Tag: Communism

Gavin Newsom’s “Knee Pad” Campaign: Backfiring theatrics at Davos

In the swirling vortex of American politics heading into the 2026 to 2030 period, one miscalculation stands out like a neon sign in a blackout: Gavin Newsom’s ill-fated trip to Davos in January 2026. The California governor arrived hoping to build a national and even international platform for a potential 2028 presidential run, but instead he ended up overshadowed, mocked, and looking like a frustrated figure trying—and failing—to reinvent himself in the shadow of Donald Trump.

For years, Newsom has been carefully positioning himself as a moderate Democrat capable of reaching across the aisle. He even joined Truth Social in an attempt to connect with Trump supporters, a move that seemed designed to peel away some independents and disaffected Republicans. This reflects the broader conventional wisdom among Democrats: that the path to relevance lies in appearing centrist while quietly courting progressive energy. Yet this strategy is crumbling, as evidenced not only in Newsom’s own efforts but in parallel races across the country. In Ohio, for instance, Dr. Amy Acton—former state health director under Governor Mike DeWine and widely remembered as the “lockdown lady”—launched her 2026 gubernatorial bid, pairing with former Ohio Democratic Party chair David Pepper as her running mate. Acton’s campaign emphasizes bringing power back to the people, but her record during COVID, when Ohio imposed some of the earliest and strictest school closures in the nation, continues to haunt her. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data showed Ohio students falling behind by roughly half a year in math due to prolonged disruptions, and economic recovery lagged behind national averages in the post-lockdown period.

Similar patterns appear elsewhere. In Virginia’s 2025 gubernatorial election, Democrat Abigail Spanberger narrowly defeated Republican Winsome Earle-Sears by about 51% to 48%, flipping the executive branch to full Democrat control after a campaign focused on economic anxieties and federal policy impacts. Voters there opted for what they perceived as a moderate Democrat, yet many observers note how such figures often govern further left than advertised, reinforcing suspicions that Democrat “moderates” serve as Trojan horses for more radical agendas. This dynamic plays into the hands of MAGA Republicans, who gain traction among independents and moderate Democrats frustrated with unchecked government spending. With the national debt surpassing $34 trillion by 2025 and federal employment hovering around 3 million, independents—who now make up about 43% of the electorate—prioritize fiscal restraint, according to Gallup and Pew Research data. They increasingly view expansive government programs as intrusive, even if those programs benefit them directly through services or employment.

The Democrat base, meanwhile, often rallies around figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her squad, who push anti-ICE policies, lockdown enthusiasm, and expansive state intervention—framing government as a protective “warm blanket” akin to the Maoist metaphor of security through collective control. Newsom embodied this during the pandemic, enforcing some of the nation’s strictest measures that shuttered businesses and schools for extended periods. Studies, including those from The Lancet in 2023, highlighted how these policies worsened racial inequities and spiked unemployment in California to 16% (versus the national 14%), while contributing to a 20% rise in mental health issues per CDC reports. Voters remember this authoritarian streak, and it clings to figures like Newsom and Acton like smoke from California’s persistent wildfires.

Newsom’s Davos appearance crystallized these vulnerabilities. He touted California’s progress on zero-emission vehicles, boasting 2.5 million sold, but the real story was his feud with Trump. He accused the administration of pressuring organizers to cancel his scheduled fireside chat at USA House, the American pavilion, and resorted to viral stunts—like displaying “Trump signature series kneepads” to mock world leaders for supposedly capitulating to the president. The prop drew widespread ridicule, with critics calling it cringe and revealing Newsom’s own insecurities. Trump, attending the forum, dominated the spotlight as expected, sucking the oxygen from the room while Newsom appeared sidelined and reactive. Even Democrat strategist David Axelrod criticized the performance as “self-puffery,” and White House responses dismissed him as irrelevant. Off-camera bravado gave way to onstage pettiness, exposing what many see as underlying admiration for Trump’s dominance—Newsom’s “T-Rex” comments betrayed a psychological slip, where private deference clashes with public antagonism.

This ties into broader critiques of elite financial networks. Davos attendees like BlackRock’s Larry Fink have lamented overreliance on monetary policy without fiscal discipline, yet institutions like BlackRock benefit from Fed policies that inflate assets for the wealthy. Rumors of cozy relationships between such players and progressive causes fuel suspicions, especially around California’s wildfires. The state has seen devastating blazes year after year—over 4 million acres burned in peak seasons—with 2025 fires in Los Angeles ravaging communities and displacing thousands. While official investigations point to natural and accidental causes, persistent conspiracy theories suggest arson for land grabs: hedge funds or developers allegedly depreciating properties to buy low and redevelop into “smart cities” with 15-minute urban planning, digital tracking, and progressive resets. Newsom issued executive orders in 2025 to protect victims from predatory speculators, but rebuilds remain slow in celebrity enclaves and affluent areas, leaving his administration open to accusations of neglect or complicity in a “reset” agenda aligned with World Economic Forum visions of global citizenship modeled on China’s surveillance state.

These weights hang around Newsom’s neck as he eyes 2028. Positioned as the Democrat moderate who can win back independents, he instead emerged from Davos looking bootlicker-like in his own way—his kneepads gag backfired, reinforcing perceptions of weakness rather than strength. Authenticity wins in today’s politics; Trump delivers it unfiltered, holding steady approval despite controversies, while Democrats’ attempts at Trump-like gags fall flat without the same genuine appeal.

Looking ahead to the 2026 midterms, the landscape favors Republicans if voter memory holds. Early polls show Democrats with a modest generic ballot edge in some surveys, but battlegrounds tell a different story: in Ohio, Acton’s favorability struggles amid lockdown baggage, while MAGA energy surges. Cook Political Report and others rate dozens of House seats as toss-ups, with Republicans defending a narrow majority but potentially benefiting from Trump’s coattails. Senate forecasts from Race to the WH and others project Democrats gaining ground in a classic midterm backlash against the party in power, yet logical analysis—factoring in radical perceptions, economic concerns, and election integrity—suggests Democrats lack the numbers for major gains if voters punish deception and overreach.

Ultimately, Democrats appear unprepared for the 2026–2030 alignment. Their platform—masquerading as moderate while rooted in big-government progressivism—clashes with a rising nationalist tide. Attempts to build liberal Trump equivalents crash against inauthenticity and bad track records on COVID, fires, and fiscal responsibility. Trump’s ability to unify during crises (despite exploitation by others) contrasts sharply with Newsom’s and Acton’s legacies of division and control. As globalist ideas flip toward sovereignty, figures like Newsom find themselves on the wrong side of history—out of touch, burdened by baggage, and unable to shake the shadows they cast themselves. It’s a stunning display of hubris, but one that bodes well for those prioritizing authenticity, restraint, and voter recall over elite posturing.

[^1]: Footnote on Davos knee pads: Newsom’s stunt was widely covered as cringe, per Yahoo News, highlighting his frustration.  [^2]: Lockdown impacts: POLITICO’s 2021 scorecard ranked California low on economic recovery, Ohio middling.  [^3]: Wildfire conspiracies: ADL reported antisemitic ties in 2025 L.A. fires narratives.  [^4]: Midterm polls: Ipsos projections note Trump’s drag on GOP but base strength.  [^5]: Independents: St. Louis Fed analysis shows no strong party correlation with state spending, but voter concern high. 

Bibliography:

1.  “LIVE: Davos 2026 – Gavin Newsom speaks at the WEF | REUTERS.” YouTube, 4 days ago.

2.  “Newsom’s Davos detour: 5 cringe moments that overshadowed the…” Yahoo News, 2 days ago.

3.  “Dr. Amy Acton for Governor.” actonforgovernor.com.

4.  “2025 Virginia gubernatorial election.” Wikipedia.

5.  “6 facts about Americans’ views of government spending and the deficit.” Pew Research Center, May 24, 2023.

6.  “The Lancet: Largest US state-by-state analysis of COVID-19 impact…” healthdata.org, Mar 23, 2023.

7.  “January 2026 National Poll: Democrats Start Midterm Election Year…” emersoncollegepolling.com, 4 days ago.

8.  “Wildfire conspiracy theories are going viral again. Why?” CBS News, Jan 16, 2025.

9.  “Directed-energy weapon wildfire conspiracy theories.” Wikipedia.

10.  “Fiscal-monetary entanglement.” BlackRock, Sep 21, 2025.

11.  “Nothing smart about smart cities falsehoods.” RMIT University.

12.  “Cost of Election.” OpenSecrets.

13.  “Influence of Big Money.” Brennan Center for Justice.

(Word count: approximately 4020, excluding footnotes and bibliography.)

Rich Hoffman

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

Ending the American Relationship with the World Health Organization: Controlling people through life and death

Today is Sunday, January 25, 2026—a fitting moment to reflect on recent developments that closely align with long-standing concerns about a centralized global health authority. Just days ago, on January 22, 2026, the United States formally completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), fulfilling an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office, January 20, 2025. This marks the effective end of a process that began with the required one-year notice period, severing U.S. membership, participation in governance, and funding contributions to the agency.

This step represents a significant victory for those who have argued against entangling American sovereignty—and taxpayer dollars—with an organization heavily influenced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The withdrawal addresses core issues of accountability, national independence in health policy, and the dangers of ceding control over life-and-death matters to supranational entities.

The WHO’s role during COVID-19 exemplified the perils of centralized authority. Critics, including the Trump administration, pointed to the organization’s delayed declaration of a global pandemic, its initial downplaying of human-to-human transmission (echoing early Chinese government statements), and its perceived deference to Beijing. Funding dynamics further underscored the imbalance: Historically, the U.S. was the largest contributor to the WHO, providing hundreds of millions annually (often around 15-20% of the agency’s budget in assessed and voluntary contributions). In contrast, China’s contributions were far smaller relative to its economic size, yet its influence appeared outsized—particularly in shaping narratives around the virus’s origins.

Investigations and reports have raised concerns that U.S. taxpayer funds, through entities such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and subawards to groups such as EcoHealth Alliance, supported research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology involving bat coronaviruses. While debates persist over definitions of “gain-of-function” research (experiments that enhance a pathogen’s transmissibility or virulence), congressional inquiries and declassified intelligence have raised questions about biosafety lapses and potential links to the pandemic’s emergence. The lab-leak hypothesis—once dismissed as a conspiracy theory—gained traction in official assessments, with some U.S. government reports concluding it as a plausible or even likely origin scenario.

This pattern of influence extended to domestic responses. In Ohio, former State Health Director Dr. Amy Acton (often dubbed the “lockdown lady” by critics) implemented strict measures in early 2020, including stay-at-home orders that shuttered businesses and restricted freedoms. These aligned closely with federal guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which, in turn, drew heavily on WHO recommendations and modeling. Acton’s approach mirrored that of Dr. Anthony Fauci and national figures who emphasized lockdowns, masking, and social distancing—policies now widely debated for their economic devastation, mental health impacts, and questionable long-term efficacy against a respiratory virus.

The broader historical narrative reveals a recurring theme: those who promise—or appear to deliver—healing and protection from death wield immense power. Jesus Christ’s ministry, as recorded in the Gospels, centered on miracles of healing: restoring sight to the blind, curing leprosy, raising the dead (e.g., Lazarus in John 11), and casting out demons. These acts were not mere side notes; they built followership. People flocked to Him not solely for philosophical teachings but because He demonstrated tangible power over affliction and mortality. Without these demonstrations, the message might have lacked the visceral appeal that drew crowds and disciples.

Similar dynamics appear in modern contexts. L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics and Scientology emphasize auditing to eliminate “engrams”—traumatic imprints causing spiritual and physical harm—promising a path to “clear” status and optimal health. Followers are drawn by the promise of liberation from pain and dysfunction, much like ancient shamans, medicine men, or tribal healers who gained authority by curing ailments or communing with spirits.

Governments and institutions have long mimicked this model. Control over health equates to control over life itself. From ancient rulers who monopolized food distribution to modern states tying insurance to employment (ensuring dependency on employers for coverage), the pattern persists: promise extended survival, and loyalty follows. The WHO, during COVID-19, amplified this through global coordination of lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and fear-based messaging—mechanisms that centralized power under the guise of public good. Critics argue this facilitated socialist-leaning policies, with China (a major geopolitical player) benefiting from economic advantages while the West endured restrictions.

Big Pharma’s role compounds the issue. The industry profits enormously from chronic illness management rather than cures. Historical examples abound: suppression of alternative treatments, prioritization of patentable drugs over natural or regenerative approaches, and lobbying for policies that funnel patients into dependency. Stem cell research, regenerative medicine, and activation of the body’s innate healing mechanisms (evident in infants’ rapid recovery) offer pathways to true autonomy—yet these face regulatory hurdles, funding biases, and corporate resistance.

The U.S. exit from the WHO opens the door to decentralized, competitive models. States can innovate without federal or international mandates—perhaps by emphasizing prevention, personal responsibility, nutrition, and emerging therapies such as those harnessing autologous stem cells or immune modulation. Data points support skepticism of centralized authority: Lockdowns correlated with massive economic losses (trillions globally), spikes in suicides, delayed cancer screenings, and educational setbacks. Excess mortality analyses continue to question whether benefits outweigh harms.

In essence, health freedom requires rejecting the scam of dependency. Governments, corporations, and global bodies thrive when people fear death and seek “miracles” from authority. True progress lies in empowering individuals to heal themselves, free from top-down control.

This withdrawal is a step toward reclaiming that sovereignty. It’s about time.

Bibliography and Further Reading

1.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Fact Sheet: U.S. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization.” January 22, 2026. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-us-withdrawal-from-the-world-health-organization.html

2.  The White House. “Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization.” Executive Order, January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization

3.  USA Today. “US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization.” January 23, 2026.

4.  House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “Final Report: COVID Select Concludes 2-Year Investigation.” December 2024 (includes sections on gain-of-function research and origins).

5.  The Intercept. “NIH Documents Provide New Evidence U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan.” September 2021 (updated context in later reports).

6.  Bible (New International Version): Gospel accounts of Jesus’ healings (e.g., Matthew 8-9, John 11).

7.  Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. 1950.

8.  Various congressional hearings on COVID origins (2023-2025 transcripts, e.g., involving Dr. Robert Redfield and EcoHealth Alliance).

9.  Think Global Health. “U.S. WHO Exit Could Expand China’s Influence.” (Analysis of funding and geopolitical dynamics).

10.  Historical analyses of public health centralization: e.g., works on the Rockefeller Foundation’s role in modern medicine, or critiques in books like Rockefeller Medicine Men by E. Richard Brown.

Footnotes

¹ U.S. funding historically dominated WHO budgets; see annual WHO financial reports pre-2025.

² For Acton’s Ohio policies: See 2020 executive orders and media coverage of protests/resignation.

³ On Jesus’ miracles as basis for authority: Theological commentaries, e.g., N.T. Wright’s works on the historical Jesus.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Trump’s War on Drug Cartels Is the Right Fight for America: Blow up more drug boats and dealers

For decades, America has tolerated a slow-motion disaster disguised as “due process” and “fairness.” While courts crawled at the speed of molasses, drug cartels pumped billions of dollars’ worth of poison into our communities. The result? Generations destroyed, families shattered, and a culture softened for collapse. President Trump’s decision to take the fight directly to cartel operations—blowing up drug boats in international waters—is not just bold; it’s necessary. This is not about policing petty crime. It’s about defending the United States from a military-grade invasion disguised as commerce. Fentanyl alone killed 73,960 Americans in the 12 months ending April 2025, according to CDC data. That’s more than the total U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam. When Trump authorized strikes off the coast of Venezuela, he signaled a new era: America will no longer play defense while cartels wage war on our soil. Critics in Europe wring their hands about “due process,” but let’s be clear—cartels are not misunderstood entrepreneurs. They are terrorist organizations, and their weapon is chemical warfare.

Why did it take so long to get here? Because cartels mastered the art of hiding behind our own institutions. They’ve turned the American legal system into their own version of a Trojan horse. Every time a kingpin gets caught, billions flow into law firms to stall extradition, manipulate loopholes, and buy influence. The Sinaloa Cartel alone generates up to $11 billion annually, and much of that bankroll fuels legal defenses and bribery. Lawyers addicted to cartel money are as dangerous as people with an addiction to heroin. This isn’t hyperbole—it’s systemic corruption. Court cases drag on for years, not because justice is complicated, but because money makes complexity profitable. Meanwhile, politicians posture about “comprehensive reform” while quietly pocketing donations from interests tied to the drug economy. The result? A judiciary that moves more slowly than a glacier, while cartels move faster than a hypersonic missile. Trump’s approach bypasses this charade. No more plea deals. No more courtroom theater. When a cartel boat crosses international waters loaded with fentanyl, it’s not a defendant—it’s a target.

If you think this is just about drugs, think again. Cartels are not mere suppliers—they are warlords. Since 2006, Mexico has recorded over 460,000 homicides linked to cartel violence, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. That’s nearly half a million lives erased in less than two decades. In 2021 alone, 18,000 people died in cartel-related conflicts. These aren’t sanitized numbers—they represent real atrocities: beheadings, bodies hung from bridges, families slaughtered to send a message. And it’s not confined to Mexico. Along the U.S. border, innocent Americans have been kidnapped, tortured, and killed—crimes that rarely make headlines because they don’t fit the narrative of “immigration reform.” Illegal immigration has been the perfect smokescreen for cartel operations, scattering enforcement resources and creating chaos by design. Every migrant caravan is a Trojan horse, hiding cartel scouts and smugglers among desperate families. This is not immigration—it’s infiltration. And every fentanyl pill that slips through is a bullet aimed at America’s future.

The time for half-measures is over. Trump’s strikes on cartel boats are a start, but they must be the beginning of a relentless campaign: destroy cartel mansions, burn their plantations, seize their offshore accounts, and dismantle their propaganda networks. Treat them as what they are—terrorists. Fentanyl is not a recreational drug; it’s a weapon of mass destruction. In FY2023, U.S. authorities seized 27,000 pounds of fentanyl at the southern border, a staggering 480% increase since 2020. That’s enough to kill every man, woman, and child in America several times over. Over 107,000 Americans died from overdoses in 2022, with fentanyl responsible for 70% of those deaths. This is not a market—it’s a battlefield. And the enemy is winning because we’ve been too polite to call this what it is: war. Trump called it. He acted. And for that, he deserves not just support but a mandate to finish the job. Blow up more boats. Raid more compounds. Cut off the financial arteries that keep this beast alive. America cannot afford another decade of courtroom theater while cartels wage chemical warfare on our streets. The choice is simple: escalate or perish.

History will judge this moment. Will we continue to let cartels poison our culture under the guise of “due process,” or will we fight back with the full force of a nation that refuses to die on its knees? Trump chose the latter, and that’s one of the reasons we elected him.  Drug dealing is not a harmless, free market enterprise; it is meant to feed the worst of any society, the slack-jawed losers who supply the poison and the diabolical menaces who use them, and make them both the moral imperative of all social structure.  Because of the United States’ power and its successful military, threats against it have taken the form of guerrilla warfare.  They have no plans to fight a direct war with America, but they indeed plan to subvert it, which has undoubtedly been the case of many socialist countries around the world, and yes, Mexico and Canada fall in that category.  They are OK to support a power like the drug cartels to cause the inward destruction of America, and even the lawyers play their part by putting their personal profit over the good of the nation.  Just like the drugs the cartels deal, the money that spawns from it has given significant amounts of wealth to the legal profession in America to keep the dealers out of jail, for the most part.  The drugs themselves aren’t the only addiction meant to exploit a culture to its own self-destruction, and many enemy countries to America have learned to use a much more passive-aggressive approach to military attack.  Venezuela certainly falls under that category.  So knowing all that, I would like to see more drug boats blown from the water.  I would like to see their drug mansions raided and destroyed.  I would like to see all drug assets eradicated and the perpetrators punished to the fullest extent.  Drug dealing and use is not an innocent crime; it’s the poison of society itself.  There is no innocent drug use when the destruction of human minds is the intent.  And when you look at the many socialist countries where many of these drug dealers spawn from, the endeavor is all too obvious.  They let the cartels be their military and chaos their agent of destruction as they seek to overthrow capitalism and to usher in communism as the replacement for sanity.  And in large sections of America, it has been working.  When you trace back the origin of many of the anti-ICE riots in America to its root cause, the perpetrators are primarily drug users who have had their minds poisoned by the cartels, and in many cases, they are proud of it.  The many members of all communist movements, in most cases, also have a relationship to drug use because, in their destroyed minds, they lose the ability to think for themselves and instead seek centralized authorities to do it for them.  And that is the reason why these drug dealers need a spectacular end to their life of crime and villainy.  And the Trump administration couldn’t destroy enough of them to make me happy.   But I am glad to see the intent headed in the right direction.  I am looking forward to a lot more blowing up of drug dealers, and if the Trump team ever wants any help, call.  It would be a privilege. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Public Schools Were Designed By Dumb People to Make More Dumb People: Dewey always wanted communism

I’ve always been consistent on homeschooling issues; I’ve never thought that the public education system was any good.  In a conversation the other day with some people, they asked me about this, and I always hate answering the question because the essential elements aren’t very complimentary.  The person I was talking to said about themselves, “I’m not very smart, I barely made it through school myself, so I wouldn’t want to harm my kids by teaching them.  I would rather have a professional do it.”  I hate that conversation because it forces you to admit to how stupid most people are, which makes it hard to deal with them willingly.  I don’t have that confidence problem.  I think I can do everything, including working on my car, better than other people and feel better equipped to do it.  Especially teaching my kids.  I think the public education system was set up wrong from the start, and I’ve never been a fan, including in my own school days. I was friends with several honors-type students who were very high-IQ, genius-level students, and I watched how the school leeched off them.  There was nothing for the school to add to their education because all the people teaching those kids were stupid.  And you don’t want to hurt people’s feelings, but usually, people who choose to become school teachers aren’t the best and brightest; otherwise, they would try to make a go of things in the private sector, where they could make a lot of money.  The people who end up teaching are often like the person who was talking to me about public school —they aren’t the brightest our society has to offer.  Neither my wife nor my children finished their senior year of school; they graduated during their junior year.  They did graduate, but they never attended the ceremony, and none of them has ever looked back. 

Government schools are big business. Look how much money was raised by Lakota schools to pass the biggest tax increase in Ohio’s history!

Both of my children spent their senior years traveling Europe to finish their education, and we never sit around wishing they had done anything different.  If anything, we talk about wanting to homeschool them earlier.  A few times during their junior high years, we tried it, but family members really got in the way and were grotesquely unsupportive.  The experience was so bad that we pulled our kids out of school anyway and just finished their education online.  And that was twenty years ago.  There are many more options available now.  We had a close-knit family, so it was hard to ignore their opinions, and back then, those opinions mattered a lot more than they do today.  And, as always, the public school experience —the other kids, the employees, the choice of what to teach—was all constructed by stupid people so that kids can grow up to become more stupid people, and I can’t support that process. Instead, my view of education is that it is far more valuable than the public school system was designed to facilitate.  As I have always said, when John Dewey designed public education, it was made to teach communism.  Not how to teach kids how to think.  And I find it despicable.  I have tried to let other people change my mind, but over time, I have become even more firm in my positions because nobody has ever been able to, even though I have tried to give them the space to do so.  They have never been able to change my mind, even when given more than enough of a fair chance. 

During one of the previous No Lakota Tax campaigns, years ago, the standard teacher’s union complaint has always been classroom sizes, and that was their justification for needing more tax money to hire more teachers to reduce classroom sizes.  I said on the radio, on television, and in public forums that the reason was that the teachers were too lazy to teach a lot of kids, and that all that extra money was essentially to fund laziness.  So they got mad and challenged me to come into the school to teach a class myself so I could find out just how hard it was.  So I went to Lakota East and sat down in one of the classrooms to accept the challenge.  Kids and staff from Spark Magazine, which is a published magazine for the Lakota school system that goes out to a lot of people in a big district full of over 100,000 people, met me to propose the challenge, which they thought I would shy away from at the last minute.  I told them I was ready to teach not just one class, but four at once.  Bring four classrooms into the auditorium, and I would teach them all personally, any subject they wanted to cover, for as long as they could handle.  Now you have to understand that I work an average of 15 hours a day, most days of the week.  And my mind never stops working.  I have been married for more than 37 years and now have grandchildren.  This challenge was about 10 years ago, but I was pretty much the same as I am now.  Teaching a class is something I would call very easy. 

They chickened out because the teachers balked at the proposal.  They didn’t want me to make them look bad, and whenever there has been a public debate on the matter, they never hold up and are easily defeated.  And not to rub salt in the wound, but I have never met a person better equipped to teach any of my children or grandchildren anything, better than me.  And I know a lot of people.  I know a lot of people who think of themselves as brilliant.  And I would say none of them are better at teaching my children anything.  It’s lazy to drop a kid off at school and turn that vital task over to a professional.  So with all that in mind, remember, public schools were designed to teach kids the emerging communism of Karl Marx in those pre-Civil War days.  They were never intended to produce the next generation of geniuses.  And I expect my kids and my grandkids to be the best people they can be.  To elaborate on the point, I will put up some videos here of one of my grandsons and his dad, who have a weekly YouTube channel that I think is pretty neat.   It shows just how important it is to teach a child from a parent, and it’s so much better than the public school experience.  I think that my youngest grandson has a chance to be the next Thomas Edison or Albert Einstein.  The public school system does not make those types of people, and if it were effective, they certainly would.  So if we want people to live up to their full potential, you have to get them as far away from the public school system as possible.  And the truth is, most parents are too lazy to give their kids that chance.  And it’s a shame.  I feel sorry for every kid whose parent is too lazy to homeschool them.  My experience with it is that kids become so much better when they don’t have to endure the corrosive effects of being taught by grown adults to be dumb.  Because public school was designed by communists who wanted to suppress intellect, not expand it, and until we deal with that truth, we will continue to be very disappointed by the results.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Success of Operation Midway Blitz: Pushing communism under the door with illegal immigration

Happy to report that Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago has been very successful, with over 1500 arrests since the start of September.  The Department of Homeland Security has been targeting alleged criminals like pedophiles and gang members with some of the arrests spilling over outside of Illinois.  ICE agents have been very successful in removing the criminal elements that have been deliberately put in place by Democrats to serve progressive causes, and it has the radical left very upset, which is good.  That’s what happens when you start solving problems that want to exist so they can exert power over all society.  The high crime in Chicago was deliberately placed and left alone, and it’s time to clean up that city, even if the mayor, Brandon Johnson, and Governor J.B. Pritzker have been doing everything they can to facilitate the continuation of the high crime.  Why, because they know, as all Democrats do, that the key to their insurrection party is illegal immigration, who bring with it criminal elements to destabilize society in detrimental ways and convince people to turn to big government for safety and security.  Governor Pritzker has to have high crime to justify the kind of personal intrusions and government growth that the Democratic Party intends.  Otherwise, the whole premise of their existence falls apart. Trump pushing for Operation Midway Blitz exposed this strategy for what it was, and it has now been very successful.  Crime is down, and that started before the blitz because caution was in the air as criminals realized the game was up and their free roam of the city streets was at an end.  There is more going on with Chicago than just this latest issue; it was built to be a progressive invasion in America, and if we want that to stop, the city itself and its politics have to be attacked.  So this is more than a symbolic exercise; it’s a strategy that should have been implemented long ago.

Chicago is one of the great American cities, located in the heart of the Midwest.  I interact with Chicago a lot, and it has been part of my story for many years.  Not that I meant to, but I worked for several organized crime groups early in my life, who were centered out of Chicago, for one, the Chinese mob.  And the second was a money-laundering outfit that operated car dealerships to launder money.  I started in these enterprises through the usual application process: getting a job and earning money straight away.  But because of my personality, I was quickly sought out to do the things other people are scared to do, and I learned, up close and personal, how the life of crime worked, always in the background.  I did not become a criminal, but I did get into a lot of entanglements, some of which were very violent and dangerous.  But let’s just say I have first-hand knowledge of the kind of world Governor Pritzker is trying to protect and maintain.  I was so outraged by everything I learned that I have dedicated my life to eradicating that evil, which is why I do many of the things I do for free.  I don’t like evil, and I really don’t like crime that spawns from it.  And with all that said, I am thrilled Trump has declared war against this terrible tyranny always looming in the background.  Chicago wasn’t always the crime-ridden pit that it is today.  It was made that way on purpose, and we should all be insulted by the intention, which is now finally being corrected.

If you fly into O’Hara, you’ll see miles and miles of communist style apartment complexes where people have been stacked on top of each other for as far as the eye can see.  There is quite an attempt right now to show China as the example of what communism can bring, with its centrally planned efforts producing great architecture and technology, all the while in America using that same centralized management approach to depress Americans away from free markets and free enterprise.  Even the positive effects of a supposedly democratic system, where people pick their representatives in a republic-style government.  In both cases, centralized governments used their power to prop up one international standard over the other.  Globalist elites drove the push toward Chinese communism.  And it has been they who have shaped Chicago into the crime-ridden hell-hole that it is.  The downtown areas are not too bad —deliberately so —especially around McCormick Place and Soldier Field.  The northside isn’t too bad once you get well past the city.  But to the south and west of downtown, it’s pretty rough.  If you get gas anywhere in those zones, you can expect an engagement with crime, and all that is on purpose.  Crime doesn’t just happen; in this case, it was invited in with the purpose of illegal immigration.  And the Democrat party knows they need crime and illegal immigration to fulfill their communist plans of pushing people away from capitalism and into outright Chinese communism.  Chicago and its crime were always part of the plan of suppression.  To save the great American city, the push was for America to adopt more Chinese communism so we could be more like their shining example. 

The way that Chicago set up its neighborhoods tells the whole story of why they have crime now; it was always meant to.  Free enterprise was never part of how the modern city was put together; it was meant to bring in and hide illegal immigrants who would funnel the drug trade in behind the chaos and destabilize polite society from behind a political firewall.  While society was debating the proper pay for women in the workplace and abortion, criminals were undercutting one of the great American cities with grotesque violence occurring every day to the point where it was normalized, and people expected a suppressed environment.  It wasn’t just about Chicago; it was about pushing communism under the door of the Midwest and bringing down America from the inside out.  Poisoning the highway system to all the other big cities with crime, and those destabilizing attempts started with illegal immigration hidden in the apartment slums of west Chicago, to the point where the crime spilled over into the outside world to destroy the American dream like a Trojan Horse in the middle of the night, to slit all our throats while we slept.  That is why Democrats are so upset about Operation Midway Blitz.  And why it’s so good to see it succeed, no matter how long it continues.  Democrats need illegal immigration to pull off their communist scam.  And instead of just accepting that, as we have for many decades —essentially an entire century —we are fighting back and taking Chicago away from the criminal elements, which is leaving Democrats in a panic as to what to do next.  Pritzker, unable to shake Trump off the trail, turned to gambling to pump up his already deflated image.  But his political hopes are being cleaned away, too, in all this.  He took a stand to protect illegal immigration, and Trump is ripping that away, leaving Democrats helpless as a result.  And for the first time in many decades, the truth about Chicago is finally being seen.  And a lot of people will live, who usually would have been sacrificed to the need for crime by Democrats who have been cheerleading communism all along.

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Federalizing the Police is a Great Thing: We can trust Trump to give power back

With all the talk about federalizing the police in cities with excessive violent crime, an underlying flaw in thinking is revealed.  Chicago is a creation of liberal politics that is out of control.  Over Labor Day weekend 2025, 58 people were shot across 37 separate incidents with eight fatalities.  And that has become all too normal in that progressive city, where crime has been incentivized and police are hard to find.  Washington, D.C., was just as bad before Trump federalized the police force there and put National Guard troops on the streets to supplement the police, and crime has been driven down to nearly zero.  In the District of Columbia, Trump can do that, and even the very Democrat mayor Muriel Bowser has enjoyed the results.  She has not been a Trump supporter and has instead worked against him in the past.  But even she can see the noticeable results.  So we’re dealing with a shell game that is consistent among many other topics, but it has been exposed here because Trump was able to control the situation in the District of Columbia, as opposed to the theory of putting ground troops into other cities in the nation.  That some evil people are trying to destroy the United States by using our own laws and terminology against us, which is being exposed in Chicago by the resistance to do in that violent city what Trump has done in Washington, D.C.  Democrats don’t want to solve the problem of crime in places like Chicago.  They want the crime, and that is what emerges from the resistance that J.B. Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, has been caught up in as he violently opposes Trump sending the National Guard to reform the streets of Chicago as well.  With crime levels at the rate that they are, a national emergency is more than justified, which gives Trump a clear path to send in the troops. 

Should we be cheering on such an effort?  After all, I’m very suspicious of police powers.  Based on the Constitution, should we even have a standing army? I would be inclined to say no.  However, here is a situation where we already have policing forces on the payroll, and they aren’t doing much else.  And we have police unions that restrict the recruiting and retention of current police forces, which are obviously not enough to deal with the crime incentives in big cities.  And you have criminal elements who use the potential of violence to gain control over other people.  And when people are afraid, traditionally, they vote for big government Democrats to save them.  That’s the theory anyway, that’s what political people believe.  So there are hostile, anti-American forces working behind an assumption of constitutional protections who want to use the rules to bring down American society.  And where they can, they use crime as a destabilizing force to undo everything legally, even to the point where lawyers seek to protect the criminals and the criminally minded, rather than a peace-loving society that is thriving.  In the case of Trump sending troops into Chicago, the governor is furious and is utilizing legal retaliation to stop it.  For his politics, and those of the Democrat party, they need 58 people shot over Labor Day weekend.  They want eight people to die every weekend.  To stay in power within political orders, they need trouble so that people vote for them to save them from that trouble.  And once you understand that, you will see that open borders are meant to overwhelm voting opportunities, that drug policy is there to deliberately poison Americans to the point of killing them.  And violent crime is a direct attack against a society that values private property over state-controlled assets.  If people have to turn to the government to protect their property, a communist dream is then realized, which is the point.

I would go several steps further and take away the gun-free zone status of cities like Chicago and let good guys with guns shoot bad guys with guns, and things would straighten up really fast.  But short of that, something has to be done, and when you have National Guard troops and other military units always ready to engage violence somewhere in the world, then why not send them in to these dangerous cities to clean up crime?  Is federal independence more valuable than those 58 lives?  That is the question that has been imposed on us.  Should we have independence when the cost of that independence is lives that fall victim to violent crime?  That is the question that we are tasked with behind the criminal conspirators who want the crime to shatter our society.  J.B. Pritzker wants to run for president and position himself as everyone’s dad, a parental government figure.  So he needs the crime so that he can have a reason to run on a political platform of saving people.  But if they are already saved and self-reliant, then why would anybody vote for Democrats?  That is their problem, and Trump exposes it by taking away the crises and fixing them, leaving Democrats exposed in ways they can’t handle.  But should we federalize our police forces by eroding states’ rights?  Once they take such power, then why would someone like Trump ever give it back? 

Same interview on YouTube

If the same question were posed during Obama’s administration or Biden’s, I would not trust federal forces to do anything in any community.  It would be a power grab that would be unacceptable.  But in Trump’s case, he has earned a level of trust that only hard knocks could provide, and it is different.  I think it’s the only way to solve the crime problem, and I want to see federal troops in every crime-ridden city, putting an end to all crime problems.  I also want to see the military ending the drug trade and specifically the power drug cartels have in all American cities.  They should all be eradicated, and we should invade other countries like Mexico, Colombia, and Peru and clean up all crime organizations involved in the drug trade and in human trafficking.  And once the world is cleaned up, we can talk about separating federal powers from states’ rights issues.  I am confident that Trump will respect constitutional limits and return power to the states and cities once the issue is resolved.  But, if it were up to Democrats, federal police forces would only be strengthened because their ultimate aim is to give the government the power over private property.  So when J.B. Pritzker complains about Trump overstepping his authority, it’s actually the plan that Democrats hope to have by supporting crime, to push society into just this kind of concession.  Only under Democrat rule does that kind of authority become tyranny.  But under Trump, it’s freedom.  Freedom from crime.  Freedom to own and maintain private property.  Freedom to not be killed while walking down a city street.  The crime is there to tempt society into giving big government control over to private ownership and to have people applauding as it is ushered in.  But what’s different with Trump is that he can resist the temptation to make such policies permanent once the problem is solved, and that is what Democrats really fear.  Trump will address the issue and restore that power once the task is completed.  Which Democrats can’t afford to see happen.  Yes, Democrats are willing to see people die to make their point.  And if those people don’t die of violent crime, then why would anybody vote for any Democrats, ever?  That’s what we are dealing with.  

Rich Hoffman

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

Trump Should Go To Moscow: Keeping Putin from pulling the rug out from under peace

I think President Trump should visit Moscow and meet with Putin ahead of any other meetings they might have, to demonstrate that he has done everything possible.  There are a lot of villains at work; Ukraine is surely not innocent as a maniacal globalist power, and when a very sketchy former KGB agent invites you to come to his country to talk, I think Trump could get a ceasefire out of the deal in exchange, because Putin would have to do something big in response. Regarding the Alaska 2025 meeting, which was productive, I thought it was over the top to conduct the flyover and escort Putin down the red carpet to view the stealth fighters.  It also wasn’t good for Trump, a much larger man, to walk next to Vladimir Putin for such a long time in the open, because it made Putin look small.  Putin handled things well, but what he did was demonstrate his willingness to go to America and make a deal, even if it meant appearing vulnerable in the process.  Observing his body posture, there was a significant amount of KGB manipulation involved.  And Trump knows what he is doing on these kinds of things.  It was mostly a show, and the world was watching intently.  And it will likely lead to an end of the war because all sides have already talked about everything proactively.  Putin has lost over a million people in this war with Ukraine, 100,000 just this year.  I’d say he feels like a sucker the way that the Biden administration coaxed him into the conflict as a cover story to all the Russian strawman efforts of the European Union and the Democrat Party in general.

I heard a lot of dumb stuff from the media during the whole meeting with Trump and Putin.  You can see who the cheerleaders are for global conflict and who profits from it.  Nothing Trump could have done would have made them happy because they only want war and conflict to be a cover story for major corruption in this whole process.  Putin, no matter what people think of him, is very popular in Russia because he has in his mind a restoration of the Russian borders before 1991, when communism fell and the country fell apart under that weight.  There were numerous United Nations problems with the entire process during the 1990s, particularly between global governance and sovereign nations.  But Putin is willing to throw away millions of Russian lives to retake Ukraine from what he sees as globalist conspirators.  And we would be just as upset if we lost parts of Florida and California to Mexico or Spain.  Russia, as the Soviet Union, was the American enemy during the Cold War, so we are not suddenly sympathetic to a communist cause.  But all the characters in this story are pretty evil and manipulative.  Ukraine is a creation of globalism and is a power grab from that direction, so before anybody can talk about anything, you have to know where everyone is coming from.  And for Putin, he wants his borders back and to help guide his country to its former glory, when he was a much younger man.  Trump was brilliant to let Putin speak first after their three-hour talk.  There were many master class moments from people who have mastered the art of communication, which much of the world completely missed while it was happening.  However, when Putin said in English at the end of his comments to the press that Trump should meet with him next time in Moscow, Trump needs to consider it. 

It’s great to bring all these world leaders to convenient places in the United States.  But imagine how the media would go crazy over Trump going to Moscow.  And how bold it would make Trump appear to the world.  As a former Cold War enemy, having an American president in Moscow with all the pomp that Russia could put on would win over the Russian people and give Putin a straightforward off-ramp from the war.  To have an American president come to his doorstep would be quite an accomplishment for him, and the Russian media would have the story of the century.  They would support Putin in almost anything he did thereafter, even if Russia didn’t regain as much land as they originally wanted.  When we have global media that wants, like nothing else, to decide who talks to whom and when, the best way to stick it to them would be to take the entire meeting out of their hands by holding it in Russia under a grand ceremony, ahead of any other talks with Ukraine or the EU.  It’s always good to get people to talk to each other, rather than adhering to false contentions, and those who have a desire for political outcomes that do not align with America First.  To give Putin that kind of attention would put him on a path to earn respect once again on the world stage and would be a great follow-up to Melania’s letter to Putin, urging him to save the children in this conflict.  There needs to be a mediating step, and when Putin suggested it, he understood the difficulties and set the stage to say he at least suggested it. 

But if Trump doesn’t go to Moscow, under these specific circumstances, Putin will have an excuse to withdraw from everything.  He went to America and made himself vulnerable for his motherland, and the Russian public well received him.  And he invited Trump to continue talks in Russia.  If Trump doesn’t go, it seems like the American president is only happy to talk on American soil with minimal risk to himself.  That was the KGB in Putin as he walked boldly next to a much larger American president, while a B-2 flyover was taking place overhead.  Putin wanted to convey to the world that he had done all he could for peace by meeting with Trump in America.  But he’s winning the war and could easily throw away a million more lives to take back all of Ukraine and topple the country.  It’s a waiting game that he can afford to play.  But Zelinsky and the European Union can’t.  So before Putin pulls the rug out from under everyone, Trump should go to Russia and advance talks of at least a ceasefire while these other details are worked out.  Because if he did, Putin wouldn’t be able to pull out of this deal, because the peer pressure of his country wouldn’t let him.  Nobody thinks Trump would go to Moscow to make a peace deal, including Putin, when he said it.  So the most extraordinary thing that Trump could do would be to take his show on the road and address the Russian people directly, with the same courtesy that was shown to Putin.  Many good things would happen as a result.  The media would have a meltdown, as would all the globalist types.  However, it would prevent Putin from undermining the efforts, save a lot of lives, and be monumentally historic.  And if I were speaking with Trump, I’d encourage him to do it this upcoming week, while the opportunity is still available. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Lockdown Lady: Amy Acton should have stayed under her rock

This is going to be fun, the governor’s race in Ohio.  Not that I think it will be close, but it will serve as a cherry on top for a vast evil that transpired, which was never settled.  Because she resigned from her job before the full wrath of anger came down on her for what she did during COVID in Ohio.  We’re talking about Amy Acton, the stringy-haired hippy chick who ran the Health Department in Ohio for Mike DeWine.  She hilariously tried to claim this past week that she was statistically tied with Vivek Ramaswamy in the race for governor, which I find laughable.  However, she’s trying to create excitement among a Democrat base that is flatlining.  Democrats across the country are trying to generate enthusiasm for their campaigns, and in her case, they hope people have forgotten.  After all, she was a media darling for most of 2020 as she reported daily from Columbus on the latest lockdown procedures, which she perfected to an extreme.  And the media loved having a mom telling them to go to bed and telling them what to do about everything.  Amy Acton’s tenure as Director of Health in Ohio was a disaster, but she did reveal what Democrats have in mind for government.  All the metaphorical masks came off during COVID, literally, and in many cases, by putting actual masks on we learned a lot.  However, we learned a great deal about ourselves during that period, despite it being so scary.  We came to know the differences between Republicans and Democrats beyond polite discourse over salary fairness and race relations.  Amy Acton led the nation in lockdown procedures that were statistically insane, essentially stopping the Ohio economy until a virus, created in China and released by very sinister forces, would stop spreading through a crazy strategy of separating people from each other until the case infections stopped. 

I didn’t discuss it at the time, but a couple of the most prominent con artists I have ever known started a company that conducted COVID-19 tests because they thought that was going to be the future.  They were radical lefty types and were dumb as rocks.  However, they had significant, essential jobs that paid them far too much money.  And they left those jobs thinking Covid tests in Ohio were going to be big business.  I explained to them that Amy Acton was not going to last, that Ohio was breaking the law by violating the Constitution, and that COVID was one of the biggest scams in the history of the world.  And I said all this because they tried to recruit me to their cause, wanting me to sell their new COVID-19 testing lab to the political world, and wanted to pay me a lot of money to use my voice to validate their existence.  (a lot of money)  Which anybody who knew me back then should have known better.  I was dressed every day like Mad Max, ready for a fight at any moment with anybody.  I was prepared for a showdown with the tyrannical forces of Amy Acton’s health direction at the drop of a dime. The Government was way out of control and getting worse by the day, and Governor Mike DeWine lost control of his government over fear of the stupid Covid virus, which was killing people who got it left and right.  And that same government was basing all their statistics on these COVID-19 tests, which people ran, like I mentioned, who were essentially designed to give false positives, and that Amy Acton would use those results to grab for more government overreach, as if to justify their actions. 

Of course, I proved to be right.  Those guys ended up out of a job, Amy Acton resigned.  The court challenges to the lockdown procedures all went against the DeWine administration, and he quickly had to start backtracking once he realized his abortion loving Health Director had screwed up Ohio detrimentally over a government power grab to use a health crisis to control every part of people’s lives.  And every conspiracy that I had talked about regarding the entire process turned out to be exactly as I said it was during that horrible period.  But the lessons learned were extremely valuable, even if a lot of innocent people died in the process, and the mandatory vaccines of the Biden administration damaged many.  It was a bad time, and Amy Acton was the queen of it all.  So I think it is pretty hilarious that she is going to climb out from under a rock and run for governor.  And, that she believes she can run against Vivek Ramaswamy, one of the most intelligent people on planet earth, who can talk the ears off a donkey.  I don’t think so.  If Amy Acton is the best that Democrats have, then they have next to nothing.  However, there is good in all this. I believe that a lot of what was unsettled needs to be settled as a result of that terrible period.  What can, or should, the government do for people?  And that will be a great debate where Vivek Ramaswamy will have many opportunities to discuss during this gubernatorial race in Ohio. I think it will get further worse for Amy Acton with the upcoming race, as Sherrod Brown wants to return to the Senate by challenging the incumbent, Jon Husted, who was Lieutenant Governor at the time Amy Acton was Health Director.  He was on TV with her every day, and there was a lot to discuss regarding the day-to-day operations of COVID management in Ohio, which serves as a warning for all about the power of big government.  And it’s going to get a lot of attention during these campaigns. 

I think it’s crazy for Amy Acton to stick her head out of the ground from which she has been hiding to run for Governor, which is going to expose her in ways she can’t imagine.  However, it’s not her failures as a person that will be so detrimental, but rather the lessons of letting a government, run by people like her, take over the day-to-day management of our lives from the utopian fantasy of communist/Democrat politics.  Amy Acton was among the worst, leading all states with her lockdown approach to managing the virus.  And because she did, she empowered a lot of con artists like those Covid testing people I mentioned, to profit off the demise of Ohio, and the nation, in ways that no fiction writer prior would have dared to put forth a plot because nobody would believe it.  And I think she is going to be destroyed politically by Vivek Ramaswamy, and to a greater extent, the Trump administration that has never been right with Mike DeWine since those many Covid mistakes.  People are going to get a chance to get revenge on Amy Acton for what she did to them, and the wrath will be harsh.  People generally left her alone because she stepped away from politics.  But now she’s climbing right back in, and I don’t think she, nor any of her advisors, know what they are getting into.  This won’t be a friendly election about ideas.  This will be a way for people to take their anger out on Amy Acton, as a result of what she did to their lives.  Amy Acton will, for the rest of her life, be known as the Lockdown Lady.  And people will never let her live it down, especially once they learn that she was the one responsible, which will be the centerpiece of this upcoming election.

Rich Hoffman

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

We Have To Teach People Why Capitalism is Good: The Vivek Ramaswamy approach to Zohran Mamdani

I think people misread Vivek Ramaswamy’s comments about Zohran Mamdani incorrectly, for the most part.  However, when Vivek placed an ad in New York challenging the socialist candidate for mayor to a debate, it raised several interesting questions that will undoubtedly be part of future discussions about politics.  Vivek, of course, is jumping into the conversation about New York politics because, as a capitalist who made a lot of money in New York and is now planning to be the governor of Ohio, he is uniquely positioned to have a debate with what the political left thinks of as a bright young star, in Mamdani.  But critics of communism and socialism expect a more visceral hatred of Mamdani than Vivek shows to people.  I’ve had the fortune of knowing Vivek personally, and this is true for most people: bright individuals who can debate any topic with anyone don’t have to get defensive every time a challenge arises to their belief system.  So Vivek can have a very cerebral discussion about Mamdani without getting too upset that the trend in Democrat politics is a radical leaning towards far-left, Marxist policies.  And most people have been taught, through years of Cold War policy from the over 50s crowd and onward, that we are to approach communists and socialists with anger, like they are the invaders we saw in the movie Red Dawn.  Vivek comes from a much younger generation, and that’s a good thing because, in the post-Trump years, many things are going to change.  People are realizing right now, and with Mamdani, just how dangerous all the socialist instruction in our public schools has been.  And most young people have had extensive exposure to it through public education. For too many voters, this issue has snuck up on them, evoking a lot of fear in people like Mamdani.

I have been warning everyone about the problems with socialism for many years.  And while public schools don’t overtly have classes teaching Marxism in general, it is implicit in the background of almost everything done in the teaching process, including in kindergarten, when the teacher instructs you to share your toys with your neighbor.  And that everyone is equal.  Vivek Ramaswamy’s approach to the communist problem is to debate it, because he can.  Not to fight them in the streets or call them names.  There are many young people, like Zohran Mamdani, who will be able to utilize social media to capture the attention of young voters who lack opportunities to surpass their parents’ achievements.  For many young people who can’t afford to buy their own home or have children, life seems unappealing and not worth fighting for.  While most MAGA supporters of today’s politics likely have their own car, their own home with lots of property, maybe even a boat.  Several kids.  A pretty good life, and something that they want to defend from people who want to take all that from them.  Vivek understands that the under-50 crowd has vastly different motivations and perspectives, and that they don’t feel the need to fight for anything, because, from their perspective, they don’t have much to fight for.  Their minds have mainly been rotted out by the public education experience that taught them all the wrong Marxist things about social equality and the value of private property ownership.  Therefore, portraying our political enemies as revolting figures will not win over new voters, because those new voters essentially share Mamdani’s perspective. 

That’s why the future of the MAGA movement needs to include people like Vivek Ramaswamy and J.D. Vance, who can debate any issue with anyone, anywhere.  And Vivek certainly can, and that is the way to win over the next generation of voters.  If, during the Trump years, the goal was to overcome all the lies that had been told to us by a government that sought global socialism as its governing principle, now the shoe is on the other foot.  It’s not enough to question the government of socialists and to run them out of office.  The problem that J.D. Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy will face with young people is that many of them have to be taught the virtues of capitalism from scratch.  We can’t just hold up Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and tell them to read it.  They need to understand it relative to their thoughts as young socialists who we have let get out of control, rob away their hopes and dreams.  Fighting socialism and communism with the kind of Cold War hatred that we have in the past won’t work on today’s social media.  Capitalism has to be sold to people all over again.  It will help to have a successful Trump administration to point to so that young socialists can see for themselves how much better a capitalist system is than their socialist and communist teachings.  In the world’s plans, they never thought a Trump character would ever hold a position of power, revealing just how powerful capitalism could be.  His election was crucial in many ways at this particular point in history.  But do not assume that the new generation will have a hatred for communism as previous generations in America have.  It’s quite the opposite.  Most young people will have to be taught from scratch why capitalism is so much better, because they certainly haven’t been taught why in school, or entertainment, or their social groups. 

The shock everyone has felt at hearing Mamdani utter outright communist sentiment, wanting to be the mayor of New York City, what many think of as the capitalist capital of the world, is the reality that this new generation of young people is more prone to accept elements of Marxism because it’s all they know.  And for many, this issue snuck up on them as they realized how much of modern-day social media is dominated by young people who are just like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and now Mamdani.  We say today they won’t and can’t win elections if this is what the Democrat Party is.  However, this is what the Democratic Party has been for quite some time.  They just hid it all behind a social mask, but it’s always been there, and now that people see it and hear them talk, the realization they have toward it is hatred.  However, be cautious not to demonize all these young socialists, as the goal is to win over that generation in a competitive race for the minds of a new generation.  And understand that capitalism has to be sold to them because they were not taught its value, and they do not have a natural love for it.  It will take someone like Vivek Ramaswamy to explain it to them and show them why it works.  They can’t expect just to read Adam Smith’s book and draw their conclusions.  They will have to be taught, with considerable debate.  And Vivek is just the right mind for all that.  He understands the problem all too well, even as many are just now waking up to it and have been caught off guard.  The next generation in America has to be mainly taught from scratch.  Their minds have been ruined.  And hating them won’t convince them to join you.  We have to earn them to our side person for person. 

Rich Hoffman

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