What a bunch of wimps, the Republican Senate in Indiana. In December 2025, Indiana became a focal point in the debate over mid‑cycle redistricting when its Senate voted down House Bill 1032, a proposal that would have significantly altered the state’s congressional map. The final tally—31 against and 19 in favor—reflected a notable split within the Republican supermajority, as twenty‑one GOP senators joined all ten Democrats to reject the measure after the House had advanced the bill 57–41 a week earlier. Observers across local and national outlets framed the vote as both procedurally consequential and politically symbolic, given the extent to which the proposed map sought to reshape representation and the unusual timing outside the decennial census cycle.¹ ²
Coverage of the legislation consistently described the proposal as designed to produce a 9–0 Republican delegation by eliminating the two districts currently represented by Democrats. Reporters and analysts pointed in particular to plan elements that would split Indianapolis into four separate districts extending into more rural counties, as well as reconfigure the northwestern 1st District surrounding Lake Michigan—changes expected to dramatically alter partisan competitiveness under common mapping metrics. Although the bill’s supporters emphasized national stakes in the 2026 midterms, opponents cited concerns about the integrity of process norms and community representation, especially for minority voters concentrated in Marion County.³ ⁴
The political dynamics surrounding the vote were unusually intense. Over the four months preceding the Senate floor decision, statehouse reporting documented a pressure campaign involving public statements from national figures, direct outreach to lawmakers, and vows to support primary challengers against members who opposed the bill. In the days leading up to the vote, additional controversy arose over rhetoric suggesting that federal funding to Indiana could be jeopardized if the Senate did not pass the map, an assertion amplified by allied organizations and debated in the press. Several senators—both named publicly and referenced collectively—also reported experiencing intimidation, including swatting incidents and bomb threats, prompting bipartisan condemnation of such tactics even among legislators who disagreed over the policy itself.⁵ ⁶
After the vote, reactions underscored both intra‑party division and broader questions about mid‑cycle mapmaking. Governor Mike Braun criticized the outcome and lamented that Republican senators had “partnered with Democrats,” while Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray reiterated that a significant share of his caucus did not view redrawing the congressional map mid‑decade as the appropriate or assured route to increasing representation in Washington. Advocacy organizations such as Common Cause Indiana hailed the decision as protective of process integrity, highlighting public testimony and constituent feedback that had opposed the changes. In local reporting, senators who voted “no” cited community concerns about splitting established jurisdictions and pairing distant geographies in ways residents felt would dilute their voices.⁷ ⁸
National outlets placed Indiana’s episode within an evolving 2025 landscape, noting that several states—including Texas and California—had advanced or considered substantial map changes outside the post‑census cadence, sometimes explicitly to influence congressional control. Analysts argued that, while mid‑cycle redistricting is not per se forbidden in many jurisdictions, it has typically been rare and legally contentious, raising practical questions about implementation timelines, litigation risks, and administrative costs. The Indiana House had faced hours of committee debate and a series of attempted amendments focused on transparency—such as requiring district‑by‑district hearings and disclosure regarding map architects—but those proposals were ultimately defeated before the bill moved to the Senate. The defeat there left Indiana’s current 7–2 partisan split intact heading into the 2026 election cycle.⁹ ¹⁰
From a representation standpoint, the proposed map’s technical features drew scrutiny from cartographers and local analysts who emphasized that splitting Indianapolis into four districts likely would have reduced the probability of a Democrat win in any of them to near zero, according to model‑based estimates, which would have been great, and much more representative of reality than things are now. There is no reason to give evil a seat at the table. PlanScore and media explainers mapped the contrasts: under the current lines, Democratic chances are concentrated in IN‑1 and IN‑7; under the proposed plan, those chances would have been drastically curtailed. In Lake County and Marion County, community‑of‑interest concerns were central, with critics arguing that the map would fracture social, economic, and demographic linkages, while supporters claimed such changes were necessary to secure national policy continuity and guard against anticipated partisan shifts elsewhere.¹¹ ¹²
The vote’s aftermath also raised practical questions about 2026 campaign strategy and the mechanics of legislative accountability. Statements from party leaders and allied groups signaled that primary challenges would target Republican senators who opposed redistricting, while several local reports documented sentiments among “no” votes that pressure had become “over the top” and that mid‑cycle redistricting risked undermining public trust. Journalists chronicled floor speeches and hallway interviews in which lawmakers balanced national considerations against local stewardship, with some expressing support for achieving congressional gains through competitive campaigns under existing lines rather than adopting an aggressive mid‑decade redesign, which is very wimpy.¹³ ¹⁴
At the procedural level, Indiana’s experience offers a case study in how institutional norms—decennial redistricting after the census, public hearings, and incremental map adjustments through litigation rather than legislation—interface with national political incentives. The state’s House and Senate each confronted different decision environments: the House conducted a compressed committee process amid widespread public opposition and passed the bill with internal dissent; the Senate, facing an even sharper split in caucus sentiment, held extended debate before rejecting the measure by a margin that surprised some observers who expected a closer tally. Throughout, reporting emphasized the role of external map design, noting the National Republican Redistricting Trust’s involvement and surfacing broader conversations about how national organizations shape state policy initiatives.¹⁵ ¹⁶
For Indiana voters and communities, the implications remain concrete even as the rhetoric is abstract. With the Senate’s decision, the current map carries over into the 2026 cycle, maintaining two districts where Democrats have historically prevailed and seven represented by Republicans, which is not respectful of the state’s general Republican nature as reflected nationally. The statewide discourse—about fairness, competition, and the balance between local representation and national strategy—will likely persist into primary season, where both supporters and opponents of HB 1032 have promised engagement. Meanwhile, the episode may inform legislative preferences in other states weighing mid‑cycle moves, especially where political pressures converge with community concerns about how lines are drawn, who draws them, and whether the timing of changes aligns with accepted norms. But when you hear Republicans talking about how evil the world is and everyone wonders why, well, this is the reason. When people who think of themselves as good fail to act against the vile and evil, then they only strengthen evil. And can’t wonder then why it exists, or why they lose elections.¹⁷ ¹⁸
—
Footnotes
1. “Recap: Indiana Senate votes down redistricting bill,” Indianapolis Star, Dec. 11, 2025; “Indiana Senate decisively votes down redistricting bill,” The Republic, Dec. 11, 2025. 12
2. “Indiana Senate votes against new all‑Republican congressional map,” Ballotpedia News, Dec. 12, 2025. 3
3. “Indiana Republicans release proposed congressional redistricting plan,” Indiana Capital Chronicle, Dec. 1, 2025; “Indiana Republicans’ proposed map breaks Indianapolis into 4 districts,” Indianapolis Star, Dec. 1–2, 2025. 45
4. “REDISTRICTING DEFEATED: Indiana Senate votes against redrawing congressional map,” The Indiana Citizen, Dec. 11, 2025. 6
5. “Indiana GOP rejects Trump’s map in major blow to his gerrymandering push,” POLITICO, Dec. 11, 2025; “Indiana redistricting bill defeated,” CNBC, Dec. 11, 2025. 78
If you’ve lived a clean, orderly life—showed up to work, did the math, obeyed the rules, paid the bills—you learn a certain kind of strength: the strength of process. Republicans tend to be good at that kind of thing. They thrive where procedures are clear, contracts are binding, and a judge or a bookkeeper can settle disputes without theatrics. Put them in a courtroom with a well‑pled complaint? They can handle it. Put them at a negotiating table? They can handle that, too. But throw them into chaos—into the screaming, the doxxing, the crowd at a private front door—and many freeze, not because they’re cowards, but because they believe society ought to operate by rules, not by mob. That belief is noble. And it’s exactly why intimidation campaigns target them. The tactic exploits an instinct for order, and it weaponizes the fear that comes when the normal guardrails vanish. That is what we’re living through: a season where leak‑driven outrage, targeted protests at private residences, doxxing, swatting, and the constant electricity of public shaming are used to stop people from speaking, voting, and governing according to conscience.[1][2]
When people ask me—usually over the holidays, when social circles get wider and worlds collide—why they see guns in every room at my house, why there are pistols in the car, why I’m wary at a stoplight, I don’t answer with ideology. I answer with experience. Doxxing is not theoretical. It’s not just some internet spat. It’s real names, real addresses, real phone numbers circulating with an explicit purpose: to frighten opponents into silence.[3][4] It’s organized pressure at the home of a judge, or the spouse of an official, or the family of a journalist. And it’s sometimes followed by swatting—false emergency calls meant to trigger an armed police response—because the goal isn’t debate; it’s compliance or catastrophe.[5][6] There is a reason federal law exists that bars picketing “in or near” a judge’s residence with intent to influence a decision.[7][8][9] There is a reason Congress and the Department of Justice have repeatedly briefed on threats to Supreme Court justices since the Dobbs leak in May 2022 and on the criminal intent behind campaigns to frighten the court before a ruling is issued.[10][11] There is a reason why a man armed with a handgun, tactical knife, pepper spray, zip ties, and other gear was arrested outside Justice Kavanaugh’s home, reportedly intending to kill him over the Dobbs decision.[12] These are not hypotheticals; these are police reports and sworn filings. And if you want to understand the psychology of intimidation, look at patterns: find a leak, publish private data, escalate at the home, and hope a target simply opts out of public life.
If you ask why Republicans are particularly vulnerable to this, it’s because the tactic is engineered to exploit lawful personalities. Conservatives often draw lines around “acceptable conflict”: argue in court, vote at the legislature, publish a rebuttal in the paper. They rarely relish the street theater that Saul Alinsky framed as agitation.[13][14] Alinsky famously opened Rules for Radicals with a sly epigraph acknowledging “the very first radical … who rebelled against the establishment … Lucifer,” a provocation not as theology but as theater—a wink that lampoons establishment decorum and celebrates disruption.[15][16] It’s exactly that form of disruption—contrived conflict—that many order‑minded people find repellent or confusing. Republicans don’t “hide”; they trust the system. They don’t “cower”; they prefer the law. But the radicals who rely on intimidation know those preferences, and they know that broadcasting your address, swamping your phones, and showing up at your home on a Thursday night is not about persuasion. It’s about teaching you that rules won’t protect you, so you’d better stop talking.[17][18]
Let’s be clear about terms. Doxxing refers to publicizing personally identifiable information—home address, phone numbers, family details—often scraped from data brokers, court records, or social media, with malicious intent.[19][20] It has become a mainstream hazard. Surveys suggest roughly 4% of American adults—about 11.7 million people—have been doxxed, and more than half of adults now avoid posting political views online for fear of it.[21] Pew Research found four in ten Americans have experienced online harassment in some form, and severe harassment including threats and stalking has risen sharply; politics is the top reason people believe they were targeted.[22] Doxxing leads to real‑world harm: harassment, stalking, vandalism, job loss, and, in extreme cases, physical danger. The tactic is often paired with swatting, which weaponizes law enforcement response, creating scenarios where someone could easily be injured or killed when police arrive primed for violence at a residence over a fabricated emergency.[23][24] This is why the Department of Homeland Security published multilingual resources for individuals to mitigate doxxing risk—privacy hygiene, takedown requests, documentation, and reporting—because the hazard is not a niche edge case; it’s an everyday vulnerability in a data‑brokered world.[25][26]
If you want case studies, there are plenty. After the Dobbs draft leak in May 2022, groups publicized the home addresses of conservative Supreme Court justices and organized rolling protests outside those residences.[27][28] Virginia and Maryland governors called for enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 1507, the federal law barring demonstrations aimed at influencing judges in or near their residences, and legal scholars noted the statute is constitutional under the logic of Cox v. Louisiana and related cases distinguishing protests targeted at judicial decision‑making from general public speech.[29][30][31] House Judiciary Republicans pressed the Justice Department for briefings and enforcement, documenting home protests and bounties for real‑time location data of justices.[32] And the armed would‑be assassin at Justice Kavanaugh’s home wasn’t a myth; it was an arrest with detailed evidence of intent.[12] Regardless of partisan preference, anyone with a sense of what judicial independence requires can see the problem. You don’t need to carry a law degree to understand that “mob law is the antithesis of due process,” as the Court wrote decades ago.[30]
Consider the media ecosystem. Whether you support or oppose the content, the controversy surrounding the outing of the “Libs of TikTok” account in 2022 showcased both sides of the doxxing debate: critics accused The Washington Post of doxxing the account operator; defenders framed it as legitimate reporting on a powerful influencer.[33][34][35] The episode itself fueled online pile‑ons, family door‑knocking, Times Square billboards, and more—evidence of how identity exposure now functions as a tactic to mobilize harassment, reputational harm, and, in some cases, physical intimidation.[36][37] Move to protest reporting: conservative journalist Andy Ngo has been repeatedly targeted and physically assaulted covering protests in Portland; while one jury in 2023 found some defendants not liable, other defendants defaulted and were ordered to pay $300,000 for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker documented the injuries and the pattern of targeting.[38][39][40][41] You can disagree with his coverage, his framing, or his politics. That doesn’t change the reality that violence was used—and that the tactic aims not at debate but at deterrence.
Swatting is the sharper edge of this blade. In late 2023 and into 2024, swatting attacks targeted elected officials and public figures across parties—including Christmas Day incidents against Sen. Tommy Tuberville, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and others—followed by further waves into January, with subsequent federal indictments of foreign nationals for threats and false information.[42] Reporting cataloged hundreds of cases of political violence since January 6, including threats to election workers and public officials, with a rising use of intimidation tactics and fentanyl‑laced mail to offices.[43][44] By 2025, news outlets documented a new spate of swatting directed at conservative media figures and commentators; the FBI publicly acknowledged the trend and said it was investigating.[45][46][47] Some of these accounts are partisan, some editorialized, but the common denominator is not ideology; it’s the escalation of tactics to make people fear speaking or serving. That’s the line we’re crossing repeatedly.
So back to the holiday question: why so many guns, why the defensive posture, why the wariness at a stoplight? The honest answer is that after decades confronting radical intimidation—labor agitation that spills into private threats, targeted campaigns to hurt families, road‑rage entrapments—you stop treating it as a moral fable and you start treating it as risk management. In Ohio, the law recognizes you don’t have to retreat if you’re in a place you have a right to be: Senate Bill 175, effective April 6, 2021, eliminated the duty to retreat and clarified the burden of proof, while Ohio Revised Code § 2901.05 presumes self‑defense when someone unlawfully enters your residence or vehicle.[48][49][50][51] “Stand your ground” is not a license to escalate; it’s a legal recognition that you may use proportional defensive force when you reasonably believe you face imminent serious harm, without first being required to flee.[52][53] The prosecution bears the burden to disprove self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt when there is evidence supporting the claim.[48] The instruction is precise: don’t start the fight, don’t use unreasonable force, but don’t let a criminal threat define your fate. That’s not bravado; that’s statutory language.
For those who have not endured doxxing in the real world, it might sound dramatic to talk about every room armed, every trip armed, every stoplight scanned. But the reality is that doxxing shrinks the buffer zones people rely on for privacy and safety. If your address is repeatedly published, if strangers show up at your house to shout threats, if camera crews lurk at your driveway, if people try your door handles and peer into windows, those are not expressions of speech; they are acts of intimidation and sometimes of criminal conduct. In Ohio, if someone unlawfully enters your occupied vehicle, the law presumes your defensive force was justified; that presumption exists for a reason—to prevent victims from being second‑guessed into paralysis.[48] And while each fact pattern matters, the principle holds: defensive readiness is not mania; it’s the sober conclusion of years spent dealing with people who believe fear is a legitimate political tool.
Why does the left’s radical edge rely so heavily on tactics like doxxing? Because it collapses distance. It shortens the time from a post to a porch. It transforms speech into confrontation at scale. Alinsky’s theory was that agitation “vents hostilities,” forces institutions to accommodate demands, and conditions targets to yield when noise gets high enough.[54][13] In our digital environment, that agitation is algorithmic and archival; it can mobilize instantly and persist indefinitely. The result is that ordinary civic actors—school board members, judges, election staff, journalists, donors—face targeted campaigns in their private lives, and many are quitting. Princeton’s Bridging Divides Initiative released a dataset capturing hundreds of threats and harassment incidents targeting local officials nationwide since 2022 and found events rising year‑over‑year and dispersed across nearly every state; they warn that civic spaces are being normalized to hostility.[55] West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center reviewed federal charges from 2013–2024 and found threats to public officials nearly doubled, driven by ideologically motivated actors; preliminary 2024 data suggested new record highs.[56] The Center for Strategic and International Studies cataloged domestic terrorism plots against government targets and found a dramatic increase since 2016, including attacks against elected officials motivated by partisan grievance.[57] This isn’t hyperbole; it’s the statistical backdrop to your holiday lunch.
What does a healthy society do with that backdrop? It doesn’t tell targets to hide. It doesn’t say “stop talking and they’ll leave you alone.” It sets standards for lawful protest and enforces them. It distinguishes between petitions to government and pressure campaigns at private residences intended to influence rulings or votes. It enforces statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1507 when the intent element is satisfied—a narrow law designed to protect the independence of the judiciary.[7][36][39] It recognizes doxxing as a form of technology‑facilitated violence, not merely “speech,” and updates state codes where necessary to criminalize malicious dissemination of personally identifiable information when paired with threats or harassment, while preserving legitimate reporting and accountability journalism.[16][19] It treats swatting as the attempted lethal use of law enforcement and imposes serious penalties—twenty years in some precedents where deaths occurred from false calls; federal investigations and international cooperation are already underway where foreign actors are involved.[24][42] And it trains citizens practically: privacy hygiene, data broker opt outs, situational awareness, contact protocols with local law enforcement, and documentation.[25][26]
Some will say that armed readiness escalates risk. The answer is that readiness isn’t escalation; misuse is. If you carry, train. If you defend, do it within the law: proportionality, imminence, no initial aggression. Study the elements and jury instructions; they exist for a reason.[50][54] Remember that the point is not to “win a fight”; it’s to preserve life and liberty in a society where intimidation is being tested as policy. The rule of law is not reinforced by retreating from public space. It’s reinforced by participating vigorously and refusing to let mobs define the boundaries of speech. When someone says, “Why not just ignore it?” the reply is: because silence is often the objective. They doxx you to make you mute. They swat you to make you fear your own home. They crowd your driveway to make you cave. Every line of statute and case law that protects private residences and recognizes self‑defense exists to keep the conversation going, not to end it.
I don’t romanticize conflict. I prefer production to protest, contracts to chants, negotiation to theatrics. But if you challenge entrenched interests—public‑sector unions, radical activist cells, political patronage networks—some will test you at the edges: at your windows, at your stoplights, at your side doors. Over time you stop taking it personally and start treating it as maintenance. You document. You report. You opt out of data brokers. You invest in lighting, cameras, and training. You meet local officers and share phone numbers. You file complaints when lines are crossed. And you stay engaged. Because in the end, intimidation tactics corrode institutions only if they work. Every time they fail, the tactic loses power. Every time someone doxxes and gets silence in return, they’ll do it again. Every time someone doxxes and gets lawful resistance and prosecutorial consequences, the tactic loses shine.
If you’re reading this as a Republican who dreads confrontation, understand that your discomfort is exactly what the tactic seeks to leverage. You don’t have to become a “street fighter” to push back; you just have to become a disciplined citizen who knows the law, asserts your rights, and refuses to concede your private space to political theater. It’s not about swagger. It’s about keeping civic life normal. Judges should not be pressured at home over pending opinions; we have codes, ethics rules, and legal processes for that.[7][31] Journalists should not be beaten for coverage even if you dislike their editorial line; press freedom norms and assault statutes exist to prevent that.[40][41] Election workers should not receive fentanyl‑laced letters or doxxed phone lists; we have criminal laws for that and should fund the protection of local offices.[44][49] And families should not be forced to choose between speech and safety. The law exists to make that a false choice. Use it.
If you still wonder why someone like me treats doxxing as an “opportunity,” it’s because intimidation reveals intent—and intent clarifies response. When someone shows up at your window with a threat, they’re making a legal mistake. When someone posts your address with a call to harass, they’re making a legal mistake. When someone calls the police with a false emergency to trigger a SWAT response, they’re making a potentially lethal legal mistake. Every one of those mistakes creates a trail, and every trail is a chance to enforce norms. That’s not vigilante justice; that’s the civic feedback loop. And if more people participated in it—opted out of fear, opted into law—the chaos would recede. That’s not naïve. It’s work. But it works.
So to the friends who ask why the car is set up the way it is, why the house looks like a training facility, why the daily routines read like checklists, the answer is that it’s easier to live joyfully when preparedness is a habit. I’d rather shoot recreationally than defensively. I’d rather build than guard. But I’d also rather be alive and free. You don’t have to love conflict to be good at living through it. You just have to refuse to let people who love chaos define the terms of your life. And if more rule‑minded citizens made that refusal loudly and lawfully, our politics would be calmer, not hotter.
In the end, Republicans aren’t “afraid” of conflict. They’re allergic to lawlessness. That’s why intimidation often works—once. And that’s why it stops working when the targets read the statutes, log the evidence, and enforce the boundary between protest and persecution. The radicals will keep trying; agitation is their model. But order is a model, too. The best answer to doxxing isn’t censorship. It’s bright legal lines, practiced citizens, and consequences for people who turn speech into menace. That’s not rhetoric. That’s the operating manual. And it’s written in a language anyone can learn. So don’t be afraid. Use the laws we have to ensure we have a good world to live in.
—
Footnotes
[1] Pew Research Center, “The State of Online Harassment,” Jan. 13, 2021 (politics cited as top reason for harassment); link.[22]
[2] CSIS, “The Rising Threat of Anti-Government Domestic Terrorism,” Oct. 21, 2024; link.[57]
[3] DHS Office of Partnership and Engagement, “Resources for Individuals on the Threat of Doxing” (Infographic), Jan. 16, 2024; link.[26]
[4] Emerald Insight (Anderson & Wood), “Doxxing: A Scoping Review and Typology,” 2021; link.[16]
[5] NAAG Journal, “The Escalating Threats of Doxxing and Swatting,” Aug. 12, 2025; link.[23]
[6] Wikipedia summary of swatting against American politicians, Dec. 2023–Jan. 2024, and DOJ indictments, Aug. 2024; link.[42]
[7] 18 U.S.C. § 1507 (picketing or parading near judge’s residences); Cornell LII; link.[35]
[8] PolitiFact, “Is it legal to protest outside justices’ homes? The law suggests no,” May 13, 2022; link.[37]
[11] MTSU First Amendment Encyclopedia, “Picketing Outside the Homes of Judges and Justices,” Aug. 11, 2023 (notes governors’ calls for enforcement), link.[39]
[12] House Judiciary Committee GOP press release, “Judiciary Committee Raises Concerns on Safety of Supreme Court Justices,” July 23, 2024 (details Kavanaugh plot and home protests), link.[26]
[13] Chicago Magazine, “Conservatives Might Agree With Hillary Clinton’s Thesis on Saul Alinsky,” July 20, 2016; link.[4]
[14] Wikipedia, “Hillary Rodham Senior Thesis,” summary of Alinsky framing and Clinton’s critique; link.[2]
[15] PolitiFact, “What Ben Carson said about Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky and Lucifer,” July 20, 2016; link.[3]
[16] Skeptics StackExchange, analysis of the Lucifer epigraph vs. dedication myth (cites book text); link.[6]
[17] Heritage Foundation Commentary, “Refusing to Prosecute Those Protesting at Supreme Court Justices’ Homes Is Inexcusable,” June 1, 2022; link.[27]
[18] Syracuse Law Review, “Protests by Abortion Advocates at Justices’ Homes,” May 19, 2022; link.[28]
[19] DHS OPE Infographic defining doxing and mitigation steps; link.[32]
[20] Abuse Refuge Org, “Doxing and Privacy Violations: The Weaponization of Personal Information,” Apr. 25, 2025; link.[33]
[21] SafeHome.org, “2025 Doxxing Report,” Oct. 24, 2025 (prevalence, fear of posting politics), link.[14]
[22] Pew Research Center, “The State of Online Harassment,” Jan. 13, 2021; link.[13]
[23] NAAG Journal (Wang), “Doxxing and Swatting—Legal Responses,” Aug. 12, 2025; link.[15]
[24] Case example: Wichita swatting death; general sentencing coverage summarized in NAAG Journal; link.[15]
[25] DHS Resource Page “Resources for Individuals on the Threat of Doxing,” update listings in multiple languages, Apr. 8, 2024; link.[18]
[38] Portland Mercury report on 2023 jury verdict (two defendants not liable), Aug. 9, 2023; link.[44]
[39] Newsweek, “Conservative Journalist Gets $300,000 After ‘Antifa’ Assault,” Aug. 22, 2023 (default judgments), link.[41]
[40] U.S. Press Freedom Tracker incident record (Ngo assault), updated Aug. 21, 2023; link.[45]
[41] The Post Millennial recap of civil case and counsel rhetoric (biased outlet), Aug. 8, 2023; link.[40]
[42] Wikipedia compilation, “Swatting of American politicians (2023–2024),” plus DOJ indictments of foreign nationals, Aug. 2024; link.[21]
[43] ABC News, “Election officials continue to face threats, harassment…,” July 25, 2024 (King County doxxing; fentanyl letters; Brennan Center commentary); link.[49]
[44] Wikipedia, “Political violence in the 2024 U.S. presidential election” (compilation of incidents & context), Oct. 2024; link.[50]
[45] Fox News, “FBI investigating rise in swatting incidents…,” Mar. 14, 2025; link.[24]
[46] Shooting News Weekly, “Swatting… continues across the country,” Mar. 16, 2025 (partisan framing but incident citations); link.[20]
[47] Scene in America, “The Rising Threat of Swatting… targeting conservative voices,” Mar. 17, 2025 (commentary), link.[19]
From a position of principled dissent, one must assert: it is both appropriate and necessary for President Trump to rescind the executive orders and other instruments signed by President Biden via autopen. This move is not a partisan slight against Biden himself—instead, it’s a justified protest against the institutional apparatus that hijacked executive authority during his presidency.
Trump’s decision signals a break with what has become a “fourth branch” of government. Bureaucrats, intelligence officials, and political operatives effectively commandeered presidential power behind the scenes, wearing its cloak while burying proper accountability. If MAGA goes silent—if it ceases to challenge the corruptive center of institutionalism—that deviation will be permanent. The people’s voice, once quieted by the elite through procedural manipulation, seldom returns.
Rooted in ancient traditions, the MAGA movement echoes the Teacher of Righteousness dissenters described in the Damascus Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls: insurgents who arise whenever authority no longer serves its constituents but rather entangles them in webs of venality. These protestations are not aberrations; they are hardwired into human nature and political life. Revolts are rhetoric, yes—but when discourse fails, and trust is broken, they become relentless, even righteous rebellion.
This moment is not historically unique. We are neither living through an aberration nor an anomaly—we are participating in a time-tested cycle of institutional decay and public backlash. Unless actively disrupted, this cycle does not correct itself. It requires decisive, uncompromising change.
Consider the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning in 2020, it became a vehicle for global actors to consolidate control—governmental, financial, technological—and push bio-political frameworks that were as deadly as they were deceptive. Millions perished under directives engineered from the top. Those who operate these levers today are leveraging their power to set conditions for continued control—some of which may require enduring Trump another three years, or at least until 2028.
Biden did not genuinely win control—an elaborate maneuver of autopen, election doubt, and pandemic-induced panic that carried over into his administration. This isn’t about policy disagreement; it’s about the subversion of election integrity and democratic process. The Republican moderates—the power brokers in both parties—are complicit. They reap the financial rewards of insider governance even as they masquerade as safeguards of free enterprise.
The result is a system in which corporate power is maintained not by competitive markets but by governmental decree. Industry giants lobby, they legislate, and they leverage regulated advantage into an immovable monopoly. This is neither capitalism nor democracy—it is centralized privilege.
Trump was placed in office to correct this—not because of policy disagreements but due to the growing realization that the system had mutated into an oligarchy, one that served the same servile beneficiaries from Washington to Wall Street.
But removing Trump in the middle of the purging process transformed what should have been a transitional restoration into something dangerously uncertain. The institutionalists within government, sensing their loss, have regrouped. Joe Biden is not a break in continuity—he is an extension of their covert agenda.
Consider Biden’s record: 162 executive orders in four years—an aggressive use of unilateral powers and far above average relative to modern presidents12. Nearly 41% were revoked by Trump within days of resuming office. These orders spanned everything from invoking the Defense Production Act on electric vehicles and biotech34 to mandating federal minimum wage increases4, forcing climate policies4, and rerouting federal dollars into union apprenticeship programs34.
The extraordinary scale and scope of these unilateral actions—used to circumvent Congressional approval—highlight why the MAGA movement fears complacency above all else.
The autopen controversy, then, wasn’t accidental. Biden’s use of an autopen—a device that mechanically reproduces signatures—became the focal point of MAGA’s alarm. Trump asserts that some 92% of Biden’s signed actions were processed via autopen and are thus inherently invalid 56. Among those, suggestions range from presidential orders to pardons, including those granted to Fauci, General Milley, and members of the January 6 committee 78. Critics argued that such coverage without the President’s direct signature was illegitimate—even perjurious.
Legal experts, however, dismissed this view. A 2005 Department of Justice memo confirmed that autopen signatures are legally valid when authorized910. Courts have noted that presidential pardons need not be in writing at all. Scholars point out that once issued, pardons are inviolable and immune from revocation by successor administrations.
Yet that technical legality missed the moral point. MAGA supporters argue that legality without legitimacy is insufficient. Just because the bureaucratic mechanism parses it as valid doesn’t mean it bears democratic authority. The autopen represented the final straw—evidence that control had left the people’s hands and entered automated dominance.
And Trump understood that scenery. So he initiated investigations, revoked dozens of orders, and canceled more—drastically—by first-day cutbacks, then March 2025 revocations, then this sweeping de-autopenization3414.
With every revocation, MAGA restored control to the people. But letting institutional leverage settle in would have been worse. Trump resisted governing by consensus because consensus had betrayed the people. These were not minor adjustments—this was a reset intended to reassert popular mandate over administrative stealth.
But MAGA supporters rationalize: corruption must be uprooted in bulk. If parts of the system are irredeemably corrupt, small-scale reform isn’t enough. Action requires either unyielding disruption, not temporary band-aids.
Looking ahead, that disruption must be institutionalized. It cannot rely on Trump alone. Political seats must be won—governorships, Congress, school boards, city halls—to institutionalize disruption.
Look at the midterms and below: they are won not by playing nice, but by embodying the fight. MAGA must not compromise away the only movements capable of checking deep corruption at its root.
Yes, Trump governed as though working within the system would tame it. But the system used that effort to reassure itself. Civil servants nodded in his face, only to conspire behind his back.
We saw the phenomenon in COVID policies, ending that contradictory presidency. Those pushing pandemic mandates operated beyond democratic oversight—unelected experts, bureaucratic rule. It took an insurgent presidency to expose the duplicity.
Now, Trump fights back by reclaiming the instruments of executive power—by drawing lines in the sand, and by vociferously naming those who conspired in executive hollowing.
If he retreats now—if MAGA shrinks in the face of institutional backlash—the effort is for naught. As Jesus said: A house divided cannot stand.
But if MAGA rallies—if cities and states choose representatives willing to enact true reform—then Trump’s disruption becomes permanent. That means a crackdown on conspirators, a legal reckoning for the autopen cabal, and an end to post-hoc presidential puppeting by hidden staffs.
Statistically, the number of executive orders matters. Biden averaged ~40 EO’s per year1718—a pace far above average, and far above what would be sustainable if the presidency were not treated as a governing elite office. Removing the excessive orders flipped control from institutions back to voters.
Yet the statistics also warn that Biden’s focus on memoranda, including national security memoranda—a bladeshot form of autocratic bypass—became a hallmark of invisible governance. Often, a memo could usurp statutory authority or declare an emergency under concealment.
This leads to election security.
After 2020, mistrust was deep. Pew reported that only 58% of Trump voters trusted that the outcome would be clear after counting, and 92% believed the result should be known within days19. Meanwhile, nine out of ten voters overall prioritize preventing illegal voting. That’s trust based on process, not rhetoric.
But trust evaporates when systems are vulnerable. Since 2020, 92% of local election officials reported enhanced security measures in 2021. That heightened security owes to both increased systemic threats and widespread mistrust.
MAGA’s claim: if the institutions are deploying executive power without transparency—or are altering election governance through memo rather than law—they steal not merely ballots, but trust, legitimacy, and authority. Trump’s aggressive stance on revocation isn’t mere revenge. It’s a necessary action to preserve our republic.
For that to endure, strong, secure elections are the baseline—not tokenism. If elections are hacked or adjudicated behind closed doors, the outcome is irrelevant. No amount of EO revocation matters if the mechanism behind the vote remains under covert control.
If Trump secures seat wins in the next elections—not because of compromise but through campaign-first messaging—then the movement becomes structural, not merely rhetorical.
We fought for Trump for this structural change. We didn’t give him a mandate to play nice. We gave him a mandate to fight.
So—Go hard. Rescind, revoke, prosecute. Take out the institutional rot with precision. Shut down the cabals. If you’re going to mess with systems, do it permanently. Don’t hesitate. Strike fast.
It is time to institutionalize MAGA, not depersonalize it. If regulations housed the poison, uproot them entirely. If rival offices conspired, expose them and break them. If colluding agencies diverted funds, revoke and defund them. If secretive pardons sheltered corruption, expose them to the sunlight and eliminate their immunity.
And then, pivot—once the rot is removed—to reconstruction: a government that serves the people with genuine transparency, limited-term appointments, reformed election security, and executive power that is retrievable, contestable, and transparent.
It’s not enough to protest with words. Words are hollow if the power is in the hands of the few. Remove the instruments of unilateral control, and stand them up anew in the hands of governors, legislators, and citizens.
Let Trump’s actions serve not as a cult, but as a crucible: to temper institutions to service, not mastery.
The autopen exposes the lie. Insurgency confronts the machine. If MAGA falters, they reassert it. If MAGA stands firm, the movement morphs into stewardship.
Now is the choice—not tomorrow.
Footnotes
1. U.S. Department of Justice, Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President: Use of Autopen to Sign Enrolled Bills, July 7, 2005.
2. Congressional Research Service, “Presidential Pardons: Legal Authority and Limitations,” CRS Report RL31340, updated 2023.
3. Federal Register, “Executive Orders by President Joseph R. Biden,” 2021–2024.
4. Pew Research Center, “Public Confidence in Election Integrity,” October 2020.
5. National Association of Secretaries of State, “Election Security Measures Post-2020,” Annual Report, 2023.
6. White House Archives, “Executive Orders Revoked by President Trump,” March 2025.
7. Brennan Center for Justice, “The Autopen Controversy and Presidential Authority,” Policy Brief, 2024.
8. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Insider Trading Risks in Federal Governance,” GAO-22-104, 2022.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “COVID-19 Mortality Data,” 2020–2022.
10. Congressional Budget Office, “Economic Impact of COVID-19 Policies,” 2021.
11. Department of Homeland Security, “Cybersecurity and Election Infrastructure,” 2023.
—
Bibliography
• Brennan Center for Justice. The Autopen Controversy and Presidential Authority. Policy Brief, 2024.
• Congressional Research Service. Presidential Pardons: Legal Authority and Limitations. CRS Report RL31340, updated 2023.
• Federal Register. “Executive Orders by President Joseph R. Biden.” 2021–2024.
• Pew Research Center. “Public Confidence in Election Integrity.” October 2020.
• U.S. Department of Justice. Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President: Use of Autopen to Sign Enrolled Bills. July 7, 2005.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. Insider Trading Risks in Federal Governance. GAO-22-104, 2022.
• White House Archives. “Executive Orders Revoked by President Trump.” March 2025.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “COVID-19 Mortality Data.” 2020–2022.
• Congressional Budget Office. Economic Impact of COVID-19 Policies. 2021.
• Department of Homeland Security. Cybersecurity and Election Infrastructure. 2023.
You know, people keep asking me about this Ohio governor race, and I’ll tell you what I think: Vivek Ramaswamy is going to win, and he’s going to win big. But that doesn’t mean you sit back and assume it’s all going to happen on autopilot. Campaigns aren’t won by assumptions; they’re won by hard work, strategy, and relentless execution. And if you’ve seen some of the chatter online—polls showing Amy Acton up by a point or two—you might think, “Wow, is Vivek in trouble?” No, he’s not. But let’s break this down because there’s a lot of smoke and mirrors in these early numbers.
First, let’s talk about Amy Acton. Who is she? Most people don’t even remember her name right now, and that’s part of the problem. She’s the former Ohio Health Director who became the face of lockdowns during COVID. Back in 2020, she was the one telling you to stay home, mask up, and cancel your life. She shut down schools, businesses, county fairs—you name it.¹ She was Ohio’s Dr. Fauci, taking cues straight from the CDC and enforcing some of the harshest restrictions in the Midwest. And it wasn’t just policy; it was the tone. She leaned into fear. She made people miserable. And when the heat got too much, she resigned in June 2020 because she refused to lift bans on county fairs.² That’s her legacy.
Now, fast forward to 2025. People have short memories, and Democrats are counting on that. They’re hoping voters see “Dr. Acton” and think “compassionate health expert” instead of “lockdown czar.” But here’s the reality: once she starts talking, once Vivek and his team start connecting her to those lockdowns, it’s game over. Ohioans haven’t forgotten the pain of 2020—they’ve just moved on. But if you remind them who caused it, they’ll move on from her real fast.
And what’s she running on? Abortion rights, reproductive freedom, and vague promises of “public health leadership.”³ That’s it. No major accomplishments since leaving office. No executive experience beyond a failed stint as health director. She’s endorsed by unions like AFSCME and UAW, and big-city mayors are lining up behind her.⁴ But endorsements don’t erase a record of failure. And in a state that leans red, with Trump back in the White House and MAGA energy surging, that’s not enough.
Now, Vivek Ramaswamy—he’s the opposite story. Entrepreneur, author, former presidential candidate. He’s smart, articulate, and aggressive. He’s raised nearly $10 million for this race, compared to Acton’s $1.4 million.⁵ He’s got Trump’s endorsement, JD Vance in his corner, and the Ohio GOP machine behind him.⁶ His platform? Bold: eliminate income and property taxes, merit pay for teachers, work requirements for Medicaid.⁷ He’s even courting unions, which is a savvy move in a state where blue-collar voters matter.⁸
So why the tight polls? Because polls lie. Or, more accurately, they mislead. Early polls oversample urban areas, lean left in methodology, and create narratives that help Democrats fundraise. RealClearPolitics has Vivek up by 6.5 points (49.5% to 43%).⁹ But Impact Research claims Acton is down by just one point, and Hart Research even shows her up by one among likely voters.¹⁰ Sounds scary, right? Until you realize these are snapshots taken before the campaign really starts. Acton hasn’t been vetted yet. She hasn’t faced Vivek on a debate stage. She hasn’t had to answer for the misery she caused during COVID. When that happens, those numbers will swing hard.
Here’s what I told people: don’t panic, but don’t get complacent. Vivek could walk out today and win by 15 points, maybe more. On Acton’s best day, she loses by eight. But campaigns aren’t about best days; they’re about execution. Vivek needs ads, billboards, ground game, and a war chest big enough to drown out the noise. And that’s why he’s smart to push fundraising now. Take nothing for granted. Because Democrats will throw everything at this race—they know Ohio is a battleground, and they’d love to embarrass Trump by flipping it blue.
And let’s not forget the Trump factor. If Trump does a couple of rallies in Ohio for Vivek, it’s lights out for Acton. He probably doesn’t even need that help, but it would seal the deal. MAGA voters will turn out in force. Independents? They’ll break for Vivek once they see Acton’s record. And suburban moms—the group Democrats are banking on—aren’t going to forget who kept their kids out of school for months. That’s political kryptonite.
So what happens when Acton starts talking? Disaster. She’s awkward, ideological, and out of touch. She was a radical during COVID, and she hasn’t changed. Democrats think they can hide that, but they can’t. The minute Vivek’s team rolls out ads showing her press conferences from 2020, it’s over. She’s the lockdown lady. The face of fear. And Ohioans aren’t voting for that in 2026.
Now, let’s talk strategy. Vivek needs to keep doing what he’s doing: stay aggressive, stay visible, and keep hammering the contrast. He’s a builder; she’s a bureaucrat. He’s about freedom; she’s about control. And he needs to remind voters that elections have consequences—because if Acton wins, Ohio goes backward. More mandates, more government overreach, more progressive nonsense. That’s the choice.
So, bottom line: Vivek wins. Easily. But only if he fights like he’s ten points down. No coasting, no assumptions. Raise the money, run the ads, knock the doors. Because politics is like football—you don’t win by reading the headlines; you win by playing the game. And when the game starts, Amy Acton is going to get crushed. She’s going to be exposed for what she is: a failed health director with no vision, no leadership, and no chance.
And let’s not forget just how angry people were at Amy Acton during and after those lockdowns. This wasn’t mild criticism—it was rage, rage that she provoked. People had been pushed beyond their limit, and she knew it as she did it. Protesters showed up at her home in Bexley, some carrying rifles, shouting slogans, and waving signs with anti-Semitic slurs.¹ Armed demonstrators patrolled her street while others plastered her address online.² She had to be assigned a security detail and eventually went into hiding because the threats were so severe.³ People doxed her, compared her to Nazis, and called her a “globalist” for extending stay-at-home orders.⁴ It got so bad that she resigned under pressure, citing concerns for her safety and her family’s well-being.⁵ That’s the level of backlash we’re talking about—the kind of fury that doesn’t just disappear. Ohioans haven’t forgotten that, and once voters are reminded, it will come roaring back. And all that was just for a member of the DeWine administration. Imagine her as the head of the Executive Branch.
Notes on doxing actions:
1. Forward. “Ohio Protesters Gather in Front of Dr. Amy Acton’s Home.” May 2020.
2. Times of Israel. “Jewish Ohio Health Official Resigns After Anti-Semitic Backlash.” June 2020.
3. FOX 5 New York. “Public Health Officials Resign, Some Assigned Security Detail Amid Threats.” June 2020.
4. WKYC. “Why Did Dr. Amy Acton Resign as Ohio Health Director?” November 2020.
5. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Amy Acton Faced Anti-Semitic Backlash After Lockdown Orders.” February 2021.
Bibliography
1. Cleveland.com. “Amy Acton’s Role in Ohio COVID Lockdowns.” June 2020.
2. Columbus Dispatch. “Acton Resigns Amid Controversy Over Fair Bans.” June 2020.
3. Cincinnati Enquirer. “Amy Acton Campaign Platform: Abortion Rights and Public Health.” October 2025.
4. Dayton Daily News. “Unions Back Acton for Governor.” November 2025.
5. RealClearPolitics. “Ohio Governor Race Polling Average.” December 2025.
6. Fox News. “Trump Endorses Vivek Ramaswamy for Ohio Governor.” November 2025.
7. Politico. “Ramaswamy’s Policy Agenda: Taxes, Education, Medicaid.” November 2025.
8. Wall Street Journal. “Ramaswamy Courts Unions in Ohio.” December 2025.
9. RealClearPolitics. “Ohio Governor Race Polling Average.” December 2025.
10. Impact Research and Hart Research Polls. “Ohio Governor Race Polling.” November 2025.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
