Tag: MAGA

Too Much Compliance Will Destroy Your Business: When they put a gun to your head, don’t follow their rules

One of the most foolish things anyone can be is too compliant.  It’s one thing to follow the rules, as everyone agrees to them.  However, compliance for its own sake is a misguided approach.  People should question reality more, and they certainly should question the kind of people who make the rules by considering the cost of those rules.  Many individuals in the world create rules that primarily benefit themselves and rely on a group of people who are too compliant to question those rules, thereby fueling a great deal of evil in the world.  I interact with many people in high-compliance industries, so what I’m talking about is based on a lot of personal observation that is a serious impediment to productive enterprise, and it’s such a problem that it deserves a topic of its own.  Something that doesn’t get dealt with nearly enough.  When a robber holds a gun to your head and says, “stick ’em up.”  And then proceeds to rob you of everything you’re worth, leaving you entirely at the mercy of the villain; that’s a bad thing.  Then, once the robber has robbed you and you have complied with everything they said, hoping that they would then reward you by letting you live another day, everything you gave up would be expected to pay that price.  But the robber shoots you in the head anyway.  We could point to many times in history where this kind of thing happens, nice, compliant people end up dead and thrown away like dogs, just because they did what they were told to do by people making rules intentionally meant to get control over masses of people for malicious purposes.  And as much as it’s uncomfortable to hear, many of the rules we have in society were made by people with bad intentions. 

So in high-compliance industries, like finance or the legal profession, doing what you’re told to do is a bad idea.  Because the rules never favor the person with a gun to their head.  So if you do what they ask you to do, don’t be surprised when they shoot you after they’ve robbed you blind.  As I have said many times and have made it quite clear in my book, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, the rules in the world are often made by the losers so that they can have a world that makes them competitive to their betters, people who actually know what’s going on.  Many people in the world are not very intelligent, and they want to feel equal to those who are exceptionally skilled. To achieve this, they often enter professions that involve creating rules, thereby feeling more equitable.  And if allowed, which they have been in America to far too great an extent, they will ruin society as a whole.  And people, most people are too lazy to question the rules that are made for them, so they fall on the crutch of compliance to justify their laziness.  “I was just doing as I was told,” as if to justify evil with the merit of following directions.  This isn’t the kind of rule following that would make it logical not to go out and kill people, or not to speed down a sidewalk with a motorcycle that is crowded with people as a reckless operation.  This is an overly litigious society full of know-nothings who hide their cowardness behind too many rules and regulations to the point of personal destruction that they use to feed off the very few in life who actually do anything. 

The way to win against those who count on compliance to rule the world is to do what they don’t expect you to do.  Do not let the hoop setters dictate the battlefield, as they intend to impress observers by setting them on fire as you jump through them.  Do not be compliant with the rules that those types of people make, and allow them to rule over you with the fake value of compliance.  Because once the show is done, they will do away with you, as people have always done through history, and that is, they’ll shoot you in the head anyway.  After they’ve taken everything you’re worth.  The people holding a gun to your head are not ever going to be your friends.  They aren’t concerned about your well-being.  You can appease them with niceness and hope to be given a break.  You must reclaim from them what you have given away through compliance.  You need to break the rules they have set up to trap you by being defiant and forcing them out of their comfort zone if you genuinely want to win at life.  You will never win if you follow the directions of those who wish to destroy you.  Playing by the rules that evil people come up with will only lead you to your own destruction, because these are the kind of people who live off the lives of others.  They are ruthless beyond logic, and they exist in the multitudes.  So don’t be a sucker, and certainly don’t be compliant.  To me, being a sucker and being compliant mean the same thing.  Nothing good comes from it, and your eventual destruction is all those rule makers really care about. 

Obviously, I’m speaking to a lot of people here.  I’m thinking of several things at once that are equally applicable, involving many hundreds of people directly and many thousands indirectly. I take opportunities like this to speak to them all at once.  And when you take the gun out of the hands of the bad guys and turn it on them to pull the trigger ruthlessly, everyone will understand why.  But as a general practice, it’s worth pointing out that you can’t make America Great Again if those who aren’t very great are making rules that punish good people from doing good things in the world.  If bad people are making the rules, we will have a bad society.  We enjoy Trump in the White House because he understands how to turn these rules against the perpetrators, and he has made a lot of money over the years by exploiting the systems that bad people have created against them, which is what everyone should be doing.  Don’t follow the rules that bad people have made.  Do not be compliant with fools.  The world needs more good people to push back against stupidity.  And that is far more valuable than following directions when someone puts a gun to your head.  Remove that gun before they get too comfortable, and turn it back on them.  And use that gun to save yourself, and the goodness you have in you to make the world better.  The world can always lose a few more parasites, and most of the rule makers in the world are nothing more.  We’d all be better off with fewer of them.  So, don’t feel bad about taking their evil intentions and turning them against them.  And be ruthless in the process.  They deserve it.  They asked for it.  And for God’s sake, don’t listen to their cries for mercy.  Destroy them, because that’s what is best for the world. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Truth Kamala Harris and All Democrats, Can’t Handle: In ‘107 Days,’ every day only eroded support

There is more that has been exposed than just the rise of the MAGA movement against a backdrop of authority figure Marxism.  And that was a theme that kept coming to me as I read Kamala Harris’s new book, 107 Days.  Yes, it is garbage, but I’ll read anything, just as I’ll listen to just about anybody, so I can make reasonable conclusions about things, even if it’s from people I don’t like or agree with on much of everything.  And her book is complete with the worst kind of fiction; it’s presented as a fact when the actual content is blisteringly fantastical in its scope.  And this is true of everything from the radical political left, where they think something and can make it so with the power of their observing it.  Such as deciding one day that a man is a woman.  That anal sex is just as natural as vaginal intercourse, that the rest of the world is equal, when in reality, they struggle to make bubble gum wrappers.  And that all facts and figures can be manipulated until reality is forced to agree with them at the point of mass authority rule over a docile and complicit society that has never grown up and away from their parents, and wants an overwhelming government power to rule over their perpetual insecurities. What has fallen apart most devastatingly for the Marxist left, for which the world’s socialist and communist governments have emerged to various degrees, is the sting of reality.  And that is what Kamala’s book most clearly conveys: the degree to which they have lied to their own faces, denying the nature of reality itself, which they are at war with.  The political left despises the truth about the world, and they have been at odds with it; if there is anything that is most devastating to their movement, it’s that all their fantasies have fallen apart under the scrutiny of reality. 

So let’s revisit this notion that I talked about extensively at that time, and which is the essential theme of Kamala Harris’s book, which she has said while on her media tour, giving the whole thing away under press questioning, there is nothing Kamala could have done with more time to run that could have helped her.  Her entirely fictional premise was that if only she could have run a regular campaign, she could have performed better in the 2024 election.  She could not have done better than she did; in fact, for every day she was in the presidential race, she bled support.  She didn’t gain it.  The more people heard from Kamala Harris, the less they liked her.  She wouldn’t have been able to build any support; her campaign was a complete fabrication created by people who thought they controlled the entire narrative and could autopilot her into office, just as they had been running Joe Biden’s campaign all along.  Kamala was not very likable; she came across as someone who had slept her way to the top, and people didn’t like her.  Her best support was the day she announced she was running, once Joe Biden had been pushed out.  Before many people heard her talk, there were a certain number of not very well-informed people who would vote for her because she was a woman of color, and nothing else.  Her most popular day in the campaign was the first day.  On day 107, as the book attempts to erase, her support had eroded as more people heard her talk and got to know her a bit.  The more she opened her mouth, the less people liked her. 

Kamala Harris, in her book, repeatedly mentioned that the 2024 election was the closest in history, which is another example of Democrats seeking something to rally behind.  Trump won 312 electoral votes to Kamala’s 226.  Most of the states where Harris won were states with very loose election laws, such as those allowing mail-in ballots and not requiring voters to show ID at the polling booth.  So when we talk about Trump having a landslide, 312 is a pretty significant number these days, given that things are so heavily leveraged to favor Democrats, at least until President Trump came along.  That’s also why Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College so they can mass manipulate the way we count votes so that a few states with loose laws can win.  As I say all the time, if Democrats don’t cheat, they can’t win, because they are the seriously minority party in America, and they have only kept things close through election fraud.  In the popular vote, Trump had 77,302,580 million votes to Kamala’s 75,017,613.  That is out of 155,238,302 total voters, which is a very high number.  But lets just call it as they say it is, out of all the voters that there are in America, with a population of 342,034,432 million including all the people who are under 18 and can’t yet vote, where would Democrats close that gap of the 2 million that they fell short on, assuming you had a clean election with no election fraud whatsoever?  And that is the real problem that planners faced when making the decision to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris.  They had that plan all along, and they used that June debate with Trump to set up the real story.  It was a desperation shot to put in a woman at the last minute and hope that the math worked in their favor.  But they knew the truth all along.

In 2020, Trump received 74,216,154 votes, just three million fewer than his 2024 total, which was 77,223,615, while Joe Biden received 81,268,924.  Where were all those voters in the 2020 election?  The answer is, of course, that roughly 10 million, likely more, of the votes for Democrats were produced illegally by mail-in ballots cast under the new Covid rules, and the election was rigged entirely from the top down.  The FBI knew it because they assisted with the effort at the Capitol Building on January 6th, when people arrived extremely angry that Trump was being pushed out of office.  The FBI planted over 274 people into the audience to provoke them into violence so that the narrative of the election fraud could shift to some made-up insurrection and put people on their heels to the massive reality that the election had been stolen.  And we can prove it because Democrats were caught not being able to duplicate the numbers of the 2020 election when the rules had returned to normal in 2024.  And if states that voted for Kamala over Trump had to play by more rigorous rules, with voter ID and much more restricted mail-in balloting, they would have lost even more voters than they actually did, which is likely overstated by more than 5 million votes.  Because there aren’t that many people dumb enough to vote for Democrats, and they know it.  The illusion they have lived with through election fraud and a media that sold their socialist fantasy as a reality has been eradicated from the public scene, and they have no means of stopping that process.  And Kamala’s book only spells it out grotesquely for them, rather than changing the nature of reality in the way they wish it would be.  More time for Kamala Harris would have eroded her numbers even more.  But they couldn’t afford to have Joe Biden run again and come nowhere close to his original 81 million with a performance 10 million less.  People would have been outraged by the obviousness of it all.  So their best shot, Democrats, of concealing the election fraud of 2020 was to hope that Kamala would change the numbers because she was a woman and because she was a person of color, which gave her a few throwaway votes.  But the more people heard from her, the less they liked her, and there was nothing she could have done to change that.  And that is the truth of all future elections. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Arrest of James Comey: Bring a sword, don’t turn the other cheek

I feel like spiking the football on the James Comey indictment and arrest that occurred just shy of his statute of limitations expiring after five years, at the end of September 2025.  His crimes are actually far more extensive than the obstruction of justice and lying to Congress that they put his way.  And once again, I think one of the best experiences I have ever had in life was the period I spent as the foreman of a grand jury, so I know very well what kind of cases prosecutors bring forth and how the evidence is presented and discussed.  And how a grand jury handles multiple cases, not just one.  You get a chance to talk to a lot of legal people and see how different prosecutors react to other cases.  So I can understand why there was reluctance to prosecute James Comey.  There is a whole Deep State of career political people who could make life very difficult for future administrations, because in their minds, Trump will come and go.  Many of these individuals believe they will have entire careers in government and will last through many future presidents, so they approach them with a tongue-in-cheek attitude, as if our system of management from the White House were an inconvenience that they sneer at.  And they treat the rest of us the same, as if the power of the Administrative State was far superior to the voters whom they are supposed to serve.  James Comey and the government workers like him think they are superior to the basic intellect of the average American and that they can lie to our faces and not face any punishment for the deceit.  And with James Comey, I called him out a long time ago, in May 2017, just a few months into Trump’s first term, where I was one of the first people in the country to call him a liar.

CNN was looking to dislodge Trump supporters from the new president at the time, so they came to Butler County to speak to a hard-core group of Trump advocates.  We met at a local sports bar and watched live on television, with CNN producers, as Comey testified after Trump fired him from his role as FBI Director.  This was an all-day event, and later that night, we would gather on Anderson Cooper’s show to share our reactions to the testimony.  CNN hoped that Butler County would start to doubt their support for Trump with the horror of firing Comey, who at the time was thought of as America’s squeaky-clean Boy Scout, beyond refute.  But what I said shocked the producers, and they let me know it after the cameras were off and the live feed had concluded.  I said when asked on the air that I thought James Comey was more like Eliot Ness from the famous Al Capone mob cases in Chicago.  But what he turned out to be was more like Ian Fleming, the James Bond novelist.  And that the FBI Director was more inclined to fiction, which I thought was a nice way of saying that he was a liar.   Well, at that time, that was a shocking statement, and that was one of the last television interviews that I ever did.  Before that, I appeared frequently on radio and television; producers would seek my opinion on various topics, and I would offer it.  But after that, things changed dramatically.  I didn’t care because my own media efforts were much more potent.  I found it much more rewarding to express my thoughts than to try to fit into a producer’s narrative.  However, that fracture indeed occurred that night after the CNN segment.

That was 8 years ago, and the information was self-evident.  It took that long to reach justice in indicting James Comey.  And like most deceitful people who get caught in these terrible scandals, he sought mass collectivism to shield himself from personal judgment.  To show what a manipulative loser he really is before this indictment, which he knew was coming, he put out a video attempting to get support from Taylor Swift’s audience, hoping to manipulate pop culture soothsayers to his side, and to pit them against Trump.  This is actually a much more dangerous trait that indicates a deeper problem at the FBI and how they handle cases in a mass society.  We’ll talk about the way the FBI planted 274 agents into the J6 crowd to accelerate activism and cause trouble.  The FBI has been picking winners and losers for a long time, grossly abusing its authority in multiple cases.  Which is why they thought they’d get away with this Russian story on driving Trump out of office.  So yes, I saw it well in advance and I said so on national television, and I turned out to be right about everything, even when the world took a hard turn toward regime suppression just a few years later in 2020 with Covid and election fraud to throw Trump out of office.  It seemed that the bad guys truly had the kind of control that James Comey thought shielded them from reality.  And that he and the FBI could abuse their power to maintain a political order that they thought was more appropriate, a Taylor Swift kind of progressivism, they were going to impose on us whether we liked it or not.

So this is actually a grave crime, not just an FBI Director who went bad and abused his power to throw out an elected official from the White House that he disagreed with.  This is about a fourth branch of government that thinks it exists beyond voter approval, and this goes back to the killing of JFK and the getting rid of Richard Nixon.  And that’s why it was so absurd to everyone when Trump was elected that he would actually last, let alone serve a second term.  The CNN guys that night told me in the parking lot that we were all living in a bubble with our support of Trump, and that it was a regional issue.  That the rest of the world would disregard us as backward and out of touch.  And it made me so angry that I stopped answering calls from media producers and participating in their shows, because they all pretty much thought the same way as these people at CNN.  And after eight years, they all turned out to be very wrong, and I was right.  And they are all on the way out, and my position is stronger than ever, and it all feels pretty redeeming.  So I’m thrilled to see bad things happening to James Comey, and I want to see even more happen to people who are just as bad as he is.  Those who believe that an unelected form of government should be allowed to hold power need a reality check, and that’s what’s happening now.  It’s not revenge for what these same people did to Trump and many of us who supported him.  Although revenge is very appropriate, I would encourage people not to turn the other cheek, as Jesus said in Matthew 5:39, but to do as Jesus said in Matthew 10:34: ‘Do not bring peace, but a sword.’  We must fight evil wherever we find it, and James Comey was a facilitator of evil, hiding behind a deceitful façade.  And he has to be made an example of, and I am thrilled to see that day arrive.

Rich Hoffman

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

Carrying the Weight of the World: Trump’s UN Speech and earning the right to be blunt about escalators

Who wouldn’t love the UN speech of 2025 that President Trump gave, as the escalator broke as soon as he and Melania put their feet on it?  That’s the world we are living in, and obviously, the escalator incident was no accident.  Employees joked about the escalators’ malfunctioning leading up to that speech as a radical means of protest, hoping to garner more funding for the United Nations, as if additional resources would solve all the problems.  Instead, Trump and his wife walked up the escalator without a whole lot of drama and gave a speech that essentially wiped the smile off the face of a very radical world that has failed dramatically since the creation of the UN after World War II.  It wasn’t the usual speech of placation that often accompanies these kinds of things, with calls for unity, peace, and all that kind of rhetoric.  No, Trump had earned the right to call out everyone, right in front of their faces, and tell them what a bunch of low-life characters they all were.  And that is what earning the right by carrying the weight of the world earns you.  And why Trump changing positions on Russia is so important, because only by earning that trust, by enduring the weight of the world, can a person like Trump say the things he does in public.  The UN speech was a remarkable statement by a world that the United States was clearly leading.  All nations were not there equally.  Running the world by committee has turned out to be a disaster, and it took someone like Trump to point it out.  Not through the media with some passive-aggressive protest, but live, to their faces.  And while everyone was on their heels from what he was saying, they complained that the UN doesn’t work, and neither do its escalators or its teleprompters.  Technical sabotage was meant to throw Trump off his game, but it ultimately played to his advantage.

But to earn that right to be as blunt as Trump has been, carrying the weight of the world comes first, and when people wonder why people like Melania Trump and her husband would want to trade in their life of the rich and famous for this demanding job of being President of the United States, the answer comes from speeches like the one Trump gave.  Watching their faces on the 9/11 ceremony this year, the day after Charlie Kirk, a former friend of theirs, was assassinated in cold blood, was obviously hard for them.  And on the day of the speech, the would-be progressive assassin Ryan Wesley Routh was convicted on all counts in trying to plot the murder of Trump at his golf course, just a few months after the attempted assassination of the President at Butler, Pennsylvania, that drew blood, but had only clipped his ear.  Charlie Kirk wasn’t so lucky, and that was obviously weighing on Trump as he and his wife went through the rituals of 9/11 ceremonies to pay tribute to the most significant act of terrorism that ever occurred on American soil.  More terrorism on a larger scale than the escalator sabotage at the UN, but the same in principle.  And the knowledge that after someone of good character had just been killed on a college campus, many on the Democrat side of politics cheered about it, and to discover that so many of our public school teachers were happy that Kirk was dead, and were gloating about it.   The weight of all that evil when you are in a job like the one in the White House can really make you not want to get up out of bed in the morning.

Then, to add to that, the deceit of Vladimir Putin of Russia, who has been saying one thing about peace all along, while turning around and killing many thousands of people on both sides, ruthlessly can really shake your faith in any kind of relationship.  Even Benjamin Netanyahu has been deceitful in his platitudes of peace, while turning around and acting contrary, being very aggressive, knowing that the United States would always bail him out of any trouble he got into.  So he was picking fights anyway, putting Trump in a terrible position.  The evil that people showed, and being in a position to see it so bluntly, was really wearing on the President, as it does most people who find themselves in that perspective.  Leadership is hard when you know so much truth that most people get to dance through without too much thought.  And that leads to the question of why anyone would want to be a leader of anything, whether it’s the President of the United States or the CEO of a company.  Why would anybody want to put themselves through the ordeal of all the trouble?  Especially when they are wealthy and could choose otherwise?  Knowing the worst in people, because your perspective reveals it to you, why would anybody want to do it?  To know too much and to carry around so much weight, knowing the level of hatred in the world around you.  Most people never encounter this kind of situation because their relationships maintain an illusion of civility.  But Trump is seeing the raw evil that can come from people, and he never gets a break from it.  It’s tough to use the Power of Positive Thinking to overcome such menacing negative thinking, and the Democrats are the party of negativity and below-the-line victimization.

Well, you do it so that you get a chance to go to the United Nations and tell them all what you think of them.  You endure the pain of life so that you can throw it in their faces.  And in doing so, you make the world a bit less crappy because of the people in it.  The United Nations was a failure from the start, but it was able to hide its poor performance behind the evils of humanity.  And as long as people kept the speeches nice, nobody talked about the tough stuff.  And everyone could party on the town, buying prostitutes while away from home, and go to fancy restaurants without any real cares in the world.  But to pull that off, everyone needs to be equally trashy and guilty of the crimes that the world enjoyed.  But by carrying the weight of the world the way that Trump does, from a leadership perspective, he can break protocol and tell people what he thinks of them, because everyone he’s talking to knows they can’t do the same.  Their guilt weighs heavily on their minds, burdening them with the truth of it all.  And that is why it’s worth being in a leadership position.  And without all the pain and the desire to carry it from the White House, nobody earns the right to talk about the real problems.  And this United Nations meeting would be just one more eventless charade.  But because Trump has suffered through some terrible weeks where the worst that people can do to each other was made evident, and he smiles his way through it like nothing in the world can bother him, he earns the right to be critical of escalators that don’t work, or global organizations that fail just as spectacularly.  And that he can broker peace with the biggest nations of the world, who are up to no good, because he has been willing to carry the burdens of knowledge that comes from really knowing the deceit that people are capable of.  And we are all better off for it.

Rich Hoffman

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

I Love War: The greatest joy in life is destroying your enemies

Erika Kirk’s statements at the memorial service for her husband were nice, but it has been something that has come up in my direction many more times than a few this past week.  I am more aligned with what President Trump said about his enemies: I hate them.  I don’t want to get along with them.  And I would be bored to death in life if I didn’t have someone to fight.  The idea of going to Heaven and sitting around playing a harp on a cloud all day for eternity is not appealing.  Forgiving enemies is not something I will ever do.  I love war, and I love being in fights with other people.  I love to destroy my enemies.  That destruction either happens fast or it happens over a great many years, depending on the circumstance.  But one way or another, the destruction of my enemies is something that is going to happen, and I spend a lot of my life thinking about it.  The idea of waking up every morning, sipping coffee, and watching the dew gather on blades of grass without having to fight is incredibly dull to me, and I would not be happy.  So even though the concept of Christianity is to forgive your enemies and all kinds of platitudes that I think were incorrectly interpreted over time into organized religion, that is where my thoughts end on these kinds of things.  I may share a lot of values with very religious people, but if there is no conflict involved in communicating those ideas, then I lose interest really fast.  Because to me, the fight is the only thing that matters, and if people aren’t fighting, they aren’t trying to get to the truth of a matter. 

Human beings are so deceitful; they have numerous value systems that protect their motivations behind the creative lies that surround their lives intensely.  That is the first problem with a society of peace: a lot of truth gets buried behind deceit.  When people ask me why I can sniff out so much truth about things, and have over a long period of time, it’s because I like to fight for that truth about people.  The pressure of conflict brings about the truth in people and exposes them from their hiding places.  In my experience, that is the only way to understand what people are all about truly.  Otherwise, they will conceal their true thoughts behind the façade of polite society.  If you love the truth, you have to love the means of extracting it from society in general, and the only real way to do that is through conflict.  People often reveal a great deal about themselves through conflict that they would otherwise conceal.  Along with war, I love uncovering the truth about things.  Whatever that truth may be.  I love war because I love the truth, and you can only learn it through conflict.  Because people, all people, will lie to protect their version of the truth until their dying day, if they are allowed to.  The reason for conflict is to settle differing ideas about things.  And to avoid war is to suppress the truth about what those things might be in favor of some common understanding that is usually a watered-down version of reality.  So the assumption of peace is the surrender of the truth, as people are willing to fight for it.  And that lowers the value of a society in general as a result. 

I suppose this has arisen recently, before Erika Kirk made her statements, because many truly reprehensible individuals believed they had some leverage over me.  And they have been very frustrated by my reaction to their aggressions.  Most people conduct strategies assuming that peace is the motivating factor in a human being.  To wake up in the morning and be left alone so that everything is just perfect.  I don’t see the world like that.  If there isn’t something to fight, then I’m bored.  So when I have a lot of enemies trying to plot my demise, I am far happier than if everyone just left me alone.  Many people are frustrated by my approach because they assumed, like most people, that I would do anything for peace.  They should have done their homework.  Ever since I was a little kid, most of my thoughts have been about war and fighting someone over something.  That’s why I love politics.  That’s why I love the business world.  That’s why I like most things, because they involve people, and those people are often at cross-purposes with each other. I love uncovering the truth behind concealed smiles and handshakes.  I never sit down with people and look for common ground or ways to enjoy another person.  I want to challenge them, with everyone, and to discover what it is they don’t want to be known for to the world.  I never assume that my interactions with anyone will be peaceful, and if they are, I lose interest in those people quickly.  In my youth, I wore army fatigues everywhere, under every circumstance, because they reminded me of my love for constant fighting.  I never wanted to join the military to “serve.”  Serving others was always a misguided idea because what if, in doing so, those people were found to be unworthy of my dedication, which is a common discovery in all institutionalism.  However, the fighting aspect has always been appealing. 

The teachings of Jesus are appealing ideas on the surface.  But if you like the truth of a matter, you will either be killed for it, as Jesus was, and John the Baptist was, and as was Charlie Kirk, and many others.  Or you will have to fight everyone, and like it.  And that means everyone, because most people are very deceitful even within their families.  There are plenty of fights, and if you want to know the truth about things, you’d better be willing to fight for it.  Fighting is more than just the physical aspect, because humans are very emotional creatures; they create many layers of deceit in their lives to protect themselves from the harm of judgment.  And the more people you deal with, the more deceit you can expect to be exposed to.  The only way to get to the truth of anything is through conflict, in stripping away the things people use to protect themselves so you can get to the foundation of their intellects.  Such a thing is never given up voluntarily; you have to pound away at their defenses to know who they really are, which only happens under duress.  So, if many people have found that they now have a handful with me, they should have thought about things a bit more carefully.  I am only thrilled when the world around me is on fire, and that is how it will always be with me, even in Heaven.  Heaven to me would be at the gates of Hell putting evil’s heads on a pike and spitting on their tortured bodies.  Everyone else can play a harp at the golden gates of Heaven and sing songs to each other in a quest for peace.  Which, for me, is the same as serving an obligation toward dishonesty.  Only in war do people really tell the truth, even in Heaven.

Rich Hoffman

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

I Disagree with Erika Kirk: Forgiveness is not an option, the world will never be the same

The psychology of the Charlie Kirk memorial service at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, will forever change America.  While I disagree with Erika Kirk, as she said she forgave her husband’s killer, I’m not that kind of person.  It might be a good “Christian” thing to do, but when it comes to professional religions, that’s where my off ramp is.  I might share values with people who have deep religious convictions, but I am not humble or forgiving.  And as I said recently in answer to what many tried to point out to me in the wake of the Charlie Kirk murder, I simply love war, fighting, and destroying enemies.  And I don’t want to live in a world, or in an everlasting state in Heaven, where I am not at war with my enemies and destroying them for the injustice they do in the world.  I would be bored to death.  But I get what she and the more than 277,000 people who filled up the football stadium and the surrounding area where the Arizona Cardinals play NFL games were thinking.  It was one of the most significant public memorials for a public political figure in history, and the impact of that violence had changed the American consciousness.  Many millions more people watched the proceedings all over the world, and it’s safe to say that life will never be the same after the murder and brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk.  Forgiveness is not appropriate.  But it’s a nice gesture.  For people seeking meaning in their lives and who had been considering organized religion, I think this event gave them a reason to take the plunge, and that America changed for the better in the wake of the tragedy.  Almost as if the whole terrible thing were part of God’s plan all along. 

But let’s talk about the many firings that have been going on of teachers and other public officials working for the government who have been celebrating this assassination.  We almost came to this point with President Trump when he was nearly shot in the same way at Butler, Pennsylvania.  Nobody should celebrate a murder of another person.  If the shoe were on the other foot, I wouldn’t celebrate the killing of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or anybody I can’t stand in politics.  The people celebrating the killing of a really good person in Charlie Kirk have no redeeming value.  They aren’t worth saving, or working with.  And any notions that Democrats had about living in a coexistence under government with such radical notions of right and left politics are now over.  They crossed a line, and people will never want to work with them again, because they showed themselves for what they really are: terrible people out for the destruction of the human race.  And perpetuators of a vile evil that deserves to be eradicated from society.  If there is any good that came from this horrendous murder, it is because of people’s unified reaction to it in a mass way.  There aren’t many people who could fill a stadium like that for a memorial service, and the silent majority that has always been out there has some extreme opinions on the matter.  Religion might tell them to forgive the vile creatures of evil disposition.  Erika Kirk might not have room in her grief to nurture conditions that combat evil itself.  But America will never go back to what it was, a country with a high tolerance for different beliefs, even if those beliefs were destructive and vile, as many of the thoughts of Democrats are.  There has always been an assumption of tolerance that has now been ripped away. 

It’s not a free speech protection to disclose to the world as a school teacher that you support violence where a public assassination took place, and to expect to keep their jobs.  It is a statement of what a lowlife the protestor is, and we don’t want to share space with those kinds of people.  We don’t want to see them at the grocery store.  We don’t want to work with them.  We don’t want our kids going to school with them and sharing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.  We don’t want to know about their dumb parents or their lives in any way.  We don’t want to share elections with them where they vote for open communists and socialists for political offices.  We have reached a breaking point, where, for too many years, we have been too forgiving of terrible people, and we have watched as they have grown in confidence in working against America’s values, to the point where it has made us miserable.  And while forgiveness is an admirable trait, I think of Joshua and the wrath of Yahweh in these kinds of times, and I don’t believe the father of Jesus wants such horrible people to continue to exist, and that we are justified to eliminate them from our lives because they are beyond redemption.  We may not go out and slaughter them all under the sword and put their heads on a pike for people to spit on, which is what my advice would be if I were talking at the Charlie Kirk memorial.  But we certainly don’t want to pay them with public money to do jobs in government if that is how they really feel.  The times of live and let live are now over. 

The corruption of the Israelites after the conquest of Canaan, as the Book of Judges begins to explore, especially in the story of Samson and Delilah, who he sought to use as an excuse to love, comes to mind.  You cannot unify with treachery.  They will seek to take away your strength at every juncture and to blind you to observe their vast evil by cutting out your eyes.  And they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.  And when the Jewish people failed to kill the evil doers in their society as God had instructed, and let them hang around and live in a shared space with them, God punished them many times over with their destruction.  Because they didn’t listen.  History has many Jezebels who became entangled in evil because society did not apply justice to their wicked deeds, and many people suffered unjustly as a result.  And I think the Charlie Kirk memorial was the end of the line for that mistaken approach over many thousands of years.  And that evil showed itself in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, and we have decided we don’t like it.  And we don’t want to employ them.  We don’t want to share a country with them.  We don’t want them clogging up our jails and our welfare system.  There is no saving such evil, and now that we know what they really think in polite society, it’s time not to be so courteous.  And this isn’t a time for forgiveness.  It’s a time to draw a line in the sand and not share the earth with such evil people who cannot be reasoned with.  We can’t live with cancer cells taking over our body and we can’t have people with such hate that killed Charlie Kirk roaming around our streets and sharing a box of chicken nuggets with us at a local Dairy Queen.  And the judgments that are about to come are healthy and correct.  But not forgivable. 

Rich Hoffman

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

The Painted Concrete: Let the lover leave and learn the hard way

In the unfolding political drama of New York City, Zohran Mamdani has emerged as a compelling figure—a charismatic, progressive candidate whose platform promises sweeping reforms aimed at increasing affordability, promoting equity, and advancing social justice. As a self-described democratic socialist, Mamdani has galvanized a significant portion of the electorate, particularly younger voters and working-class communities, with proposals that include rent freezes, city-owned grocery stores, fare-free public transportation, and a $30 minimum wage by 2030. His campaign is not just a political movement; it is a cultural moment, a rebellion against the status quo, and a romanticized vision of a city reimagined through socialist ideals.

But beneath the surface of this enthusiasm lies a more profound concern—one that echoes through history and personal experience alike. The allure of radical change, especially when framed as a rebellion against perceived injustice, often blinds people to the long-term consequences of their decisions. Just as the excitement of an affair might tempt a spouse, voters may be seduced by the promises of a candidate like Mamdani, not because they fully understand or agree with his policies, but because they are rebelling against what they see as a broken system. The danger is not in the ideas themselves, but in the romanticization of rebellion, in the belief that anything different must be better.

And I would argue that sometimes the most effective way to confront such movements is not through resistance, but through allowance. Let the people vote for Mamdani. Let them experience the reality of his policies. Let them see, before it’s too late, what socialism and communism look like when implemented in a city as complex and economically diverse as New York. The goal is not to punish or shame, but to reveal—to strip away the green paint from the concrete and expose the cold, hard surface beneath.  When they say the grass is always greener on the other side, let them discover that it’s really just painted concrete, a cold and complex reality.

Mamdani’s platform is a communist one. He proposes freezing rent for nearly a million New Yorkers, building 200,000 affordable housing units, and strengthening tenant protections through expanded enforcement. He wants to create city-owned grocery stores that bypass traditional market mechanisms, eliminate bus fares, and provide free childcare for all children under the age of five. These ideas are undeniably appealing, especially to those struggling with the city’s high cost of living. But they also represent a fundamental shift away from market capitalism toward centralized control—a shift that history has shown to be fraught with unintended consequences.

I would attribute this lucrative challenge to the heartbreak of a cheating spouse. When someone is determined to leave, to chase the illusion of something better, no amount of pleading or logic will stop them. The best course of action, I would argue, is to open the window and let them go. Let them discover that the grass on the other side is not greener, but painted. Let them roll around in it and feel the concrete beneath. Only then will they understand the value of what they left behind.

This metaphor applies seamlessly to the current political climate. Mamdani’s rise is not just about policy—it’s about emotion, rebellion, and the seductive appeal of radical change. His supporters are not merely voting for a candidate; they are voting against a system they believe has failed them. They are climbing out the window, chasing a lover across town, convinced that the romance of socialism will heal their wounds. But romance fades, and reality sets in. The cost of these policies—economic stagnation, reduced investment, increased taxation, and bureaucratic inefficiency—will eventually become clear. And when it does, the pain will be real.

Rather than trying to stop this movement through opposition, a wiser strategy may be to let it unfold. Let Mamdani win. Let his policies be implemented. Let New York become the case study in what happens when idealism overrides pragmatism. This is not a call for sabotage or cynicism, but for strategic patience. Just as a parent might let a child touch a hot stove to learn a lesson, the city may need to feel the heat of socialism to understand its consequences.

This approach is not without risk. The damage could be significant, including economic decline, increased dependency, and a loss of competitiveness. But the alternative—prolonged resistance that only fuels the romanticism of rebellion—may be worse. By fighting against Mamdani’s movement, opponents risk turning him into a martyr, a symbol of suppressed hope. By letting him lead, they allow reality to do the teaching.

In business, this principle is well understood. Companies that fail to address cultural issues—such as a lack of motivation, poor work ethic, and resistance to change—cannot be saved by spreadsheets and whiteboards. They must confront the root of the problem, even if it means letting certain elements fail. Only then can proper restructuring occur. The same applies to politics. If voters are determined to embrace a candidate like Mamdani, let them. Let them see the results. Let them learn.

This strategy also respects the intelligence and autonomy of the electorate. It does not treat voters as children to be protected from themselves, but as adults capable of learning through experience. It acknowledges that people are not always honest with themselves or others, that they often need to see the consequences of their actions before they can change. It is a strategy rooted in respect, not condescension.

Mamdani’s campaign is built on the promise of a better life. He speaks to the pain of working-class families, the frustration of workers, and the despair of renters. He offers solutions that are bold, compassionate, and deeply appealing in their communist utterances. But he also represents a shift toward centralized control, higher taxes, and reduced market freedom. These are not just policy choices—they are philosophical ones. And they carry consequences that must be understood, not just imagined.

My advice—to let people go, to let them experience the consequences—is not about giving up. It is about choosing the most effective path to truth. It is about trusting that reality, not rhetoric, will ultimately shape public opinion. It is about believing that people, once they see the results of their choices, will return with a clearer understanding of what works and what doesn’t.

In the case of New York, this means allowing Mamdani’s vision to be put to the test. Let the city-owned grocery stores open. Let the rent freezes take effect. Let the buses run for free. And then, let the city measure the impact. Let businesses respond. Let investors react. Let residents feel the impact of these changes in their daily lives. The results will speak louder than any campaign ad or political debate.

This is not a strategy of cruelty, but of clarity. It is rooted in the belief that truth is the most potent force in politics. And sometimes, the only way to reach it is through experience. Just as a spouse who leaves for an affair may eventually return with a new appreciation for what they had, voters who embrace socialism will look back and see the value of market capitalism. But they must be allowed to make that journey.

Do not romanticize rebellion. Do not make it more appealing by resisting it. Instead, strip away the romance. Let reality do the work. Let people see the painted grass for what it is. Let them feel the concrete. And when they do, be there to help them rebuild—not with bitterness, but with wisdom.  Zohran Mamdani’s campaign represents a decisive moment in New York’s political history. It is a movement driven by hope, frustration, and the desire for change. But it is also a test—a test of ideas, of governance, and of the electorate’s ability to learn through experience. The best way to meet this moment is not through resistance, but through revelation. Let Mamdani lead. Let his policies be implemented. Let the city feel the consequences. And then, let the truth emerge. In that truth lies the path to real progress, grounded not in fantasy but in reality.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Department of War: Its time to take the fight to the enemy

In the realm of global power and national identity, the names we assign to our institutions carry profound meaning. They reflect not only the purpose of those institutions but also the philosophy and strategic posture of the nation itself. One such institution—the Department of Defense—has long stood as a symbol of American military might, yet its name belies a deeper issue. Originally known as the Department of War, its rebranding in 1947 marked a significant shift in how the United States viewed its role in the world. Today, as threats to American sovereignty and values grow more complex and aggressive, it is time to reconsider that change and restore the Department of War to its rightful place in our national framework.

The Department of War was established in 1789, shortly after the founding of the United States. Its mission was clear: to organize and execute military operations in defense of the nation’s sovereignty. It was a department built on the premise that America, as a free and independent republic, must be prepared to confront adversaries and secure its interests through strength and resolve. This clarity of purpose was essential in the early years of the republic, when threats were immediate and existential.

In 1947, following the end of World War II, the department was renamed the Department of Defense. This change was not merely semantic—it reflected a broader ideological shift. The United States, having emerged victorious and possessing unmatched military power, sought to reassure the world that it would not become an aggressor. The new name was intended to project restraint, signaling that America’s vast arsenal would be used only in defense. However, this rebranding coincided with the rise of globalism, the formation of the United Nations, and the beginning of America’s role as the world’s de facto police force. The Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War, and numerous Middle Eastern conflicts followed, many of which were rooted in ideological battles stemming from the post-WWII global order. Ironically, the Department of Defense presided over some of the most prolonged and controversial military engagements in American history.

The term “defense” implies passivity. It suggests that the United States will only act when provoked, that it will wait for threats to materialize before responding. This posture has led to strategic ambiguity and has emboldened adversaries who perceive America as hesitant or unwilling to assert its interests proactively. Consider the psychological impact of the name “Department of Defense.” It evokes an image of a nation on its heels, waiting for an attack before it responds. It suggests a reluctance to engage, a preference for negotiation over action, and a tolerance for provocation. This perception has allowed hostile actors—whether state-sponsored or non-state entities like drug cartels—to operate with impunity, confident that the United States will not strike unless directly threatened.

In contrast, the name “Department of War” conveys strength, readiness, and resolve. It signals to the world that America is prepared to take decisive action against those who threaten its sovereignty, values, or citizens. It projects a posture of deterrence, not weakness—a message that is sorely needed in today’s geopolitical climate. The world has changed dramatically since 1947. The threats facing the United States are no longer confined to conventional warfare. They include cyberattacks, economic manipulation, ideological subversion, and transnational criminal enterprises. These threats require a proactive, assertive response—one that is better aligned with the mission of a Department of War.

Take, for example, the growing influence of drug cartels operating across the southern border. These organizations are not merely criminal; they are strategic threats to American stability. They poison communities, undermine law enforcement, and exploit weaknesses in border security. Yet under the current “defense” paradigm, the response is often reactive and constrained by diplomatic considerations. A Department of War would approach such threats differently. It would recognize them as hostile actors and treat their actions as acts of aggression. It would empower the United States to take the fight to the enemy’s doorstep, rather than waiting for the damage to be done. This shift in posture is not about promoting violence—it is about restoring deterrence and protecting American lives.

The renaming of the Department of War was part of a broader globalist agenda that sought to integrate the United States into a centralized international order. Institutions like the United Nations and NATO were created to manage global conflicts and promote collective security. While these organizations have had some success, they have also constrained American sovereignty and led to costly entanglements. Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were all influenced by globalist ideologies—fighting communism, securing oil, promoting democracy. These conflicts drained American resources, cost countless lives, and often failed to achieve lasting peace. They were not wars fought for direct national interest, but for abstract global ideals.

The Department of Defense, under this paradigm, became a tool of global management rather than national defense. It was used to enforce international norms, protect foreign borders, and stabilize regions far from American soil. Meanwhile, domestic threats—like the rise of socialism, the erosion of personal freedoms, and the spread of narcotics—were often neglected. Renaming the Department of Defense back to the Department of War is more than a symbolic gesture—it is a strategic realignment. It reasserts America’s commitment to its own sovereignty and sends a clear message to adversaries: aggression will be met with force.

This change also reflects a broader philosophical shift. It rejects the notion that peace is the ultimate goal at any cost. Peace is valuable, but not when it comes at the expense of justice, freedom, or national integrity. A nation must be willing to fight for its values, and it must make that willingness known. Critics may argue that such a change is provocative, that it sends the wrong message to the international community. But who decided that America’s role is to usher in peace while others plot its downfall? Who said that restraint is more virtuous than resolve? These are questions worth asking, especially in a world where hostile regimes and criminal networks operate without fear of reprisal.

President Trump’s executive order to restore the Department of War is a bold and necessary step. It acknowledges the failures of the post-WWII globalist framework and seeks to correct them. Congress’s support for this initiative indicates a growing recognition that America must reclaim its strategic identity. When one visits the Pentagon—a massive, imposing structure across from the National Mall—it should represent a nation prepared to defend itself through strength, not hesitation. The Department of War, housed within that building, would embody the spirit of a sovereign republic willing to confront threats head-on.

The renaming of the Department of Defense to the Department of War is not about glorifying conflict—it is about restoring clarity, purpose, and strength to America’s military posture. It is about recognizing that the world is not always peaceful, that threats are real, and that the United States must be prepared to act decisively. This change marks the end of an era defined by globalist entanglements and passive defense. It signals the beginning of a new chapter—one in which America reclaims its role as a sovereign power, committed to protecting its people, its values, and its future.

In a world filled with hostile actors, weak governments, and ideological adversaries, the Department of War stands as a beacon of resolve. It tells the world that America will no longer wait to be attacked—it will act to prevent aggression, secure its interests, and defend its way of life. And that, ultimately, is the message that must be sent—not just through words, but through the very institutions that define our national character.

Rich Hoffman

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

Trump Hosting the Tech Bros: Making enemies work for you, instead of against you

A lot of people from the MAGA side of things had a lot of problems with Trump hosting the Tech Bros in the White House, the Bill Gates types, along with Zuckerbucks, and many others.  All the big tech companies, such as Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple, and many others, worked hard against Trump to destroy him, not just to beat him in an election.  And with Bill Gates, he has his hands all over COVID, and many deaths that resulted from the created bioweapon.  Why was he sitting next to Melania?  He should be in jail!  I get it.  I don’t like any of them.  But I understand what Trump is doing, and I think it’s a great idea.  It would be hard to cheerlead a dominant, thriving economy and to leave those guys out of it.  And there is a bigger point to make about it that we’ll get to.  However, the wealth creation that comes from the tech sector is truly massive – the kind of economy that most European countries would love to have from just one of the people sitting at that table.  And here was Trump getting all of them, former enemies, cheerleading his efforts to expand economic opportunity through the use of AI.  As I have been saying from the beginning of AI, our experience isn’t going to be Skynet from the Terminator movies; it’s going to be more servant-oriented, like Star Wars, where bandwidth expansion will make human beings busier than ever.  AI is going to want to serve the human race, not to take it over, and the people at that dinner were happy to have a President who could put differences aside and help bring their passion projects to life.  I personally love Apple products, and it has bothered me to see them working against the Trump administration all this time, except for recently.  Watching everyone at that big table praise the Trump administration was more than a little satisfying.  And I only see good things coming out of it.  Should we trust any of them?  Of course not.  But it’s good to get your enemies to work on your behalf, any time you can.

Now, there are many things to consider, especially regarding technology.  The downside to AI and computer software in general is the impact on the human mind as it attempts to adapt to it.  The Furry Culture that people are discovering now, as a result of Tyler Robinson, is very sexually disturbing, but emerges from a mind incorporating these new changes from technology to reality.  Tyler Robinson is the killer of Charlie Kirk and his boyfriend, who was a persistent gamer who seldom ever left the house, and lived in that virtual world, losing touch with reality, obviously.  If there weren’t so much anxiety between this new technical gamer culture and reality, would Charlie Kirk be alive today?  Would the world be better off?  And many would say that technology is the root of evil, corrupting the youth.  And there is a lot of evidence in that direction that is perfectly justified.  However, with all these new elements comes the need to ground all thinking in the traditions of the past that have proven effective, and to build a future around them.  And that responsibility comes directly from leadership, which is what President Trump is providing.  In many ways, Trump’s embracing of those who have worked against him allows rebellion to be pushed aside and for the human race to accommodate the changes it needs for its own sake much better.  With leadership, people will find their way through the changes, rather than letting them emerge in a vacuum where everyone loses touch with reality.

But even more important is the notion that the Trump administration is a fascist one, that suddenly has all kinds of implications after the murder of Charlie Kirk.  Why do young people think that Trump is a fascist, or anybody from the MAGA movement, for that matter?  Elon Musk obviously fell off the wagon as a tech leader, which has continued to mystify people who wonder why Musk was ever drawn to Trump at all.  But why would Trump let these crazy characters near him in any way when they have shown themselves to be enemies?  Well, because it’s better to have people close than isolated.  And nothing dispels the fascist accusation more than not being one, and being accommodating of all people with all kinds of different beliefs and working them toward a common goal that they share with many other people.  When Trump sits down with people who have not been friendly toward MAGA positions, he is building the party.  Elon Musk, for instance, is leaning against trying to start a new party, but is considering getting behind J.D. Vance after the Vice President did a nice job hosting The Charlie Kirk Show podcast after his assassination.  You do much better in life bringing people together than in driving them apart, and in so doing, Trump takes the air out of any fears leveled at him that he wants to rule as a dictator.  The argument falls apart whenever Trump does these big meetings with people many think he should make enemies out of, or pay back with revenge.  That kind of thinking is what holds back the world.  As a businessman, Trump believes he can utilize everyone as an asset that benefits the task at hand.  In this case, a thriving economy that benefits all people, providing many with upward mobility.

I personally have a lot of enemies, and people I wouldn’t trust with a 30-foot pole.  However, in my day-to-day life, I don’t let everyone know who my enemies are.  If they want to talk to me, I accommodate them and measure if there is anything useful that can come from the experience.  But I don’t trust them.  And I’m sure that is the case with Trump.  If you are powerful, you don’t need the approval of others, and Trump doesn’t need the approval of the Tech Bros.  But they need him, and if he can bring them all to a table to expand the economy and work with him instead of against him, then so be it.  We don’t have to prove anything by putting them in jail.  There is still time for Bill Gates to atone for the harm he has caused to the world and many others.  But if there is a benefit to be extracted from them in some way, you will never know it if you don’t open the door to the possibility.  And that traditional way of validating honor is what we’re talking about.  When people mean to do you wrong, we measure a resistance to them as the only ethical outcome.  However, building larger entities, such as an economy or a political party that truly affords people personal freedoms, is even better.  And people shouldn’t know where they stand with you.  Conflicting with people you hate isn’t always the best thing. Instead, it seldom is.  However, if you can get them working in a direction you support and can guide them in that direction without compromising yourself in the process, then that is best.  And that’s undoubtedly what Trump is doing.  And I think it’s a good idea that many good things will come from it.  Not without their challenges, but they are things that will improve the world we live in.  And that is always a good idea.   

Rich Hoffman

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

The Killer Tyler Robinson: And his professional gamer, transgender lover

We know enough now of the killer, Tyler Robinson, to understand what happened in the assassination of Charlie Kirk.  The legal system will eventually catch up, and everything will come to light.  But what we have here is the confirmation that the trans movement is even more dangerous than we have been warning it to be.  The attempt by the radical Marxist left to desecrate the human temple of procreation has descended the world into madness and murder.  And when we study how a kid who looked to have had a pretty everyday life, with pretty standard parents and exposure to the finer things in life, could have fallen off the rocker so drastically, to the point where he was living with a guy in an apartment sexually, and that the guy was trying to become a girl.  And that the pressures of living that lifestyle outside of the gamer culture were too much to deal with.  And like a lot of these trans shooters have become, they turn to violence, in the case of Tyler Robinson of Utah, who was still a young person with all the options of life ahead of him.  That he would turn to obvious violence to eliminate a big personality directly associated with the Trump administration, in Charlie Kirk, as he spoke at a local college on the benefits of MAGA values, Robinson turned himself in to authorities after he essentially confessed to his father, and a Mormon family friend.  At 22 years old, his life was over the moment he pulled that trigger and then ran home to confess to his family and to his boyfriend.  Now that the lawyers have gotten a hold of him, he isn’t talking much, but his roommate is, Lance Twiggs—an aspiring professional gamer.  Based on the bullet casings left behind at the murder, Robinson was clearly down the rabbit hole of gamer culture that tends to lose touch with reality. 

No matter how smart you are, once you dip into the well of homosexuality and non-traditional sex with a member of the same gender, you can’t take it back.  Many people make this mistake in the early years before starting a family and having children.  And given the way Robinson grew up with very engaged parents, his father, who owned a family construction business, was also a 27-year veteran of the Washington County Sheriff’s Department.  So he had a duty to turn his son in, which is unusual.  But it also gives insight into just how difficult it would be to be close to parents who had spent a lot of their lives actively with him, going on vacations to Hawaii and Disney, on exotic fishing trips, and having a mother who was deeply involved in his life.  Taking trips to the Grand Canyon.  Getting good grades in school, maintaining a 4.0 GPA in high school.  Being close to his two younger brothers.  His grandmother described Tyler Robinson as being “squeaky clean.”  They were a Republican, Trump-supporting family, and they spoke every day, right up until the moment of the murder.  So what happened that such a kid with so many opportunities in life, and having a loving family, would grab a gun and pull the trigger on Charlie Kirk during a public speech at Utah Valley University?  The parents appeared to have done everything right, but how could such a kid fall off the edge like that, even to the point of killing someone so brutally in public, surrounded by thousands of other people?  We are dealing with a real evil here that is looming in the background.

I know quite a few people in law enforcement and several people who used to work for me are members of Trump’s Secret Service, so I have good understanding of security protocols, and as popular as Charlie Kirk is, his security should have never set that venue up like they did, where he was speaking from a tent down in a bowl with so many high distances in the background.  It allowed Tyler Robinson to get on top of a roof and take a sniper shot at Charlie Kirk just as the speech had turned toward trans rights.  When the bullet struck Charlie in the neck and blood poured out of the grotesque wound, nobody yet knew that the shooter was having a sexual relationship with a trans roommate, who would very shortly confess to the location of the gun and the radical left-wing politics of his lover.  I also recently hosted an event featuring Vivek Ramaswamy, which allowed me to meet his personal security team, who face similar challenges to those of Charlie Kirk.  Not having a presidential-level Secret Service is tough for these very popular people who speak under private security.  It’s always better to set up on a hill so that a bullet dropped from 200 yards would be much more dramatic than shooting down into a bowl, as it was at the college where this assassination took place.  But part of Charlie’s effectiveness was in being personable and vulnerable.  To put trust in the public and, through that trust, to reach them with the values of God, family, and the Trump administration.  Taking too many precautions at these public events would erode the purpose of engaging with the audience.  And Tyler Robinson took advantage of that vulnerability with an act of terror that would forever change the world.

So I’ll offer, which will come out as we learn more, that having a sexual relationship with a trans lover was too far of a jump for an otherwise normal kid in Tyler Robinson, who had done most everything expected of him right in life up until that point.  But the embarrassment that he felt in having that relationship was too much, and he sought to shelter himself from social judgment through left-winged politics.  And he and his lover could get away with it so long as they lived in the unreal world of professional gamer culture, which is home to many lost kids who struggle to function well in the real world.  In video games, you can easily switch genders with your avatars, and you can be as violent as you want without consequences.  And when you embarrass your family, you can hide in that world and shield yourself from judgment with Democrats and their social approach.  Once you cross that line sexually with another man, you can’t ever live it down, and many young people have been convinced to embarrass themselves socially in much the same manner.  And they can’t live with the result.  And they certainly don’t want to hear Charlie Kirk talk about the Bible and the benefits of family when they have made personal decisions that they can never take back or live with—further eroding their minds from reality.  And the really terrible thing about Tyler Robinson, now that we know more about him.  The further they are from their families, the more vulnerable they are to liberal influences, especially in colleges, once they move out and away from their families.  And becoming politically radicalized then becomes a replacement for the family they left behind, which they still crave desperately, and they’ll do anything for them, even kill.  When social judgments then become the enemy, to quiet the voices, they turn to violence, which is why so many of these trans shooters are turning to terror to express their anger at the world for judging them for their terribly bad decisions.  And it keeps happening because Democrats have justified their anger and bad choices to exploit their weakness for party power and control.  Leaving young kids feeling like they have no other option but to kill those who look down on them.  And if it can happen to Tyler Robinson, it can happen to anybody.  And there are many more people like him who are considering doing the same thing for the same reasons.

Rich Hoffman

https://www.signupgenius.com/go/10C0B4AA4A728A1F49-58659927-help#/

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