump’s alleged mistreatment of women was allegedly drugging and assaulting young women in his orbit while holding positions of immense power. The irony is thicker than the fog rolling off the Bay. He positioned himself as a progressive champion, a defender of the vulnerable, all while his staffers and associates whispered about his behavior behind closed doors. And let’s not forget his wife—how does someone in that position not know or at least suspect? The whole thing reeks of the kind of entitlement that comes with unchecked power in Washington. You get elected, you surround yourself with ambitious young interns and staffers in their 20s and 30s who are hungry for advancement, and suddenly the lines blur. It’s not hard to see how it happens: a late-night drink after a long day on the Hill, a flirty text on Snapchat, an offer to “help” someone’s career. But when it crosses into coercion, assault, or exploitation, it becomes something far darker. 

What really gets me—and what should scare every American—is the timing and the coordinated silence until it became politically convenient. These women didn’t just materialize out of nowhere in April 2026. Rumors had been swirling on Capitol Hill for years about Swalwell’s personal life. Everybody knew, or at least suspected. Nancy Pelosi, his longtime ally and mentor in the California Democratic machine, suddenly developed amnesia? Please. The same Democrats who rushed to defend him during the Fang Fang scandal years earlier turned on him like a pack of wolves the moment he became a threat to their control of the governor’s race. California Democrats were already scrambling in a crowded field with no clear frontrunner—Katie Porter, Tom Steyer, Xavier Becerra, and others jockeying for position. Swalwell was polling strongly, and his presence was complicating matters, especially as Republicans like Steve Hilton were gaining ground. I picked Steve Hilton early on; I even had him at my place of business here in Ohio to announce aspects of his run alongside other conservative voices. I told folks over a year ago that this shakeup was coming. Now, with Swalwell out, Hilton’s leading in polls, and the race is wide open. Coincidence? Not a chance. This was a calculated hit from inside the party to clear the field and protect their power structure. 

I’ve seen this playbook before, right here in my own backyard in Ohio. Take the Cindy Carpenter case in Butler County— a local commissioner who couldn’t handle the power and got called out for misconduct. Republicans didn’t circle the wagons; we held her accountable and moved on to someone who could do the job without the drama. That’s how it’s supposed to work. But Democrats? They protect their own until the political math changes. Swalwell wasn’t exposed because of some noble pursuit of justice for these women. He was exposed because he was running for governor and threatening the status quo. The media that had ignored or downplayed his ties to Fang Fang for years suddenly amplified every accusation. The same outlets that spent years attacking Trump over Access Hollywood or Stormy Daniels looked the other way on Swalwell until it suited the narrative. It’s selective outrage at its finest, and it erodes trust in the entire system.

Think about the broader culture this reveals. Politics attracts ambitious people, especially young staffers and interns flooding into state capitals and Washington, D.C. They’re in their 20s and 30s, working long hours, volunteering for campaigns, hoping to climb the ladder. Some are genuine public servants; others see it as a shortcut to power, money, and influence. How do you stand out in a sea of thousands of eager faces? Exceptional work is one way, but too often it’s by compromising—attending the right parties, accepting the “extra” invitations, blurring professional boundaries for that extra boost. I’ve talked to enough people who’ve been through it to know the temptation is real on both sides. Power is intoxicating. You’re no longer “Dad” or “Husband” at home; you’re “Congressman Swalwell,” the guy with staff calling you “sir” and donors throwing money at you. Your family doesn’t worship you like the political machine does. It’s easy to fall into the trap of late nights, flattery, and affairs that make you feel alive again. But it takes real integrity to resist, and Swalwell clearly didn’t have it. The same goes for plenty of others—Anthony Weiner sending explicit photos while married to a Clinton insider, or the countless scandals we’ve seen from both parties. It’s human nature amplified by proximity to power. 

Swalwell’s hypocrisy on this front is what sticks in my craw the most. He spent years weaponizing accusations against Trump—impeachment after impeachment, endless hearings, public shaming—all while allegedly engaging in the very behavior he condemned. He preached progressive values, women’s empowerment, and holding the powerful accountable, yet treated his own staff and associates like personal playthings. The unsolicited explicit photos, the drugged encounters, the abuse of authority—it’s the kind of thing that would have ended any Republican’s career instantly. But for Swalwell, it took a gubernatorial bid and internal party pressure to bring it to light finally. Even then, he categorically denied everything, calling the claims “flat false” and vowing to fight them. Fine, let the investigations play out—due process matters. But the pattern, combined with the Fang Fang mess, paints a picture of a man who was always more interested in self-preservation and advancement than in serving the public. 

And don’t get me started on the media’s role. For years, they carried water for Swalwell. They platformed him as a fresh face against Trump, ignored the spy scandal’s implications, and only turned when the Democrat establishment signaled it was time. It’s the same machine that protected Biden’s obvious decline until it couldn’t, or that downplays scandals on their side while amplifying anything on the right. This isn’t journalism; it’s narrative control. The public deserves better. We need a vetting process that actually works—real scrutiny of candidates’ personal lives, financial dealings, and associations before they get near power. But in a system where the press picks sides, that rarely happens until it’s too late or politically expedient.

Looking back, I remember watching Swalwell’s rise and thinking, “This guy is too slick for his own good.” He went from local prosecutor to Congress, landed on the Intelligence Committee despite the red flags, and became a fixture on cable news attacking conservatives. His wife had to have known about the wandering eye; the staffers whispered; the Hill insiders joked. Yet nothing stuck until April 2026. Now, with him out of Congress and the governor’s race in chaos, California Democrats are scrambling, and Republicans like Steve Hilton—who I backed early—are poised to capitalize. It’s a reminder that power corrupts, and absolute power in one-party strongholds like California corrupts absolutely. The women who came forward deserve justice, not to be used as pawns. But the real scandal is how long the system protected one of its own.

This isn’t isolated to Swalwell. It’s systemic. From local capitals to D.C., the temptations are everywhere. Young people enter politics with stars in their eyes, only to learn that climbing requires compromises. Staffers trade favors for access; politicians leverage their positions for personal gratification. Politics should be about service, not a lifestyle upgrade. When you see someone like Swalwell preaching against Trump while allegedly living the exact opposite, it confirms what I’ve long suspected: many in that bubble can’t handle the power. They’re weak, entitled, and dangerous to the republic.

The Fang Fang connection adds another layer of recklessness. A suspected Chinese spy with direct access? Helping pick interns and raise money? And Swalwell on Intelligence? It boggles the mind that he wasn’t removed sooner. The FBI knew, briefed him, and yet he stayed. Now, with fresh scrutiny amid the scandal, calls are growing to release those old files. Why the resistance? If he has nothing to hide, let it all out. But transparency has never been the Democrats’ value.

In the end, this whole saga should be a wake-up call. We can’t trust the process when it’s this rigged by insiders. The women spoke out when it mattered for the party machine, not necessarily for justice alone. Everybody knew, but nobody said anything until it served their interests. That’s the real betrayal—of the public, of women seeking fair treatment, and of the democrat ideals they claim to uphold. I’ve been saying it for years: Democrats like Swalwell aren’t just misguided; they’re often operating with a different set of rules. The hypocrisy, the cover-ups, the selective amnesia—it’s all part of maintaining power at any cost. California voters, and the rest of us watching, deserve representatives with integrity, not predators in suits. As more details emerge from the investigations, I hope the truth finally prevails over the politics. But based on history, I’m not holding my breath. The machine grinds on, and guys like Swalwell are just symptoms of a deeper rot.

Footnotes

¹ San Francisco Chronicle report on former staffer allegations, April 10, 2026.

² CNN investigation detailing four women’s accounts, including unsolicited photos and non-consensual encounters.

³ Axios original reporting on Fang Fang ties, December 2020 (updated context in 2026 coverage).

⁴ Coverage of Lonna Drewes press conference and fifth allegation, April 14-15, 2026.

⁵ Reports on Swalwell’s resignation and governor campaign suspension.

Bibliography for Further Reading

•  “Four women describe sexual misconduct by Rep. Eric Swalwell,” CNN, April 10, 2026.

•  “Ex-staffer says Rep. Eric Swalwell sexually assaulted her,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 10, 2026.

•  “Woman alleges violent sexual assault by Eric Swalwell,” CalMatters, April 14, 2026.

•  “How a suspected Chinese spy gained access to California politicians,” Axios, December 8, 2020.

•  “Eric Swalwell’s exit shakes up chaotic California governor’s race,” BBC, April 13, 2026.

•  “Trump endorses Republican Steven Hilton for California governor,” Washington Post, April 6, 2026.

•  Various AP, NYT, and Politico reports on the timeline of allegations and investigations, April 2026.

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.

Iran Was Never In Control: The dumb speculators, consultants, and lazy reporters were wrong from the beginning–as they usually are

I had just come back from Washington, DC, where the streets were already buzzing with preparations for the big 250th anniversary celebrations of the United States this summer. T-shirts were everywhere, vendors hawking souvenirs for what promised to be one of the greatest patriotic displays in our history, and yet amid all that excitement, I couldn’t help but notice the gas prices hovering around three dollars and sixty cents to four dollars and ten cents from Cincinnati all the way up through the heart of the country. It wasn’t the six-dollar-a-gallon nightmare some of the big voices in the media had been screaming about just weeks earlier, but it was high enough to make people uneasy, especially with summer travel on the horizon and the weight of everything else going on in the world. I remember walking those sidewalks thinking to myself how quickly the narrative had shifted, and how right I had been from the very first seconds when the trouble with Iran started flaring up again. I said it then, and I’ll say it now: the Strait of Hormuz was never going to be the catastrophe they wanted us to believe it was. Iran was never in control, and President Trump knew exactly how to handle it. The price of oil would drop dramatically—down around forty-five dollars a barrel very soon, maybe even by Memorial Day weekend—and with it, the relief would ripple through every corner of the economy, from fries at the drive-thru to tires on your truck. 

Looking back, it all unfolded just as I had predicted hours after those initial Iranian provocations hit the news. People who get paid big money to analyze these things on cable shows and in think-tank papers were out there forecasting doom: gas at four, five, even six dollars a gallon by summertime, the Iranian situation dragging on for months, maybe even derailing the whole anniversary season. But I saw through it immediately. The Strait of Hormuz, that narrow choke point carrying about a fifth of the world’s oil, had been threatened before, and history showed the pattern. Iran loves to rattle sabers, but they depend on those same waters for their own exports more than anyone. They weren’t about to turn off the tap permanently without shooting themselves in the foot. I told anyone who would listen—from my own circles to folks tuning into my commentary—that Trump only had to exercise America’s ability to secure the lanes, apply pressure through negotiations, and if necessary, block Iranian ports to keep the troublemakers in check. That’s exactly what happened. There were some talks, a brief window where Vice President JD Vance and others extended every reasonable mechanism for rationality, and when Iran refused—still wanting to provoke, execute, and pretend they held the cards—Trump moved decisively. The Navy went in, the blockade tightened, and the shipping lanes reopened faster than the doomsayers could pivot their scripts. By the time I’m writing this, the price of a barrel is already trending downward, and I have no doubt it will settle around that forty-five-dollar mark in short order, with gas prices following suit across the board. 

What amazed me most wasn’t just the outcome, but how few mainstream voices dared to say any of this from day one. I did. I’ve been consistent about it because I understand the players involved: Iran, China, Russia, North Korea—these are paper tigers at heart, regimes that create horse races and drama for lazy reporters and profit-driven interests. They bluff because that’s all they have left after years of internal rot. Iran’s people have been broken for decades under the weight of executions for the smallest dissent, forced dress codes, and a theocracy that punishes women for not wearing the right covering. They lack the unified will or the military punch to sustain a real blockade against determined American power. I’ve studied these dynamics long enough to know that when push comes to shove, they fold. Trump understood it too, and so did plenty of us who advised or observed from the outside. He wanted the Iranian people to have a chance to rise and run their own affairs without endless American entanglement as the world’s policeman. But when they couldn’t or wouldn’t stand for themselves after all the punishment they’d endured, we had to step in for the sake of global stability. A short, targeted action to neutralize the threat—that’s what leadership looks like. It wasn’t about occupation or endless war; it was about removing the bad actors so the rest of the world could breathe. 

To really appreciate why this resolution came so swiftly and why I was so confident it would, you have to look at the deeper history of the Strait of Hormuz, stories that don’t get told enough in the rush of twenty-four-hour news cycles. Take the Tanker War of the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq conflict. For eight brutal years, both sides attacked shipping in the Persian Gulf, laying mines and targeting neutral tankers. Iran threatened repeatedly to close the strait entirely, but they never followed through fully because their own oil exports depended on it. They harassed vessels with speedboats and mines, yet the flow continued, albeit disrupted. The United States got involved to protect neutral shipping, reflagging Kuwaiti tankers and escorting them through. And then came Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, 1988—a single day of decisive American naval action that should be required reading for anyone doubting our ability to secure those waters. After the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine, the U.S. Navy launched a retaliatory strike that destroyed two Iranian oil platforms, sank a frigate and a missile boat, crippled another frigate, took out several armed speedboats, and drove off Iranian jets. It was the largest surface engagement for the U.S. Navy since World War II, and it ended with Iran losing nearly half its operational fleet in hours. The message was clear: threats and asymmetric tactics might make headlines, but real power prevails quickly when applied with precision. That history echoed in 2026. Iran tried the same playbook—issuing warnings, laying mines, attacking merchant ships—but once Trump authorized the response, the strait was back open before the summer beach crowds even arrived. No stalemate, no prolonged crisis wrecking our economy or the midterms. Just decisive action rooted in precedent. 

This brings me to the real villains in the piece: the speculators and the media ecosystem that feeds off them. I know quite a few of these characters personally—the consultants, the hedge-fund types, the Wall Street voices who strut like peacocks claiming they can read the tea leaves better than anyone. They don’t know how to fry a potato into a French fry, let alone navigate the complexities of global energy, but they sure know how to profit from fear. In this case, they wanted oil prices to climb. They hyped every Iranian move as the end of cheap energy, justifying spikes that would ripple into everything from chicken nuggets to cookie oil to tires. Historical precedent shows how this works. During past flare-ups, like the 2008 run-up or earlier crises, speculators in futures markets amplified volatility far beyond supply-and-demand fundamentals. Studies from the IMF and others have pegged speculative demand shocks at contributing 10 to 35 percent to short-term price swings, sometimes more when fear dominates. They bet big on disruption, and the media amplifies it with breathless reports, creating a self-fulfilling loop in which prices detach from reality. Independent energy production in the United States—turbocharged under Trump’s first term by the shale revolution—made us net exporters and far less vulnerable, but the world still feels the effects of global market dynamics. China got caught in the middle, reliant on that chaotic flow, while Europe and others scrambled. Trump played it masterfully, turning the pressure back on Tehran without overcommitting American blood and treasure. Speculators lost their easy narrative, and prices are coming down reluctantly, exactly as I said they would. 

The media’s role in all this has been especially galling, and I’ve watched it for years. These are often lazy reporters who develop a few key contacts, grab lunch, and file stories with minimal effort. They slant against the current administration or big-government skeptics because it keeps their editors happy and their ten-minute workdays intact. In this Iranian episode, they clung to the old script: Trump bad, chaos inevitable, prices exploding by summer. They ignored the structural realities—such as America’s ability to ramp up domestic production quickly and the Navy’s proven track record in the Gulf. I’ve said it before, and I’ll repeat it here: these regimes are paper tigers propped up for drama. Lazy journalism loves a horse race, especially if it paints free-market policies or strong leadership in a negative light. Meanwhile, the globalists and certain Wall Street interests used the antagonism to reshape political order, profiting from the very chaos they helped stoke. Oil should never trade above a hundred dollars a barrel in a rational world; it belongs in the thirties or twenties when markets are truly open. Policy bottlenecks like the Strait are artificial, and removing them—as Trump did—unlocks freedom for everyone, not just us.

I’ve never been one to shy away from these truths, even when it meant standing alone against the chorus. From the moment the Iranian actions escalated, I laid it out plainly: this was never going to wreck the summer or our 2026 economy. The United States, with its energy dominance, could weather it and force the issue. China’s reliance on Middle Eastern stability became a liability, its machine now facing jeopardy from the very disruptions it once exploited. Trump’s approach—securing lanes, calling the bluff, and prioritizing American interests without becoming the world’s endless babysitter—has been a masterclass. Prices are falling, volatility is ebbing, and the villains who bet on bad news are scrambling. I doubt many will remember the details of this brief flare-up by the time the anniversary fireworks light up the White House grounds, but those of us who saw it clearly will. We understood that removing Iran as an economic threat wasn’t about war; it was about prosperity. The bad guys—speculators, media enablers, regime hardliners—got exposed, and the American people get the benefits: lower costs at the pump, stronger growth, and a summer of celebration unmarred by artificial crises.

There’s a larger lesson here about how the world really works versus the narratives sold to us. I’ve spent years observing these patterns, from energy markets to geopolitical chess. Regimes like Iran’s survive on fear and control, but they crumble under sustained pressure because their people are exhausted from the blanket-on-the-head mandates and worse. Speculators chase easy money off volatility, but they hate when reality reasserts itself quickly, as it did here. And the media? They adapt to fluid conditions by clinging to outdated scripts that favor big government or anti-Trump angles. Trump knew it all along, just as I did. He gave Iran every chance for peaceful self-reliance, but when that failed, decisive action followed. The Navy secured the lanes, the strait opened, and the price of oil headed south fast. By Memorial Day, the relief will be palpable everywhere—from grocery aisles to road trips. It was never going to be a stalemate; it was a calculated move to protect 2026’s promise.

Some might wonder why I keep emphasizing these points. It’s because I’ve seen the cost of ignoring them. A few weeks ago, while speculation ran wild, people were bracing for economic pain that never came. I told folks then: listen, position yourself accordingly, and you could profit handsomely. Some did, and good for them. Others clung to the fear. Next time, I hope more people pay attention.

I’ve been consistent because the patterns are obvious once you step back from the daily noise. Iran’s provocations were real but limited; their control was illusory. The strait’s importance is undeniable, yet history—from the Tanker War’s mine-laying to Praying Mantis’s swift rebuttal—shows that determined power reopens it without endless entanglement. Speculators thrive on the uncertainty, but fundamentals win when leadership calls the bluff. Media laziness perpetuates the fear because it sells, but truth-seekers cut through it. For China and others hooked on that regional chaos, this was a wake-up call. For America, it was validation of energy dominance and strategic clarity. Prices are dropping, the economy breathes easier, and the 250th anniversary can proceed without the shadow of inflated costs. I said it from the start, and events proved it. If you listened early, you likely made some smart moves. If not, there’s always next time.

Bibliography

•  Strauss Center. “Strait of Hormuz – Tanker War.” https://www.strausscenter.org/strait-of-hormuz-tanker-war/

•  History.com. “The Strait of Hormuz: A Timeline of Tensions.” Published March 13, 2026.

•  Wikipedia. “2026 Strait of Hormuz Crisis.”

•  Congressional Research Service. “Iran Conflict and the Strait of Hormuz: Impacts on Oil, Gas…” March 11, 2026.

•  IMF Working Paper. “Oil Price Volatility and the Role of Speculation.” WP/14/218.

•  CFTC Report. “The Role of Speculators in the Crude Oil Futures Market.”

•  U.S. Navy Historical Center. “Operation Praying Mantis.”

•  Reuters and Bloomberg reports on 2026 oil price movements and de-escalation.

•  Additional historical analyses from National Interest and U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings on Tanker War and Praying Mantis.

•  White House and energy policy releases on U.S. shale production and energy dominance, 2026.

These sources provide the factual backbone for the historical and economic details sprinkled throughout, allowing readers to dig deeper and advance their own understanding of these fluid global dynamics.

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.