The Clear Choice of Michael Ryan: Having the guts to be successful

The last day of February 2026 marked a pivotal moment in Butler County politics with the official launch of Michael Ryan’s “Boots on the Ground” campaign for Butler County Commissioner. Held amid enthusiastic support from local Republicans, the event drew a strong turnout of volunteers, elected officials, and community members ready to canvass neighborhoods, distribute materials, and build momentum ahead of the May 5 primary and the November general election. This gathering was more than a routine campaign kickoff; it represented a broader call for generational renewal in conservative leadership, fiscal responsibility, and unapologetic advocacy for free-market principles in one of Ohio’s key counties.

Butler County, encompassing cities like Hamilton, Middletown, Fairfield, and Oxford, has long been a Republican stronghold in southwest Ohio, though not without its internal tensions and occasional Democratic inroads through local races. The county commissioners oversee a budget in the hundreds of millions, managing everything from infrastructure and economic development to public safety and social services. The position demands not just administrative competence but the ability to unite diverse stakeholders—townships, cities, businesses, and residents—while resisting the temptations of prolonged incumbency that can lead to complacency or overreach.

The current dynamics in the 2026 race stem from dissatisfaction with the status quo. Incumbent Commissioner Cindy Carpenter, who has held the office since her first election around 2011 and has been re-elected multiple times, faced mounting criticism for her tenure. Critics pointed to a perceived lack of strong fiscal oversight, strained relationships with constituents and colleagues, and a series of personal and professional controversies. Notably, in November 2025, Carpenter was involved in a heated incident at Level 27, an apartment complex near Miami University in Oxford, where her granddaughter resided. The complex manager accused her of using inappropriate and allegedly racist language, leveraging her political position for intimidation, and making an obscene gesture during a dispute over rent and eviction matters. Video footage captured parts of the exchange, prompting a formal complaint and an investigation by Butler County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser. In December 2025, the prosecutor cleared Carpenter of criminal misconduct, stating that her behavior did not rise to that level and questioning the complainant’s credibility. While no charges resulted, the episode fueled perceptions of poor judgment and an inability to handle pressure gracefully under public scrutiny.1

Another contender in the race, Roger Reynolds, brought his own baggage. A longtime political figure who served as Butler County Auditor from 2008 until his removal following legal issues, Reynolds was convicted in December 2022 on a felony count of unlawful interest in a public contract related to corruption allegations. He was sentenced to community control, a fine, and jail time (stayed pending appeal). The conviction was overturned by an appeals court in 2024, restoring his eligibility to hold office, but the Ohio Supreme Court declined to restore him to the auditor position in a related quo warranto case in September 2024. The episode cast a long shadow over his reputation, with legal battles, public scrutiny, and associations with controversy making him a polarizing figure, even among some Republicans who preferred fresher leadership unencumbered by such history.2

Into this landscape stepped Michael Ryan, a 40-year-old lifelong Butler County resident and former Hamilton City Council member. Born and raised in Hamilton, Ohio—the county seat—Ryan graduated from Stephen T. Badin High School in 2003. He earned a B.A. from Wright State University and an Associate of Applied Sciences from the Cincinnati College of Mortuary Science. Following in his father’s footsteps—his father, Don Ryan, served as former Hamilton Mayor—Michael entered public service by winning a seat on Hamilton City Council in 2017, where he was the top vote-getter and subsequently selected as Vice Mayor for two years under the city’s charter. He repeated this success in 2021, again topping the ticket and serving another term as Vice Mayor. During his eight years on council (he opted not to seek a third term in 2025 to pursue the commissioner race), Ryan was credited with supporting initiatives that fostered job creation, economic revitalization in Hamilton—a city historically challenged by manufacturing decline—and collaboration with businesses and residents. He played a key role in taxpayer advocacy efforts, including opposition to certain aspects of the Miami Conservancy District that threatened assessment increases, and contributed to projects like historical preservation (e.g., the train depot) and potential infrastructure improvements such as Amtrak stops.3

Professionally, Ryan has worked full-time for over a decade as a life insurance underwriter for Western & Southern Financial Group. He is married to his wife Amanda, with whom he has been together for seven years at the time of the campaign launch; the couple resides in Hamilton with their two pugs, Piper and Jackson. Ryan’s family-oriented life, stable career, and emphasis on faith and conservative values have been highlighted as reflective of his character and leadership style.4

In May 2025, Ryan announced his candidacy for the Butler County Commissioner seat held by Carpenter. In January 2026, the Butler County Republican Party delivered a resounding endorsement to Ryan, with 71% of the central committee vote (118-42 over Reynolds, with some abstentions), a margin described as “historic” by party leaders. This overwhelming support, including backing from figures such as Auditor Nancy Nix, State Representative Thomas Hall, State Senator George Lang, U.S. Congressman Warren Davidson (who endorsed him in February 2026), and others like Treasurer Michael McNamara, signaled a clear preference for new leadership over incumbency or past controversies. The endorsement eliminated ambiguity: Ryan was the official Republican choice heading into the primary.5

The February 28, 2026, launch event exemplified this momentum. Attendees included Ryan’s wife Amanda, his brother Chris, his boss from Western & Southern, and elected officials like Thomas Hall, Nancy Nix, and others. The day began with a prayer for protection and peace, particularly for U.S. soldiers amid global tensions, followed by a moment of silence to honor service members. Speakers emphasized themes of inevitable, beneficial change—drawing analogies from nature where stagnation gives way to resilient growth—and applied them to politics. One introducer highlighted Ryan’s composure, integrity, and proven track record in defending against unjust policies, noting how he mentored others in collaborative advocacy. The event stressed grassroots activation: door-knocking, sign placement, and voter conversations focused on simple questions like “Are you ready for change?” or “Are you okay with the status quo?”

Ryan himself spoke directly, thanking supporters and outlining his vision. He called for engagement to place someone in office who would fight for core values—fiscal responsibility, strong communities, and a voice for every corner of Butler County. He framed the race as preparation for 2050 and beyond, building a winning team that delivers results rather than perpetuating old patterns. With early voting starting April 5 and the primary on May 5, he urged activation to build momentum against Democrats already organizing. The speech closed with gratitude, a call for volunteers, and patriotic blessings.

The enthusiasm at the event was palpable. Volunteers rallied not just for a candidate but for a shift in Republican identity: away from apologetic or conciliatory postures toward Democrats and toward confident, unapologetic advocacy for success rooted in hard work, family values, church involvement, and economic freedom. Ryan embodies this next generation—articulate, family-oriented (with a supportive wife and stable home life signaling character), and tied to practical successes in Hamilton. Unlike predecessors who plateaued in interpersonal skills or succumbed to power’s pitfalls, Ryan appears equipped to unite rather than divide, recruit moderates through ideas rather than coercion, and extend Butler County’s economic strengths.

This campaign reflects larger national trends in the post-Trump Republican Party, often termed MAGA conservatism. Ohio has seen figures like JD Vance rise nationally, with speculation about future leaders like Vivek Ramaswamy in statewide roles. Locally, Ryan’s approach rejects the old unspoken accommodations where Republicans “play nice” to avoid seeming mean or greedy. Instead, it embraces capitalism without apology, viewing success—decent homes, stable families, business ownership—as virtues to celebrate, not excuses to atone for. Democrats, facing demographic and ideological shifts, have lost ground; even some like Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman have moderated to survive. In Butler County, any Democratic gains (as in certain trustee races) often relied on obfuscating party labels, tactics unlikely to work against a well-endorsed, visible conservative like Ryan, especially with potential high-profile support from Trump in midterms.

The commissioner’s role, managing vast resources, requires someone who avoids scandals, handles relationships deftly, and prioritizes growth. Long tenures can breed entitlement; Ryan’s relative youth and fresh perspective promise renewal without inexperience. His association with successes in Hamilton—economic rebirth, taxpayer advocacy—suggests he can sharpen county-wide efforts.

As volunteers fan out in the coming weeks, the race tests whether Butler County voters embrace this change: from ambiguity to clarity, from incumbency’s risks to new leadership’s promise. Michael Ryan stands as the embodiment of that shift—a conservative not afraid to win, rooted in community, and ready to lead Butler County toward a more prosperous, principled future. In an era demanding bold stewardship, his campaign offers a compelling case that the best is yet to come.

Footnotes

1. See coverage of the November 2025 incident and December 2025 clearance: “Butler County commissioner cleared of misconduct despite heated exchange caught on camera,” WKRC (Dec. 4, 2025); “Prosecutor clears Butler County commissioner of misconduct after apartment dispute,” Journal-News (Dec. 3, 2025); prosecutor’s letter via local media.

2. On Reynolds’ conviction, overturn, and related cases: “After overturned conviction, Roger Reynolds is running for commissioner,” Cincinnati Enquirer (Sep. 8, 2025); Ohio Supreme Court decision in State ex rel. Reynolds v. Nix (Sep. 25, 2024); Attorney General sentencing release (Mar. 31, 2023).

3. Ryan’s council service and achievements: “Hamilton councilman Ryan to run for Butler County Commission,” Journal-News (May 19, 2025); campaign site ryanforbutler.com; announcements crediting work on economic projects and Miami Conservancy opposition.

4. Personal biography: From official campaign website ryanforbutler.com (“Faith and Family” section); family ties noted in “Newcomer Michael Ryan becomes Hamilton’s vice mayor,” Journal-News (Dec. 28, 2017).

5. Endorsement details: “County GOP backs new face for commissioner over incumbent,” Cincinnati Enquirer (Jan. 10, 2026); “Butler County GOP puts support behind county commission candidate Ryan,” Journal-News (Jan. 12, 2026); Warren Davidson endorsement release (Feb. 23, 2026) via campaign Facebook.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

The Dumps of Davos: Why America is not in the business of importing chaos and dysfunction

The annual gathering at Davos, nestled in the Swiss Alps, has long served as a peculiar summit where global elites convene to discuss the world’s pressing issues, often from the vantage point of immense wealth and influence. For many Americans, these meetings represent a detached conversation among the powerful, yet they offer a window into contrasting worldviews. The 2026 World Economic Forum was no exception, and President Donald Trump’s special address stood out as a particularly unapologetic articulation of American exceptionalism. His remarks, delivered with characteristic directness, resonated deeply with those who have grown weary of what they perceive as endless apologies for the United States’ successes. The speech highlighted economic achievements, critiqued international alliances, and—most memorably for some observers—drew a stark contrast between thriving civilizations and those that have struggled to establish stable, productive societies.

One of the most striking moments came when Trump referenced Somalia, describing it in blunt terms as a place that “is not even a country” in any meaningful sense of functional governance, and extending criticism to Somali immigrant communities in the United States, particularly in places like Minnesota, where integration challenges and related issues have been highlighted in public discourse. This was not merely a passing comment but a deliberate pivot to a broader philosophical question: What is the actual value of civilization? Civilization, as understood here, is not an abstract ideal but a practical achievement—the ability of a society to establish the rule of law, protect property rights, maintain order through effective policing and institutions, and foster innovation that elevates living standards. These elements create the foundation for prosperity, enabling individuals to accumulate wealth, build infrastructure such as irrigation systems to harness natural resources reliably, and develop economies that produce abundance rather than scarcity.

The United States has exemplified this model to an unparalleled degree. From its founding principles emphasizing individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise, it has generated extraordinary productivity. Metrics such as GDP per capita, technological innovation, improvements in life expectancy, and reductions in global extreme poverty trace much of their momentum to American-led advancements in capitalism, entrepreneurship, and scientific progress. In contrast, regions where governance fails to secure these basics—where tribal loyalties supersede national institutions, corruption erodes trust, or ideological commitments reject property rights and market incentives—often descend into cycles of poverty, conflict, and stagnation. Somalia serves as a poignant case study. Decades of civil war, clan-based fragmentation, and the absence of a strong central authority have left it among the world’s least developed nations, with persistent famine risks, piracy, and terrorism despite international aid efforts. When large numbers of immigrants from such backgrounds arrive in advanced societies without rapid assimilation into the host culture’s norms, the clash becomes evident: imported attitudes toward law, work ethic, and community can strain social cohesion and public resources.

Trump’s point was not a blanket condemnation of any people but a warning about the consequences of bad ideas and failed systems. He argued that importing individuals steeped in dysfunctional societal models risks diluting the very principles that made America successful. This echoes longstanding debates in political philosophy. Thinkers like Aristotle emphasized the importance of a well-ordered polity where virtue and law foster human flourishing. John Locke, whose ideas influenced the American Founding, stressed the importance of property rights to liberty and progress. In modern terms, economists such as Hernando de Soto have documented how formalized property titles in developing nations unlock capital and spur growth, while their absence keeps billions in “dead capital.” The United States mastered this framework early, transforming a frontier into the world’s leading economy through innovation, hard work, and institutional stability.

Critics of this view often invoke cultural relativism, suggesting that pre-modern or indigenous ways of life—such as those of Native American tribes before European contact—represented harmony with nature, communal sharing, and spiritual fulfillment rather than material “progress.” Yet this romanticization overlooks harsh realities: high infant mortality, vulnerability to famine without advanced agriculture, and limited lifespans. Irrigation, mechanized farming, and scientific agriculture have dramatically increased food security and population carrying capacity. Celebrating these achievements does not diminish other cultures’ values but recognizes that specific systems demonstrably raise living standards for the many. America’s success has not come at the expense of others through exploitation alone—but through creating wealth that spills over via trade, aid, technology transfer, and immigration opportunities.

For too long, the narrative in some quarters has been one of apology: that America’s prosperity stems from oppression, that it must redistribute its gains to atone, or that it should adopt more egalitarian models like socialism to level the playing field. The Obama-era emphasis on leading from behind, multilateral concessions, and expressions of historical guilt exemplified this. Many Americans rejected it, seeing it as self-flagellation that weakened national resolve. Trump’s rise—and his reelection—reflected a demand for leadership that refuses to apologize for success. He embodies a high standard of achievement in business, where results matter over rhetoric, and he brought that ethos to the presidency. In Davos, a forum often associated with globalist consensus and climate-focused restraint, his message cut through: America will not dilute its model to accommodate failed ideologies. Instead, others should emulate what works.

This extends beyond immigration to geopolitics. Consider the discussions around territorial ambitions, such as Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland. Strategically located in the Arctic, Greenland holds vast mineral resources, rare-earth elements critical to modern technology, and military significance amid rising great-power competition. Trump has argued that U.S. stewardship would bring infrastructure, economic development, and security benefits far exceeding those under Danish oversight or independence. Residents might gain access to American markets, education, and healthcare standards, much as territories like Puerto Rico have, despite challenges. Canada, too, benefits enormously from proximity to the U.S. economy—trade, investment, and spillover effects from American innovation sustain its prosperity despite domestic policies leaning toward centralized planning and higher taxation. Without the U.S. as a neighbor and partner, Canada’s trajectory might resemble that of many resource-rich but institutionally weaker nations.

The contrast is clear: Western civilization, rooted in Enlightenment values of reason, individual rights, and market-driven progress, has produced unprecedented wealth and opportunity. Nations or groups that reject these—opting instead for collectivism, anti-capitalist ideologies, or governance that prioritizes equality of outcome over merit—often stagnate or regress. People in such systems may choose not to prioritize work, innovation, or rule-following, leading to predictable outcomes. Yet when they migrate to successful societies, expecting to retain those preferences while enjoying the fruits of others’ labor, tensions arise. Trump articulated what many feel: the U.S. offers opportunity, but not at the cost of importing dysfunction. Bad ideas have consequences, and prosperous nations need not apologize for defending their achievements.

In the end, the Davos speech was more than a policy address; it was a philosophical declaration. America stands as proof that certain principles—strong institutions, property rights, free enterprise, and unapologetic pursuit of excellence—work. Others do not. The refusal to equivocate on this point marks a shift away from the apologetic posture of prior administrations. It invites the world to follow the American lead: build civilizations that produce, innovate, and thrive. Those who do will prosper; those who cling to failing models will not. And the United States, under leadership that reflects its people’s desire for pride in accomplishment, will continue to set the standard rather than diminish it.

Bibliography

• de Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. Basic Books, 2000.

• Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company, 1997.

• Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. 1689. (Cambridge University Press edition, 1988).

• Maddison, Angus. The World Economy: Historical Statistics. OECD Publishing, 2003.

• World Bank. “World Development Indicators.” Ongoing database, accessed 2026.

• Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Business, 2012.

• Trump, Donald J. Special Address to the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland, January 2026. Transcript available via White House archives and WEF.org.

• Various news reports on Davos 2026 speech, including The Washington Post (January 21, 2026), Fox News (2026 coverage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s response), and Al Jazeera (January 22, 2026).

Footnotes

1. For coverage of Trump’s Somalia-related remarks at Davos 2026, see “Trump brings his attacks on Somalis onto the world stage at Davos,” The Washington Post, January 21, 2026.

2. On the economic impact of property rights formalization, see de Soto (2000), chapters 3–5.

3. Comparative historical GDP data showing U.S. divergence post-1800: Maddison (2003).

4. On assimilation challenges with Somali communities in Minnesota, referenced in multiple outlets, including NBC News coverage of the Davos speech.

5. Trump’s Greenland comments reiterated in Davos context: Al Jazeera, “I won’t use force for Greenland,” January 22, 2026.

6. Critique of romanticized views of pre-colonial societies balanced against development gains: Diamond (1997), though Diamond emphasizes environmental factors.

7. Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) provide extensive evidence linking inclusive institutions to long-term prosperity.

Rich Hoffman

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

Good and Bad Protests: It all comes down to free elections

In the realm of global politics, protests serve as a barometer of societal discontent, yet their legitimacy often hinges on the nature of the regime they challenge. Distinguishing between “good” and “bad” protesters requires an examination of context: are they rallying against an elected, representative government, or are they resisting tyrannical rule? This question came into sharp focus during the 2020 protests in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which erupted following the death of George Floyd in police custody on May 25, 2020. These demonstrations, part of the broader Black Lives Matter movement, quickly escalated into widespread unrest, including looting, arson, and clashes with law enforcement, resulting in an estimated $500 million in damages across the Twin Cities area. In contrast, protests in countries like Venezuela, Hong Kong, and Iran have often been viewed through a different lens by the United States—supported as righteous uprisings against oppressive dictatorships. The key difference lies in the foundational principles of democracy, free will, and self-governance. Protests in the U.S. that aim to undermine policies enacted by a duly elected administration, such as those under President Donald Trump, border on sedition, while those abroad that seek to dismantle authoritarian structures align with American values of liberty and human rights. If we explore these distinctions, delving into historical and contemporary contexts, the role of money and culture in measuring societal value, the mechanics of representative republics versus mob rule, and the perils of communist influences attempting to exploit civil unrest for revolutionary ends.

To understand the Minneapolis protests, one must first grasp their origins and evolution. On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old African American man, was arrested by Minneapolis police officers on suspicion of using a counterfeit $20 bill. During the arrest, Officer Derek Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes, leading to his death, which was ruled a homicide. Video footage of the incident, captured by bystanders, went viral, igniting outrage over police brutality and systemic racism. Protests began the next day, initially peaceful, with thousands gathering at the site of Floyd’s death on East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue. However, by May 27, the demonstrations turned violent, with looting at stores like Target and Cub Foods, and arson setting fire to buildings along Lake Street, including the Third Precinct police station, which protesters overran and burned. Over the following days, the unrest spread to Saint Paul and other cities, leading to 604 arrests, 164 arsons, and two deaths during the initial phase from May 26 to June 7. The protests were characterized by demands for police reform, but they also included calls to defund or abolish police departments, which critics argued amounted to an assault on established law and order.

These events occurred against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s policies, particularly on immigration and law enforcement, which protesters often decried as oppressive. Trump’s approach emphasized strict border control, including the construction of a border wall and enhanced deportation efforts, aimed at enforcing existing laws passed by Congress. In Minnesota, a state with significant immigrant communities, some protests intertwined racial justice with immigration issues, portraying federal policies as tools of suppression. Yet, from the perspective of election legitimacy, these protests challenged the outcomes of the 2016 election, where Trump was elected on a platform promising stronger law enforcement and border security. The 2020 election, which saw Trump lose amid widespread mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic, further fueled debates over electoral integrity. Claims of irregularities, such as unverified mail ballots and changes to voting rules by state officials without legislative approval, led to lawsuits and audits, though courts largely upheld the results. Protesters in Minneapolis, by seeking to force policy changes through disruption rather than the ballot box, exemplified what some view as seditious behavior—actions that undermine a government chosen by the people.

Sedition, as defined in U.S. law under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, involves conspiring to overthrow or oppose by force the authority of the government or to prevent the execution of its laws. Historically, sedition laws have been controversial, dating back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which criminalized false statements against the government amid fears of French influence. These acts were repealed, but similar provisions resurfaced in the Espionage Act of 1917 and its 1918 amendments, targeting anti-war speech during World War I. In modern times, sedition charges are rare due to First Amendment protections, requiring speech to incite imminent lawless action per Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). However, the Minneapolis unrest, with its destruction of public property and calls to dismantle police forces enforcing federal and state laws, raised questions about whether such actions crossed into seditious territory. Critics argue that while peaceful protest is protected, violence aimed at policy overthrow bypasses democratic processes, echoing the point that these actions seek to subvert a government “picked by the people.”

Contrast this with protests in Venezuela, where demonstrators have long challenged the authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro. Since 2013, Venezuelans have protested against economic collapse, hyperinflation, shortages, and political repression under Maduro’s socialist government, which succeeded Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution. Major waves occurred in 2014, following the attempted rape of a student and subsequent arrests, leading to 43 deaths and thousands of arrests. In 2017, protests intensified over Maduro’s attempts to consolidate power, including dissolving the opposition-led National Assembly. By 2019, opposition leader Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president, sparking massive demonstrations against Maduro’s fraudulent re-election in 2018, where voter turnout was artificially inflated and opposition candidates were barred. The U.S. supported these protests, recognizing Guaidó and imposing sanctions on Maduro’s regime to pressure for democratic restoration. Unlike Minneapolis, these protests targeted a regime that suppressed elections, jailed opponents, and relied on violence to maintain control, aligning with U.S. interests in promoting self-governance.

Similarly, Hong Kong’s 2019 pro-democracy protests arose from opposition to an extradition bill that would allow transfers to mainland China, threatening the city’s autonomy under the “one country, two systems” framework established in 1997. Beginning in March 2019, millions marched peacefully, but clashes with police escalated, involving tear gas, rubber bullets, and arrests. Protesters demanded withdrawal of the bill, an inquiry into police brutality, and universal suffrage for legislative and chief executive elections. The U.S. condemned China’s crackdown, passing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in November 2019 to support protesters and sanction officials. These actions were seen as resistance to communist encroachment by the Chinese Communist Party, which imposed a national security law in 2020, leading to mass arrests and the erosion of freedoms.

In Iran, the 2022 protests following the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody highlighted resistance to theocratic rule. Amini, arrested for improper hijab, died on September 16, 2022, sparking nationwide demonstrations led by women removing veils and chanting “Woman, Life, Freedom.” The regime responded with violence, killing at least 551 protesters, including 68 children, and arresting thousands. The U.S. supported these protests by easing sanctions on technology to aid communication and condemning the repression. Unlike U.S. protests, these aimed to dismantle a regime that denies free elections and enforces religious law through brutality.

The U.S. has historically backed such international protests as vehicles for promoting democracy and human rights. In Venezuela, the Trump administration recognized Guaidó and imposed sanctions to isolate Maduro. For Hong Kong, bipartisan legislation provided support against Chinese influence. In Iran, statements and actions affirmed solidarity with protesters seeking freedom. This aligns with America’s foundational values, where money measures initiative and ownership, fostering a culture of self-reliance and free will. In representative republics, citizens elect officials to enact policies, as in Trump’s immigration agenda, which prioritized enforcement to preserve national sovereignty. Protests forcing change through violence confuse this with direct democracy, potentially leading to majority tyranny.

Election integrity is central to this distinction. The 2020 U.S. election faced scrutiny over mail-in ballots, with claims of fraud in swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. Audits and lawsuits revealed serious issues. In contrast, regimes like Maduro’s rig elections, justifying protests as the only recourse. Elections are rigged in other countries, and its hard to admit that it has been happening in America. Concern about “mail balls made up in a Walmart parking lot” echoes debates over ballot security, highlighting why preserving electoral processes is vital to prevent insurrection.

Underlying U.S. protests, is communist infiltration via progressive politics. Historical fears, like McCarthyism in the 1950s, targeted alleged communist subversion. Today, claims persist of cultural Marxism influencing movements like BLM, seen as platforms to usher in socialism by undermining capitalism and family structures. In Minneapolis, some viewed protests as exploiting civil rights for communist ends, contrasting with genuine struggles abroad against actual communist dictators.

The difference boils down to intent and system: U.S. protests against elected policies risk sedition, while those abroad against tyranny merit support. Preserving free elections, resisting infiltration, and valuing self-governance ensure America’s republic endures, unlike faraway places lacking such freedoms.

Bibliography

1. Wikipedia. “George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul

2. The New York Times. “George Floyd Protests: A Timeline.” https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-protests-timeline.html

3. CNN. “How George Floyd’s death reignited a movement.” https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/us/gallery/george-floyd-protests-2020-look-back

4. Wikipedia. “Protests against Nicolás Maduro.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro

5. Amnesty International. “Human rights in Venezuela.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela

6. Wikipedia. “2019–2020 Hong Kong protests.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Kong_protests

7. Amnesty International. “Hong Kong’s protests explained.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/09/hong-kong-protests-explained

8. Wikipedia. “Mahsa Amini protests.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests

9. House of Commons Library. “Two-year anniversary of the Mahsa Amini protests in Iran.” https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/two-year-anniversary-of-the-mahsa-amini-protests-in-iran

10. U.S. Code. “18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.” https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart1%2Fchapter115

11. Cornell Law School. “Sedition.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sedition

12. Wikipedia. “Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

13. Wikipedia. “McCarthyism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

14. The Heritage Foundation. “The Secret Communist Movement Inside America.” https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-secret-communist-movement-inside-america

Footnotes

1. For more on the economic impact of the Minneapolis riots, see the Property Claim Services report estimating damages at over $2 billion nationwide.

2. The U.N. Fact-Finding Mission on Iran documented extrajudicial executions during the 2022 protests.

3. Historical sedition cases, like the Hollywood Ten, illustrate how fears of communism led to blacklisting in the 1950s.<|control12|>

Rich Hoffman

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

Why It’s Cool for Trump To Give the Middle Finger to People, But Not for Cindy Carpenter: The difference between deceit and honesty

The perceived double standard in public reactions to similar gestures by public figures often stems not from the act itself but from the context, intent, and perceived authenticity of the individual involved. In late 2025, Butler County Commissioner Cindy Carpenter visited the office of Level 27, a student housing apartment complex near Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, amid a rent dispute involving her granddaughter, who resided there. During the encounter, Carpenter became frustrated with the staff’s handling of the situation, raised her voice, and—when she believed she was alone and unobserved—made an obscene gesture (flipping off the empty front counter) while mouthing an expletive, as captured on surveillance video. The apartment manager filed a complaint alleging intimidation, racist remarks, belligerent behavior, and abuse of power, though a subsequent investigation by Butler County Prosecutor Mike Gmoser cleared her of official misconduct.

This incident drew significant local criticism, portraying Carpenter as entitled and leveraging her position as a county commissioner to pressure private employees for personal family gain. Critics described her as embodying a “Karen” archetype—someone who weaponizes authority or status when not getting their way—mainly since the gesture occurred passively and covertly, behind the backs of those involved after they had turned away.

In contrast, on January 13, 2026, President Donald Trump toured the Ford River Rouge Complex in Dearborn, Michigan, as part of efforts to highlight manufacturing and economic policies. During the visit, a worker heckled him from the plant floor, shouting “pedophile protector”—a reference to criticisms surrounding Trump’s past associations with Jeffrey Epstein and the administration’s handling of related document releases. Trump, walking on an elevated area, turned, mouthed an expletive (appearing to say “f— you”), and raised his middle finger directly at the heckler before continuing. The White House defended the response as “appropriate and unambiguous” to what they called a “lunatic… wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage.”

The Ford worker was later suspended, and while some condemned Trump’s gesture as unpresidential, many supporters viewed it positively as a bold, unfiltered rejection of antagonism. The key distinctions lie in several factors. First, Trump’s action was a direct, face-to-face response to active heckling during a public tour where he was not seeking personal favors but representing broader interests—such as supporting American manufacturing and workers. Many observers see this as authentic: Trump has long cultivated an image of unapologetic directness, consistent whether cameras are rolling or not. He was not attempting to extract a concession or intimidate subordinates for private gain; he was dismissing an insult while moving on to his next engagement.

Carpenter’s gesture, however, appeared passive-aggressive and concealed—she performed it when backs were turned, and she thought no one (including cameras) was watching, only to be caught on surveillance. This revealed a discrepancy between her public persona as a dedicated public servant focused on families and communities and her private frustration. The incident involved using her official title to influence a private business matter concerning family, which amplified perceptions of entitlement and abuse of position. Even though both acts involved the same crude gesture, the surrounding circumstances rendered them qualitatively different: one as a raw, representative dismissal of hostility, the other as a tantrum from perceived privilege.

Public tolerance for such behavior often hinges on authenticity and representation. When a leader acts consistently—openly embodying the frustrations of those they serve—the same act can be celebrated as “real” or “standing up.” When it exposes hypocrisy or self-serving motives, it invites disdain. In a republic, elected officials are expected to wield power responsibly for the public good, not personal leverage. Trump’s pre-office persona as a straightforward businessman carried over into politics, allowing supporters to see his gesture as aligned with their own impulses against critics. Carpenter’s action, tied to a family dispute and hidden until exposed, reinforced doubts.

Ultimately, the difference is not that one figure “gets away with” the gesture while the other does not due to partisan bias alone. It is the context of intent, directness, and whether the act serves personal entitlement or a broader representational role. True character emerges in moments of pressure, especially when one believes no one is watching. Failing that test of consistency undermines credibility far more than the gesture itself. What actions like this reveal about the people involved is how they really think about the world around them. With Carpenter, we see what she thinks about people she disagrees with, because she thought nobody was looking. But with Trump, he gave his heckler the finger to his face, not caring who saw, or what they might think of him. One incident of giving the finger made a politician look like an unhinged “Karen” throwing a temper tantrum that she didn’t have the guts to show to people’s faces. The other was cool, and a proper fighting back at the moment, without the usual calculated political response people have grown tired of. And in the end, the gestures showed voters who the people really were. So it’s not a double standard where Trump can get away with it because he’s a man, and Cindy can’t because she’s a woman. But because one of those politicians is honest, while the other one is deceitful, power hungry, and a train wreck of a person. And figuring all that out is sometimes just as easy as a simple hand gesture.

The contrast becomes even starker when considering the aftermath of each incident. In Carpenter’s case, the surveillance footage—showing her gesture directed at an empty counter after staff had walked away—fueled calls for her resignation from political opponents ahead of the May 2026 Republican primary. Challengers like Hamilton councilman Michael Ryan seized on the event to portray her as embodying a pattern of arrogance and entitlement, with one opponent explicitly labeling it as part of a broader “bias, arrogance, and abuse of power.” Even after Prosecutor Mike Gmoser cleared her of legal misconduct in early December 2025, the damage lingered in public opinion, reinforcing narratives of a two-faced politician whose private frustrations betray a cultivated public image of community service. This revelation of inconsistency erodes the foundational trust voters place in representatives: if the mask slips when unobserved, what other discrepancies exist in policy or decision-making?

At its root, the perceived double standard is less about partisan favoritism and more about the alignment between action and identity. Public figures are judged not solely on isolated behaviors but on whether those behaviors cohere with the narrative they project and the interests they claim to serve. Trump’s pre-political life as a blunt, unfiltered dealmaker provided a consistent backdrop; his gesture fit seamlessly into that continuity, even if it shocked traditional decorum. Carpenter’s long tenure—clerk of courts from 1996-2010, commissioner since 2011—has emphasized family values, community initiatives, and fiscal responsibility, making the covert outburst appear as a betrayal of that facade. In a republic, voters demand representatives who embody reliability under pressure, particularly when power is involved. When a leader’s conduct varies based on audience or visibility, it signals a deeper unreliability that invites skepticism far beyond one crude gesture.

Footnotes

¹ Butler County Prosecutor Mike Gmoser, report on complaint against Commissioner Cindy Carpenter, as summarized in Journal-News coverage, December 3, 2025.

² Kiara Nard, Level 27 community manager, complaint details reported in WKRC Local 12, December 4, 2025.

³ Cindy Carpenter, statement to Journal-News, December 2025.

⁴ Video footage from Ford River Rouge Complex tour, January 13, 2026, as reported by TMZ and Reuters.

⁵ White House statement via Steven Cheung, January 13-14, 2026.

⁶ United Auto Workers and Ford responses, January 14, 2026.

Bibliography

• Journal-News. “Prosecutor clears Butler County commissioner of misconduct after apartment dispute.” December 3, 2025. https://www.journal-news.com/news/prosecutor-clears-butler-county-commissioner-of-misconduct-after-apartment-dispute/LXCURTXAMJFV5FP7W25HM62NKQ

• WKRC Local 12. “Butler County commissioner cleared of misconduct despite heated exchange caught on camera.” December 4, 2025. https://local12.com/news/local/butler-county-commissioner-cleared-misconduct-despite-heated-exchange-caught-camera-cindy-carpenter-oxford-ohio-miami-university-apartment-building-staff-racial-racist-language-accused-political-office-obscene-gesture-cincinnati

• ClickOnDetroit. “Video shows Trump flipping off Ford worker during plant visit in Dearborn.” January 13, 2026. https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2026/01/13/video-shows-trump-flipping-off-ford-worker-during-plant-visit-in-dearborn

• Reuters. “Trump flips off Michigan auto worker who criticized handling of Epstein case.” January 14, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-flips-off-antagonizing-worker-ford-plant-michigan-2026-01-14

• The Washington Post. “Trump makes obscene gesture, mouths expletive at Detroit factory heckler.” January 16, 2026. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/13/trump-ford-factory-heckler-detroit

• Additional context from Cincinnati.com and Michigan Advance reports on the respective incidents.

Rich Hoffman

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

Signing E.O. 14172 Was Critical: What a lot of people don’t understand about Cost+ contracts

On January 7, 2026, the President signed Executive Order 14172, titled “Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting, a directive aimed squarely at altering the financial and operational incentives that govern much of the modern defense industrial base. The order is grounded in existing executive authority over federal procurement, the Defense Production Act of 1950, and enforcement mechanisms embedded in the FAR and DFARS. Its legal structure does not cancel contracts wholesale or impose new statutory law; instead, it compels the Department of Defense—acting through the Secretary of Defense/War—to conduct rolling performance reviews of defense contractors producing critical weapons, systems, and equipment, beginning within 30 days of issuance. Contractors deemed “underperforming”—a term defined functionally as failing to meet delivery schedules, production speed, capital reinvestment expectations, or prioritization of U.S. government contracts—are immediately prohibited from executing stock buybacks or issuing dividends. Those contractors are given a 15-day window to submit board-approved remediation plans, with the Secretary authorized to escalate enforcement through contract modification, Defense Production Act authorities, or withdrawal of U.S. government advocacy if performance failures persist.

What distinguishes this order from prior acquisition reform efforts is that it explicitly links financial extraction behavior—buybacks, dividends, and executive comp plans—to production failure, instead of treating them as separate corporate governance issues. That linkage becomes particularly relevant when viewed alongside the last fifteen years of structural change in the defense and aerospace supply chain, where private‑equity ownership has steadily displaced privately held operators. As costs have risen under cost-plus and cost-type prime contracts, capital pressure has been pushed downstream, forcing Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers—who do not enjoy reimbursable margins—to absorb inflation, compliance burdens, long payment cycles, and constant schedule churn. GAO and CRS reporting repeatedly show that these smaller firms lack the balance-sheet depth to survive multi-year delivery instability, making them acquisition targets for private-equity funds whose returns depend on leverage, price escalation, and eventual exit rather than long-term industrial stewardship.

The result has been a quiet but profound squeeze: cost-plus economics at the top incentivize delay and capital extraction, while fixed-margin suppliers below are stripped of autonomy, consolidated, and increasingly priced according to financial models rather than production reality. Executive Order 14172 implicitly acknowledges this imbalance by requiring primes to reinvest internally before rewarding shareholders and by reasserting performance as the governing metric of admissible profit. Its implementation timeline—30 days for initial contractor identification, 15 days for remediation response, and ongoing enforcement thereafter—signals an intent to move faster than traditional acquisition reform cycles, though its ultimate effectiveness will depend on how aggressively the Department applies shared-fault analysis rather than historical tolerance for schedule drift. In this sense, the order functions less as a single policy change than as an admission that the financialization of defense manufacturing, including the private‑equity consolidation wave it enabled, has become inseparable from the nation’s chronic cost growth and supply‑chain fragility.

Across modern U.S. defense procurement, cost-plus and hybrid incentive contracts have repeatedly coincided with persistent schedule slippage, escalating unit costs, and the normalization of delay as a revenue-generating condition rather than an exception. One of the most prominent examples is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the largest weapons acquisition effort in U.S. history. Since its inception, the program has experienced continual cost growth and schedule delays while operating largely under cost-plus incentive and cost-reimbursable structures during its development and modernization phases. Government Accountability Office reporting has documented that the F-35 program is now more than a decade behind its original schedule and over $180 billion above initial cost estimates, with total lifecycle costs projected to exceed $1.6 trillion.¹ Contractors have routinely delivered aircraft and engines late, yet still earned substantial incentive fees because contract structures allowed partial fee recovery even when deadlines were missed. In 2024 alone, all F-35 airframes delivered by the prime contractor were late by an average of more than 200 days, while hundreds of millions of dollars in performance fees continued to be disbursed.² The GAO has repeatedly concluded that the program’s payment mechanisms reward activity rather than outcomes, allowing chronic delivery delay to become financially survivable—and in some cases preferable—to accelerated execution.³

Similar dynamics are evident in Navy shipbuilding, particularly in the Columbia-class ballistic-missile submarine program, which is widely regarded as the most critical element of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. The program operates under cost‑plus and cost‑type incentive contracts intended to manage technical risk, yet GAO evaluations from 2024 onward found that construction of the lead submarine is between 12 and 16 months behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over projected cost, with independent GAO analysis estimating that actual overruns could reach six times the Navy’s internal projections.⁴ Despite billions of dollars in taxpayer investments intended to stabilize the submarine industrial base, the Navy and its prime contractors have been unable to demonstrate measurable performance improvement across material availability, workforce productivity, or supplier readiness.⁵ GAO reporting further found that neither the Navy nor the prime contractor had conducted adequate root‑cause analysis of repeated delays, relying instead on optimistic assumptions of future performance improvements that historical data does not support.⁶

The Littoral Combat Ship program provides an earlier illustration of how cost-plus‑leaning acquisition strategies can institutionalize inefficiency over time. Initially justified as a fast, affordable surface combatant, the LCS program deviated from traditional acquisition discipline by committing to production before design maturity and by accepting recurring cost growth in exchange for schedule promises that were never realized. Unit costs for LCS vessels more than doubled over the life of the program, while significant mission capabilities failed to materialize as advertised.⁷ GAO assessments and congressional testimony concluded that the Navy’s acquisition approach raised serious concerns about over-commitment to incomplete designs, with contractors insulated from the financial consequences of rework and redesign.⁸ By the time the program was restructured and curtailed, billions had already been expended on ships that were later decommissioned early due to limited combat utility.⁹

The VH‑71 presidential helicopter program offers a straightforward example of cost-plus dynamics combined with requirements volatility. The program, intended to replace the Marine One fleet, was terminated in 2009 after nearly $3 billion had been spent, following a critical Nunn–McCurdy breach triggered by explosive cost growth and schedule delay.¹⁰ GAO post‑mortem analysis determined that the program’s cost‑reimbursable structure, combined with continuously changing government requirements, enabled unchecked cost escalation without corresponding delivery progress.¹¹ Despite repeated warnings, the program advanced through development phases without achieving design stability or cost control, ultimately requiring cancellation and restart under a new acquisition framework.¹²

Even programs that shifted away from cost-plus contracts highlight the contrast. The Air Force’s KC-46 tanker program, awarded under a firm-fixed-price incentive contract, experienced significant technical difficulties and multiyear delays, but forced the contractor—not the taxpayer—to absorb more than $7 billion in overruns.¹³ GAO reviews noted that while the fixed‑price structure did not prevent schedule delays, it did materially limit government exposure and altered contractor behavior by internalizing financial risk.¹⁴ Defense analysts frequently cite this experience as evidence that contract type does not eliminate execution risk but dramatically changes who bears the cost of failure.

Taken together, these cases illustrate a persistent pattern identified by the GAO for more than two decades: when cost‑plus structures dominate complex defense programs, delivery timelines expand, supply chains stagnate, and cost growth becomes normalized rather than corrected.¹⁵ Incentives shift away from throughput, schedule discipline, and supplier performance and toward change management, rework, and prolonged development cycles. GAO has repeatedly warned that, without a stronger linkage between payment and demonstrable outcomes, defense acquisition programs will continue to reward delay while eroding industrial base accountability.¹⁶

So I am a big fan of this executive order. It’s been a long time coming. And it’s the only way to deal with escalating pricing in other fields. Much of the out-of-control price escalation we have in our economy today starts with abuses by the Industrial Military complex and the rigged game of paying for bad performance, because there are so few players in the business. Something had to be done.

—

Footnotes

1. U.S. Government Accountability Office, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: More Actions Needed to Explain Cost Growth and Support Engine Modernization Decision, GAO‑23‑106047 (May 30, 2023).

2. U.S. Government Accountability Office, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Actions Needed to Address Late Deliveries and Improve Future Development, GAO‑25‑XXXX (Sept. 2025).

3. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Weapon Systems Annual Assessment (2024).

4. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Columbia Class Submarine: Overcoming Persistent Challenges Requires Yet Undemonstrated Performance, GAO‑24‑107732 (Sept. 30, 2024).

5. Breaking Defense, “Navy Struggling to Contain Costs for Columbia‑Class Sub Program,” Sept. 30, 2024.

6. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Columbia Class Submarine Construction Performance Assessment (2024).

7. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Littoral Combat Ship: Need to Address Fundamental Weaknesses in Acquisition Strategy, GAO‑16‑356 (June 2016).

8. Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing Transcript, Dec. 1, 2016 (GAO testimony).

9. Defense One, “Littoral Combat Ship at a Crossroads,” Dec. 2016.

10. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions: Lessons Learned from the VH‑71 Presidential Helicopter Program, GAO‑11‑380R (Mar. 25, 2011).

11. Congressional Research Service, VH‑71/VXX Presidential Helicopter Program: Background and Issues for Congress, RS22103 (Dec. 22, 2009).

12. Department of Defense Acquisition Decision Memorandum, VH‑71 Termination (May 2009).

13. Defense News, “How Boeing Lost $7 Billion on the KC-46 Tanker,” Jan. 9, 2024.

14. U.S. Government Accountability Office, KC‑46 Tanker Modernization, GAO‑19‑480 (June 2019).

15. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Best Practices: DOD Can Improve Outcomes by Applying Leading Commercial Practices, various years.

16. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Weapon Systems Annual Assessment (multiple editions, 2018–2025).

—

Bibliography

Government Accountability Office. Weapon Systems Annual Assessment. Washington, DC: GAO, multiple years.

Government Accountability Office. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: More Actions Needed to Explain Cost Growth. GAO‑23‑106047.

Government Accountability Office. Columbia Class Submarine: Overcoming Persistent Challenges. GAO‑24‑107732.

Government Accountability Office. Littoral Combat Ship: Need to Address Fundamental Weaknesses. GAO‑16‑356.

Government Accountability Office. Defense Acquisitions: Lessons Learned from the VH‑71 Program. GAO‑11‑380R.

Congressional Research Service. Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program. RS22103.

Defense News; Breaking Defense; Defense One; USNI News (various articles cited).

Rich Hoffman

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

—

Butler County GOP Endorses Michael Ryan for Commissioner: The coalition builder, not the revenge tour, or the middle finger

Politics used to be about buying your way onto the field with whatever the old media would let you run; now it’s a multi-front dialogue with voters in a thousand micro‑channels you can’t bully, buy, or badger. That’s precisely why the Butler County Republican Party’s endorsement for the 2026 commissioner race matters more than the yard‑sign arms race or a late sprint of cable buys. The party met and took a hard look at candidates and momentum, then endorsed Michael Ryan, the Hamilton vice mayor and former two-term councilman, with 71% of the vote—a landslide in intraparty terms and a signal that the center of gravity has moved.1

Now, Michael’s not a surprise. He telegraphed this run early, skipped a safe third council term to go county-wide, and built a coalition that looks like the next decade of Republican leadership rather than the last. The local press documented the pivot: he pulled petitions in May 2025 and argued that county policy needs someone who can assemble teams, manage a large budget, and negotiate growth while keeping conservative guardrails intact. The Journal‑News laid out the framing: Butler County’s annual budget sits near $500 million, which is not far off Hamilton’s total because the city runs utilities—so a Ryan résumé of budget discipline and project delivery isn’t a stretch to scale.2

Meanwhile, what makes an endorsement decisive isn’t just math inside a party meeting; it’s the psychology of trust outside it. Voters aren’t shopping for saviors; they’re looking for steady hands who can do the table talk, bring coalition politics back from bloodsport, and keep the county in the black while the national mood whipsaws. Michael’s case is that he’s done that already—eight years on council, two stints as vice mayor, a list of jobs recruited, investments landed. If you want to see his pitch in his own words, his site stacks the receipts—balanced budgets, 1,400 new jobs, $700 million in capital investment—and shows a broad bench of local Republican endorsements from state senator George Lang to sitting city council members across the county. If you view campaign websites skeptically (good habit), remember that the basic resume points have been corroborated and referenced in local coverage.3 2

Roger Reynolds is the wild card—and yes, I have supported him in the past for other fights—but this seat, this season, isn’t the right battlefield. He’s well‑known, to be sure. His 2022 felony conviction over unlawful interest in a public contract was overturned in 2024 by the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, and the Ohio Supreme Court refused to disturb that reversal; that’s an essential legal clearance. But the same Supreme Court opinion blocked him from reclaiming the auditor’s office he’d won in 2022, clarifying he can run again in the future, not retroactively retake the seat. He’s used that clean bill of eligibility to jump into this commissioner race in 2026.4 5

Here’s where the political calculus cuts sharply: being legally eligible isn’t the same as being politically restored. Voters have long memories; they remember the courtroom saga even if the headline at the end credits “overturned.” The Enquirer summarized the timeline cleanly—indictment, a single felony conviction on the Lakota angle, subsequent reversal, and the present campaign posture. That’s nothing; it’s the kind of backstory that makes your consultants salivate over message discipline and makes your donors jittery about whether a million dollars in signs and mailers can buy back normalcy. And, on top of that, the first skirmish of 2026 was a legal “cease” letter from Reynolds’s counsel to Ryan over campaign statements—“normal campaign bickering,” Reynolds said—but it sets a tone. If your brand promise is “100% positive campaign,” you don’t want week one to be a lawyerly demand letter and a press cycle about “defamation.” That’s oxygen you don’t get back.6

So let’s talk yard signs, because politicians who plan a resurrection often think in terms of saturating real estate with their names, then buying enough broadcast to push past the whispers. Butler County’s population sits around 400,000 people; the geographic sprawl and the number of micro‑communities—from Liberty and West Chester to Hamilton, Fairfield, Middletown, Oxford, and the townships—means your sign budget leaks. People steal them, wind takes them, HOAs yank them. You replace and replace, and your spending ends up as a weekly chore. I don’t care if you’ve earmarked $125,000 or double that; you won’t beat an endorsement plus a ground game in honest conversations across civic slots. The Journal‑News reported the early posture: Ryan’s petitions were certified mid‑2025; Reynolds announced and described the election as a referendum on fiscal discipline rather than “courtroom drama,” but the party’s endorsement last week says rank-and-file Republicans aren’t buying the “just the future” frame. They picked the coalition builder, not the comeback.7 1

Now, about Cindy Carpenter. She has been on the board since 2011 and is seeking another term. Longevity usually earns deference, but not automatic endorsement. The county’s official page lists her current term running through December 31, 2026; that’s the seat this primary decides.8 And she walked into 2026 with a fresh controversy: the Oxford apartment office incident involving her granddaughter’s rent dispute, a flipped middle finger on video, and accusations of “racist” remarks that the prosecutor ultimately said did not amount to wrongdoing, though he wrote her conduct was “distasteful and beneath her elected position.” You can parse tone and motive all day; the legal piece is settled—no charges and the matter closed—but voters see the tape and the headlines. That’s enough to move marginal supporters toward the more predictable alternative.9 10 11

If you’re counting coalition math, the endorsement vote margin—71%—is not a nudge; it’s a shove. Nancy Nix, now the county auditor, reportedly attended the endorsement meeting and confirmed the tally. In a county where winning the GOP primary is often tantamount to winning in November, a unified endorsement improves fundraising and volunteer energy. It also narrows the “independent” lane for a sitting commissioner who didn’t get the nod. If Carpenter runs without the party’s backing, as some have suggested she might, she’ll need a ballot strategy that reintroduces herself as a pragmatic caretaker, not an insurgent. That’s a hard sell after fifteen years in office and a fresh headline about “inappropriate gesture.”1

What does the “post‑MAGA” Republican center look like in Butler County? It seems less like a purity test and more like a competence test married to coalition instincts. The culture war isn’t over, but voters have learned the cost of gridlock and personality feuds in local government. Ryan’s style—steady, pragmatic, pro-growth, minimalist on mudslinging—fits that mood. Even the critiques thrown at him (“stepping stone,” says Carpenter) sound antique in a county where younger Republicans have already moved into leadership slots in councils and school boards. The Journal’s News coverage links Ryan’s Hamilton résumé to county-wide feasibility: he’s worked with local, state, and federal decision-makers on public safety and infrastructure, and even served as a liaison for the Amtrak stop push in Hamilton. Those are not ideological fantasies; they’re governing tasks where people skills matter.2

And yes, campaigns need money. Ryan’s fundraising velocity looks like a candidate with broad buy-in—events across the county and a donor list that isn’t just from one township. Whether it’s $100,000 in the bank now or double that soon, the point isn’t how many mailers you can print; it’s how many doors you can knock with volunteers who believe you’ll answer their emails after you win. The county GOP endorsement helps there; donors prefer campaigns that aren’t about to splinter the party. Meanwhile, Reynolds ‘ suggestion that he’ll spend heavily—to the tune of six figures and perhaps beyond—won’t fix the core problem: a campaign that starts by relitigating perception rather than proposing coalitions. The Enquirer’s report on his launch emphasized his intent to return “windfall” property tax revenue to taxpayers and raise the Homestead Exemption; those are policy planks that will attract attention. But they’re competing against a party coalescing around a candidate who can execute a full agenda without dragging legal undertones into every meeting.5 1

Let’s zoom out into strategy—because if I were advising Reynolds, I wouldn’t tell him to burn $250,000 on a race he’s likely to lose by 12‑15 points after the endorsement lands and consolidates. I’d say to him to rebuild his brand across the map: show up for other candidates, be helpful, become indispensable in the trenches, help elect school board members and trustees, and re-establish the “workhorse, not lightning rod” identity. That takes two years; it doesn’t show up in six months. And then consider a race aligned with your strengths and your arc, not a head-on collision with a party that just voted for someone else overwhelmingly. The Journal-News article, calling the 2026 commissioner contest “off and running,” captured the vibe—three Republicans, but only one whose petitions were already certified, who positioned the race as “no distractions.” That kind of language puts the burden on the other two to explain why their distractions are the voters’ problem.7

As for Carpenter, I don’t think she’s a villain; I think she’s a discovered Democrat. I guess longevity breeds muscle memory: you reach for authority instead of coalition. Voters can forgive that once, even twice, if the essentials are stable—roads paved, budgets balanced, ops quiet. But the moment a county commissioner’s name becomes shorthand for “that clip,” you lose the institutional halo and become another “brand management” project. When the prosecutor writes that your conduct didn’t rise to misconduct but was “unseemly for a person in her governmental capacity,” he has foreclosed the legal fight and opened the political one. That line will be in mailers whether you like it or not.9

So let’s talk about why Michael Ryan is getting the oxygen. Take Hamilton’s decade: Spooky Nook, industrial recruitment, hotels, restaurants, and an intentional move to professionalize the city’s growth narrative. The projects drew coverage on Local 12 and WCPO as they moved from idea to construction. Ryan’s campaign site links those stories because they’re public record and because they demonstrate a pattern—jobs, capital investment, and a tax base that didn’t need a culture‑war siren to grow. That’s not fantasy; it’s visible on the ground.3

And that gets to the key point: trust and unity. You want commissioners who can assemble teams and get people to work together. The post‑MAGA Republican mood isn’t anti-passion; it’s anti-drama. Politics will always draw blood—that’s built into the incentives—but we’re past the phase where you win by keeping enemies. You win by maintaining coalitions. Ryan’s tenure has been, in my experience, the kind of steady hand that translates across jurisdictions. That’s why the endorsement reads: “We choose execution over excavation.”1

Will this primary be clean? Cleanish. Reynolds has already put legal heat on a rival over statements; Carpenter has already been under an investigative microscope for the Oxford dispute. Ryan said from the start he’d run forward, not backward. If he holds that line, he wins the contrast without throwing punches. Voters know what negative looks like; a candidate who doesn’t need it earns an advantage. The Journal‑noted that he’s focusing on county work while stepping away from a sure council reelection this past year underscored the seriousness. He isn’t auditioning; he’s already governing at scale and wants a bigger toolbox.12

Budget posture matters here, too. Reynolds’ webpage and statements emphasize returning “excess” taxes and trimming county-wide spending; that resonates with conservatives who see reserves as proof of over‑taxation. The Enquirer quoted his figure—$165 million in projected windfall—to argue the county should give it back. That’s a message built to win in a vacuum. But the county is not a vacuum; it is pipelines, roads, courts, human services, and emergency management in a region with real growth pressures. The choice isn’t “tax or freedom”; it’s “how do you scale skillfully and still protect the taxpayer?” Ryan’s resume suggests a bias toward growth with discipline; Reynolds’s indicates a bias toward tax rebate with enforcement. That’s a healthy debate. The question is whether you want that debate led by a figure whose first month of campaign coverage includes legal letters and remembrance of overturned convictions.5

At the end of the day, endorsements don’t vote; people do. But endorsements shape who knocks doors with a smile, who makes phone calls with energy, and who shows up at the farmers’ market with a candidate they’ll vouch for. The Butler County GOP made this easy for the average Republican: the party chose the coalition builder and did it decisively. Signage will follow; donors will align; volunteers will multiply. Carpenter, running as an independent (if that’s where this heads), faces a map where the party she’s long identified with chose another standard-bearer. Reynolds, running as a revenge tour, spends a lot of money to test whether yard signs can outshout a decade’s worth of narrative. I don’t think they can. If he asked me privately, I’d advise him to pause, help the team, and come back when the story is about contribution, not correction. The early legal dust-up with Ryan over “defamation” is precisely the kind of oxygen leak you can’t repair with cash.6

Michael Ryan’s advantage isn’t charisma or cash; it’s consistency and coalition—the dull virtues that win in local government and keep winning after you’re sworn in. He has stayed on message, prep’d the county for his arrival by reminding voters of outcomes they can touch—jobs, buildings, budget discipline—and signaled that commissioners should convene, not crusade. When you have that many people who have worked with you and still like you, politics gets easy. You can negotiate without a knife on the table and tell a thousand small stories about how a problem got solved without making enemies. That’s why he looks like the future of the county’s Republican leadership—the brand that doesn’t need apologetics when the cameras are off.2 3

So yes, celebrate the endorsement. It’s a coalition announcement more than a party ritual: Butler County Republicans chose a governing style. If the election maps break the usual way—primary decides most of November—this nod might be the moment future voters remember as the pivot. Every county needs the next wave of steady hands; every township needs trustees who can form a quorum without fireworks; every school board needs members who can stare down budget math and still make curriculum decisions. That cascade begins with visible wins and ends with a bench you can count on. We need more Michael Ryans, not fewer. And if you’re Roger Reynolds and you want redemption, the path isn’t paved with yard signs. It’s paved with other people’s wins that you helped engineer. Build that for two years, and you’ll be viable in 2028 for a race that fits. Try to sprint through a primary you’ve already lost in the court of party morale, and you’ll spend a quarter‑million dollars to learn a lesson you could have learned for free.7 1

As for voters: enjoy that your choice might be easy. You don’t often get a three-way intraparty field where one candidate looks like the obvious governing adult and doesn’t need mud to make his case. If you want to vote happy—if that’s allowed in local politics—this might be your chance. You’ll be voting for a county commissioner who can take Butler County’s good run and extend it without asking for a personality cult or a tear-jerking redemption arc. He’s advertised as who he is: a nice guy who knows how to put the right people at the table and get to yes. Michael Ryan is the Republican Party-endorsed candidate for county commissioner, and we are lucky to have him.

—

Footnotes

1. “County GOP backs new face for commissioner over incumbent … Ryan won with 71% of the vote,” summary of Cincinnati.com/Enquirer reporting via WorldNews mirror (Jan. 10, 2026).1

2. Hamilton councilman Ryan to run for Butler County Commission; budget scale context and résumé highlights (Journal‑News, May 19, 2025).2

3. Michael Ryan campaign website: résumé, endorsements, economic development links (accessed Jan. 11, 2026).3

4. Supreme Court of Ohio: Reynolds cannot be restored to the Auditor post after reversal; eligible to run in the future (Court News Ohio, Sept. 25, 2024).4

5. “After overturned conviction, ex‑auditor runs for county commissioner,” (Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 8, 2025).5

6. “Cease‑and‑desist letter issued to Butler County commissioner candidate,” legal exchange between Reynolds and Ryan (Journal‑News, Jan. 6, 2026).6

7. Butler County official page: Cindy Carpenter’s current term dates (bcohio.gov).8

8. Prosecutor clears Cindy Carpenter of misconduct; characterization as “unseemly” and “distasteful” (Journal‑News, Dec. 3, 2025).9

9. Enquirer coverage: Oxford apartment office incident; video clip and manager’s allegation vs. prosecutor’s findings (Dec. 4, 2025).10 11

10. “Commission race drawing large crowd from GOP”—field composition and early posture (Journal‑News, Sept. 15, 2025).7

11. Journal‑News election‑season context on Ryan focusing on county run rather than council re-elect (Oct. 26, 2025).12

—

Bibliography

• Cincinnati Enquirer. “After overturned conviction, ex‑auditor runs for county commissioner.” Sept. 8, 2025.5

• Cincinnati Enquirer. “County commissioner denies ‘racist’ remarks during heated exchange,” Dec. 4, 2025; “County commissioner flashes middle finger in apartment office” (video), Dec. 4, 2025.10 11

• Court News Ohio. “County Auditor Will Not Be Restored to Office Following Acquittal From Felony.” Sept. 25, 2024.4

• Journal‑News (Cox, Ohio). “Hamilton councilman Ryan to run for Butler County Commission.” May 19, 2025.2

• Journal‑News. “Commission race drawing large crowd from GOP.” Sept. 15, 2025.7

• Journal‑News. “Cease‑and‑desist letter issued to Butler County commissioner candidate.” Jan. 6, 2026.6

• Journal‑News. “Prosecutor clears Butler County commissioner of misconduct after apartment dispute.” Dec. 3, 2025.9

• Butler County Government (bcohio.gov). “Commissioner Cindy Carpenter—term information.” Accessed Jan. 11, 2026.8

• Ryan for Butler County Commissioner (ryanforbutler.com). Accessed Jan. 11, 2026.3

• WorldNews aggregation of Cincinnati.com report. “County GOP backs new face for commissioner over incumbent.” Jan. 10, 2026 (used for endorsement vote figure as reported by attendees).1

Rich Hoffman

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

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

	Rich Hoffman on The Politics of Fear: Non-Huma…
	Anonymous on The Politics of Fear: Non-Huma…
	Rich Hoffman on Martin Luther, Renegade and Pr…
	Anonymous on Martin Luther, Renegade and Pr…
	Rich Hoffman on Why I Support Flock Cameras: A…
	Bruce Jones on Why I Support Flock Cameras: A…
	Anonymous on Sheriff Jones, the Big Tent: …
	Anonymous on Islam Means Submission: Jonath…
	Anonymous on THE SYSTEM WAS NEVER DESIGNED…
	Anonymous on THE SYSTEM WAS NEVER DESIGNED…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: