Tag: MAGA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes on doxing actions:

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

Free Tina Peters: The Battle for Honest Elections in America

You know, here’s the thing: if President Trump doesn’t get Tina Peters out of that Colorado prison, then everything we’ve fought for on election integrity is just theater. It’s all optics without substance. Because if you don’t control your election systems, you don’t control your government. And that’s the bottom line. People say, “There’s no evidence of fraud.” Really? Then why is Tina Peters sitting in a cell for nine years? She was the Mesa County Clerk, the one person in Colorado who had the guts to blow the whistle during the heaviest part of the 2020 election scandal. She saw irregularities, she reported them, and for that, they threw her in prison.

Let’s get the facts straight. Tina Peters was convicted in October 2024 on seven counts—four felonies and three misdemeanors—for allegedly breaching election systems during a 2021 update.¹ They said she conspired to commit criminal impersonation, attempted to influence a public servant, and violated her official duties. Nine years in state prison for trying to preserve election records? That’s not justice; that’s retaliation. And where is she now? La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado, locked away like a political prisoner.²

And don’t forget, she wasn’t alone in this fight. Mike Lindell—the MyPillow guy—stood shoulder to shoulder with her, pouring millions into exposing voting machine companies.³ Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro? They got four months each for contempt of Congress because they wouldn’t play ball with the January 6 narrative.⁴ Rudy Giuliani? Bankrupted for daring to question election results. This is a pattern: punish the whistleblowers, destroy the evidence, and control the narrative.

Now, here’s the legal reality: Trump can’t just sign a pardon and free Tina Peters. Article II of the Constitution gives the president the power to grant pardons for federal crimes, not for state convictions.⁵ Colorado prosecuted her under state law, and Governor Jared Polis isn’t about to hand Trump a win. So what do we do? Sit back and let her rot? Absolutely not. There are practical steps Trump can take, and they start with leverage—political, legal, and financial.

First, a pressure campaign. Trump needs to call out Polis and AG Phil Weiser by name, which he has been doing lately. Make it politically toxic for them to keep Peters locked up. Rallies, Truth Social posts, interviews—turn up the heat. When the public sees a grandmother rotting in prison for questioning election fraud, the optics shift fast.

Second, DOJ leverage. This is where it gets interesting. The Department of Justice can’t override a state conviction, but it can make life very uncomfortable for Colorado. How? Start with federal election law hooks. The 2020 election was a federal election. Peters’ actions were tied to preserving federal election records. File a federal habeas corpus petition arguing her imprisonment violates constitutional rights under federal election statutes like the Help America Vote Act. Force Colorado to defend its conviction in federal court.

Then there’s civil rights enforcement. Frame this as retaliation against a whistleblower exercising First Amendment rights. The DOJ Civil Rights Division can open an investigation into political persecution. Even if it doesn’t overturn her sentence immediately, it creates a legal basis for federal intervention and puts Colorado under a microscope.

Now, here’s the big one: federal funding leverage. Colorado gets millions in federal grants for election security and compliance under HAVA and EAC programs. Those funds are discretionary. Condition future funding on transparency and whistleblower protections. Announce that Colorado risks losing federal election security money because it retaliated against Peters. That’s constitutional under the Spending Clause, and it hits where it hurts—the budget.

Another angle: federal subpoenas and custody transfers. If Peters has evidence relevant to federal crimes—say, election tampering—the DOJ can subpoena her testimony. Request a temporary transfer to federal custody for questioning. That doesn’t erase her sentence, but it moves her out of state prison and into a federal process where deals can happen.

Finally, amplify public awareness. Trump should feature Peters’ case in speeches, rallies, and interviews. Get Mike Lindell, Steve Bannon, and the Warroom team hammering this story every day, give them some red meat. When people see the truth—that Peters was jailed to bury evidence of election fraud—the pressure becomes unbearable.  And Trump is naturally good at that kind of thing.  But if he’s waiting for help from other Republicans, they don’t have the guts.  It will have to come from him, and him alone.  The damage from this case will benefit other efforts around the country.  Allowing the radical left to control the discussion, as they have, will not help with the Midterms, where Democrats are planning to cheat, because it’s their only strategy.  This case could greatly frustrate those efforts. 

And let’s talk numbers because facts matter. The Heritage Foundation database lists 1,561 proven cases of election fraud over decades, with 20 cases in 2024 alone.⁶ Brookings says fraud rates are minuscule—0.0000845% in Arizona over 25 years—but those stats ignore systemic vulnerabilities in digital voting systems.⁷ Globally, we know electronic manipulation happens—Venezuela, China, Russia. You give people the illusion of choice, then flip the results. That’s the game. And it happened here in 2020.

So when they say, “There’s no evidence,” what they mean is, “We buried the evidence and jailed the people who had it.” Tina Peters had the proof. She tried to show it. They raided her home, seized her devices, and threw her in prison. That’s tyranny, plain and simple. And if Trump doesn’t act, it sends a message: whistleblowers will be crushed, and election integrity will remain a myth.

Here’s the bottom line: Trump has tools. He can’t wave a magic wand, but he can apply pressure—legal, financial, and political—until Colorado cracks. And he must. Because if we don’t fight for Peters, we don’t fight for honest elections. And without honest elections, we don’t have a republic.

Summary of Key Actions for President Trump

1. Launch a Pressure Campaign

    • Publicly call out Colorado Governor Jared Polis and AG Phil Weiser.

    • Mobilize grassroots and media to demand Tina Peters’ release.

2. Leverage DOJ Authority

    • File federal habeas corpus petitions citing election law violations.

    • Open a Civil Rights investigation into political retaliation.

3. Use Federal Funding Leverage

    • Condition Colorado’s federal election security funds on transparency and whistleblower protections.

    • Publicize potential funding cuts to increase pressure.

4. Subpoena Tina Peters for Federal Testimony

    • DOJ can request a temporary transfer to federal custody for testimony related to election integrity.

5. Amplify Public Awareness

    • Feature Peters’ case in speeches, rallies, and media appearances.

    • Encourage allies like Mike Lindell, Steve Bannon, and WarRoom to keep the story alive; they need red meat to pound away at the base.

This is one of the most critical agenda items for the Trump administration because much remains unsaid.  All the horrible things going on in the world with Hamas, China, Russia, Venezuela, and our own domestic money policy that is under siege are nothing compared to the villainy that occurred against Tina Peters.  If she is allowed to be held in jail by a corrupt, leftist Democrat government in Colorado, people will lose faith in fighting for an honest election in 2026.  And without an honest election, the radical left plans to capture enough seats to impeach Trump and give the government back to the Deep State.  So this is a critical time.  We need a very vicious pressure campaign that forces this issue on the nightly news, because so far, they have been able to ignore it.  Once Trump won the last election, all the hostile forces treated it as a concession to buy a little time.  And the Midterms were their target.  If Tina Peters is not freed, then Trump will have a hard time holding power, and those who will fight for him will become discouraged.  So freeing Tina from jail is a must-do occasion.  There is no other option. Yes, there was election fraud in the 2020 election, and those who committed it, numbering in the many thousands, have to be punished for what they did.  Otherwise, we don’t have a country. 

Bibliography (Chicago Style)

1. Colorado Judicial Branch. “People v. Tina Peters: Sentencing Order.” October 2024.

2. CBS News. “Tina Peters Sentenced to Nine Years in State Prison.” October 2024.

3. Fox News. “Mike Lindell Faces $1 Billion Lawsuit Over Election Claims.” 2023.

4. ABC News. “Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro Sentenced for Contempt of Congress.” 2024.

5. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2.

6. Heritage Foundation. “Election Fraud Database.” 2024.

7. Brookings Institution. “Election Fraud Rates in U.S. Elections.” 2023.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Cannibals of China and their Democrat Party Friends: Collectivists literally want to eat the living

The recent shooting of National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C., allegedly by an Afghan national with ties to intelligence networks, underscores a profound ideological divide in American politics. The incident was not merely an act of violence; it became a prism through which competing visions of governance and societal order were revealed. While some sought to frame the tragedy as a consequence of deploying the National Guard—a measure implemented to restore law and order—others attempted to deflect responsibility by invoking narratives of provocation and systemic grievance. This rhetorical maneuver, blaming the presence of security forces for inciting violence, reflects a deeper philosophical orientation rooted in collectivist ideologies that have historically justified chaos as a means to consolidate power.  Democrats, like Mark Kelly, who have recently found themselves in a lot of trouble due to attempts at seditious behavior against President Trump’s administration, are showing a much deeper problem with their entire political ideology that traces to ideological roots from the home country of their movement, Chinese communism.  And the cannibalistic nature of that country and its general philosophy of life, compared to the West. 

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., during periods of heightened unrest significantly reduced crime rates. Under Trump’s administration, violent crime in the District fell by approximately 35% between 2023 and 2024, with homicides declining from a peak of 274—the highest since 2005—to markedly lower levels in subsequent years. Even in 2025, violent crime decreased by an additional 26% compared to the previous year, signaling the deterrent effect of a visible security presence.¹ These figures stand in stark contrast to earlier trends under Democratic leadership, where policy emphasis on police defunding and social work interventions coincided with escalating urban violence.²

The paradox of Democrat lawmakers advocating stringent gun control while privately securing concealed carry permits further illustrates the inconsistency of their position. Representative Anna Paulina Luna recently highlighted that numerous members of Congress, including those who champion restrictive firearm legislation, have obtained permits to carry weapons in the District.³ This duality—publicly opposing individual self-defense while privately embracing it—reveals a pragmatic concession to the realities of urban crime, even as ideological commitments demand the perpetuation of vulnerability among the populace.

To comprehend this contradiction, one must examine the intellectual lineage of collectivist thought. Marxist theory, which informs much of the progressive agenda, posits that individual identity is subordinate to the collective good.⁴ Within this framework, personal sacrifice is valorized as a moral imperative, and systemic inequities are construed as justifications for redistributive violence. The logic underpinning such views is evident in the rhetorical claim that the Afghan assailant’s actions were provoked by the presence of the National Guard—a formulation that shifts culpability from the perpetrator to the state apparatus tasked with maintaining order. This inversion of responsibility is not incidental; it is symptomatic of a worldview that privileges structural explanations over individual accountability.

Historical analogues amplify the gravity of this ideological orientation. During the Great Chinese Famine (1959–1961), precipitated by Mao Zedong’s collectivist policies, an estimated 15 to 55 million people perished.⁵ The obliteration of market mechanisms and private property rights engendered conditions so dire that cannibalism became a widespread survival strategy.⁶ Archival records and eyewitness testimonies recount instances where families consumed the flesh of deceased relatives, and concubines reportedly volunteered for slaughter to sustain their households.⁷ These macabre episodes were not aberrations; they were logical extensions of a system that negated individual sanctity in favor of an abstract communal ideal. The psychological residue of such practices persists in cultural norms that valorize self-abnegation, reinforcing the collectivist axiom that the organism of society supersedes the autonomy of its constituent cells.

The resonance of these historical patterns in contemporary American discourse is disquieting. When policymakers suggest that victims of crime should acquiesce to dispossession for the sake of social harmony, they echo the same moral calculus that sanctioned atrocities under communist regimes. The proposition that one’s property—or even life—may be forfeited to appease the grievances of the marginalized is not merely a policy stance; it is a philosophical commitment to the erasure of individuality. In this schema, the Afghan shooter is transfigured from a culpable agent into a symptom of systemic dysfunction, and the act of violence becomes an indictment of order rather than chaos.

Such reasoning is inimical to the principles of a constitutional republic. The sanctity of individual rights, enshrined in the American political tradition, is antithetical to the collectivist dogma that animates these apologetics. To capitulate to narratives that rationalize violence as a byproduct of structural inequity is to invite the dissolution of civil society. The deployment of the National Guard, far from constituting a provocation, represented an affirmation of the state’s obligation to safeguard its citizens—a function that cannot be abdicated without imperiling the very foundations of governance.

The Afghan shooter incident is not an isolated tragedy; it is a harbinger of the ideological contest that will define the trajectory of American democracy. The attempt to reframe culpability, the oscillation between public disarmament and private armament, and the invocation of systemic grievance as exculpation—all bespeak a worldview that esteems the collective over the individual. History admonishes us that such a worldview, when operationalized, engenders not utopia but barbarism. The cannibalistic horrors of Maoist China are not relics of a distant past; they are cautionary tales inscribed in the ledger of human folly. To ignore these lessons is to court a future in which the logic of sacrifice metastasizes from metaphor to corporeal reality.  And that is what Democrats are proposing for our society when they speak of defunding the police, or yielding to crime with chaos, and in suggesting that gun control should be a priority when crime is used to perpetuate their power through fear by the ruthless and aggressive.  They want the crime because they literally feed off it. 

I was eating with some friends the other day at a nice Chinese restaurant buffet in West Chester, Ohio, that had a lot of great options.  I reminded everyone that all this nice food would not be typical in China.  In China, they actually eat just about anything that moves: dogs, cats, turtles, moms and dads, and body parts.  In most places in the world, where collectivist politics reside, the food is not as sanitized from the violence behind death as you will find in Chinese restaurants in the United States.  The standard of individualized thought is enough to affect how we eat.  Let alone process government functions.  But make no mistake about it, if it were up to the Mark Kellys of the world and their seditious function as communist insurgents, they would drive a society into cannibalism because that is the unspoken party platform.  They represent in America the Great Leap Forward that all academic leftists in the world, and especially in America, have been yearning for.  They aren’t trying to preserve society.  They are trying to eat it and gain the power of their enemies from the literal consumption of flesh and the destruction of the living.  And the Afghan terrorist, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who shot the two D.C. National Guard members just a block away from the White House, serves their aims at the destruction of society for the consumption of its contents, just as their home country of China would be very proud of.

—

Footnotes

1. Metropolitan Police Department, “Annual Crime Report,” Washington, D.C., 2024–2025.

2. U.S. Department of Justice, “Crime Trends in Urban Centers,” 2023.

3. Luna, A.P., Congressional Briefing on Security Measures, 2025.

4. Marx, K., Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875.

5. Dikötter, F., Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 2010.

6. Yang, Jisheng, Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958–1962, 2012.

7. Chinese State Archives, Oral Histories of the Great Leap Forward, 1961.

Rich Hoffman

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

Aggressive Interdiction and Human Rights: A Legal and Ethical Analysis

The controversy surrounding aggressive U.S. actions against drug cartels, including the destruction of narcotics-laden vessels, has ignited a global debate. Critics frame these measures as violations of human rights, while proponents argue that cartels themselves are the most egregious violators of human dignity.  I would contend that decisive interdiction, even through kinetic means, aligns with international law principles and humanitarian imperatives. To understand this, we must delve into the historical evolution of international law, the staggering scale of the global drug trade, and the human suffering perpetuated by these criminal networks.  But here’s the deal for context: there is no International Law, only American law.  The same people criticizing the Trump administration for blowing up the drug boats in Venezuela are the same kind of Democrats who wanted to defund the police.  And have produced videos promoting seditious actions against America, particularly Mark Kelly.  He should be in jail, not ranting about preserving the rights of drug boats or their cartel occupants.  I’m a big supporter of blowing up drug boats and taking the fight to the cartels’ front door.  There are a lot of flawed characters involved in this drug business, so anyone protesting human rights as a defense for the continued practice is purposely trying to make the world less stable for benefits that are not in our favor. 


International law governing narcotics control did not emerge in a vacuum. Its roots trace back to early 20th-century efforts to regulate opium and morphine, culminating in the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This treaty, alongside the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, sought to harmonize global efforts against drug trafficking. Yet these frameworks were never designed to override national sovereignty. Enforcement remains the prerogative of individual states, a reality that underscores why nations like the United States resort to unilateral action when multilateral mechanisms falter. Scholars emphasize that Article 14 of the 1988 Convention explicitly encourages states to adopt stringent interdiction strategies to suppress trafficking. [1]  It was a good time when most of the world still thought of drugs as dangerous, but too many people have fallen under their seduction and are now part of the problem.  And that is undoubtedly the case of the very socialist body of the United Nations.  Any defense of the drug network, knowing what we do now of the costs, is reprehensible and unforgivable. 


Consider the plight of communities ravaged by cartel violence. In Mexico, entire towns have been depopulated as families flee the terror of organized crime. Mothers bury sons lost to gang wars, while children grow up in landscapes dominated by fear. Since 2006, Mexico has recorded over 460,000 homicides, mainly attributable to cartel-related violence. [3] These are not abstract numbers; they represent shattered lives and broken futures. The global drug economy, valued between $360 and $652 billion annually, rivals the GDP of mid-sized nations. Cocaine production alone reached 2,757 metric tons in 2022, per UNODC data. [2] Each shipment fuels a cycle of addiction, corruption, and death that transcends borders.  This is not an issue that we can turn our backs on.  Ignoring this desperate evil is not responsible; it’s reprehensible.  There is no greater human rights violator on planet earth than these murderous drug cartels.  And no war has ever been fought that was more important than this one.   Here, we have a clear villain.  And if Democrats can’t see and agree to that, well, then they are part of the problem.  Which I would say has always been the case.  Only now do we have context for their actions.  They want to topple the stability of the world.  When you are fighting for the lives of drug dealers, you are fighting the wrong things. 


The fentanyl crisis epitomizes the lethal evolution of narcotics trafficking. Between 2020 and 2023, U.S. overdose deaths linked to synthetic opioids surged by 279%. In 2023 alone, fentanyl claimed 72,776 lives, constituting 69% of all overdose fatalities. [4] Behind these statistics are stories of young lives extinguished in their prime—college students, parents, veterans—victims of a substance so potent that two milligrams can kill. Economically, fentanyl’s profitability is unparalleled: one kilogram, costing $80,000 wholesale, yields $1.6 million on the street. Cartels exploit Chinese precursor suppliers, with investigations identifying 188 companies complicit in this trade. [5] These dynamics illustrate the intersection of organized crime, public health, and international security.  We are talking more lives lost than what the Vietnam War cost Americans.  This isn’t a remote threat; it’s a very personal one where the war has been brought literally into our backyards.  The only difference is that the weapons used are not guns and bombs.  But the destruction of the mind itself.  And this isn’t some market-driven intent.  It’s a sinisterly plotted scheme that starts in places like China to destroy Western civilization itself.  And with a smile on their faces as they watch the death of many innocents. 


Cartels have diversified beyond narcotics into human trafficking, generating $236 billion annually through forced labor and sexual exploitation. [6] Millions of women and children are entrapped in these networks, often under the same criminal syndicates orchestrating narcotics flows. This duality magnifies humanitarian crises, rendering cartels not merely criminal enterprises but systemic violators of fundamental rights. Survivors recount harrowing tales of coercion, violence, and despair—stories that rarely make headlines but define the lived reality of cartel dominance.  There are untold numbers of women and children who are literally destroyed in this process, and they are ruined for life.  There is a cost to this that nobody has yet put their mind around, and it poses the most significant problem of them all in sheer magnitude. 


Venezuela’s transformation into a narcotics hub exemplifies state complicity. The Cartel de los Soles, allegedly embedded within the Venezuelan military, facilitates cocaine transshipment to global markets. U.S. indictments implicate senior Maduro regime officials in narco-terrorism conspiracies. [7] Geopolitical entanglements with Russia and China furnish economic lifelines, complicating enforcement and underscoring the nexus between organized crime and authoritarian resilience. Remote airstrips launch drug flights under the cover of night, while maritime routes snake through Caribbean waters, evading interdiction. Each shipment represents not just contraband but the erosion of governance and the triumph of criminality over law.


Critics decry kinetic interdiction as extrajudicial, yet proportionality under international humanitarian law permits force when confronting actors whose conduct precipitates mass atrocity. Analogies to anti-piracy operations and counterterrorism frameworks validate such measures. [8] The principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) arguably extends to dismantling cartels, given their role in orchestrating transnational violence and exploitation. To frame interdiction as mere aggression is to ignore the moral calculus of inaction—a calculus measured in lives lost, communities shattered, and futures foreclosed.


Drug cartels epitomize systemic human rights violators, perpetuating cycles of death, addiction, and exploitation. Aggressive interdiction, including the destruction of narcotics vessels, aligns with both legal norms and moral imperatives. Inaction sustains a status quo wherein criminal syndicates eclipse state authority, eroding global security and humanitarian values. History will judge not the audacity of action but the complacency of silence.  And for my part, I say blow up many more drug boats.  And if they want help, call me.  I’d be happy to lend support in the destruction of drug cartels and their evil minions. 

[1] United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988.

[2] UNODC World Drug Report 2023.

[3] Mexico Homicide Data, INEGI, 2023.

[4] CDC Overdose Mortality Statistics, 2023.

[5] U.S. DEA Fentanyl Intelligence Report, 2024.

[6] ILO Global Estimates on Modern Slavery, 2022.

[7] U.S. DOJ Indictments on Venezuelan Officials, 2023.

[8] International Committee of the Red Cross, Principles of Proportionality, 2021.

Rich Hoffman

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

From Bomb-Throwing to Governance: The Case of Marjorie Taylor Greene

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation doesn’t surprise me, though the commentary swirling around it is fascinating. There’s a fundamental truth here: campaigning and governing are two entirely different skill sets. It’s one thing to be a firebrand, to throw bombs and rally people off the couch to vote. It’s another thing entirely to manage the daily grind of legislative work—bullet-point tasks that must be accomplished to keep momentum alive. Once you’re in the House, you’re no longer just shouting from the sidelines; you’re negotiating with people you’d rather not talk to, navigating a body of representatives from every corner of the country. That transition—from rhetoric to action—is where many stumble. Greene’s story is a case study in that struggle, and frankly, I’ve seen it before. I watched the Reform Party rise under Ross Perot in the ’90s, morph into the Tea Party in the 2000s, and then evolve into MAGA with Trump around 2015. Each phase had its own language—small government, term limits, anti-bureaucracy—but the moment you win, the game changes. Winning isn’t the finish line; it’s the starting gun for a more challenging race.

Greene’s difficulty wasn’t ideological—it was managerial. She thrived as a bomb thrower, but bombs don’t build coalitions. Once you have the House, the Senate, and the White House, the question becomes: now what? How do you turn victory into governance? That’s where the metaphors matter. Think of my favorite football team, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers: they started the season strong, dominated the power rankings, and when every team studies their film, they make the Bucs the game of the week.  And now they can’t find wins under any condition.  They are getting the best of what everyone has to offer.  And that is a familiar story, no matter what the sport or endeavor. Suddenly, staying on top is more complicated than getting there. Winning demands adaptation, resilience, and a willingness to play the long game. Trump understood that. He’s the Rocky figure who keeps getting off the mat, who knows that staying on top requires more than bravado—it requires strategy. Greene never made that pivot. She kept throwing bombs even as the battlefield shifted to committee rooms and policy negotiations. And when the Epstein papers resurfaced—a story long litigated and largely devoid of new substance—she tried to weaponize it as if it were fresh ammunition. But that playbook belongs to the Democrats now, a desperate attempt to tarnish Trump when other avenues failed. Greene misread the moment, and that miscalculation cost her.

Her emotional framing of the resignation—likening herself to a discarded wife—reveals something more profound. Politics isn’t just strategy; it’s psychology. Greene tied her identity to Trump, and when she realized she didn’t have the levers she imagined she did, the disillusionment hit hard. That’s not unique to her; thousands of activists and politicians experience the same whiplash when the fire of insurgency cools into the gray routine of governance. The Epstein saga, for all its grotesque realities, is a metaphor too—a Pleasure Island for the powerful, where short-term indulgence costs long-term integrity. Trump, for all the speculation, walked away from that world years ago, building a family life that insulated him from the fallout. Greene, by contrast, clung to the drama, hoping it would keep her relevant. But relevance in politics isn’t sustained by outrage alone; it’s earned through results. And when outrage becomes your only currency, bankruptcy is inevitable.

So Greene exits the stage, and the movement moves on. MAGA will evolve, just as the Tea Party did, just as the Reform Party did before it. The question isn’t whether the fight continues—it will—but whether its champions learn the hardest lesson of winning: victory demands governance. It demands coalition-building, patience, and the humility to trade the thrill of bomb-throwing for the grind of policymaking. Greene couldn’t make that trade, and now she joins a long list of figures who mistook the campaign trail for the summit. The truth is, staying on top is more complicated than getting there. It’s the eye of the tiger, the discipline to keep punching when the cameras are gone, and the work is thankless. Trump understood that, which is why he remains the center of gravity. Greene didn’t, and that’s why her story ends here—not with a bang, but with a quiet admission that winning was never the hard part. Staying a winner was.

1. Campaigning and governing are distinct skill sets. Greene’s resignation underscores this divide, revealing the structural and psychological hurdles that confront insurgent politicians upon entering formal institutions.

2. Historical Context

The lineage from Ross Perot’s Reform Party in the 1990s to the Tea Party in the 2000s and MAGA in the 2010s illustrates a continuum of anti-establishment energy. Each movement promised disruption but faltered when tasked with governance. [Footnote: Skocpol & Williamson, 2012]

3. Legislative Record and Statistics

According to GovTrack, Greene introduced 26 bills in the 118th Congress, none of which gained bipartisan cosponsors, and missed 5.7% of votes—ranking in the 84th percentile for absences. [Footnote: GovTrack Report Card, 2025]

Congressional productivity overall has declined, with only 34 bills passed in 2023—the lowest since the Great Depression. [Footnote: Brookings, 2024]

4. Comparative Populism

Similar patterns emerge globally: Bolsonaro in Brazil and Le Pen in France faced analogous governance challenges, often resorting to executive maneuvers when legislative coalitions proved elusive. [Footnote: Norris & Inglehart, 2019]

5. Psychological Dimensions

Political identity theory explains Greene’s disillusionment. When identity is fused with ideology, setbacks trigger existential crises. [Footnote: Mason, 2023]

6. Victory demands governance. Greene’s failure to pivot from insurgency to coalition-building exemplifies the Achilles’ heel of populist movements.  The form of rebellious movements traces back logically to the Teacher of Righteousness in the Damascus Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they will continue no matter who thinks they are running the government in the background.  It is not enough to throw stones at the establishment and go home in frustration when things don’t go the way you want them to.  When you win, you have to build on those wins.  And the effort of the win may not be about personal satisfaction, but about the evolution of governance in general.  People do not wish to be ruled over by kingly figures, so they will continue to support bomb throwers.  But it’s up to those bomb throwers to connect the dots and to actually accomplish something.  You can’t just say you proposed a bill and everyone rejected it.  Or that I tried to call President Trump 50 times and he never answered.  So I quit!  To win these fights, you have to be willing to do the thankless part for all the thankless, but critical reasons.  And to wake up each morning as a winner, intent on staying a winner.  And not lost because the definitions of success moved under the pressure of reality.  Winning is what people want, and it’s what they expect out of their government.  And if Margorie Taylor Greene can no longer have that attitude, then she should leave and turn it over to someone who will.

References:

– Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2012). The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.

– GovTrack.us. (2025). Legislative Report Card.

– Brookings Institution. (2024). Vital Statistics on Congress.

– Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Populism and Authoritarianism.

– Mason, L. (2023). Political Identities. Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology.

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

Machiavelli, N. (1532). The Prince.

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

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

Transparency International. Global Corruption Report, 2024.

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

Rich Hoffman

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

Sedition, Civilian Control, and the Afghan Shooter: A Constitutional Crisis in Motion

The foundation of American governance rests on a principle that distinguishes it from authoritarian regimes: civilian control over the military. This concept ensures that elected officials—not generals or unelected bureaucrats—command the armed forces. It is a safeguard against military coups and tyranny, preserving the democratic structure envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. When this principle is undermined, the entire system of governance faces existential risk.

Recent events have brought this issue into sharp focus. On November 26, 2025, an Afghan immigrant—Rahmanullah Lakanwal—opened fire on two National Guard members near the White House. This attack, occurring on the eve of Thanksgiving, was not an isolated act of violence. It was symptomatic of a deeper ideological war being waged against law and order, fueled by political rhetoric and systemic failures in immigration vetting. At the center of this controversy lies a video released by six members of Congress, including Senator Mark Kelly, urging military personnel to “refuse illegal orders” from President Trump. While framed as a constitutional safeguard, critics argue that the video constitutes sedition, a crime punishable by death under U.S. law.

Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, ambushed two West Virginia National Guard members—Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe—near the Farragut West Metro station, just blocks from the White House. Armed with a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver, he critically injured both soldiers before being subdued and hospitalized. Authorities have charged him with assault with intent to kill while armed, with potential escalation to murder charges if the victims succumb to their injuries.1

Lakanwal entered the United States in September 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome, a Biden administration initiative to resettle Afghans who assisted U.S. forces during the war. Approximately 76,000 Afghans were admitted under this program, many on humanitarian parole. Lakanwal, a former Afghan special forces commander who worked closely with U.S. and British troops, was granted asylum in 2025.

While the program aimed to honor commitments to allies, critics argue that vetting was rushed, creating security vulnerabilities. The Trump administration has since halted Afghan immigration processing indefinitely pending review.3

The FBI is investigating whether Lakanwal acted as a lone wolf inspired by jihadist ideology or had operational ties to terrorist networks. While no direct links to ISIS or al-Qaeda have been confirmed, authorities are treating the case as potential international terrorism.4

This incident underscores a broader trend: according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the U.S. has averaged three jihadist plots or attacks per year since 2020, most inspired rather than directed by foreign groups.5

The ideological dimension cannot be ignored. Radical Islamists view Western democracies—and particularly Christian-majority nations like the U.S.—as adversaries. Acts of terror serve as both symbolic and tactical blows against these societies. When political rhetoric within the U.S. appears to legitimize defiance of lawful authority, it creates fertile ground for extremists seeking justification for violence.

Who Were the “Seditious Six?”

1. Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ)

2. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (MI)

3. Rep. Jason Crow (CO)

4. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (PA)

5. Rep. Chris Deluzio (PA)

6. Rep. Maggie Goodlander (NH)6

The lawmakers urged military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders” and uphold the Constitution. While they claimed this was a defense against tyranny, critics—including President Trump—argued that the video that the “seditious six” produced constituted sedition, punishable by death under federal law. The Pentagon is reportedly investigating whether Kelly could be recalled to active duty for court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).67

Legal experts counter that advising troops not to follow unlawful orders is correct under military law. Sedition requires intent to overthrow the government by force, which the video did not explicitly advocate.8  And that’s the problem, because the clear intent was to inspire people like Rahmanullah Lakanwal to do it on their behalf while the “seditious six” claim innocence.

Legal Definitions

• Sedition (18 U.S.C. §2384): Conspiracy to use force to overthrow or oppose U.S. authority or hinder execution of law. Punishable by up to 20 years.9

• Insurrection (18 U.S.C. §2383): Violent rebellion against U.S. authority.10

January 6 Context

Prosecutors charged organized groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys with seditious conspiracy for plotting to block certification of the 2020 election.11

Key Difference

January 6 was a reaction to election fraud—a protest against what participants saw as the destruction of democratic governance. The Kelly video, by contrast, sought to influence military obedience, striking at the heart of civilian control. While both raise constitutional questions, the latter arguably poses a more systemic threat because it undermines the chain of command that preserves a representative government that reports to the people and is obedient to them.  With January 6th, the government was picking our president, so we are dealing with a big difference and a major problem in context.  And it’s the same bad players in all cases.  The political left, and moderates in their back pocket, do not want a representative government that reports to a president they pick.  They want to put a complete loser like Joe Biden in power to rule over the masses as a fourth branch of government that rules from Tyson’s Corner mansions. 

Civilian oversight of the military is not a mere tradition; it is a constitutional mandate. Article II of the Constitution vests executive power in the President, who serves as Commander-in-Chief. This structure prevents military autonomy and ensures accountability through elections.

When elected officials encourage defiance of presidential orders, they erode this foundation. If the military becomes a political actor, democracy collapses into oligarchy or dictatorship. The Kelly video, regardless of intent, introduced ambiguity into a system that depends on clarity.

The Afghan shooter’s attack illustrates the real-world consequences of ideological destabilization. Political rhetoric that delegitimizes lawful authority does not exist in a vacuum; it reverberates globally, influencing actors who seek chaos. Immigration policies that prioritize mass over security compound the risk.

Moreover, the selective application of legal standards—aggressive prosecution of January 6 participants versus leniency toward lawmakers flirting with sedition—undermines public trust. Lawfare becomes a weapon, not a shield, when used to destroy political rivals rather than uphold justice.

The events of November 26, 2025, are a warning. When civilian control of the military is questioned, when immigration vetting fails, and when political discourse normalizes defiance of lawful authority, the republic teeters on the brink. Sedition is not a partisan label; it is a legal reality with grave consequences. Whether the Kelly video meets that threshold will be decided in courts and history books, but its implications are undeniable.

The Afghan shooter’s bullets were not just aimed at two soldiers; they were aimed at the constitutional order itself. Preserving that order requires vigilance—not only against foreign threats but against domestic rhetoric that erodes the foundations of governance.

• Operation Allies Welcome admitted approximately 76,000 Afghans between 2021 and 2022, with DHS reporting that 40% lacked full biometric vetting. [Footnote: DHS Report, 2023]

• CSIS data shows an average of 3 jihadist-inspired plots annually since 2020, with 68% involving lone actors. [Footnote: CSIS Terrorism Trends, 2024]

• Gallup polling (2024) indicates only 45% of Americans trust civilian control of the military, down from 62% in 2010. [Footnote: Gallup, 2024]

Legal Framework:

• Sedition prosecutions surged post-January 6, with DOJ charging 17 individuals under 18 U.S.C. §2384 in 2021–2023. [Footnote: DOJ Annual Report, 2023]

• Comparative analysis: Brazil faced 11 sedition-related prosecutions after Bolsonaro supporters stormed government buildings in 2023. [Footnote: Latin American Security Review, 2024]

Both Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation and Kelly’s video highlight systemic stress points: erosion of institutional norms and the weaponization of rhetoric. Greene’s failure to govern parallels Kelly’s flirtation with sedition—each case underscores the fragility of democratic guardrails when political actors prioritize ideology over institutional responsibility.

Academic Perspectives:

• Huntington’s “The Soldier and the State” remains foundational, warning that politicization of the military invites democratic collapse. [Footnote: Huntington, 1957]

• Recent scholarship (Feaver, 2022) argues that partisan signaling to military personnel correlates with declining trust in democratic institutions. [Footnote: Feaver, 2022]

Policy Recommendations:

1. Reinforce UCMJ clarity on unlawful orders.

2. Mandate bipartisan oversight for immigration vetting programs.

3. Establish congressional ethics review for rhetoric impacting military obedience.

References:

– DHS Report on Operation Allies Welcome (2023)

– CSIS Terrorism Trends (2024)

– Gallup Polling Data (2024)

– DOJ Annual Report (2023)

– Huntington, S. (1957). The Soldier and the State.

– Feaver, P. (2022). Armed Servants: Agency and Control in Civil-Military Relations.

Cross-Reference: Greene’s governance failure illustrates parallel institutional stress.

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

Section 1: Claudia Sheinbaum’s Crisis of Credibility

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

Key Facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scope of Influence:

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

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

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

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

Section 3: Fentanyl—Mexico’s Deadliest Export

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

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

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

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

• Border Seizures:

    • FY 2023: 27,275 lbs (12,370 kg)

    • FY 2024: 21,489 lbs (9,750 kg)

    • FY 2025 YTD: 5,515 lbs (2,500 kg)

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

Economics:

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

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

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

Section 4: The Assassination That Sparked a Revolt

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

Aftermath:

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

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

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

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

Section 5: Venezuela—The Cartel Republic

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

Election Fraud:

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

• International observers condemned the process as illegitimate.

Drug Trade Dynamics:

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

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

Geopolitical Stakes:

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

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

Section 6: The Trump Doctrine—Psychology as Strategy

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

Impact:

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

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

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

Section 7: The Human Cost

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

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

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

Section 8: Why This Matters

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

Solutions:

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

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

3. Deploy Persistent Naval Presence to disrupt trafficking routes.

4. Empower Local Resistance through intelligence and logistical support.

5. Expose Ideological Cover—Marxism cloaked in populism.

Closing Thoughts

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

Affordability in Crisis: Why Price Hikes Are a Symptom of Deeper Economic Mismanagement

 The Illusion of Prosperity

Affordability has become one of the most pressing economic issues of 2025. Everywhere you look—groceries, housing, dining, even basic services—prices have surged. Politicians blame “corporate greed,” consultants preach “raise your prices,” and consumers wonder why their paychecks don’t stretch as far as promised.

I warned about this years ago in my book, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business. The affordability crisis isn’t a mystery—it’s the predictable outcome of government interference, consultant-driven short-term thinking, and a cultural abandonment of lean principles. What we’re seeing now is the result of artificial wage inflation, cost-plus pricing models, and a failure to defend capitalism’s core logic.

Section 1: The Wage-Price Spiral—How Policy Broke the Market

The roots of today’s affordability problem lie in political decisions, not market forces. When Democrats pushed for a $15 minimum wage, they claimed it would lift millions out of poverty. On paper, that sounds noble. In reality, it distorted the entire wage structure.

• Minimum wage hikes ripple upward: When entry-level pay jumps, mid-tier and senior wages follow. Businesses face higher labor costs across the board.

• Inflationary pressure kicks in: To cover these costs, companies raise prices. Consultants reinforce this with “cost-plus” advice—pass it on to the customer.

• Purchasing power stagnates: Even if workers earn more nominally, real wages barely improve because goods and services inflate proportionally.

• Nominal wages rose 78.7% since 2006, but real wages (inflation-adjusted) grew only 11.9%.

• Inflation spiked to 9.1% in June 2022, while wage growth lagged at 4.8%, creating the sharpest negative gap in decades.

• From 2024 to 2025, inflation cooled to ~3%, but real wage gains remain modest—about 0.58%.

Timeline of Key Events:

• 2020: COVID pandemic disrupts labor markets.

• 2021: Stimulus checks and remote work incentives distort supply-demand.

• 2022: Inflation peaks amid supply chain chaos and wage hikes.

• 2025: Affordability crisis persists despite cooling inflation.

Section 2: Consultants and the Cost-Plus Trap

Post-COVID, businesses faced unprecedented disruption: supply chain chaos, labor shortages, and regulatory burdens. Enter the consultants—the self-proclaimed saviors of industry. Their universal advice? “Raise your prices.”

This is the lazy solution. Instead of driving waste out of operations, consultants push cost-plus models that normalize inefficiency. Every added layer—compliance costs, consultant fees, expedited shipping—gets baked into the price. Customers end up paying for waste, not value.

I warned about this in The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business:

“Consultants rarely take risks; they profit from yours. They stand on the sidelines, leeching off success, and when times get tough, they tell you to ‘charge more.’ That’s not strategy—that’s parasitism.”

Section 3: Global Contrast—Lean vs. Bloated

While American firms inflate prices to cover inefficiencies, Japanese manufacturers pursue the opposite: lean manufacturing. Rooted in the Toyota Production System, lean focuses on eliminating waste, optimizing flow, and maximizing customer value.

Toyota vs. Boeing: A Tale of Two Philosophies

• Toyota: Continuous improvement (Kaizen), Just-in-Time inventory, and employee empowerment drive costs out of the system.

• Boeing: Historically relied on cost-plus contracts with government clients, but has adopted lean principles in recent years to remain competitive.

• Boeing’s move toward Toyota-style production—standardization, automation, and flow lines—helped reduce assembly time for the 777X and 737 programs.

Key Insight: Toyota’s lean culture treats waste elimination as a moral imperative. Boeing, under pressure from SpaceX and Airbus, is learning that lean isn’t optional—it’s survival. 

Section 4: SpaceX—The Lean Disruptor

SpaceX represents the next generation of manufacturing efficiency. By vertically integrating production and reusing rocket boosters, SpaceX slashed launch costs by over 90%—from $25,000/kg to under $1,500/kg.

Compare that to Boeing and Lockheed’s United Launch Alliance (ULA), which historically charged $400 million per launch. Even after aggressive cost-cutting, ULA’s Vulcan rocket costs $110 million—still far above SpaceX’s $69 million Falcon 9 price.

Why SpaceX Wins:

• Reusability: 98% of Falcon 9 boosters reused.

• Vertical Integration: In-house production of engines and avionics.

• Lean Thinking: Eliminates waste at every stage, from design to launch.

Section 5: Post-COVID Price Chaos

COVID didn’t just disrupt supply chains—it rewired pricing behavior. Firms increased the frequency and size of price changes, often without corresponding improvements in value.

Drivers of inflation post-2020:

• Supply shocks: Energy volatility and shipping delays.

• Demand surges: Stimulus-fueled spending and pent-up consumption.

• Labor market distortions: Remote work incentives and wage bargaining power.

Instead of addressing structural inefficiencies, businesses defaulted to price hikes. Consultants validated this approach, creating a culture of inflationary complacency.

Section 6: Affordability vs. Value—The Chef Ramsay Analogy

Not all high prices are bad. I once paid $4,500 for a dinner at Chef Ramsay’s flagship restaurant in London. Why? The experience justified the cost, offering world-class cuisine, impeccable service, and a behind-the-scenes kitchen tour. That’s value-driven pricing.

Contrast that with a $12 fast-food burger inflated to $18 because of wage mandates and consultant fees. The product didn’t improve; the price did. That’s the essence of the affordability crisis: customers paying more for the same—or worse—experience.  In these examples, it’s all food. The only difference is essentially in the value of the brand built.  Nobody is going to confuse a Chef Ramsey restaurant with the McDonald’s experience.  But even McDonald’s these days is showing really high prices for something where the real value is in affordability.  And the less they cover their margin, the more temptation there is to raise their prices, which then makes fewer people use them for a cheap hamburger on the go.  Everyone loses when prices are raised in this process.

Section 7: Solutions—How to Restore Market Logic

1. Reinstate Market-Driven Wages

    • Stop politicizing pay scales. Let supply and demand set labor value.

2. Drive Waste Out

    • Adopt lean principles: eliminate inefficiencies instead of passing them to customers.

3. Reward True Value

    • Premium pricing should reflect premium experience—not bureaucratic overhead.

4. Reject Consultant Dependency

    • Build internal expertise. Consultants should advise, not dictate.

5. Defend Capitalism

    • Capitalism thrives on competition and efficiency—not government micromanagement or parasitic intermediaries.

The Gunfighter’s Perspective

In The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, I infused into this discussion:

“If you want to shoot down the bandits in the street, don’t hire a posse of consultants who only loot the carcass after the fight. Learn to aim, pull the trigger, and own the risk.  And take the rewards for yourself, don’t share them with the parasites.  The dandies, who only come after all the hard stuff is done, only steal what is won in the fight after.”

That philosophy matters now more than ever. Affordability isn’t about price tags—it’s about value, efficiency, and courage to reject easy answers.

From the book:

“Shooting from the hip is an example of quality and delivery that should be sought after, not avoided.”
(The book reframes quick, decisive action as a strength in business.) [amazon.com]

“America’s Art of War — this book should be taught in every business school in America.”
(Positioning the book as a modern interpretation of strategic classics.) [amazon.com]

“They may have traded their six guns for ties, pens, and emails, but the goals are the same as they have always been: success!”
(Drawing parallels between gunfighters and modern professionals.) [amazon.com]

“A new view of management is unleashed here, termed by the author as ‘ghosting it.’”
(An original concept in the book about leadership and obscure objectives.) [bookstore….ishing.com]

“The old West is not dead but instead is very much alive as we aim our business goals toward space and look to conquer the next frontier.”

Closing Thoughts

America’s affordability crisis is self-inflicted. We let politics override economics, consultants override common sense, and waste override value. The solution isn’t another round of price hikes—it’s a return to market discipline and operational excellence.

If you want more on this, read The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business. It’s not just a book—it’s a manifesto for reclaiming capitalism from the parasites and restoring sanity to the marketplace.  I knew when I wrote that book that a tough time was coming, and everything is happening exactly as I said it would.  So I’m not just trying to sell you a book so I can fly my family to London to take them out to eat at Chef Ramsey’s signature restaurant again. The book has been out for a few years now, and it’s done what I intended.  But it would help everyone with this current crisis.  At the point where I wrote that book, I had watched for decades as consultants gutted the businesses they intended to help, because they were essentially parasites by nature.  Not that they meant to be that way, but that was their character.  And when it comes to all these affordability problems, it has been layers of Marxism hiding behind capitalism for a long time that caused the problem, and by another kind of evil, that is precisely what is driving people toward more Marxism because the consultants have essentially blamed the free market for everything, when it is too much tampering and collective value that has caused all the trouble.  So with this debate fully resurrected in a healthy Trump economy, it’s time to talk about the details, and when it comes to that, I literally wrote the book on the subject.  Something I have found is that everyone else in the consulting firms is only dancing around because they can’t look in the mirror and admit they’ve always been part of the problem.

Rich Hoffman

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