Tag: Republicans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

The Shutdown Standoff and the Filibuster Flashpoint: A Political Reckoning with American communists

Speaking with Bernie Moreno recently, it’s clear that the U.S. Senate is at a pivotal moment. The government shutdown, now entering its 40th day, has become a crucible for ideological warfare, with President Trump urging Senate Republicans to reconsider the filibuster rule to break the impasse and reshape the future of American governance.  I think Trump has a good idea, and that the nuclear option should be used, never to let Democrats have power again, so there is no reason to play nice with them.  Democrats, most of them, and around 10-15 Republicans are the enemy of our country and should not be given a seat at the table. 

At the heart of the standoff are three distinct factions: a Democrat Party increasingly defined by its progressive wing, a MAGA-aligned Republican base pushing for aggressive reform, and a centrist bloc of senators hesitant to abandon institutional norms. The Democrats, led by figures like Chuck Schumer and bolstered by progressives otherwise known as “communists” such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have refused to support any continuing resolution (CR) that doesn’t include a vote on extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits. Their strategy hinges on leveraging the shutdown to galvanize their base and preserve key health care provisions.  They are not that unlike the terrorists who bombed New York City with the 9/11 terrorist action.  If they destroyed commercial air travel to maintain socialized medicine, they are all for it.  They would love to harm the economy to slow down Trump ahead of the midterms.  These are the same people who wanted to use COVID to shut down the economy during Trump’s last year of his first term.  So this kind of economic terrorism is typical for them.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans, under Majority Leader John Thune, have proposed a compromise: advance the House-passed CR and amend it with a “minibus” of three long-term appropriations bills, extending government funding through January 30, 2026. This deal, which has gained traction among at least eight Democrats, includes a future vote on ACA subsidies—a concession aimed at breaking the deadlock.  As I have always said, healthcare is a nasty hill to die on, because we are on the precipice of significant changes.  The way healthcare is today is not how it will be tomorrow, and the cost structure needs to be completely reinvented.  For Democrats, healthcare is about controlling the lives of individual people in a mass way, and has nothing to do with caring for people. 

Yet, the filibuster remains the elephant in the room. Trump’s call to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for passing legislation has reignited debate over Senate rules. He argues that the filibuster is a relic that Democrats have weaponized to obstruct progress, and that Republicans must act decisively to secure election reform, border security, and economic stability. “If we do it, we will never lose the midterms,” Trump declared, pressing for one-day voting and voter ID laws.  He’s right, there is no reason to play fair with the Democrats.  They almost went nuclear during Biden’s term, except for two senators who prevented it. Otherwise, they currently have 49 senators who were willing to go nuclear when they had power, a clear warning sign to Republicans.  So, if the shoe is ever on their feet again, they will do it; therefore, there is no reason to play fair now.  Don’t give them a chance at terrorism in the future because they are already thinking about it.  We are only here now because we dodged a bullet then.  Don’t expect that to happen twice.

Despite Trump’s pressure, Senate leadership remains divided. Thune and others have resisted the nuclear option, citing the need to preserve minority rights and avoid legislative chaos. A limited carve-out—lowering the threshold to 51 votes for clean CRs—was floated but appears unlikely to pass.

The shutdown’s impact is severe: over 1,000 flights have been canceled, SNAP benefits have been disrupted, and $5 billion in arms exports to NATO and Ukraine have been delayed. Air traffic controllers are stretched thin, and federal workers remain unpaid. The crisis has exposed the fragility of government-dependent systems and reignited calls for the privatization of critical infrastructure.  I’m certainly one of those who think we should not have a government involved in essential services like air traffic control.  Airlines should provide their own employees, and they would do a better job.  Sticking the government in the middle of critical infrastructure is a really dumb idea.  And to make matters worse, the pay scale and attitude of these employees are already poor, as they are unionized, which should be outlawed for all government positions.  In a short time, AI will be able to do a much better job with air traffic control than humans anyway, so why should we ever allow the government to stand in the way of human necessity?  It’s an incredibly dumb idea. 

In this climate, the filibuster debate is more than procedural—it’s existential. For Trump-aligned Republicans, eliminating it is a strategic imperative to prevent Democrats from regaining power and advancing what they view as radical, anti-capitalist policies. For moderates and institutionalists, it’s a dangerous precedent that could unravel the Senate’s deliberative foundation.  And that’s where the future of America is anyway, with Democrats moving hard socialist and communist as a party, we can’t let them have a seat at the table.  We have to draw the line somewhere.  Let the moderates be the new left-wing party, but don’t play nice with the communists and give them fairness.  Because they will destroy our country if given a chance, and that is at the heart of the debate.  Look at what they have been willing to do with the air traffic controllers.  If they can bring down American infrastructure to maintain control over healthcare, then they certainly will.  Those kinds of Democrats can never again be allowed to vote for the filibuster rule, because the next time, they will get it.  It’s been a race to beat the other to the punch for a long time, and we happen to be fortunate to have this impasse happening while Trump is in the White House. 

The stakes couldn’t be higher. The outcome will not only determine the fate of the shutdown but may also redefine the balance of power in Washington for years to come, regardless of any short-term CR. Whether the filibuster survives or falls, the political landscape is shifting—and the next chapter in America’s legislative history is being written in real time.  And you don’t want to lose your country by playing nice with those who wish to destroy it.  It was interesting to speak with Bernie Moreno about his first year as a senator.  Of course, we didn’t talk about any of these kinds of details; he’s a very level-headed person who was reporting on the lay of the land in the Senate.  But what is obvious is that we already have three parties, and one of them certainly wants to destroy the concept of a capitalist America and to push everything into communist control, much the way China operates.  And it’s me saying it, along with Trump, that we don’t want to be a sucker on this, we need to play tough, and forget playing fair.  This is a game of beating the other side to the punch, and that other side are radical communists, as exhibited by the newly elected New York Mayor, Zohran Mamdani. In a world where people like that are debating the Filibuster, they will go nuclear.  We are fortunate to be in a time when fairness still prevails, and we should be wise in utilizing that power while we still have it. Because there is nothing less patriotic than letting hostile agents destroy your country, and in case it’s still not known to the vast majority, the Democrats are the enemy. 

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

Doug Horton in His Own Words: The Joy of Taking a Shower in Liberal Tears

I’m not the kind of person who spikes the football.  However, just before the Lakota levy attempt in 2025, school board member Doug Horton posted a video (shown here) where he emphasized the last levy won by Lakota back in 2013.  That was a swipe at me personally, so I have to address it, specifically.  He also indicated another Democrat talking point that has been circulating for many years, and that is that I, and about a dozen other anti-levy people, are a vociferous minority who do not represent the rest of the community.  So his message is not to listen to us and vote for his monstrous tax proposal because we love children.  However, these days, many more than a dozen people are opposed to the Lakota tax spending addictions.  And there are a lot more than I who take a position and help out during these political campaigns.  In this case, I had very little to do with the official campaign.  I do the things I always do, but with many more people working on the campaign, and they are brilliant and organized individuals.  And I’m proud of the great work they did.  And that effort is only going to grow in the future, especially with a successful defeat of the Lakota levy, the first one since 2013, which barely, and I mean barely, squeaked by.  Back then, it was Sheriff Jones who stepped over the line to support the public school teachers because he was still mad at the Tea Party effort to make public sector unions illegal in Ohio, which was the side I was on.  It was due to Sheriff Jones’ support that the 2013 levy passed by just a tiny bit, and another hasn’t passed since then. 

And why should a levy pass? It’s not like the community isn’t giving Lakota enough money.  They have a budget of over a quarter of a billion dollars per year, and for their collective bargaining contracts, that’s not enough for their insatiable desires.  It took about a decade, but Sheriff Jones and I are mostly on the same page, and that’s how the ball bounces in politics.  And for this levy attempt, and any others that Lakota proposes in a declining enrollment district with education changing dramatically in the years to come, that’s how it’s going to be.  This leaves people like Doug Horton on the extreme outside, and because he made the statements he did, we must address his point of view as a costly school board member and as a proper representative of the poor management currently on the board.  For many years, we had something of a conservative on the board who worked with everyone to keep more taxes off the ballot.  We even managed to get a majority on the board to control costs, which Horton referred to.  And I found some of his comments incredibly out of touch, especially regarding Darby Boddy, the conservative school board member whom Lakota, as an organization, lobbied hard to remove, literally the moment she was sworn in.  If Doug Horton is worried about Lakota headlines not being negative in the national media, then don’t support superintendents who have sex fests on Craigslist and tell the police that he fantasized about engaging with children who were going to the school at the time.  Horton proposes ignoring the problems so they can receive good press, pass tax increases, and gloss over trouble for the greater good of the school brand, which is a kind of fake sentiment that is at the heart of many problems when raising children.  A topic we could spend many books writing about, given its incorrect point of view. 

Doug Horton and many others in the background have worked hard to destabilize the school board so that they could get rid of the conservatives and essentially get to this big facilities plan, which has been in the planning phase since Trump’s last term, a very long time.  And they believed that if only they had enough liberals on the school board, the community would pass the levy.  And my thoughts have been for a long time to let them have the school board, let them try to run a levy, and let that levy crash and burn when they find out just how many people in the community are against them, many more than just a dozen or so.  In the case of this levy, the defeat was even more than I thought; it lost 60% to 39%.  I thought our side might get into the high 50s.  I was impressed to see it hit 60 in a down-year election, where engagement was naturally low.  It was actually a good simulation of what we expect Lakota to do next, and that is try to slide another levy under the door in May when people want to forget about school and turnout is low, or in August when nobody is thinking about politics.  Turnout was not very vigorous for this election, and still, Lakota lost massively, so that’s a good start for the tax defenders.  And it proves something even more profound that I knew we had to get to once we essentially kicked the control of the school board over to the liberals.  They needed to see what I’ve been telling them all along, which they obviously pay attention to, because Doug Horton essentially announced it to the world as a matter of fact.  People are not with them; they are against them in massive ways.  And they never believed it because they don’t speak to people outside their social circles, which are proportionally very small. 

The biggest problem with our conservative majority is that we let them play the game of division; they got our people all fighting each other with the belief that, in the vacuum, they would regain power and win the hearts of the public.  And Doug Horton does represent the rest of the board, especially Julie Shaffer and Kelly Casper, in his point of view, and that is the public would spend money on their dumb ideas if only I weren’t around, or a dozen or so noisy people, which they have justified to themselves as a small minority.  What reality says, however, is that those voices represent a majority of the Butler County population, and as I said would happen, when given a chance to talk, they would voice their opinion at the ballot box.  And they did, they crushed the Lakota levy.  I don’t think about it too much, but when I see videos like his, it’s a grotesque reminder of just how stupid some of these people are, and it really makes me sick that they are my neighbors.  I’ve lived in the area longer than most of these pro-levy types have been alive, and I will be around long after all of them are gone.  To me, they are the unwelcome noise of a thriving community, where people come from other places and bring their misguided ideas with them, which are socially very destructive.  But when things get tough, I like to let people show what they have, and he certainly did.  And rather than warn them not to pass a levy, I’m fine to let them try, which they did.  And what I said would happen, happened.  And it was because a lot more than a dozen people got information to the voters that helped them make the right decision.  And the amount of support we have had in that effort has grown over the years; it hasn’t declined.  The real solution lies in young people like Ben Nguyen, who was just elected to the school board, and I think will bring many good ideas with him, along with healthy and intelligent debate.  And we’ll need about three or four more like him to push off all these ridiculous liberals.  But first, they had to be exposed for what they were.  And they have, so now it’s time for a lot more work, focusing on school board building rather than defending our property values against those who are clearly out of touch and not very smart.

Rich Hoffman

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

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

The Success of Operation Midway Blitz: Pushing communism under the door with illegal immigration

Happy to report that Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago has been very successful, with over 1500 arrests since the start of September.  The Department of Homeland Security has been targeting alleged criminals like pedophiles and gang members with some of the arrests spilling over outside of Illinois.  ICE agents have been very successful in removing the criminal elements that have been deliberately put in place by Democrats to serve progressive causes, and it has the radical left very upset, which is good.  That’s what happens when you start solving problems that want to exist so they can exert power over all society.  The high crime in Chicago was deliberately placed and left alone, and it’s time to clean up that city, even if the mayor, Brandon Johnson, and Governor J.B. Pritzker have been doing everything they can to facilitate the continuation of the high crime.  Why, because they know, as all Democrats do, that the key to their insurrection party is illegal immigration, who bring with it criminal elements to destabilize society in detrimental ways and convince people to turn to big government for safety and security.  Governor Pritzker has to have high crime to justify the kind of personal intrusions and government growth that the Democratic Party intends.  Otherwise, the whole premise of their existence falls apart. Trump pushing for Operation Midway Blitz exposed this strategy for what it was, and it has now been very successful.  Crime is down, and that started before the blitz because caution was in the air as criminals realized the game was up and their free roam of the city streets was at an end.  There is more going on with Chicago than just this latest issue; it was built to be a progressive invasion in America, and if we want that to stop, the city itself and its politics have to be attacked.  So this is more than a symbolic exercise; it’s a strategy that should have been implemented long ago.

Chicago is one of the great American cities, located in the heart of the Midwest.  I interact with Chicago a lot, and it has been part of my story for many years.  Not that I meant to, but I worked for several organized crime groups early in my life, who were centered out of Chicago, for one, the Chinese mob.  And the second was a money-laundering outfit that operated car dealerships to launder money.  I started in these enterprises through the usual application process: getting a job and earning money straight away.  But because of my personality, I was quickly sought out to do the things other people are scared to do, and I learned, up close and personal, how the life of crime worked, always in the background.  I did not become a criminal, but I did get into a lot of entanglements, some of which were very violent and dangerous.  But let’s just say I have first-hand knowledge of the kind of world Governor Pritzker is trying to protect and maintain.  I was so outraged by everything I learned that I have dedicated my life to eradicating that evil, which is why I do many of the things I do for free.  I don’t like evil, and I really don’t like crime that spawns from it.  And with all that said, I am thrilled Trump has declared war against this terrible tyranny always looming in the background.  Chicago wasn’t always the crime-ridden pit that it is today.  It was made that way on purpose, and we should all be insulted by the intention, which is now finally being corrected.

If you fly into O’Hara, you’ll see miles and miles of communist style apartment complexes where people have been stacked on top of each other for as far as the eye can see.  There is quite an attempt right now to show China as the example of what communism can bring, with its centrally planned efforts producing great architecture and technology, all the while in America using that same centralized management approach to depress Americans away from free markets and free enterprise.  Even the positive effects of a supposedly democratic system, where people pick their representatives in a republic-style government.  In both cases, centralized governments used their power to prop up one international standard over the other.  Globalist elites drove the push toward Chinese communism.  And it has been they who have shaped Chicago into the crime-ridden hell-hole that it is.  The downtown areas are not too bad —deliberately so —especially around McCormick Place and Soldier Field.  The northside isn’t too bad once you get well past the city.  But to the south and west of downtown, it’s pretty rough.  If you get gas anywhere in those zones, you can expect an engagement with crime, and all that is on purpose.  Crime doesn’t just happen; in this case, it was invited in with the purpose of illegal immigration.  And the Democrat party knows they need crime and illegal immigration to fulfill their communist plans of pushing people away from capitalism and into outright Chinese communism.  Chicago and its crime were always part of the plan of suppression.  To save the great American city, the push was for America to adopt more Chinese communism so we could be more like their shining example. 

The way that Chicago set up its neighborhoods tells the whole story of why they have crime now; it was always meant to.  Free enterprise was never part of how the modern city was put together; it was meant to bring in and hide illegal immigrants who would funnel the drug trade in behind the chaos and destabilize polite society from behind a political firewall.  While society was debating the proper pay for women in the workplace and abortion, criminals were undercutting one of the great American cities with grotesque violence occurring every day to the point where it was normalized, and people expected a suppressed environment.  It wasn’t just about Chicago; it was about pushing communism under the door of the Midwest and bringing down America from the inside out.  Poisoning the highway system to all the other big cities with crime, and those destabilizing attempts started with illegal immigration hidden in the apartment slums of west Chicago, to the point where the crime spilled over into the outside world to destroy the American dream like a Trojan Horse in the middle of the night, to slit all our throats while we slept.  That is why Democrats are so upset about Operation Midway Blitz.  And why it’s so good to see it succeed, no matter how long it continues.  Democrats need illegal immigration to pull off their communist scam.  And instead of just accepting that, as we have for many decades —essentially an entire century —we are fighting back and taking Chicago away from the criminal elements, which is leaving Democrats in a panic as to what to do next.  Pritzker, unable to shake Trump off the trail, turned to gambling to pump up his already deflated image.  But his political hopes are being cleaned away, too, in all this.  He took a stand to protect illegal immigration, and Trump is ripping that away, leaving Democrats helpless as a result.  And for the first time in many decades, the truth about Chicago is finally being seen.  And a lot of people will live, who usually would have been sacrificed to the need for crime by Democrats who have been cheerleading communism all along.

Rich Hoffman

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

Big Tish James Needs to Do Big Time in the Big House: Destroying the communists in our courts

Don’t forget how Big Tish James, the New York Attorney General, looked at President Trump every day in court when she was purposely trying to bankrupt him over some evaluation prosecution in his company, the Trump Organization.  Big Tish went for blood—and then some—eventually fining over $ 515 million in penalties against Trump, which, through the appeals process, was just relieved this past month as excessive.  But for a grueling several years, the case dragged on, and if Trump had not been a billionaire, too big to drain financially like she was trying to do, he would not have survived the process.  Lucky for him, during this year of 2024 Truth Social went public and Trump essentially made back all the money he had lost in these court cases, in fees and legal costs, and it essentially put the case James was trying to form out of reach and it was a miserable loss for her and the corrupt New York judge Arthur Engoron, on all fronts.  But don’t forget what she tried to do, because this happens way too often.  The communists of our culture feel they have control of the courts, and essentially, they do.  We have trusted the courts too much without oversight, and the situation has gotten out of control.  We had been wondering about it, but this case against Trump by Tish James made it clear to everyone, and she really thought she was going to get away with it.  So it was more than a little satisfying that with all the charges she was trying to impose against Trump, like most Democrats who conduct social policy where they try to deflect from things they are actually guilty of, we learned that the Attorney General was guilty of far worse.  And now that we know, there can’t be any mercy for her.  She has to be made an example of.

So in that context, I think we can all root for the worst possible to happen to that corrupt communist, Big Tish James, and that she will do big time in the big house for her audacious crimes.  Audacious because she had tried to blame Trump for manipulating the values of his properties for better bank interest rates, which she indicated was a form of fraud.  She set the bar where it is now, and from which she is now judged.  Because now she is being prosecuted for much more obvious fraud, which she undoubtedly knew.  It’s so audacious that mistakes are impossible; she knew what she was doing, and that was to deceive the public and lenders to get benefits on real estate she owned.  As the Attorney General of New York, she can’t say she was ignorant of the law.  She had just tried to prosecute the President of the United States using the same logic.  She clearly knew where to look because she was guilty of the same thing, so this is an easy case being led by prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, one of Trump’s personal lawyers, formally.  Big Tish is being prosecuted for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344: knowingly misrepresenting the property’s use to obtain a favorable loan and making false statements to a financial institution.  Specifically, James signed a “second home rider” on a Fannie Mae-backed mortgage, certifying that a three-bedroom house would serve as her second residence and qualifying her for a lower fixed interest rate of 3%.  The loan terms, which she openly violated, prohibited renting it out as an investment.  And according to the court documents, Big Tish was clearly trying to save $18,933 over the life of the loan. 

These people were always communists, these kinds of Democrats, so it’s appropriate to indicate who they really are and what the movement intends.  Just as is reflected in this mayor race in New York, all this communist sentiment has snuck up on many people, biting them now that it’s too late.  Big Tish was elected by people who called themselves Democrats in an America that doesn’t like communists.  So they just changed their name so that people would vote for them.   But ideologically, they are all capitalist-hating communists, and they meant to gain control over our institutions, which has obviously happened in our court system, at all levels.  Most lawyers, even though they might not identify as communists by name, have beliefs about the world that are very much from the pages of Karl Marx.  And with the strength of that assumption, Leticia James thought she would get away with destroying the financial life of one of New York City’s most famous people and richest, and make an example of him with a different kind of execution.  It might have left him alive, but the case intended to destroy the Trump Organization so that the President wouldn’t have any wealth to defend himself.  She meant to personally bankrupt a former and future president of the United States, and enough people in New York who identify as communists supported her in that effort of destruction.  So let’s not kid ourselves here.  The communists who linger in this country in the background are looking for blood and to advance their party more deeply into power with fear.  Big Tish was showing the world that she controlled the courts and could destroy anyone in the legal process.  And she put everything she had into the effort regarding state power.  Trump was not supposed to survive. 

So when we talk about the grace of God in this case, I say let him do what he wants with her eternal soul.   I would recommend her destruction and to make it as public as possible.  Show absolutely no compassion for her in any way.  I would like to see her publicly humiliated to the utmost extent that the law will allow, and to see her permanently ruined for her efforts.  Because this is more than just a war of ideas, this is a communist invasion that has resided behind a kind of curtain that the Democrat Party put up to let these people gain hold of important public offices.  And their purpose was the destruction of the American way of life.  And they meant to control all of us by scaring people with what they did to popular people with a lot of money, like Trump.  The case with Trump, as I said in the very early days, was never going to stick.  Big Tish thought the courts were corrupt enough to make anything stick.  But legally, they had all kinds of problems.  But when that same prosecution by the New York Attorney General gets caught actually committing the crimes she was trying to paint on Trump, well, you have to throw the book at her.  And the kitchen sink as well.  She deserves destruction and no mercy.  For what she and her supporters tried to do to Trump and this country, we have to view it as treasonous, and nothing less.  This was no accident or a meaningless banking transaction.  No, this is the intent to gain control of a legal system to destroy political opponents personally.  And now the shoe is on the other foot, and Trump has a chance to take action that will be meaningful for centuries.  And I’m thrilled to see him do it.  There are many people who need to be punished for what they did.  And Big Tish James is just the start of it.

Rich Hoffman

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

Defending Erika Kirk: Democrats make themselves victims over everything, conservatives don’t

There is a lot to talk about regarding Erika Kirk and the reaction that many left-leaning people have had about her during the memorial for her husband, Charlie, who was recently murdered.  This is part of a larger study that we need to conduct to determine whether we can all coexist in the same world.  What people think and why is often very dangerous, and we have to start thinking about those types of things realistically.  Having personal freedom does not mean the same thing to all people, so it’s nearly impossible to have a meaningful and structured society when everyone doesn’t agree on what “good” is.  And that was never more apparent than in how people from the political left viewed the way that Erika Kirk dealt with her husband’s death, which was a very public enterprise.  Turning Point USA is a group of young people who have fully committed to the pursuit of conservative freedom and spiritual alignment. As such, nothing was shocking about their memorial service, especially for those who attend church on Sunday, a common occurrence, especially at large mega churches.  The Turning Point memorial for Charlie Kirk was held in a stadium in Arizona, which filled to an overflow crowd outside.  So it was an experience that godless heathens from the Marxist left could not understand.  And they certainly didn’t understand Erika Kirk’s approach to life in the wake of her husband’s death.  Because Erika was able to speak to people and contain her emotions, wear makeup, and dress well, people are suspicious of her and are talking about it extensively.  Those types of people would understand Erika better if she fell off the fence and went on a drunken binge, as other left-leaning people do.  But because she was able to hold it all together, people are very suspicious, even conspiratorial. 

This raises an essential point about society in general: conservatives tend to be above-the-line thinkers, meaning they take responsibility for their actions and are always looking for ways to improve things.  Where Democrats are often perceived as perpetual victims who look to society to fill in the gaps, they are below-the-line thinkers, as we call them in business – people who prioritize their own needs over others’ positive efforts, seeking to live off the positive efforts of others for their basic sustenance.  So when faced with a crisis, and a deeply emotional circumstance, Erika Kirk did as conservative women tend to, she looked for proactive measures to accommodate her very negative feelings on the murder of her husband, and the loss of the father of her very young children, with proactive positions.  And that came out in her various speeches.  Now Charlie would be very proud of Erika, including her walking out onto the stage to give a speech on behalf of her husband, accompanied by rock concert-like pyrotechnic effects that juiced things up for the audience.  Democrats in that same situation would be looking for excuses to fall apart, because that is their natural state of existence.  They would want to become intoxicated, to dress all in black, and to cry instantly, drawing attention to themselves so that people would feel sorry for them.  That is what all Democrats do; it’s what separates them from the rest of the world.  It is what makes them broken people and social menaces to themselves and others.  They could not understand a person like Erika Kirk, who had the personal strength to speak to the public so soon after Charlie’s murder and would even go to the trouble to put on some makeup to make herself presentable.  

Again, Turning Point USA excels at the entertainment aspect of their political efforts, and it should come as no surprise that they leveraged the memorial service to amplify their efforts.  Charlie Kirk would certainly approve, as he poured his life into the conservative movement and would undoubtedly appreciate how his memorial service was handled, including the way President Trump spoke during it.  It might be hard for Democrats to understand, but that doesn’t make it a vast conspiracy.  I’m sure Erika Kirk had to do a lot of acting to get through those few weeks, where she felt like shutting the world out while she grieved.  But she married a very public husband who had been very publicly assassinated. So to do him justice, she had to address that public in a very public way.  So she had to dig deep to get there, and what she did was conducive to the way that above-the-line people approach life in general.  People derive the strength they need from compelling leadership personalities.  Don’t cry about things that you can solve for yourself.  And don’t go out of your way for pity from a public that should never be in a position to give it to you.  That is, in general, the way that conservatives approach their business, and it’s very different than those who are attracted to social management in the form of Marxism, where the down and out want to stay that way so they have an excuse for all their bad decisions in life.  They don’t want people like Erika Kirk to put pressure on them to be better than they otherwise dare to be.  They want to be victims in life and cannot imagine taking charge as a reaction to tragedy. 

Without question, there is a lot wrong with the Charlie Kirk murder that should be a lot more forthcoming.  With Kash Patel, a friend of Charlie Kirk, in charge of the FBI, many people expect better, proactive answers.  However, we are dealing with a deep and elusive evil that operates in the background in a manner that is very difficult for people to confront.  So I don’t know that Turning Point USA and Erika Kirk are willing to just move on from the motivations of Charlie’s killer and to take the surface investigations all too quickly.  But part of the way that evil hides in the background, and into the lives of below-the-line Democrats, is in the notion that putting trust in Christ will rid them of the burden of carrying the cross, so to speak.  And when Erika said she forgave the murderer of her husband, she was also putting the burden of that anger aside, which is a consistent Christian means of dealing with stress.  And I attribute that to the Turning Point USA position in general, with Charlie Kirk, who wants to get back to the business of what Charlie stood for, rather than spending a lot of time crying over his loss.  For conservatives, the goal is to get out the message uninterrupted.  Not being encumbered with grief and misery.  Democrats don’t and will never understand a proactive approach to misery, so to fill their void, they will resort to conspiracy theories.   When in truth, they don’t have it in them to think in any other way than to be broken people.  Democrats are broken people who seek attention in times of crises because they feed off pity and emotional distress, which is why they are dangerous to society in general.  We can’t have all these different people working toward the exact same social necessities when they are so far apart.  And that has been grotesquely obvious in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder.  We’ve learned many hard truths in the wake of it that will require real action in the future.

Rich Hoffman

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

What Women Hate The Most: Nobody wants to see a slug too lazy to work

There is a recent survey where women have indicated that the periods where they experience the most stress are when their men, the people they pick to share a life with, raise a family, and build something, are lying on the couch doing nothing but watching TV or playing video games.  Now I say all this after years of experience in employing people, many thousands of them, and after raising two daughters and being married for 38 years to the same woman.  What I’m going to say is politically incorrect in lots of ways, but it’s the result of terrible things that we have taught our society when we tried to implement feminism into a biological experiment that has essentially destroyed people at a very foundational level.  We have a laziness problem, and it came from people who wanted to socially re-engineer society by attacking men and toxic masculinity, to empower women to play a larger role in the workplace, and in spending less time raising families, because the idea of a family was under attack by radical leftist ideas.  So most of what men have come to believe about what they should be doing in the world has come from people trying to destroy them, purposefully by rotting their minds with social fashions that were never healthy for them or society.  But that doesn’t change the biology of people, where women expect a man to be strong and to take care of them so they can raise a nice family.  No matter what society has said about the subject, when a woman sees a man lying on the couch not doing anything, it brings her great stress.  It doesn’t matter who the woman is; it just doesn’t sit well with them because it makes it evident to the woman that her man is useless. 

Oh, the man might be good at something here and there, but if he won’t work, it makes him pretty much a slug, a detriment to the creation of the family.  And women were told by that same society that they could replace all those emotions with a career of their own and their own paycheck.  And that the public schools would teach their children everything they needed to know, so they shouldn’t worry about any of it.  But for women, there is always something going on, a bill that needs to be paid, oil that needs to be changed, grass that needs to be cut.  The grim reality for a woman when she sees that her man wants to sleep on the couch all the time without doing the work it takes to build a family is that she is doomed to a life of misery.  Once a woman trades sexual favors to a man to launch a family, which all women experience, like trout returning to the spring of their birth, if a woman fails to get a guy in her life who will help her build a family, the disappointment starts to really eat away at her, and everything starts to fall apart.  She may raise her kids in a somewhat reasonable way, but what she is left with in the aftermath is major disappointment and resentment.  Kids don’t stay young very long.  What is a couple supposed to do together once they have come together and raised kids?  Especially if the men are lying around sleeping while there is a lot of work to be done?  Chances are their marriage will end, or the woman will grow very resentful and start hating the man for all the disappointments he brought her during that key time in her life.  If a family isn’t working together towards a common goal, everything falls apart. 

I’m not joking when I talk about AI being more reliable than people.  I love the idea of being productive with AI because, based on my experience, people are often unreliable.  They have too much emotional baggage from the numerous decisions they’ve made over the years, which have led to personal destruction.  As I have watched many people grow up and go through this cycle, I have always thought of it as an artificial problem created by social values that were all wrong.  A lot of men were taught that hard work led to heart attacks and an unhealthy life.  So they think that eating potato chips all day while earning new merits in a video game environment will satisfy them.  All it really does is entertain them until the next revision comes out and they have to start all over again.  The idea of buying a house, keeping the cars running, and caring for their children with strong emotional foundations is someone else’s problem, doesn’t excite them as it should.  Someone will eventually pick up the slack.  They have been taught that the excuse for their lack of work is to maintain stress so they don’t die from being overworked.  But in that process, their wives secretly hope they’ll die and free them of the misery and embarrassment that so many men these days bring to their marriages.  People have been taught that hard work is bad for them, and that not working at a job and spending their leisure time trying to do less work is somehow beneficial.  And it is at that source that all the problems start.  I’m thrilled that we’re at a time when AI can begin to do what many young men won’t do: work in a productive environment. 

I’ve always worked a lot, at least 60 to 80 hours a week.  And I fix all kinds of things, all the time.  Growing up, most of the people I knew were farmers, who always worked hard.  And when people worked hard, they were happier people.  And that is certainly true of me, I’m a happy person.  What makes me unhappy is witnessing laziness, people who work hard to avoid working hard.  My experience suggests that they are bringing misery upon themselves in a rebellion against logic.  And they aren’t even curious about the poison they have been given through their learning, from people obviously trying to sink America by destroying its workforce.  After World War II, America demonstrated its industrial capacity through the hard work of its free people. Many people around the world then sought to undermine the American work ethic for various malicious reasons.  And as we look around today, they have been all too successful.  Many men, young and old, are wasting their lives lying around doing nothing, then complaining when they are expected to pull their own weight.   And the women who match up with them are miserable, because they only get a few short years in their lives to get it right, when their flowers bloom, and they can pick whoever they want in the world through sexuality, to build a family with.  And if they get a dud, it brings misery to them for the rest of their life.  They might raise their families and make the best of things.  However, nothing makes them more stressed out than learning that their men don’t want to work while the bills pile up and the family’s needs are not being met.  And the young girls turn into bitter women as their windows close.  Sure, they could get a divorce, but for what purpose?  To find a harder-working man?  There aren’t many out there; chances are, the next one will be a dud too.  And as women raise their families and are stuck with an uninteresting slug sleeping on the couch every day and won’t keep the cars running, or the bills paid, women slowly die inside with the grim reality that it’s all over way too fast.  And if only hard work had been at the core of their marriage, life would have been a lot better for everyone.  Life is about hard work, and the more you put into it, the happier you will be.  The definition of a happy life never comes from leisure.  We are meant to work, and to work a lot.  The last thing a woman wants in her life is a slug that is like another child she has to feed and change all the time, who doesn’t help her have a happy life because he is too lazy to work.  The woman wants to work to raise her family, and if he is just another parasite in her life, taking from her instead of her having to give everything to the creation of a family, of course, she’s not going to be very happy when he’s sleeping on the couch.

Rich Hoffman

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