Tag: Republicans

Jen Psaki Says We Don’t Need Prayer: Would gun control have saved poor Iryna Zarutsk

It’s not enough to pray anymore. That’s what we keep hearing, and it’s what Jen Psaki said on her show after the tragic shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis. A trans-identifying individual walked into a place of worship and safety and shattered lives. And while the media tries to frame this as another gun issue, another mental health crisis, another moment for policy debate, the more profound truth is being ignored. We’re watching a society unravel because it’s been taught to outsource its soul to the government.

Who is more valuable in our society?

This wasn’t just a shooting. It was a symptom. A symptom of a culture that’s been told it doesn’t need to believe in anything higher than itself. It doesn’t need family, doesn’t need faith, and doesn’t need personal responsibility. Just laws. Just feelings. Just government. And when Psaki says prayer isn’t enough, what she’s really saying is: don’t trust God, trust us. Trust the system. Trust the people who’ve been failing to protect our kids for decades.

But we’ve seen what happens when people put their faith in government over God, over family, over community. We’ve seen the rise in violence, in confusion, in identity crises. We’ve seen kids who don’t know who they are, who’ve been told they can be anything, do anything, change anything—even their biology—and then collapse under the weight of that illusion. And when they do, when they lash out, when they hurt others, we’re told it’s society’s fault. It’s guns. It’s a mental illness. It’s everything but the ideology that created the conditions.

The shooter in Minneapolis wasn’t just mentally ill. He was a product of a political culture that celebrates victimhood and confusion. He was someone who had been told that feelings are truth, that identity is fluid, that morality is subjective. And when you build a society on those foundations, you get chaos. You get violence. You get kids who don’t just feel lost—they act on it.

And then the media steps in. They sanitize it. They politicize it. They use it. Every tragedy becomes a tool to exert more control, enact more laws, and expand government. But the people pushing these policies aren’t the ones raising strong families. They aren’t the ones teaching kids discipline, faith, and resilience. They’re the ones telling them they’re victims who need help, that they need the state to be their parent.

You don’t see this kind of violence coming from strong family units. You don’t see it in communities that teach self-respect and personal responsibility. You see it where people have been trained to outsource their identity to politics. Where they’ve been told that the government will make them feel safe, feel wealthy, feel whole. But it can’t. It never could.

And that’s why the Second Amendment matters. That’s why guns matter—not just as tools of defense, but as symbols of self-reliance. When you take away people’s ability to protect themselves, you’re not just making them vulnerable physically—you’re making them dependent emotionally. You’re telling them they need someone else to keep them safe. And that message is dangerous.

Because the people who want to run society through centralized control are often the least equipped to do so, they’re not grounded. They’re not stable. They’re not empowered. They’re often the very people who’ve been broken by the system they now want to expand. And when you give administrative power to people who are emotionally unstable, ideologically confused, and disconnected from reality, you get dangerous outcomes.

We’ve seen it in cities run by big government. High crime. High victimization. Low accountability. And every time something terrible happens, the answer is always the same: more laws, more control, more government. But that’s not the solution. The solution is empowerment. It’s strong families. It’s faith. It’s a community. It’s teaching kids that they are responsible for their own lives, their own choices, their own futures.

I’m showing this interview again, because this is the law enforcement attitude that every community should have. We must punish criminals, aggressively.

And yes, it’s guns. Because guns represent the ability to say, “I will protect myself. I will protect my family. I will not wait for someone else to do it.” That’s not violence. That’s virtue. That’s a strength. That’s what built this country.

The shooter in Minneapolis didn’t have that strength. Robert Westman had confusion. He had an ideology. He had a system that told him he was a victim and then gave him no tools to rise above it. And when you combine that with mental illness, with identity instability, with political manipulation, you get tragedy.

And then you get people like Psaki telling us that prayer isn’t enough. We need laws. That we need government. But what we really need is truth. We need to stop pretending that feelings are facts. That identity is whatever you want it to be. That morality is optional. We need to stop raising kids in a culture of confusion and start growing them in a culture of clarity.

Because every time we ignore these truths, we create more victims. More shooters. More tragedies. And every time we politicize those tragedies, we move further away from the real solutions. We don’t need more laws. We need more courage. More conviction. More community. More faith.

And yes, we need prayer. But we also need action. Not the kind of action that expands government power, but the kind that builds personal power. That teaches kids to be strong, moral, and responsible. That teaches them that they don’t need the government to be their parent. They need to be their own person.

That’s the only way we stop this cycle. That’s the only way we protect our kids. That’s the only way we build a society that doesn’t just survive—but thrives.

And what is anybody to make of Decarlos Brown Jr., who stabbed in the neck a very young and beautiful Ukrainian refugee, just minding her own business?  What kind of evil provokes a person to stab someone to death without any provocation?  Would gun control have stopped that terrible crime on a Charlotte, North Carolina, train?  The killer had 14 prior cases; he was sentenced to six years in North Carolina prison for robbery with a dangerous weapon, breaking, and larceny.  He had a history of mental illness and homelessness.  So what would have kept him from killing young Iryna Zarutska, who came to America to escape the ravages of her war-torn country?  Only to be ruthlessly stabbed in the neck three times and to die just because she sat down in front of a killer riding a train, in a city that should be somewhat safe, by perception compared to places like New York or Los Angeles.  These killers are creations by Democrats and their platform of putting feelings above empowerment, leaving in their wake dangerous personalities in society that cannot manage themselves.  Democrats have been soft on crime, assertive on victimization, letting their supporters believe that degraded personalities can thrive in society, that a big daddy government will carry them forward.  But when that doesn’t happen, these personalities turn to violence.  And they believed that because they believed in the politics of Democrats who were soft on crime, soft on punishment.  And most importantly, soft on self-empowerment.  There is no amount of laws in the world that can correct these kinds of personalities, and no gun law would have saved poor Iryna Zarutska.  And gun control would assume that we could trust Democrats to run a healthy society, which we know from vast amounts of evidence, not to be the case.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Autopen and the Question of Presidential Legitimacy: Institutions must prove their position

In the modern American presidency, the act of signing a document is far more than a bureaucratic necessity—it is a symbolic gesture of authority, responsibility, and direct engagement with the nation’s governance. Whether it’s an executive order, a pardon, or a piece of legislation, the president’s signature represents the culmination of deliberation and decision-making at the highest level. However, the increasing use of the autopen, a mechanical device that replicates a signature, has sparked significant controversy, particularly under President Joe Biden. Critics argue that the autopen undermines the authenticity of presidential actions, mainly when used amid concerns about the president’s cognitive acuity and physical presence. The image of a machine signing off on decisions that shape national policy evokes a sense of detachment and raises questions about who truly holds power in the executive branch. While the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel ruled in 2005 that a president may authorize a subordinate to use an autopen to sign legislation, and courts have upheld its legality, the optics remain troubling for many Americans. The legal framework may be sound, but the symbolic implications of a mechanical signature—especially in moments of national crisis or political tension—can erode public confidence in the presidency itself.  And in the case of the Joe Biden presidency, it allowed for a shadow government to run the White House in a way that, looking back on it, was simply unacceptable. 

The autopen controversy is not an isolated phenomenon; it is part of a broader historical pattern of questioning presidential legitimacy, often fueled by conspiracy theories and partisan distrust. During Barack Obama’s presidency, the “birther” movement gained traction, alleging that Obama was not born in the United States and was therefore ineligible to serve as president. Despite the release of his long-form birth certificate and multiple independent verifications of its authenticity, critics continued to claim it was digitally fabricated. Figures like Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona amplified these claims, arguing that the document contained layers inconsistent with 1960s technology. These allegations were not thoroughly debunked by forensic analysts, even though they were dismissed in court; yet, they persisted in the public imagination. We have since witnessed, with judicial activism, the liberal leanings of the courts to be activists of their own, as if they hold the fate of the human race under their black robes of injustice.  The endurance of such theories reveals a troubling trend: when legal and factual rebuttals fail to quell doubt, the issue becomes less about truth and more about belief. The birther controversy laid the groundwork for a culture of skepticism toward federal institutions, where even the most basic credentials of leadership could be called into question. This skepticism has since evolved into a broader distrust of democratic processes and the legitimacy of elected officials, creating fertile ground for future controversies, such as those surrounding the autopen.

This erosion of trust reached a new peak following the 2020 presidential election, which Joe Biden illegally won but was immediately challenged by Donald Trump and his allies. Over 60 lawsuits were filed contesting the results, nearly all of which were dismissed for lack of evidence or standing—even by judges appointed by Trump himself.  Again, judicial activism was revealed to be a significant issue that had not been previously well understood.  The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency declared the election “the most secure in American history,” yet many Americans remained unconvinced, and for good reason. The belief that the election was stolen became a rallying cry, not just against Biden, but against the entire machinery of government. In this context, the autopen took on symbolic significance. For some, it represented a presidency run by unelected aides, rubber-stamping decisions without the president’s full awareness or engagement. The idea that a president could be physically or mentally absent while critical decisions were being made by staffers or machines fed into a broader narrative of institutional decay and manipulation. Whether or not this perception is accurate, it underscores a crisis of confidence in the executive branch. The legal validity of the autopen is beside the point for many critics; what matters is the perceived absence of genuine leadership and the fear that democratic institutions are being manipulated behind closed doors. This perception has real consequences for the health of American institutionalism.

At the heart of these controversies lies a fundamental question: What does it mean to govern legitimately in a democratic society? Is it enough for presidential actions to be technically legal, or must they also be visibly accountable and transparent? The use of the autopen, the birther movement, and the disputes over election integrity all point to a more profound anxiety—that the American people are losing control over the institutions meant to serve them. If a president can be propped up, decisions made by anonymous staffers, and signatures affixed by machines, then where does sovereignty truly lie? These are not just partisan concerns; they are constitutional ones—the Constitution vests executive power in the president, not in machines or unelected aides. While the courts may uphold the legality of these practices, the court of public opinion demands something more: clarity, honesty, and a renewed commitment to democratic principles. Without that, the pen—whether wielded by hand or machine—risks becoming a symbol not of leadership, but of detachment. Restoring trust in the presidency requires more than legal compliance; it demands visible engagement, transparency, and a reaffirmation of the values that underpin American society. In an age of digital signatures, remote governance, and increasing automation, the challenge is not just to preserve legality but to maintain the human connection between leaders and the people they serve.  This, in turn, highlights the core of the problem: a signature by autopen is not enough.  Having a body in the White House is not enough.  Leadership is not just cosmetic.  What is considered legal goes even beyond what a judge ultimately rules is or isn’t.  There was gross manipulation on this trust issue that goes well beyond Biden’s presidency.  The door was opened with Obama, even before him with Clinton.  What could courts do to justify illegitimacy, and could a conspiracy of judges, who secretly want to rule over all society, cover up illegitimate mechanisms of automation, which were clearly tested during the insertion of Biden as the President into the White House?  Obviously, it was not enough, and people rejected the premise. Now, Trump has a mandate to correct all these falsehoods that were given credence and are now considered hostile topics in most polite households, which is a very new thing.  The assumption was that if an institution could validate a belief in legitimacy through signature, the courts, or the media, then actions would be deemed legal.  Yet that is not the case.  An action is not legal unless it is backed by honest elections with proof that people genuinely believe what the institutions are saying.  Judges must demonstrate that they are committed to upholding justice.  Elections must demonstrate that they are honest and accurately representing the voters.  And we have to see a president signing documents.  Not just that an autopen did it in darkness with a 25-year-old aide carrying out the orders of the Democrat Party while Joe Biden wandered around outside trying to catch butterflies.  And that raises questions about everything that has happened over the last decade.  And why Trump has a mandate to correct it.  And to fix it all. 

Rich Hoffman

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

I Endorse Ben Nguyen for Lakota School Board: What a smart young man with a great future

Ben Nguyen is in good company.  When Nancy Nix invites me to her house to meet people she thinks will be the future of politics, she has a pretty good track record.  And I felt bad; I was running late when she invited me over to listen to a speech from a bright young man by her pool, as I had in the past.  I was stuck on an overseas call, and the time zones didn’t match up to the schedule Nancy had given me.  But when I did arrive, it was just in time to hear a speech by Ben Nguyen, a former student at Lakota schools who had just graduated and was now running for the school board.  And as I watched him speak, he had picked a spot by her pool to talk to the crowd that was just like another young overachiever, J.D. Vance.  A few years ago I had listened to the future Vice President give a very similar speech as Ben did from that very spot, which was before he was even running for the senate seat, and of course Nancy was right about him.  Ben also reminded me of another bright young mind who she promised me had a great future in politics, which was Vivek Ramaswamy.  I think of these guys as young, even though they were in their late 30s when I first met them, because, to me, they are.  I’m not a young person, so everyone seems young to me.  But Nancy Nix has a knack for finding good people in the crowd and getting behind them with a bit of help.  I was not surprised to learn that Ben Nguyen was an intelligent young man, and I enjoyed listening to him speak about why he was running for the Lakota school board in the November 2025 elections. 

Essentially, Ben is against the upcoming Lakota levy, which is the most expensive school levy in the state of Ohio.  He is also against indoctrination in public schools, and he has fresh experience, having just left school to learn what is really going on.  And he wants to do good things in life with his obvious talents.  He has siblings still attending Lakota schools, so he is concerned about public education in general.  He plans to do many things in the future, as his life is currently an open book.  However, to run and win the school board seat would be historic; he would undoubtedly be one of the youngest ever to do so.  But as I listened to him speak, he possessed the wisdom of a much older person, and he was only going to improve with time.  I had just recently watched Bernie Moreno give a similar speech from almost the same spot in Nancy Nix’s backyard, and he’s close to my age.  And Ben sounded just as well-versed politically, and he was very articulate and well-spoken.  He’s already a better political figure than most people who have been doing this kind of thing for three or four decades.  As I thought about Ben, I was skeptical due to his age as I drove to Nancy’s home.  I am one of those people who think it’s better to be old and broken, looking like a wet towel discarded in the sun, than a beautiful young person with everything working, because of the essential ingredient of wisdom.  Wisdom is hard to get, and it’s worth the age it often takes to get there, and what you lose along the way.  So I’m not automatically impressed with young people.  However, it was clear that Ben Nguyen was something special because he possessed a remarkable amount of wisdom at a very young age, which was evident in his family background, as he discussed.

And he was right in his speech about why someone like him needed to be on the Lakota school board.  I have been intensely critical of the public education system.  My thought on it was to erase everything John Dewey ever did and to start the concept of education anew in American culture.  I don’t think people are nearly as educated as they should be, and I deal with a lot of people every day who hold advanced Master’s and PhDs.  People aren’t that smart in our culture, and it disgusts me.  I’m not excited to support more of the kind of education that leaves people so ill-prepared for the world.  However, to Ben’s point, the current school board does not represent the kind of people who live in Butler County, Ohio. If we are going to have a public school funded by taxpayer money, we should have representatives on the school board who represent us.  After speaking with Ben, I think he would be great, and I will certainly be voting for him.  Needless to say, I fully endorse him and would love to see him win a seat in this upcoming election.  It would be a step in the right direction.  I’ve been a part of a lot of campaigns to put members of the school board in place to represent conservatives, but the efforts have been discouraging, leaving me wanting to blow up the whole system with charter schools and the elimination of the Department of Education as a whole.  But Ben Nguyen reminds me of why I have worked for good school boards in the past, and his personality appears to be well-suited to withstand the intense scrutiny that comes with the job.

Isaac Adi was also there to show support.  Isaac is a current school board member for Lakota, and he consistently votes in favor of Republican positions.  But he’s currently the only one.  He and I have seen each other at a few events since the highly publicized fallout he had with Darby Boddy, a school board member I had supported a lot and still do.  The pressure of those positions, by the whispers that come into them, is hard to deal with, and I wanted those two to work better together instead of against each other.  And Isaac was one of the reasons I no longer thought school board races were worth dealing with.  But seeing him there to support Ben, I thought the beginnings of something good were forming.  Of course, to get a good school board, it would take a lot more than just Ben Nguyen.  However, this was a good start, because until there is a good school board, Lakota schools will continue to mismanage money and ask for tax increases, as they have more in mind than just this bond levy on the November ballot.  They are also considering an operations levy in the very near future, and we don’t want a liberal school board rubber-stamping more spending, as they have been doing.  We need smart people who are willing to engage in lively debate and continually ask essential questions. With Ben Nguyen in that school board role, I see a lot of opportunity for good things to happen.  However, people will have to show up and vote for him because the Democrats are counting on a low turnout to maintain the status quo on the school board.  So people are going to have to rally behind Ben.  And after hearing him speak and explaining what he wants to do and why, the Lakota school district would be in a much better position.  And Ben Nguyen is certainly somebody voters can get excited about.

Rich Hoffman

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

Jennifer Gross Goes to Washington: The importance of redistricting

When I say that Jennifer Gross is not very well-liked, I mean it in the manner of a compliment.  I think it’s a great asset to have people who don’t like you or who are very angry when your name is brought up.  Many people certainly dislike President Trump.  And I would say that I am one of the most hated people in the world.  People typically like you when you do what they want you to do, and their acceptance of you in some way is the way they gain leverage over your authenticity.  So, that makes Jennifer Gross an effective politician in a dynamic intellectual sense, where a static order has to compete, and they don’t like it.  In Ohio, Jennifer is my Representative in the 45th district, and she works hard to do so; I appreciate people who work hard.  And in the course of that work, she found herself in Washington, D.C. with Lee Zeldon, director of the EPA under Trump’s administration, asking questions directly to him about an issue I have been very concerned with regarding the EPA.  I would say that among Trump supporters and people who dislike RINOs, Jennifer Gross is very popular, so it depends on the crowd and what they want out of relationships, which often determines likeability.  I believe cordial relationships can be a liability.  However, it was interesting to hear about Jennifer’s trip to Washington, D.C., where she met with several Trump administration officials, including RFK, over MAHA issues.  So, once her plan was in place, Jennifer and I discussed a number of topics that we would typically talk about.  However, for this audience, I happened to record it so that others could share in the experience.  And, as much as I am concerned about the EPA issue, the conversation we had, which came straight from the Trump administration, was about the need for redistricting. 

The primary thing that Jennifer wanted to tell me about the Trump administration was that they weren’t a bunch of phonies.  The people working for Trump were all successful individuals in their own right, who could take or leave other politicians.  Jennifer can relate because she has always been very independent when it comes to politics, and that makes it hard for her to deal with when it comes to deal-making.  Much of politics is a collaborative effort, and I know several people I would call good friends who spend a lot of time collaborating with other politicians, only to accomplish a fraction of their wants and needs individually.  But that’s part of the process, and one of the reasons I thought the Trump presidency would be a good thing was his self-control over his wealth and ability to walk away from anything he didn’t like.  And his administration is very much the real deal, and Jennifer was pleased to report that they were not a bunch of phonies like we often learn people really are once these political campaigns are over.  So she couldn’t wait to tell me how authentic people like Lee Zeldon, Secretary Kennedy, and Commerce Secretary Lutnick were in real life.  It’s not usual to have people like this in any administration, and to meet them in real life after the honeymoon is over for Trump, doing everyday work, it was good to hear that they are everything they say they are.  Politically, many people dislike them as well, but, as all successful people must learn, that comes with the territory. 

The primary concern on everyone’s mind is the fairness of redistricting, so that Republicans can have more seats in Congress.  There are a few that we can pick up in Ohio, and several other states. The Trump administration is playing hardball on this issue, as it should.  Trump is right, Republicans should not play nice with Democrats over any election issues.  If we genuinely want a representative republic, which is what we are, we must trust the American people to choose who they want to represent them.  Not what a party wants us to adopt for their convenience.  That’s where things get tricky with playing nice to get along, and being a stick to poke in the eye of those who are too quick to compromise.  My point in the matter is that there is room for people like Jennifer Gross in politics and room for plenty of mainstreamers who enjoy the process of collaboration, if we didn’t have such a close margin of majorities.  I think that if we had guarded our elections more closely, there would be 60-plus Republican votes in the Senate and over +50 in Congress.  It is only close in America because of election fraud, and Democrat gerrymandering for many years has given them the appearance of a 50/50 country, when actually it’s a long way from being so.  Democrats are a minority party at best, filled with misfits and broken toys.  It’s one thing to have compassion for their poor state.  It’s quite another to have them destroy our entire society to appear fair.  In Ohio, there are 15 congressional seats, and Republicans have 10 of them.  There are opportunities in Ohio to improve upon that, and without question, Republicans should.  Don’t listen to the cries of Democrats, play hardball and defeat them everywhere. 

And if we did that, as Republicans, the world would be a lot better off.  As Jennifer and I discussed after her trip to Washington, fairness, or the appearance of it, often leads to inauthentic corruption, and righteous representation usually falls by the wayside as people who pay money for representation in the form of lobbyists end up running our government from the shadows.  And that is what we have been trying to get away from.  It’s what I always hoped would be the case from independently wealthy people like Trump, Secretary Lutnick, Zeldon, and Kennedy —that they would do the job for the right reasons. They could make a lot of money if they weren’t in politics.  However, as successful people, they can best represent the public that needs it.  And through redistricting, we can elect more people like that in the future, which would properly represent our actual society.  We don’t have an obligation to play nice with people who want to destroy our country.  And we owe Democrats no illusion of fairness.  If we can secure an additional 20 seats for the 2026 midterms, then let’s do it.  Meanwhile, it’s good to hear that Jennifer was being treated with sincerity by the Trump administration and that doing the right things for the right reasons was more than just an empty promise by politicians who usually disappoint us.  If too many people like you, that’s usually a bad sign, and that’s the case in any level of society.  And the Trump administration couldn’t care less; they can afford to be independent of such popularity concerns.  And because of that, they can actually accomplish some things.  Based on Jennifer’s report, they are willing to do the work and are solid in the promise category.  And these days, that is a scarce commodity.  One area we could significantly improve if we were more aggressive with redistricting. 

Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman

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

I Have Personally Saved Lakota School District Businesses and Residences Many Hundreds of Millions of Dollars: What the next generation looks like

I don’t talk about it much or think about it in any significant way, but I have had at least three school board members tell me what someone reminded me of this past week.  I have personally saved the Lakota school district, businesses, and homes many millions of dollars in tax money because of my stance against Lakota schools.  Its pretty unusual for a school district the size of Lakota schools to go as long as they have without a request for a tax increase and the hidden element that doesn’t get discussed by the school and the media that reports hand in hand with them is that it has been my name that they don’t want to deal with in their public relations efforts to extract more taxes from the public.  Going back to the No Lakota Levy days, from 2010 to 2013, it was me and a few business owners who got together and put forth a resistance to tax increases proposed by Lakota schools in the form of levy initiatives.  And I was the spokesman who did all the radio spots, television and wrote articles for the media, and even produced my own material.  So much so that the reporter for the Cincinnati Enquirer told me directly that I was his biggest competition, as he was interviewing me for my anti-tax positions.  We defeated three consecutive tax increases until school board member Julie Shaffer and some of her cohorts devised a scheme with the same Enquirer to try to destroy me personally.  Of course, it didn’t work for a lot of the same reasons. After they finally got a tax increase passed in 2013, by the slimmest margin they could have had and still call it a win, they haven’t tried since, until recently.  This year, in 2025, they will try again, starting with a facilities plan.  Then, after it cools off a bit, they will push for an operational tax increase.  However, I am happy to say that these days, it’s not just me who is resisting. 

Following that win in 2013, many members of No Lakota Levy were tired of feeling socially excluded.  They were primarily people who attended all the social functions, which, at that time, Lakota controlled exclusively as the region’s largest employer.  And the longer I was the front man, the more rhetoric that would come my way.  And I do not tolerate intimidation from anyone.  So I dug in for a fight that would last for another 15 years, and it has become very vicious.  It started for me by simply discussing how Lakota’s wage structure was out of control, with too many six-figure salaries inflating the budget, which caused them to take money from property owners.  But Lakota’s plot to deal with me was to get rid of me.  And because they weren’t able to do that, they haven’t been able to put a levy on the ballot all this time, even though they have wanted to.  They’ve been dipping their toes in the water since 2019, but wouldn’t, fearing the mess it would cause and the potential for a levy fight they knew they couldn’t win, with declining enrollment keeping them from having to.  Yes, I have personally saved the Lakota school district’s businesses and personal residences many hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, and I have been happy to lend my name to that endeavor for that purpose. 

It’s better to pay for lawn signs than the high taxes of a Lakota levy passage

At many social events, knowing that Lakota schools planned to go for a tax increase at some point, we have been talking about getting the old ‘No Lakota Levy’ band back together again.  And there is a lot of hope in putting this facilities plan first, as many of those old members probably won’t want to join against a tax increase going forward because they want to be part of the construction of new facilities.  And while we’re all community members who generally like each other, I have been that one person who couldn’t care less what anybody at Lakota schools thinks of me, and that conflict has kept them in check to a large degree, not wanting the public relations nightmare that a conflict with me will undoubtedly cause them.  So we have been able to prove in the Lakota district that schools do not make communities great.  They are essentially free babysitting services to busy parents.  The reason the part of Butler County where Lakota schools are located has continued to have excellent resale value, and numerous businesses have come to the region and stayed, is that we have kept taxes low.  And to that point, we have kept Lakota schools from requesting additional funding every couple of years, unlike most schools around the country.  Making the Lakota district very attractive to investors in commercial and residential opportunities, not for the schools, but for the lack of taxes.  So in that way, my name has been worth many millions of dollars in gained opportunity costs that high taxes would have otherwise destroyed.  However, in the same conversation where I was being given credit for stopping Lakota schools from tax increases over 15 years, I was also asked what I considered success to be, if I was being a bit reserved in taking all the credit.  And I said what I have said to many successful people, hundreds of consultants over the years, lawyers, and media professionals: how do I define success?  And my statement has been, when you work yourself out of a job. 

I am very proud of many people over those 15 years who have found their voice and are stepping up to take all this to an entirely new level.  Of course, I will always be involved in these kinds of fights.  And I am involved in a lot more fights than just this Lakota thing.  I am happy to see that some brilliant people, who are very ambitious in their own way, have started to meet the new tax increase from Lakota schools with the next generation of No Lakota Levy.  They have signs going to the printer as I write this and are ready for a vicious campaign in September and October of 2025, and beyond.  They have started a PAC called Citizens PAC, where people can donate money to cover the costs of signs and mailers, which can be pretty expensive.  And that PAC isn’t just for this levy, but to fund at least the next 5 to 6 attempts, so that we can keep taxes down in the district, as they have been.  I would dare say these guys are better positioned than we were at No Lakota Levy all those years ago, where so much good did come out of it.  This next generation is much more vicious, articulate, and engaged than previous ones, because back then, nobody knew what this kind of resistance looked like.  However, we now have a wealth of history to draw from, including what works, what doesn’t work, and the cost of such resistance.  And what it saves.  Saving hundreds of millions of dollars in lost taxes for these public schools is a huge deal that wasn’t as well known back in the day.  However, in the future, we will be much better prepared, with years of history to draw from.  I’m thrilled to tell everyone that not only will there be resistance to these new levies from Lakota schools, but also from other schools.  But I think the coverage will be much better.  And it fits my model for success.  How do you know if you’ve been successful?  If you work yourself out of a job, you can pursue other interests.  You should never make anything all about you.  And while I appreciate the nice comments and credit, I want to see success.  I think the members of this new Citizens PAC will do a better job and be more successful because they now have a track record and know how to utilize it.  Of course, I will always do what I do.  However, there are now many more people doing it.  I would encourage donations because the goal is to save the millions more in tax increases, which a few yard signs here and there are more than worth spending to save massive amounts of money that Lakota schools want to confiscate and waste on a terrible product.  But to answer the question, will No Lakota Levy get together for a new tour?  And the answer is, it’s time for the old band to retire.  A new band is rising to the occasion, and the music they play I think will be much better.  Nobody wants to see David Lee Roth in concert these days.  They want the latest and greatest, and that is what the Lakota school district is going to get.

This situation makes me think of David Lee Roth, and watching him sing recently, it makes it abundantly clear that people need to know when to hang it up. I have a fascinating personal David Lee Roth story I’ll tell sometime. He should have retired years ago.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Use of Youth Violance as a Weapon: Federalizing the police in Washington D.C.

I have never been a fan of the Grand Theft Auto video games.  I think they are diabolically disgusting and a horrible influence on the kids and adults who play them.  Now I know that most people playing those games won’t hit the streets to become criminals. They play those fantasies out in the game, and don’t cross that behavior over into real life.  But there are quite a few young people who have grown up in a fatherless home, and have moms who are on government dependence, and are lacking good leadership roles, which has inspired the horrible behavior we have seen in the crime statistics, where carjackings are up.  Violence against other people is up.  Robberies are up.  All crime has been trending upward and there is a great evil at work that employs itself in Democrat politics, fueled by anti-American personalities like George Soros to destabilize culture at every opportunity and create the conditions where 14-17 year old kids wanting to join gangs apply great violence on our city streets and hide the behavior behind racism so that it cannot be criticized.  However, it’s all part of a plan to attack America from within, and it’s evident in entertainment, such as the Grand Theft Auto video games.  We should teach our youth to be the good guys, not the bad guys.  And all this came to a head when a mob of thugs, underage thugs, attacked the former member of the Trump administration, Big Balls, and they beat him to near death for defending his girlfriend during a carjacking attempt.  The violence is purposeful and meant to destabilize our culture in negative ways, and we just can’t put up with it, as a society.  So I am a big supporter of what Trump did in reaction to the Big Balls incident. 

The word has been out for a long time that kids under the age of 18 can get away with just about anything, even murder.  So the game has been to weaponize the youth in a kind of socialist destabilization way to overthrow American culture, which we have seen through the liberalized court system.  Where judges are generally lenient with youth, the more you examine the way we have built the rules of our society, the more obvious it becomes that they were created to destabilize our culture, and that is undoubtedly part of the fun at Rockstar Games when they design a new game.  The allure of being a criminal becomes ingrained in the minds of young people, making them corrosive to society as a whole.  And if anyone criticizes the game itself, the argument will then become a free speech issue, and the bad guys will laugh all the way to the bank.  And the bank is in on it, too.  Most institutions, especially the legal profession, have taken their place in working against American culture, and the youth have figured out their role in all that.  So violence is up everywhere, especially in Washington, D.C., where Big Balls was attacked, and Trump decided enough was enough.  He was already thinking about federalizing the city streets of Washington.  But now he had a good reason, so he did it, and I think it’s a fantastic idea.  We’re not talking about a condition of employment here; we are talking about correcting a culture of assault that is baked into our legal system purposefully.  And people are getting killed and beaten up to satisfy an attack against the American notion of private property itself.  So none of this is an accident.  It’s been a purposeful strategy. 

The same forces have been behind the defund the police movement.  They have made being a cop hard, so recruitment is down in cities where they don’t want the trouble of the courts if they are accused of another George Floyd case.  The reason for the police coverage of arrests gone bad by the media and the community activists has been to ultimately stop cops from arresting the youth, and to diminish recruiting numbers so that people don’t want to become cops.  Who would want the job?  So we have police shortages in most every city, we have prosecutors who will destroy the lives of cops, but let young people off the hook for literal murder, so what could go wrong?  All the same people are behind these destabilizing factors, and they want an end to America as a free country.  We already have military forces ready to cover the gaps in these police shortages.  We are paying them anyway, so we might as well put them to work and clean up our city streets, starting with Washington, D.C.  The critical thing to remember about the whole situation is that it was all purposefully created by the foundations of evil itself, including the creation of video games like Grand Theft Auto—the attack on civilized culture and the promotion of ill will among the nation’s youth.  And the assumption that cars could be stolen, businesses pillaged at will, and every kind of assault that the mind could think of, was utilized to instill fear among the voting population, afraid to call any of it bad behavior because they want to avoid being called a racist.  The mass manipulation of the public by the multilayered forces of evil has been catastrophic and purposeful. 

I have seen that crime in Washington, D.C., up close in the same general areas where Big Balls was attacked.  And it’s far worse than they talk about on TV.  I was in Washington for an event at the Smithsonian that I was invited to, and I went with my family. We arrived late at night.  My wife needed milk for my kids, so I hit the streets to look for an all-night store that might have it.  I did find the milk, but I was shocked at the level of violence that was ever-present, and the level of crime that the police were willing to put up with.  The store itself was ransacked, and this happens every night.  The owner accepted it; they told me the whole story as chaos resumed around us at the checkout counter.  The clerk was shocked that at that time of night, I was actually willing to pay for my milk, and that I didn’t just take it without paying.  Yes, I was threatened by lots of bad people, but I have my ways of dealing with those kinds of people that are long-standing and very effective.  And I made it back to our hotel room fine.  But the opportunities for violence were frequent and literally on every block between the store and the hotel room.  And the next day, most of that crime was gone, and the professionals took over the streets as if nothing had even happened.  We can’t allow that kind of crime anywhere, so it’s about time that somebody cracks down on it, and that is what Trump is doing.  And it’s a great thing.  We’ll discuss the dangers of federalizing police on city streets later.  But for now, the most dangerous thing to do is to let crime continue as it has.  Racism and youth crime, even the destruction of the American family, have all been attacks on our culture by influencers with the money to corrupt the system, and we’ve let them do it under some loose interpretation of free speech.  So we are playing a vicious game with truly evil people.  And they won’t be beaten by playing nice. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Republicans Need to Redraw the Maps: Redistrict wherever possible, do not play fair with Democrats

Don’t feel bad about winning.  Do Republicans owe it to Democrats to be fair?  Never forget, Democrats want to change the way America works, and we should have learned the hard lessons from playing fair with them in the past; we know what they do when given a chance at fairness.  We are now at a point where we control all branches of government, and there is a chance to gain many seats in the House and Senate, thereby strengthening our majorities.  And that we should do everything we can do, even if it means gaining just a single seat.  It drove me crazy in the 2024 election to see so many close races going to the Democrats, especially in California.  If we had monitored election fraud more closely, there would already be larger majorities in Congress. And yes, there was a lot of election fraud where illegal aliens and mail-in ballots pushed tight races to Democrat wins.  We were all paying attention to Trump and were happy he won.  We were delighted to get majorities in the House and Senate.  But we could have had more.  It should not be as close as it is right now.  So, we owe it to ourselves to stop the midterm trend of giving the keys back to the other party and instead gain deeper majorities. There are several ways we can do that.  And even with all that said, remember what I say all the time, because it’s true.  If you make it harder for Democrats to cheat, they can’t win elections.  Not even in places like Los Angeles and New York.  Democrats only have any trace of power through election fraud and other scandalous activities, so don’t feel bad doing what must be done to keep them from acquiring power ever, especially for these upcoming midterms. 

The biggest news of the moment is that Texas is redistricting some of its congressional seats to favor GOP candidates, which could result in an additional 3-5 seats, a very positive development.  Other states are considering the same approach, particularly in Florida and Missouri, which could result in a few additional seats.  The rule is, if you can pick up one seat, Republicans should do it.  Democrats have only been playing nice because they assume they will take back power in Congress in the midterms, and they plan to be obstructionists on every issue.  And you can bet that they plan to impeach President Trump over every radical issue, just as they did in 2019 and 2020.  The best way to prevent that is to eliminate the threat of power by not allowing them to have it.  They might be upset at gerrymandering intentions with redrawing the maps to take advantage of Democrats, but what they have planned is far, far worse, and at this stage in 2025, completely avoidable. Historically speaking, a president’s party loses 32 House seats during midterm elections because voters swing between parties in frustration with the rate of progress that comes from the White House.  Which is part of the plan in stalling everything Trump is trying to do, including appointing radical judges and even Jerome Powell keeping the Fed’s interest rates high, hoping to hurt Trump’s economy ahead of the midterm elections.  So Democrats are already doing much worse than gerrymandering congressional districts.  The key to success in holding onto Republican seats and even gaining more is for Trump to maintain an approval rating of around 63% and for Republicans to gain advantages in redistricting.  Trump’s approval rating was excellent in June as the bombing in Iran and the Fourth of July events had everyone feeling good.  Lately, with the Epstein talk and Russia causing lots of trouble, Trump is hovering at 44%.  Democrats see that as blood in the water for them to exploit, so they will continue to throw gas on any fire that might hurt Trump.

Republicans, through redistricting efforts, could pick up 5-10 extra seats, which is a significant gain right out of the gate.  There is additionally a Supreme Court case, Louisiana v. Callais, that indicates that Democrats have been accused of severe unconstitutional racial gerrymandering under the 14th and 15th Amendments.  And if this provision were found to be the case, as we should not be making up districts based on race or sex, Republicans could pick up as many as 25 seats.  This Supreme Court case is essentially judging on the premise of election fraud; the system is set up to take advantage of disadvantaged people for exploitation.  Not fairness.  This is the case regarding most things coming from Democrat politics.  The argument in the Louisiana case is expected to occur in the fall of 2025, with a decision anticipated in mid-2026.  And suppose the court rules that the Section 2 requirements for majority-minority districts are unconstitutional. In that case, states across the nation will need to redraw new maps before the 2026 midterms, potentially resulting in Republican pickups of 1-3 seats in states like Louisiana, Georgia, and Alabama.  The probability of the strike down of S.B. 8 to limit Section 2’s will likely come down to a 5-4 or even 6-3 decision with Kavanaugh and Roberts siding for the change, which is now racial-based intent that supports unconstitutional gerrymandering.  So do not feel bad about pushing back. Democrats have already made a mess of things for years, and countless Democrats who should never have been in representative government have been elected to seats they never should have had.  And it’s time now to change all that.

Obviously, in the Senate, things are counted a bit differently, as two senators represent each state.  So, gaining majorities requires a different strategy. However, suppose the trend toward wins in the House breaks the cycle of expectation that currently exists, where the party in power loses power during midterm elections. In that case, there is a possibility of gaining supermajorities in 2026 through 2028.  And that is how we should all think about these things.  So drop the pretense of fairness and play these things to win.  And keep in mind the long game.  The things we do today have an enormous impact on tomorrow.  And you win tomorrow by planting the seeds for it today.  I would add that if election reform were implemented alongside these mitigating factors, Republicans could achieve supermajorities in the House and Senate, possibly even before 2028.  Numerous close Senate races fall within the margin of error that Democrats have built into their assumptions.  And if we take that away from them, they will start to drop away like flies.  They won’t be able to win future elections.  So, redraw those maps wherever possible.  Fight the Democrats in court over every issue, and don’t feel bad about wearing them out.  They intend to destroy America; we have seen their actions before.  So when you get a chance to take their head off with a boot to the neck, do it.  Don’t hold back with compassion.  Don’t get caught up in a contention of playing fair.  Play to win, and play to defeat a political enemy that seeks at every turn to manipulate things toward our self-destruction.  We don’t owe them any assumptions of fairness.  The best thing we could do as Republicans is play to win by any means possible.  And let the sums of those wins add up to supermajorities that will take our nation to a much better tomorrow because tomorrow starts today.

Rich Hoffman

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

Racism as a Weapon of Marxism: The violence in Cincinnati was about more than name calling

There is a lot wrong with what the mayor of Cincinnati, Aftab Pureval, did after the fight that broke out in the streets after a music festival that became a grotesque example of violence from minority communities.  And the reason for it was perfectly uttered by city councilwoman Victoria Parks, who said in the aftermath, “They begged for that beat down!  I am grateful for the whole story.”  Regarding some white victims of a horrible beating, where a mob of attackers consolidated on them ruthlessly.  A young woman by the name of Holly ended up sucker punched and knocked cold in the middle of the street, leading to what everyone already assumes: it’s dangerous for white people to walk around downtown.  Otherwise, they might get attacked like these people did after a music festival.  And they might not live through the encounter.  The whole incident has brought up something much worse that needs to be discussed, and that is how Marxism has been taught in these communities of color to destabilize capitalism in America and how they have hidden it behind skin color to always have a destabilizing element present to undercut American society.  It’s not a matter of skin color that is the problem; it’s what people believe and how racism has given them a victimized status that is always ready to advance elements of socialism to a cityscape environment, to destabilize it.  As the city leaders were getting vast amounts of criticism from Senator Bernie Moreno, Vivek Ramaswamy, Jennifer Gross, and many others, they dug in even deeper on the mob rule elements and justification for the beatings that took place on July 26th in the small hours of the morning.  It doesn’t matter what camera angle you look at; there was no justification for the mob that broke out to do what they did, because it wasn’t about words and feelings.  What they did intended permanent harm to the victims and was brutally hostile in its intent. 

There are very few people who get called as many names as I do.  Most of the people I know dislike me for some reason or another.  They might be nice to my face, but behind my back, they hate me very much and call me every name in the book, and even some in books that have never been written.  So I can say authentically that no amount of name-calling justifies the violence that we saw in Cincinnati.  It doesn’t matter what anybody said to anybody; nothing justifies a fight at that level. Remember, sticks and stones?  People would do well to teach that to young kids in school once again.  Instead, political movements like what we have experienced from Democrats have sought to use victimization status to weaponize entire groups of people, preferably by color, into doing their work of radicalism in overthrowing American society.  The things people say to me are that people wouldn’t say such nasty things about me if I fought people more.  But the truth is, I care so little for what people think of me that I don’t waste time on it.  To get violent with someone to convince them to change their mind, you have to care what they think, and I just don’t.  And for the people of color to react to something that a group of white Russians said to them that they believe provoked this level of violence, they would have to care what those white people thought of them to get upset about it.  I never get upset when people call me names because I don’t care what they think. 

And as far as conflicts, and I know Vivek Ramaswamy thinks this way as well, there is no reason to fight people with violence when you can destroy them with debate.  If you have to resort to violence to get your point across, you have already lost.  As I tell people who criticize me for my lack of engagement with my enemies, I say it’s because forcing someone to think something out of fear of a beating is an dishonest exchange.  I would rather want to know what they believe than to beat them into submission to make them think what I want them to.  The best tool for convincing people to accept your way about something isn’t to win them over the head with pain and suffering, but to convince them that what you think is in their self-interest.  So when there is violence like this, there is a lot wrong that indicates a very unhealthy society.  And racism isn’t the problem.  Racisim is the weapon of the Marxist movement in America that has been trying to advance socialism and communism in communities of color to use their lack of judgment to build armies on the street to drive through fear a social discourse, such as, white people aren’t welcome on the streets of Cincinnati, especially after dark unless they appease the tribal chiefs of the community like visitors from a foreign land.  Never forget, it was Republicans who freed the enslaved people, who fought a civil war to free people of color.  Democrats were fighting to keep people slaves, and that is still a problem, because people of color are still serving the political efforts of Democrats.  All the problems of this fight are Democrat problems.  Republicans have been the critics.

We’re talking about purposely not knowing what good conduct is in society and believing, because people on city council like Victoria Parks, or Mayor Pureval let them think it as social victims, that violence is acceptable as a means to restore to them as people of color, a restitution to the notion that all American society was built on the backs of slave labor.  Slave labor that those same Democrats utilized and fought a war to continue, against Republicans.  So racism in this case, and most cases, has been kept alive to drive forward Democrat complaints about the kind of society Republicans want to build, which then becomes a quest to destroy capitalism with Marxism, and that is the case with most race wars all across the world.  And people never get around to talking about it properly because Democrats need a hostile demographic that will fight for change, meaning a shift from capitalism to micromanaged socialism, or even communism.  A quick study around the world among most race troubles will have as its root cause provoked racism to create the ground troops for change, which is what was behind the fight in Cincinnati, Ohio, after that music festival.  White people aren’t allowed to say anything to people of color, otherwise they will get a beating down.  And that is the message of fear that is laying territorial claim to all that the taxpayer streets of Cincinnati belong to the mob, not the people with property value who pay for everything.  It doesn’t matter what anyone said to each other; there was nothing that deserved what happened.  The city was likely not well-prepared for the music festival.  It was Democrat incompetence on all levels.  But it wasn’t all because they were stupid.  Most of it was part of the planned attack against capitalist society by overt Marxists hiding their malice behind skin color to advance their diabolical cause.  And that was why there was violence in Cincinnati.  It’s not about fairness or equality.  It was exclusively about overthrowing our society and strengthening Marxist cells within American culture for power politics from a Democratic viewpoint.  And it is ruthless on all levels and can’t be tolerated. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Making Parents into Children: When motherhood becomes destructive

It’s something most people have to deal with at some point in their lives, and I think we don’t do it very well.  However, it’s one of those things that doesn’t have many good answers, and that is the care of elderly people.  As our parents age, what do we do when they struggle to care for themselves and lose independence?  For me, I think death is worse than losing freedom and independence, quite literally.  And as I look at medical costs as a government offering, keeping sick people alive longer as they lose their freedoms with more government dependence is the worst kind of sickness of them all, and I think people are better off no longer living.  But, we have a lawyerly society that is way too litigious and a snoopy medical industry that is full of cosmetic do gooders who have created policies and rules that pay a lot of money and give medical expenses quite an income, so there is a lot wrong with the entire industry and the problems come down to just a few basic human assumptions that are more emotional than practical.  And most of us would rather not think about it, but what cost is the nursing home industry to our society for the services they provide when the litigious decision making process puts the burden of care judgement on people not prepared to deal with an emotional crises, making a lot of the wrong kind of people rich off the process, feeding a parasitic health care industry with a demeaning end of life trajectory that the courts find acceptable, but on scale of human need, is dramatically lacking.   And it takes lives once well lived, and essential, and makes them into uneventful closures of forgetfulness and an almost vile hatred for the perpetuation of the human race that has vast evil wrapped all around it.

I usually don’t associate with many people in the healthcare industry, especially those involved in care for older people, for all the reasons mentioned.  However, I did run into Commissioner Dixon and his son, Brent, at a recent event, and we had a good discussion about this very topic.  I hadn’t seen Brent for many years, even though we live in the same general area, and I knew he had managed a nursing home facility, so we hadn’t seen each other since we were ten years old and racing together in a soap box derby event in Hamilton that was the talk of the town back then.  So it was fun to see him again and talk about what has happened over the last four and a half decades.  And I like Don Dixon quite a lot, so we had fun catching up.  But nearby, because of some nursing home talk, a couple of women caught on to our conversation, and it provoked in them discussions they were having about a father in their lives. One of the women was the direct daughter, the other one was a sister-in-law.  And they were talking about how their dad had fallen and hit his head, and they were worried about him and thought he was losing the ability to be the caregiver to his wife, who is in an entirely dependent state.  So, for the discussion with these two women, they were determining that their dad needed to go to a home before he hurt himself and let something bad happen to their mom.  And as I was listening to this conversation, it was getting more revolting by the moment because there were a lot of psychological things wrong with it. 

So, for clarity, I think it would be better for the dad they were talking about to pass away of natural causes at peace in his own home, on his own terms as much as possible.  But the decision was a legal one; if the kids knowingly allow the father to care for the mother and something happens to him, it would provoke something to happen to her, and then they would be found guilty of elder abuse in the eyes of the court.  But even worse than that was a social neurosis that involved the women regarding the decision-making process of how to manage their dad.  Here was a man who had lived his whole life doing things that were important to both society and himself.  And had raised a family and done many things, and now all that was coming to a close with the impending doom of losing personal freedoms to the point where he was just a fetus entirely dependent on the parental figures of society at large.  And this was not the way human beings should be planning their exit from life.  The women I noticed were very animated about this topic for unusual reasons, and it was not by accident that they both had kids who had just recently grown up and moved away from them; emotionally, they were looking for a new baby to care for.  Being middle aged women without the prospect of a baby to have, to give them the feeling of meaning that motherhood often does, they were instead taking that emotional baggage and looking to apply it to their parents, to make their elderly parents into incapable toddlers unable to care for themselves to satisfy the lack of importance they were feeling as aging mothers. 

It wasn’t hard to see how many terrible decisions were being made, which had enormous social costs and were destructive to the individual lives of the parental figures.  And baked into the rule-making process was a desire to humiliate older people and their personal lives into dependent toddlers who ended their life the way they started it, wetting the bed, having their diapers changed, and needing help even to feed themselves.  And there are a lot of women like these two talking who are feeling old, thrown away by their husbands and kids, and they gravitate to their elderly parents to turn them into dependents to give meaning to their lives, which is losing value by the day.  And, of course, a significant amount of money is invested in this process to generate something from it for a very parasitic industry.  In my opinion, I would say let the parents have their independence for as long as possible, because it’s better than losing it.  And if the dad passes away tripping on a pebble on the sidewalk, he is better off than a much slower death while in a nursing home.  And the lawyers should stay out of it.  And the emotional children who have been trying to give meaning to their own lives by making their parents into replacement children for their own grown children have created a real mess.  The costs associated are more parasitic to the burdens of those who define care than to the values of a life well lived, and to protect that meaning from life to death.  A few years in a nursing home and turning once strong people into complete dependents, in my eyes, is far worse than death.  And it is something we should completely reconsider.  Because the emotional children of older people are not in positions themselves to make decisions for their parents because they are dealing with their own sense of value as their children grow up and away from them leaving everyone feeling empty and useless in the process, and no amount of money can solve the problem in the way that human beings require it to be solved.  However, what we can be sure of is that we should not make our parents dependents to avoid dealing with our lack of security once our child-rearing days are behind us.  There is more to life, and adults need to figure that out, rather than putting their parents in homes to satisfy their selfish needs to care for somebody in an infinite state and quell the whims of motherhood once it has been unlocked in them for the perpetuation of the human race, for which they are no longer needed. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Violance in Downtown Cincinnati: The political result of using racism as a weapon of social unrest

It’s one of those incidents where soft policy on minority communities baked into skin color profiles and years of Democrat radicalism caused a lot of harm.  After the Cincinnati Music Festival downtown at the corner of West Fourth Street and Elm Street on July 26th, 2025, a massive fight broke out where obvious violence toward a white couple by a large gathering of people of color exploded due to a very light police presence, and it went on for way too long.  This mob hurt people, and the mob under any conditions shouldn’t have been allowed to grow like that into such a menace.  People from the scene have said that the fight broke out due to racial comments, but there isn’t anything that could have been said that justified the violence that was captured by hundreds of cell phones and was distributed online, beating all the mainstream news outlets in content.  In the video I provide, I took one of the best clips of the violence that I saw and walk people through it for context.  It was out of control, and it was a violent episode perpetuated by a large group of people who felt entitled due to their skin color, and the social acceptance of violence perpetuated by political efforts to present a degraded condition in a part of downtown Cincinnati that is supposed to be one of the best in the area.  This site was just up from the sports stadiums, so it’s a part of town where the economic situation has been a priority, and here was a massive fight that showed obvious racial violence getting national news in a very embarrassing way.  The incident itself was bad on many fronts, but under any conditions, no matter what was said by anybody, public displays of violence like this have no place in our society, and the Cincinnati Police Department, the Mayor, and the City Council are going to have to explain all this.  Because in a lot of ways, they lit the fuse to this violence through their racial policies by feeding that monster for many years leading up to this unfortunate event. 

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1949431682060189731

I was very proud of the Covington Police Department, which fought against the ICE protesters trying to shut down the bridge over into Kentucky, just a short distance from where this big fight broke out.  But what was missing was the police arresting people and beating them up for disturbing the peace.  The City of Cincinnati made great news around the nation for showing intolerance for violence in trying to shut down an important bridge and vandalizing property by a group of socialist radicals who had no right to do so.  But given the nature of any music festival that combines alcohol and late nights without much of a police presence, bad things were bound to happen, and by the way things transpired, it almost looks like the political figures involved with Cincinnati City Council wanted this kind of violence to take place.  And when it did, there was an unspoken agreement between them and the mob.  I can promise one thing about all involved in that violence: none of them were Republicans.  Law and Order, GOP voters don’t behave like that.  But Democrats who have been bred into their social positions through color revolution propaganda, where outside money pours into minority communities to create instability, the results are mobs who behave with such violence as we saw in Cincinnati during late July 2025.  The only way to describe the people doing all the punching and repeated kicks to the head was the same kind of people who would support ANTIFA rallies, or protest in flash riots after a police shooting.  And even though the police union won’t want to admit it, they might blame the light police coverage on budget restrictions, workforce supply, and other issues, the unspoken truth is that this music festival was going to involve a lot of people of color, and nobody wants that kind of controversy on their record, so they went light on the coverage and violence exploded anyway.

We need to have law and order for everyone, and everyone must play by the same rules.  We can’t allow progressive talking points to allow one set of behavior for one group of people and to let another group of people off the hook because of the color of their skin, and the propensity for public relations nightmares to happen if someone from that demographic group gets arrested and shown all over national television for roughing up minorities.  To avoid such controversy, the police would rather roll the dice and hope nothing bad happens than to have something bad happen that would attach them to international news.  And when violence like what we saw here does break out, I’m sure there is relief among their police ranks that at least it wasn’t one of their members involved in that video footage.  It was better to let it play out, watch the video, and arrest the people involved after everything cooled off.  But the fight went on for far too long.  The media didn’t want to cover the story because it was a no-win situation.  And the lack of justice only makes it easier in the future for people to get away with worse, because they didn’t get punished the first time.  In many ways, the lack of punishment for past wrongs led to this complete social breakdown because the participants felt entitled to conduct violence, due to the politics involved.

However, here’s the thing: when people wonder why people move to the suburbs, this is your reason.  They don’t want to be around gangs of thugs who behave like this.  Cincinnati has made an effort to make downtown friendly, encouraging young people to make Over-the-Rhine a cool and hip destination.  But looming among the population, there is a lot of crime and a lot of bad racial violence that happens but gets underreported because nobody wants it to explode across the nightly news.  If cars get broken into while visiting the economic zones, the news doesn’t report on it because they don’t want to destabilize the radical groups who live in the area.  And that is the genuine fault here: the failure to realize that many of the people we are luring in for economic reasons can interact with the dinosaurs, and we expect them not to be eaten by the dangerous animals is unrealistic.  And if we aren’t going to have better security than what we saw at that Cincinnati Music Festival, then we shouldn’t have events downtown.  It is because of a fear of this very thing that, after a Bengals game or the Reds, people get back in their cars and go back to the suburbs.  Because they don’t want to be attacked by wild animals, encouraged by Democrat politics to riot over anything and everything.  And now Cincinnati has a major black eye that I find embarrassing.  The police should have been there to beat the hell out of all the malcontents, no matter what their skin color was.  And their failure to support law and order under all conditions paved the way for this violence to happen.  Ultimately, that falls on the city’s politics.  They created the environment that allowed for that violence to occur because the participants had no fear at all of law enforcement.  And that is why things broke out so violently.  The footage shows clearly, no matter what was said, nobody deserved to be beaten like what that couple was, especially the woman with the dress on who was cold cocked in the face and knocked out unconscious in the middle of the street.  Those images will cause a lot more trouble than if the police had arrested troublemakers early and dealt with the political fallout later.  But it was Democratic policies that made the whole fire ready to burn, which is why people tend to avoid going downtown for anything if they can, because there is always the potential for violence, which nobody wants to deal with.

Rich Hoffman

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