Category: Teacher Unions

The Jonathan Edwards Study Bible: Why America’s First Pastoral Philosopher Still Holds the Foundation for Law and Order

These are my favorite kind of days. The best days. No matter how tough it is out there, no matter how rough the problems of life get, sometimes you just have a good day, and this is one of them. I had the grandkids all day. We have been running back and forth at Kings Island, parched in the heat, and we are going to finish the evening at the waterpark. In the middle of all that, a box arrived. I took a minute to sit down with it. I opened it the way I open every book that matters to me. I smelled the pages.

One of my greatest pleasures in life is the wisdom and context of history sitting in my hand. I love the Bible for that reason. I love having so much history in one place. I love study Bibles because they explore the thing you can actually build a civilization on. I have carried one of those Bibles everywhere for years. I will not retire it. I will still read large portions of it every day. But I was ready to add to it, and I was ready to give the old one a rest. The first few pages of the worn one have a crease I cannot get out. That crease has bothered me. The new one does not have wrinkled pages. It just came out of the box.

I saw the Jonathan Edwards Study Bible advertised in Biblical Archaeology Review in the late-summer, early-fall edition. I fell in love with the idea immediately. When I hear the name Jonathan Edwards, I think of the father of the founding fathers. Thomas Nelson released the edition on August 18, 2026, after years of work under general editor Dr. Matthew Everhard. I picked the brown Leathersoft with thumb indexes. I was close to the black genuine leather. I wanted brown. I wanted the indexes. I am a sucker for thumb indexes. That had been my only real gripe with the Bible I have carried for years. They made this one with them. Brilliant.

A Good Day Is Not an Accident

I have said it before and I will say it again: a good day is not the absence of problems. A good day is the presence of a standard that can survive the problems. The world is full of people pinballing off each other. They do not share a common point of reference. They argue government, law, family, and history as if those things were invented last Tuesday. They were not. The argument over what kind of government we are supposed to have was largely settled in the long runway from the 1740s through the 1770s. The First Great Awakening was not a side show. It was a Christian surge into the New World that formed the conscience of a people who would soon have to decide whether they were subjects or citizens.

I wanted something that would push my mind into the right frame for the complicated issues in front of us. Two years into President Trump’s second term, the question is no longer whether the old order can be broken. The question is what we build with the pieces. Biblical scholarship is a very good place to start. Not as decoration. As infrastructure.

Who Jonathan Edwards Actually Was

Jonathan Edwards was born October 5, 1703, and died March 22, 1758. He was a Congregationalist pastor, philosopher, and theologian, widely regarded as America’s most original philosophical theologian. He oversaw early revivals in Northampton, Massachusetts, in 1733–35. He preached “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” at Enfield, Connecticut, on July 8, 1741. That sermon is the one everybody remembers. It is not the whole man.

Edwards was not a mascot for rage. He was a man obsessed with joy in God. “The enjoyment of [God] is…the only happiness with which our souls can be satisfied.” That line sits on the new study Bible for a reason. His Religious Affections, his Resolutions, his Miscellanies, and his massive unpublished notebooks were an attempt to think with total seriousness about Scripture, beauty, virtue, and the public order. He became the third president of the College of New Jersey—Princeton—after the death of his son-in-law, Aaron Burr Sr. He served only weeks. He died after a smallpox inoculation. Short tenure. Long shadow.

Princeton was a child of the Great Awakening. When Harvard and Yale resisted the revivals, New Lights built new colleges. The first presidents of Princeton stood in that stream. John Witherspoon, later president of the same college, signed the Declaration of Independence. The line from Edwards to Witherspoon to the Revolutionary generation is not a slogan. It is institutional history.

Calvin Coolidge, speaking on the sesquicentennial of the Declaration, put it as plainly as any American president ever has: “No one can escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology… had aroused the thought and prepared the colonists for this great event.”  I consider Calvin Coolidge to be one of America’s greatest presidents.  

I call Edwards a founding father because America would not have the moral vocabulary it used to become America without men like him. Ben Franklin admired George Whitefield, the great itinerant of the same awakening. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Adams inherited a public that had already been trained to take sin, covenant, virtue, and judgment seriously. You do not get a Bill of Rights out of thin air. You get it from a people who already believed that law has a source above the king.

The Great Awakening Was a Political Event

People treat revival as private emotion. That is a modern mistake. The Awakening taught ordinary men and women that a regenerated beggar stood before God on the same ground as an unholy prince. In a hierarchical empire, that idea is dynamite. It does not automatically produce 1776. It does produce a population that can hear “all men are created equal” without laughing.

The Awakening also split churches, founded colleges, and trained a habit of examining authority rather than merely inheriting it. That habit can go wrong. It can become mere rebellion. Edwards himself was no enthusiast for unfettered liberty as an end in itself. He wanted ordered affections under God. That is exactly why he is useful now. A country that has spent years dissolving every standard needs the man who refused to separate joy from holiness and holiness from public life.

I have been telling people that the squabbles of the present require a basic foundation. Study of that foundation got settled, in outline, by the 1750s and was tested in the 1770s. If we will not return to it, we will keep inventing new religions of the self and calling them law.

What This Study Bible Actually Contains

The Jonathan Edwards Study Bible is an NKJV edition from Thomas Nelson: Comfort Print, red letter, center-column references, concordance, maps, translator notes, two-color printing. The distinctive load is Edwards himself. Study notes drawn from his work. Articles on doctrinal topics. Full-page essays on his theology, his life, his spiritual practices, and the First Great Awakening. His Resolutions. An introduction to his Miscellanies note-taking system, with space to build your own. The Yale Jonathan Edwards Center remains the great online companion. If you are doing real scholarship, you can move from the page in your hand to the archive.

I like that. I like any book that tries to achieve superior intellect. The Bible, at its most basic essence, is the attempt to put the human mind in contact with the source of order. A study Bible is not a substitute for the text. It is scaffolding. Edwards is unusually good scaffolding because he will not let you treat Scripture as therapy. God, in Edwards, is not a life coach. God is holy. God is beautiful. God is uncompromising. If we follow in those footsteps, the same seriousness can look ruthless to a soft age. That is not a reason to flatten God into niceness. That is a reason to think.

I looked at the maps, the color, the paper, the print, the way the notes sit on the page. I judge Bibles the way I judge tools. Binding, glue, opacity, ribbon, indexes, whether the thing will survive being carried. Thomas Nelson still backs many of these editions with a lifetime guarantee against manufacturing defects. Companies that talk that way are running a different business model than the disposable world. I respect that.

I almost bought the black leather. I bought the brown because I like brown and because this one has the thumb indexes. I will likely still read the old study Bible. I will not carry the creased one everywhere anymore. This one takes that job.

The Smell of a New Book Is Not Trivial

I take publishers seriously when they do their job. The best smell in the book world is still new-Bible smell: paper, ink, glue, cloth, leather. I told my wife, half joking and half not, that if she wants me to keep loving her forever she should find a perfume that smells like a new book. The grandkids laugh at me because I keep putting my face in the pages. Fine. Let them laugh. There are very few things in life better than a well-made book that is trying to make you smarter than you were yesterday.

My old Bible still smells good to me. It has been everywhere. Full-color pages, notes from good scholars, a companion through work I am proud of. It also has the wounds of use. That is honorable. It is also honest to say when a tool has earned a rest. I can straighten pages and put it on the shelf without pretending I have outgrown it. I have not. I have added a second pillar.

Law and Order Begins With a Book on the Desk

People have told me they like that I keep a Bible on the desk in my office. Everybody walking by can see it. I did the same thing when I served as foreman of a grand jury in Butler County. I was not trying to be ostentatious. I was stating the premise. We were there for order. We were swearing to tell the truth. The values that created this civilization are not shameful. You do not apologize for them. You do not mumble that every tradition is equal so that no tradition can judge anything.

I put the Bible on the desk and I swore people in. That book represented a common standard. We can disagree about a thousand things after that. We cannot pretend there is no standard.

When I look back on a long life—good family, good kids, good grandchildren, good work in business—I still say that those weeks as grand jury foreman were among the most rewarding things I have ever done. I wish I could do that job every day. They paid something like twenty-four dollars a day. The whole stint put maybe four hundred dollars in my pocket. I spent every dime of it on Ohio law books, the kind of volumes lawyers keep on their shelves. I needed to explain the law to the other people in the room. Twelve other citizens. Evidence. A vote. Whether a person goes further into the machine of the state. That is serious work. I loved it. For a few weeks I was, in a manner of speaking, the top cop in Butler County, and I treated the job that way.

I have been thinking about cases that break your heart and then break your confidence in a jury’s ability to follow the law. A mother walks away from the death of her own children and the process cannot arrive at the destination the facts required. I will not relitigate a verdict in this space. I will say what the experience taught me. Law is not a mood. Law is a discipline. If the people in the room do not share a moral language, the statutes become a maze. The Bible is not a statute book. It is the source of the moral language that made statute books possible in the West.

Jonathan Edwards belongs on that desk because he is part of the formula that formed the legal society of the early republic. The attempt in our time has been to undermine that formation completely. Our job is to keep the undermining from succeeding. One way to do that is to return to the starting point and read it again, slowly, with notes from a man who actually thought.

God Is Not a Conflict-Resolution Seminar

I need to be clear about something I said in the moment and will not sand down. God is not a slogan for “can’t we all just get along.” God, as Scripture presents Him, is often ruthless and uncompromising. If we claim to follow, we do not get to edit that into suburban kindness and call it discipleship. The intellectual task is to understand what holiness requires in public life without turning the church into a mob and without turning the state into a church.

Edwards is helpful there. He is a pastoral philosopher. He will not let affection float free of doctrine, and he will not let doctrine float free of the glory of God. That combination is what a movement needs after it wins elections. Winning is not the same as governing. Governing requires a metaphysics. If your metaphysics is “the self is sovereign,” you will get the last twenty years on repeat. If your metaphysics is that there is a law above the ruler and a Judge above the law, you have a chance.

I have been saying that we need a common point of reference. This Bible can be that for people who are even half willing. You do not have to become a professional Edwards scholar. You have to read, mark, compare, and refuse the cheap alternatives.

The Politics of Heaven in the Age of Disclosure

We are living in what I have been calling the age of disclosure. Hidden things are coming up. Political things, institutional things, spiritual things. If you do not understand the politics of heaven, you will misread the politics of earth. Heaven is not a fog of niceness. Heaven is a court. There is a throne. There is law. There is judgment. There is mercy that costs something. Edwards never forgot that. A great deal of modern religion did.

The founding generation argued about church and state. They did not argue that the state could invent morality out of committee. They assumed a created order. They assumed sin. They assumed that republics die when character dies. That is not nostalgia. That is the operating system.

I want my grandchildren to see a Bible on the desk and know what it means when I walk into a room. It means I stand for law and order, and that law and order have a foundation that did not begin in a press release. I am not closing my life. I am opening a new chapter with a better tool for the same fight.

Why I Am Telling You to Get This One

If you need a first serious study Bible, this is a strong candidate. If you already have one you love, as I do, this is the right second. The scholarship is serious. The production is handsome. The price is not insane. The leather edition runs more. I paid for the version I would actually use—the one I will thumb through in the car, on the desk, and at the table.

I would like to shut the rest of life off and only read it. I will read a lot of it. It will become the Bible I carry. There is plenty here to work with. I think it is a key to launching a new stretch of work in my own life, and I think it can serve the same purpose for anyone who is tired of arguing with no floor under the argument.

Go get it. Put it where people can see it. Swear to the truth. Then go do the hard parts—family, work, citizenship, the long patience of building a civilization instead of commenting on its collapse.

I took the kids back to the waterpark and we had a great day.  While I waited on them I sat in a chair and read through this new Bible and it turned out to be one of the best days I have had in a while. I am going to smell the pages again many more times. There are very few things in life better than that. If you want the longer map of how I think about work, conflict, and Western order, read The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business. If you want the foundation under that map, start with Scripture and a guide who already walked the ground we keep pretending is new.

Notes

1.  Thomas Nelson released The Jonathan Edwards Study Bible: Experience Abiding Joy in Christ (NKJV) on August 18, 2026, with Dr. Matthew Everhard as general editor. Editions include hardcover, brown Leathersoft (including thumb-indexed), and black genuine leather. See publisher listings and trade bibliographic records for ISBNs 9781400339532 (hardcover), 9781400339556 (brown Leathersoft, thumb indexed), and 9781400339600 (black genuine leather).

2.  Edwards’s dates, Northampton revivals, the Enfield sermon of July 8, 1741, and his brief presidency of the College of New Jersey are standard in the biographical literature. See George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (Yale University Press, 2003).

3.  Edwards died after smallpox inoculation in March 1758, weeks into the Princeton presidency. Marsden and the Yale Jonathan Edwards Center treat the episode in detail.

4.  Coolidge’s sesquicentennial remarks on Edwards and the Declaration are printed in Calvin Coolidge, The Price of Freedom: Speeches and Addresses. The quotation is discussed in Gordon Arnold, “Jonathan Edwards: Founding Father of American Political Thought,” The Imaginative Conservative, October 4, 2024.

5.  On Princeton’s revivalist origins and the New Light college movement, see Thomas Breidenthal, “Princeton’s Revivalist Roots,” Princeton Alumni Weekly, June 21, 2019, and George M. Marsden’s work on evangelical higher education.

6.  John Witherspoon, sixth president of the College of New Jersey, signed the Declaration of Independence and served in the Continental Congress. The Edwards–Burr–Witherspoon succession is a matter of college history, not metaphor.

7.  George Whitefield’s relationship with Benjamin Franklin is documented in Franklin’s Autobiography and in the standard Whitefield biographies. Admiration is not the same as conversion; it is evidence of the Awakening’s public weight.

8.  Edwards’s line on the enjoyment of God as the only satisfying happiness is used by Thomas Nelson as the editorial keynote of the 2026 study Bible.

9.  The Yale Jonathan Edwards Center (edwards.yale.edu) hosts the Works of Jonathan Edwards and remains the primary digital archive corresponding to the print notes.

10.  Thomas Nelson’s published lifetime guarantee covers manufacturing defects, not ordinary wear. See Thomas Nelson Bibles customer-service and Premier Collection guarantee pages.

11.  The First Great Awakening’s role in colonial egalitarianism, church conflict, and revolutionary political culture is argued, with different emphases, by Alan Heimert, Religion and the American Mind (1966); Mark Noll, America’s God (2002); and Michael Novak’s essays on the “two wings” of the American eagle.

12.  Butler County, Ohio, grand juries operate under Ohio law. Compensation for jurors has historically been modest; the figures given here are from my own service and recollection, not a claim about current statutory rates.

13.  Biblical Archaeology Review is the flagship magazine of the Biblical Archaeology Society. I first noticed the Edwards Bible as a paid advertisement in a late-summer / early-fall issue.

14.  Edwards owned enslaved people. That fact belongs in any honest account. It does not erase his intellectual role in American theology; it does forbid hagiography. See Marsden and the Yale Center’s documentary record.

Bibliography for Further Reading

Primary Edwards

•  Edwards, Jonathan. A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God. 1737.

•  Edwards, Jonathan. “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” 1741.

•  Edwards, Jonathan. A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. 1746.

•  Edwards, Jonathan. Freedom of the Will. 1754.

•  Edwards, Jonathan. The Life of David Brainerd. 1749.

•  Edwards, Jonathan. Ethical Writings. Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 8. Yale University Press.

•  Edwards, Jonathan. The Miscellanies. Works of Jonathan Edwards, multiple volumes. Yale University Press.

•  Edwards, Jonathan. Resolutions. Various editions; also included in the 2026 study Bible.

•  The Works of Jonathan Edwards. 26 vols. Yale University Press. Digital companion: Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University, https://edwards.yale.edu.

The 2026 Study Bible

•  Everhard, Matthew, gen. ed. The Jonathan Edwards Study Bible: Experience Abiding Joy in Christ (NKJV). Thomas Nelson, 2026.

Biography and Intellectual History

•  Marsden, George M. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. Yale University Press, 2003.

•  McClymond, Michael J., and Gerald R. McDermott. The Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Oxford University Press, 2012.

•  Murray, Iain H. Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography. Banner of Truth, 1987.

•  Gura, Philip F. Jonathan Edwards: America’s Evangelical. Hill and Wang, 2005.

•  Sweeney, Douglas A. Edwards the Exegete. Oxford University Press, 2016.

•  Nichols, Stephen J. Jonathan Edwards: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought. P&R, 2001.

Great Awakening, Princeton, and the Revolution

•  Noll, Mark A. America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. Oxford University Press, 2002.

•  Heimert, Alan. Religion and the American Mind: From the Great Awakening to the Revolution. Harvard University Press, 1966.

•  McDermott, Gerald R. One Holy and Happy Society: The Public Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Penn State University Press, 1992.

•  Kidd, Thomas S. The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America. Yale University Press, 2007.

•  Marsden, George M. The Soul of the American University. Oxford University Press, 1994.

•  Stohlman, Martha Lou Lemmon. John Witherspoon: Parson, Politician, Patriot. Westminster, 1976.

•  Coolidge, Calvin. The Price of Freedom: Speeches and Addresses.

•  Arnold, Gordon. “Jonathan Edwards: Founding Father of American Political Thought.” The Imaginative Conservative, October 4, 2024.

•  Breidenthal, Thomas. “Princeton’s Revivalist Roots.” Princeton Alumni Weekly, June 21, 2019.

Scripture, Law, and Western Order

•  Berman, Harold J. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Harvard University Press, 1983.

•  Witte, John, Jr. The Reformation of Rights. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

•  Novak, Michael. On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding. Encounter, 2002.

•  Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England.

•  The Declaration of Independence; the Constitution of the United States; the Bill of Rights.

Related Hoffman

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

•  Hoffman, Rich. The Symposium of Justice.

•  Hoffman, Rich. Tail of the Dragon.

•  Hoffman, Rich. The Overmanwarrior, https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com.

Periodicals and Tools•  Biblical Archaeology Review. Biblical Archaeology 

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 author, political consultant, and strategic advisor based in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the creator of The Politics of Heaven—a unique framework that connects biblical theology, ancient history, and modern power structures to explain how moral alignment and spiritual forces shape global events. Blending real-world political experience with deep research into archaeology, UFO phenomena, and suppressed historical narratives, Hoffman offers compelling commentary on topics ranging from ancient civilizations and the Dead Sea Scrolls to modern populist movements, paranormal continuity, and leadership strategy in chaotic environments. As the author of The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business and the forthcoming Politics of Heaven, he brings a grounded yet provocative voice to media discussions, supported by firsthand experiences and a cross-disciplinary approach that bridges science, history, and theology. For interviews, speaking engagements, or expert analysis, visit richhoffmanbooks.com or contact directly via phone at 513-307-5815 or email at rhoffman@richhoffmanbooks.com.  If you’ve seen the movie, Disclosure Day and want to talk about it and the implications of Presidnet Trump’s UAP disclosures, let me know and we can bring some color to your coverage. https://richhoffmanbooks.com/media-inquiries-broadcast-topics-and-contact-info/?frame-nonce=ad51e7ecba I do have a firsthand UFO encounter to discuss.

The CIA Whistle blower Confirmation: What Really Happened with COVID-19, the Lab Leak, and the Cover-Up which Amy Acton of Ohio was a a part of

In mid-May 2026, as the nation continued grappling with the lingering scars of the COVID-19 pandemic, a remarkable event unfolded before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. James E. Erdman III, a Senior Operations Officer at the Central Intelligence Agency with decades of experience, testified under oath about a concerted effort within the intelligence community to downplay and suppress evidence indicating a laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2. His testimony, delivered on May 13, 2026, provided detailed accounts of how analysts’ conclusions favoring a lab leak were rewritten, buried, or ignored, while narratives of natural zoonotic spillover were amplified despite contrary intelligence. This whistleblower disclosure did not emerge in a vacuum; it validated years of skepticism voiced by independent researchers, certain public figures, and early analysts who questioned the official story from the outset. 

Erdman described a system rife with conflicts of interest. Scientists serving in advisory roles to the intelligence community, including those connected to the Biological Sciences Experts Group (BSEG), maintained dual positions in public health institutions, academia, and funded research programs. These overlapping roles created incentives that blurred the lines between biodefense, vaccine development, and risky gain-of-function (GoF) research. Dr. Anthony Fauci, then Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), played a pivotal role by influencing intelligence analyses through curated lists of experts—many of whom had received NIAID funding or collaborated on coronavirus studies. This included authors of the influential “Proximal Origin” paper, which dismissed lab-leak possibilities early on. Erdman testified that Fauci’s interventions shaped the intelligence community’s output, favoring natural origin theories even as internal assessments leaned toward a lab incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

The timeline is damning. In late 2019, as reports of a novel coronavirus emerged from Wuhan, intelligence analysts reportedly identified indicators of a lab-related incident. Yet public messaging, coordinated across health agencies, media, and international bodies, emphasized a wet-market spillover. Event 201, a high-level pandemic simulation held in October 2019 by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, eerily mirrored the unfolding crisis. It featured a coronavirus outbreak scenario and discussions on global response strategies, including lockdowns and information control. Participants included public health leaders with intelligence ties. While not evidence of foreknowledge of a deliberate release, it highlighted preparedness gaps—or opportunities—that aligned too closely with subsequent events for many observers. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s books, particularly The Real Anthony Fauci (2021) and The Wuhan Cover-Up (2023), provided extensive documentation of these dynamics long before Erdman’s testimony. In The Wuhan Cover-Up, Kennedy detailed the history of U.S.-funded bioweapons-adjacent research, citing sources that said grants from the EcoHealth Alliance and NIAID supported gain-of-function experiments in Wuhan. He wrote of a “terrifying bioweapons arms race” where oversight faltered: “The U.S. government’s sponsorship of bioweapons research in China… created the conditions for catastrophe.” Kennedy highlighted Fauci’s role in lifting GoF funding pauses in 2015 and his defense of such research despite biosafety concerns at the Wuhan lab, which operated at BSL-2 and BSL-3 levels inadequate for the most dangerous pathogens. Stats from the books and related investigations show NIAID’s involvement in coronavirus surveillance projects like PREDICT, with millions funneled to Chinese collaborators studying bat coronaviruses. 

The human and economic toll underscores the stakes. Official U.S. COVID-19 deaths exceeded 1.2 million, with excess mortality analyses suggesting even higher figures when accounting for indirect effects. Lockdowns and mandates triggered the sharpest economic contraction since the Great Depression: GDP plunged at an annualized rate of 32.9% in Q2 2020, unemployment spiked to 14.7%, and over 20 million jobs vanished in a matter of weeks. Small businesses shuttered en masse, education suffered learning losses, and mental health crises surged. Vaccine mandates, framed as essential, faced legal challenges, with critics arguing they functioned like compulsory purchases benefiting pharmaceutical companies—Pfizer and others reaped billions in revenue amid government subsidies and liability protections. Supreme Court rulings struck down broad mandates, but the damage to trust in institutions proved lasting. 

Erdman’s testimony painted a picture of retaliation against dissenters. Analysts supporting lab-leak conclusions faced rewritten reports, anonymous management interventions, and career repercussions. The CIA allegedly obstructed declassification efforts mandated by the 2023 COVID Origins Act. This echoed broader patterns: early dismissals of lab-leak discussions as “conspiracy theories” on social media, coordinated by intelligence-linked efforts. Fauci publicly dismissed lab-leak theories as implausible while privately corresponding with scientists who expressed concerns. Ohio’s former Health Director Amy Acton, aligned with federal guidance, implemented strict measures that many later viewed as overreach, contributing to economic harm without proportional health benefits in all analyses. 

Connections to larger geopolitical aims fueled speculation. Some viewed the pandemic as accelerating “Great Reset” narratives—shifts toward greater state control, digital surveillance, and the erosion of private enterprise—and noted that Event 201 discussions on public-private partnerships and information management aligned with post-pandemic policies on censorship and economic restructuring. Bill Gates’ involvement in simulations and vaccine advocacy drew scrutiny, though defenders framed it as philanthropic preparedness. Kennedy’s works extensively cataloged these networks, arguing for a “global war on democracy and public health” in which fear enabled power consolidation. 

Why did so few voice these concerns in real time? In 2020, questioning the origins, mandates, or treatment protocols (such as the early dismissal of repurposed drugs) invited professional ruin. Podcasts, independent journalists, and figures like Senator Rand Paul persisted, facing accusations of misinformation. Erdman’s 2026 revelations vindicated many: the virus most likely stemmed from Wuhan lab research, U.S. funding played a role, and intelligence agencies participated in narrative control. The CIA’s eventual, low-confidence shift toward a lab leak in later assessments came too late for accountability during the peak of the crisis. 

Broader implications extend to biodefense reform. Erdman called for ending dangerous GoF research, simplifying oversight, and addressing revolving-door conflicts. Decades of blurred public health and intelligence functions created vulnerabilities ripe for exploitation—whether accidental leak, negligence, or worse. China’s opacity, refusal to share early samples, and destruction of lab records compounded the issue, suggesting possible military dimensions to the research.

Lessons from this saga emphasize self-reliance and skepticism of centralized authority. Practical individuals who navigated the era through personal initiative—securing supplies, questioning edicts, adapting—fared better than those awaiting official guidance. Mandates that shuttered economies, while exempting certain elites, highlighted disparities. Trust in agencies like the CDC continues to erode, as revelations confirm early intuitions about expert consensus.

In the age of disclosure, Erdman’s testimony marks a turning point. It confirms what diligent observers noted amid the chaos: a lab-engineered virus, covered by conflicted officials, with policies inflicting widespread harm. RFK Jr. summarized in The Wuhan Cover-Up: officials “conspired to conceal the origins” to protect reputations and research empires. Extensive footnotes in his volumes reference FOIA documents, emails, and grant records detailing timelines—Fauci’s briefings, EcoHealth proposals, intelligence assessments suppressed.

Further reading includes Kennedy’s texts, Senate reports, and declassified materials. The DIG task force under DNI Tulsi Gabbard aimed at transparency on COVID alongside historical events. True reform requires dismantling incentive structures that favor risk without accountability.

This confirmation arrives amid ongoing recovery. Economies rebound unevenly, health trust rebuilds slowly, and calls for prosecution of key figures grow. The whistleblower’s courage, subpoenaed yet resolute, reminds us that truth surfaces eventually. Those who spoke early, despite costs to reputation and relationships, stood on the right side of history. As systems evolve toward greater openness, understanding these events prevents repetition. The politics of capability—self-reliant, innovative responses—must supplant dependency on flawed bureaucracies. Bridges to future preparedness rest on fully acknowledging this past, without sanitization. (Word count:

Bibliography

•  Erdman III, James E. Written Testimony before Senate HSGAC, May 13, 2026.

•  Kennedy Jr., Robert F. The Real Anthony Fauci. Skyhorse, 2021.

•  Kennedy Jr., Robert F. The Wuhan Cover-Up. Skyhorse, 2023.

•  Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee records.

•  Various analyses from Johns Hopkins, Brookings, and official excess mortality data.

Footnotes (selected):

1.  Erdman testimony on BSEG conflicts and Fauci influence.

2.  Event 201 scenario details from the Center for Health Security.

3.  Economic contraction stats from BEA and NBER.

4.  Excess deaths and mandate impacts per peer-reviewed studies.

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.

Apoorva Ramasway is a Really Good Person: One of the big reasons to support Vivek Ramaswamy for governor of Ohio

There was never any question about supporting Vivek Ramaswamy for Governor of the State of Ohio.  But after meeting with him at his launch ceremony in West Chester, Ohio, I feel even better about it.  Of course, he is a great talent that can speak the peel off an orange.  But so can a lot of con artists.  The question everyone always wants to know about these kinds of things is how can they know they can trust him?  What makes a person trustworthy, even if they have the gift of gab?  After all, there are a lot of salespeople out there who can sell you just about anything who aren’t worth 2 cents as people.  So what makes Vivek Ramaswamy a good person, good enough to be made Governor of the State of Ohio?  Well, I have a proven tactic that I use to qualify people, especially adult people, that has worked for me over the years: I measure a person’s worth based on what kind of spouse they have.  They can sell pretty words to the public all day, but if they partner with a terrible person as a spouse, you should always question the person’s validity.  As a general rule, good people tend to attract other good people.  And bad, toxic people tend to do the same.  You don’t often find a toxic person choosing to be married to a high-quality person.  They are attached to them for a reason.  So judging a person based on the worth of their spouse is quite good as an accurate measurement, and I am thrilled to say that Vivek Ramaswamy’s wife is top-class and a very good person. Upon meeting Apoorva Ramaswamy, I found that I liked Vivek even more.  They are a nice couple who work well together in ways that are bigger than the jobs they do in life.

I don’t mind saying it, and there are certainly more that I can think of, but at this Vivek Ramaswamy event were some very good friends of mine who were part of setting up everything in the background.  And we are friends for a reason that goes beyond political considerations.  I know a lot of people, but I put more trust in these people for a lot of reasons, most of which start with their spouses.  For instance, when people ask me, “How can you trust George Lang?  He’s a RINO establishment figure.”  I can say to them that I can trust him in ways I wouldn’t trust other people, largely because of what I know him that is different from other people, especially people in a decisive Senate role.  Why George?  He has a wonderful wife in Debbie, who is just as solid as a person can get.  They are a good couple, and they are at an age where they travel a lot, and the fruits of a lot of hard work are emerging, and they are living a good life.  They work well together, and things were not always as good as they are now.  I remember when the political left was trying to throw George in jail just for knowing John Boehner.  Even in the toughest of times, Debbie has always been loyal to George, and as a couple, they are always trying to do the right thing, and I have come to know both of them pretty well over the years in ways that far exceed politics.  If George Lang had never been a senator and never was again, he and his wife would still be friends with me and my wife.  They are good people to know.

And why do I like her so much? People always ask me about Nancy Nix.  Well, what’s not to like?  She is as good as they get.  She comes across as a good person as a politician due to her many sincere desires for the world to be a better place, and I have come to know her over the years as a person with profound convictions toward biblical goodness.  But I’ll say that her husband Bob Leshnak is perfect for her.  Sometimes, it takes a while to find people who can work with them instead of against them.  When you are a person like Nancy who is naturally attractive and has a very outward projecting personality, you can attract a lot of bar flies.  But as a naturally good person from a good family, she knows how to sort through all that to find a great spouse in Bob.  He is good for her and doesn’t work against her, and they just come out as a good couple when you talk to them in any setting.  How can people be expected to manage your government financially or ethically if they can’t manage their own homes?  I could say that I know Fran DeWine a bit, enough to see that she makes the current governor of Ohio a far better person than he would otherwise be.  They are childhood sweethearts, which makes him a person that can at least be brought to reason because he has managed a long marriage to a good person.  I have met Melania Trump on several occasions and always said she is the key to why President Trump has become the kind of good person he is at this stage.  Spouses say a lot about the people we know, publicly. 

At Vivek’s West Chester event, I got to talk to him in great detail, but that wasn’t new.  I could also walk around with his wife and talk to her one-on-one.  And I found it interesting that she had a good relationship with Representative Jennifer Gross, who is too Tea Party for many people.  It says a lot about Apoorva in a good way and about Vivek with the doors closed.  Apoorva was a very classy woman, full of life and spirit, and I kept thinking she would be an ideal First Lady of Ohio.  She comes across well in all the right ways.  But what is most apparent is that she and Vivek are a power couple that feeds off each other.  We’re not talking about a couple of people climbing through social power to achieve a status through won elections.  These people are personally good and want to share that with others in a leadership way.  This is a much different set of standards than the traditional power couple that only share their desire for public power, and once that is not in their lives through a lost election or bad financial times, their relationship breaks apart.  Spouses aren’t helping each other if they plot divorce behind their spouses’ backs and are always jealous of the other people in their lives because they are insecure in the foundations of their relationship.  When you meet people who have people in their lives that they are building families with and who are willing to walk through all the fires of life together, you can know that there are unique qualities you can trust in them as public servants.  And that is undoubtedly the case for Vivek Ramaswamy and his wife, Apoorva.  They will still be a good couple once the days of politics are done, a few decades from now.  They will be defined by what they do together rather than what they convince people to give them in the form of trust and social management.  They are good because they are good, and they work together, which is the best trait of all.

Rich Hoffman

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

Isaac Adi Loses His Man Card: Despite modern woke rules, people are still people

So they have drug Judge Lyons into all this? I love the Judge, and there he was in court serving as the stooge for a failed political figure, as Lynda is calling in all the favors, hoping to turn back the tides of reality like some crazy old woman seeks the fountain of youth before the grip of old age seals her doom. These political gymnastics can’t hide the terrible report card at Lakota. Lynda was in charge, and it’s on her, which will be the subject of tomorrow. But for now, man cards are still crucial in the world, despite the attempt to use new woke rules to remove such judgments from society. Men and women still have expectations from each other that have been relevant for many thousands of years, even millions. And that was something an old friend of mine, who ran WLW radio then, used to enjoy during his Saturday radio show from 9 a.m. until 11. Back before there was ever a YouTube, through the Obama first term, I used to do a lot of talk radio all over the country, and I had a good relationship, especially with Clear Channel Radio, who ran WLW, specifically through Darryl Parks when he was the big man at the station, setting all their programming priorities. He and I had similar politics, so I was a frequent guest with him and many other Marconi award-winning personalities, and we had a good time having fun with forbidden early woke social rules. It would be woke politics that would have Clear Channel remove most of the conservative talent (Bill Cunningham is not a real conservative; he only plays one on the radio), and Parks eventually lost his title. But while he had it, we had a lot of fun and did a lot of good radio making fun of ridiculous things, such as woke policies, well before anybody even knew what they were. We would often exploit that trait on his radio show, and one of the most popular mechanisms we would employ was removing people’s man cards when they showed weak behavior in a public setting, especially men who were not standing up for traditional masculine attributes. We would talk about them on the air during his show to hundreds of thousands of people and remove their man cards as a shame for their lack of courage and strength when it was needed most.

So in that fabulous and influential tradition, we must bring back the removal of man cards when they show they do not deserve them, and that is certainly the case with Isaac Adi, the Lakota school board member who attempted to have court protection from fellow school board member, Darbi Boddy.  He and Darbi were at a conference in Florida and had several arguments, which isn’t unusual.  They ran for school board together and have turned out to be quite different politically.  It didn’t look that way at first, but since Isaac won his seat, he has essentially become much more liberal, whereas Darbi is still the conservative mom that she ran herself as.  But unlike regular politicians, Darbi didn’t say one thing and then show herself to be something else.  And that is what the establishment types call a lack of “professionalism” when politicians do what they say they will do with the naive assumption that they might be able to change anything. For most politicians, you throw populist opinions to the public to get them to vote for you.  Then you say other things to those who donate money to political campaigns.  But when you are in executive session with other politicians, you are all friends; you talk about Bill’s cat and Sarah’s new dress, and no matter who they are, Republicans and Democrats, you enjoy a kind of silent membership to the club.  Darbi was always the same person: the campaign Darbi, the fundraising Darbi, and the daily school board member.  So when efforts were led by Lynda O’Conner, a supposed conservative school board member, to get control of these two new school board members a few years ago, Isaac and Darbi, only Isaac listened.  Darbi remained independently conservative, and since then, Isaac and Darbi have had a very contentious relationship, and they argue frequently for obvious reasons. If it’s anybody’s fault for destroying their relationship, it’s Lynda O’Conner who did it.

According to court testimony on September 15, 2023, because of this incident, Isaac was admitted to a hospital for two nights and three days, and he had a medical bill as evidence. That says everything.

But the only time they’ve been violent, that type of thing was initiated by Isaac. At least two times, I know where Isaac has punched at cameras recording him, and it was women holding those cameras. Isaac has a temper and has expressed it openly. He likes to be in control, and when he feels he’s losing control, he turns to physical aggression. I never thought it was a big deal, but under the definition of harassment that he expressed to a court on September 15th, 2023, then the smeller is the feller in this case. He’s the guy in the elevator passing gas and then looking at everyone else as if it were their fault. So it is ironic that after that Florida trip for school board business, he went to the courts to file a petition against Darbi, citing that he did not feel safe around her and that she had been “bullying” him. And that she carries a gun and he doesn’t feel “safe.” Jiminy Christmas, that is not how men talk! I understand that Darbi is tough, and she has a powerful personality. I have been to the firing range with her and her husband, and I can report that she does know how to handle herself with a gun. But what world is Isaac living in? Everyone carries a weapon, or at least they should. It’s like saying that a woman has earrings. Carrying guns is a common social enterprise, so it should not have been a big deal to Isaac. But he went to the courts to seek protection from her, which was pretty embarrassing, and he felt he needed to. The judge denied the request, as should have been understood from the start. Isaac failed to present evidence that an ex parte order is necessary for his safety and protection from imminent danger.

They should have never tried to knock Darbi off the school board. They just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper.

All that might be fine in the legal world of court talk and political discourse.  And to say it’s a dysfunctional relationship doesn’t go deep enough to the true heart of the matter.  What is the purpose of these frequent confrontations?  It comes down to acceptance of honest public discourse, and what I find valuable about Darbi is that as a genuine representative of the community and an unpolished political figure, she is a good gauge of how people feel in the district.  Yet the political trend is to be one way in public and another in private, which is an inherently dishonest position, and that understanding has led to healthy conflict.  But if you are a man, you don’t run to the courts looking for protection, for the “state” to protect you.  You handle your battles and don’t seek government help to resolve them.  That is why Isaac Adi must lose his man card.  By the woke rules of the modern world, it’s OK for men to cry and be emotional.  And to be afraid of guns.  But by the fundamental laws of manhood, those are all reprehensible traits that women classicly find destructive and unattractive.  And I think Darbi’s primary source of disappointment, knowing her pretty well as I do, is that Isaac has shown himself to be everything but the kind and conservative person she ran with on the campaign.  Darbi never wanted to be a political figure in the traditional sense.  She just wanted to be on the school board to help kids get access to a better life.  And she has had no desire to become what Isaac has, and that anger spills over into their conversations.  The Lakota school board’s dysfunction started when Isaac attempted to remove Darbi from the school board with many other hostile people, led by Lynda O’Conner, literally the moment that Darbi gave her the critical vote to make her president.  So, who in their right mind would expect Darbi to get along with them at this late date or that she’d want to join hands under a banner of peace now?  She can only hope that she gets more people on the school board who are better representatives of the community to work with, and until then, she is just holding her nose, like many people are.  But compromising with people without integrity is not an option, or dealing with people who have lost their man cards. 

Rich Hoffman

It’s Not About Unity in the Community or the Power of a Vocal Minority: But entirely a standard of right and wrong

This will be a nice yard sign for Trump supporters who can’t wait for next year to vote for, or against some anti-American political enemy.

Because I, like many people involved, I must at least provide fair warning. Enjoying people is one thing; agreeing with them is an entirely different matter. This was grotesquely obvious while driving by Lakota West in West Chester, Ohio, on August 8th, 2023, where the special election was a significant focus. As far as the eye could see from the road were Vote No signs, a blatant reminder that the progressive government school there is a factory of liberal politics intent to convert confiscated wealth from property owners and to turn it into Democrat activism. And many Republican-leaning people have been suckered into the game, even to support it against conservative, traditional values. Even on issues like Issue 1, which would have made it more difficult to change the Ohio Constitution, Lakota schools are aggressive in favor of change. That’s the purpose of their existence, to change our traditional American culture into some monstrosity of liberalism. And that election day was just a reminder of that sentiment and the genuine catastrophe of the upcoming fall election in November. Lynda O’Conner is up for re-election, and many people close to the matter have been hoping that she wouldn’t run because the opposition against her is on a crusade that has not been seen at Lakota in all the years of its existence. Before things get too messy here, I would call to mind a few monumental memories of the past, such as when the Tea Party had to take a stand against John Kasich after he turned into a progressive after his loss with the state labor unions. They turned him into a progressive pretzel, and many of us worked hard to destroy him because we had to. In a few short years, you don’t see him around anymore. And many of the people who are now pushing for Lynda O’Conner to be re-elected this fall, after all that’s happened, went after Speaker of the House John Boehner and essentially knocked him out of the Republican Party because he was too much of a RINO.

The plan is for these to be everywhere

It’s an old game; we all get it. Friendships are made with people who are politically dangerous so that they can be controlled and perhaps worked against their original positions. And that certainly has been the case with the Butler County Republican Party. It’s always tempting to be invited to the cool kids’ table just so they can control you, not because they really like you. I just spoke about an excellent event with Nancy Nix where some of us have had some cantankerous hostilities toward each other. But at that event, we put a lot of that aside and had a nice evening together and enjoyed the comedians who were performing. It was a nice story. But all that is about to go sideways with Lynda O’Conner, which is fine. But the belief that friendships and private meetings would turn the resistance against her into captured assets of compliance with party sentiments was ill-advised and has only stirred up the hornet’s nest. The people involved with this next generation’s fight against the progressive objectives of Lakota schools will not be enamored with the shiny keys of friendship and gaining a seat at the table with the cool kids of power. The people I know standing against Lynda O’Conner for this upcoming election have a moral problem with her. It goes far beyond even calling her a RINO. They are not interested in Unity for the Community or coming together as a Republican party; this is all about right and wrong and standing up to the intrusions of a progressive political machine that works against conservative values in every way possible. And the passion is much greater than in those days of Governor Kasich and John Boehner. Many of the people involved in those old battles are now part of the cool kid’s club, and they like it, and they are supporting Lynda for the upcoming election and have been whispering in her ear and thinking that little secret meetings and emails of consensus building might work as it had on them in the past. I heard about some of these attempts while driving by Lakota West on that August election day, and I feel compelled to warn everyone that this is different, and there will be severe brand damage in the aftermath. This is unlike anything yet experienced in politics, which says a lot. And I don’t think many people understand.

There is a really graphic version of this one that will be used later

The advice that I have been giving to people is that this is a throw-away election. If a new school board will not work with a three to two majority to eliminate excessive administrators to save runaway cost losses at the government schools, then what’s the point of any of it? Cutting 20 or 30 equity and inclusion administrative hires could save many millions of dollars, which Lakota needs to do. But there are a lot of soft-shelled tacos out there, some in the GOP who would be running as Democrats if it wasn’t Butler County who want to feel good about themselves by supporting a big government school. The trans issue has been a challenge forcing people’s real politics to emerge along those lines. I would say that because of the way everyone has treated Darbi Boddy as a school board member to let them choke on it. Let the rope go and let Lakota destroy itself; let the liberals have their way. Let them do what Biden has done to the country because then and only then will people wake up. The campaign to fight them will become more apparent when people see what they are about and can’t focus their union efforts of progressivism against someone like Darbi. And for the soft-shelled types who want to support Lakota under Lynda’s leadership, the tax levy they have in mind will change their sentiments quickly. And we’ll be back to fighting tax increases instead of legitimately trying to control the costs.

The people I have been talking to who are thinking of running and don’t think they have much of a chance, I have told them the same thing I’ve said to Lynda in the past. The union threshold is around 7000 voters. That is a baked-in number. If you want to beat them, you must get over 8000 voters, however possible. Lynda hopes to blend that a bit with GOP support, and enough RINO types are willing to cross that line because they don’t want more of a fight than what we have seen so far with Darbi on the board. Yet Lynda’s role against Darbi has woken up something new in the Lakota school district that goes far beyond typical political disagreements. Something that traditional politics has no way of dealing with. This is a battle over ethics and the essence of right and wrong, and the way Lynda handled the superintendent issue and the protection of children at Lakota is a deeply emotional issue that there is no compromise on. This isn’t like the days when the Tea Party wanted John Boehner out, and a more Tea Party type like Warren Davidson was put in, and everyone shook hands and ate a sandwich together. This is more of a civil war, casualties included. Many Lyin’ Lynda types have been waiting for this opportunity, and it’s only fair to warn everyone involved. Because I generally like everyone involved. But right and wrong are not negotiable. That’s certainly always been my position. If people wanted to be friends, okay, I’ve been willing. But I’ve never been willing to compromise right and wrong as determined by conservative, Republican politics. I’ve never been some dope-smoking libertarian. I’ve always been a traditional Republican party supporter. However, some of this new generation are perfectly willing to abandon any pretense of friendship to defend traditional, conservative values. And they are far more interested in doing what is suitable than compromising with what’s wrong to have unity in the community and an intact Republican party. And I provide that warning with sincerity for the good things in the past that have been done and the good memory of them.

These are the kind of teachers Lynda, Julie and Doug want teaching your kids at Lakota. Here is a recently hired teacher at Endeavor Elementary

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business

Share this:

The Greatest Crime in the World: Of course, the Fed knew what they were doing, they just never thought they’d get caught

Here is the biggest crime in the world that nobody is talking about.  I’m not typically an audit the Fed kind of person, but Senator Rand Paul has been, along with his dad.  But unfortunately, he hasn’t been enough, and more senators should have always been heavily involved in this topic, and now we see the real danger in 2023 of bad Federal Reserve policy for several decades, especially since the 2008 economic collapse of the housing market.  Rand Paul is also really the only senator who has been asking the right kind of questions about the other biggest crime of the human race, Dr. Fauci’s role in the Covid lockdowns and subsequent deaths.  If not for Paul’s line of questions, we wouldn’t have what we do know, which is not nearly enough considering the level of the crimes committed against humanity.   Believe it or not, this Fed problem is much worse, and we are no longer talking about just auditing the Fed.  We need to have serious discussions about abolishing it, and coming up with a new fiscal management policy, because this government partnership with private industry, in this case the banking industry, has not worked.  It’s too much power in the hands of people who cannot manage that power, and it has gotten away from them in terribly destructive ways.  As the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, there were many good reasons to be suspicious.  We gave it a chance, and what happened proved those suspicions to be correct, and it’s time to admit that.  No matter what side you are on with politics, everyone should agree on fiscal policy and protecting money’s value as a core competency of American domestic management.  Instead, what we ended up with is much radical leftist activism from Jerome Powell, Janet Yellen, and Ben Bernanke since that 2008 economic crash and a disastrous relationship with Larry Fink from BlackRock that put all the wrong people in charge of our money, and now we have significant problems that a lot more people than Rand Paul need to get their arms around quickly.   

We’re not talking about ancient history here; it was only in 2020 that the Fed worked directly with Wall Street firms to buy bonds to offset the effects of the Covid lockdowns.  That is certainly the case with BlackRock, the largest money manager in the world, and their direct relationship to the Fed that has given them the ability to purchase the majority shareholder position in most of America’s corporations to impose woke standards on them with an artificial value created by the Fed.  Doesn’t anybody remember that old Flintstones episode where Fred was printing counterfeit money so that he could buy his wife something nice?  No, well, maybe everyone should take a minute and go back and watch that episode.  It’s a simple cartoon for kids, and they understood it back then.  That so many supposedly intelligent people didn’t know what the Fed was doing with quantitative easing to support a radical leftist concept of Modern Monetary Theory was wrong to explain clearly where many of these problems started.  That wasn’t the first time BlackRock benefited from that relationship with the Fed.  In 2008, Larry Fink was a nobody, and the government was looking for a sucker like him to funnel money to take the edge off the housing crisis.  BlackRock wasn’t managing trillions of dollars at that time as they do now.  But once the Fed started printing phony money to saturate the market with easy money funneled through Wall Street, BlackRock grew into the top investment firm within a decade.  But the whole house of cards was built off made-up counterfeit money, just like the Flintstones episode where Barny Rubble was printing fake money and was showing it to Fred.  If a private person prints phony money, it’s a crime.  But if the Federal Reserve does it, it’s not?  That’s the problem. 

Because of all the phony Fed money, BlackRock acquired trillions of dollars of investment dollars that they then used to buy up majority shares of stock and gain control of most American companies.  And because of that majority share ownership, they have been able to impose ESG standards straight from the World Economic Forum directly on those companies and their employees and customers.  Without the Fed tampering with the market by injecting fake money, BlackRock would never have gained the power it now has over so many companies.  And politically, none of these people, not the Federal Reserve representatives, and certainly not Larry Fink, are conservatives.  They are all radical leftists who are entirely too supportive of the centralized controls of the World Economic Forum.  BlackRock has taken in most of our money for 401K plans and made us part of this radical leftist activism whether we wanted to or not because they had control of so much money from the Fed to invest.  Without the Fed, BlackRock would have had to save their money like everyone else, and they would have been limited to their fiduciary responsibilities like all other companies used to.  Only now, after the cash injection by the Fed, did BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, Blackstone, and many others gain leverage over the market with trillions of dollars of inflated asset acquisition that has essentially destroyed the market in America and placed control of it into the World Economic Forum and its radical leftist, Marxist policies. 

This is how these radical political activists have gained control over the fossil fuel industry and intend to drive them away from market value as it was traditionally utilized but steered them into political activism.  This is how Disney has been essentially destroyed by BlackRock being one of their majority shareholders.  This is the conversion of shareholder capitalism to “stakeholder” capitalism, as Larry Fink defines it.  The public used to be able to buy stock, and if a company could convince them to invest, they’d have a share and say in how that company was run.  These radical leftists are now calling the shots because the Fed injected so much money that it allowed BlackRock to take that opportunity away from ordinary investors.  Why does anybody think that Bud Light did what they did with the trans movement?  And why do most companies, even Chick-fil-A, find themselves in the same situation, despite what the public thinks about it?  Because all these money management firms were given fake money to invest, and now they are the majority shareholders, made that way by Fed radicalism that was entirely politically motivated to give possession of American industry over to the clutches of Marxism at the World Economic Forum.  When you make yourselves the Lords of Easy Money, many subjects will do whatever you say, and that is the crime that the Fed utilized to gain control over the entire American economy with fake money funneled through firms like BlackRock to perform the greatest robbery in the history of the world, right in front of everyone’s faces.  And it’s not something anybody can turn their backs on.  Now that the Fed has been caught, they are digging in their heels, hoping that a political takeover of the world toward leftist domination will save them from justice.  But that is, of course, up to us now that we know what we do.

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business

The Scam of Cyber Security: What’s the rush for all this technology–who benefits from it–not us

Each week I have a lot of people trying to waste my time regarding cyber security, and I’ll say here what I say to all of them.  I don’t trust computers, I think it’s ridiculous to put so much private information online, and I can live quite well without it.  Cyber security is a scam, like many things from institutions today.  The same people who will likely hack your computer and steal your information are the same people who are telling you that cyber security is the only way you can survive in the future.  This is the case with Microsoft from the 90s.  People realized that Windows-based systems were particularly vulnerable to viruses.  Then, of course, to operate Windows, you would have to subscribe to some anti-virus software to use the dumb program.  It’s still that way primarily, and it all comes down to a scam.  Ironically, this is precisely how Bill Gates has inserted himself into the world as the Health Minister, he helps unleash viruses so that you have to buy the vaccine he is behind to control all of society.  If a company is talking about cyber security, they are telling you that their software isn’t ready for prime time and that the only people who benefit from it are the bad guys in the world.  The most secure thing to do would be not to use their software if they find that they, as a company, can’t provide that level of security for their customers.  My policy is to keep as little online so that some propped-up villain can’t hack it.  If these systems aren’t more secure than they claim, why use them?  The only people benefiting from all these cybersecurity methods are those making the software. 

All the two-way authentication methods need to be faster.  If you have to slow down your life as much as these modern companies suggest, then all the tech gadgets are worthless.  It’s regressing our culture, not making it better.  With all this concern over A.I. hackers and hackers having easy access to our online activity, why are we making ourselves so vulnerable?  The only people benefiting are the one-world government types who want to funnel all information into a centralized source so they can control us.  Technology isn’t helping the rest of us improve our lives.  Increasingly, we are finding that we must wait for technology to catch up.  I hear from many IT departments worldwide who essentially think it is permissible to slow down their companies and their opportunities for production because they believe that cyber security is more of a priority.  I had a case recently where I was working late at night on multiple projects, at around 1 to 2 in the morning, and suddenly my computer went into a mandatory update.  I didn’t tell it to, it assumed that at the late hours, I would be sleeping, so it went into an update mode that took well over 15 minutes.  The computer figured I had all the time in the world to sit around waiting on it to do its stupid thing.  But I didn’t have the time.  I tossed the computer across the room and turned to the old-fashioned way of doing things, with sheets of paper and raw calculations written upon them.  If technology doesn’t speed my life up and make it better, then it’s an enemy.  It’s that simple. 

Technology is not in charge, as much as the World Economic Forum people want us all to believe.  They are the ones who are creating the marketplace for all the identity theft and other fraudulent activity online.  Because they want technology to take over the world essentially, they are pushing it out upon the world too fast because they want it. It certainly isn’t beneficial for us ordinary people.  It helps them get to their cashless society, digital fraud-based currencies, and centralized control of all means of production.  That’s what they are after with their double authentication codes, where every time you are away from your computer for a few minutes, you must sign back in with passwords that constantly change.  And to work your computer, you have to have a phone tracking you all over the place so that some mindless A.I. program can call you to ensure you are using the computer.  Online banking only helps these power-hungry globalists get control of our lives, making us wait on them to get their products to work right.  But if everything is so insecure, then why are we using it in the first place?  What’s the benefit?  Those are the questions we should be asking.  We should not be waiting on technology to “work.”  I would rather deal with a person directly than some computer interface.  Call it old-fashioned, but I don’t want to mess with all that ridiculous security.  It’s not worth it to me to use some computer that is essentially spying on everything I do so that it can go to the NSA to be analyzed by hostile forces in government.  That isn’t my idea of an intelligent approach to the future. 

If these computer interfaces are so insecure, the companies putting them out need to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to improve them before offering them to the marketplace.  There is no rush for most of us.  The push for computers and online transactions to become such a big part of our lives comes from the goals of the United Nations and their masters at the World Economic Forum.  They want us to be inconvenienced with their products to fulfill their dumb 2030 targets for international commerce, which takes power away from countries where they can manage them and puts it all in the hands of mindless European bureaucrats.  They are the ones who want digital currencies that they can manipulate with Modern Monetary Theory and can turn all of society into a cashless society.  So the burden for security falls on them.  Not the rest of us slowed down to a mind-numbing speed because of all their dumb technology and the cyber security needed to make it usable.  Cyber security, as it has always been, is a scam to make technology appear better than it is.  Forcing it into the marketplace has only created a new breed of criminal in the world, the hackers who otherwise would have a more challenging time stealing people’s money.  Technology makes it easier for them to prey on innocent people, which Bill Gates is pleased about.  But for the rest of us, we should be asking why we are rushing to get all this technology into the marketplace only to be restricted by its limits.  All the companies buying into this cyber security scam will find themselves less profitable and greatly limited by the slowness of technology rather than any real benefits.  If something is as insecure as computer technology over the internet, we shouldn’t use it for anything other than information.  But personal banking and business networks should be done the old-fashioned way until technology can get it together as it is now. It’s just a scam that only benefits the bad guys in the world.  And why would we want to do that?

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business

The Market Decides Success, Not Governments: Modern Monetary Theory’s attempt to inject Marxism into the world economy

The good news is that there is an obvious path to victory regarding all the scary intentions of the Deep State and their Administrative State terrorists.  It all comes down to the classic failures of Marxism and the incredible intelligence of capitalism, as expressed by Adam Smith and his fantastic book that every leader of every country should read, The Wealth of Nations.  Hidden behind this current corporate partnership with the government, which has become apparent during Covid, the long-established plans were set bare, and now we know what they were up to and for what reasons.  Governments want to avoid violating countries’ Constitutions by backdooring everything with corporate loopholes.  And those who lobby governments and put money in the pockets of politicians, who secretly want to control the world, use governments’ power to extort corporations into playing along for their own good. The fear of regulations by governments forces corporations to play in partnership with the government to give the government power that the Bill of Rights doesn’t allow.  And once these forces control the finance industry, you see the genuinely frightening tyranny we are presently in.  But, the entire concept, which is wrapped up in failed Marxism from the start, is the very foundation of the whole scheme, and yet the attackers do not understand the trajectory of failure, and that includes people like George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, and his family at Fox News, and all the major studio heads.  The plan was to fake the Marxist takeover of the world’s major corporations with this arraignment using phony made-up money using Modern Monetary Theory to buy off the depleted stock values, tricking CEOs into believing that the next excellent value system would be ESG, which is well underway now.  But in the end, the market is in charge, not the government or corporations, and once the smoke clears, all these characters will learn some hard lessons.  

It was embarrassing to see all the top people in the industry miss the market trends in the latest movies hitting during the summer.  For instance, the box office disappointment of the latest Mission Impossible is a good representation.  The belief was that because Top Gun: Maverick by Tom Cruise made over a billion dollars, his next film would do just as well because it’s another action picture.   When Mission Impossible started off slow, the industry panicked because the assumptions were all wrong.  Mission Impossible is a different kind of film than Top Gun, so the trend was concerning. At the same time, The Sound of Freedom was a surprise smash hit and has been very profitable for Angel Studios.  Now this is where it gets tricky because BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard as money managers are now the top stockholders for all these capitalist endeavors, from movies to fast food restaurants, and they have bought that stock and control with largely phony money, with Larry Fink’s relationship to the fed, Janet Yellen and the gang.  Yes, the same Janet Yellen who loves communists and was seen bowing to the ruler of China, President Xi Jinping.  By printing fake money at the Federal Reserve and dumping it into Wall Street, to Fink and the gang, this partnership has caused even these movie companies to stop making movies for actual stock value, driven by box office results, and instead to appease that new market of partnership with the government because the government can then print unlimited amounts of money.  But people still vote with real value for what they consume in the marketplace.  See where this is headed?

And Rupert Murdoch, in all his foreign arrogance, thought that Fox News had a lot more power than it did.  This is the same kind of stupidity that you will hear at dinner parties among the very wealthy, where they can’t smell their own bad breath, and nobody will tell them so because they like rubbing shoulders with the rich and powerful.  They believe people are too stupid to think for themselves, so they will buy anything corporations put out because that’s what people do.  And I knew many people who believed that Ron DeSantis would be the guy because Fox News picked him to suppress Trump for the next presidential election.  I listened to people try and tell me last year that Trump had no chance because either Fox would sink him or the government would destroy him, so I needed to get over my support of Trump.  It was never going to happen again.  Then I would tell them, “Guys, the government is not in control.  Corporations are not in control.  The marketplace is in charge and will ultimately decide.”  People think Rupert Murdoch must know something special just because he is rich.  Sometimes people get lucky, and many rich people are in that condition.  Or, they are more ruthless than others and don’t have that valve of morality that tells them not to crush everyone around them needlessly.  Whatever it is, they aren’t that smart usually, and they have a false belief generally in the power their money can buy, fake or real.  Ultimately, as Adam Smith figured out in 1776, the invisible hand of markets is driven by desire.  Fulfillment of that desire is profitable.  Controlling that desire with market controls like disguised Marxism through Modern Monetary Theory still leaves people with resentment and anger, which is why things are these days as they are.

The attack of private investors into government, and government into corporations, to bring about economic philosophy that will change the world is just as stupid as the concept that Ron DeSantis would destroy Trump and ultimately put control of the populist movement into their hands.  The Deep State, which controls all these forces through various means, wants to think they can continue to put their people into the American government.  So far, they have been successful because they have stayed in secret. But now that pressure has forced them out in the open, it’s a different story.  They are learning that market value is real, whether it’s movies at the theater or presidential picks for the Executive Branch.  These people were never really in charge.  They only gained a political advantage through deceit.  But once that cover was blown, which it is, all their assumptions about how markets work, and any need, fell apart in front of their faces.  And that’s how all this will end as well.  The control of all the major corporations through stock buys built off Modern Monetary Theory by complete losers like Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, and Jerome Powell was always going to fail because it assumed that value could be controlled by printed money, not market need.  And now that they are all caught, and there are many tens of thousands of perpetrators, they should all be going to jail or punished in as severe a way as possible for messing with the money supply with an attempted Marxist takeover that essentially has wrecked the lives of millions of people.  And they have been caught, just as Rupert Murdoch has been seen, believing they had more power than they did and that people would serve the markets rather than the markets serving the people, as it would always be.

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business

The World Economic Forum Has Declared War on America: Under all rules of engagement, they are guilty

A few years ago, I covered the day I was with my family at the Kings Island Amusement Park, and there was quite a lot of commotion upon learning that they would go completely cashless. Where did that decision come from? Suddenly, there was no other option to use at a popular tourist destination than a credit card. And that credit card company was fully involved in the efforts of globalism as defined by the World Economic Forum, a shady group of anti-American activists hell-bent on global domination through controls of finance and centralized banking. If a country attacked our power grid to raid the lives of Americans in some way, we would openly declare war on the aggressor. The same would happen if China amassed a military force in the Gulf of Mexico intending to invade New Orleans. Maybe they want to take control of the Cajun food market. The declaration of war would be evident and committed. We have gone to war for other reasons, supposedly to protect Iraq from the aggression of Saddam Hussain. We have gone to war in Vietnam to protect that country from the encroachments of communism—the same in Korea.   We went to war in Afghanistan to combat the recruitment and training of terrorists. We went to war in World War II to help our friends deal with a global menace in Europe, primarily because they kept attacking our ships and pushing our buttons to drag us into the war, finally with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. You could go down through history and look at the reasons America has been pushed into war with other countries and see a clear pattern, which all involve threats to our sovereignty which were clear and obvious.

And as ridiculous as it has become, the premise of the whole war in Ukraine is supposed to be over border violations between Russia which used to hold the territory, and Ukraine, which is an obvious United Nations asset strategically implemented to fulfill the goals of a New World Order. Both characters are pretty unsympathetic and up to their own maniacal schemes, yet we are supposed to care one way or the other as Americans about the outcome and to spend countless amounts of money on them in the process of war that has been declared. But when it’s evident that America has been attacked at its financial roots, such as what happened at Kings Island, and most prominent public venues, such as sporting events which suddenly wouldn’t handle cash, we were supposed to be fine with all these centralized bankers suddenly gaining control over our entire economy. A vote by the people of America didn’t decide the push to have a cashless society. It came from a collection of corporations at the World Economic Forum who suddenly revealed that they thought they were in control of the world’s economies and were announcing, without saying the obvious, that they were in control and people would do what they told them to. And a cashless society was their goal, and people would have to deal with it. Our politicians didn’t agree to it. And people certainly didn’t want it. I mentioned it then and predicted it would cause trouble, which it has. But something much more sinister than just inconvenience has emerged. The World Economic Forum has declared war against life in America and is disrespectfully imposing itself on our nation, which has threatened national security. 

Every time we talk about classified documents being a threat to national security, or the military declares something as classified, such as a UFO because it could be a threat to national security, but we watch the World Economic Forum openly plot the end of America right in front of our faces by controlling the American economy, and nobody gets upset about it, the same people who want to go to war with every country which threatens us in some way, then you know something is very wrong. What the World Economic Forum has done to America openly has been to plot war against American sovereignty, and every politician that has helped them do it, and every company who has worked with them for that cause, are guilty of treason and sedition. Under all the classic definitions, any action threatening the health and happiness of the American people would constitute war and the destruction of the threat. And the World Economic Forum has done more than threaten us. They have taken aggressive action to control our way of life by controlling the money we use for economic opportunity. It’s not different than attacking our oil supply, invading some port, sinking a ship in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, or killing American tourists in some faraway land.   Attacking America’s money is an attack on our country and its people. The World Economic Forum has declared war on America, and we have yet to meet the challenge for a number of reasons. One of which is that many of our own people have been seduced by the prospect of easy money from those who control the mechanisms of finance. So we have quite a tangled web of deceit and mayhem here to deal with.

A large part of the problem is who do you declare war against? The World Economic Forum doesn’t really exist anywhere, it’s just a collection of people, just like a country is, but it lacks physical assets to attack. This isn’t a war over bridges, railroads, and highways. But it is over banking, the internet, and how money flows from one place to another. It requires us to redefine where threats come from because the World Economic Forum is currently hiding its aggression by not having a physical country to rally against. The big secret of globalism is that they exist without borders and are openly attacking all concepts of nationalism in an obvious effort to topple them. The most obvious example which affects everyone is the cashless impositions. Most people assume that the decision was made by people smarter than them in the nefarious world of finance, and they don’t care much until they realize that their credit cards can be turned off to control social behavior once most people have been pushed into the system through these aggressive actions. And the World Economic Forum has clearly indicated in public these strategies.

And to make matters worse, as has been extremely obvious with everything associated with their Great Reset, Covid was a military tactic by them that harmed many millions of people and has only been hidden because the aggression came from a corporate collection of hostile agents using our governments as their agents of destruction. We’ve never dealt with this type of menace in human history, so the lack of definitions clearly creates chaos and confusion among the voting population. Nobody is voting for these things, yet they are happening against our consent. And nobody is stopping any of it from happening, even though under all definitions of aggression, America should have gone to war with the World Economic Forum a long time ago. They are hostile to American interests and think they are protected from retaliation because they lack a country to call their own, and countries can only declare war against other countries. I’d say no. War can be declared against hostile individuals too. And when it comes to the World Economic Forum, there are a lot of hostile individuals working against the American way of life, which calls to order retaliation over severe examples of duplicity and terror that have been quite purposeful.

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business

Vote Yes for Issue 1 in Ohio: Something that has finally brought people together in politics

If you are not a dope-smoking, baby-killing, overly sexed loser Democrat, you need to go out on August 8th and vote in Ohio in favor of Issue 1. Say yes to making it more difficult to amend the very great Ohio Constitution. Currently, it only takes a 50% vote from the legislature to amend the Constitution, and radical Democrats are targeting that threshold to impose many liberal amendments to erode away the value of our state in the years to come. Issue 1 makes it harder to amend the Constitution; it will take that threshold from 50% as it is now to 60%, which would quell tempers and prevent radicalism by essentially forcing a supermajority to change anything, which would then be much more reflective of the state, politically. So why now? Why August? Well, it’s been revealed that radical progressives, especially the Soros types of money activism, are headed for Ohio for the November election, and they are looking for some easy victories because Ohio has such a low threshold and that it’s a hard red state now entirely in Trump’s corner, and they want to chip away at that. Ohio is a very conservative state; the radical left needs headlines and is coming for upcoming elections. So that made Issue 1 much more of a priority than it might have been in other years. And it is undoubtedly needed going forward. Some hard years are coming, and the Ohio Constitution needs protecting. There have been amendments in past years, but they flew under the radar because Democrats weren’t thinking too much about that kind of activism, so until recently, there wasn’t as much of a concern. But the buzz is out, and radical progressive Democrats are frustrated and turning their attention to Ohio. And they must be stopped.

But why now, you might ask. Since the Trump time in the White House and the strengthening of the Supreme Court, the radical left has seen a number of reversals at the high court that they assumed would be off limits forever, such as Roe v. Wade. And most of the cases, not just the abortion cases, but marijuana laws and other progressive intrusions meant to either kill members of society or destroy their minds so they’ll be dumb enough to vote for Democrats, have been sent back to the states from the federal courts, the way they always should have been. That is, after all, what the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights asserts. Democrats, for most of their existence, have assumed that federal powers were ultimate powers, and if they could erode away the Federal Constitution with judicial activism, then they wouldn’t have to worry about state’s rights because federalism would overrule the states. As if the Executive Branch was a king who could rule by mandate. I don’t know that they didn’t understand the way the rules are in America, but it’s obvious they thought they could change them by threatening to kill or harm Supreme Court members in their homes so that they’d rule in their favor and create case law that would give the federal government more power than it really had. But years of this activism have stacked up, and now we have a Supreme Court, because of Trump, that is willing to give that power back to the states where it always belonged. That’s how we have found ourselves in this present situation in Ohio and why Issue 1 is suddenly needed. This level of judicial activism was always in the background, but nobody really wanted to admit to it, and Democrats wanted to focus their efforts on one state instead of attacking 50 states to create progressive policy. 

Now that the Supreme Court has established a clear precedent toward state’s rights, there is no turning back. And the Biden White House has overplayed its hand several times with Executive Orders trying to bypass the legislature only to be overturned in the courts, the desperation of progressives everywhere, and their money men are attacking states, and Ohio is a big target. If they could strike in Ohio, they could hurt the GOP on a national level, so suddenly, we are getting a lot of attention on the progressive battle map. They certainly want to put abortion in the Ohio Constitution, and they have legislation ready to go on legalizing marijuana. But it only gets worse from there, and if they can desecrate Ohio, a clear Trump state before he gets back in office, they will have achieved a victory that they haven’t been able to get at the federal level, and they are hoping that they’ll catch everyone asleep to pull it off. The best measure to protect ourselves from this kind of activism is to increase the minimum threshold for amendment changes to 60%. Democrats might get their numbers in surge elections, but maintaining that over 50% will be very hard, especially in Ohio. What Issue 1 will do will protect Ohio from short-term activism and protect the long-term interests of true voter representation.

I was proud to learn that many Republicans from my area of Butler County have shown support for Issue 1, and they gathered at the Butler County Board of Elections to make their opinions known. It takes guts for Don Dixon, TC Rogers, Nancy Nix, Mike McNamara, Dan Crank, Mary Swain, Rodney Creech, Sara Carruthers, Thomas Hall, Jennifer Gross, George Lang, Gary Cates, Debbie Lang, Mark Welch, Steve Schramm, Todd Minniear, Tom Farrell, Lisa Mannix, and Greg Wilkins to get behind Issue 1. Even Sheriff Jones and Bruce Jones showed up, which is pretty amazing. It’s hard to get that many people to agree on anything, so for them to put their names next to this issue says a lot about its importance. If you don’t protect the Constitution, then you don’t have any way to protect the values of society, and those are certainly under attack by the radical left. So, it shouldn’t be a hard decision. But that’s how important this topic is. August elections are low voter turnout results every time they are done. So, if you want to protect Ohio from George Soros money, make sure not to stay home that night, August 8th. I might say we should do as Democrats do: vote early and vote often, but Republicans tend to play fair. So that is always a disadvantage. That means every vote will matter, and there isn’t room to sit this one out. Take a friend, vote YES on Issue 1, and raise that threshold for amendment changes to Ohio’s Constitution. Because if there isn’t an increase in the threshold, then every progressive group in the world is going to target Ohio for progressive legislation that people won’t like. And the time to stop it would have long passed. But we aren’t there yet; a simple election can stop their plans. However, it will require people to go vote when there are lots of other “summer things” to do. But if you are a progressive diabolical menace to society who wants to kill babies, smoke pot all day, and live off the government like some pathetic leech, stay home on August 8th and watch something dumb on Netflix. The world will be a lot better off without you.

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business