Restoring Trust in American Elections: The Case for Reform in Light of Persistent 2020 Questions and the Path Forward

For millions of Americans, the 2020 presidential election left an indelible mark—not just because of its outcome, but because of the questions that have lingered ever since. Joe Biden received over 81 million votes, a record at the time, yet four years later, Kamala Harris garnered roughly 75 million in a similar political landscape with population growth and comparable partisan divides. This drop of more than 6 million votes, combined with Donald Trump’s increase from 74 million to around 77 million, has fueled widespread skepticism. Many see it not as natural voter shifts, but as evidence that 2020’s totals were artificially inflated through lax rules, mail-in ballot chaos, and vulnerabilities in electronic systems—especially under the cover of COVID-19 policies that expanded unmonitored voting.

These concerns are not fringe theories whispered in corners; they have driven national policy debates, legal actions, and now federal interventions. In late January 2026, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Fulton County’s election facility in Georgia, seizing hundreds of boxes containing 2020 ballots, tabulator tapes, electronic images, and voter rolls.1 Fulton County, the epicenter of Georgia’s 11,779-vote margin favoring Biden, has long been a focal point for allegations of irregularities—misinterpreted surveillance video at State Farm Arena, disputed absentee ballot handling, and chain-of-custody questions. County officials promptly challenged the seizure in federal court, seeking the return of the materials and the unsealing of the warrant affidavit, arguing that it constituted overreach.2 Yet for those convinced of fraud, this move signals accountability finally arriving under a Trump-led Justice Department.

We’ll examine these claims in the context of historical developments, empirical comparisons, and current developments. I would argue that, while courts and audits in 2020 found no widespread fraud sufficient to overturn the results, the system’s vulnerabilities—loose voter eligibility verification, the absence of universal ID requirements in key states, and reliance on potentially manipulable technology—created opportunities for abuse. And the authorities didn’t find fraud because they either didn’t want to look, or they deliberately looked in the wrong place to hide their complicity in the radicalism that did not want to honor voters in a self-governing government. Genuine self-governance requires secure elections in which every vote is verifiable, and every citizen’s voice counts equally. Reforms such as the Safeguard American Voters Eligibility (SAVE) Act offer a practical path forward, ensuring that only eligible citizens participate without disenfranchising legitimate voters.

A Brief History of Voting Technology and Fraud Concerns

America’s voting systems have always balanced innovation with risk. Paper ballots gave way to mechanical lever machines in the late 1800s to reduce intimidation and speed counting. Optical scanners emerged in the 1960s, followed by direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines in the 1990s. The 2000 Florida recount debacle led to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, which pushed states toward more modern systems but also highlighted persistent issues: punch-card errors, hanging chads, and questions about machine accuracy.

By 2020, many jurisdictions used touchscreen DREs or ballot-marking devices with paper trails, while others relied on hand-marked paper ballots scanned optically. Critics point to shared origins with machines used in countries such as Venezuela and to concerns about the security of Dominion and ES&S systems. High-profile lawsuits against companies making fraud claims (e.g., Mike Lindell’s defamation losses) have chilled some discussion, but audits consistently show machines perform accurately when properly maintained and paper records are available for verification.3 The evidence is there in most cases with the paper backup to match the vote count. However, this manual check often doesn’t occur, creating opportunities for discrepancies to affect results.

Fraud itself has historically been rare. The Heritage Foundation has tracked and documented cases since 1982, totaling approximately 1,500, which is insignificant relative to the billions of votes.4 Yet rarity does not equal impossibility, especially in high-stakes, loosely regulated environments. The 2020 expansion of mail-in voting, drop boxes, and relaxed signature-matching requirements—often justified as a pandemic necessity—amplified risks in states without strict safeguards.

Fulton County in Focus: From 2020 Allegations to 2026 Federal Action

Georgia’s narrow 2020 margin made Fulton County a lightning rod. Biden’s considerable urban advantage there offset rural Trump’s strength statewide. Allegations included “suitcase” ballots retrieved from beneath tables (later explained as standard procedure), water main breaks that delayed counting, and discrepancies in absentee ballot processing. Multiple recounts, including a hand audit, confirmed results, and courts rejected challenges.5

Fast-forward to 2026: The FBI’s seizure of roughly 700 boxes has reignited debate. Agents sought physical ballots, scanner tapes, digital images, and voter rolls from 2020.6 Body camera footage shows tense interactions, with county staff expressing confusion over the warrant.7 Fulton leaders, including Chair Robb Pitts, received warnings of potential arrests and filed for return of materials, citing state sovereignty and lack of transparency.8

Proponents view this as evidence that emerging issues—chain-of-custody breaches, unauthorized votes, or tampering — could surface. Critics call it political retribution, noting Trump’s repeated claims and the administration’s push to “nationalize” elections in Democratic areas.9 Regardless, the action underscores why many demand reforms: if doubts persist after years of scrutiny, prevention through stricter rules is essential.

Vote Total Discrepancies: What the Numbers Really Tell Us

The stark contrast between 2020 and 2024 Democratic performance is central to skepticism. Biden’s 81.3 million votes dwarfed Obama’s 2012 total (65.9 million) and Harris’s ~75 million. In states with loose rules—no voter ID, universal mail ballots, minimal verification—Democrat margins often aligned with these patterns.

Turnout in 2020 hit 66.6%, driven by pandemic expansions and polarization. By 2024, fatigue, reduced mail voting, and demographic shifts (e.g., Harris underperforming among nonwhite voters) explain much of the decline.10 Yet the gap—over 6 million fewer Democrat votes despite population growth—raises legitimate questions about 2020 inflation.

Comparisons with prior elections indicate that Democrats gained ~15 million votes from Obama to Biden, then lost most of them back to Harris. If electronic flipping, non-citizen voting, or dead voters on the rolls contributed even modestly, the numbers could align more closely with a natural ~55-60 million Democratic base in clean elections. States with strict ID and in-person emphasis showed more stable patterns.

The SAVE Act: A Common-Sense Safeguard

Introduced as H.R. 22 in the 119th Congress, the SAVE Act requires documentary proof of citizenship (passport, birth certificate, naturalization papers) for federal voter registration, ending reliance on sworn statements.11 The House passed it in April 2025; it remains stalled in the Senate amid opposition from groups like the League of Women Voters and Brennan Center, who argue it could disenfranchise millions lacking easy access to documents.12

Supporters counter that non-citizen voting, though rare, occurs in lax systems and that proof requirements mirror those for passport or employment verification. Recent efforts urge Senate action before the 2026 midterm elections.13 For Ohio—already requiring non-strict photo ID—the Act could complement existing rules without significant disruption, ensuring federal elections reflect citizens only.

Voter ID and Security: Protecting Access While Closing Loopholes

Thirty-six states require some voter ID; 23 mandate strict photo ID. Ohio’s non-strict system permits alternatives such as utility bills. Evidence indicates that ID laws deter negligible fraud but can slightly suppress turnout among low-income or minority voters.14 Free IDs, expanded provisional ballots, and affidavits mitigate this.

States without strict ID requirements (e.g., California) have not documented widespread fraud, yet critics argue that loose rules enable abuse. A balanced approach—universal ID with accommodations—enhances security without barriers.

Electronic Systems, Audits, and Accountability

Machines face hacking fears, but paper trails and post-election audits (risk-limiting or full) verify accuracy. Cases such as Tina Peters’ ruthless conviction for unauthorized access highlight the risks of not having proper security in all elections with federal consequences. To that point, all indications point to Arizona where Kari Lake should be the governor if election security had been properly utilized.15 Robust audits, not bans, address concerns.

Conclusion: Toward a More Accountable Republic

The 2020 election exposed vulnerabilities that eroded trust. Courts dismissed widespread fraud claims, but anomalies and lax regulations raise doubts. The Fulton seizure may reveal more—or reaffirm prior findings—but prevention is preferable to reaction.

The SAVE Act, voter ID mandates, and improved audits offer solutions. Ohio legislators and federal counterparts can lead by prioritizing citizenship verification and transparency. Secure elections ensure the government reflects the people, not manipulation. Restoring faith requires action now—before doubts harden into division, which I would argue has already occurred. Stealing elections by any means is a serious crime and we need to understand who has done what, and what impact that has had on a free republic for which the people rule over themselves. And without secure elections, that just can’t happen. And it must happen. Which is why the SAVE Act is absolutely necessary.

Footnotes

1. CBS News, “Body camera footage captures confusion as FBI agents seize election records in Fulton County,” 2026.

2. PBS News, “Fulton County asks court to return 2020 election documents seized by the FBI,” Feb. 2026.

3. Various court rulings and audits (e.g., Georgia hand recount).

4. Heritage Foundation Election Fraud Database.

5. Georgia Secretary of State audits and court dismissals.

6. Reuters, “Georgia’s Fulton County challenges seizure of election records,” Feb. 2026.

7. GPB News, “Footage released of FBI search and seizure,” Feb. 2026.

8. The Guardian, “Fulton County leader says he was warned he faced arrest,” Feb. 2026.

9. Brennan Center analysis, Feb. 2026.

10. Election turnout data from U.S. Census and AP analyses.

11. Congress.gov, H.R.22 – SAVE Act.

12. League of Women Voters and Brennan Center statements.

13. Rep. Bean press release, Feb. 2026.

14. NCSL Voter ID overview.

15. Heritage Foundation case summaries.

Bibliography for Further Reading

• Congress.gov: H.R.22 – SAVE Act (119th Congress).

• Brennan Center for Justice: Reports on voter ID and SAVE Act impacts.

• Heritage Foundation: Election Fraud Database and related analyses.

• CBS News, PBS News, The New York Times, Reuters: Coverage of the 2026 Fulton County FBI seizure.

• Georgia Public Broadcasting and Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Local reporting on Fulton developments.

• National Conference of State Legislatures: Voter ID laws by state.

• U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Voting system guidelines and audits.

Rich Hoffman

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

‘Melania,’: The Billie Jean of Politics

The recent release of the documentary film Melania, directed by Brett Ratner and distributed by Amazon MGM Studios, offers a compelling behind-the-scenes glimpse into the life of First Lady Melania Trump during the pivotal 20 days leading up to President Donald Trump’s second inauguration in January 2025. This project, which followed her 2024 memoir Melania (published by Skyhorse on October 8, 2024), extends the intimate, personal narrative she began in print, providing viewers with unprecedented access to her daily routines, family moments, White House transition preparations, and interactions at locations like Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower.

The film arrives at a time when Melania Trump has stepped more visibly into the public eye, leveraging her platform to advocate for causes such as children’s welfare, anti-bullying initiatives (echoing her earlier Be Best campaign), and upward mobility. Her memoir, released just weeks before the 2024 election, framed her perspective on life in the spotlight, her Slovenian roots under communism, her modeling career, her marriage to Donald Trump, and her priorities as a mother and wife. The documentary builds on this, presenting her as a grounding influence on her husband—someone who brings elegance, class, and a measured outlook to the often chaotic world of politics. Observers familiar with her world note that her background, roughly aligned with those who came of age during the Reagan era, informs her values: a blend of capitalist ambition forged from escaping a communist system, combined with a deliberate choice to prioritize family over constant public engagement.

Attending the film’s opening day in a local theater proved surprisingly challenging; despite assumptions that theaters would be empty amid streaming dominance and polarized politics, the showing was packed, forcing seats in the handicap-accessible section to sit together. This turnout reflects broader enthusiasm among supporters, who view the project as more than mere entertainment—it’s a cultural artifact capturing a unique historical moment. Box office figures underscore this interest: the film opened to approximately $8 million domestically, marking one of the strongest theatrical debuts for a non-concert documentary in over a decade, far exceeding initial low projections of $3-5 million in some estimates.

The production’s scale has drawn scrutiny. Amazon MGM Studios acquired rights for a reported $40 million—the highest ever for a documentary—with additional tens of millions in marketing, leading to speculation about motives, including potential alignment with the administration given Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s past criticisms and recent shifts in media coverage. Melania Trump has described the work not strictly as a documentary but as an entertainment piece—a creative, observational portrait akin to a painting, allowing audiences to sit with her character amid major events. This framing emphasizes its artistic merit over pure journalism, offering a positive, aspirational view of leadership, family, and personal resilience.

Critics from the left have responded with notable aggression, including campaigns to suppress attendance or mock empty screenings in certain areas, echoing longstanding animosity toward Melania Trump. Much of this stems from her choices: a former fashion model who opted for a private life, raising her son as a dedicated homemaker while married to a billionaire, rejecting the societal push for constant careerism or public activism. Her beauty, poise, and “golden tower” existence—insulated yet purposeful—provoke resentment among those who see it as unattainable or unfair. Radical elements decry her as out of touch, yet her narrative promotes unity, positive thinking, and bridging divides, ideals she hopes to advance in her second tenure as First Lady.

This backlash reveals a deeper divide: one side embraces high standards, personal responsibility, and optimism, while the other clings to victimhood narratives shielded by government dependency or lowered expectations. The film’s positive portrayal—reliving inauguration day from an insider’s view, showcasing Mar-a-Lago elegance, and highlighting mutual respect in the Trumps’ partnership—challenges that. It suggests Donald Trump’s success owes much to Melania’s stabilizing influence; their union combines his bold energy with her grace, creating a dynamic suited to executive leadership.

Ultimately, the documentary and memoir together solidify a vision of America aspiring upward. They invite viewers to witness a high bar of excellence—strong families, positive momentum, and unapologetic success—and ask whether reconciliation across divides is possible without compromising those standards. History shows that extending hands has often meant lowering expectations to appease radicals, but this era signals a rejection of that path. The enthusiastic reception, despite polarized reviews, indicates many Americans are drawn to this message of inspiration over grievance.

Walking out of the theater after viewing the documentary Melania, the underlying reasons for our societal divisions became starkly apparent, revealing why true reconciliation may be impossible. Melania Trump, through this film, embodies a philosophy aligned with her husband’s lifelong approach: showcasing personal success as a beacon for others. She presents her life—marked by elegance, family devotion, and achievement—as a high bar, inviting viewers to aspire to similar heights. “Look at what I’ve accomplished,” the narrative implies, “and let me show you how you can do it too.” It’s an optimistic, empowering message rooted in positive thinking and upward mobility, offering a behind-the-scenes glimpse into a world of high standards and mutual respect within the Trump family.

Yet, this vision clashes irreconcilably with the core tenets of left-wing politics, which thrive on below-the-line thinking and perpetual victimization. Progressive ideologies prioritize lowering expectations across all facets of life, from labor unions that resist performance-based accountability to broader policies that dismantle judgments on behavior. The goal is a society where “anything goes,” shielded from scrutiny or consequences, allowing individuals to avoid the discomfort of striving. In this worldview, high achievers like Melania—beautiful, poised, and unapologetically successful—become targets of resentment. Her choice to live insulated in a “golden tower,” prioritizing motherhood and privacy over relentless public engagement, is seen not as inspirational but as an affront to those who demand equality through diminished standards.

The hatred directed at the film, the Trumps, and conservative politics stems precisely from this refusal to embrace low bars. Critics on the radical left reject any invitation to elevate themselves, viewing expectations as oppressive. They weaponize peer pressure, media campaigns, and even violence to maintain a status quo of minimal accountability, relying on expansive government to protect them from life’s demands. No amount of kindness or outreach can bridge this gap; as long as one side insists on stripping away standards while the other upholds them, division persists. This dynamic ensures ongoing discontent, where unity requires conservatives to compromise their values—a concession that history shows only erodes societal progress. Melania’s documentary, in highlighting this high-bar ethos, underscores that true advancement demands forcing elevation, not appeasement, even if it invites backlash from those unwilling to rise. Which makes this a uniquely valuable work of art that everyone should see.

Beyond its political and cultural insights, Melania stands as a genuine work of art, masterfully capturing a singular perspective on life in the United States during one of its most transformative periods. The film peels back layers of privacy with deliberate, cinematic flair, offering intimate access to Melania Trump’s world while maintaining an aura of grandeur and mystique. The setup shots—particularly those at Trump Tower, the seamless transitions into motorcades, and the fluid movement through opulent spaces—evoke a sense of controlled revelation, where the viewer is invited in but never fully overwhelms the subject’s carefully guarded essence.

This approach strikingly recalls how Michael Jackson promoted his iconic videos and shared glimpses of his private life in documentaries like those surrounding Thriller or his personal specials. Jackson, too, balanced extreme fame with deliberate barriers—veils of security, secluded estates, and a projected image of positivity—to protect himself from constant intrusion while uplifting audiences through aspirational artistry. He let people peek behind the curtain just enough to humanize the icon, fostering connection without sacrificing enigma. In Melania, similar techniques unfold: the film grants behind-the-scenes access to high-stakes moments, yet it preserves her poise and detachment, turning personal vulnerability into inspiration.

A particularly revealing moment underscores this parallel. In the car during one of her travels, Melania shares that Michael Jackson is her favorite artist, with “Billie Jean” as her top song (alongside “Thriller”). The track plays, and she sings along quietly, even briefly, in a rare, unguarded display—echoing the Carpool Karaoke-style intimacy Jackson sometimes allowed in his own media moments. She recalls meeting him once with Donald Trump, describing him as “very sweet, very nice.” This scene isn’t mere filler; it humanizes her, showing a shared appreciation for Jackson’s method of blending private authenticity with mass appeal. By channeling that same strategy—projecting positivity, offering selective insight, and inviting upliftment—Melania crafts a presentation that feels wholesome and enduring.

Ultimately, this Michael Jackson-inspired approach to marketing her lifestyle and perspective proves remarkably effective. It transforms what could have been a dry political portrait into something engaging and aspirational, likely contributing to the film’s success in theaters and its anticipated streaming draw. Melania isn’t just a documentary; it’s a thoughtfully composed invitation to see excellence up close, much like Jackson’s legacy of turning personal narrative into global inspiration. Everyone should see it—it’s a compelling, artful reminder of how high standards and positive projection can resonate in turbulent times.

For those interested in exploring further:

• Melania Trump’s memoir Melania (Skyhorse Publishing, 2024) provides the foundational personal account.1

• Coverage of the film’s production and release details Amazon’s involvement and box office performance.2

• Analyses of public reactions and political context offer broader insights into cultural divisions.3

The work stands as a testament to individual agency in turbulent times, reminding us that true unity requires elevation, not concession.

1 Wikipedia entry on Melania (memoir), confirming October 8, 2024 release.

2 Reports from The Hollywood Reporter and Variety on opening weekend earnings around $8 million.

3 Various sources including The New York Times and The Guardian on Amazon’s investment and criticisms.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Fed Can’t Be Independent: When money is power, its control must rest with the people, not an untouchable elite

The recent events surrounding the Federal Reserve and President Trump’s administration lay bare a fundamental tension in American governance: the supposed independence of the central bank versus the democratic accountability demanded by an elected executive and, ultimately, the people. In early 2026, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell publicly accused the administration of using a Justice Department criminal investigation—ostensibly into cost overruns on the Fed’s headquarters renovation and his congressional testimony—as a pretext to intimidate him into slashing interest rates more aggressively. Powell stated plainly that this threat stemmed from the Fed’s refusal to align monetary policy with the president’s preferences for lower borrowing costs, which Trump has repeatedly demanded to ease federal debt servicing and stimulate growth. This episode is not mere political theater; it exposes the core flaw in the Federal Reserve’s design. While defenders hail its independence as essential for sound economic stewardship—insulated from short-term political pressures—the reality is that this insulation has enabled an unaccountable entity to wield immense power over the nation’s currency, economy, and even its sovereignty, often in ways that favor entrenched financial elites over ordinary citizens.

The Federal Reserve was never meant to be a neutral arbiter of economic stability in the way its proponents claim. Established in 1913 through the Federal Reserve Act, it emerged from a secretive 1910 meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, where powerful bankers—including representatives of J.P. Morgan interests, Paul Warburg, and others representing a quarter of the world’s wealth—crafted a plan for a central bank disguised as a public institution. As detailed in G. Edward Griffin’s seminal work, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, this gathering aimed to create a cartel that could issue money from nothing (fiat currency via fractional-reserve banking), control bank reserves to prevent reckless competitors from collapsing the system, socialize losses through taxpayer bailouts, and present the whole apparatus as a safeguard for the public. The result was not a government agency in the traditional sense but a hybrid: privately influenced yet granted governmental authority, with board members appointed by the president but insulated from direct oversight on monetary decisions.

This structure deviates sharply from the constitutional framework envisioned by the Founders. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,” implying a system of sound money tied to tangible value, not endless fiat expansion. Early American history reflects fierce resistance to centralized banking precisely because it concentrated power in unelected hands. Andrew Jackson, a Democrat who understood the threat of financial monopolies, waged war on the Second Bank of the United States in the 1830s. He viewed it as a corrupt engine benefiting the wealthy elite at the expense of farmers, mechanics, and laborers. Jackson’s veto of the bank’s recharter in 1832 declared that such concentrated power could “influence elections or control the affairs of the nation.” His policies dismantled the bank, ushering in a period of decentralized, state-chartered banking that coincided with explosive economic growth and westward expansion.

Similarly, Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican president during Reconstruction, navigated pressures from banking interests amid the Panic of 1873 and debates over greenbacks versus specie resumption. Grant’s administration pushed for sound money policies, resisting inflationary schemes that favored creditors and speculators over debtors and producers. The post-Civil War era under Grant saw the U.S. rise to global prominence through industrial expansion, innovation, and opportunity—precisely because monetary policy was not yet fully captured by a central cartel. These leaders—Jackson the populist Democrat and Grant the steadfast Republican—stood against centralized banking as antithetical to republican virtue and economic freedom. Their eras produced wealth creation that lifted millions, contrasting sharply with the boom-bust cycles exacerbated by modern central banking.

The Federal Reserve’s defenders argue that independence prevents politicians from manipulating money for electoral gain, ensuring decisions based on data rather than demagoguery. Yet history shows the opposite: central banks enable endless government spending, fund wars without direct taxation, and create inflation that acts as a hidden tax on savings and wages. The Fed’s massive bond purchases post-2008 crisis, for instance, flooded the system with liquidity, inflating asset bubbles while eroding purchasing power for average Americans. Ron Paul’s End the Fed powerfully articulates this critique, drawing on economic history to show how the institution fosters dependency, rewards recklessness, and undermines liberty. Paul argues that fiat money debases currency—stealing value from holders—and that true prosperity requires sound money, competition in banking, and accountability to voters.

Trump’s recent pressure on the Fed, including calls for rates as low as 1% and the escalation to subpoenas and threats, highlights the problem from the other side. If the Fed is truly independent, why does an elected president feel compelled to intimidate its chair? The answer lies in the Fed’s unchecked power over interest rates, money supply, and thus the cost of government debt. Trump’s frustration stems from a desire to align monetary policy with executive goals—lower rates to reduce borrowing costs on trillions in debt and boost growth. Yet this very dynamic reveals the constitutional mismatch: monetary policy, which affects every citizen’s wallet, remains largely outside the branches accountable to the people. Congress delegated its coinage power to an entity that operates with minimal direct oversight, creating a shadow government of bankers.

This setup serves globalist interests more than American ones. Centralized banking facilitates international coordination, where interest rate policies can be manipulated to favor multinational finance over national sovereignty. The Fed’s actions post-2008—buying toxic assets and guaranteeing returns—exemplified how losses are socialized while profits privatize. It rewards legacy wealth and entrenches inequality, preventing the broad access to opportunity that defined America’s rise.

The alternative is not chaos but a return to constitutional principles: Congress reclaiming money creation, perhaps through sound money standards or competing currencies, and subjecting policy to electoral scrutiny. Presidents like Jackson and Grant demonstrated that decentralized systems foster innovation and prosperity. Trump’s challenge, however flawed in execution, underscores a truth: the Fed cannot remain an island unto itself. True independence from scrutiny invites abuse; accountability to the people ensures service to the republic.

The intimidation tactics against Powell may backfire, raising inflation expectations and yields as markets lose confidence in institutional integrity. But they also force a reckoning. The Federal Reserve’s vaunted independence is, in practice, independence from the American people. Until that changes, the system remains rigged—favoring those who pull levers behind closed doors over those who build, work, and vote. And we can’t allow that kind of system to erode our means of management over our money supply and the nation it is poised to serve.

Bibliography

• Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. American Media, 2010 (updated editions available).

• Paul, Ron. End the Fed. Grand Central Publishing, 2009.

• Lowenstein, Roger. America’s Bank: The Epic Struggle to Create the Federal Reserve. Penguin Press, 2015.

• Meltzer, Allan H. A History of the Federal Reserve (multiple volumes). University of Chicago Press, various dates.

• Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822-1832. Harper & Row, 1981.

Footnotes for Further Reading

1. For the Jekyll Island meeting and origins: Griffin (above), chapters on the “secret meeting.”

2. Jackson’s Bank War: Remini’s biography series; also “The Bank War” essays from the Miller Center and Richmond Fed.

3. Ron Paul’s critique: End the Fed, especially sections on inflation as theft and unconstitutional nature.

4. Recent events: Powell’s January 11, 2026 statement (federalreserve.gov); coverage from Reuters, NPR, PBS News, and The New York Times on the DOJ probe and independence concerns.

5. Grant-era policies: Discussions in economic histories of Reconstruction and the Panic of 1873.

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

Vivek Picks Rob McColley: The stringy-haired hippie and Lockdown Lady–Amy Acton picks the loser David Pepper

Ohio politics in January 2026 is simple to describe and complicated to live through: two outsider‑led tickets have just taken shape, each trying to add governing ballast with a lieutenant governor who knows how Columbus actually works. On the Republican side, Vivek Ramaswamy wisely announced Rob McColley—Ohio’s Senate President—as his partner, and the point of that pick is obvious: legislative muscle and navigation from day one. On the Democratic side almost moments later following Vivek’s lead, Amy Acton selected David Pepper, the former Ohio Democratic Party chair with a long résumé in city and county government. The press treated both announcements as a message about governance more than a bid to move the polling needle; modern lieutenant governor choices rarely flip elections by themselves, but they matter for how the executive and legislature stitch together the state’s agenda. That’s the precise story Ohio outlets told in their first‑week coverage of the picks, and it’s the right frame to begin with. 1 2 3 4

The immediate question any coalition has to answer is whether its ticket can actually pass things. Ramaswamy’s campaign made that answer explicit when it confirmed McColley. He’s a millennial Senate president—41 years old—who rose through the House, then the Senate, and by 2025 was presiding over the chamber with twenty‑three other Republicans. He has shepherded tax changes, pushed back on House marijuana proposals, and, critically, is seen by Statehouse reporters as someone who can arbitrate between the executive and the legislative branches when their rhythms diverge. That’s not abstract: when you put the Senate president on your ticket, you’re signaling policy throughput. Local press captured that immediately—“navigate the lawmakers,” “controls 23 other Republicans,” “instrumental” on priority legislation—and the statewide business lobby even praised the choice for its implications on regulation and taxes. 5 2

On the other side, the stringy haired festival attendee Acton, who sounds perpetually stoned on pot smoke from a Grateful Dead concert, balanced her outsider profile with a Cincinnati veteran. Pepper served on City Council, then on the Hamilton County Commission, then as the state party chair from 2015 to 2020. Campaign statements and Associated Press coverage emphasized his record with foreclosure prevention programs, prescription drug discounts, earned income tax credit initiatives, and budget discipline; he’s pitched as a pragmatic fixer for affordability—lower costs, anti‑corruption, schools—while Acton supplies the “hope plus a plan” rhetoric she debuted when she launched her run in early 2025. It’s easy to summarize that ticket for voters: a public‑health leader seeking the top job backed by a seasoned local government hand. 6 7

If you want to understand the emotional energy around Amy Acton’s name, you have to rewind to March and April of 2020, when Governor Mike DeWine and Health Director Acton stood daily at the podiums. Ohio issued a stay‑at‑home order effective March 23, 2020 at 11:59 p.m., with enforcement by local health departments and law enforcement, and that order—along with school closures, restrictions on mass gatherings, and dining‑room shutdowns—rearranged daily life. Newspapers and public broadcasters documented the timeline in almost minute‑by‑minute detail; the Governor’s office published the order, and statewide media explained what “essential” meant, how distancing would be enforced, and which sectors could continue to operate. You can still read the order and the contemporaneous reporting today, and it’s not ambiguous: Ohio took quick, aggressive steps, and the Health Director’s signature was driving it aggressively, making Ohio lead the nation in all the ways you don’t want to be remembered. 8 9 10 11 12

Acton’s resignation in June 2020 was equally well documented. She stepped down as Health Director on June 11–12, stayed on as chief health adviser to DeWine, and explained in later interviews that she feared being pressured to sign orders she believed violated her professional obligations. ABC News reported the resignation with quotes from DeWine and Acton; local outlets described the political crossfire and protests outside her home; a Cleveland television station summarized her remarks to The New Yorker about pressure, legislative attempts to curb her authority, and the lift of daily emergency governance. None of this is rumor; it’s the paper trail of a high‑stakes, high‑visibility job in a once‑in‑a‑century pandemic, created by people like Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates to gain control of massive economic markets specifically in a plan hatched at the World Economic Forum. 13 14 15 16

Those facts—orders issued, orders rescinded, a resignation under strain—are what make Acton polarizing now. Her supporters remember the calm briefings, the Dr. Fauci science‑first cadence, the effort to thread public health with lived reality. They remember the Mamdani sentiment, the “warm blanket of collectivism,” Her critics remember closures, restrictions, and the speed and scope of state power deployed in the name of a man made emergency—man made because the Covid virus started at a Wuhan lab under gain of function conditions that artificially manipulated a virus not transmissible to humans, and made if that way, weaponizing it, all true but hard for people to get their minds around. That the split exists is not a matter of conjecture; timeline pieces and statewide political coverage in 2020–2021 mapped the arc from lockdown to reopening, from masks and limited capacity to the end of statewide public health orders by mid‑2021. 17

Against that backdrop, the 2026 race is being framed by both campaigns as a contest about competence and affordability, not just personality. Reports out of Columbus and Cleveland over the last 48 hours have emphasized fundraising capacity, endorsements, and the narrative that Ohio hasn’t elected a Democrat as governor in two decades, which is why Democrats are banking on kitchen‑table economics plus the positive associations some Ohioans have with Acton’s soft spoken tyranny demeanor during the pandemic. Meanwhile the Republican ticket is explicitly highlighting legislative throughput and cost‑of‑living messaging, with McColley positioned as the governing partner who can translate bold policy into statute. Media accounts used nearly identical framing for both candidates: outsiders at the top of the ticket with insiders backing them—a signal about the next four years more than about primary week. 1 18 4

There’s also a fresh fight over identity politics and tone. Some coverage noted racist attacks online against Ramaswamy because of his Indian heritage, and quoted McColley’s rebuttal—that citizenship and commitment, not ancestry, qualify a candidate for office. Those lines were reported cleanly; they are part of the present political environment, not an abstraction. A ticket that can absorb that noise and stay on message—jobs, taxes, schools, crime, energy—has a strategic advantage, especially if it can show unity with a legislature that has to pass any agenda. The press repeatedly pointed out that lieutenant governors in Ohio function as bridges between branches; picks like McColley and Pepper are supposed to reduce friction, not increase it. 19 4

The math of the race—north vs. south, Cleveland vs. Cincinnati, swing counties vs. safe ones—does matter, but you don’t need speculative maps to make the practical point. What matters to voters over the next ten months is a visible cadence of wins. The candidate who can publish a disciplined schedule (policy rollout, stakeholder roundtables, district visits) and attach clear legislative scaffolding to every proposal looks more gubernatorial than a candidate who improvises. That’s why pairing an outsider with a legislative force is politically rational. Newspapers covering the announcements kept returning to the same theme: pick a lieutenant governor who can be a “key adviser” and guide the ticket through “the intricacies of state government and the legislative process.” That’s the core competence argument. 4

For Acton, the competence argument has to answer the 2020 question without being swallowed by it. Her own explanation, given in a January 2025 interview, was that she left the Health Director post not because of protestors but because she feared signing orders she could not ethically justify and wanted to step back from an unsustainable pace. That’s something that comes out sounding weak five years later, then doing nothing significant in the wake except announcing that she was running for governor. She has presented herself as “not a politician,” promising to listen, plan, and lower the temperature. Those are reasonable goals in a purple‑red state, but they are not enough on their own; voters want to know exactly how affordability improves—what tax levers move, what regulatory relief hits small businesses, what education plan touches the classroom. Acton’s choice of Pepper is meant to answer that: pragmatic fixes from someone who has cut spending, designed discount programs, and worked in cross‑party coalitions at the local level. Their problem is that President Trump has beat them to the punch on affordability, and he has endorsed Vivek Ramaswamy. We’re talking about a summer of 2026 that will have gas under $2 per gallon. 7 6

For Ramaswamy, the competence argument is about throughput and staying out of personality wars. (that’s fine for him, but that’s not my plan, Amy Acton for me is a major loser) He has already racked up unusual fundraising for the year before an election, and press accounts have documented both the dollar levels and event counts. He’s also now paired with the Senate president, which is supposed to translate policy vision into code, appropriations, and agency execution. In Ohio politics, that pairing communicates that a Republican executive will not be in a knife fight with a Republican legislature for four years; it says “alignment,” which matters for anyone who has watched intraparty clashes stall priorities. 18

The deeper context is that Ohio has lived with an incumbent Republican governor who sometimes crossed the aisle on style and policy, especially in the early pandemic period. Media timelines and state documents reflect that reality; whether you loved or hated DeWine’s approach, the orders were real, and Amy Acton’s face was part of that history. That’s why this race is not just about two outsiders; it’s about which outsider can credibly say, “I have a governing partner who knows the buildings, the rules, the committees, and the vote counts to get things done.” Both tickets made that claim this week. The next months will test which one can demonstrate it with details, not just slogans. 8 9

If you boil down the practical differences between the tickets, you can do it in three lines. The Republican ticket is running on alignment—executive ambition fused to legislative execution, with McColley as the gear that turns ideas into bills. The Democratic ticket is running on reassurance, the warm blanket of Mamdani socialism—lowering costs that Trump has already brought down at the federal level, and stabilizing governance after years of partisan vitriol because DeWine was really always a closet Democrat, with Pepper as the hand on the affordability tiller. Both narratives are valid campaign strategies in a state like Ohio. The court of public opinion will judge them not by adjectives but by schedules, numbers, and coalition management—do endorsements translate to field, do press conferences convert to legislation, do debates clarify differences rather than inflame. Ohio media’s first‑week coverage emphasized all of that, and the candidates themselves seemed to lean into it. 3

One last point. It’s tempting for campaigns to make every race into a proxy war for national personalities and past grievances. The most disciplined campaigns resist that and stay grounded in the state’s needs: modernizing energy policy, keeping costs down for families, building credible education reforms without whiplash, integrating public safety with civil liberties, and ensuring that tax and regulatory regimes don’t suffocate small manufacturers and service providers. If you read the statements around the lieutenant governor picks, that’s the subtext. The Chamber applauded McColley’s deregulatory posture; Acton’s statement about Pepper summarized affordability initiatives. Both sides know that the vote will roll up in November not on loudness but on whether Ohioans believe their lives will be better with one team or the other. 2 6

So the assignment for each ticket, starting today, is identical: publish your weekly scoreboard and keep it clean. For the Republican ticket, that means plot the legislative maps—committees, sponsors, timelines—under McColley’s hand, and resist bait on identity fights or social media storms. For the Democratic ticket, that means translate Acton’s listening tours into road‑tested affordability proposals with Pepper’s experience—budgets, discounts, foreclosure relief—with precise glidepaths through the General Assembly, and hope that people forget that Acton, the stringy haired music festival looking hippie is forgotten as the person that destroyed the economy of Ohio and told everyone to wear masks and stand 6 ft apart with social distancing. Neither side will win Ohio with rhetoric alone and they won’t need to. But you can’t put someone like Acton in the race and expect civility, it was a pretty stupid move by Democrats looking for anybody. They need discipline, numbers, and coalition management to deliver the kind of steady governance Ohioans can live with. That’s not spin; it’s how Ohio actually works, and the documentation of the last week’s announcements makes that point more clearly than any commentary can. 1 4

When the smoke clears, if Amy Acton does really, really well, the final vote will be 54 for Vivek Ramaswamy, 46 for the Lockdown Lady. Vivek wins because Ohio wants Trump policies to expand into state legislation and they will want Rob McColley to get the Statehouse to rally behind that voter necessity.

—

Footnotes

1. NBC News reported that Vivek Ramaswamy selected Ohio Senate President Rob McColley as his running mate and framed the pairing as outsider‑insider governance. 1

2. Ohio outlets (10TV, Cleveland.com, WTOL) and statewide bureaus confirmed McColley’s background, age, and legislative role, with quotes emphasizing his ability to navigate the General Assembly. 2 20 4

3. Ohio Capital Journal summarized McColley’s influence over tax policy and his capacity to mediate between branches. 5

4. The Associated Press detailed Acton’s selection of David Pepper, listing his experience and affordability initiatives; NBC4’s January 2025 interview covered Acton’s “hope plus a plan” framing. 6 7

5. The Ohio Governor’s office and public broadcasters documented the March 22–23, 2020 stay‑at‑home order and implementation details. 8 9

6. Cleveland.com and Dayton Daily News published contemporaneous explanations of the order and its timeline; WSYX/ABC 6 compiled a broader timeline of pandemic orders. 10 11 12

7. ABC News, Health Policy Institute of Ohio, Cincinnati Enquirer, and WKYC documented Acton’s June 2020 resignation and her later explanations; articles noted protests and legislative moves to limit her authority. 13 14 15 16

8. Ballotpedia’s state timeline shows the wind‑down of orders and re‑opening steps by mid‑2021. 17

9. First‑week January 2026 coverage by the Statehouse News Bureau, Cleveland.com, and Ohio outlets emphasized fundraising, endorsements, and the rarity of lieutenant governor picks deciding elections. 18 3

10. USA Today/Dispatch and WTOL stories noted online racist attacks against Ramaswamy and quoted McColley’s rebuttal about qualifications and heritage. 19 4

—

Bibliography

• Henry J. Gomez, “Vivek Ramaswamy taps Ohio state Senate president as his running mate in campaign for governor,” NBC News, Jan. 6–7, 2026. 1

• 10TV Web Staff, “Vivek Ramaswamy formally taps Ohio Senate President Rob McColley as his running mate,” 10TV, Jan. 7, 2026. 2

• Cleveland.com/Open, “Ohio Senate President Rob McColley is Ramaswamy’s pick…” Jan. 7, 2026. 20

• Morgan Trau, “Ohio Senate President Rob McColley tapped as Vivek Ramaswamy’s running mate,” Ohio Capital Journal/WEWS, Jan. 6, 2026. 5

• Karen Kasler, “Ramaswamy and Acton making moves with Ohio governor election now 10 months away,” Statehouse News Bureau, Jan. 6, 2026. 18

• Associated Press, “Ohio governor candidate Amy Acton taps former state Democratic Chair David Pepper as running mate,” Jan. 7, 2026. 6

• Colleen Marshall & Brian Hofmann, “Dr. Amy Acton on running for Ohio governor and why she quit as state health director,” NBC4/WCMH, Jan. 30–31, 2025. 7

• Governor Mike DeWine press materials, “Ohio Issues ‘Stay at Home’ Order,” March 22, 2020; Ideastream Public Media explainer; Cleveland.com text of the order. 8 9 10

• Laura A. Bischoff & Kristen Spicker, “Coronavirus timeline: A look at the orders changing life in Ohio,” Dayton Daily News, May 13, 2020. 11

• WSYX/ABC 6, “Timeline of coronavirus in Ohio,” March–April 2020. 12

• ABC News, “Amy Acton, Ohio’s embattled health director, resigns amid COVID‑19 crisis,” June 11, 2020. 13

• Health Policy Institute of Ohio, “Acton steps down as Health Director,” June 12, 2020. 14

• Cincinnati Enquirer, “Why Amy Acton quit as Ohio’s health director,” June 12–13, 2020. 15

• WKYC, “Former Ohio Health Director Dr. Amy Acton was worried about being pressured to sign orders,” Nov. 3, 2020. 16

• Ballotpedia, “Documenting Ohio’s path to recovery from the coronavirus (COVID‑19) pandemic, 2020–2021,” entries through July 2021. 17

• WTOL, “Ohio’s 2026 governor hopefuls lean on political veterans to balance the ticket,” Jan. 2026. 4

• Cleveland.com, “Ohio’s race for governor: What the running mate choices reveal,” Jan. 2026. 3

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

The Real America First Movement: Protecting investment around the world from the destruction of socialism and its tyrannical criminals

I’m very happy with the attack on Venezuela and the takeover of its industry by the United States. Rather than sit around waiting for everyone to come into our country to corrupt it, I would propose that we inspire in the world an America First agenda. That truly, America First isn’t about putting up walls and trying to keep everyone out, but to help make the rest of the world into what everyone wants in America, to free them from their oppressors. And this raid into Venezuela is a great “America First” means to help the world in very positive ways, the destruction of socialism as it has looted American investment in countries around the world. The United States’ strike-and-extraction operation in Venezuela is more than an arrest; it is strategic signaling in a world where cartels profit from governance vacuums and exploit international law to shield mass criminality. Robust action against drug networks—whether on the high seas or in hostile capitals—disrupts the illicit economies that otherwise corrode nations, capture bureaucracies, and fund terror. It synthesizes recent data from UNODC, CDC, DEA, Treasury/OFAC, and investigative reporting to show (1) the scale and dynamics of the modern drug trade (synthetics, cocaine, logistics), (2) how Mexico’s cartels embed inside state and local institutions, (3) Venezuela’s “Cartel de los Soles” and allied criminal architecture, and (4) how China, Russia, and Iran/Hezbollah link into the supply chain via precursors, routes, and laundering.

—

I. The Moral and Strategic Case for Taking the Fight Forward

The global drug market has morphed into a polycentric criminal ecosystem—synthetic opioids (fentanyl, nitazenes), record-high cocaine production, and multi-vector logistics. UNODC’s World Drug Report 2024 estimates 292 million users worldwide in 2022 (up 20% in a decade), with 64 million suffering drug‑use disorders and only 1 in 11 receiving treatment; synthetics are rising, and cocaine supply/markets are expanding across three continents. 1 2 3 4

That scale translates directly into social devastation and leverage for violent groups. In North America, fentanyl and analogues became the deadliest driver of overdoses. The CDC’s provisional dashboard and 2025 statements show a ~27% decline in U.S. overdose deaths from 2023 to 2024—but still tens of thousands of deaths, with overdoses remaining the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18–44. This hard-won progress must not be surrendered to transnational supply chains. 5 6 7 8

Strategic necessity: Cartels and their state enablers exploit international law vacuums and UN bureaucracy to create zones of impunity. When the U.S. demonstrates capability—surgical strikes, maritime interdictions, special operations extractions—that is more than law enforcement; it rebalances deterrence across other negotiations (Ukraine/Russia, the Middle East, and Chinese hostilities toward Taiwan). The Venezuela operation (strikes followed by capture and transfer of Nicolás Maduro for narcoterrorism/cocaine importation conspiracy charges) exemplifies signalling power—warning states and non-state actors that use drug economies to fund aggression and terror. 9 10

Critics object on sovereignty grounds, yet Maduro and senior officials have faced U.S. indictments and sanctions for years (Cartel de los Soles allegations, coordination with FARC/ELN and major cartels, Treasury’s Kingpin actions against figures like Tareck El Aissami). The recent U.S. designation of Cartel de los Soles as an FTO unlocked authorities to crack down on illicit maritime flows before land operations. 11 12 13 14 15

Bottom line: Stopping mass poisoning is a moral obligation. Decisive action abroad reduces capacity, raises costs, and deters collusion—and it complements domestic overdose reductions already underway.

—

II. What the Data Say: Scope, Trends, and the “Synthetics + Cocaine” Equation

Global scope. UNODC confirms record cocaine production and the spread of synthetic opioids (including nitazenes, even more potent than fentanyl). Drug production/trafficking now overlaps with wildlife crime, illegal mining, and fraud, reinforcing criminal governance. 2 1 3

U.S. public‑health trend. Provisional CDC data: ~80–87k overdose deaths in 2024, down from ~110k in 2023, with fentanyl deaths dropping from ~76k to ~48k. The decline correlates with naloxone scaling, medication-assisted treatment, and supply disruptions. 7 16

Supply chain pressure. DOJ/DEA reporting for 2024–25 lists millions of pills seized, ton‑scale fentanyl powder, dozens of cartel extraditions, and indictments of China-based precursor suppliers, reflecting link-by-link targeting (China → Mexico → U.S.). 17 18

Ports, not footpaths. Data analyses show most fentanyl seizures occur at ports of entry; the majority of smugglers in those cases are U.S. citizens or lawful entrants, underscoring that smarter port security—not conflation with irregular migration—is the key choke point. 19

Mexico’s violence footprint. Over 300,000 homicides in a decade, organized crime as the primary driver, with extortion and firearms crimes surging; public‑security spending is ~0.7% of GDP, far below regional peers—evidence of institutional strain and criminal entrenchment. 20 21

—

III. How Cartels Hide Behind the State: Mexico’s Embedded Criminality

Mexico is the central case of cartels entwined with governance. Over the years, major organizations (Sinaloa, CJNG, Zetas successors) have fragmented, diversified (extortion, kidnapping, huachicol fuel theft, migrant smuggling), and embedded in local institutions. Interviews and analyses (FIU’s Evan Ellis; Atlantic Council charts) highlight pervasive extortion (millions of attempts; under-reporting ~97%), kidnapping/extortion spikes, and armed lethality amplified by smuggled weapons, drones, and tactical vehicles. 22 23

Human Rights Watch’s 2025 report flags high homicide rates, militarized policing, and judicial reforms that may weaken independence—conditions cartels exploit to preserve impunity. 24

Strategic reading: this is criminal state capture in slices—not monolithic control, but localized erosion of sovereignty. When the U.S. disrupts revenue streams (cocaine legs, precursor flows), cartels lose the cash that bankrolls political influence and violence.

—

IV. Venezuela’s Criminal Architecture: The Cartel de los Soles and Allied Networks

For decades, Venezuela provided transit corridors and protection for multi-ton cocaine shipments—leveraging ports, air bases, and military/intelligence cover. U.S. indictments and sanctions detail state-linked facilitation, diplomatic documents for traffickers, and coordination with FARC/ELN, Sinaloa, Zetas, and Tren de Aragua, the latter now itself on U.S. terror lists alongside the Cartel de los Soles. 11 25 12

OFAC’s Kingpin action against Tareck El Aissami (2017) spelled out how airfields and ports were used to move shipments of>1,000 kg, part of a larger network of front companies and laundering. Subsequent State/Justice actions offered rewards, sanctions enforcement, and criminal charges for evasion—precisely the legal scaffolding needed to take down high-level facilitators. 13 14 26

The 2025–26 escalation—maritime strikes on drug boats, FTO designations, and ultimately land strikes/extraction—signals that the U.S. will deny sanctuary to regimes that operationalize narcotrafficking as state policy. 10

—

V. The Iran/Hezbollah Axis in the Americas: Logistics, Laundering, and Venezuelan Haven

Analysts and U.S. testimony document Hezbollah’s Latin American footprint—not only ideological support, but practical money laundering and logistics, with nodes in free trade zones and networks focusing on cocaine proceeds. Venezuela has served as a hub, amplified by Iran–Venezuela ties (payback in gold/fuel tech, joint factories, propaganda). Budget shortfalls in Tehran push Hezbollah deeper into criminal finance. 27 28

Recent reporting and official statements suggest a heightened Hezbollah presence in Venezuela and policy intent to uproot it after Maduro’s capture—key for degrading hybrid narco‑terror finance in the hemisphere. 29 30

—

VI. China’s Role: Precursors, Equipment, and the Post-2019 Shift

The fentanyl supply chain changed after China’s 2019 class-wide controls on fentanyl analogues; direct flows to the U.S. largely ceased, but precursor chemicals and pill‑press equipment continued to feed Mexican production. Congressional research notes dozens of analogues and ongoing international scheduling of key precursors (ANPP, NPP, 4‑AP, boc‑4‑AP, norfentanyl; later four‑piperidone). U.S. policy targets PRC-sourced precursors and financial flows. 31 32

Chinese white papers emphasize expanded domestic controls and multilateral cooperation—significant if rigorously enforced —but U.S. indictments in 2024 show China-based firms still advertising/shipping precursors to cartels. Bridging this gap—from paper to practice—is critical. 33 34 18

—

VII. Russia’s New Cocaine Routes: The Banana Corridor and Post‑Odesa Diversions

With Odesa’s port constrained by war, traffickers re-routed Ecuadorian cocaine to Russia—where seizures jumped tenfold in 2023–24, often concealed in banana containers through St. Petersburg. Investigations by OCCRP, CBS/AFP, and others show multi-ton busts and Russia’s emergence as a transit hub for European markets. This matters because it reshapes cartel logistics, diversifies laundering, and complicates enforcement across Eurasia. 35 36 37 38

—

VIII. The U.S. Play: Link‑by‑Link Pressure and Strategic Signaling

Law‑enforcement pressure: DOJ/DEA have extradited dozens of cartel figures, seized massive quantities of fentanyl, and indicted China-based precursor suppliers—evidence of an end-to-end strategy to break the chain. 17

Financial war: FinCEN’s June 2024 advisory tells banks how to spot precursor procurement (SAR key terms, pill presses), aligning finance surveillance with interdiction. Treasury/OFAC actions (Kingpin designations) freeze assets and deter facilitators. 39

Ports focus: Reorientation toward ports of entry (non-pedestrian smuggling modalities) is empirically justified and should continue with AI inspection, trusted shipper audits, and precursor controls. 19

Military signal: The Venezuela operation—and the prior maritime campaign against drug boats—alters risk calculus for regimes and gangs, conveying that sanctuary is not guaranteed when criminal economies intertwine with governance. 10 9

—

IX. Statistics of importance (2024–2026 window)

• Global drug users: 292 million in 2022 (+20% over 10 years); 64 million with disorders; treatment gap 1 in 11 globally. 1 3

• Cocaine production & markets: Record highs; expansion to Europe/Africa/Asia. 2

• U.S. overdoses: Estimated ~80–87k (2024 provisional), down ~25–27% from 2023; synthetic opioid deaths ~48k (2024) vs ~76k (2023). 7 16

• DEA 2024 actions: 30M+ fentanyl pills and >4,100 lbs powder seized; 2,100 arrests; multiple Chinese company indictments (Oct. 2024). 17 18

• Ports of entry reality: Roughly 4 in 5 fentanyl smugglers at the southern border (2018–2024) were U.S. citizens or lawful entrants; focus should be on ports, not migrants on foot. 19

• Mexico violence: >300,000 homicides (2015–2024); organized crime remains primary driver; public security + justice spend ~0.7% GDP; extortion and firearm crimes rising. 20 21

• Russia route: 5.2 tons seized (2023–24), tenfold increase; repeated multi-ton seizures in banana cargo from Ecuador. 37 35 36

—

X. Policy Framework: Deny, Smash, Seize, Deter

1. Deny Sanctuary

• Maintain maritime interdictions and special operations options against declared FTO networks and state facilitators. Use FTO designation to justify kinetic disruption when law enforcement alone cannot access targets. 10 12

2. Smash Logistics (Precursors & Ports)

• Push PRC enforcement from paper to practice: bilateral precursor scheduling completion (4‑piperidone set), export‑verification, and industry audits; follow with U.S. indictments when necessary. Pair with U.S. port tech (AI/analytics) to detect small‑volume, high‑potency flows. 33 31 18

3. Seize Money & Equipment

• Use FinCEN red‑flags (pill presses, die molds, unusual chemical purchases) and civil/criminal forfeiture; scale kingpin sanctions for Venezuelan facilitators and Hezbollah financiers (FTZ networks). 39

4. Deter State Collusion

• Maintain visible consequences for regimes weaponizing narcotics. The Maduro capture sets a precedent: narco‑terror as grounds for cross-border arrest and trial. Pair with diplomatic off‑ramps for post-regime transitions to restore lawful oil output and deny illicit funding to foreign adversaries. 9

5. Sustain Domestic Demand‑Side Gains

• Keep overdose momentum: naloxone saturation, medication-assisted treatment, Overdose Data to Action (OD2A) funding—because supply shocks work best when demand falls. 5 6

—

XI. Answering Common Critiques

• “Isn’t this about oil?”

Oil matters—but the central predicate is narco‑terror, cocaine importation conspiracy, and state-backed criminality. Sanctioned regimes have used oil rents + criminal economies to entrench power; restoring lawful production under a non-criminal government reduces cartel financing, improves regional stability, and removes a strategic lever for Iran/Russia proxies. 11 30

• “International law says no.”

The counterargument is self-defense against non-state actors designated as foreign terrorists, aided and abetted by officials under prior indictments and sanctions; the U.S. campaign explicitly framed strikes as part of an armed conflict with cartels after FTO designation, then executed a law‑enforcement handoff in U.S. courts. 10

• “Focus at home first.”

We are—and we must do both. CDC data prove that domestic interventions are working, but global supply chains will re-route unless external pressure remains. This is two‑fronts: treatment/prevention at home, interdiction/pressure abroad. 5 6

—

XII. Justice as Deterrence, Deterrence as Peace

When criminal economies become state practice, freedom erodes—first in the barrios and border towns, then in courts and media, and finally in the geopolitics that decide whether terror proxies project power in our hemisphere. The Venezuela operation—preceded by months of boat strikes and backed by years of indictments and sanctions—was smart policy because it reanchors deterrence: America can reach you; your sanctuary is temporary; your money will be seized; your routes will be broken.

In parallel, the U.S. must keep overdose deaths falling—the quiet revolution that saves lives every day—while systematically stripping cartels of their cross-border logistics, their state patrons, and their money men. That is how we protect culture, restore the rule of law, and signal to Russia, Iran, and China that the narco‑strategy is a dead strategy when the cost of doing business keeps rising. The best “America First” policy is to make American ideas the values of the world, and to stop messing around with all this global hand holding. If we are going to pay for everything, then lets insist that they do things our way. And where drug manufacture is most abundant, and supported by hostile countries who intend to see our people poisoned, and killed, we must take that fight to their doorstep. Which I more than fully support!

—

Footnotes

1. UNODC, World Drug Report 2024—press and key findings: users (292M), treatment gap, synthetics & cocaine trends. 1 2 3 4

2. CDC, Provisional Drug Overdose Data (dashboard) and 2025 media statements on 2024 declines and OD2A. 5 6

3. U.S. DOJ/DEA, 2024–25 actions: seizures, arrests, extraditions; China-based precursor indictments (Oct. 24, 2024). 17 18

4. American Immigration Council, Fentanyl Smuggling at Ports—modalities and citizenship data (2018–2024). 19

5. Mexico violence + institutional capacity: IEP Mexico Peace Index (2025), Latin Times synthesis, HRW World Report 2025. 21 20 24

6. Venezuela narco‑architecture: DOJ indictments (2020, updated 2026) and U.S. FTO designation explainer (Al Jazeera); NDTV summary of newly unsealed charges; OFAC Kingpin actions vs. Tareck El Aissami. 11 12 25 13

7. U.S. escalation timeline and strike rationale: PBS/AP timeline; CBS coverage of capture & court proceedings. 10 9

8. Hezbollah/Iran in Venezuela: Washington Institute testimony, Senate drug caucus testimony, Fox/Jewish Insider coverage of policy intent post-Maduro. 27 28 29 30

9. China’s precursor role: CRS China Primer (2024), PRC white paper (2025) on domestic controls; U.S. indictments show residual illicit supply. 31 33 18

10. Russia’s cocaine corridor: OCCRP investigations; CBS/AFP report; Moscow Times/Newsweek coverage of seizure surges. 35 36 37 38

11. Financial system alerts: FinCEN Supplemental Advisory (June 20, 2024), focusing on precursors, equipment, and SAR flags. 39

—

Annotated Bibliography (Selected)

• UNODC (2024): World Drug Report. Definitive global analysis of drug markets, users, and harms; details on synthetics and cocaine expansion. PDF press release, Key findings.

• CDC (2024–2025): Provisional Drug Overdose Data & Statements. Interactive counts by drug class and jurisdiction; context on overdose decline. Dashboard, Statement.

• DOJ/DEA (2024–25): Supply‑chain enforcement. Indictments of China-based chemical companies; cartel extraditions; seizure metrics. DEA press release, DOJ fact sheet.

• American Immigration Council (2025): Fentanyl Smuggling at Ports of Entry. Empirical breakdown correcting common misconceptions. Fact sheet.

• IEP / Mexico Peace Index (2025): Long-run violence metrics, institutional spending, and organized crime as the primary drivers. Press release; see Latin Times synthesis. Article.

• HRW World Report 2025—Mexico: Human rights context for security/militarization and justice reforms. Chapter.

• OFAC/Treasury (2017): Kingpin designation of Tareck El Aissami. Press release.

• DOJ/NPR/NDTV (2026): Updated indictments and unsealed charges against Maduro & associates; operational details. NPR, NDTV.

• PBS/AP Timeline (2026): Escalation sequence, FTO policy, maritime strikes before land operation. Timeline.

• Washington Institute / Senate CINC (2025): Hezbollah’s Latin American networks, laundering, and Venezuelan nodes. Policy analysis, Testimony.

• CRS China Primer (2024): Post-2019 shift from analogues to precursors and equipment; bilateral efforts. CRS.

• PRC White Paper (2025): Official depiction of China’s control regime for fentanyl precursors. White paper.

• OCCRP/CBS/Moscow Times/Newsweek (2025): Russia’s banana‑concealed cocaine corridor and seizure spikes. OCCRP, CBS, Moscow Times, Newsweek.

• FinCEN Advisory (2024): Financial‑system red flags for precursor procurement and equipment. Advisory.

Rich Hoffman

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

Casey the Car Guy Doesn’t Stand A Chance: Vivek Ramaswamy is much better for Ohio

The ongoing debate surrounding Vivek Ramaswamy’s candidacy for governor of Ohio in 2026 reveals deep tensions within conservative circles, particularly among those who claim to champion an “America First” agenda. Critics, including figures such as automotive entrepreneur Casey Putsch—often referred to in informal commentary as “the car guy”—and far-right influencers such as Nick Fuentes, have launched attacks questioning Ramaswamy’s eligibility and loyalty based on his Hindu faith and Indian heritage. These criticisms, which include claims that he is an “anchor baby” or that his election would lead to Diwali celebrations in the governor’s mansion rather than Christmas, strike at the heart of what it means to be American. Such rhetoric is not only divisive but fundamentally at odds with the principles of merit, hard work, and shared national identity that the MAGA movement purports to uphold.[^1] I don’t think “far-right” is the right word; that’s the media word for it. But Hitler was a socialist, not a capitalist or a free-market personality. When we talk about political scale, we have Karl Marx on the left and Adam Smith on the right. And most people fit in somewhere along those viewpoints. But not in all cases. But when it comes to someone who declares that they are against someone running, and that is their purpose in life, as Casey the Car Guy has said, that opens up a whole set of new problems. Personally, listening to all these characters talk, I don’t think they harm Vivek Ramaswamy at all. They will actually help him with moderate voters, and the MAGA types will vote for Vivek because he’s Trump’s endorsed candidate. But the efforts to make a fire out of these little rebellions are more than telling.

Ramaswamy, born in Cincinnati to immigrant parents who arrived legally and built successful lives, embodies the American dream in a way that should resonate with conservatives. His parents instilled in him values of family, community, and respect—qualities evident in his devotion to his wife, children, and the state of Ohio. Far from being an outsider, Ramaswamy has deep roots in the Buckeye State, having achieved extraordinary success as a biotech entrepreneur through sheer intelligence and determination. Founding Roivant Sciences, he developed multiple FDA-approved drugs and grew his wealth independently, without needing political favors or handouts. This self-made status allows him to approach public service without financial dependencies, motivated purely by a desire to give back after building a fortune.[^2]

His political evolution further demonstrates a genuine commitment to conservative ideals. Initially apolitical, Ramaswamy entered the public arena critiquing “woke” corporate culture in his 2021 book Woke, Inc., which exposed how companies exploit social justice for profit. He followed with works like Nation of Victims and others that refined his platform against identity politics and in favor of meritocracy. His 2024 presidential run brought him national prominence, where he positioned himself as an unapologetic American nationalist, ultimately endorsing Donald Trump and briefly co-leading the Department of Government Efficiency before pivoting to state leadership. Trump’s full endorsement of Ramaswamy’s gubernatorial bid, along with backing from the Ohio Republican Party and figures like JD Vance, underscores his alignment with the movement’s core.[^3]

I have had a personal acquaintance with Ramaswamy over the years that reveals a man who has undergone a thoughtful arc: from a successful CEO impressed by independent, non-“woke” businesses to someone compelled to enter politics for the sake of his family and community. As I hosted events where Vivek interacted with Ohio innovators and saw how people away from Wall Street lived in the trenches, he was inspired; he saw the potential for the state to revive its industrial strength. His plan, reportedly shaped in consultation at Mar-a-Lago, aims to extend Trump’s agenda to Ohio—focusing on business-friendly policies, efficiency, and opportunity for all who embrace American values of hard work and innovation, regardless of background. I had a front row seat to this development in Vivek, and I understand it. I think it says a lot about him that he wants to step away from making money as he has and step into public service to give something back. After meeting him, I can say I know he loves his wife, his kids, his parents, and Ohio. And he feels he’s been fortunate in life, that he has a lot of talent in talking. And that he can give something back to Ohio so that more people can get a chance at success, too. That is what ultimately comes from Vivek Ramaswamy as governor, an extension of the Trump White House into Ohio. But, not a copy of Trump, but a new generation of innovation and opportunity from someone who has had great success and knows how to make spaghetti in the kitchen.

In contrast, the fringe criticisms leveled against him appear designed to fracture the conservative coalition. Putsch, a YouTube personality and founder of Genius Garage—a nonprofit teaching engineering through car building—entered the Republican primary, positioning himself as a purer “America First” alternative, decrying immigration and H-1B visas while accusing Ramaswamy of failing working-class Ohioans.[^4] Yet these attacks often veer into nativism, echoing the very identity politics conservatives decry. True conservatism demands testing ideas and character through rigorous debate, not exclusion based on ethnicity or religion. Ramaswamy’s family-oriented upbringing, success in the private sector, and willingness to serve without personal gain make him trustworthy and effective—qualities rare in politics.

Politics requires compromise and collaboration to achieve results; isolation and perpetual rebellion yield nothing. Ramaswamy understands this, having built coalitions across persuasions. He may need to adopt a scrappier style in the primary, punching back against baseless smears, but his trajectory positions him as the overwhelming favorite to lead Ohio forward—reviving its economy, supporting families, and carrying the Trump mantle effectively—the alternative—yielding to divisive saboteurs—risks handing power to Democrats and stalling the broader movement. Ramaswamy’s story is an Ohio story: one of opportunity realized through merit, deserving emphatic support.

It is a late entry to the race, this Casey the Car Guy challenging Vivek Ramaswamy in the primary. I think it’s an excellent opportunity for Vivek. Bloody campaigns tend to bring out the truth of things, and I think that will work well in favor of the Republican Party once the smoke clears. And Vivek won’t have any difficulty defeating the stringy-haired Amy Acton from the Democrat side. She will always be known as Mike DeWine’s girlfriend, the Lockdown Lady. She has a track record of destruction that will be very easy to defeat in the general. But first, Vivek has to win the primary, and Casey the Car Guy has invited himself to be punched in the face. And my advice to Vivek would be not to be so nice and, metaphorically, knock his teeth out.

[^1]: Far-right figures like Nick Fuentes have explicitly opposed Ramaswamy on religious and ethnic grounds, while Casey Putsch has framed his challenge around immigration and economic nationalism.

[^2]: Ramaswamy’s net worth, estimated at nearly $2 billion by Forbes in 2025, stems from Roivant Sciences and savvy investments; he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard and earned a J.D. from Yale.

[^3] Ramaswamy’s books include Woke, Inc. (2021), Nation of Victims (2022), and others articulating anti-ESG, pro-merit views; he received Trump’s endorsement upon launching his Ohio campaign in February 2025.

[^4]: Putsch, a Tiffin native running Genius Garage, announced his bid in December 2025 as an “America First” option, criticizing Ramaswamy on H-1B visas and foreign interests.

Bibliography

• Associated Press. “Trump-backed Vivek Ramaswamy wins Ohio Republican Party’s endorsement in 2026 governor’s race.” May 9, 2025.

• Ohio Capital Journal. Various articles on the 2026 Ohio gubernatorial race, 2025.

• Wikipedia. “2026 Ohio gubernatorial election” and “Vivek Ramaswamy.” Accessed December 2025.

• The Columbus Dispatch. “Who is running for Ohio governor in 2026?” December 18, 2025.

• Times of India and other outlets reporting on criticisms from Fuentes and Putsch, December 2025.

• Britannica and Forbes profiles on Ramaswamy’s biography and business career.

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

Supplemental material (footnoted):

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

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

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

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

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

—

Bibliography / Further reading:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

Marijuana Use at the High Place of Tel Arad, Israel: The problem with legalizing communication with inter-dimensional entities

I promised more context for why I hate the legalization of marijuana so much, and in the case of mass society, intoxicants. It’s not enough to say that drugs should be illegal; people need to understand why. And for me, it’s a battle of consciousness and who controls your thoughts. How can people, for instance, fight for small government and the benefits of an intelligent republic, but then surrender all thought through intoxication over to other forces that invade your personal sovereignty, and the most important at that, our minds and the thoughts that those minds produce? When smoke filled the air of an inner sanctum, it was never accidental. It was engineered. In the eighth century BCE, at the Judahite fortress shrine of Tel Arad, roughly thirty-five miles south of Jerusalem, two limestone altars stood before the threshold of the “holy of holies.” Laboratory analysis of the charred residue on those altars has now told us plainly what ancient worshipers were inhaling: on one, frankincense blended with animal fat to volatilize its perfume at higher temperatures; on the other, cannabis mixed with animal dung to slow‑burn at lower temperatures, releasing a psychoactive aerosol sufficient to induce altered states. The compounds identified—THC, CBD, CBN, terpenes, and terpenoids—leave no doubt that the cannabis inflorescences were burned not for fragrance but for ecstasy.¹ ² ³ ⁴ 1 2 3 4

That is the kind of hard, physical evidence that strips away modern euphemisms. At Tel Arad, cannabis was a ritual technology. It was the apparatus by which priests or officiants crossed the threshold from sober perception to trance, much as frankincense, sourced via Arabian trade routes, made the sanctum smell like heaven even as cannabis smoke tuned human minds to hear it.¹ ³ ⁵ 1 3 5 The shrine’s use window, ca. 760–715 BCE, places it squarely in Judah’s political and religious turbulence, between the First Temple’s glory and the Assyrian pressure, when competing cults and high places dotted the land. The Arad altars stood not in a marginal folk‑site but in a fortress on the southern frontier—a liminal place in geography and consciousness.² ⁵ 2 5

The broader archaeology of Canaan corroborates that mind-altering substances were embedded in ritual. In the Late Bronze Age cemetery at Tel Yehud, archaeologists recovered imported Base‑Ring jugs shaped like poppy heads whose residues test positive for opium—likely associated with funerary rites and the cult of the dead, whether to raise spirits or ease the passage.⁶ 6 Across the Near East, ecstasy was not a fringe practice; it was a cultivated technique. Tel Arad’s twin altars memorialize that technique at the threshold of the inner sanctum, where incense regulated the smell and cannabis regulated the state of mind.¹ ³ 1 4

From that ancient record, one conclusion emerges that remains relevant today: cannabis was used to override sober cognition in a sacred framework. It did not sharpen judgment; it sought communion—voices, visions, feedback from a realm beyond ordinary waking life. Whether you interpret those experiences as genuine encounters with non-human intelligences or as products of hyper-stimulated neural circuitry, the public‑policy implication is the same. Normalizing marijuana enshrines altered consciousness as a cultural good. The more potent the product and the wider the adoption, the more a society tunes its public square toward ritualized disinhibition.

You can see the continuity of this logic in India’s long bhang tradition. Bhang, a paste made from cannabis leaves, has been woven into festivals like Holi and Maha Shivaratri for centuries, with references in Vedic literature and Ayurvedic lore and with colonial observers documenting its ubiquity.⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰ 7 8 9 10 Contemporary estimates run in the millions of annual consumers around major festivals, placing cannabis within a sacred calendar rather than on the margins of culture.⁸ 8 In visual culture, the art that issues from such states is strikingly consistent across continents: charged neon geometrics, entity‑forms, fractal mandalas—repertoire that echoes shamanic cosmologies from Siberia to Amazonia and now saturates modern psychedelic aesthetics. The continuity of motifs suggests a continuity of effect: the same kinds of altered states produce the same types of visions.

But where ancient priests burned cannabis to induce ecstasy within a small, controlled ritual community, modern legalization scales that effect to whole populations. That is where archeology’s lesson collides with public health. If cannabis is a portal, the portal’s throughput matters. Epidemiology repeatedly associates heavier or earlier cannabis use with increased risk of psychotic outcomes, observing dose‑response effects: meta‑analysis finds the heaviest users have odds ratios near 3.9 for schizophrenia or related psychoses compared with non‑users.¹¹ 11 A 2025 synthesis applying Hill’s criteria argues there is a high likelihood cannabis contributes to schizophrenia development overall, with a pooled OR ≈ 2.88 and roughly two‑fold greater risk for adolescent users.¹⁴ 12 More granular clinical work shows that in diagnosed schizophrenia, cannabis use is tied to increased positive symptoms (hallucinations, delusions) and higher excitement, even as negative symptom patterns can vary; no causality is claimed, but the association is robust.¹³ 13 And among people with schizophrenia, cannabis use is significantly associated with some suicide‑related outcomes, including elevated odds of attempted suicide and increased hazards for suicide death.¹⁵ 14

Jurisdiction-level studies add a societal lens. After U.S. recreational legalization (2009–2019), modeling shows +5.8% injury crash rates and +4.1% fatal crash rates in the aggregate, controlling for factors like unemployment, speed limits, seat‑belt use, rural miles, and alcohol trends—effects vary by state, but the direction is worrisome.¹⁶ ¹⁷ 15 16 Systematic reviews converge on negative road‑safety impacts in most studies, and national surveys now find 4–6% of drivers self‑report driving within an hour of cannabis use, with risk perceptions conspicuously more lenient than for alcohol.¹⁸ ¹⁹ 17 18 None of this proves that every consumer will suffer harm; it demonstrates that scaled access increases measurable externalities—most acutely among young men, high‑potency users, and those who combine cannabis with alcohol.¹² ¹⁸ 19 17

So why invoke Tel Arad in a twenty-first-century legalization debate? Because it reveals what cannabis was for in a culture that canonized sacred space: it was for ecstasy, for crossing boundaries, for letting something else participate in one’s thinking. If you grant the metaphysical possibility that those “somethings” are genuine non-human intelligences, then mass legalization looks like opening a wide conduit into a population’s decision-making machinery. If you deny that and call the entities neural artifacts, the conclusion hardly changes: repeated entry into states that mimic external agency undermines habituated sovereignty and clarity—what a civilization requires for law, craft, and self-government.

There is also a moral claim at stake. Cultures thrive on lucidity—on earned competence and honest accountability. We do not need to romanticize intoxication because it looks antiquarian. Tel Arad was not quaint. It was precise. One altar perfumed the sanctum; the other hijacked cognition. Judah’s priests were innovating in ritual engineering, not engaging in harmless herbalism. The residue composition—the dung matrix, the cannabinoid profile, the deliberate temperature control—shows purposeful design to modulate consciousness.¹ ² ³ 1 2 3 That is the legacy modern marijuana culture inherits: techniques to create porosity. Legalization, commercialization, and age-neutral marketing scale porosity to a level ancient officiants never imagined, and the data on psychosis and road safety tell us the cost.

For these reasons, I reject marijuana as a cultural good. The Tel Arad shrine is a fossilized warning: cannabis has been a conduit into ecstasy in high places for a very long time, and cultures that survive do not hand their sovereignty to smoke. The way forward is not to sacralize intoxication, but to honor clarity—frankincense is fragrant; cannabis is psychoactive. The former perfumes a room; the latter reprograms it. Tel Arad did both. We should do neither.

David Jay Brown and Sara Phinn Huntley’s The Illustrated Field Guide to DMT Entities: Machine Elves, Tricksters, Teachers, and Other Interdimensional Beings (2025) brings this conversation into sharp modern focus. Structured like a naturalist’s handbook for hyperspace, the book catalogs 25 distinct entity types encountered in DMT and ayahuasca experiences—from self-transforming machine elves and mantis insectoids to reptilians, gray aliens, fairies, nature spirits, and divine forms like Grandmother Ayahuasca and the Virgin Mary. Each chapter includes encounter narratives from trip reports and scientific studies, rich descriptions of behavior, appearance, and the messages or teachings they impart, accompanied by visionary artwork from artists such as Alex Grey and Sara Phinn Huntley herself 1 2. The field guide poses a profound question: Are these beings mere constructs of the human psyche, or are they independent intelligences inhabiting other dimensions? That question lies at the heart of every cross-cultural psychedelic tradition, from Tel Arad’s cannabis altars to global shamanic rites.

The guide has not only attracted readers interested in visionary art or entheogens but has also gained credibility through endorsements from figures like Graham Hancock and through guest appearances by Brown and Huntley on platforms like the “Rebel Spirit Radio” podcast 3. Meanwhile, mainstream voices like Joe Rogan regularly revisit “DMT astronauts”—individuals who deliberately seek these entities for spiritual insight or practical guidance—and discuss whether contemporary governments and institutions might align with such interdimensional “high priests” to influence mass consciousness 4 5. This book is a frontier consideration into a new science of analysis and reinforces the core argument: humanity’s engagement with psychoactive smoke—from ancient altars to modern DMT breakthroughs—is not benign. It is a politics of consciousness intervention, where the line between personal sovereignty and external mental imposition is perilously blurred. And it’s very dangerous, and should under no rational endeavor, should ever be legalized in a serious society.

Footnotes

1. Arie, Rosen, Namdar (2020), GC‑MS identification of THC/CBD/CBN; animal dung/fat matrices; dating and functional interpretation. 1

2. Science News coverage of the shrine context, the cannabis–dung mixture, and THC levels consistent with altered states. 2

3. Taylor & Francis newsroom summary highlighting frankincense chemistry (boswellic acids) and deliberate psychoactive use of cannabis. 3

4. Times of Israel report: cannabis “to stimulate ecstasy” and implications for Temple ritual analogs. 4

5. Sci. News overview of shrine chronology, fortress border function, and compositional findings. 5

6. Biblical Archaeology Society: Tel Yehud opium residues in Base‑Ring jugs; cult‑of‑the‑dead context. 6

7. Wikipedia (summary with sources) on bhang as an edible cannabis preparation and festival use. 7

8. Firstpost explainer on Holi and bhang’s historical embedding; contemporary practice estimates. 8

9. IndiaTimes feature with Vedic/Ayurvedic references and colonial documentation of bhang. 9

10. SAGE review on the historical context and research state of cannabis use in India. 10

11. Marconi et al. (2016) meta-analysis: dose‑response; OR≈3.9 for heaviest use vs. non-use. 11

12. JAMA Network Open invited commentary (2025) summarizing evidence and Ontario cohort demographics; rising PARF after medical legalization. 19

13. eClinicalMedicine IPD meta-analysis (2023) associating cannabis use with higher positive and excitement dimensions in schizophrenia. 13

14. Biomolecules (2025) systematic review applying Hill’s criteria; overall OR≈2.88; doubled adolescent risk. 12

15. Psychological Medicine (2025) meta-analysis: cannabis use in schizophrenia linked to attempted suicide and suicide death hazards. 14

16. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (2022): legalization associated with +5.8% injury crashes and +4.1% fatal crashes in aggregate. 15

17. IIHS bibliography summary of the same study’s methodology and state heterogeneity. 16

18. MDPI systematic review (2023) concluding negative impacts of legalization on road safety in most studies; risk profiles. 17

19. AAA Foundation (2024) fact sheet on DUI‑C prevalence (~4–6%), risk perceptions, and sex differences. 18

—

Bibliography

Arie, E.; Rosen, B.; Namdar, D. (2020). Cannabis and Frankincense at the Judahite Shrine of Arad. Tel Aviv, 47(1), 5–28. 1

Bower, B. (2020). An Israeli shrine may have hosted the first ritual use of marijuana. Science News. 2

Farmer, C. M.; Monfort, S. S.; Woods, A. N. (2022). Changes in Traffic Crash Rates After Legalization of Marijuana. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 83, 494–501. 15

Marconi, A., et al. (2016). Meta-analysis of the Association Between the Level of Cannabis Use and Risk of Psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42(5), 1262–1269. 11

Argote, M., et al. (2023). Association between cannabis use and symptom dimensions in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. eClinicalMedicine, 64, 102199. 13

Pourebrahim, S., et al. (2025). Does Cannabis Use Contribute to Schizophrenia? Biomolecules, 15, 368. 12

Mulligan, L. D., et al. (2025). Cannabis use and suicide in schizophrenia. Psychological Medicine, 55, e79. 14

González Sala, F., et al. (2023). Effects of Cannabis Legalization on Road Safety: A Literature Review. IJERPH, 20(5), 4655. 17

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (2024). Cannabis Use, Public Health, and Traffic Safety (Fact Sheet). 18

Biblical Archaeology Society (2022). Narcotics used in Canaanite Cult: Opium in Late Bronze Age Graves. 6

Firstpost (2025). The Big ‘Bhang Theory’: Why Indians drink bhang on Holi. 8

IndiaTimes (2023). On Holi, a look at the tradition of using bhang and its legality. 9

Rich Hoffman

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

	Anonymous on The Roots of Ohio’s Medicaid F…
	Bruce Jones on Contemplations on taxes and la…
	vwells34 on Where Evil Lives in Butler Cou…
	Rich Hoffman on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Mysterious London Stone: S…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Rich Hoffman on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Forbidden Archaeology…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: