Why Islam is Growing: If Republicans want to win the Midterms–the psychology of winning

Republicans are cutting themselves short on the midterms playing on their back feet when in truth, they have won all the seats, and should use that to club the enemy over the head, the Democrats. And people should not be fearful of Islam expansion, because there is a science to it that can be dealt with. Don’t be afraid, learn to spike the football on the face of your enemy. And be sure to call your enemy, the enemy. Stop trying to make peace with everyone and be nice. People don’t like nice, they like winners! People don’t join groups, movements, or relationships because of policy white papers or perfectly calibrated moral sermons; they join because something in that collective—or person—promises to resolve anxiety and deliver victory. In eras of uncertainty, strength signals beat gentleness signals. Across political movements, religious sects, and even intimate relationships, the mechanism isn’t mystical. It is psychological. Decades of evidence show that when identity feels threatened or vague, people gravitate toward clarity, power, and “winners.” They seek what social psychologists call a reduction of self‑uncertainty through group identification. Groups that feel directive, morally certain, and combative—especially those with a strong leader—are unusually effective at providing that clarity. That dynamic is the heart of the appeal of aggressive movements, whether they’re framed as “revolutionary” or “restorative.” 1 2 3

The first mechanism is the quest for significance. Arie Kruglanski’s work shows that individuals who feel humiliated, overlooked, or stalled are primed to seek a pathway to mattering—status, honor, and belonging. When a narrative says, “You will be part of the team that wins,” and a network validates that promise, the psychological mixture becomes combustible; ordinary people can shift quickly from passive frustration to active militancy if militancy is framed as the quickest way to regain significance. In that sense, “victory marketing” isn’t crude; it’s efficient. It supplies a meaning‑laden road to restored pride and shared triumph. 4 5

Kruglanski’s “3Ns”—Needs, Narratives, and Networks—explain the stickiness. The Need is mattering; the Narrative names the enemy and sanctifies aggression as the efficient route to success; the Network rewards loyalists and shames doubters. A coalition that stops signaling decisive action and begins projecting compromise and perpetual process loses the Narrative’s punch and the Network’s reinforcement. Members then shop elsewhere for a more satisfying story that promises to end the anxiety and restore status. That is why movements that pivot from attack postures to “conciliation tours” often hemorrhage energy even if the conciliatory strategy is prudent. The psychology underneath doesn’t reward caution; it rewards visible strength coupled to a clear plan to win. 6 7

A second mechanism is uncertainty‑identity. Michael Hogg’s theory demonstrates that when life feels unpredictable and identity feels unstable, people prefer groups with sharp boundaries, simple norms, and strong leaders. These structures reduce cognitive noise. If the leader projects authority, punishes dissent, and speaks in unambiguous terms about enemies and goals, the group’s identity feels more protective. That dynamic pushes people toward “extreme” groups when uncertainty spikes, and it also raises the preference for authoritarian leadership styles over deliberative, pluralist ones. Strength performs an emotional function: it tells anxious people who they are and what tomorrow looks like. 1 3

There’s a third layer: mortality and threat management. Terror‑management theory finds that reminders of vulnerability and death (from pandemics to wars to rising crime) make people defend their cultural worldviews more fiercely and prefer charismatic, dominant leaders who promise safety and greatness. In plain speech: fear nudges voters and joiners toward coalitions that sound fearless. Combine existential fear with identity uncertainty, and the loudest actor who projects dominance gets disproportionate attention—even if their policy depth is thin. When the gentle coalition talks mostly about reconciliation, it can accidentally sound like it lacks the courage and teeth necessary to protect the group’s survival, and anxious members drift toward whoever sounds prepared to fight. 8 9

Once you see these mechanisms, the appeal of aggressive movements becomes less mysterious. Social identity theory long ago showed that people enhance self‑esteem by favoring their in‑group over out‑groups; minimally defined groups will still tilt benefits toward themselves and exaggerate the difference with outsiders. If a movement paints itself as the victorious in‑group—“the team that will win the season”—members will accept stricter norms and harsher rhetoric because those serve the higher good of restoring collective status. The social reward is belonging to the winning jersey. 10 11

That’s why “strength signals” matter more than we admit. Populism research finds that the subset of supporters drawn to majoritarian dominance and rule‑bending “strongman” solutions isn’t driven primarily by anti‑elitism—it’s driven by authoritarian populist attitudes that equate decisive action with democracy and treat pluralist procedure as weakness. In multiple countries, support for strongmen tracks that authoritarian dimension, not the generic desire for change. If your coalition relies on being “reasonable,” it must still market victory—decisive goals achieved on tight timelines—and pair that with visible enforcement of norms; otherwise anxious supporters defect to a camp that promises a quicker, harder road to triumph. 12 13

This dynamic isn’t limited to politics and broad movements. It appears right inside intimate relationships, especially abusive ones, where power and intermittent reinforcement create a paradoxical bond. Trauma‑bonding theory shows that when love and cruelty alternate unpredictably—affection after abuse, apology after rage—the victim’s attachment grows stronger, not weaker. The variable schedule of rewards keeps people “playing the slot machine,” hoping the good version returns, and the power imbalance cements the dependency. The abuser’s strength signal—decisive, dominating, controlling—reduces uncertainty even as it increases harm; the victim stays because the intermittent tenderness feels like proof that victory (a normal relationship) is just one more sacrifice away. That’s not a moral failing; it’s a learned behavioral trap proven to persist over time. 14 15

Understanding that trap clarifies something about aggressive movements: they often combine harsh discipline with bursts of inclusion, celebration, and “love bombing.” The alternation is intoxicating. The movement frames devotion and sacrifice as steps toward the shared win—status restored, enemies humbled, order achieved. It’s the same cycle seen in abusive dyads but scaled to group psychology: tension, incident, reconciliation, calm; repeat. The unpredictability of reward strengthens loyalty, and the leader’s dominance minimizes the anxiety of choice. 16 17

This lens also illuminates why some young people—including women—joined extremist projects like the Islamic State. Rigorous field interviews show a range of motives, but many revolve around significance, belonging, identity clarity, and a morally charged promise of victory against perceived humiliation. Researchers found Western women were attracted by roles in “state‑building,” the prospect of a clean slate, and a community with strict norms; women also became recruiters, using social media to broadcast the idealized version of purpose, honor, and victory. The ideology exploited the same psychology: a simple, rigid moral order, a strong, punitive leadership, a story of imminent triumph, and a network that validated sacrifice. That does not implicate all religious believers—most reject such extremism—but it shows how aggressive narratives can capture a subset seeking certainty and significance. 18 19

Demography matters for how these perceptions play out. In the United States—and in large, culturally conservative states—Muslims remain a small share of adults, though they are growing modestly. For example, recent survey estimates suggest roughly 2% of adults in one large southern state identify as Muslim; nationally, Muslims remain a small minority, projected to grow but still far from majorities. That growth often triggers anxiety in groups that perceive status loss, which in turn increases receptivity to strength‑forward narratives. Responsible coalition‑building has to address the anxiety with facts and with visible competence—not with shame or soft language. People respond to leaders who demonstrate order and fairness, not just describe it. 20 21

None of this means gentle leadership is doomed. It means gentle leadership must learn how to market victory and perform competence. Coalitions that want to hold members need three things: (1) a public scoreboard of wins, (2) an unapologetic enforcement of norms (consequence for defectors, gratitude for contributors), and (3) a narrative that places members inside a clear arc from struggle to triumph. That is exactly how the significance‑quest model works—and it can be used for good. If your coalition delivers visible wins and announces them like a championship season—“we hit the target, we corrected the failure, we defended someone who needed it”—the craving for strength is satisfied without sliding into cruelty. 4 5

The counterforce to aggressive movements is not moralizing; it is precision. Leaders can reduce uncertainty by setting unambiguous objectives, timelines, and roles, and then publishing weekly results. Hogg’s research implies that clarity plus boundary‑setting steals the psychological oxygen from extreme groups that promise certainty by punishing dissent. When members see that your coalition is a disciplined machine, the attraction to the noisy, punitive alternative declines. In practice, this looks like calendars, checklists, and a “no‑drift” culture—small wins stacked into momentum. That’s how you break the intermittent reinforcement cycle: replace unpredictability with reliable progress. 1

Finally, understand that collective narcissism—investing wounded self‑worth into a belief that the in‑group’s greatness is not appreciated—magnifies intergroup hostility. Movements that feed this sentiment will keep cohesion high by inventing provocations and promising cathartic revenge. Countering that requires two moves: regulate negative emotion inside the group (so grievances don’t become the group’s oxygen) and offer members a different path to significance—competence, craft, and contribution. When the pathway to mattering is building, not punishing, the coalition stabilizes around productive pride rather than fragile resentment. 22 23

Put simply: people want to be on the team that wins. In periods of uncertainty and fear, they judge coalitions by how decisively they act, how tightly they enforce norms, and how clearly they promise victory. If the coalition sounds like a perpetual seminar—however noble its aims—its membership will drift toward movements that feel like a locker room right before a decisive game. “Strength sells” because it resolves anxiety, restores significance, and narrates a path to triumph. If you want to keep members, don’t just be right. Be strong, be clear, and keep score in public. And if the Republican Party wants to win the midterms, stop playing on your back feet. Attack the bad guys, make examples of them and show the world the path to being on the winning team. And everything will work out just fine.

—

(Further reading and footnote anchors)

• Quest for Significance & Radicalization: Overviews of how personal significance, violent narratives, and validating networks interact to produce recruitment and commitment. 4 5

• Uncertainty‑Identity & Authoritarian Leadership: Evidence that self‑uncertainty increases attraction to distinctive groups and strong, directive leaders. 1 2

• Terror‑Management & Leader Preference: Mortality salience strengthens worldview defense and support for charismatic, dominant leadership. 8 9

• Social Identity & In‑group Favoritism: Classic demonstrations (minimal group paradigm) of how group membership itself drives bias. 10 11

• Collective Narcissism & Intergroup Hostility: How investing self‑worth in the in‑group’s image predicts aggression and conspiratorial thinking; interventions that reduce hostility. 22 23

• Intermittent Reinforcement & Trauma Bonding: Empirical tests showing power imbalance + variable “good/bad” treatment strengthen attachment to abusers over time. 14

• Women & ISIS Recruitment: Data on female affiliates, motives (belonging, purpose, ideology), roles (recruiting, enforcement), and post‑territorial outcomes. 19 18

• Religious demography (U.S. & Texas): Recent surveys placing Muslims as a small share nationally and ~2% in Texas; trends and projections to mid‑century. 20 21

• Strongman appeal vs. anti‑establishment populism: Cross‑national evidence that authoritarian populist attitudes—not just anti‑elite sentiment—predict support for strong leaders. 12

—

Footnotes

[^1]: Kruglanski et al., “The Psychology of Radicalization and Deradicalization: How Significance Quest Impacts Violent Extremism,” Political Psychology (2014). 4

[^2]: Kruglanski, Bélanger, & Gunaratna, The Three Pillars of Radicalization: Needs, Narratives, and Networks (2019). 5

[^3]: Hogg, “From Uncertainty to Extremism: Social Categorization and Identity Processes,” Current Directions in Psychological Science (2014). 3

[^4]: Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg, “Thirty Years of Terror Management Theory,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (2015). 9

[^5]: Tajfel & Turner, “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” classic chapter (updated). 10

[^6]: Golec de Zavala et al., “Collective Narcissism: Political Consequences…,” Political Psychology (2019). 22

[^7]: Dutton & Painter, “Emotional Attachments in Abusive Relationships: A Test of Traumatic Bonding Theory,” Violence and Victims (1993). 14

[^8]: Cook & Vale, “From Daesh to ‘Diaspora’: Tracing the Women and Minors of Islamic State,” ICSR (2018). 19

[^9]: Hoyle, Bradford, & Frenett, “Becoming Mulan? Female Western Migrants to ISIS,” ISD (2015). 18

[^10]: Pew Research Center, Religious Landscape Study—Texas profile (2023–24). 20

[^11]: Pew Research Center, “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050.” 21

[^12]: Brigevich & Wagner, “Anti‑establishment versus authoritarian populists and support for the strong(wo)man,” Frontiers in Political Science (2025). 12

—

Bibliography

• Arie W. Kruglanski et al. “The Psychology of Radicalization and Deradicalization: How Significance Quest Impacts Violent Extremism.” Political Psychology (2014). START overview

• Arie W. Kruglanski, Jocelyn J. Bélanger, Rohan Gunaratna. The Three Pillars of Radicalization: Needs, Narratives, and Networks. Oxford University Press (2019). Oxford Academic

• Michael A. Hogg. “From Uncertainty to Extremism.” Current Directions in Psychological Science (2014). PDF

• Michael A. Hogg & Janice Adelman. “Uncertainty–Identity Theory: Extreme Groups, Radical Behavior, and Authoritarian Leadership.” (2013). PDF

• Tom Pyszczynski, Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg. “Thirty Years of Terror Management Theory.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (2015). Chapter PDF

• Henri Tajfel & John Turner. “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.” (classic chapter). Text

• Agnieszka Golec de Zavala et al. “Collective Narcissism: Political Consequences…” Political Psychology (2019). Wiley

• Agnieszka Golec de Zavala. The Psychology of Collective Narcissism. Taylor & Francis/Open Access (2023). Open book

• Donald G. Dutton & Susan Painter. “Emotional Attachments in Abusive Relationships: A Test of Traumatic Bonding Theory.” Violence and Victims (1993). ResearchGate PDF

• Carolyn Hoyle, Alexandra Bradford, Ross Frenett. Becoming Mulan? Female Western Migrants to ISIS. ISD (2015). GIWPS resource

• Joana Cook & Gina Vale. From Daesh to ‘Diaspora’. ICSR/King’s College (2018). ICSR report

• Pew Research Center. Religious Landscape Study—Texas. (2023–24). State profile

• Pew Research Center. The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050. (2015; note 2025 update note). Report

• Anna Brigevich & Andrea Wagner. “Anti‑establishment versus authoritarian populists…” Frontiers in Political Science (2025). Article

• Aleksandar Matovski. “The ‘Strongman’ Electoral Authoritarian Appeal.” In Popular Dictatorships (Cambridge, 2021). Chapter

Rich Hoffman

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

Trump’s Lower Poll Numbers: People expect more than tough talk

I’ve cooled off a lot on Trump since he signed that stupid executive order on marijuana, and the damage for me is permanent. Yet again, he got suckered by the health people into doing something terrible. After he signed that order, the first thing I did was rip down all the campaign signs I had hanging in my garage, well over 50 of them, and throw them all away. And for me, that’s significant. I’ve been a Trump person for over a decade now, and I even flew a Trump flag out in front of my house since 2020. I’ve been there with him through everything. But when it comes to pot, that’s my off-ramp, I can’t go there. I remember the surge—the big‑arena rally electricity, the “we’re going to fix this” certainty, the promise that the swamp would finally feel handcuffs, not hashtags. Enthusiasm is an accelerant: it makes the first months of any administration think like a rocket, but governing is ballast. You can talk like an MMA weigh-in; then you hit the first year, and the levers don’t move like switches. You’re turning a tender boat into a heavy ship, and it doesn’t pivot just because the helmsman barks louder. That gap—between campaign voltage and governing torque—shows up in the numbers. As 2026 starts, the national trackers have Trump underwater: RealClearPolitics’ late‑December average had him at 43.4% approve, 53.3% disapprove; The Economist/YouGov and Gallup show similar or lower figures. Even outlets aggregating friendlier samples, like Trafalgar or InsiderAdvantage, only briefly nudge him above water. Net‑net, the public mood reflects a rollercoaster: from early‑term +2 net approval to roughly −10 to −18 through late December, with a modest tick up right at New Year’s. 1 2 3 4

That swing—call it 15 to 18 points from honeymoon to grind—doesn’t surprise me. It maps to two realities people feel viscerally. First, the ceremonial ceiling of the presidency: Article II is not a crown. You can veto, you can appoint, you can persuade; prosecution runs through the Department of Justice and independent courts, not the Resolute Desk’s social media feed. Madison built it that way on purpose. Checks and balances are designed to slow action, to force coalition, to prevent any one figure from conducting government as a one-person show. That means even if a president wants a dramatic perp‑walk tomorrow, the machinery says: probable cause, grand jury, trial, appeal. The Constitution puts the brakes on rage. 5 6 7

Second, expectations on crime and corruption collided with the political physics of institutions. If you’ve got an FBI director, an Attorney General, and a thousand career AUSAs who live by procedure and fear appellate reversals, you won’t see “handcuffs by Friday.” That disconnect fuels voter irritation, especially among people like me who wanted visible consequences for government abuse. It’s why you can have weeks of tough talk about Somali fraud in Minnesota, accelerated federal deployments, and endless press hits—but arrests and convictions trail the rhetoric by months or years. And when the rhetoric goes nowhere, it bleeds support beyond the base. 8 9 10

I don’t do the marijuana thing for anybody. For me, that EO was a line. It told me the posture was more New York live‑and‑let‑live than “law‑and‑order, no exceptions.” That order didn’t itself reschedule cannabis; it directed DOJ to expedite moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, completing a process that began under HHS/DEA in 2024. But the signal was unmistakable: prioritize medical research, loosen tax handcuffs on the industry, and press Congress to revisit hemp and CBD definitions—precisely the kind of conciliatory, technocratic reform that calms markets more than it excites the “no mercy for drug crime” crowd, which I certainly am. I pulled the flags down in my garage that day and they’ll never go back up. I’m not against Trump, but my excitement for them cooled off a lot, so much so that I don’t want to think about them every day as I walk through my garage, because they are embarrassing to me. 11 12 13

Here’s the thing, though—and it’s the uncomfortable truth most voters gravitate toward regardless of culture‑war skirmishes: the economy is the scoreboard. If gas prices stabilize, if mortgage rates come off the boil, if you can finally buy a starter home because affordability improves, you forgive a lot. On the macro, there’s real movement. The BEA’s delayed report shows 3Q 2025 real GDP at a 4.3% annualized pace—the fastest in two years—following 3.8% in Q2. Final sales to private domestic purchasers rose 3.0%. Corporate profits jumped by $166.1B in the quarter. Inflation metrics ticked up (PCE 2.8%, core 2.9%), but not enough to erase the growth story. That’s the tail catching the dog’s head: policies set in early 2025 are working their way through the system, with the visible payoff likely in 2026–2027. 14 15 16

Of course, growth isn’t a sermon; it’s cash flow after taxes, interest, and insurance. You feel it when payroll expands in your county, when inventory turns faster, when suppliers quote shorter lead times, and your WIP finally clears. That’s why a published GDP line doesn’t erase public skepticism—especially if unemployment has bumped or affordability still stings. Polling narratives underline the tension: by late December, news roundups cataloged affordability as Trump’s weak spot, even as GDP surprised to the upside. Voters want price relief and housing access more than they want a Nobel speech. 2 17

Meanwhile, the marijuana decision isn’t just polls—it’s a coalition test. Gallup shows an 88–90% supermajority supporting legalization at least for medical use, but a notable 2025 dip in Republican support for broader legalization (down to ~40%). So rescheduling to Schedule III threads a needle: it concedes medical utility, accelerates research, and removes the industry’s punitive 280E tax hit—without federal legalization. That satisfies some independents and seniors who want regulated access for pain or chemo‑nausea, but it irritates law-and-order conservatives who expected a crackdown. Politically, that move trades intensity for breadth; in approval math, it’s a mixed bag, and you can see it in the net‑negative trend lines. 18 19

If the presidency is more persuasion than prosecution, the question becomes: what persuasion works? Voters forgive drama when the ledger smiles. A 4.3% quarter isn’t destiny, but if you string quarters of 3–5% growth, ease tariffs where they hurt consumers, and let rates drift down without spooking inflation, the swing back is real. You can see the early narrative already forming in coverage: growth beating forecasts, AI/data‑center investment underwriting business capex, exports up, and consumption resilient despite elevated prices—tempered by caution about labor market softness and a shutdown’s hangover. That says 2026 could indeed be the payoff year if the policy tailwinds don’t get clipped by court rulings, trade shocks, or an inflation relapse. 20 21

But I won’t pretend the justice gap away. People voted for “accountability” as much as for “affordability.” When they hear weeks of talk about Somali fraud and see federal surge operations, but still don’t see high-level perp walks, they conclude the system protects itself. Some of the public rhetoric has been sloppy—fact‑checks have knocked down the “billions every year” and “90% Somali fraud” claims as overstatements. It’s precisely the kind of overreach that costs net approval points with suburban voters who want credibility even when they agree with the crackdown. 22 10

So where am I? Cool‑off, yes. Vote, yes. Flags in the garage, gone. It’s the ledger test now. If 2026 delivers—tailwinds in GDP growth, price relief, and visible competence—then you’ll see that 18-point swing reverse itself. If the administration wants that faster, it needs a visible chain of successes: clean arrests that stick, targeted prosecutions that demonstrate competence, not vengeance, and a disciplined economic message focused on prices, housing, and small‑business cost of capital. Show justice without bluster, and deliver growth without gimmicks. Voters reward that more than they reward the pre-fight theatrics.

The ceremonial nature of the office remains a burden, and that’s by design. You can’t govern like a king—and you shouldn’t. But you can marshal DOJ’s independence with steadiness, not soundbites; you can turn the ship with patient torque, not wheel‑spins. If the heavy ship keeps turning, by late 2026, people will feel it in their household math before they see it in the polls. And then, ironically, the numbers that cooled the base will warm back up again, not because the tough talk got louder, but because the cash registers did.

—

Key data points (late 2025 / early 2026)

• Approval averages: RCP (Dec 1–30, 2025): 43.4% approve, 53.3% disapprove (−9.9 net). Gallup late Dec polls show around 36–41% approve, 54–61% disapprove. The Economist/YouGov: ~39–42% approve, 55–56% disapprove. Some polls (Trafalgar, InsiderAdvantage) show temporary +1 to +9 net, but the aggregate remains negative. 1 3 2

• GDP (Q3 2025): Real GDP +4.3% annualized; Q2 +3.8%. PCE price index +2.8% (core +2.9%). Corporate profits +$166.1B. Real final sales to private domestic purchasers +3.0%. 14

• Marijuana EO (Dec 18, 2025): Executive Order directs DOJ to expedite rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III; emphasizes medical research and signals hemp/CBD legislative fix. Rulemaking not yet final; rescheduling would not legalize cannabis federally. 11 12

• Public opinion on marijuana: Pew Jan–Feb 2025: 54% legal for medical+recreational; 33% medical only; 12% not legal. Gallup Nov 2025: overall support for legalization at 64%, with GOP support declining to ~40%. 18 19

• Minnesota Somali fraud rhetoric vs. facts: Administration rhetoric escalated; deployments announced; fact‑checks dispute claims of “billions every year” and broad‑brush culpability; investigations ongoing with mixed publicly verified figures. 8 9 22

—

Footnotes

1. RealClearPolitics “President Trump Job Approval” composite showing 43.4% / 53.3% for Dec 2025 and recent daily poll mix. 1

2. CNN poll‑of‑polls listing individual late‑Dec 2025 surveys (Gallup 36/59; Fox 44/56; Quinnipiac 40/54; Reuters/Ipsos 39/59). 3

3. USA Today roundups summarizing end-of-year approval trackers and issue concerns (affordability, economy). 2

4. The Economist/YouGov approval tracker commentary on net approval trajectory in 2025. 4

5. U.S. Constitution analysis on separation of powers and checks/balances, outlining institutional limits on presidential prosecution influence. 5 6

6. BEA Q3 2025 GDP report: +4.3% annualized growth; PCE and profits details; delayed due to shutdown. 14

7. CNBC coverage of the same BEA release detailing PCE inflation and corporate profits. 15

8. Pew Research Center short read (July 8, 2025) on Americans and marijuana (medical vs. recreational support). 18

9. Gallup/Marijuana Moment reporting on 2025 legalization support and GOP decline. 19

10. White House Fact Sheet and JURIST explainer on the Dec 18 cannabis EO: expedite rescheduling; not self-executing; rulemaking required. 11 12

11. USA Today/Politico/NBC coverage & PBS segment capturing Minnesota Somali controversy, federal surges, and pushback/fact‑checks. 8 10 9

12. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette / FactCheck.org analysis debunking exaggerated claims on amounts and welfare percentages. 22

—

Bibliography & Further Reading

• BEA. “Gross Domestic Product, 3rd Quarter 2025 (Initial Estimate) and Corporate Profits (Preliminary).” Dec 23, 2025. 14

• CNN Polling. “President Trump’s approval ratings | CNN Politics.” Dec 2025. 3

• RealClearPolitics / RealClearPolling. “President Trump Job Approval” aggregates & latest polls pages. Dec 2025–Jan 2026. 1 23

• The Economist/YouGov. Interactive approval tracker and analysis. Dec 2025–Jan 2026. 4

• USA Today. “Trump approval rating ticks up as 2026 begins.” Jan 2–3, 2026. 2 24

• Pew Research Center. “9 facts about Americans and marijuana.” July 8, 2025. 18

• Marijuana Moment. “DOJ Could Ignore Trump’s Marijuana Rescheduling Directive…” Dec 29, 2025; “Marijuana Saw Some Big Moments in 2025…” Dec 30, 2025. 25 13

• White House Fact Sheet. “President Donald J. Trump is Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research.” Dec 18, 2025. 11

• JURIST. “Trump signs executive order to expedite marijuana rescheduling.” Dec 19, 2025. 12

• CNBC / CBS News. Coverage of Q3 GDP surprise and inflation details. Dec 23, 2025. 15 16

• USA Today / Politico / NBC News / PBS. Somali community coverage, federal deployments, and fact‑checks. Dec 2025–Jan 2026. 8 10 9

• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette / FactCheck.org. “Fact-checking Trump’s verbal attack on Minnesota’s Somali community.” Dec 10, 2025. 22

Rich Hoffman

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

No, I Don’t Cook: The state of marriage in the world

To answer the most asked question I get during the holidays, no, I don’t cook. My wife does. That’s not a joke, it’s a commitment we made in 1988 when we married young and chose a traditional family on purpose. I mow the grass, fix the cars, bring home the apples; she turns them into pie. That division of labor has kept our household steady for nearly four decades, and every year the same eyebrows go up from people who ask those kinds of questions—“You can’t say that.” Of course I can. We built our marriage like a small business with roles we both wanted, not roles assigned by a committee of strangers. And when someone tries to question our deal at the family gatherings over the years, I keep a poker face, and stay civil and nice—but I remember. My wife remembers too: I had an aunt once who took her to lunch to lecture her on feminism, the in-laws who offered social pressure in progressive wrapping paper, the yearly chorus of “help with the dishes or else.” We pushed back not to score points, but to defend something we knew was worth protecting.

What’s funny—what’s tragic, really—is how much social commentary people will smuggle into a question around stuffing and cranberry sauce. Behind the small talk lives a theory of marriage: some think roles should be erased; we think roles should be agreed upon. I believe in complementary strengths. And I don’t belittle the cook; I admire the work my wife does in our family, she is 100% committed in ways that are nearly gone these days. She’s made possible the work I do when most people are sleeping, because the clothes are clean, the house runs well, and a hot plate finds its way to my chair in the middle of the night. You want to know how I read so much, write so much, keep so many projects moving? It starts with the dinner that arrives without me asking.

Now, if we’re going to talk about how marriages actually fare, let’s invite the numbers into the room. The United States logged 2,041,926 marriages in 2023—about 6.1 per 1,000 people—and 672,502 divorces across 45 reporting states and D.C., roughly 2.4 per 1,000. That’s the official snapshot, and it tells you something simple: marriages rebounded from the pandemic dip, and divorces keep drifting down from their 1980s peak. 1 2 If you prefer measures that adjust for who’s actually at risk, Bowling Green State University’s National Center for Family & Marriage Research (NCFMR) puts the 2023 refined divorce rate at 14.4 divorces per 1,000 married women, slightly down from 2022; some analysts saw it nudge lower again in 2024. The refined marriage rate for women in 2023 held around 31.5 per 1,000 unmarried women. Translate that: fewer divorces relative to the number married, and a stable likelihood of marriage among those unmarried. 3 4

Of course, national averages flatten out the geography. In 2023, Utah had the highest refined marriage rate (49 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women), while Louisiana and Delaware were near the bottom; for divorce, Alaska had the highest rate and Vermont the lowest, with the U.S. at 14.4 overall. That’s culture, economics, and age composition all doing their dance. 4 3

And how long do marriages last? The federal government no longer publishes fine-grained duration tables the way it once did, but the NSFG’s event histories and Census reports paint enough of the outline: the median age at first marriage has climbed to historic highs—about 30.2 for men and 28.4 for women in 2023—meaning couples enter marriage later, after more schooling and work. Later marriages tend to be more stable than teen marriages, and the divorce hazards have shifted more toward economic stress and mismatched expectations than any single “traditional vs. egalitarian” switch. 5 6

If you step back and trace the arc since the mid-20th century, the significant facts are now old facts: we marry later, we marry less often, and divorce rates (by multiple measures) are lower than they were at their peak. OECD cross-national data puts the crude marriage rate for many wealthy countries between 3 and 5 per 1,000 today; the U.S. is higher than most at around 6, but it’s still far below the 1970s. Pandemic disruptions knocked weddings down in 2020, and they bounced back in 2021–2023. 7 8

The household story is equally stark: fewer than half of U.S. households today are married‑couple households. That was 78.8% after World War II; it’s been under half since 2010. Does that mean marriage is dead? The cost of progressive lifestyles really starts to show here. Our living arrangements have diversified, and a growing share of adults delay or forgo marriage—and often cohabit instead. 9 10 Pew’s longer view shows that most Americans now find cohabitation acceptable, even for couples who don’t plan to marry, though a majority still believes the country is better off if long-term couples eventually marry. Cohabitation has grown across age groups; by 2022, roughly 9% of Americans ages 18–64 were cohabiting at a point in time, up from 7.8% a decade earlier, with the highest shares in the late 20s. 11 12

Does all that mean traditional marriage is disappearing? It’s more honest to say we’re in a sorting era. The median age at first marriage rose; remarriage fell; and the marriage share is increasingly concentrated among the college-educated and the religiously observant in certain regions. NCFMR shows the remarriage rate declining steadily since 2008—down to about 34.4 per 1,000 previously‑married men and 18.5 for women in 2023—suggesting fewer second chances through formal vows and more cohabitation after divorce. 13

And yet, under all the trends, the old expectations haven’t entirely vanished. A widely cited study in American Sociological Review found that in marriages formed after 1975, a husband’s lack of full-time employment predicts higher divorce risk, while a wife’s full-time employment does not—evidence that the breadwinner norm still carries weight even as homemaking expectations for wives have softened. 14 Another line of research argues that when partners’ gender norms clash—when the meaning of “husband” and “wife” isn’t mutually agreed—marriage becomes both more complicated to form and easier to break. That’s not ideology; it’s matching theory with real data on cohorts and states. 15

Once you admit the obvious—that marriage is a covenant built on agreements—my answer about holiday cooking stops sounding provocative and starts sounding like governance. The deal in our house is clear and cherished. We never outsourced it to a trend line or surrendered it to an aunt with a pamphlet. And when the holiday question lands, I hear the undertone: “Are you compliant with the new code?” No, we’re compliant with our vows. That choice has paid dividends in steadiness, in output, in the way we raise children and grandchildren, and yes, in sanity.

Around the globe, OECD figures show crude marriage rates clustered around the 4‑per‑1,000 mark with wide variance, and Our World in Data summarizes the broad pattern: most rich countries see later marriage, fewer marriages, and a decoupling of marriage from childbearing. In lower-income regions, median marriage ages are younger and formal rates are higher, but there’s intense regional variety, and progress on ending child marriage remains uneven and far too slow. 7 16 17

Where does that leave the “traditional marriage comeback”? In the U.S., there’s no sudden surge in crude marriage rates; what we do see is a stabilization post-pandemic, a continued decline in divorce rates, and a concentration of marriage among those who treat it as a purposeful life strategy rather than an automatic milestone. Whether a couple chooses entirely traditional roles, fully egalitarian roles, or something bespoke for their house, the risk lies in misalignment—pressure from outside to reshape the inside. What saves a marriage is consented clarity. My wife and I made ours long ago, and we’ve maintained it against polite frowns and impolite lectures. I didn’t ask the world to bless that agreement, and I certainly didn’t give the world veto power over it. The results, measured by the calendar and the calm of a well-run home, speak for themselves.

So, no, I don’t cook at Christmas, Thanksgiving, or ever. She cooks, I carry the burdens outside the house, and the house hums. If the conversation at the table drifts toward social engineering, I smile and let the numbers do the talking: later marriages, fewer divorces, more cohabitation, fewer married‑couple households, and a stubborn breadwinner signal that hasn’t lost its force. You can read those trends as doom or as instruction; I read them as proof that the marriages that last are the ones grounded in agreed roles, mutual respect, and a united front against outside manipulation. That’s our holiday recipe. It’s kept us going for 37 winters, and it works. And always remember, advice is only as good as the people giving it. And most people aren’t qualified to give it.

—

Notes & Sources (selected)

• U.S. marriages and divorces (2023): 2,041,926 marriages; 6.1 per 1,000 population; 672,502 divorces across 45 reporting states and D.C.; 2.4 per 1,000. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NCHS FastStats & NVSS tables. 1 2

• Refined rates: NCFMR refined divorce rate ~14.4 (2023) and refined marriage rate ~31.5 (2023); state variation (Utah high marriage, Alaska high divorce). 3 4

• Median age at first marriage (U.S., 2023–2024): ~30.2 men, ~28.4 women; historical series since 1890. U.S. Census (MS‑2) and NCFMR profiles. 6 5

• Married‑couple household share under 50%; historical peak ~78.8% (1949). Census & USAFacts syntheses. 9 10

• Cohabitation attitudes and prevalence: Pew Research Center (2019) and NCFMR (2012–2022 CPS analysis). 11 12

• Remarriage decline (2008–2023): NCFMR Family Profile on remarriage rates. 13

• Breadwinner signal & divorce risk: Alexandra Killewald, American Sociological Review (2016). 14

• Gender‑norm conflict and marital outcomes: Antman, Kalsi, Lee, Journal of Demographic Economics (2021). 15

• OECD cross‑national marriage/divorce comparisons & COVID disruption: OECD Family Database & documentation; Our World in Data. 7 8

• Global institution change overview: Our World in Data’s “Marriages and Divorces.” 16

• Child marriage progress & pace to elimination: UNICEF Data brief (2023). 17

—

Annotated Bibliography

• CDC/NCHS – FastStats: Marriage and Divorce. U.S. nationwide counts and crude rates for marriages and divorces; latest provisional (2023). Clear definitions and coverage notes about non-reporting states for divorce. 1

• CDC/NVSS – National Marriage & Divorce Rate Trends (2000–2023). Historical tables showing year-by-year changes in crude marriage and divorce rates, with footnotes on state coverage. 2

• NCFMR (Bowling Green State University) – Refined Marriage & Divorce Rates (2023). ACS-based indicators that adjust for the population at risk; state maps and margins of error. Essential for understanding geographic variation and trends beyond crude rates. 4 3

• U.S. Census – Historical Marital Status Tables (MS‑1 & MS‑2). Extended‑run time series on marital status and median age at first marriage. Useful for context on age trends and the shrinking share of married adults. 6

• USAFacts – “How has marriage in the US changed over time?” (2025). Synthesizes Census series into digestible charts on age at first marriage and household composition; suitable for communicating to general audiences. 10

• Pew Research Center – “Marriage and Cohabitation in the U.S.” (2019). Attitudes and experiences around living together; relationship satisfaction comparisons; long-term shifts in cohabitation acceptance. 11

• NCFMR – “A Decade of Change in Cohabitation Across Age Groups: 2012 & 2022” (2024). CPS-based point-in-time prevalence by age; growth concentrated in late‑20s cohorts. 12

• NCFMR – “Remarriage Rate, 2023” (2025). ACS event counts and rates documenting the decline of remarriage across sexes and ages. 13

• Killewald (2016) – “Money, Work, and Marital Stability” (ASR). Panel Study of Income Dynamics analysis distinguishing economic resources from role signals: the persistent effect of male full-time employment on stability. 14

• Antman, Kalsi, Lee (2021) – “Gender norm conflict and marital outcomes” (JDE). Theory and evidence on how norm mismatch reduces marriage formation and increases fragility. 15

• OECD Family Database – SF3.1 Marriage and Divorce Rates. International comparisons of crude rates, mean age at first marriage, and pandemic‑era disruptions; handy Excel annexes. 7

• Our World in Data – “Marriages and Divorces” & grapher for marriage rates. Broad global synthesis with interactive charts; connects U.S. trends to wider patterns. 16 8

• UNICEF Data – “Is an End to Child Marriage within Reach?” (2023). Global progress and uneven pace; regional concentration and projected timelines. 17

Rich Hoffman

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

Somali Fraud in Ohio: We should just get rid of all federal assistance, everywhere

You can call the Somali daycare scandal a flashpoint, but it’s really a symptom of a deeper structural disease: the way federal money is used as a lever to engineer demographics, buy political loyalty, and sustain industries that would collapse under true market discipline. Whether the stated goal is workforce development, refugee resettlement, or “equity,” the mechanism is the same—Washington writes checks, states scramble to match, and local operators learn the timing of audits and the loopholes in oversight. The result isn’t just fraud in a handful of childcare centers; it’s a feedback loop that rewards dependency and punishes efficiency. Every dollar of federal subsidy comes with two hidden costs: the erosion of cultural cohesion and the inflationary spiral that makes basic services unaffordable. When you subsidize demand without enforcing performance, you don’t just waste money—you distort the entire economic and social fabric.

Multiply that pattern across every sector federal money touches. Public education? Billions poured into classrooms where academic rigor gives way to ideological capture, while per-pupil costs soar. Healthcare? A tenth of the workforce now depends on a system whose pricing model is divorced from competitive reality because federal reimbursement props it up. Infrastructure? Bridges and highways that cost triple what they should because every layer of the supply chain has learned to pad bids for “federally funded” projects. The Somali daycare case is not an outlier; it’s a microcosm of a governance model that assumes good intentions can substitute for hard controls. Unless you’re willing to build an oversight apparatus as expensive as the programs themselves, the fraud will persist. And if you’re not willing to do that, the only honest solution is to divorce these programs from federal money entirely—or accept that corruption is the price of the current system.

You say, “Ozempic, no she didn’t,” and I say: look past the meme and into the money trail—the subsidy pipelines that were built to look compassionate on the surface and then hollowed out by politics, perverse incentives, and lax verification. That’s the frame. Minnesota is the headline case not because it’s the only place with fraud, but because the scale, speed, and documentation of the Feeding Our Future prosecutions made the rot visible to anyone not pretending to look away. Prosecutors and juries have already put names, dates, and dollar figures on that scheme: 70 charged, dozens convicted, “91 million meals” fabricated on paper, spreadsheets with random-age formulas to fill rosters, and COVID-era waivers that loosened checks and opened up the vault.¹ ² ³ ⁴ 1 2 3 4

But Minnesota’s story is not just the kids-meal program. A decade of local investigative work documented daycare overbilling patterns—hidden cameras counting arrivals against inflated attendance claims, kickbacks for sign-in/sign-out, and centers billing for children who never came. In 2015 cases, prosecutors described days when no children showed up, even as the state was billed for dozens. Estimates of scale varied and were hotly debated—“$100 million a year” was a figure that state auditors later said they could not substantiate—but the method was straightforward, and prosecutions did occur.⁵ ⁶ ⁷ 5 6 5

Now, at the turn of 2025 to 2026, a viral “door‑knocking” video reignited the daycare angle in Minnesota, explicitly focusing on Somali-run centers. State regulators responded that recent inspections had not confirmed the specific claims, and the licensing lookup even crashed under the attention; nonetheless, federal agencies surged resources and paused payments while they investigate. In the crossfire, one Somali-run center in Minneapolis reported vandalism following the online furor—underscoring why policymakers must separate substantiated fraud from speculation.⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰ 7 8 9

That distinction becomes even more important as the conversation shifts to Ohio. Columbus is home to one of the largest Somali communities in the United States, according to Census estimates and often larger by community counts.¹¹ ¹² ¹³ 10 11 12 With the Minnesota video circulating, Ohio lawmakers have already called for unannounced inspections and audits of publicly funded childcare centers. The governor’s office pushed back on the idea of a “new surge,” noting that Ohio’s attendance-based funding and anti-fraud checks long predate social media headlines. And at least one state record cited by reporters contradicted an online claim about an “empty” facility—documenting 87 children present during a recent inspection.¹⁴ ¹⁵ ¹⁶ 13 14 15

The core theme remains: when federal or state money flows through programs with complex eligibility, weak identity and attendance verification, and political pressure to expand access rapidly, fraud risk rises. Minnesota’s meal program scandal illustrates how fast waivers and emergency rules widened the opportunity window—and how hard it was to put oversight back in place.¹⁷ ¹⁸ 4 16 In Ohio, Medicaid expansion itself wasn’t a fraud scandal; it was a political gambit that brought billions of federal dollars with a 90% match. Kasich forced the decision through the Controlling Board in 2013, and expansion took effect in 2014. Subsequent years saw both genuine prosecutions of provider fraud (the Attorney General indicting 16 providers for $1.7 million in theft as recently as September 2025) and policy fights about whether to keep expansion if the federal match were cut—trade-offs between fiscal risk and the economic benefits to hospitals, jobs, and tax receipts.¹⁹ ²⁰ ²¹ ²² 17 18 19 20

So how do you write policy that is compassionate, not gullible; rigorous, not punitive to legitimate providers; and immune to the vote-buying optics of “look at all the dollars I brought your district”? Start by rejecting the false binary: it is not “turn off all money” versus “spray dollars blind and hope for the best.” The path forward is the unglamorous build-out of program integrity—identity, attendance, payments, and audits—with the political will to let real-time controls veto the ribbon-cutting ceremony.

Attendance that counts. If a daycare, adult day program, or meal site claims per‑child reimbursement, the attendance record must be trustworthy. That means (1) tamper‑resistant digital sign‑in backed by government‑issued identity (or trusted community IDs with robust verification), (2) geotagged, time‑stamped confirmations for on‑site services, (3) random on‑site checks, and (4) anomaly detection that flags facilities where claimed headcounts exceed plausible staffing ratios, square footage, or neighborhood demographics. Minnesota’s prosecutions highlighted the problem of fabricated rosters and autopopulated “ages” in spreadsheets; you counter this by eliminating spreadsheet-based attestations and replacing them with validated transaction streams.²³ ²⁴ 3 2

Payments that pause when signals fire. Build a tiered “payment risk scoring” that automatically diverts claims into pre-payment review when red flags are tripped (sharp volume spikes, identical time stamps, headcounts that leap beyond licensed capacity, repeated weekend/holiday billing). Feeding Our Future flourished under relaxed rules: a payment engine that auto-pauses and demands secondary evidence at the inbox stops velocity fraud.²⁵ ²⁶ 4 16

Licensing that measures utilization, not paperwork. Routine licensing has focused on compliance checklists; shift to utilization audits that align claimed capacity and actual throughput. Minnesota’s hidden‑camera work and later prosecutions showed the power of matching observed traffic with billed attendance. Ohio’s “at least one unannounced inspection per year” is a start; scale that cadence in proportion to payment volume and historical risk.¹⁵ ²⁷ 13 5

Separating verified fraud from community scapegoating. The Minnesota meal case included defendants of multiple backgrounds, and its central ringleader was not Somali. Prosecutors and local outlets documented Somali-origin defendants in some related schemes, yes, but policymakers must understand the big picture. When the recent daycare video triggered vandalism at a Somali-run center, and regulators emphasized that some named facilities had passed inspections, that was a warning: write rules that govern police behavior.⁸ ¹⁰ ²⁸ 9 7 8

Politics: disincentivize the “show me the headcount” press release. Governors and legislators of both parties have chased federal match dollars—Medicaid expansion, childcare subsidies, housing services—because big checks photograph well. Ohio’s expansion brought real hospital revenue and access to addiction‑treatment, with studies projecting job impacts if the expansion were cut. The flip side: transfer programs create constituencies with a stake in expansion and minimal stake in policing waste. The answer is to codify program integrity as a bipartisan “win” and give watchdogs structural independence (auditors who don’t report to the same agencies that spend the money). Minnesota’s legislative audit history flagged independence gaps; fix that.²⁹ ²⁰ ³⁰ 6 19 21

Concrete legislative package for Ohio (and exportable anywhere):

1. Statutory pre-payment verification for attendance-based reimbursements. Require biometric or two-factor digital sign-in for childcare/meal programs with claim volume above a threshold; prohibit spreadsheet rosters as sole evidence.²³ 3

2. Scaled unannounced inspections. Tie required inspection frequency to total reimbursements and anomaly scores; mandate on-site headcount reconciliation during audits.¹⁵ 13

3. Independent Program Integrity Office. Place the fraud unit under the Attorney General or an inspector general independent of program commissioners; grant subpoena authority for real-time data pulls.²⁹ 6

4. Provider transparency. Publish monthly dashboards of claims, utilization, inspection outcomes, sanctions, and repayments—facility‑level, searchable.

5. Federal match guardrails without cliff effects. Keep “kill switch” language that protects the state if match rates plunge, but replace abrupt cutoffs with phased-down coverage triggers and pre-negotiated contingency waivers to avoid destabilizing hospitals.²¹ ²² 19 20

6. Whistleblower incentives and protections. Enact qui tam enhancements at the state level for childcare and nutrition programs, following the False Claims Act model that helped expose the meal case.²⁵ 4

7. Cross-program identity resolution. Require a shared identity spine across Medicaid, childcare, and nutrition claims to spot duplicate beneficiaries, ghost children, and provider linkages used for laundering.

8. Community‑neutral enforcement. Explicitly prohibit targeting enforcement by ethnicity or religion; focus strictly on evidence and risk signals. Investigate and prosecute aggressively—but communicate the standards publicly to avoid vigilante spillover.⁸ ¹⁰ 9 7

Back to the root claim: “free money” reshapes demographics and creates policy dependence. Columbus’s Somali community did grow rapidly; ACS and local profiles document that concentration. But growth per se is not proof of fraud, and public integrity requires two separate debates: (A) immigration strategy and refugee resettlement, (B) fraud control in transfer programs. When we blur them, we get bad policy and ugly politics. Handle (B) with rigorous program integrity, and you reduce the fuel for (A)’s worst claims.¹¹ ¹³ 10 12

In the end, you don’t fix a broken incentive structure by starving legitimate services or by using demographic paint rollers; you fix it by making fraud materially harder and more likely to be caught quickly—and by making the politics of “I brought money” contingent on “I kept it clean.” Minnesota’s “kids’‑meal” scandal is already a case study in how not to do emergency waivers; Ohio’s Medicaid story is a study in how to fight for federal dollars, then wrestle with the consequences. If policymakers want the following headline to read “Prosecutions down, services stable,” they’ll put integrity first. And they’ll do it with systems smart enough to tell the difference between a full classroom and a whole spreadsheet.

All that sounds like a lot of money, and it is. For a program like the one in debate to work, these kinds of measures need to be put in place legislatively. But as we do it, we have to ask ourselves why we should in the first place. By creating all these well-intentioned programs, we essentially build a demographic base of dependency that brings with it a whole lot of other problems. Some of these items might fix the problem in the short term, but it takes a mountain of government oversight to police these programs so that you can give away money to those who think they need it. Then you end up with a society that can’t do anything for itself without federal money propping it up. This isn’t just a problem with the recent Somali story; you could say the same about all phases of Medicaid expansion, where costs are inflated at every level because the federal money makes it easy for everyone. Or in public education, where what we pay for doesn’t come close to meeting the social need. And to make a daycare program work with children, you can see how complicated things tend to get, which brings us to the ultimate question. Is any of it worth doing at all? And I think the preponderance of evidence says no. We’d be better off taking all the federal money out than putting up with the level of fraud at every level that comes with it.

—

Footnotes

1. Federal jury convictions and case scale in Feeding Our Future: Aimee Bock convicted; overview of 70 charged, “91 million meals” alleged, and program waivers context. 1 2

2. IRS criminal investigation press release detailing random-age spreadsheet formula; guilty plea context. 3

3. FBI/DOJ tallies of indictments and convictions; waiver environment noted. 4

4. KARE 11 coverage compendium from 2022–2025. 8

5. FOX9 decade-of-fraud overview; hidden camera counts vs. billed attendance. 5

6. American Experiment’s 2019 analysis of CCAP fraud allegations and OLA audit dynamics. 6

7. Legislative Auditor statements about inability to corroborate the $100M estimate; prosecutions noted. 5

8. Report of vandalism at Somali-run daycare following viral video. 9

9. Licensing inspections and regulator responses amid viral claims. 7

10. KARE 11’s “full coverage” page noting investigation status and breadth. 8

11. Franklin County/Columbus Somali population estimates (ACS-based). 10

12. ACS program overview and data tools (for policymakers to pull local tables). 11

13. Community estimate commentary (Columbus Somali Community Project / UPG North America). 12

14. Ohio lawmaker letters for inspections; statutory unannounced inspection baseline. 13

15. Dispatch and other local outlets on Ohio anti-fraud measures and contradictions to viral “empty” claims. 14 15

16. Additional local reporting on calls for investigation. 22

17. Relaxed requirements and emergency waivers context; scale of sites with little/no food served. 4

18. Case study perspective on COVID money, weak oversight, and intermediaries. 16

19. Ohio Controlling Board approval and expansion launch (2013–2014). 17

20. Ohio AG prosecutions of Medicaid provider fraud (2025). 18

21. Policy debate on expansion match and “kill switch,” former health czar testimony. 19

22. Economic modeling of job and revenue impacts if the expansion ended. 20

23. Specific fraud methods (fabricated attendance; spreadsheet formulas). 3

24. Prosecutors’ description of fake rosters and claimed headcounts. 2

25. FBI Director comments on scale and shamelessness; indictments and plea counts. 4

26. Overview of waiver-driven vulnerabilities in the meal program. 16

27. Historical use of hidden cameras and utilization vs. billing audits in Minnesota daycare cases. 5

28. Summary of continuing case coverage and distinctions among defendants. 8

29. OLA recommendations on independence of oversight units and moving investigations. 6

30. Scholarly overview of Ohio’s Medicaid expansion politics. 21

—

Bibliography (for policymakers & staff)

• MPR News. “Feeding Our Future’s head Aimee Bock convicted on all fraud charges.” March 19, 2025. 1

• St. Cloud Times / USA TODAY Network. “What we know about the Feeding Our Future Minnesota Covid fraud scheme.” March 20, 2025. 2

• IRS Criminal Investigation. “Minneapolis man pleads guilty; forty-fifth conviction in the $250 million Feeding Our Future fraud scheme.” March 24, 2025. 3

• FOX News. “45 convicted in massive $250M COVID-era scam…” July 18, 2025. (Context on waivers and scale.) 4

• KARE 11. “Full coverage: Feeding Our Future fraud scheme.” Ongoing compendium, updated Dec. 5, 2025. 8

• FOX9 Investigators. “Through the years: A decade of investigating fraud in Minnesota.” Dec. 29, 2025. 5

• Center of the American Experiment. “Child care welfare fraud.” Spring 2019. (Discusses OLA and CCAP.) 6

• FOX9 / Fox News Digital. “Minnesota childcare fraud scandal sparks questions…” Dec. 30, 2025. 7

• FOX9. “Somali-run daycare in Minneapolis broken into, vandalized.” Dec. 31, 2025. 9

• Ohio NBC4 (WCMH). “Ohio lawmaker calls for investigation into Columbus‑area childcare facilities.” Dec. 30–31, 2025. 13

• Columbus Dispatch (via St. Cloud Times syndication). “Somali day care allegations prompt demand for Ohio fraud probe.” Dec. 31, 2025. 14

• Cleveland.com. “Ohio GOP lawmakers demand daycare investigation, but viral claims appear dubious.” Dec. 2025. 15

• KFF Health News Morning Briefing. “Ohio Board OKs Medicaid Expansion, Lawsuits Loom.” Oct. 22, 2013. 17

• Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. “16 Medicaid Providers Facing Fraud, Theft Charges.” Sept. 16, 2025. 18

• Health Policy Institute of Ohio. “Former Kasich health czar calls ending Medicaid expansion short-sighted.” March 21, 2025 (news brief referencing Toledo Blade). 19

• Statehouse News Bureau (Ohio). “Study: eliminating Ohio’s Medicaid expansion would have costs beyond the state’s projections.” July 25, 2025. 20

• ACS / Census.gov. “American Community Survey Data tools and tables.” (How to pull local demographic estimates.) 11

• Neilsberg Insights. “Somali Population in Franklin County, OH by City: 2025 Ranking & Insights.” Oct. 1, 2025. 10

• UPG North America. “Somalis in the Columbus Metropolitan Area.” (Community estimates and context.) 12

• Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law (Duke University Press). “Medicaid Expansion: A Tale of Two Governors.” Oct. 2016. (Comparative state politics.) 23

Rich Hoffman

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

The Left’s Trojan Horse: Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson–fallen angels who are trying to stop Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio

The left-leaning media strategy is obvious: platform a disruptive young firebrand, inject anti-Jewish chatter, agitate through YouTube and podcasts, then aim the shrapnel at Trump and at Trump-aligned picks like Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio to destroy the MAGA movement in ways that have not previously been successful under any condition. Suddenly, a kid I’d barely heard of—Nick Fuentes—gets catapulted into mainstream attention. He was the tag-along at Ye’s (Kanye West’s) dinner with Trump in 2022 at Mar-a-Lago; the former president later said he didn’t know who Fuentes was when he sat down, but the meeting still drew bipartisan condemnation because Fuentes is a white nationalist and Holocaust denier. Not the kind of guy the media would typically embrace, but under these conditions, where nothing to take down Trump has worked, this is the strategy of the left, to promote these fallen stars from the MAGA movement in one last Hail Mary, no matter who gets hurt in the process. I’m certainly not one who would be calling for censorship. But it is surprising how quickly everyone forgot about some basic rules of decency in these political fights, which have changed the landscape of debate forever. 1 2 3

Ordinarily, a guy with that track record wouldn’t touch mainstream platforms; they would be pushed off into obscurity, and they certainly never would have been on the Piers Morgan show or any other form of media. Newspapers would have gone on a crusade of personal destruction, much the way they did with Marge Schott back when she owned the Reds and made similar comments, and had her life utterly destroyed for it. Nick has been banned by YouTube and other majors for hate‑speech violations, with intermittent reinstatements elsewhere and then more removals; even Rumble has suspended his streams for “incitement to violence” after an antisemitic rally—so historically, gatekeepers did act. 4 5 But now, post‑Musk’s changes to X, he’s back on high‑visibility rails, popping up in interviews and friendly chats that launder his extremism for broader audiences. When you see that kind of boost—especially in late-cycle political windows—it looks less like “free speech flourishing” and more like a tactical Hail Mary to fracture the coalition right before decisive races. 6 7

Layer onto that Tucker Carlson’s recent, sharp pivot into anti-Israel rhetoric and repeated platforming of figures accused of antisemitism. Multiple watchdogs and Jewish outlets have documented the shift and the blowback—Shapiro blasting him at Heritage, Newsmax siding against him, and even StopAntisemitism labeling Carlson “Antisemite of the Year” in December 2025. I don’t endorse that label; I’m noting the documentation and the political consequence: it’s a wedge inside MAGA world, precisely when unity matters, but don’t cry about it, all is fair in love and war, with war being the point of emphasis. 8 9 10

The script is predictable: amplify anti-Jewish frames, set up a fight between “America First” isolationists and pro-Israel conservatives, then bait Republicans into intramural brawls—Ben Shapiro versus Tucker Carlson, Heritage under strain, Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest turning into a civil‑war stage after Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the conspiracy storms that followed. The result isn’t persuasion; it’s erosion—energy wasted on policing purity rather than winning seats. 11 12 9

My stance is well defined: antisemitism is not appropriate. Praising Hitler is evil. That isn’t “edgy” speech; it’s a moral rot that corrodes any serious movement. Fuentes has a documented record of white nationalist and Holocaust‑denying rhetoric; platforming him in chum-style interviews mainstreams what should remain radioactive. If the goal is to split MAGA and sandbag Trump-aligned candidates, this is the fastest path—smuggle in bigotry so the whole tent gets smeared. Don’t take the bait. 1 13

Ohio is the case study. Vivek Ramaswamy launched his 2026 gubernatorial run in February 2025, attracted heavy attention, and is now the clear GOP frontrunner in most coverage. Democrats have rallied around Amy Acton; early polling varies by sponsor, but the race is competitive at the surface level. None of that changes the fundamentals: if you let provocateurs redefine “America First” as a race-based or anti-Jewish crusade, you’re handing your opponent a cudgel. Stay on economic delivery, state competence, and merit-driven reform—the stuff that wins governors’ races. 14 15 16

So the advice to Vivek—and by extension to Trump’s slate—is steady and aggressive: do what got you here. Don’t chase the troll theater or appease the grievance‑economy influencers. Use your success arc as a shield and spear: wealth built ethically, businesses scaled, a vision for schools, safety, and jobs—make that the daily drumbeat. When the attack line is “he’s a globalist” or “he’s Hindu,” swat it down as the unserious bigotry it is; it’s not Ohio’s problem set. Ohio’s problem set is growth, crime, schools, and affordability, not the color of Vivek’s skin or whether he wears shoes on stage. 17

In past examples, American society—especially institutions and mainstream media—moved swiftly to suppress voices veering into anti-Semitic or extremist territory. Take, for instance, the post-WWII era: the “Columbians,” an openly pro-Hitler group in Atlanta circa 1946, were acting out Nazi salutes and rhetoric in public. Their organizational charter was revoked and leaders were arrested within months—demonstrating how clear the lines were once drawn against fascist ideologies 1. Likewise, throughout much of the 20th century, publishers, broadcasters, and even churches regularly screened out Holocaust denial, pro-Hitler propaganda, or conspiracies about Rothschilds or “Jewish control.” These ideologies were actively repressed, not platformed.

Fast forward to just a few years ago in Ohio: when the West Chester Tea Party hosted Harald Zieger, who promoted conspiratorial tropes of “Jews control the media, economy, government, even child sacrifice,” it sparked immediate backlash 2 3. The local Jewish Community Relations Council publicly condemned the event, and the church hosting them was effectively “cancelled,” cutting off their meeting space within weeks 4. It was a classic case of communal and media accountability shutting down extremist speech—without hesitation.

Contrast that with today’s landscape: figures like Nick Fuentes—an avowed white supremacist who praises Hitler, espouses Holocaust denial, and rails against minorities—are not only finding platforms but being endorsed by mainstream media (e.g., Tucker Carlson, Piers Morgan) and embraced by major tech alike 5 6 7. Fuentes’s X account, once deplatformed for hate speech, was restored by Elon Musk; he now commands millions of followers, with his extremist rhetoric once erased now normalized—even cheered—on major platforms 6 8.

This dramatic shift—the difference between swift cancellation and open platforming—highlights a deeper cultural realignment. What was once unthinkable and renounced without hesitation is now acceptable if it serves the political objective of undermining Trump-endorsed candidates. It’s as if the old moral guard has crumbled: conspiratorial tropes against Jews, previously banished, are now resurfacing with institutional backing. The West Chester Tea Party’s fate—banished from public space for a single speaker’s conspiracies—is emblematic of a past where community standards mattered. Today, those same standards are reversed: bigoted voices are amplified if they align with the current political winds. The irony is stark and unsettling.

The broader conservative movement also needs line‑drawing without self-sabotage: condemn antisemitism unequivocally, refuse to sugarcoat Nazi apologetics, and stop platforming it as “debate.” That doesn’t mean gagging policy critique of Israel; it means rejecting conspiratorial claims about “organized Jewry” and dual‑loyalty smears that historically precede violence. When Ben Shapiro calls that out, he’s not gatekeeping taste; he’s trying to keep the movement morally sane. And when Tucker frames it as “just asking questions,” the net effect is still mainstreaming. The cycle is well documented across Jewish and mainstream outlets. This is a new element to these kinds of games that has never succeeded before, under any circumstances. But free speech works both ways; success is the best voice for a vote, and these critics have done nothing in their lives except say things. Vivek has a long track record of great success, and that is his calling card for this election. If that is made clear, there is nothing any of these verbal attackers can do to move the mark. And as hurtful as all that might be, success heals a lot of wounds, and that is where the focus in Ohio needs to remain. Vote for Vivek Ramaswamy for governor in 2026 and take politics to a place it’s never been before as a representative republic that will do great things for a very optimistic future. 8 18

—

Supplemental material (footnoted):

• Mar-a-Lago dinner (Nov. 2022): Trump dined with Ye and Nick Fuentes; Trump said he didn’t know Fuentes; bipartisan condemnation followed because Fuentes is a white nationalist/Holocaust denier. 1 2 3

• Fuentes’ platform status: Banned by YouTube (2020) for hate speech; Spotify removed his podcast for hate‑speech violations; Meta/Twitch/Reddit bans noted; Rumble suspended streams after “holy war” rhetoric; X reinstated him under Musk, boosting reach. 4 5 6

• Carlson’s anti-Israel turn & intra-right backlash: Watchdogs charted rising harmful Israel content; Shapiro publicly denounced Carlson at Heritage; Newsmax echoed criticism; “Antisemite of the Year” label amplified controversy. 18 8 19 10

• TPUSA/AmericaFest fracture: After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, AmericaFest showcased rifts (Owens/Fuentes/Israel); JD Vance urged unity; Shapiro attacked “frauds and grifters”; coverage across CBS/USA Today/Deseret. 9 20 11

• Ohio 2026 governor landscape: Ramaswamy announced run (Feb. 24, 2025) with platform on education/safety/regulation; media note Trump endorsement and competitive polling vs. Amy Acton. 14 17 15 16

—

Bibliography / Further reading:

1. ABC News, “Trump hosts Kanye West, Nick Fuentes at Mar‑a‑Lago dinner.” 1

2. NBC News, “Inside story of Trump’s explosive dinner with Ye and Nick Fuentes.” 2

3. USA Today, “Donald Trump dined with Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes… at Mar‑a‑Lago.” 3

4. Global Project Against Hate & Extremism, “The Sanitization of Antisemite Nick Fuentes.” 13

5. Media Matters, “Rumble removed Nick Fuentes’ antisemitic rally; far‑right figures turned on Rumble.” 5

6. JTA, “Conservative influencers Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens sharply increased anti-Israel rhetoric in 2025.” 18

7. Times of Israel, “Ben Shapiro blasts Tucker Carlson at Heritage.” 8

8. CBS News, “AmericaFest puts conservative rift on display.” 9

9. USA Today, “Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro clash over Candace Owens in Phoenix.” 20

10. Ohio Capital Journal, “Vivek Ramaswamy officially launches bid for Ohio governor in 2026.” 14

11. Deseret News, “Ramaswamy announces Ohio governor run, outlines platform.” 17

12. Fox News, “Ramaswamy announces 2026 bid for Ohio governor.” 15

13. Newsweek, “Polls on Amy Acton vs. Vivek Ramaswamy.” 16

Rich Hoffman

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

It All Comes Down to Sullivan: Live by the Legal Sword, die by it too

These people never learn. When you are the front runner in a serious commissioner election in Butler County, Ohio, as Michael Ryan is, the dirty tricks trying to prevent his momentum are just the kind of thing that give politics a bad name. What starts you on the road to good health in politics isn’t kale or cardio, it’s truth without legalese, straight talk without a billable hour attached. I deal with lawyers all the time—good ones, bad ones, and the “print this from the shelf and scare them” variety—and my general opinion, even conceding that the profession began with noble intentions, is that far too much of it has drifted into a uniform intimidation racket. You’ve seen the type: the form-letter cease-and-desist that looks like an astrology reading for defamation, except the fortune costs you a retainer and the outcome is a long, nervous wait for a judge who usually tosses it after you’ve lost sleep and savings. The trick is the tone, not the law: it’s written to make you believe you must respond with a lawyer, because only priests of the temple may interpret the runes. I don’t like the practice and personally think it should be destroyed, and that the perpetrators of such legal manipulation should be thrown in jail and punished with career-ending justice, just for applying the kind of abuses of power that are all too common.

This is why the old play of lawfare against rivals—especially in local races where reputations are accessible targets—needs to be called out. We’ve watched how it stains the process in Butler County. Roger Reynolds, who was convicted on a single count in late 2022, later saw that conviction overturned on appeal in May 2024 for “insufficient evidence,” with the appellate panel ordering an acquittal and discharge. The case centered on the golf academy idea tied to Lakota Schools and Four Bridges; the court noted that the proposal never matured, that the school board held the authority, and that the key witness’s legal counsel ended the discussion before any contract could be secured. 1 2 3 4 In September 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to restore him to the auditor’s office immediately (the seat had been filled due to the bar against felons holding office at the time of his conviction) but clarified he remains eligible to run in the future. 5 That’s the landscape: facts matter, timelines matter, and our politics should run on open argument, not legal intimidation.

Then there’s Cindy Carpenter. She recently walked into a student housing office in Oxford to resolve back rent tied to a family member. A surveillance camera caught her flipping off the counter during the exchange; staff alleged racist language and abuse of office. The Butler County Prosecutor investigated and concluded that her conduct, while “unseemly,” did not rise to the level of misconduct or abuse of power. 6 7 It’s all on tape and all public now; the gesture happened, the allegations were made, and the official finding closed the matter without charges. 8 6 You can dislike the behavior—I do—but voters deserve a campaign where candidates fight this out in daylight, not by hiring attorneys to stuff the mailbox of a rival.

Enter Michael Ryan. He’s a Hamilton City Councilman turned countywide candidate, and he’s collected a long list of conservative endorsements—state senator George Lang, multiple township trustees and councilmembers, and county auditor Nancy Nix among them—because he’s making the case for generational leadership and a forward-looking county agenda. 9 He launched his commission bid in May 2025, framing it around growth, jobs, and fewer distractions—promising to fight for every city, township, and village, and to recruit the next-generation workforce. 10 Ryan’s pitch has resonated in part because people are tired of courthouse drama and lawfare theatrics; they want a debate about budgets, infrastructure, and living standards, not another stack of demand letters mailed in bulk from counsel. And he’s not alone—the GOP field is crowded, with Reynolds and Carpenter in the mix for the May 2026 primary—but the voter mood described by local reporting is unmistakable: they’re weighing future capacity, not re-litigating yesterday’s trials. 11

Now, when the intimidation letter lands—as it did from Reynolds to Ryan—you don’t have to swallow the premise that only a lawyer can answer it. You can answer it yourself, plainly and legally, because the guardrail is still the Sullivan standard from 1964. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a 9–0 Supreme Court decision that put a constitutional backbone into defamation law for public officials: to win, a public official must prove “actual malice,” meaning the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth, and must do so with “convincing clarity.” 12 13 The case grew out of a civil rights-era advertisement that contained factual errors; a local jury hit the Times with $500,000 in damages, but the Supreme Court reversed, explaining that debate on public issues must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” even when the attacks are “vehement” and sometimes “unpleasantly sharp.” 14 15

If you want numbers: the jury’s original $500,000 damage award (an enormous sum in 1960) was wiped away; the final holding established a higher burden that has, for six decades, made defamation claims by public officials very hard to win without proof of knowing falsity or reckless disregard. 15 14 In practical terms, that means campaign statements, press releases, and political commentary about public officeholders are protected—unless the speaker crosses the line into deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. 13 16 The standard is why you don’t need to hire a lawyer to say, “We disagree, and our statements are protected political speech,” and it’s why cease-and-desist letters are so often theatre: they depend on the recipient’s fear, not on an actual path to winning under Sullivan.

So let’s put it together. Reynolds’ single-count conviction was reversed; whatever lessons he took from the ordeal, sending form-letter threats at a rival to police campaign commentary is the wrong takeaway. 1 2 Carpenter’s apartment-office incident was embarrassing but not criminal; voters can judge her temperament, but the prosecutor closed the file. 6 Ryan, meanwhile, has stacked endorsements and is running an argument-heavy, growth-forward race; that’s where the energy is. 9 Let them debate. Let voters see who can build coalitions and deliver results without resorting to legal cudgels. And when the legal cudgel shows up anyway, answer it with Sullivan—because in American political life, the First Amendment demands a high tolerance for hard speech about public officials, and the courts have enforced that by design. 13 15

In the decades since Sullivan, the Supreme Court clarified and extended the actual-malice requirement through several landmark decisions:

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974)

This case distinguished between public officials, public figures, and private individuals. The Court held that the actual‑malice standard does not apply to defamation claims by private individuals. Instead, states may allow recovery with a lower standard of fault—such as negligence—when proven, and plaintiffs are limited to actual damages unless actual malice is shown 1 2.

• Outcome: Private individuals need not meet the high threshold; states can define fault and damages within constitutional bounds 2 3.

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Wally Butts (1967)

Extending Sullivan, the Court held that public figures (like former coach Wally Butts) must prove actual malice to prevail in libel suits. The investigation in question fell short of reasonable journalistic standards, leading to damages after the Court found reckless disregard for truth 4 5.

Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps (1986)

When private individuals sue over speech on matters of public concern, the Court ruled they must bear the burden of proving falsity—not leave it to the defendant. This ensures truth holds primacy in public discourse and avoids chilling speech 6 7.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988)

This case affirmed that even intentional infliction of emotional distress torts related to offensive parody do not evade the actual‑malice rule when a public figure is involved. Religious leader Jerry Falwell could not recover without proving that Hustler knowingly published false statements or acted with reckless disregard 8 9.

• Result: Political satire and parody targeting public figures are constitutionally protected—even if deeply offensive—absent false statements made with actual malice.

—

Together, these rulings illustrate how Sullivan’s actual‑malice standard has been reinforced and nuanced:

• It does apply to both public officials and public figures (Butts, Falwell).

• It does not apply to private individuals (Gertz), though they must still show fault and harm.

• Plaintiffs challenge private or public speech tied to public concern must prove falsity (Hepps).

These cases bolster the legal shield for political speech—underscoring that public dialogue outpaces legal intimidation unless clearly false and malicious.

We’ve seen it too often, when candidates in politics can’t make a good argument, they turn to lawfare and hope that the public perception of expensive lawyers will do the work for them of winning an office they otherwise don’t deserve. In Roger Reynold’s case, he is the one who got himself into trouble in the first place, and nobody wants to see that kind of trouble in the office of the Butler County Commissioners, just to repair the reputation of a person looking for respect that he lost during the process. There are other ways to win respect, and this isn’t how you do it. Showing leadership is the way to restore party integrity, not to make more rifts that cost more than reputations. And hiring expensive, pin-headed lawyers to send out form letters of intimidation on a case they know is phony as they sent it, is why there are problems in politics to begin with.

Footnotes

1. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan set the “actual malice” standard for public officials, requiring proof that the defendant knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard, and emphasized “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate on public issues. 13 14

2. The original jury verdict in Alabama awarded L.B. Sullivan $500,000 in damages; the U.S. Supreme Court reversed unanimously in 1964. 15

3. Former Butler County Auditor Roger Reynolds’ 2022 unlawful-interest conviction was overturned for insufficient evidence in May 2024; the appeals court ordered acquittal and discharge. 1 2

4. The Ohio Supreme Court, in September 2024, declined to restore Reynolds to office mid-term but affirmed his eligibility to run in the future. 5

5. Butler County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser cleared Commissioner Cindy Carpenter of misconduct after the Oxford apartment incident, noting the gesture was “unseemly” but not unlawful. 6

6. Michael Ryan launched his commission bid in May 2025 and lists numerous Republican endorsements on his campaign website. 10 9

7. Local reporting describes a crowded May 2026 GOP primary field for the commission seat and outlines competing narratives about experience versus future focus. 11

Bibliography

• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case summaries and analyses: LII / Cornell Wex; First Amendment Encyclopedia (MTSU); Wikipedia overview; FindLaw case history; Encyclopaedia Britannica.

• Reynolds appellate decision and related coverage: Twelfth District opinion (PDF); WCPO; Cincinnati Enquirer; WLWT; Ohio Supreme Court case update.

• Carpenter incident and prosecutorial review: Journal-News; Local 12 WKRC; Cincinnati.com video clip.

• Michael Ryan campaign and endorsements: Ryan for Butler County website; Journal-News launch story; Primary field coverage.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Ohio Governor Race: Vivek Ramaswamy vs. Amy Acton—”the lockdown lady”

You know, people keep asking me about this Ohio governor race, and I’ll tell you what I think: Vivek Ramaswamy is going to win, and he’s going to win big. But that doesn’t mean you sit back and assume it’s all going to happen on autopilot. Campaigns aren’t won by assumptions; they’re won by hard work, strategy, and relentless execution. And if you’ve seen some of the chatter online—polls showing Amy Acton up by a point or two—you might think, “Wow, is Vivek in trouble?” No, he’s not. But let’s break this down because there’s a lot of smoke and mirrors in these early numbers.

First, let’s talk about Amy Acton. Who is she? Most people don’t even remember her name right now, and that’s part of the problem. She’s the former Ohio Health Director who became the face of lockdowns during COVID. Back in 2020, she was the one telling you to stay home, mask up, and cancel your life. She shut down schools, businesses, county fairs—you name it.¹ She was Ohio’s Dr. Fauci, taking cues straight from the CDC and enforcing some of the harshest restrictions in the Midwest. And it wasn’t just policy; it was the tone. She leaned into fear. She made people miserable. And when the heat got too much, she resigned in June 2020 because she refused to lift bans on county fairs.² That’s her legacy.

Now, fast forward to 2025. People have short memories, and Democrats are counting on that. They’re hoping voters see “Dr. Acton” and think “compassionate health expert” instead of “lockdown czar.” But here’s the reality: once she starts talking, once Vivek and his team start connecting her to those lockdowns, it’s game over. Ohioans haven’t forgotten the pain of 2020—they’ve just moved on. But if you remind them who caused it, they’ll move on from her real fast.

And what’s she running on? Abortion rights, reproductive freedom, and vague promises of “public health leadership.”³ That’s it. No major accomplishments since leaving office. No executive experience beyond a failed stint as health director. She’s endorsed by unions like AFSCME and UAW, and big-city mayors are lining up behind her.⁴ But endorsements don’t erase a record of failure. And in a state that leans red, with Trump back in the White House and MAGA energy surging, that’s not enough.

Now, Vivek Ramaswamy—he’s the opposite story. Entrepreneur, author, former presidential candidate. He’s smart, articulate, and aggressive. He’s raised nearly $10 million for this race, compared to Acton’s $1.4 million.⁵ He’s got Trump’s endorsement, JD Vance in his corner, and the Ohio GOP machine behind him.⁶ His platform? Bold: eliminate income and property taxes, merit pay for teachers, work requirements for Medicaid.⁷ He’s even courting unions, which is a savvy move in a state where blue-collar voters matter.⁸

So why the tight polls? Because polls lie. Or, more accurately, they mislead. Early polls oversample urban areas, lean left in methodology, and create narratives that help Democrats fundraise. RealClearPolitics has Vivek up by 6.5 points (49.5% to 43%).⁹ But Impact Research claims Acton is down by just one point, and Hart Research even shows her up by one among likely voters.¹⁰ Sounds scary, right? Until you realize these are snapshots taken before the campaign really starts. Acton hasn’t been vetted yet. She hasn’t faced Vivek on a debate stage. She hasn’t had to answer for the misery she caused during COVID. When that happens, those numbers will swing hard.

Here’s what I told people: don’t panic, but don’t get complacent. Vivek could walk out today and win by 15 points, maybe more. On Acton’s best day, she loses by eight. But campaigns aren’t about best days; they’re about execution. Vivek needs ads, billboards, ground game, and a war chest big enough to drown out the noise. And that’s why he’s smart to push fundraising now. Take nothing for granted. Because Democrats will throw everything at this race—they know Ohio is a battleground, and they’d love to embarrass Trump by flipping it blue.

And let’s not forget the Trump factor. If Trump does a couple of rallies in Ohio for Vivek, it’s lights out for Acton. He probably doesn’t even need that help, but it would seal the deal. MAGA voters will turn out in force. Independents? They’ll break for Vivek once they see Acton’s record. And suburban moms—the group Democrats are banking on—aren’t going to forget who kept their kids out of school for months. That’s political kryptonite.

So what happens when Acton starts talking? Disaster. She’s awkward, ideological, and out of touch. She was a radical during COVID, and she hasn’t changed. Democrats think they can hide that, but they can’t. The minute Vivek’s team rolls out ads showing her press conferences from 2020, it’s over. She’s the lockdown lady. The face of fear. And Ohioans aren’t voting for that in 2026.

Now, let’s talk strategy. Vivek needs to keep doing what he’s doing: stay aggressive, stay visible, and keep hammering the contrast. He’s a builder; she’s a bureaucrat. He’s about freedom; she’s about control. And he needs to remind voters that elections have consequences—because if Acton wins, Ohio goes backward. More mandates, more government overreach, more progressive nonsense. That’s the choice.

So, bottom line: Vivek wins. Easily. But only if he fights like he’s ten points down. No coasting, no assumptions. Raise the money, run the ads, knock the doors. Because politics is like football—you don’t win by reading the headlines; you win by playing the game. And when the game starts, Amy Acton is going to get crushed. She’s going to be exposed for what she is: a failed health director with no vision, no leadership, and no chance.

And let’s not forget just how angry people were at Amy Acton during and after those lockdowns. This wasn’t mild criticism—it was rage, rage that she provoked. People had been pushed beyond their limit, and she knew it as she did it. Protesters showed up at her home in Bexley, some carrying rifles, shouting slogans, and waving signs with anti-Semitic slurs.¹ Armed demonstrators patrolled her street while others plastered her address online.² She had to be assigned a security detail and eventually went into hiding because the threats were so severe.³ People doxed her, compared her to Nazis, and called her a “globalist” for extending stay-at-home orders.⁴ It got so bad that she resigned under pressure, citing concerns for her safety and her family’s well-being.⁵ That’s the level of backlash we’re talking about—the kind of fury that doesn’t just disappear. Ohioans haven’t forgotten that, and once voters are reminded, it will come roaring back. And all that was just for a member of the DeWine administration. Imagine her as the head of the Executive Branch.

Notes on doxing actions:

1. Forward. “Ohio Protesters Gather in Front of Dr. Amy Acton’s Home.” May 2020.

2. Times of Israel. “Jewish Ohio Health Official Resigns After Anti-Semitic Backlash.” June 2020.

3. FOX 5 New York. “Public Health Officials Resign, Some Assigned Security Detail Amid Threats.” June 2020.

4. WKYC. “Why Did Dr. Amy Acton Resign as Ohio Health Director?” November 2020.

5. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Amy Acton Faced Anti-Semitic Backlash After Lockdown Orders.” February 2021.

Bibliography

1. Cleveland.com. “Amy Acton’s Role in Ohio COVID Lockdowns.” June 2020.

2. Columbus Dispatch. “Acton Resigns Amid Controversy Over Fair Bans.” June 2020.

3. Cincinnati Enquirer. “Amy Acton Campaign Platform: Abortion Rights and Public Health.” October 2025.

4. Dayton Daily News. “Unions Back Acton for Governor.” November 2025.

5. RealClearPolitics. “Ohio Governor Race Polling Average.” December 2025.

6. Fox News. “Trump Endorses Vivek Ramaswamy for Ohio Governor.” November 2025.

7. Politico. “Ramaswamy’s Policy Agenda: Taxes, Education, Medicaid.” November 2025.

8. Wall Street Journal. “Ramaswamy Courts Unions in Ohio.” December 2025.

9. RealClearPolitics. “Ohio Governor Race Polling Average.” December 2025.

10. Impact Research and Hart Research Polls. “Ohio Governor Race Polling.” November 2025.

Rich Hoffman

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

Justice Deferred: Why Prosecutions Under Trump’s Second Term Remain Slow—and What Global Parallels Reveal

Donald Trump’s second term reignited expectations of sweeping accountability for political corruption. Yet, despite strong rhetoric and high-profile promises, major prosecutions remain elusive. One year into Trump’s second term, the question persists: Why haven’t the big names gone to jail? Hillary Clinton remains free, despite years of allegations. The Clintons’ ties to corruption, Epstein’s network, and the weaponization of law enforcement against Trump allies have fueled public frustration. From Rudy Giuliani to Peter Navarro, loyalists have faced bankruptcy and imprisonment for defending election integrity. Meanwhile, figures like Letitia James and James Comey—central to prosecutorial misconduct—walk free after cases were dismissed due to procedural irregularities, not innocence.

This paradox underscores a deeper truth: prosecutions are not merely legal acts—they are political acts requiring stability, mandate, and timing. In a polarized nation, aggressive prosecutions without securing legislative dominance risk triggering retaliatory cycles, undermining the very agenda they aim to protect.

The dismissal of cases against Letitia James and James Comey illustrates the fragility of prosecutorial authority. A federal judge recently threw out charges citing the unlawful appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney, despite clear evidence of misconduct. The crime was procedural, not substantive—a loophole exploited to shield political elites from accountability1.

This is not unique. DOJ statistics reveal that high-profile political cases often span 3–7 years from indictment to resolution, with declination rates exceeding 39% when political volatility threatens institutional legitimacy2. Prosecutors, like any actors, weigh personal risk: firebomb threats, reputational ruin, and career destruction loom large when partisan control can flip overnight.

Trump’s own experience reinforces this caution. His first term saw relentless lawfare—Mueller investigations, impeachment trials, and civil suits—weaponized to cripple his agenda. The lesson? Without a stable mandate, prosecutions become pyrrhic victories, inviting reciprocal vengeance when power shifts.

The human toll of this legal warfare is staggering. Rudy Giuliani, once America’s Mayor, now faces $1.36 million in unpaid legal fees, with bankruptcy looming3. Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO, has liquidated assets to fund election integrity lawsuits, burning through millions4. Tina Peters, a Colorado clerk, sits in jail for investigating election fraud—a chilling precedent for dissent5.

These cases illustrate the asymmetry of lawfare: defending truth costs fortunes, while weaponizing law costs taxpayers. The financial attrition of Trump allies serves as a deterrent, signaling to future operatives that loyalty carries existential risk.

Enter the Epstein files—a political gambit disguised as transparency. Democrats, desperate to derail Trump ahead of midterms, embraced Epstein disclosures as a “gotcha” strategy, betting on salacious ties to tarnish MAGA credibility6. What they miscalculated was Trump’s counterplay: full release of the files, exposing a Democratic nexus of sexual trafficking, influence peddling, and elite corruption7.

This maneuver exemplifies asymmetric warfare: bait the opposition into overreach, then detonate the trap. As Trump played it, “rat poison in the nest”—a tactic to implode the colony from within. The fallout promises to be seismic, not for Trump, but for the progressive aristocracy entangled in Epstein’s web.

Brazil offers a cautionary mirror. Jair Bolsonaro, ousted after contesting election fraud, now faces 27 years in prison for an alleged coup attempt8. His successor, Lula da Silva—himself a convict released to reclaim power—embodies the cyclical weaponization of law. The message is clear: in politicized systems, justice is not blind; it is partisan.

For MAGA strategists, Bolsonaro’s fate underscores the imperative of institutional entrenchment. Without securing Congress and insulating the judiciary, Trump’s prosecutions risk reversal under a Democratic resurgence.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 61% of suspects in matters concluded in FY 2023, with political cases often delayed beyond five years due to appeals and procedural challenges2. The median time from investigation to decision: 61 days, but high-profile cases involving political figures skew far longer, often requiring special counsel oversight.

Public impatience for “perp walks” is understandable. Yet, in the calculus of power, timing trumps theatrics. Immediate arrests may gratify the base but jeopardize the agenda if Democrats reclaim legislative control. Trump’s restraint is not weakness—it is war by other means.

The Epstein gambit, midterm positioning, and structural reforms signal a long game: secure the mandate, then strike decisively. Until then, justice remains deferred—not denied. I would say to all who are seeking justice, defend Trump for the midterms, keep the Democrats running for the hills. And sweep them up once the rat nest is poisoned and they can no longer do any harm. But don’t play nice with them. They would never give you the same benefit.

References

NBC News. Judge dismisses cases against James Comey and Letitia James after finding prosecutor was unlawfully appointed. Nov. 24, 2025.1

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Federal Justice Statistics, 2023. March 2025.2

USA Today. Rudy Giuliani must pay his defense lawyers $1.36 million. Sept. 17, 2025.3

CBS News. Convicted Colorado election clerk Tina Peters transfer controversy. Nov. 23, 2025.4

PBS News. Trump signs bill to release Jeffrey Epstein case files. Nov. 20, 2025.7

CBS News. Jair Bolsonaro arrested before serving 27-year sentence for coup attempt. Nov. 22, 2025.8

To understand why prosecutions under Trump’s second term remain slow, we must situate this phenomenon within a broader historical and theoretical context. Lawfare—the strategic use of legal systems as instruments of political warfare—is not an American invention. It is a global sport, played with Machiavellian finesse and Foucauldian precision

Consider South Korea: former presidents Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak were imprisoned for corruption, only to be pardoned later in a theatrical display of political mercy. This oscillation between punishment and absolution mirrors Michel Foucault’s thesis on power as a dynamic, relational force rather than a static possession [1]. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trials have dragged on for years, punctuated by coalition collapses and judicial reforms—a case study in how legal timing intersects with political survival [2].

Historical parallels abound. Watergate, often romanticized as a triumph of accountability, was in fact a slow burn. The scandal erupted in 1972, yet Nixon resigned only in 1974 after exhaustive hearings and strategic delays. Roman legal systems offer an even older template: prosecutions were frequently deferred until political winds shifted, illustrating Cicero’s dictum that law is the servant of politics, not its master [3].

Theoretical frameworks enrich this analysis. Machiavelli, in The Prince, counseled rulers to appear just while wielding power ruthlessly—a maxim evident in Trump’s calibrated restraint. Foucault’s Discipline and Punish reminds us that law is a technology of control, deployed to normalize behavior and consolidate authority [4]. When Trump delays prosecutions, he is not abdicating justice; he is performing sovereignty, signaling that timing—not immediacy—defines true dominion.

Global data corroborates this thesis. Transparency International reports that high-profile political prosecutions in democracies average 4–6 years from indictment to resolution, with delays often justified as procedural safeguards [5]. In Brazil, Lula da Silva’s conviction and subsequent resurgence exemplify lawfare’s cyclical nature: today’s convict is tomorrow’s kingmaker [6].

This expanded lens reframes Trump’s strategy as part of a transnational pattern: justice deferred is not justice denied—it is justice weaponized. The playful irony? While pundits clamor for perp walks, seasoned strategists know that the real game is chess, not checkers. Arrests gratify the mob; timing secures the throne.

Footnotes:
[1] Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
[2] Peleg, I. (2023). Judicial Politics in Israel: Between Law and Power. Israel Studies Review.
[3] Cicero, M.T. (54 BCE). De Legibus.
[4] Machiavelli, N. (1532). The Prince.
[5] Transparency International. Global Corruption Report, 2024.
[6] Hunter, W. (2020). The Politics of Corruption in Brazil. Journal of Democracy.

Bibliography

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.

Machiavelli, N. (1532). The Prince.

Cicero, M.T. (54 BCE). De Legibus.

Peleg, I. (2023). Judicial Politics in Israel: Between Law and Power. Israel Studies Review.

Transparency International. Global Corruption Report, 2024.

Hunter, W. (2020). The Politics of Corruption in Brazil. Journal of Democracy.

Rich Hoffman

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

Thanksgiving, Family, and the Weight of Choices: Why Generations Rise or Fall Together

Thanksgiving is one of those rare moments in American life where everything slows down just enough for us to notice what really matters. The smell of turkey fills the house, football hums in the background, and for a few hours, the world’s chaos takes a back seat to mashed potatoes and pumpkin pie. I love this time of year. I love the family gatherings, the laughter, the jokes that only make sense to people who share your last name. But, Thanksgiving is also a fascinating study in human nature. You sit around that table and, without saying a word, you can see the weight of another year on everyone’s face—the triumphs, the mistakes, the quiet regrets.

What is family, really? People say it’s blood, but I think it’s more complicated than that. Family is biology, sure, but it’s also choices—every choice we make and every choice our kids make. And those choices stack up like bricks over time, building the life we live. Some people build palaces; others build prisons. Thanksgiving is where you see the architecture of those choices on full display.

When you’re born, you don’t get to pick your family. You’re handed a set of people and told, “These are yours.” But as life goes on, family becomes less about biology and more about decisions. Who you marry, how you raise your kids, what values you teach them—those choices ripple through generations. I’ve raised kids and now grandkids, and I can tell you this: the quality of a family gathering isn’t determined by the turkey on the table; it’s determined by the choices everyone made to get there.

I’ve seen families where bitterness hangs in the air like smoke because bad decisions piled up—wrong marriages, financial disasters, grudges that never healed. And I’ve seen families where people genuinely enjoy each other’s company because they made better choices. It’s not luck. It’s not fate. It’s choices.

I’ve always said this—and sometimes people look at me funny when I do—but I treat kids differently than I treat adults. Why? Because kids still have options. They haven’t stacked up a lifetime of mistakes yet. They’re like a blank canvas with endless possibilities. Adults, on the other hand, well… by the time you hit your 40s or 50s, the mistakes start showing. You can see it in their faces, in their posture, in the way they talk about life. Every bad decision leaves a mark.

I’ve sat at Thanksgiving tables and watched this play out. You see the cousin who married the wrong person, and now every conversation is about how hard life is. You see the uncle who spent his 20s chasing quick thrills and now looks like a relic of his former self. And then you look at the kids—bright-eyed, full of energy, thinking they’re invincible. They don’t know yet that life is a marathon, not a sprint.

That’s why I invest in kids. I talk to them differently. I try to steer them away from the mistakes that everyone else seems determined to make. Because if you can help a kid avoid even half the bad choices their peers make, you’ve given them a head start that will pay off for decades.

Life is like a marathon. At the starting line, everyone looks the same—bunched up, full of energy, ready to run. But five miles in, the pack starts to spread out. Some people are way ahead, others are falling behind, and the gap keeps growing. That’s what choices do.

And the stats prove it. By middle age, the spread is enormous:

• 41% of first marriages end in divorce, and the odds get worse with each attempt.

• The average U.S. household carries $105,056 in debt, with mortgage debt alone averaging $268,060.

• Over 40% of adults are obese, and the highest rates are among people in their 40s and 50s.

These aren’t random outcomes. They’re the result of choices stacked up over decades. The people who finish strong aren’t the ones who sprint early—they’re the ones who pace themselves, make smart decisions, and stay disciplined when everyone else is falling apart.

Here’s something I’ve noticed over the years: misery loves company. People who make bad choices don’t just suffer quietly—they want everyone else to make the same mistakes. Why? Because it makes them feel less alone. If you’ve wrecked your finances, married the wrong person, and let your health go, it’s comforting to see the next generation do the same. It’s almost like a twisted form of validation: “See? It’s not just me. This is how life works.”

But let’s be honest—it’s not “how life works.” It’s how bad decisions impact outcomes. And the numbers back this up. Divorce, debt, obesity—they’re all connected. Stress from debt leads to overeating. Relationship breakdowns lead to depression. Depression leads to bad health habits. It’s a cycle, and once you’re in it, climbing out feels impossible.

I’ve seen this at family gatherings. You hear the stories—another year of bills piling up, another kid in trouble, another health scare. And everyone nods like it’s normal. But it’s not normal. It’s the result of choices. And the sad part? People cling to the idea that something magical will fix it—a lottery win, a miracle from God, a quick fix that wipes the slate clean. But most of the time, that fix never comes.

Here’s the good news: the cycle can be broken. It’s not easy, but it’s possible—and it starts with the next generation. The key isn’t to make kids perfect. The key is to help them avoid the big mistakes—the ones that derail lives. Teach them that life isn’t about following the crowd. Because the crowd? The crowd is headed straight for debt, divorce, and diabolical outcomes.

So what do you do? You teach kids to think long-term. You teach them that every choice is a brick in the house they’re building. Pick the wrong bricks, and the house collapses. Pick the right ones, and you’ve got a fortress.

I tell my grandkids, “Don’t chase what everyone else is chasing. Most people are running toward misery and calling it fun.” I remind them that life is a marathon, and the people who finish strong aren’t the ones who sprint early—they’re the ones who pace themselves, make smart decisions, and stay disciplined when everyone else is falling apart.

And here’s the beautiful part: when you do this, you don’t just change one life. You change a family. You change a legacy. Because good choices ripple forward just like bad ones do. Imagine a Thanksgiving table where everyone is healthy, happy, and financially secure—not because they got lucky, but because they made choices that built that reality. That’s possible. I’ve seen glimpses of it in my own family, and it’s worth every ounce of effort.

Thanksgiving is more than turkey and football—it’s a mirror. Every year, when the family gathers, you can see the story of choices written on people’s faces. Some look vibrant, full of life, laughing easily. Others look worn down, carrying the weight of years of bad decisions. And it’s not just physical—it’s in the conversations. You hear who’s struggling with debt, who’s on their third marriage, who’s battling health problems.

But here’s the thing: Thanksgiving also gives us hope. It’s a chance to reset, to remind ourselves what matters. For a few hours, the bills and the stress fade away, and we just enjoy being together. And if we use that time wisely—not just to eat, but to inspire—we can plant seeds that change the next generation.

Family is a gift, but it’s also a responsibility. It’s not just about biology—it’s about choices. Every choice we make ripples through generations, shaping the lives of people who haven’t even been born yet. That’s heavy, but it’s also empowering. Because if bad choices can create misery, good choices can create joy.

So this Thanksgiving, as you sit around the table, look at the faces you care about and ask yourself: What legacy are we building? Are we passing down wisdom, or just repeating the same mistakes? Because the truth is, the cycle doesn’t have to continue. We can break it. We can teach our kids to run the marathon wisely, to pace themselves, to make decisions that lead to health, happiness, and freedom.

And if we do that—if we choose better and inspire better—then maybe, just maybe, the next Thanksgiving will feel different. The laughter will be louder, the smiles will be brighter, and the weight of bad choices will be replaced by the joy of good ones. That’s something worth being thankful for.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Drug War’s Turning Point: Why Mexico’s Palace Was Stormed and Venezuela Became Ground Zero

Latin America is boiling over. In Mexico, hundreds of thousands of protesters stormed the National Palace in Mexico City, demanding accountability from President Claudia Sheinbaum after years of cartel-driven violence and corruption. In Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro clings to power through brazen election fraud, while his regime funnels billions from narcotics and oil into global networks tied to China, Russia, and Iran.

What triggered this sudden wave of defiance? The assassination of Uruapan Mayor Carlos Manzo—a rare politician who dared to defy cartel intimidation—was the spark. But the fuel was a psychological shift: the sight of U.S. aircraft carriers off Venezuela’s coast and Trump’s aggressive strikes on cartel-linked vessels in the Caribbean. For millions living under cartel terror, this was a signal: Big Brother is watching—and ready to act.

Section 1: Claudia Sheinbaum’s Crisis of Credibility

Mexico’s first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum, entered office in 2024, promising reform. Instead, her administration is mired in scandal. Two former officials accused of running a cartel-linked criminal enterprise remain at large—one even holds a Senate seat. U.S. Treasury sanctions forced Mexican banks to shut down after laundering millions for cartels.

Key Facts:

• Corruption Allegations: Intercam and CIBanco closed after U.S. sanctions for laundering cartel money.

• Public Perception: 60% of Americans view Mexico’s government unfavorably; nearly half say it’s doing a “terrible job” on border security.

• Protests: November 15 saw the largest anti-government rally in decades—120 injured, 20 arrested, and palace gates torn down.

Sheinbaum’s dilemma is apparent: appease cartels or risk destabilization. Her socialist platform, like AMLO’s before her, has created fertile ground for corruption—because authoritarian systems are easy to buy off.

Section 2: The Cartel State—Mexico’s Parallel Government

Cartels are not fringe actors—they are the state behind the state. Their reach extends from rural villages to federal institutions.

Scope of Influence:

• Major Players: Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) dominate, alongside Gulf, Juárez, and splinter groups.

• Revenue: Mexican cartels generate $12.1 billion annually, surpassing Colombia as the world’s top drug-trafficking economy.

• Territorial Control: CJNG operates on every continent except Antarctica, controlling ports, smuggling routes, and even illicit gold mines in Venezuela.

Officials face a simple calculus: profit or perish. This systemic corruption explains why extermination camps—complete with crematoriums—exist in Jalisco and Colima, with authorities complicit in cover-ups.

Section 3: Fentanyl—Mexico’s Deadliest Export

Since 2019, Mexico has replaced China as the primary source of U.S.-bound fentanyl. The scale is staggering:

• Labs: CJNG and Sinaloa run industrial-scale “super labs” producing fentanyl powder and pills using Chinese precursors.

• Lab Dismantling: Under Sheinbaum, authorities dismantled 750 clandestine labs, seized 1.5 tons of fentanyl, and confiscated over 2 million pills in six months.

• Largest Bust: In Sinaloa, forces seized 630,000 pills and 282 lbs of powdered fentanyl—the biggest in history.

• Border Seizures:

• FY 2023: 27,275 lbs (12,370 kg)

• FY 2024: 21,489 lbs (9,750 kg)

• FY 2025 YTD: 5,515 lbs (2,500 kg)

• DEA Estimates: Cartels produce enough fentanyl for billions of lethal doses annually.

Economics:

• A single kilogram yields 500,000–1,000,000 doses, retailing for $20–$30 per pill in the U.S.—a street value exceeding $20 million per kg.

• CJNG and Sinaloa launder $1.4 billion annually through U.S. casinos and shell companies tied to fentanyl proceeds.

This is not just a criminal enterprise—it’s a weapon of mass destruction disguised as commerce.

Section 4: The Assassination That Sparked a Revolt

Carlos Manzo, Uruapan’s mayor, was gunned down on November 1 during Day of the Dead festivities. His crime? Publicly denouncing cartel extortion of avocado growers and demanding federal action.

Aftermath:

• Mastermind Arrested: Jorge Armando “El Licenciado,” linked to CJNG, ordered the hit via encrypted messaging.

• Security Failure: Seven of Manzo’s own bodyguards were arrested for complicity.

• Protests: His murder ignited nationwide outrage, culminating in the storming of the National Palace.

Manzo’s assassination was not isolated—seven mayors have been killed in 2025 alone. For ordinary Mexicans, his death symbolized a truth long whispered: the government serves the cartels, not the people.

Section 5: Venezuela—The Cartel Republic

While Mexico bleeds, Venezuela metastasizes. Maduro’s regime is a narco-state masquerading as a government.

Election Fraud:

• Maduro declared victory in 2024 with 51.2% of votes, but opposition tallies show 67–70% for Edmundo González.

• International observers condemned the process as illegitimate.

Drug Trade Dynamics:

• Venezuela is a key transshipment hub for cocaine and synthetic drugs, generating billions for elites tied to the Cartel of the Suns.

• Chinese chemical suppliers provide precursors; Chinese money-laundering networks move cartel cash globally.

Geopolitical Stakes:

• China relies on Venezuelan oil to fuel its Belt and Road ambitions; Russia and Iran exploit Caracas as a Western Hemisphere foothold.

• U.S. warships and the USS Gerald Ford carrier group now patrol Caribbean waters, signaling a counternarcotics mission—or regime change.

Section 6: The Trump Doctrine—Psychology as Strategy

Trump’s decision to strike cartel-linked vessels in international waters was more than a military maneuver—it was a psychological operation.

Impact:

• 22 vessels destroyed; 83 killed in Caribbean strikes since September.

• For Mexicans and Venezuelans living under cartel terror, these images broadcast hope: The U.S. is here, and the cartels are not invincible.

This perception emboldened protesters to storm Mexico’s palace and fueled whispers of resistance in Venezuela. Military presence, even without boots on the ground, alters the risk calculus for oppressed populations.

Section 7: The Human Cost

• Mexico: Over 460,000 homicides since 2006 in cartel-related violence.

• Border Spillover: Cartels issue bounties up to $50,000 for hits on U.S. law enforcement; ICE and CBP agents face ambushes and drone surveillance.

• Ohio Connection: Even local sheriffs like Butler County’s Richard Jones have been on cartel hit lists for years—a testament to the reach of these networks.

Section 8: Why This Matters

This is not just a regional crisis—it’s a global one. Cartels are the connective tissue between socialist regimes, authoritarian states, and transnational crime. They finance corruption, destabilize democracies, and weaponize narcotics against civil societies.

Solutions:

1. Designate Cartels as Terrorist Organizations (already underway for CJNG and Sinaloa).

2. Target Financial Networks—especially Chinese-linked laundering operations.

3. Deploy Persistent Naval Presence to disrupt trafficking routes.

4. Empower Local Resistance through intelligence and logistical support.

5. Expose Ideological Cover—Marxism cloaked in populism.

Closing Thoughts

The storming of Mexico’s palace and the unrest in Venezuela are not isolated events—they are symptoms of a deeper ideological and criminal convergence. Trump’s military strategy has cracked the psychological armor of cartel dominance, giving ordinary people a reason to fight back. And for anybody who wants to fight back against sex trafficking and the degradation of human intellect, this fight against the cartels, from many directions, is the right thing. A window has opened for the people of Mexico that they have long been waiting for, and they are starting to take action. The best way to defeat the cartels is to turn the hunters into the hunted and make the people of Mexico defend themselves, knowing that their big brother is just offshore to help them out at a moment’s notice. And of course, it’s much more than Mexico; the entire region has been overrun by communist influences for the last century, so attacking the drug boats is about reclaiming territorial security from very hostile, foreign invaders. And the drug boats are just the start of something really good.

Rich Hoffman

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

	vwells34 on Where Evil Lives in Butler Cou…
	Rich Hoffman on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Mysterious London Stone: S…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Rich Hoffman on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Forbidden Archaeology…
	Rich Hoffman on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…
	Anonymous on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: