Tag: GOP

The Communist Mamdani in New York: Its time to pull away the masks

The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City marks a turning point in American politics. For decades, the Democrat Party has flirted with socialist ideas under the guise of progressivism, soft-selling policies that inch toward state control while maintaining a capitalist façade. Figures like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden represented this strategy—identity politics and incremental reforms masking deeper ideological ambitions. But Mamdani’s victory strips away the pretense. Running openly as a democratic socialist, he secured 50.4% of the vote, defeating establishment candidates and signaling that the radical wing of the Democratic Party is no longer content to operate in the shadows.

This is not an isolated phenomenon. It is the culmination of decades of ideological conditioning in public schools and universities, where Marxist thought has been normalized under academic freedom. The result? A generation of voters who see socialism not as a foreign threat but as a moral imperative. Mamdani’s platform—price controls, free transit, and housing guarantees—echoes the promises of past revolutions. His rhetoric of affordability resonates in a city where 1 in 5 residents cannot afford $2.90 for transit fare, a statistic he cited during his Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump. But beneath the compassionate language lies the same economic logic that has historically led nations down the path of stagnation and authoritarianism.

To understand the implications of Mamdani’s rise, one must revisit the Cuban Revolution. In 1959, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara overthrew Fulgencio Batista, promising justice, equality, and prosperity. Initially, they were hailed as liberators—a narrative strikingly similar to Mamdani’s portrayal of them as champions of the working class. Yet within two years, Cuba declared itself a Marxist-Leninist state aligned with the Soviet Union, cementing a system that would devastate its economy and freeze its society in time.

The revolution’s human cost was staggering. Che Guevara personally oversaw firing squads at La Cabaña fortress, where at least 151 executions occurred under his orders, and estimates suggest 5,600 Cubans died by firing squad overall during the early years of communist rule.  These were not isolated acts of violence but systemic purges designed to eliminate dissent—a grim reminder that revolutions promising equality often deliver tyranny.

Economically, Cuba became dependent on Soviet subsidies, which accounted for 20–25% of its GDP. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, Cuba’s GDP plummeted 35% between 1989 and 1993, imports fell 75%, and caloric intake dropped by 30%, causing widespread malnutrition. The island remains a museum of mid-20th-century technology, with 1950s cars still on the roads—a testament to how communism halts progress. These outcomes were not accidents; they were the inevitable result of policies that prioritize ideological purity over economic reality.

New York City is not Cuba, but the ideological blueprint is eerily familiar. Mamdani’s proposals—free bus fare, price controls on groceries, and expanded public housing—mirror the early promises of Castro’s regime. These measures appeal to voters crushed by rising costs, yet history warns that such policies rarely solve the underlying problems. Price controls distort markets, leading to shortages and black markets. Free services strain public budgets, necessitating higher taxes or debt financing, which in turn discourage investment and innovation.

The danger lies not in the intent but in the trajectory. Once the state assumes responsibility for housing, transportation, and food, the logic of control expands. Businesses become targets for regulation, then expropriation. Property rights erode, and with them, the foundation of capitalist prosperity. This is not speculation; it is the documented pattern of every Marxist experiment from Cuba to Venezuela. The question is not whether Mamdani’s policies will work—they won’t—but how far they will go before the economic engine of New York stalls.

Against this backdrop, Donald Trump’s meeting with Mamdani on November 21, 2025, was a study in strategic restraint. Despite branding Mamdani a “communist lunatic” during the campaign, Trump extended an olive branch, emphasizing shared priorities like crime reduction and housing. “The better he does, the happier I am,” Trump remarked—a statement that projects confidence while hedging against failure.  This was not mere politeness; it was a calculated move to position himself as the voice of reason should Mamdani’s socialist experiment implode.

Yet beneath the cordiality lurks an ideological fault line. Trump represents a populist capitalism that thrives on deregulation and private enterprise. Mamdani embodies democratic socialism, which seeks to redistribute wealth and expand state control. Their meeting was less a dialogue than a prelude to conflict—a clash of systems that cannot coexist indefinitely. If Mamdani’s policies trigger economic decline, Trump will claim vindication, framing the episode as proof that socialism fails.  The stakes extend far beyond New York City; they touch the core of America’s identity as a capitalist nation.

The Mamdani election is not an anomaly; it is the logical outcome of decades of ideological drift. For years, the left has advanced Marxist principles under softer labels—progressivism, social justice, democratic socialism—while conservatives clung to a crumbling center. That era is over. The façade has fallen, and the raw contest between capitalism and communism is back on the political stage. History offers a clear verdict: societies that embrace Marxism stagnate, starve, and silence dissent. Yet history also warns that complacency is fatal. If America fails to articulate and defend the merits of capitalism—innovation, property rights, individual liberty—the allure of “free everything” will prevail, and the cost will be measured not in dollars but in freedom.

The fight ahead is not about bike paths or zoning laws; it is about the system that will define America’s future. Will we remain a nation of entrepreneurs and private property, or will we slide into the gray uniformity of state control? The answer begins in New York City, with a mayor who calls himself a democratic socialist but walks the well-worn path of Marxist revolution. The question is whether we have learned enough from history to stop it.  And what did anybody expect when generations of youth trained in public schools toward outright communism are now the voters picking representatives?  Of course, they will want communism; they have been told all their lives that capitalism is bad and that communism is the future.  And now the future is here.  Bernie Sanders was always the populist wing of Democrats, and if they had not pushed him aside for Hillary and Biden, a communist would have been their presidential candidate.  Communism is what Antifa has wanted.  It’s what most of the minority disruptions have been pushing for.  It’s what all taxation on private property seeks to impose.  And while people might be shocked to see how Trump handled Mamdani, it was nothing short of how fighters treat each other before a big match.  Trump showed graciousness before the gloves had to be put on.  But the fight will occur, and I think it’s a good time for it.  People need to see this communist attempt without the smokescreen of identity politics to hide it.  And rather than worry about the results, the choice is better when all the factors are known.  Because when people have had to deal with open communism, they have suffered and turned away from it.  And that will be the same result in New York, as well as everywhere.  Take away the façade and show things as they always, really, have been.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Privacy Paradox and the Digital ID Debate: 2028’s presidential platform

The question of privacy in the modern era is no longer theoretical—it’s a daily decision. Every time we swipe a loyalty card, sign up for a rewards program, or accept a digital convenience, we trade a piece of our autonomy for a discount or a faster checkout. For many, this trade-off seems harmless. But for those of us who value privacy as a cornerstone of freedom, the implications are profound. I recently visited a new Barnes & Noble near my home—a store I frequent so often that my purchases probably keep the lights on. Yet, when asked if I wanted to join their rewards program, I declined, as I always do. Not because I don’t appreciate saving money, but because I refuse to surrender my personal data for a 10% discount. This small act reflects a larger resistance to the creeping normalization of digital IDs—a system designed to consolidate personal information under the guise of convenience. From Apple’s digital ID initiatives to Real ID requirements at airports, the infrastructure for a fully digitized identity system is being laid brick by brick. And while older generations instinctively recoil from this erosion of privacy, younger generations—raised in a world of constant connectivity—see it as the natural order of things. For them, convenience trumps confidentiality.

This generational divide poses a strategic challenge for political movements, particularly the Republican Party as it looks beyond 2028. Simply saying “no” to digital IDs will not resonate with voters who prioritize ease over encryption. To win the argument, conservatives must dismantle the premise that makes digital IDs seem indispensable: the centralized control of healthcare. The pandemic revealed the authoritarian potential of health-based governance. When government controls your medical access, it controls your life. Digital IDs are marketed as tools for streamlining health records, insurance claims, and prescription tracking—but their true function is to tether individual freedom to bureaucratic oversight. The antidote is not nostalgia for paper records; it is innovation that renders such control obsolete. If the most convenient healthcare option is not to get sick, then the rationale for universal health IDs collapses. And that is where regenerative medicine enters the conversation—not as a niche scientific curiosity, but as a political game-changer.

Regenerative medicine is no longer science fiction; it is a rapidly expanding industry poised to redefine healthcare economics and human longevity. The global regenerative medicine market was valued at $35.47 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $90.01 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 16.8%. Some forecasts are even more aggressive, predicting a market size of $233.5 billion by 2033. This growth is fueled by breakthroughs in stem cell therapy, tissue engineering, and gene editing—technologies that promise not just treatment, but prevention. Imagine a future where nanobots patrol your bloodstream, repairing cellular damage before symptoms appear. According to futurists like Ray Kurzweil, this reality could arrive by 2030, with DNA-based nanorobots already in animal trials for cancer treatment. AI-powered nanobots are being designed to deliver drugs with pinpoint accuracy, unclog arteries, and even perform microsurgeries autonomously. These innovations, combined with wearable health monitors like the Apple Watch—which now predicts health conditions with up to 92% accuracy using behavioral data—signal a paradigm shift: healthcare will move from reactive to proactive, from treatment to optimization.

The implications for cost and convenience are staggering. Traditional healthcare is built on a model of chronic intervention—doctor visits, prescriptions, surgeries—all of which generate revenue streams for insurers, hospitals, and pharmaceutical giants. Regenerative medicine disrupts this model by reducing the need for ongoing care. While stem cell therapy today can cost between $5,000 and $50,000 per treatment, its long-term savings are significant, eliminating recurring expenses for medications and procedures. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatments, often priced between $4,500 and $9,000 per session, offer similar benefits. Compare this to the lifetime cost of managing conditions like diabetes or heart disease, which can exceed $100,000 per patient. As regenerative therapies scale and automation reduces labor costs, these prices will fall—especially as AI-driven surgical robots, already performing 1.8 million procedures annually worldwide, become standard practice. Hospitals adopting robotic systems report 30% fewer complications, 15–25% less postoperative pain, and 20% shorter recovery times, all of which translate into lower systemic costs.

For Republicans seeking to define the post-Trump era, regenerative medicine offers more than a healthcare solution—it offers a narrative that aligns with core conservative values: freedom, innovation, and individual empowerment. Democrats have staked their future on preserving a centralized, insurance-driven model of care, pouring trillions into socialized medicine schemes like Obamacare. Their argument hinges on fear: fear of losing coverage, fear of job displacement in healthcare, fear of change. And indeed, the healthcare sector is a major employer—12.1% of Butler County’s workforce is in health care and social assistance. Nationwide, millions of jobs depend on the current system. But clinging to inefficiency for the sake of employment is economic malpractice. Automation will reshape these roles regardless; AI is already reducing administrative burdens, diagnostic errors, and surgical risks, while creating new tech-driven positions in data analysis and robotics oversight. The question is not whether disruption will occur, but who will lead it—and how they will frame it.

Republicans can lead by making health freedom synonymous with privacy. Instead of forcing citizens into digital ID systems that track every prescription and procedure, offer them a future where such tracking is unnecessary because illness itself is rare. Position regenerative medicine as the ultimate convenience: no insurance battles, no bureaucratic gatekeepers, no invasive data collection—just a healthier life enabled by cutting-edge science. This approach neutralizes the Democrat platform, which depends on perpetuating dependency. It also resonates with younger voters, for whom convenience is king. If the GOP becomes the party that delivers both convenience and privacy, it wins not just the next election, but the next generation.  There is no benefit into holding on to the old model, the way healthcare has been.  This is the issue that will shape social discourse for the 2028 election.  The authority-based systems wore out their welcome during 2020 with COVID-19. 

The debate over digital IDs, privacy, and healthcare is not a technical argument—it is a cultural one. It asks whether Americans will accept a future of centralized control or demand a future of decentralized freedom. Regenerative medicine tilts the scales toward freedom by attacking the root premise of authoritarian health systems: the inevitability of sickness. By embracing technologies that prevent disease rather than manage it, we eliminate the need for surveillance-based care models. This is not speculative; it is imminent. The regenerative medicine market is doubling every few years, nanobot trials are underway, and AI-driven diagnostics are already in consumers’ hands. The party that seizes this moment—framing it not as a scientific curiosity but as a moral imperative—will own the political high ground for decades. For JD Vance, Vivek Ramaswamy, and the rising generation of conservative leaders, the message is clear: don’t just say no to digital IDs. Make them irrelevant. Offer a vision of health so advanced, so convenient, and so private that the old debates dissolve. In doing so, Republicans can transform healthcare from a liability into a legacy—and redefine what it means to make America great again.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Conditions that Make People Poor: Bill Gates as usual, is way off the mark

In the modern discourse surrounding climate change, healthcare, and economic disparity, we often find ourselves circling the same ideological drain without ever confronting the root of the issue: how we define and address poverty. Recently, Bill Gates made headlines by walking back some of his climate change positions, suggesting that economic development must be prioritized alongside environmental goals. This echoes a more profound truth—one that Donald Trump touched on when he proposed sending healthcare payments directly to individuals rather than filtering them through bureaucratic systems. These moments reveal a fundamental tension in our society: the battle between centralized control and individual empowerment. At the heart of this tension lies a philosophical divide between those who believe in micromanaging outcomes through administrative states and those who believe in unleashing human potential through economic liberty. The former seeks to engineer fairness through redistribution, while the latter aims to cultivate prosperity by removing barriers to opportunity.

This divide is best understood through the lens of The Oz Principle, published in 1994 by Roger Connors, Tom Smith, and Craig Hickman, a widely respected business philosophy that categorizes individuals and cultures as either “above the line” or “below the line.” I love the book and its sequel, The Oz Principle Journey, which was published in 2011, many years later, offering a wealth of new ideas that utilize Wizard of Oz metaphors to articulate effective business practices and the proper social conduct of society at large.  Above-the-line thinkers are proactive, solution-oriented, and driven by positive energy. They ask, “What else can I do?” and take ownership of outcomes. Below-the-line thinkers, by contrast, dwell in a state of victimhood, blaming others and avoiding accountability. In business, cultures dominated by above-the-line thinkers thrive—they innovate, adapt, and grow. Cultures saturated with below-the-line mentalities stagnate, collapse, or become toxic. The same applies to nations. When a country fosters a culture of victimization, entitlement, and dependency, it creates systemic poverty. It’s not merely about access to resources; it’s about the mindset with which people approach life. Suppose the dominant narrative teaches individuals that they are powerless, oppressed, or owed something by the state. In that case, the result is a population that waits for handouts rather than builds solutions.

This is the trap of the administrative state, particularly as envisioned by modern leftist ideologies. The Democrat Party, increasingly driven by collectivist impulses, seeks to centralize control over healthcare, education, and economic redistribution. Their vision of “fairness” is not about equal opportunity but about equal outcomes, regardless of effort or merit. They create systems that reward victimhood and penalize initiative. Public education, once a bastion of enlightenment and upward mobility, has become a breeding ground for thought patterns that are below the line. Teachers, often radicalized by personal grievances and ideological indoctrination, pass on a worldview that prioritizes identity politics, grievance culture, and dependency over personal responsibility, excellence, and ambition. Instead of teaching Shakespeare or the principles of economics, they teach children to see themselves as oppressed, marginalized, and incapable of success without government intervention. This is not education—it’s indoctrination into failure.

As of 2025, approximately 10.1% of the global population—roughly 839 million people—live in extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as surviving on less than $3.00 per day (2021 PPP). The burden of poverty is not evenly distributed across all individuals. Sub-Saharan Africa remains the most affected region, with 46% of its population living in extreme poverty. Within this region, Eastern and Southern Africa report rates exceeding 53%, while Western and Central Africa hover around 35.7%. In stark contrast, high-income countries and territories, such as Europe, East Asia, and North America, report poverty rates below 1%, underscoring the profound impact of economic systems and governance on wealth distribution.

The disparity in GDP per capita between economically free and administratively controlled nations is staggering. In 2025, Luxembourg leads the world with a GDP per capita of $141,080, followed by Switzerland ($111,716), Ireland ($107,243), and Singapore ($93,956). These nations consistently rank among the highest in economic freedom indices, characterized by low regulatory burdens, strong property rights, and open markets. Meanwhile, countries with heavy administrative oversight and limited economic freedom—such as Burundi, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic—report GDP per capita figures below $1,000, reflecting the economic stagnation that results from centralized control and restricted market access.

The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) report reveals a direct correlation between economic freedom and prosperity. Nations in the freest quartile enjoy an average income of $40,376, compared to just $5,649 in the least free quartile—a 7.1x difference. The poorest 10% in free economies earn 7.9x more than their counterparts in the least free nations. Moreover, life expectancy in free countries is 15 years longer, and infant mortality rates are 6.8x lower. The UN World Happiness Index also shows that citizens in economically free nations report life satisfaction scores two points higher on average than those in restrictive economies.  These metrics confirm that economic liberty is not just a path to wealth—it’s a foundation for human flourishing.  If you want to help people have access to wealth, teach them, and empower them to be “above the line people.”  Solution-based and to enjoy the result of that way of thinking with wealth creation, the ability to enjoy a full bank account, and the results of a task well done. 

The rise of the administrative state—defined by expansive government agencies that regulate economic activity—has been linked to sluggish growth and persistent poverty. While initially intended to address industrial complexity and social inequality, these bureaucracies often stifle innovation and delay wealth creation. The U.S. federal administrative apparatus now issues thousands of regulations annually, with the Code of Federal Regulations exceeding 185,000 pages, quadruple the size of the U.S. Code of Laws passed by Congress.  This regulatory overload disproportionately affects small businesses and low-income entrepreneurs, who face barriers to entry and limited access to capital. In contrast, countries that have adopted deregulation, sound monetary policies, and trade expansion have experienced significant reductions in poverty and increases in GDP.

The solution is not more government, more regulation, or more redistribution. The solution is to cultivate a culture of thinking above the line. This means empowering individuals to take control of their lives, make better decisions, and pursue success through effort and innovation. Capitalism, despite its imperfections, remains the most effective mechanism for lifting people out of poverty because it rewards productivity, creativity, and personal responsibility. When people have access to capital and the freedom to use it, they build wealth—not just for themselves, but for their communities and nations. The administrative state, by contrast, stifles this process. It throws up regulatory stop sticks, preventing people from even starting a lemonade stand. It confiscates wealth under the guise of fairness and redistributes it through inefficient bureaucracies that serve more to perpetuate their own existence than to solve problems. To reduce poverty, we must dismantle these barriers, reject the cult of victimization, and return to a model that celebrates personal agency, economic liberty, and the power of positive thinking. That’s how you build a society that thrives—not by managing poverty, but by eliminating the conditions that create it.  Too much “below the line thinking” creates depraved conditions that bring down all cultures.  And if you want to prevent that way of thinking, then you have to change where people are on that invisible line that we draw in the sand, above and below.  It’s not a political line, it’s one of personal responsibility.  And when you teach people to be victims, of course, you are then teaching them to be poor.  And no amount of money that you throw at them will help them if they don’t think right about how to use it. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Heart to Take Away Hearts: Taking a stand against mediocrity in Ohio

The 2025 redistricting process in Ohio has emerged as a pivotal moment in the broader national battle over congressional control, with implications that stretch far beyond the Buckeye State. On October 31, the Ohio Redistricting Commission unanimously approved a new congressional map that shifts the balance of power decisively toward Republicans, giving them a projected 12-3 advantage across the state’s 15 districts. This outcome was the result of a tense, behind-the-scenes negotiation between Republican and Democratic leaders, including Governor Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Auditor Keith Faber, and legislative appointees like Rep. Brian Stewart and Sen. Jane Timken. Democrats on the commission—Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio and House Minority Leader Dani Isaacsohn—reluctantly supported the map, citing the threat of a more extreme 13-2 GOP-dominated map if negotiations failed. The new map redraws key battlegrounds: Rep. Greg Landsman’s OH-1 district now leans Republican (54%-47%), Marcy Kaptur’s OH-9 shifts to a 54.5%-45.5% GOP tilt, while Emilia Sykes’ OH-13 becomes slightly more Democratic at 52%-48%. These changes reflect a broader national trend, where Republican-led states, such as Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina, have aggressively redrawn maps to consolidate power, often under direct encouragement from President Donald Trump. Ohio’s redistricting, however, was not entirely unilateral; constitutional reforms passed in 2015 and 2018 required bipartisan approval for maps to remain valid for a full decade. The compromise avoided a costly referendum that could have frozen the existing 10-5 map and delayed the 2026 primaries, potentially costing taxpayers $50 million.

The political personalities behind Ohio’s redistricting drama reflect the ideological fault lines within the Republican Party itself. Senator Bernie Moreno, a staunch Trump ally, predicted early on that Ohio Republicans would push for a map that reduced Democrats to just two seats. His comments echoed the sentiments of Rep. Warren Davidson and State Senator George Lang, both of whom have expressed frustration with what they perceive as excessive compromise with Democrats. Davidson’s own district, OH-8, has long been a textbook case of gerrymandering, stretching from Troy to majority-minority communities in Hamilton County, effectively diluting Democratic votes. Lang, known for his “business-first” approach, has remained relatively quiet on the specifics of redistricting but is widely seen as aligned with the GOP’s strategic goals. Secretary of State Frank LaRose, meanwhile, played a key role in supporting the bipartisan map, arguing that it reflected Ohio’s political geography and avoided a chaotic referendum fight backed by “dark money special interests”. His stance, however, has drawn criticism from grassroots activists and legal watchdogs, many of whom argue that the map remains a gerrymandered artifact of one-party rule. Former Attorney General Eric Holder, chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, called the map “a gerrymander placed on top of another gerrymander,” though he acknowledged it preserved Democratic incumbents’ ability to compete.  And when you get a compliment from Eric Holder, you are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

Nationally, Ohio’s redistricting fits into a broader pattern of mid-decade map manipulation driven by Trump’s directive to Republican governors and legislatures. Texas led the charge, redrawing its map to flip five Democratic seats, followed by Missouri and North Carolina, each adding one GOP-leaning district. Ohio’s shift adds two more Republican-leaning districts to the national tally, bringing the potential GOP gain to nine seats before the 2026 midterms. Democrats have responded in kind: California passed Proposition 50, a ballot measure allowing the legislature to redraw its map to add five Democratic seats, countering Texas’s move. Virginia and Illinois are also considering redistricting maneuvers, while states like Indiana and Florida have begun legislative discussions under pressure from Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. The redistricting arms race has triggered lawsuits, referendums, and constitutional amendments across the country, with the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on the Voting Rights Act poised to reshape the landscape further. In this context, Ohio’s 12-3 map is seen by many Republicans as a strategic win, while Democrats view it as a defensive maneuver to preserve viability in key districts. The bipartisan nature of Ohio’s deal, although rare, underscores the high stakes and complex trade-offs involved in redistricting under the Trump-era political landscape, which is a good thing.  The Trump White House understands the situation.

Ultimately, Ohio’s redistricting saga reveals the tension between political pragmatism and ideological purity. Democrats like Dani Isaacsohn and Nickie Antonio have defended their votes as necessary to preserve competitive districts and avoid a worse outcome, even as activists accuse them of capitulation. Republicans, meanwhile, remain divided between hardliners like Moreno and Davidson, who favor aggressive gerrymandering, and institutionalists like DeWine and LaRose, who prioritize stability and legal defensibility. The map itself, while favoring Republicans, does not guarantee outcomes; Democrats have won in GOP-leaning districts before, and the 2026 midterms will test the durability of these new boundaries. What’s clear is that redistricting has become a central battlefield in the fight for congressional control, with Ohio playing a critical role in shaping the national narrative. As Trump’s second term unfolds, and as Democrats mobilize to counteract GOP gains, the redistricting wars will continue to define the contours of American democracy. Whether Ohio’s compromise map proves to be a tactical success or a strategic misstep remains to be seen—but it has already become a case study in the politics of power, representation, and the enduring struggle between exceptionalism and mediocrity.

The fundamental flaw in compromising with Democrats during redistricting—especially under the guise of fairness—is that it inadvertently empowers the very mediocrity that exceptional societies must resist. While it may appear noble or politically sophisticated to preserve all viewpoints and accommodate ideological diversity, the reality is that mediocrity, when institutionalized, becomes a corrosive force. It stifles innovation, suppresses excellence, and erodes the competitive spirit that drives societal advancement. Democrats, often aligned with collectivist ideologies like socialism and Marxism, have historically championed policies that prioritize equality of outcome over merit-based achievement. In doing so, they mask mediocrity as compassion, and fairness becomes a Trojan horse for cultural stagnation. When Republicans yield ground in the name of bipartisanship, they risk legitimizing this mediocrity and weakening the foundations of a high-performing society. Authentic leadership demands the courage to elevate exceptionalism—not dilute it. Redistricting is not merely a cartographic exercise; it is a strategic opportunity to shape the future. If Republicans fail to assert dominance when the political terrain allows it, they may find themselves governed by the very forces they sought to contain. The Ohio map, while a tactical win, reflects a deeper philosophical hesitation—a reluctance to confront mediocrity head-on. And in that hesitation lies the danger of losing the war for cultural and political excellence.  So, while many think it was good to play nice with Democrats, the danger lies in compromise when standards are set and social norms are established.  A failure to take away the heart of mediocrity in a society advancing for greatness might appear to have a merit of its own.  However, in the context of achievement, it undermines the very foundation of excellence we strive for.  And in going forward with these mechanisms of government strategy, when you get a chance to put your foot on the throat of the enemy and put them out of existence, we should do it. Playing fair with Democrats if it brings down your entire society is not a good thing.  It might make those lunches with colleagues more approachable, less tense.  However, by letting mediocrity prevail over logic, nobody is enjoying a better life under the influence of compromise.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Evils of Corporate Culture: Why we love and hate them

One of the things that is most ill-defined in our country, and certainly in the world, is the understanding of why we tend to hate corporate culture.  Yet almost in the same sentence, we desire to be a part of them.  It’s actually pretty straightforward and obvious, which goes back to the foundations of capitalism and the work of Adam Smith in 1776, as well as the intrusive and corrosive nature of Karl Marx’s communism, which ultimately have led to many of the problems we see today.  We hate communism with the same ambiguity, and the reason in all cases is that corporations exist to allow the mediocre to feel validated in mass society, and that it shields them from the insults of competition.  Corporate cultures are often characterized by collectivism and are seldom driven by unique individuals with great vision.  By the time a company goes “corporate,” it loses that unique leadership that likely built the company into something publicly traded and valuable.  So when we say that something is “corporate,” we are saying that it is of less quality than something that isn’t.  Corporations allow mass collectivism to appear valuable by leveraging the efforts that built a company.   I’ve been thinking about this recently because I have had a front-row seat to a corporate takeover, and it has been astonishing to watch.  The people involved are really dumb.  And I don’t say that as an insult, but as an observation where individual intelligence is completely vacant from the minds of those involved, which is typically associated with stupidity or dumbness if taken in isolation.  But if many such people assert something, then there is a belief that a majority then gives validation, even to stupidity.  It’s one thing to read about these things happening in the world and to know the type of people involved.  But I usually have some insulation from this kind of thing by living my life, until those types of people stepped into my interaction by their own choice.  And I have had to establish their base reality, the only way that it can be defined, that they are dumb people looking for easy money in the world, and they accomplish this through mass collectivism, the same way that labor unions are a problem.  Wherever people hide value in groups, we see a loss in the quality of the visionary experience.  You don’t think of a boardroom as a group of people who solve big problems.  Typically, we think of a group of individuals who appease each other in a setting, at the expense of innovation.

I tend to support large organizations because their creation generates the flow of money, and I like money as a measure of a healthy society.  The more money a society has, the more corporations that create it, the more opportunities that society has to improve the lives of its people.  However, that is a very high-level assumption because, unfortunately, most people do not have positive corporate experiences, as many of the ideas we have about things are flawed from the start.  Even all the years of economic evolution that brought about the excellent book, The Wealth of Nations, there is always uncertainty in individuals about their ability to function in the world productively, so they seek joint relationships to hide in, and that is how the corporation came about as these ideas of capitalism and Marxism emerged as the world became smaller and easier to travel in.  Even if there were more opportunities for boldness and adventure, it was still the same kind of people who took them, leaving most of the rest of the world looking for a way to participate without the risk of actually doing so.  We prefer corporate jobs for the high pay we can earn within their structure.  But the pay usually comes at the cost of individual integrity.  You have to give up one thing to get the security of another.  And as human beings, we look down our noses at such a concession because we deem it inherently evil.  Evil because it destroys individuals, rather than enhancing them.

It’s not unusual for a family to applaud that a youthful personality has just joined a respected corporation at Thanksgiving Dinner.  The applause comes because we care about the young person and want them to have financial security.  But also in the back of our minds, we know that something is dying in that person, the ability to become all the dreams of youth as a unique individual.  Corporate environments are about giving voice to mediocrity for the benefits of mass collectivism. So that unique person we knew growing up will likely give up some of their dreams in the process of conformity.  They might gain an extensive paycheck, but in the process, they’ll lose their soul.  And we now understand this process well, having undergone many years of separating business from being run by kingdoms.  However, by default, the corporation evolved to give the mediocre a kind of unionized collective bargaining against the tendency toward cowardice, the act of waking up in the morning and having the courage to be an individual.  I know about such people, but I usually avoid them like a sickness until I had to speak to them often, when they came to my doorstep.  And it’s remarkable how typical dumbness is.  And when we say “dumbness,” we are referring to a lack of individual thought, where a person thinks something and acts on it without careful consideration. Instead, they feel a sense of unity for the preservation of the group, and their ambitions are collectively shaped through the force of numbers, rather than individual vision.  So, obviously, a corporation run by a board, even if there is a strong CEO, ultimately exists to sell mass collectivism to a consuming public, and we only notice when it impacts us, because there aren’t many pure examples of capitalism to measure real value against. 

We might like money, but there haven’t been enough examples of corporations that have survived due to corporate social responsibility efforts to give better examples of how things should be, or how humans should even make a living.  I’m talking about Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality again, the difference between back-of-the-train people and those who dare to live in the front.  The corporate environment was not intended to put the best in charge.  But to make mediocrity rule the masses through collective ambition.  The loss of individuality to the concept of just being another number.  And in the process, everything is less effective.  And so, there is this cheerleading effort by corporations to acquire privately owned companies, as the corporation and its inhabitants want to believe, through the force of confiscated resources, that they can be as good as the visionary owner.  But they never are, and that little secret rots them into their graves.  They may be able to buy a second home in Florida and have the nicest cars to drive.  They may make enough money to turn their kids into younger versions of themselves by sending them to a communist camp we call “college,” by saying we want to give those kids the best chance at life, when we secretly fear that they will grow up to be better than us.  There is a lot wrong with corporate thought and the people who have defined it over the years. Based on what I’ve seen of it, an entirely new definition for money-making needs to be introduced.  The faceless monster of corporate ownership is just an extension of Marxism that emerged in the void of any other definition at that time of its growth into everyday language.  And many of us really want to be associated with the corporate culture for the security of income.  However, it comes at the expense of individual integrity, and for that reason, we secretly view corporations as inherently evil.  However, since most of us lack the security of personal wealth and thought, we want to be associated with something so that, by default, other people won’t see what we really are.  And that we won’t be found out as phonies, even if that’s what we think each day when we get out of bed. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Republicans Played Too Nicely in the Election of 2025: Who to blame in the West Chester Trustee race

It is a bit surprising to listen to everyone’s post-election analysis, where they think Democrats did a lot better than they actually did.  In West Chester, Ohio, there is a lot of chest beating that Democrats found themselves in a lot of seats, especially the West Chester Trustee position, where I went to bed feeling like my guy, Mark Welch, the incumbent who has done a good job, came in third in a six-person race for two spots, was going to win.  There was a Trojan horse effect there, where the average person didn’t know who the Democrats were.  In the West Chester race, that certainly would be the case.  Mark was a Republican-endorsed candidate, but there wasn’t much advertising for the Democrats running, as they hoped to slip under the radar without the general public knowing who they were.  I still felt Mark was strong enough to win anyway.  I might have had disagreements with the way that Republicans set themselves up for this election.  But I wasn’t surprised by anything in Virginia, New York, or California.  Where Republicans ran away from President Trump, Republicans lost to Democrats, and it’s pretty much that simple.  Republicans, the same old Never Trump types, a year after his magnificent election, tried to go it alone, and they lost.  I hear a lot of analysis, and they are all mostly missing the point.  The Republican Party traditionalists still don’t want to admit what MAGA America really is.  The West Chester race, like the Lakota levy issue, truly captured a national sentiment worth mentioning.  I’ve spoken to Mark, and he’ll have the opportunity to do many great things.  Meanwhile, West Chester was warned what electing a bunch of Democrats would do, which is what the Lakota school board has been experiencing.  And people are going to have to learn some hard lessons. 

But here’s the deal.  While I support and endorse various candidates, and I certainly did endorse Mark Welch, I disagreed with the “niceness” campaign.  Mark is a nice guy, but everyone has to remember he won as a Tea Party conservative, and the Republican Party at that time was led in that effort by a scrappy George Lang, who when pressed can be pretty ruthless to those he runs against.  It was the Tea Party types who went out and fought to put Mark on the Board of Trustees of one of the most successful communities in America, and he has been great in that position.  Over time, people have forgotten what it took to get there and what it takes to keep a community great.  New York is going through that same cycle. Over time, people get complacent when things are stable for a long time, and they dare to make changes that might sound “nicer.”  And when it comes to me and many political people, there are always these tagalongs who aren’t very savvy, and they certainly don’t like me.  When I see Mark at an event and speak to him, there are always those who swoop in after me and ask him why he gives me the time of day.  There are lots of whispers in the ears of some of these people who want to believe that the world is something other than what it is, and that I should not have a place in it.  But I’ll tell you what, if I were managing Mark Welch’s campaign, he wouldn’t have lost.  I would have advised him to be a lot more competitive and a less smiling, more angry, Mark.  The belief was that Mark needed to get Democrats to vote for him, so he needed to be more like Lee Wong, whom conservatives thought of as safe to vote for, but who would undoubtedly receive a bleed over of Democrat votes.  The belief was that in West Chester, if you wanted to win the trustee seat, Democrats would have to step over and vote for Mark. 

But in truth, as it was everywhere in the country, it’s the MAGA base that supports Trump that everyone had to tap into.  Because even there, there are already Democrats who have left the party and are voting for Republicans because of Trump.  So, in Mark’s case, and this is the fault of all those people who whisper in his ear when I leave the room, playing “keep away” with these office seats is not the way to win.  Democrats are trying to sneak under the door, and Republicans are trying not to look too mean to win over Democrats.  When the real desire is for MAGA Republicans to grow in number, and people in West Chester would have loved to know that Mark was much more MAGA than just being a nice guy incumbent.  The reason why Mark didn’t pull out one of the two top spots was engagement.  The MAGA people, the old Tea Party types, weren’t excited about this election cycle, so they stayed home.  And Democrats were desperate for relevancy, so they worked the polls, mailed out their mailers, knocked on doors, and tried to sneak under the door wherever possible so people wouldn’t know who they were.  Mark worked hard, but the people around him were on their heels, and that was obvious.  They were on cruise control and wanted him to play keep away, to not do anything that might steer away those Democrats that they are so afraid of. 

This year, more than other years, I have been doing a lot of video coverage of important political figures, not because I’m some radical right winged maniac, as those people who were whispering to Mark criticisms toward him for even talking to me, but because I know what I’m talking about and I always know how to handle these kinds of things with an excellent track record.  If someone listens to me, they will have a significantly better chance of winning their issue, regardless of who they are.  I’m so good at it that lots of people want to pay me a lot of money to do it, but I look down my nose at that kind of business, because I don’t respect people who take money for something that is essentially part of our republican form of government.  It should be a labor of love, in my opinion, not something you profit from.  So I already don’t respect a lot of those types of people who are critical of me.  Everything gets back to me, so I know who those people are.  And I think so little of them that I don’t even waste my time speaking with them at a lot of those events.  I see them as a waste of time.  They don’t understand the game, and they don’t respect the people who vote.  They are busy trying to make the world into what it isn’t.  Because they like Democrats secretly, and they don’t want to fight them, they want to get along with them.  I advocate destroying them.  Why wouldn’t you want to destroy people who are trying to ruin our civilization?  And I understand that a lot of the people I’m talking about don’t think of things on a vast scale for the actuality of existence.  That’s the only way I think.  So do I care if they find my outlook repulsive? Absolutely not.  I see them as a waste of time, and they have a lot to learn about life.  And when they give bad advice, as they certainly have been, don’t be surprised when your guy loses.  Republicans lost in races they could have won because they were too nice to Democrats.  And it’s that simple. 

Rich Hoffman

We’re rebuilding the school board. Good management is the best way to defeat tax increases.

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

How to Pick Up Women: Not hiding in the herd like a coward

I have several people in my life who are young and are just starting to be interested in girls, an anxiety that most men never get over. Forget about the modern attempt to rewrite human behavior; biology is biology.  Women, in the form of young girls, are meant to establish upon the human race a survival of the fittest kind of competition that is intended to inspire greatness.  I’ve told the story more than once about how I met my own wife; it was under very challenging circumstances, and I’m the type of person who doesn’t yield to anything.  Nothing is off limits to me.  So, I saw her in a car on a date with another guy, and I knocked on the window, essentially asking her to marry me.  And we’ve been married now for nearly 38 years.  I would advise all young people concerned about attracting young girls to be confident and direct.  Because here’s the secret.  Women don’t like slugs.  If you are outgoing, most women will want to leverage whatever attractiveness they have to reel you in, as they desire those qualities in their own family building and for their future children.  They may not be consciously aware of all that, but their essential biological necessity establishes it in their behavior quite clearly.  I think one of the wisest movies in the history of cinema came from the movie Scarface, starring Al Pacino, during the pool scene.  Tony Montana’s friend wanted to pick up a pretty girl at the pool and was being very obvious about his sexual intentions.  Tony tried to warn him not to be improper with her, but he did it anyway. He talked to her for a minute, then stuck his tongue out in a sexually suggestive manner, as if all the young woman wanted was sexual pleasure, and she slapped him. 

After that scene, Tony tried to help his wounded friend by telling him that in America, you have to make money first.  Then the women will love you.  But not until then.  Make some money, show that you are successful, and getting women will be no problem.  That is generally true in most cases.  No matter how much radical liberals try to rewrite human behavior, that basic biological necessity holds.  If you are confident, women in the form of young girls will see a basic ingredient for success, and they will find a way to make room for you under any condition.  Because the chances are, anybody they might happen to be dating, probably isn’t very confident.  Another rule is that any mildly attractive woman is likely attached to someone, but most of the time, until she’s around 35 years old, she is always looking for someone better.  Always, even on their wedding day.  This is why many women are drawn to successful individuals.  It’s the way that the human race is wired to sustain itself perpetually forward.  The privilege to sexual interaction can be psychologically constructed toward perpetuation, but that won’t stop a wandering eye from always zeroing in on someone who has the potential for great success.  So I always tell young people, ‘If you want girls, make yourself useful, and they’ll find you.’ You won’t have to go looking for them.  If you are a successful young person, you won’t be short on opportunities.  However, you must be the genuine article. If you dress for success and try to smooze over unsuspecting women at the club with too much cologne and a cheesy outfit, they’ll discover real quick that you aren’t what you sold yourself to be, and they’ll check out fast and move on to someone else.

Of course, I’m not talking about girls when I’m talking about girls.  But essential ingredients regarding the human race.  Women are often the standard bearers for all existence. If you want to be associated with a good one, you have to be a person they think of as good.  And most women are disappointed with the men in their lives, because our society teaches boys to be not very good men.  Boys learn all the cosmetic stuff, but when it comes time to change the oil, they are lost.  I have a friend in his fifties who is recently divorced.  He’s a demolition derby driver, professionally, so he knows how to tear down a car and rebuild it from the ground up.  He does it for fun almost every day of the week and throughout the weekend.  Once word got around that he was no longer married, he had about 40 different girls half his age wanting to date him; it was really out of control.  Now he’s not that wealthy by any means.  However, he knows how to work on cars, and most of them have cars that need to be repaired, so he possesses skills that the other men in the millennial age group don’t have.   And the girls are very aggressive about solving that problem by wanting to date my friend.  As I joke with him, I say that being able to change oil is like being a millionaire in this overly progressive society, where feminism has been a joke and a massive failure.  He is the evidence of that.  You can’t hoodwink skills over fake charm; women figure it out really fast. 

However, that same approach essentially carries over into all aspects of life.  You can’t fake it, whether you are dealing with women or men; people are people, and they judge each other based on these essential truths.  And once you understand this, it’s good to separate yourself from the herd by not chasing around traits that you think will make you likable, but are essentially a waste of time.  I often discuss the Metaphysics of Quality, particularly regarding the back-of-the-train types, which are most people.  Where you always want to be is in the front of the train, where it takes courage to be.  Of course, women will be more attracted to you there, as opposed to the back, where all the others are hiding.  But it’s not just women; all people respond similarly, even if they themselves don’t have that kind of personal courage.  They are attracted to those who do.  So, it’s best in life not to associate yourself with others who are considered losers, but are hiding that trait under some premise of collectivism to disguise their cowardly behavior, which reveals them to be back-of-the-train types, rather than leaders from the front.  As Tony Montana said in Scarface, to get the women in America, you have to make the money.  But even more than that, you have to be willing to emerge from the crowd and show a confidence that can achieve success, whether it’s making millions of dollars or just being able to change the oil in a car.  Apparently, millennial women are very stressed about being able to change oil. The bar for success has significantly lowered over the years, as it used to be that all young men could change their own oil.  But being able to do something better than everyone else is the key to getting opportunities in life.  And those who separate themselves from the masses have much better lives, in just about every case. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Trump’s Big Beautiful Ballroom: Leading the world starting with real bathrooms

Of course, it’s been a suppression effort from the start, but that’s all behind us now.  Trump has torn down the East Wing of the White House and is building his Big Beautiful Ballroom, and Democrats are having a major meltdown over it.  But of course, the opposition isn’t about money, which the whole effort is being funded privately by Trump and his supporters; the goal is a continuation of what we have seen from Democrats going all the way back to the Clintons in the White House.  Remember when they would put sex toys on Christmas Trees when they were in the White House, and the scandal of them selling access to the Lincoln bedroom?  I’ve pointed it out here many times: the deliberate effort not to give speeches in the Oval Office and, as much as possible, to dethrone the role of the White House on the world stage, in their efforts to erase America and usher in the age of the global citizen.  Barack Obama was really obvious about taking as much of the Office of the White House —the role of the President of the United States — and diminishing it in the world, rather than propping it up.  And when we would point it out, it was called a conspiracy theory, a wild right-winged illusion!  But the truth has come out in the actions of Democrat presidents based on their behavior and their hatred of this Trump ballroom says it all, because it defies the logic of someone who wanted to be proud of their country.  It is conducive to someone who wants to see it destroyed.  And I say all this because my wife and I recently visited the White House, and I can report that the place is a lot different than when Biden was there. 

Remember when Biden would give speeches at that little film studio they did to replace the White House?  That was on purpose, to diminish the White House’s role in the world.  And they’ll tell you that much at the museum and visitors’ center for the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue, just to the east.  The White House was deliberately built small to avoid poking Europe in the eye.  We had built a nation that was throwing off the kingly role of government leadership, and the point was to downplay aristocracy as much as possible.  But we all knew what Trump was before we elected him.  Trump has always been about gold and showing off his winnings in the competitions of life.  And that’s one of the reasons we wanted him in the White House.  America was the world’s leading economy and offered the best opportunities for a good life to anyone who dared work for it.  And we wanted to inspire the world, not bend the knee to it, as Barack Obama had been doing.  When the White House was built, it was meant to send a message that Americans weren’t going to try to mimic the palaces of Europe, that America was planning to mind its own business, do the basic work of government, and retire to the countryside once the Executive jobs were done in the People’s House.  But that was a time when America was a new country trying to find its way.  What emerged defines the role of the White House, and it has needed something like a ballroom for a very long time.  Visiting the White House, nobody should be using a porta-potty for an important event. 

The new ballroom is over 90,000 square feet and costs around $300 million, with $200 million from private donors, including Trump himself.  Trump did get a legal settlement from YouTube for $22 million, which has gone toward the construction budget, so it’s a grand affair, being funded privately.  Certainly not by the taxpayers.  The goal is to have the ballroom finished by the end of Trump’s term in 2029.  The buzz out there says that only 25% of the public supports it, according to the Democrat suppression polls that are out there, which still hope to keep America in a state of depression.  That game is why Biden would speak at that weird little studio set rather than in and around the Oval Office.  They only used those traditional backgrounds when they had to.  But now everyone knows the game of suppression, that’s why Biden had people on his staff who would film themselves having sex in important buildings, a gay rights protestor was its spokesperson, the autopen became the real president that anybody could sign.  The decentralization of the White House was well at play during Biden’s term, which most reasonable people understand now was an overthrow of Trump’s first term.  And the point was to put him and the idea of a glorified and proud America out of the public eye.  And now, Trump is back and building a ballroom that would rival his private estate of Mar-a-Lago in Florida.  And it will be around for a long time.  It’s time that America stopped apologizing for being good and an inspiration to the downtrodden.  And start showing the world what adopting capitalism is all about, and why they should do it.  The ballroom should be their experience when visiting the White House, and when they leave, they should remember it for the rest of their lives. 

I recently sat down with a good friend of mine, Senator George Lang, and we talked about our years together fighting all kinds of issues.  His latest battle is one with stage 4 cancer, which many people consider a death sentence.  He doesn’t, and neither do I.  I think we have cures for cancer right now.  What we have is an oppressive healthcare system that wants people to die to rid the earth of their breathing presence.  And that same hatred is reflected in the attitude toward the White House.  Democrats want people sick and dependent.  And they want them to use the bathroom in a tent on the White House lawn when they visit.  But the senator and I agreed that we would celebrate him being cancer-free when we visited the White House together when the new ballroom opens, which tells you what he thinks about his chances of survival.  But by then, a lot will have changed for the better, and the White House improvements are just the cosmetic aspect of it.  America is learning to be what the world needs out of it.  And the bad guys who have been standing in the way are now getting run over.  So why appease them even slightly?  Why not build a grand ballroom with working bathrooms where people from around the world can come to the White House and be inspired to take capitalism home with them?  And George’s optimism about his own future isn’t rooted in blind sentiment and delusional hope, but in the facts of the matter.  Democrats have wanted American culture dead, and they certainly wanted to downplay the White House and its global significance.  We elected Trump to elevate the office because we didn’t like what Democrats had been doing to it during the Clinton years, during Obama’s time, and indeed when Joe Biden was inserted in as a stage puppet and his entire administration was run by consultants and public relations firms through the autopen.  As a country, we are turning away from all that, and the Trump Big Beautiful Ballroom is the result of that effort, which will usher in a whole new age for the world with America as the example of goodness, which is how it’s supposed to be.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Lakota Levy of 2025 is Just the First Step: Until there are conservatives on the school board, public schools will seek tax increases

I’m really proud of the interview I did with Senator George Lang just ahead of the election of 2025.  George, first and foremost, is a friend of mine, so I tend not to drag him into things I’m involved in, and when it comes to politics, he and I agree on most everything.  The only significant difference is that he tends to be more considerate of people than I am.  He gives the other side more of a voice than I think they deserve, because he’s a nice guy.  During our interview, when he said that he thinks of Lakota school board members Julie Shaffer and Kelly Casper as friendly people, I disagreed with him.  I think between the two of them at a drunken school board meeting out of town, you couldn’t find enough clothes to half-dress one mannequin in the back of a Dillard’s.  Lakota’s school board is very liberal, and those two individuals lead it, which is embarrassing.  And expensive.  But George is good to everyone.  He has his opinions, but he gives everyone a fair shake, and I often don’t get to show that to people.  Neither does he, as the Majority Whip of Ohio’s Senate, a significant position with considerable influence.  He knows that around me, he can be himself and that I won’t run off and talk about anything that we discuss privately.  It was pretty unique that I got to put him on camera and talk for an hour about everything, from the upcoming Lakota levy to his battles with stage 4 cancer.  However, to clear up some misconceptions people had about George and a donation he was shown giving for the pro-Lakota levy efforts, we conducted an interview together that I think was better than he could have achieved anywhere, by any modern media method, news outlet, or podcaster. 

The only people who do the level of interview at the level of what George and I did were someone like Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan, and I don’t think either of them could have done a better job.  George and I have known each other for several decades, but we had never sat down and just talked in front of the camera like that. What was captured was very useful to many people who wonder about various things.  I even asked George before the interview, “What’s off limits?  Is there anything you don’t want to talk about?”  He said quickly, “No, nothing, anything, and everything is on the table.”  So, we just talked like a couple of people and let others in to observe, and I was able to show them why I like George so much, even though he has evolved into a powerful politician and a prominent figure in Butler County politics.   And over the course of that interview, which was mainly about the upcoming Lakota levy, the most significant tax increase in the history of Ohio, I think he said a mouthful, which I completely agree with.  We all believe that the Lakota levy is going to crash and burn.  But don’t assume that this wasn’t their plan all along: to give the public a considerable blowout number and lose badly in an election.  Then, to say in the spring or summer that they listened to the public and came back with a reduced number.  Just because we defeated this levy in the 2025 election, it doesn’t mean it won’t come back in some form or another.  These public schools are only known for one thing: wasting tax money and asking the public for more, often on the back of property tax increases, to fund an overly progressive society. 

As George said, he thinks that the Lakota school board and its satellites, which include the treasurer and superintendent, are smart people.  I think what he calls “smart” is very maliciously manipulative, even evil.  But Genghis Khan was considered intelligent too, and so were most of the mass murderers of the world.  People thought that Jeffrey Dahmer was smart, even as he dismembered people in his kitchen and stored their remains in his refrigerator.  I would say that the Lakota school board members are very manipulative, which they have to be, given their liberal leanings.  Because people on the left often have to figure out how to get others to do things for them that they can’t do for themselves, they become pretty skilled at it over time.  However, as George and I reflected, this levy attempt is merely them dipping their toe in the water to see how the public reacts.  The details of that kind of election scope are why I think that interview is better than any other outlet could have pulled off, because we covered a lot of ground that most people would blank out after 15 minutes.  However, what we covered was essential to nearly every living, breathing human being, especially those residing in Butler County, Ohio.  It’s encouraging that in Butler County, an effective resistance to the Lakota tax increases has emerged in the No More Taxes group, which is fighting the Lakota levy.  And there are some really good people involved, and they have raised money not just for this levy, but for several upcoming ones as well.  However, for voters who have to show up and vote, they really need context on the scope of the problem.

So, how do we prevent more tax increases from being imposed in the future?  Well, don’t put liberals on the school board, and right now, there are four solid Democrats.  They call themselves other things to avoid the stigma of not being conservative in Butler County, but they are hard leftists on most policies.  And lefties love to waste money.  So, to stop wasting money, which Lakota already has a quarter of a billion dollar budget for a school, which I argue is just a dressed-up babysitting service, elect conservative school board members.  For this election, Ben Nguyen is the guy.  But in future elections, we need more people like Ben.  You need at least a three-vote majority, which we had for a while at Lakota.  And as soon as we didn’t, Lakota went for a tax increase.  That’s all they know to do—because they are liberals, and because liberals are never smart with money.  They might be manipulative, deceitful, scandalous, or monstrously unprincipled.  But they are spendthrifts who want to live off the efforts of others, starting with the real estate of Butler County.  Once Vivek Ramaswamy is the governor of Ohio next year, and Trump continues to dismantle the Department of Education and unleash the power of School Choice, all the public schools will have to change and do a lot more with less.  Their cost structure is significantly inflated due to their collective bargaining agreements, which stem from their union membership. We are all aware that unions often disrupt cost structures wherever they emerge, as they allow the mediocre to receive disproportionately high incomes.  And that is certainly the case at Lakota schools.  So, yes, the levy will likely fail in a big way on election day, provided people don’t sit on their hands and watch Netflix instead of voting.  People need to go out and vote.  But this is only step one.  People are going to have to dig in and fight to keep our taxes reasonably low until there is a new school board with conservatives on it.  Because, as sure as you are reading this, Lakota is planning the next levy, once the smoke clears from this one, because they have spent themselves into oblivion.  And only higher taxes can satisfy their never-ending hunger for more money to waste.

Rich Hoffman

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

Under New Management: Why companies fail and how leadership works

All over my town of West Chester, Ohio, there are signs everywhere indicating that new management is running a business.  Most of them are restaurants and bars, but they have been unusually placed in front of all kinds of companies, even manufacturing facilities.  Which was another thing I said would happen as a result of the catastrophic stupidity of COVID, where a global Marxist strategy of micromanaging how people were going to do work was imposed on all of us through the ridiculous means of a doctor’s office.  White coat losers in the form of health professionals were trying to scare us into open socialism, and it was always going to be a disaster.  And now, five years later, the world has turned to populism, specifically to capitalism.  If you really want to get philosophical about the Trump administration at this particular time, it’s because the human race knows what’s good for it, and all forms of Marxism have not been it.  There was never a plan for Trump to be in any authority position.  The plan was to take over mass society and make people afraid of a virus that was made in a Chinese lab, by people who wanted to make a bioweapon to use against the world, to steal elections, and take over economies.  People saw this happening, and they put Trump in office as the rest of the world has been supporting their own version of pro-capitalist populism.  Its not because they were that great of a candidate, but because people didn’t like the direction the world was turning, which brought about out of desperation, the Covid year of 2020 and the complete collapse of the global economy that was so tragic that most people didn’t even want to discuss what happened because they wanted so badly to put it out of their minds. 

So the mindset of the economic shutdowns has taken a few years to recover from, and it has taken a while for people to get their feet under them again.  And what we’re talking about are all the DEI hires and the work-from-home mentality that has been socially disastrous—social policy cooked up in a lab, with everyone’s books open to Karl Marx’s literature.  Even Microsoft was in on the gag, trying to push everyone into Teams meetings from home in their pajamas.  Nobody was betting on a complete economic recovery in those dark months of 2021, as Biden took office, Trump was forced into exile, and Covid protocols were imposing themselves on every one of us.  People should have been more intelligent to see the obvious.  We were under attack by an extensively laid plan of a complete Marxist takeover of the world.  And I said it at the time, and said all this was going to happen.  Nobody listened until it was too late.  And I would go around town and talk about all the businesses that were working from home, and how they were going to fail, and all the fast food places that closed their dining rooms because they didn’t have enough staff to stay open.  I told everyone what was going to happen, and now it is.  And I saw it clearly because of the way I live my life, in front of the train. At the same time, most of the world lives in the back, where it’s safe.  We’re talking about Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality as he talked about it in the great book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.  It’s a very popular book, though largely misunderstood.  Its sequel, Lila, has not been read by millions, but by a very select few in the world who are audacious rarities. 

The metaphysics of quality, as I explained in my video with a train roaring by, is essentially a perspective on leadership and decision-making. Outstanding leadership is done at the front of a metaphorical train, where you can see what’s coming as it approaches.  You can turn the train, slow it down, tell people what you see coming.  But most people don’t dare to lead from the front.  So they have built an administrative bureaucracy in the back of the train to provide analysis, which is useful.  But it’s not leadership because by the time the moving train reaches the point of decision, the caboose has passed it entirely too late.  Decisions have to be made at the front to ensure the quality people expect.  That is why great generals who lead from the front are great.   Great business leaders are so rare.  And why political efforts succeed or fail.  If leadership is at the back of the train, a management effort will likely fail every time.  If, under scarce circumstances, an organizational leader is at the front of the train —where few people dare to be —then great success is possible.  Success that is often beyond people’s wildest dreams.  So when a business is failing and wants the public to know they are making changes, they put up signs saying they are under new management, hoping people will give them a second chance in the economy, implying that their leadership change will be different.  After COVID, a lot of companies got suckered and put their leaders all in the back of the train, where it was safe, and it was a disaster for the world’s economy under a hostile takeover. 

Karl Marx was always an idiot and a coward.  He died broke because he was a back-of-the-train theorist.  The world is full of them.  But because there were a lot of cowards in the world who ended up in government, health care, and were second-generation titans of industry who didn’t have the same guts their previous generation had, they adopted Marxism to hide what losers they were.  But in a marketplace where free will is expected, that kind of back-of-the-train micromanagement was never going to work.  And I said so all along.  And now that the money is flowing again and Trump is back in the White House, leading from the front, it has exposed this plan for the fraud it was.  And now everyone is scrambling to find people at the front of the train, and their “under new management” signs are hopes that people will assume that there is leadership at the front of the train instead of everyone functioning from the back, where all the wimps hang out.  And that’s why there are suddenly so many signs.  At least the owners of these businesses are trying.  But it shows clearly the danger that arises when we micromanage society, with back-of-the-train personalities who are not equipped to lead.  Even in a bar or nightclub, where leadership isn’t even considered.  People expect the lights to work and the beer to be cold.  And when everyone is hiding in the back of the train, they often order those things too late to arrive for a Friday night gathering that nobody thought would happen because of COVID social distancing rules.  Only people in the front of the train were ready, because they saw well in advance what a dumb idea everything was.  And most businesses that lacked those unique personalities failed, are now trying to recover, and want the world to know they are looking for front-of-the-train management.  And even if they haven’t yet found them, they are at least looking.

Rich Hoffman

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