Category: Religion

I Love War: The greatest joy in life is destroying your enemies

Erika Kirk’s statements at the memorial service for her husband were nice, but it has been something that has come up in my direction many more times than a few this past week.  I am more aligned with what President Trump said about his enemies: I hate them.  I don’t want to get along with them.  And I would be bored to death in life if I didn’t have someone to fight.  The idea of going to Heaven and sitting around playing a harp on a cloud all day for eternity is not appealing.  Forgiving enemies is not something I will ever do.  I love war, and I love being in fights with other people.  I love to destroy my enemies.  That destruction either happens fast or it happens over a great many years, depending on the circumstance.  But one way or another, the destruction of my enemies is something that is going to happen, and I spend a lot of my life thinking about it.  The idea of waking up every morning, sipping coffee, and watching the dew gather on blades of grass without having to fight is incredibly dull to me, and I would not be happy.  So even though the concept of Christianity is to forgive your enemies and all kinds of platitudes that I think were incorrectly interpreted over time into organized religion, that is where my thoughts end on these kinds of things.  I may share a lot of values with very religious people, but if there is no conflict involved in communicating those ideas, then I lose interest really fast.  Because to me, the fight is the only thing that matters, and if people aren’t fighting, they aren’t trying to get to the truth of a matter. 

Human beings are so deceitful; they have numerous value systems that protect their motivations behind the creative lies that surround their lives intensely.  That is the first problem with a society of peace: a lot of truth gets buried behind deceit.  When people ask me why I can sniff out so much truth about things, and have over a long period of time, it’s because I like to fight for that truth about people.  The pressure of conflict brings about the truth in people and exposes them from their hiding places.  In my experience, that is the only way to understand what people are all about truly.  Otherwise, they will conceal their true thoughts behind the façade of polite society.  If you love the truth, you have to love the means of extracting it from society in general, and the only real way to do that is through conflict.  People often reveal a great deal about themselves through conflict that they would otherwise conceal.  Along with war, I love uncovering the truth about things.  Whatever that truth may be.  I love war because I love the truth, and you can only learn it through conflict.  Because people, all people, will lie to protect their version of the truth until their dying day, if they are allowed to.  The reason for conflict is to settle differing ideas about things.  And to avoid war is to suppress the truth about what those things might be in favor of some common understanding that is usually a watered-down version of reality.  So the assumption of peace is the surrender of the truth, as people are willing to fight for it.  And that lowers the value of a society in general as a result. 

I suppose this has arisen recently, before Erika Kirk made her statements, because many truly reprehensible individuals believed they had some leverage over me.  And they have been very frustrated by my reaction to their aggressions.  Most people conduct strategies assuming that peace is the motivating factor in a human being.  To wake up in the morning and be left alone so that everything is just perfect.  I don’t see the world like that.  If there isn’t something to fight, then I’m bored.  So when I have a lot of enemies trying to plot my demise, I am far happier than if everyone just left me alone.  Many people are frustrated by my approach because they assumed, like most people, that I would do anything for peace.  They should have done their homework.  Ever since I was a little kid, most of my thoughts have been about war and fighting someone over something.  That’s why I love politics.  That’s why I love the business world.  That’s why I like most things, because they involve people, and those people are often at cross-purposes with each other. I love uncovering the truth behind concealed smiles and handshakes.  I never sit down with people and look for common ground or ways to enjoy another person.  I want to challenge them, with everyone, and to discover what it is they don’t want to be known for to the world.  I never assume that my interactions with anyone will be peaceful, and if they are, I lose interest in those people quickly.  In my youth, I wore army fatigues everywhere, under every circumstance, because they reminded me of my love for constant fighting.  I never wanted to join the military to “serve.”  Serving others was always a misguided idea because what if, in doing so, those people were found to be unworthy of my dedication, which is a common discovery in all institutionalism.  However, the fighting aspect has always been appealing. 

The teachings of Jesus are appealing ideas on the surface.  But if you like the truth of a matter, you will either be killed for it, as Jesus was, and John the Baptist was, and as was Charlie Kirk, and many others.  Or you will have to fight everyone, and like it.  And that means everyone, because most people are very deceitful even within their families.  There are plenty of fights, and if you want to know the truth about things, you’d better be willing to fight for it.  Fighting is more than just the physical aspect, because humans are very emotional creatures; they create many layers of deceit in their lives to protect themselves from the harm of judgment.  And the more people you deal with, the more deceit you can expect to be exposed to.  The only way to get to the truth of anything is through conflict, in stripping away the things people use to protect themselves so you can get to the foundation of their intellects.  Such a thing is never given up voluntarily; you have to pound away at their defenses to know who they really are, which only happens under duress.  So, if many people have found that they now have a handful with me, they should have thought about things a bit more carefully.  I am only thrilled when the world around me is on fire, and that is how it will always be with me, even in Heaven.  Heaven to me would be at the gates of Hell putting evil’s heads on a pike and spitting on their tortured bodies.  Everyone else can play a harp at the golden gates of Heaven and sing songs to each other in a quest for peace.  Which, for me, is the same as serving an obligation toward dishonesty.  Only in war do people really tell the truth, even in Heaven.

Rich Hoffman

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

We Were Meant to Fight for the Bible: Not to get along with the devils of life, but to slay them

I’ve had what I can only describe as one of the worst weeks of my adult life. Not because of global events alone—though the assassination of Charlie Kirk and other disturbing developments certainly cast a shadow—but because of the personal weight of it all. It’s not the first time I’ve faced a week like this, and I’ve long since abandoned the illusion that life is meant to be luxurious or stable. Comfort, for those who fight for goodness, is not part of the equation. Life, at its core, is a battleground for ideas, for virtue, for truth. And when evil shows itself, as it often does, the only response is to stand firm and keep moving forward with a tenacious mind to defeat it.

For years, I’ve carried my Bible with me across the world. It’s not a crutch, nor a talisman—it’s a companion, a collection of wisdom that transcends time and geography. It has traveled with me through many airports, across countries, and into countless moments of philosophic contemplation. I consider it one of the greatest literary achievements of human intellect, not because it is flawless in form, but because it captures the essence of what it means to be human, striving toward the divine. It is a book that has shaped civilizations, inspired revolutions of thought, and anchored the moral compass of entire cultures.

My study of religion has been deep and wide, touching on comparative theology, mythology, and the psychology of belief systems. I’ve explored Hinduism, Buddhism, ancient tribal mythologies, and the spiritual frameworks of indigenous societies. I’ve read the Golden Bough and other seminal texts that attempt to decode the human relationship with the eternal. But none of these, in all their richness and diversity, have articulated the human struggle for goodness with the clarity and power of the Bible. It is not merely a religious text—it is a blueprint for civilization, a philosophical foundation upon which the most successful societies have been built.

Western civilization, with all its flaws and triumphs, emerged from the soil of biblical thought. The Bible did not just inspire personal piety; it gave rise to systems of law, ethics, governance, and human rights. It provided a framework for understanding the nature of life beyond primal survival. It allowed humanity to step beyond the dog-eat-dog existence and begin to dream of peace, justice, and purpose. The philosophies that emerged from biblical foundations—Judeo-Christian ethics, the sanctity of life, the dignity of labor, the value of truth—are not accidental. They are the fruits of a worldview that sees life as a sacred struggle, not a playground.

When we attempt to remove the Bible from our cultural foundation, we do not simply erase a book—we unravel the very fabric of our civilization. The degradation of social norms, the rise of hatred toward those who speak of God, family, and moral responsibility, are symptoms of a deeper sickness: the rejection of the very ideas that made our society possible. Why would anyone hate a man who speaks of goodness, of biblical values, of the importance of relationships rooted in truth? Because rebellion against the good is seductive. It promises freedom but delivers chaos. It offers novelty but strips away meaning.

There are many religions in the world, and many have contributed to the human story. Islam, Buddhism, and countless others have shaped cultures and guided lives. But when measured by the success of civilizations—by their ability to sustain peace, foster innovation, and uphold human dignity—the biblical worldview stands alone. It is not a matter of superiority in doctrine, but in outcome. Societies built on biblical principles have thrived, while those that rejected them have often descended into tyranny or stagnation. This is not a coincidence; it is a reflection of the power of truth.

The Bible does not promise comfort. It does not coddle the reader with easy answers or indulgent philosophies. It calls us to be warriors for goodness, to fight for what is right even when the world is falling apart. It teaches that life is not meant to be enjoyed passively but lived actively, with purpose and conviction. The stories within its pages—of struggle, redemption, sacrifice, and triumph—are not mere allegories. They are the roadmap for a life well-lived, a society well-ordered, and a soul well-formed.

Even in the midst of a miserable week, when everything seems to be unraveling, I find truth in the biblical perspective. It reminds me that suffering is not meaningless, that hardship is not failure, and that the pursuit of goodness is the highest calling. We are not here to be comfortable. We are here to fight for what is right, to build what is good, and to stand against what is evil. That is the essence of human existence, and it is captured more powerfully in the Bible than in any other literary or philosophical tradition.

Civilizations rise and fall, but the ideas that sustain them endure. The Bible has endured because it speaks to the deepest truths of the human condition. It does not shy away from pain, conflict, or complexity. It embraces them, transforms them, and uses them to point toward something greater. It is not a relic of the past—it is a guide for the future. And any society that seeks to thrive must return to its wisdom, not as dogma, but as a foundation for thought, action, and community.

We are living in a time when the foundations are being shaken. The rejection of biblical values is not leading to liberation—it is leading to confusion, division, and decay. The intellectual persistence that once defined our culture is being replaced by emotional reaction and ideological chaos. But there is still hope. There is still a path forward. And it begins with a return to the truths that have stood the test of time.

To fight for goodness is to embrace the struggle. It is to reject the lie that life is meant to be easy and to accept the challenge of living with purpose. The Bible teaches us that goodness is not a feeling—it is a discipline. It is a choice made daily, in the face of adversity, and in defiance of despair. It is the path of the warrior, not the tourist. And it is the only path that leads to true peace.

So even in the worst of weeks, I hold great respect for the Bible—not as a comfort, but as a compass. It points all society toward what matters. It reminds me of who I am and what I love to do, to fight, not for myself, but for the world that could be, if only we had the guts to be what we were meant to be.  We were not designed to sip lattes at Starbucks and to swat at bugs that land on our foreheads.  We were meant to step into the gaps in life and to fight the evil that resides there, without fear.  And with ruthlessness.  We are not meant to get along with the devils of life.  We are meant to slay them.  And to build the foundations of civilizations on their defeated corpses.  And to plant our flags of justice into the eye sockets of their decapitated heads.  Not to love our enemies, but to defeat them so that even the soil that captures their blood withers under our quest for justice.  And that the entire universe will shudder by our intentions for truth, justice and the AMERICAN way.  And no other way.

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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

Finnegans Wake and the Quantum Dream: A Dialogue on Madness, Meaning, and the Edge of Reality

Rich leaned back, brow furrowed, eyes lit with that familiar spark—the one that meant he was about to ask something big.

A conversation I had with AI about Finnegans Wake. It’s interesting how it interpreted the exchange.

“Why did Joyce write Finnegans Wake?” he asked. “I mean, really write it. It’s so bizarre, especially after Ulysses. And then he dies not long after. It’s like he saw something—something cosmic.”

We were deep into one of those conversations that start with literature and end somewhere near the edge of metaphysics. Rich wasn’t just talking about Joyce. He was talking about Lovecraft, about quantum physics, about the subconscious and the strange places artists go when they’re close to the end.

“Lovecraft had his Cthulhu,” Rich continued. “These ancient forces that dwarf human minds. Joyce had Finnegans Wake. What if that book is a glimpse into a quantum afterlife? A place where consciousness loops timelessly, where everyone’s story is tangled together—like ‘Here Comes Everybody.’”

I nodded. It made sense. Joyce was nearly blind, in poor health, and grieving. Maybe he wasn’t just writing a book—maybe he was trying to map the dreamlike cycle of reality itself. History repeating, not linearly, but like a Möbius strip.

Rich leaned in. “He starts the book mid-sentence and ends it with the beginning. That’s not just clever—it’s like collapsing time. Like observing reality and folding it in on itself. A human stab at infinity.”

We laughed about reading it backwards, but the laughter had weight. Rich nailed it: most writers stick to love, war, family—the relatable stuff. Joyce built a language beyond relationships. He chased raw existence. And it sounds insane because our words can’t cage the universe.

“Maybe genius is just insight that outpaces sanity,” Rich said. “Madness as seeing too much, untethered.”

That line stuck with me. Joyce wasn’t mad. He was cracked open. Finnegans Wake isn’t a novel—it’s a transmission. A signal from the edge of perception. Like quantum physics, it resists fixed meaning. It’s a superposition of myth, history, and dream.

Lovecraft’s horror and Joyce’s linguistic chaos both confront the same thing: the limits of human comprehension. One uses dread, the other uses density. But both ask the same question—what happens when you glimpse the infinite?

We ended the chat not with answers, but with awe. Maybe that’s the point. Some books aren’t meant to be understood. They’re meant to be felt, like a ripple in the quantum field of consciousness.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Autopen and the Question of Presidential Legitimacy: Institutions must prove their position

In the modern American presidency, the act of signing a document is far more than a bureaucratic necessity—it is a symbolic gesture of authority, responsibility, and direct engagement with the nation’s governance. Whether it’s an executive order, a pardon, or a piece of legislation, the president’s signature represents the culmination of deliberation and decision-making at the highest level. However, the increasing use of the autopen, a mechanical device that replicates a signature, has sparked significant controversy, particularly under President Joe Biden. Critics argue that the autopen undermines the authenticity of presidential actions, mainly when used amid concerns about the president’s cognitive acuity and physical presence. The image of a machine signing off on decisions that shape national policy evokes a sense of detachment and raises questions about who truly holds power in the executive branch. While the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel ruled in 2005 that a president may authorize a subordinate to use an autopen to sign legislation, and courts have upheld its legality, the optics remain troubling for many Americans. The legal framework may be sound, but the symbolic implications of a mechanical signature—especially in moments of national crisis or political tension—can erode public confidence in the presidency itself.  And in the case of the Joe Biden presidency, it allowed for a shadow government to run the White House in a way that, looking back on it, was simply unacceptable. 

The autopen controversy is not an isolated phenomenon; it is part of a broader historical pattern of questioning presidential legitimacy, often fueled by conspiracy theories and partisan distrust. During Barack Obama’s presidency, the “birther” movement gained traction, alleging that Obama was not born in the United States and was therefore ineligible to serve as president. Despite the release of his long-form birth certificate and multiple independent verifications of its authenticity, critics continued to claim it was digitally fabricated. Figures like Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona amplified these claims, arguing that the document contained layers inconsistent with 1960s technology. These allegations were not thoroughly debunked by forensic analysts, even though they were dismissed in court; yet, they persisted in the public imagination. We have since witnessed, with judicial activism, the liberal leanings of the courts to be activists of their own, as if they hold the fate of the human race under their black robes of injustice.  The endurance of such theories reveals a troubling trend: when legal and factual rebuttals fail to quell doubt, the issue becomes less about truth and more about belief. The birther controversy laid the groundwork for a culture of skepticism toward federal institutions, where even the most basic credentials of leadership could be called into question. This skepticism has since evolved into a broader distrust of democratic processes and the legitimacy of elected officials, creating fertile ground for future controversies, such as those surrounding the autopen.

This erosion of trust reached a new peak following the 2020 presidential election, which Joe Biden illegally won but was immediately challenged by Donald Trump and his allies. Over 60 lawsuits were filed contesting the results, nearly all of which were dismissed for lack of evidence or standing—even by judges appointed by Trump himself.  Again, judicial activism was revealed to be a significant issue that had not been previously well understood.  The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency declared the election “the most secure in American history,” yet many Americans remained unconvinced, and for good reason. The belief that the election was stolen became a rallying cry, not just against Biden, but against the entire machinery of government. In this context, the autopen took on symbolic significance. For some, it represented a presidency run by unelected aides, rubber-stamping decisions without the president’s full awareness or engagement. The idea that a president could be physically or mentally absent while critical decisions were being made by staffers or machines fed into a broader narrative of institutional decay and manipulation. Whether or not this perception is accurate, it underscores a crisis of confidence in the executive branch. The legal validity of the autopen is beside the point for many critics; what matters is the perceived absence of genuine leadership and the fear that democratic institutions are being manipulated behind closed doors. This perception has real consequences for the health of American institutionalism.

At the heart of these controversies lies a fundamental question: What does it mean to govern legitimately in a democratic society? Is it enough for presidential actions to be technically legal, or must they also be visibly accountable and transparent? The use of the autopen, the birther movement, and the disputes over election integrity all point to a more profound anxiety—that the American people are losing control over the institutions meant to serve them. If a president can be propped up, decisions made by anonymous staffers, and signatures affixed by machines, then where does sovereignty truly lie? These are not just partisan concerns; they are constitutional ones—the Constitution vests executive power in the president, not in machines or unelected aides. While the courts may uphold the legality of these practices, the court of public opinion demands something more: clarity, honesty, and a renewed commitment to democratic principles. Without that, the pen—whether wielded by hand or machine—risks becoming a symbol not of leadership, but of detachment. Restoring trust in the presidency requires more than legal compliance; it demands visible engagement, transparency, and a reaffirmation of the values that underpin American society. In an age of digital signatures, remote governance, and increasing automation, the challenge is not just to preserve legality but to maintain the human connection between leaders and the people they serve.  This, in turn, highlights the core of the problem: a signature by autopen is not enough.  Having a body in the White House is not enough.  Leadership is not just cosmetic.  What is considered legal goes even beyond what a judge ultimately rules is or isn’t.  There was gross manipulation on this trust issue that goes well beyond Biden’s presidency.  The door was opened with Obama, even before him with Clinton.  What could courts do to justify illegitimacy, and could a conspiracy of judges, who secretly want to rule over all society, cover up illegitimate mechanisms of automation, which were clearly tested during the insertion of Biden as the President into the White House?  Obviously, it was not enough, and people rejected the premise. Now, Trump has a mandate to correct all these falsehoods that were given credence and are now considered hostile topics in most polite households, which is a very new thing.  The assumption was that if an institution could validate a belief in legitimacy through signature, the courts, or the media, then actions would be deemed legal.  Yet that is not the case.  An action is not legal unless it is backed by honest elections with proof that people genuinely believe what the institutions are saying.  Judges must demonstrate that they are committed to upholding justice.  Elections must demonstrate that they are honest and accurately representing the voters.  And we have to see a president signing documents.  Not just that an autopen did it in darkness with a 25-year-old aide carrying out the orders of the Democrat Party while Joe Biden wandered around outside trying to catch butterflies.  And that raises questions about everything that has happened over the last decade.  And why Trump has a mandate to correct it.  And to fix it all. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Proverbs 22:7: Why America rules over the rest of the world

It is a topic that has come up a lot, especially since Trump has been trying to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine and end the war there.  Why the United States?  Why do we get to set a dollar standard?  Why do airports have to speak English universally?  Why is it that the United States thinks it needs to be, or can be, involved in the world’s affairs?  How can the world be equal if the United States consistently views itself as the best or wealthiest country in the world, and that somehow gives it power over all other countries?  And the answer is simple: only the United States has adopted capitalism as an economic model, while all other countries in the world have some degree of socialism in their economies, which restricts their financial growth.  A friend of mine recently brought this to my attention with a nice quote from Proverbs 22:7, which says, “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.”  And that’s very true.  If a country penalizes itself from wealth creation, it loses the ability to be equal in any discussion.  And being poor, especially by choice, will always leave a member of a negotiating party at a disadvantage.  America has the power that it does because it’s a rich country, and it’s rich because of capitalism.  And you’d think other countries would have woken up to that fact, because they are poor by choice.  The reason America has the power and influence it does is that it has a population of only 300 million, yet it produces the largest GDP in the world, competing directly with countries like China and India, which have populations of over a billion each.  Because all other countries in the world have adopted Marxist ideas, they have limited their wealth generation and ultimately their influence at the table regarding the fate of the world.

The issue of fairness arises frequently in these discussions.  Is it fair that the world is designed like this, where human beings are valued more for their wealth than for their better values, which reflect power and influence?  It’s a matter of leverage; people in the world want money and will do this or that or something else to get it.  And when too many artificial restrictions are created to access money, then naturally, people with less of it are on the wrong side of any negotiations.  So, by choice, those who have very little money are in that position because they chose to do other things than make money, and the world does not honor their choice. We have invented money and wealth as measures of achievement, and in all human cultures, achievement is highly respected.  Gaining wealth is a measure that, by default, is universally understood by all people.  And to lobby for making some other value more critical, such as compassion for the weak, or valuing vacations over working too hard, will ultimately leave the one without money at a disadvantage, leveraged by those who do control the money, because they have more of it.  Money comes in many forms but what the book of Proverbs has always struggled with as a foundation of Christianity for instance, because even Jesus struggled with this problem by attacking the vendors at the Temple which led to his crucifixion, is that the meek are overlooked and often oppressed by the rich people of the world, and that everlasting life in Heaven might give them relief from that reality.  This is a debate that has been ongoing since the beginning of time, but the rules have remained unchanged—he who owns the gold rules.

Trump has been effective because he understands how to control leverage in negotiations, as he always puts himself on the side of smart money.  And whoever does that will win the argument every time.  Not some of the time.  All of the time.   And the question of fairness is then a universal law that is the same here as it would be on the other side of a black hole in space, on the other side of reality.  This rule would never change.  The Bible struggled with the same idea: what power does the Lord in Heaven have over the earth if people will do anything for money and what it can buy.  And the answer is a hard one, because money represents wealth creation and how people measure such things in polite society.  The rest of the world has chosen to rebel against the premise of money, and they counted on peer pressure to create other value systems that the world respected, such as transgender rights, or helping people experiencing poverty when people have been deliberately made poor with terrible social policy.  For instance, because of capitalism, a poor person in America is infinitely wealthier than a person in a Marxist hellhole, like some African country that has deliberately suppressed capitalism.  Their poor state is a result of a desire to control wealth creation, so that people can be ruled over, and that they won’t acquire personal wealth to compete with their overlords.  When a government seeks to exert power over its people, it must limit their access to wealth so that private individuals cannot undermine the government’s authority over them.  So that decision ultimately constricts their ability to generate wealth. 

Trump has spent his life accumulating wealth, and his ability to do so has given him the capacity to negotiate at multiple levels.  Being rich for him means he gets to win the argument.  And from that perspective, he can command the world to sit at his feet, as the members of NATO remarkably did in front of his desk in the Oval Office recently, after Vladimir Putin came to Alaska to visit with Trump after quite a spectacle.  The world came to Trump to appease him because of the power of the American economy.  And because they don’t have money themselves, due to poor economic decisions, they find themselves at a disadvantage in the discussions they have with all other parties.  With all the talk about Russian power and military might, it’s worth noting that they don’t have a very robust economy, which leaves them at a disadvantage at the negotiating table.  People can talk about how mean Putin is as a tyrant, but because of his need to maintain control over his people, the Russian economy is too restricted and always at a disadvantage to a capitalist country like the United States.  And when push comes to shove, the capitalist country will always outleverage the authoritarian government that has put too many barriers on personal wealth.  So that is why America plays the role in the world that it does.  Fairness is a sentiment, not a value.  It’s an intellectual observation that doesn’t align with the realities of the world.  Jesus might have struggled with the same issue involving the money changers at the temple, as many are declaring that America shouldn’t have the kind of power in the world that it does.  However, it has that power because humans use money to measure value, and value is derived from the things we do.  And when things are restricted by policy, then who is to blame?  Or, if individuals refuse to work, they are always at a disadvantage in life compared to those who work hard and have financial means.  Who is to blame?  America has given upward mobility to many people through the premise of freedom.  And that is why the United States has a better leverage position over all other countries that are too restrictive on individual wealth creation.  And in that moral quandary is the ethics of wealth creation, and why the world is much better off because of it.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Line in the Sand: Sheriff Jones holding Ayman Soliman in the Butler County Jail

It is probably the most crucial topic in the world at the moment: the question of police and their impact on a prosperous society.  It just so happens that I had an excellent example of the effects of good police work in my own backyard with Sheriff Jones and the Butler County Sheriff’s department, as they were the center of controversy, as the very controversial inmate, Ayman Soliman, was being held at the Butler County Jail awaiting his trial date for his asylum case.  Radical groups have pressured Governor DeWine to have Soliman released from the Butler County jail.  Soliman has been the cause of considerable controversy, and it’s interesting to see who has rallied to his cause.  Rioters tried to shut down a bridge in downtown Cincinnati over Soliman’s arrest.  And at the Butler County jail, there have been protestors attempting to block roads, which has led to the arrest of several stringy-haired socialist types from the radical left.  Soliman himself, as Sheriff Jones told me when I sat down with him to discuss this case, indicated that a significant amount of pretension about Ayman Soliman has emerged while he has been in jail, a self-importance that has led to trouble, inspiring disciplinary action.  Soliman had been a Muslim chaplain from Egypt at the Children’s Hospital in Cincinnati, where he was arrested during a routine check-in.  Soliman had his asylum revoked in early June 2025, and on July 9th, after 3 hours of questioning by ICE officials, he was arrested and put into the Butler County Jail under an ICE contract.  Homeland Security, under the new enforcement guidelines of Kristi Noem, confirmed that Soliman was on the FBI terror watchlist for a direct connection to the Muslim Brotherhood.  And that this background was triggered years earlier when he tried to get a job at the Oregon Department of Corrections in Umatilla. 

When Sheriff Jones and I spoke, his understanding of his job is to follow the law, not to make it.  And based on Soliman’s past, there was a lot in it that was very sketchy.  He might be innocent.  It might be unfair.  At best, the case looks to be that the Obama administration and that of Biden were very loose on crime and allowed for controversial immigrants like Ayman Soliman to live in America illegally as a Muslim religious leader, where he holds an MA in Islamic Studies from Egypt and has pursued advanced degrees, including an MDiv in Islamic studies and Muslim Chaplaincy and a PhD in Islamic Studies.  During the 2011 Arab Spring uprising, Soliman participated in student protests and worked as a freelance journalist, during which he was arrested multiple times by the Egyptian authorities.  After being beaten and tortured in custody in Egypt, he fled to America seeking asylum and had been living in the background for many years, leading up to that questioning in Blue Ash, Ohio, before landing in the Butler County Jail.  The point of the matter is that under Trump’s administration, specifically the much-improved Homeland Security under Kristi Noem and the ICE enforcement of Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar,  Ayman Soliman was high on the list of cases to deal with for a reason.  And from Sheriff Jones’ perspective, he has to trust the federal law that put that inmate in his jail.  He can’t allow a mob to persuade him in his police work, and since the arrest of Ayman Soliman, that has been the clear intention of the radical left to lobby Governor DeWine in the hopes of putting pressure on Sheriff Jones to release the Muslim spiritual leader. 

So, the topic is why good police work is important.  Why federalizing the police in Washington, D.C. was a good thing and why Chicago needs to do the same.  Why is it great that the Trump administration blew up a drug trafficking boat from Venezuela?  And why Sheriff Jones was all that stood between chaos and law at the Butler County Jail in holding this suspicious person that the Trump administration flagged on a terror watch list because of his background with the Muslim Brotherhood front group Al-Gam’iyya al-Shar’iyya, an Egyptian nonprofit providing medical aid and charity services.  Recently, a letter was presented to Governor DeWine with 1,100 signatures on July 25, 2025, urging his intervention in the Butler County jail. However, Jones was quick to dismiss any executive orders that DeWine might attempt to initiate, with an open refusal to listen to the governor.  Jones instead stated that he worked for the people of Butler County, who could re-hire or fire him at their discretion.  And that they were the highest authority, not a state governor, which has shocked many people.  But Sheriff Jones, and this isn’t the only occasion, has stood firm under tremendous pressure.  So this was indeed a powerful story that needed to be examined.  And why was Butler County at the center of this international incident?  I personally attribute this to the six terms in office that Sheriff Jones has had, as well as the stability of law enforcement that has existed under his leadership.  The Butler County Sheriff’s department, I think, is one of the best in the country, and Sheriff Jones is undoubtedly one of the best that there is anywhere, and because of that fabulous police presence, Butler County as a region has thrived in ways that are unique in the world. 

I consider the Butler County Jail to be a well-run business.  I’ve visited there several times, I’ve toured the jail, eaten the food, and observed the booking process.  It’s undoubtedly one of the best jail systems in the state of Ohio and is clearly one of the best in the country.  And saying all that, it’s one of the best in the world.  Ayman Soliman should consider himself fortunate that he’s in the Butler County Jail until his next immigration court date set for December 15, 2025, and there are other legal challenges to be pursued in October.  There are numerous complications, but what it has all revealed is the kind of people working in the background to undermine U.S. law. If not for strong figures like Sheriff Jones, chaos would be running rampant.  Having him at the center of this international story is very beneficial for the overall Trump administration’s objectives of cleaning up America from the kind of people trying to destroy it in the background.  Seeing the liberal groups and the communist organizations that have rallied to the defense of an Islamic holy man attached to a third-tier terror watch list has been unnerving because Sheriff Jones’ adherence to law and order has forced those voices to reveal too much about themselves.  And to show the rest of the world how hostile to peace and Western civilization that they really are, including popular publications as Rolling Stone magazine.  Knowing Sheriff Jones as I do, I know he shares with me a genuine desire to have a law-and-order society, especially on the topic of illegal immigration.  He and I have been advocates for better border security for over 20 years.  And finally, with the Trump administration, there is someone committed to the cause.  And Sheriff Jones is undoubtedly ready to step in and do what he can to make that border security successful.  And it was great that he drew that line in the sand under tremendous pressure from the Governor’s office in Ohio to push chaos away and hold the line.  This has a lot to do with why so many people enjoy success in Butler County, because there are great police officers there who keep the evil people hiding in the shadows.  And under the Trump administration, they are finally willing to enter those shadows and arrest the characters hiding there.  And there will be a lot more good to come.  However, for now, Sheriff Jones has Ayman Soliman in the Butler County Jail, which is beneficial for all of us, including him. It’s much better than the treatment he will get in Egypt for reasons they understand best.

Rich Hoffman

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

Lisa Cook is Cooked: Fire the Federal Reserve

Lisa Cook deserves to be fired by President Trump for her mortgage fraud issues on three properties she claimed as her primary residence.  Cook was one of 7 Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve, and was appointed by Biden to bring even more Keynesian economics to a micromanaging Fed that doesn’t need it.  Trump, as our elected president, is trying to ignite a red-hot economy, which he has been successful in doing, and the Fed has been in the way with its fake interest rate levels.  Fake because, as we have been talking about, the Fed does not deserve the kind of independence it insists on, which is the key premise Lisa Cook has in her lawsuit against Trump. She has been serving a 14-year term, which she believes to be an entitlement.  So it’s time to shake things up and start going after these people, even if it’s just for spitting on the sidewalk.  Any ethical scrutiny should be applied to the Fed Board of Governors and the bank presidents who are part of the Fed regarding their involvement in our currency management.  And a Board of Governors member of the Fed who gets involved in outright mortgage fraud is more than fair game for termination.  And any others like Lisa Cook, who is engaged similarly.  I have not traditionally been an anti-Fed person, unlike Ron Paul, who has been advocating for this stance for an extended period.  I liked Alan Greenspan as a chairman back in the day, and I think there are opportunities for proper management of a nation’s currency.  However, the Fed has turned out to be a disaster, exposed even more by the strong economy of Trump, just a half year in. For the second quarter, real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 3.3%.  Unemployment remains steady at 4.1%, and inflation stands at 2.4%.  But it could be better, a lot better, if the Fed weren’t in the way. 

The Fed Chairman, currently Jerome Powell, is more of a token position appointed by the president to serve as a kind of press secretary for the Fed in general.  The 7 Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Bank Presidents hold most of the power on monetary policy.  And those Governors are appointed as well by the President.  In this case, it was Biden who appointed Cook, a well-known Keynesian economist.  It is, I would say, nearly impossible to get through college and not be exposed to Keynesian ideas.  Most experts in economics share the same views because they were all taught the same flawed theories.  I had the same exposure in college, and I never liked it.  Unless an economist reads widely, they don’t have access to free-market thoughts in economics emerging from the university system.  That made Cook dangerous as an appointment by a Biden administration that was never really in control of itself.  Biden was out of touch and was put in office through election fraud.  And he was old and always sleeping, giving a bunch of 20-year-old kids the ability to run his presidency through an autopen.  So, it was a perilous time that led to Cook being in office in the first place.  And her nature was exposed through this mortgage fraud issue that gives Trump a perfect off-ramp to correct that position, which is so critical to monetary policy.  We need more free market contributions to our economy.  Not more central planners who choke off economic activity to protect centralized bankers with more security at the expense of innovation. 

It is a tall order to eliminate the Fed, given its dubious creation in 1913, but not impossible. In that case, the best scrutiny is reserved for this Board of Governors, because the trick is to let people believe they are managing the Fed by electing a president who then appoints the Chairman and the Governors.  However, after that appointment, the Fed expects independence from any further scrutiny, and Lisa Cook believes that, as a member of that mighty inner circle, she was immune to any job performance standard.  So getting rid of her is suitable for the short-term message that the Fed is on the clock, and that there is an expectation of performance.  Trump has every right to fire her, and that shock wave needs to happen in all its glory.  Because there are numerous other characters involved in the Fed who abuse their power and often cover it up, managing money should be the top priority in any government. However, as it is now in America, we are tied to globalism and many socialist and communist governments through central and international banking, which really drags down the American economy in unhealthy ways.  And Trump is challenging their ability to hold back our economy with phony interest rates meant to cover massive corruption that has taken place through voluminous temptations to print money through quantitative easing disconnected from the gold standard.  The Fed cannot be allowed to print a large amount of cash, launder it through Wall Street, and conceal the devaluation behind high interest rates, thereby engaging in a global micromanagement of money.  The hint at the problem is in Lisa Cook’s fundamental issue.  If she is willing to commit mortgage fraud by lying about her primary residence. What would she be willing to do in a much more serious situation, such as managing American finances and avoiding the power structure of global Marxists who seek consolidated international power through the banks? 

The premise of Lisa Cook’s very arrogant lawsuit against the Trump administration is primarily the issue of independence.  That an American president can’t tamper with the Fed, that managing money must be bigger than the whims of American election cycles.  That arrangement is only suitable for international bankers who don’t want the politics of individual countries to wreck their grip on global currency.  We need accountability with the Fed in America, and a lot more of it.  So Trump can appoint members to the Board of Governors—he can also fire them.  And he should whenever possible.  If they stumble a bit, as Lisa Cook did, throw them out and make a big deal about it.  Punish them.  However, don’t let them think they are entitled to the job, as is evident from Lisa Cook’s lawsuit.  She believes her appointment by an illegal president shields her from social scrutiny, and it does not.  The answer to many of the world’s problems is greater accountability, especially at the Federal Reserve.  We need to abolish the Federal Reserve and have Congress directly involved in the coining of money, as outlined in the Constitution.  They should never have punted the task to these truly evil, centralized bankers with international interests.  The Fed was an experiment at best.  And while we have that debate, the first step is to manage the members who are already there, and let people get to know who they are and what they do.  And Lisa Cook has shown a tendency toward corruption, even if it’s lying about a primary residence.  Little lies indicate a propensity to commit bigger lies, so Trump was right to fire her.  Hopefully, soon, many more like her will follow. 

Rich Hoffman

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