Tag: Socialism

The Warm Blanket of Socialism: Hiding the tattoos and body piercings of millions of bad personal decisions with progressive crusades

The mirror doesn’t lie.  What looks back is the result of millions and millions of decisions, and most people don’t like what they see.  So they construct social engagements accordingly.  If they lean toward liberal politics, it is likely because they are ashamed of their decisions in life and look for social order to hide them from the realities of those bad decisions with a warm blanket of socialism to hide under.  And the last thing they want to do is have some conservative come into their room and rip away that protection from even themselves, let alone the judgments of the world. But beyond the personal, the reflection prompts deeper contemplation about the state of the nation—particularly the visible unraveling among those who champion a progressive, collectivist vision for society. What some call the “warm blanket of socialism” provides comfort to those less inclined toward self-reliance, a psychological shelter against the uncertainties of individual responsibility and the harsh light of personal accountability.

Self-reliance has long been a cornerstone of the American ethos, embodied in figures who tie their own shoes at a young age, change their own tires, perform their own brake jobs, cook their own meals, and build their lives through initiative. Such individuals tend to align with Republican values, emphasizing limited government, free markets, and personal merit. In contrast, those who feel lost or overwhelmed often seek refuge in collective structures—government programs, social safety nets, group identities—where shared burdens mitigate individual risk. This isn’t mere preference; it’s a response to upbringing and circumstance. If early life lacked lessons in independence, if family structures fractured through divorce, remarriage, or instability, the world can feel perpetually threatening. The “blanket” becomes essential, and any policy pulling it away—lower taxes reducing social services, pro-capitalist reforms favoring entrepreneurs, immigration enforcement, or school choice—evokes terror, like yanking covers off a frightened child in the dark.

This dynamic explains much of the current unrest. With policies under the Trump administration prioritizing capitalism, family stability, homeschooling, and distrust of public education, and reducing dependence on public aid, those accustomed to collective coverage feel exposed. Fewer people relying on the system means less communal “blanket” to hide behind. Protests erupt not only from policy disagreements but also from existential fear: the loss of a parental government that shields from consequences. This mirrors historical patterns—East Berlin walls, Soviet barriers—designed to prevent defection from collectivism to individual freedom, lest the illusion of security crumble.

Psychological research illuminates these divides. Conservatives often exhibit higher self-control, greater emphasis on personal responsibility, and stronger physiological responses to threats in ways that reinforce stability-seeking behaviors. Liberals, by contrast, prioritize harm avoidance, fairness as equality, and openness to change, sometimes at the expense of binding structures like authority or tradition. One study found that conservatives outperform liberals in self-control tasks, particularly when free will is framed positively, suggesting that ideology shapes not only beliefs but also behavioral resilience. Happiness gaps also appear: conservatives report higher life satisfaction, potentially attributable to attitudes that value personal agency over systemic solutions.

Family structure plays a pivotal role. Decades of rising divorce, blended families, absent parents, and serial partners disrupt trust in foundational institutions. Children navigating weekends between homes—with new spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends—often internalize instability, leading to victimhood narratives and reliance on external support. Data show complex patterns: conservatives are slightly more likely to have ever divorced in some age groups, but remarry more readily and report happier marriages overall. Marriage rates have declined sharply among Democrats compared to Republicans since the 1980s, with liberals increasingly forgoing marriage altogether, viewing it as less essential for happiness. Conservative women tend to marry younger and desire more children, sustaining family-oriented values. In red states, higher teen birth rates historically contrast with lower divorce rates in blue states like Massachusetts, highlighting how cultural norms around family influence outcomes.

Public education, infused with progressive ideologies over generations, amplifies this. Marxist influences in curricula—from high school to university—promote collectivism over individual merit, framing society as oppressive rather than opportunity-rich. Turning away from this requires reclaiming education rooted in self-reliance and traditional values.

Visible markers often signal these divides. Protesters against conservative policies frequently display extensive tattoos, piercings (nose rings, large earlobe gauges), and other body modifications—symbols of rebellion against norms and a return to “primitive” or indigenous aesthetics that reject Western civilization’s emphasis on restraint. Biblically, Leviticus 19:28 prohibits cuttings or marks for the dead, often interpreted as rejecting pagan mourning rituals or idolatry rather than all body art. Many Christian scholars argue that the New Testament shifts focus to heart intentions and body stewardship (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), not absolute bans. The verse targeted cultural compromise with false gods, not modern self-expression. Still, some view extreme modifications as desecration of the “temple,” opening doors to parasitic influences—spiritual or psychological—that erode personal sanctity. This ties to anti-civilizational trends: embracing perversions destructive to family, promoting LGBTQ+ agendas that undermine traditional bonds, and feeding primal urges over ordered happiness.

Yet statistics nuance perceptions. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 32% of U.S. adults have at least one tattoo (22% have more than one), with roughly equal rates: 33% among Democrats/Democratic leaners and 32% among Republicans/Republican leaners. No major partisan divide exists; differences vary more by age (higher among under-50s), gender (38% women vs. 27% men), and race/ethnicity. Visible, extreme modifications may cluster more among vocal progressive activists, creating a perceptual association, but broader data indicate that tattoos are mainstream across ideologies.

The anger on display—protests that block highways, defend open borders, and resist enforcement—stems from poor personal decisions compounded by cultural shifts. Tattoos and piercings become outward signs of inner chaos, a rejection of self-care mirroring societal rejection of meritocracy. When self-reliance prevails, those who hide behind collectivism feel judged; their resentment manifests as demands for “fairness” that serve as cover for mistakes. We can’t restructure society around resentment—help those open to change, but not at civilization’s expense.

This isn’t hatred of people but a critique of ideology: understanding roots—broken families, poor teachings, fear—fosters empathy without capitulation. Promote self-reliance, stable families, capitalist opportunity; rebuild through virtue, not mandates. Policies favoring doers—business starters, home maintainers, homeschoolers—create prosperity for all willing to participate.  But what people believe politically, and act out socially, such as in the Minnesota riots, are reflections of their many bad decisions in life, and a transferance to society in general that they can pass off those mistakes through moral crusades that are always too little too late.  And usually, the body piercings and tattoos are a clear reflection of a fragmented mind hiding behind social causes because they have wrecked their lives personally, and can only get redemption through collectivist enterprise. 

Footnotes

1.  Pew Research Center, “32% of Americans have a tattoo, including 22% who have more than one,” August 15, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/15/32-of-americans-have-a-tattoo-including-22-who-have-more-than-one/

2.  Institute for Family Studies, “The Growing Link Between Marriage, Fertility, and Partisanship,” September 18, 2025.

3.  Gallup, “When and Why Marriage Became Partisan,” July 11, 2024.

4.  American Enterprise Institute, “The Republican Marriage Advantage: Partisanship, Marriage, and Family Stability in the Trump Era,” October 31, 2024.

5.  Desiring God, “Tattoos in Biblical Perspective,” December 19, 2013. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/tattoos-in-biblical-perspective

6.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “The self-control consequences of political ideology,” 2015.

7.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, “Conservatives are happier than liberals, but why? Political ideology, personality, and life satisfaction,” 2012.

8.  PLOS ONE, studies on moral foundations and psychological motivations in liberalism vs. conservatism, 2020.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

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

Ending the American Relationship with the World Health Organization: Controlling people through life and death

Today is Sunday, January 25, 2026—a fitting moment to reflect on recent developments that closely align with long-standing concerns about a centralized global health authority. Just days ago, on January 22, 2026, the United States formally completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), fulfilling an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office, January 20, 2025. This marks the effective end of a process that began with the required one-year notice period, severing U.S. membership, participation in governance, and funding contributions to the agency.

This step represents a significant victory for those who have argued against entangling American sovereignty—and taxpayer dollars—with an organization heavily influenced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The withdrawal addresses core issues of accountability, national independence in health policy, and the dangers of ceding control over life-and-death matters to supranational entities.

The WHO’s role during COVID-19 exemplified the perils of centralized authority. Critics, including the Trump administration, pointed to the organization’s delayed declaration of a global pandemic, its initial downplaying of human-to-human transmission (echoing early Chinese government statements), and its perceived deference to Beijing. Funding dynamics further underscored the imbalance: Historically, the U.S. was the largest contributor to the WHO, providing hundreds of millions annually (often around 15-20% of the agency’s budget in assessed and voluntary contributions). In contrast, China’s contributions were far smaller relative to its economic size, yet its influence appeared outsized—particularly in shaping narratives around the virus’s origins.

Investigations and reports have raised concerns that U.S. taxpayer funds, through entities such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and subawards to groups such as EcoHealth Alliance, supported research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology involving bat coronaviruses. While debates persist over definitions of “gain-of-function” research (experiments that enhance a pathogen’s transmissibility or virulence), congressional inquiries and declassified intelligence have raised questions about biosafety lapses and potential links to the pandemic’s emergence. The lab-leak hypothesis—once dismissed as a conspiracy theory—gained traction in official assessments, with some U.S. government reports concluding it as a plausible or even likely origin scenario.

This pattern of influence extended to domestic responses. In Ohio, former State Health Director Dr. Amy Acton (often dubbed the “lockdown lady” by critics) implemented strict measures in early 2020, including stay-at-home orders that shuttered businesses and restricted freedoms. These aligned closely with federal guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which, in turn, drew heavily on WHO recommendations and modeling. Acton’s approach mirrored that of Dr. Anthony Fauci and national figures who emphasized lockdowns, masking, and social distancing—policies now widely debated for their economic devastation, mental health impacts, and questionable long-term efficacy against a respiratory virus.

The broader historical narrative reveals a recurring theme: those who promise—or appear to deliver—healing and protection from death wield immense power. Jesus Christ’s ministry, as recorded in the Gospels, centered on miracles of healing: restoring sight to the blind, curing leprosy, raising the dead (e.g., Lazarus in John 11), and casting out demons. These acts were not mere side notes; they built followership. People flocked to Him not solely for philosophical teachings but because He demonstrated tangible power over affliction and mortality. Without these demonstrations, the message might have lacked the visceral appeal that drew crowds and disciples.

Similar dynamics appear in modern contexts. L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics and Scientology emphasize auditing to eliminate “engrams”—traumatic imprints causing spiritual and physical harm—promising a path to “clear” status and optimal health. Followers are drawn by the promise of liberation from pain and dysfunction, much like ancient shamans, medicine men, or tribal healers who gained authority by curing ailments or communing with spirits.

Governments and institutions have long mimicked this model. Control over health equates to control over life itself. From ancient rulers who monopolized food distribution to modern states tying insurance to employment (ensuring dependency on employers for coverage), the pattern persists: promise extended survival, and loyalty follows. The WHO, during COVID-19, amplified this through global coordination of lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and fear-based messaging—mechanisms that centralized power under the guise of public good. Critics argue this facilitated socialist-leaning policies, with China (a major geopolitical player) benefiting from economic advantages while the West endured restrictions.

Big Pharma’s role compounds the issue. The industry profits enormously from chronic illness management rather than cures. Historical examples abound: suppression of alternative treatments, prioritization of patentable drugs over natural or regenerative approaches, and lobbying for policies that funnel patients into dependency. Stem cell research, regenerative medicine, and activation of the body’s innate healing mechanisms (evident in infants’ rapid recovery) offer pathways to true autonomy—yet these face regulatory hurdles, funding biases, and corporate resistance.

The U.S. exit from the WHO opens the door to decentralized, competitive models. States can innovate without federal or international mandates—perhaps by emphasizing prevention, personal responsibility, nutrition, and emerging therapies such as those harnessing autologous stem cells or immune modulation. Data points support skepticism of centralized authority: Lockdowns correlated with massive economic losses (trillions globally), spikes in suicides, delayed cancer screenings, and educational setbacks. Excess mortality analyses continue to question whether benefits outweigh harms.

In essence, health freedom requires rejecting the scam of dependency. Governments, corporations, and global bodies thrive when people fear death and seek “miracles” from authority. True progress lies in empowering individuals to heal themselves, free from top-down control.

This withdrawal is a step toward reclaiming that sovereignty. It’s about time.

Bibliography and Further Reading

1.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Fact Sheet: U.S. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization.” January 22, 2026. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-us-withdrawal-from-the-world-health-organization.html

2.  The White House. “Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization.” Executive Order, January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization

3.  USA Today. “US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization.” January 23, 2026.

4.  House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “Final Report: COVID Select Concludes 2-Year Investigation.” December 2024 (includes sections on gain-of-function research and origins).

5.  The Intercept. “NIH Documents Provide New Evidence U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan.” September 2021 (updated context in later reports).

6.  Bible (New International Version): Gospel accounts of Jesus’ healings (e.g., Matthew 8-9, John 11).

7.  Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. 1950.

8.  Various congressional hearings on COVID origins (2023-2025 transcripts, e.g., involving Dr. Robert Redfield and EcoHealth Alliance).

9.  Think Global Health. “U.S. WHO Exit Could Expand China’s Influence.” (Analysis of funding and geopolitical dynamics).

10.  Historical analyses of public health centralization: e.g., works on the Rockefeller Foundation’s role in modern medicine, or critiques in books like Rockefeller Medicine Men by E. Richard Brown.

Footnotes

¹ U.S. funding historically dominated WHO budgets; see annual WHO financial reports pre-2025.

² For Acton’s Ohio policies: See 2020 executive orders and media coverage of protests/resignation.

³ On Jesus’ miracles as basis for authority: Theological commentaries, e.g., N.T. Wright’s works on the historical Jesus.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Dumps of Davos: Why America is not in the business of importing chaos and dysfunction

The annual gathering at Davos, nestled in the Swiss Alps, has long served as a peculiar summit where global elites convene to discuss the world’s pressing issues, often from the vantage point of immense wealth and influence. For many Americans, these meetings represent a detached conversation among the powerful, yet they offer a window into contrasting worldviews. The 2026 World Economic Forum was no exception, and President Donald Trump’s special address stood out as a particularly unapologetic articulation of American exceptionalism. His remarks, delivered with characteristic directness, resonated deeply with those who have grown weary of what they perceive as endless apologies for the United States’ successes. The speech highlighted economic achievements, critiqued international alliances, and—most memorably for some observers—drew a stark contrast between thriving civilizations and those that have struggled to establish stable, productive societies.

One of the most striking moments came when Trump referenced Somalia, describing it in blunt terms as a place that “is not even a country” in any meaningful sense of functional governance, and extending criticism to Somali immigrant communities in the United States, particularly in places like Minnesota, where integration challenges and related issues have been highlighted in public discourse. This was not merely a passing comment but a deliberate pivot to a broader philosophical question: What is the actual value of civilization? Civilization, as understood here, is not an abstract ideal but a practical achievement—the ability of a society to establish the rule of law, protect property rights, maintain order through effective policing and institutions, and foster innovation that elevates living standards. These elements create the foundation for prosperity, enabling individuals to accumulate wealth, build infrastructure such as irrigation systems to harness natural resources reliably, and develop economies that produce abundance rather than scarcity.

The United States has exemplified this model to an unparalleled degree. From its founding principles emphasizing individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise, it has generated extraordinary productivity. Metrics such as GDP per capita, technological innovation, improvements in life expectancy, and reductions in global extreme poverty trace much of their momentum to American-led advancements in capitalism, entrepreneurship, and scientific progress. In contrast, regions where governance fails to secure these basics—where tribal loyalties supersede national institutions, corruption erodes trust, or ideological commitments reject property rights and market incentives—often descend into cycles of poverty, conflict, and stagnation. Somalia serves as a poignant case study. Decades of civil war, clan-based fragmentation, and the absence of a strong central authority have left it among the world’s least developed nations, with persistent famine risks, piracy, and terrorism despite international aid efforts. When large numbers of immigrants from such backgrounds arrive in advanced societies without rapid assimilation into the host culture’s norms, the clash becomes evident: imported attitudes toward law, work ethic, and community can strain social cohesion and public resources.

Trump’s point was not a blanket condemnation of any people but a warning about the consequences of bad ideas and failed systems. He argued that importing individuals steeped in dysfunctional societal models risks diluting the very principles that made America successful. This echoes longstanding debates in political philosophy. Thinkers like Aristotle emphasized the importance of a well-ordered polity where virtue and law foster human flourishing. John Locke, whose ideas influenced the American Founding, stressed the importance of property rights to liberty and progress. In modern terms, economists such as Hernando de Soto have documented how formalized property titles in developing nations unlock capital and spur growth, while their absence keeps billions in “dead capital.” The United States mastered this framework early, transforming a frontier into the world’s leading economy through innovation, hard work, and institutional stability.

Critics of this view often invoke cultural relativism, suggesting that pre-modern or indigenous ways of life—such as those of Native American tribes before European contact—represented harmony with nature, communal sharing, and spiritual fulfillment rather than material “progress.” Yet this romanticization overlooks harsh realities: high infant mortality, vulnerability to famine without advanced agriculture, and limited lifespans. Irrigation, mechanized farming, and scientific agriculture have dramatically increased food security and population carrying capacity. Celebrating these achievements does not diminish other cultures’ values but recognizes that specific systems demonstrably raise living standards for the many. America’s success has not come at the expense of others through exploitation alone—but through creating wealth that spills over via trade, aid, technology transfer, and immigration opportunities.

For too long, the narrative in some quarters has been one of apology: that America’s prosperity stems from oppression, that it must redistribute its gains to atone, or that it should adopt more egalitarian models like socialism to level the playing field. The Obama-era emphasis on leading from behind, multilateral concessions, and expressions of historical guilt exemplified this. Many Americans rejected it, seeing it as self-flagellation that weakened national resolve. Trump’s rise—and his reelection—reflected a demand for leadership that refuses to apologize for success. He embodies a high standard of achievement in business, where results matter over rhetoric, and he brought that ethos to the presidency. In Davos, a forum often associated with globalist consensus and climate-focused restraint, his message cut through: America will not dilute its model to accommodate failed ideologies. Instead, others should emulate what works.

This extends beyond immigration to geopolitics. Consider the discussions around territorial ambitions, such as Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland. Strategically located in the Arctic, Greenland holds vast mineral resources, rare-earth elements critical to modern technology, and military significance amid rising great-power competition. Trump has argued that U.S. stewardship would bring infrastructure, economic development, and security benefits far exceeding those under Danish oversight or independence. Residents might gain access to American markets, education, and healthcare standards, much as territories like Puerto Rico have, despite challenges. Canada, too, benefits enormously from proximity to the U.S. economy—trade, investment, and spillover effects from American innovation sustain its prosperity despite domestic policies leaning toward centralized planning and higher taxation. Without the U.S. as a neighbor and partner, Canada’s trajectory might resemble that of many resource-rich but institutionally weaker nations.

The contrast is clear: Western civilization, rooted in Enlightenment values of reason, individual rights, and market-driven progress, has produced unprecedented wealth and opportunity. Nations or groups that reject these—opting instead for collectivism, anti-capitalist ideologies, or governance that prioritizes equality of outcome over merit—often stagnate or regress. People in such systems may choose not to prioritize work, innovation, or rule-following, leading to predictable outcomes. Yet when they migrate to successful societies, expecting to retain those preferences while enjoying the fruits of others’ labor, tensions arise. Trump articulated what many feel: the U.S. offers opportunity, but not at the cost of importing dysfunction. Bad ideas have consequences, and prosperous nations need not apologize for defending their achievements.

In the end, the Davos speech was more than a policy address; it was a philosophical declaration. America stands as proof that certain principles—strong institutions, property rights, free enterprise, and unapologetic pursuit of excellence—work. Others do not. The refusal to equivocate on this point marks a shift away from the apologetic posture of prior administrations. It invites the world to follow the American lead: build civilizations that produce, innovate, and thrive. Those who do will prosper; those who cling to failing models will not. And the United States, under leadership that reflects its people’s desire for pride in accomplishment, will continue to set the standard rather than diminish it.

Bibliography

•  de Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. Basic Books, 2000.

•  Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company, 1997.

•  Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. 1689. (Cambridge University Press edition, 1988).

•  Maddison, Angus. The World Economy: Historical Statistics. OECD Publishing, 2003.

•  World Bank. “World Development Indicators.” Ongoing database, accessed 2026.

•  Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Business, 2012.

•  Trump, Donald J. Special Address to the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland, January 2026. Transcript available via White House archives and WEF.org.

•  Various news reports on Davos 2026 speech, including The Washington Post (January 21, 2026), Fox News (2026 coverage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s response), and Al Jazeera (January 22, 2026).

Footnotes

1.  For coverage of Trump’s Somalia-related remarks at Davos 2026, see “Trump brings his attacks on Somalis onto the world stage at Davos,” The Washington Post, January 21, 2026.

2.  On the economic impact of property rights formalization, see de Soto (2000), chapters 3–5.

3.  Comparative historical GDP data showing U.S. divergence post-1800: Maddison (2003).

4.  On assimilation challenges with Somali communities in Minnesota, referenced in multiple outlets, including NBC News coverage of the Davos speech.

5.  Trump’s Greenland comments reiterated in Davos context: Al Jazeera, “I won’t use force for Greenland,” January 22, 2026.

6.  Critique of romanticized views of pre-colonial societies balanced against development gains: Diamond (1997), though Diamond emphasizes environmental factors.

7.  Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) provide extensive evidence linking inclusive institutions to long-term prosperity.

Rich Hoffman

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

Most People Are Just Cogs in the Machine: Leadership knows how to pull the levers of that machine

This seems to come up every year when people are reflecting and sending each other motivational messages, such as they do on LinkedIn.  Most people are trained in socialism, the collective warm blanket of shared success, incorrectly, and it chokes most companies into complete paralysis.  Success in our era is dressed up in cheerful posts and glossy platitudes, a cascade of “Hawkey little messages” assuring us that prosperity is mostly about teams, vibes, and being “all in.” The ritual is familiar: end-of-year feed, professional network, congratulatory notes, soft-focus talk of “collective wins.” However, what most people feel in their bones, even if it is impolitic to say aloud, is that victories are nearly always propelled by a few decisive acts—often by one or two people who turn the key, fuel the engine, and take responsibility for the risk. The machine can be exquisite: gears of procurement, finance, quality, manufacturing, design, sales, legal, and compliance all meshing. However, machines, however sentimental, do not start themselves. Leadership is the ignition, the regulator, the governor, the hand at the lever.

If you want success, build a machine that reliably makes success. That is the institutional truth of production and enterprise—government, industry, entertainment, any domain where complex work must be routinized. Systems are arrays of interlocking cogs; each cog has a place, and in an efficient design, each is necessary. However, necessity is not sufficiency. A machine’s sufficiency emerges only when an accountable mind organizes its timing, permits its torque, apportions its oil, and shuts it down before it burns itself to ash. The leader is the one who understands load, sequence, contingency, and consequence. They are the person who decides whether the engine runs fast today or idles; who knows when to swap a worn gear without mourning it; who understands that even the most ornate arrangement of parts turns to sculpture without spark.

We train most people to be components. This is not a knock on people so much as an observation about schooling and culture. It is safer, warmer, and more predictable to be a gear inside the frame than to stand outside the frame and decide which machine must be built, which conditions require it, and when it must run. The collective promises comfort; the individual bears cost. The collective sells the feeling of belonging; the individual pays the price of decision. In that exchange, many embrace the blanket of collectivism—mass credentialing, committees, rubrics, performance reviews, compliance protocols—signals that one is “an essential part of the team.” Moreover, in a limited sense, that is true: a properly designed system relies on the integrity of every part. Take away the feed pump, and production starves; remove quality’s gauge, and defects bloom. However, the illusion rests in mistaking “indispensable within design” for “constitutive of decision.” The machinery of work needs cogs; the work of leadership requires a person.

Leadership is not consensus engineering. It is not the median of opinions distilled into approved action. Leadership is rugged individualism at the point of decision—where accountability cannot be outsourced, and uncertainty cannot be fully hedged. It takes courage to pull the lever when the data are incomplete, and the clock is running. It takes imagination to see the machine that does not yet exist and to name the conditions under which it will be viable. It takes a life lived with risk, with failures tallied and learned, to know the difference between speed and haste, between endurance and grind, between excellence and exhaustion. Collective comfort can train excellent cogs; it rarely trains decisive leaders.

Watch team sports if you need a working metaphor. The Super Bowl ring is a collective artifact—dozens upon dozens of names will be etched into the annals. Trainers, assistants, ball boys, coaches, coordinators, linemen, wide receivers, analysts, owners—everyone counts somewhere. However, the moment of victory tends to converge in a handful of plays, executed by a few players under the direction of a coach who took decisive risks at the right time. The ring belongs to all; the victory turns on the few. Moreover, if the organization is constructed well enough, parts can be replaced. Players retire or are traded; staff rotates. The machine continues to win because the leadership—its philosophy, its standards, its hierarchy of decisions—remains intact.

This is why strong organizations do not worship any single cog. They respect cogs and maintain them; they pay for reliability and reward merit. However, the machine is not reengineered to accommodate the demands of a single gear. Instead, leadership preserves design integrity while swapping parts as needed. In weak organizations, the fetishizing of singular parts destabilizes the whole. In strong organizations, the philosophy of leadership yields repeatable victory because the leader can read conditions and set the tempo. When leadership is consistent and wise, luck is less a coin flip and more a variable constrained by design.

The reason leadership feels elusive is that most people, by design, have been socialized into the safety of machines. The world is complex; specialization is rational. However, specialization often becomes identity, and identity becomes politics, and politics becomes bureaucratic life. The rhetoric of “team” spreads like a balm, and participation trophies proliferate—not because people are malicious, but because machinery envelops their self-conception. Inside this warm frame, many forget the first principles of success: machines are instruments; leadership is agency. The machine is necessary; the leader is decisive.

Righteous leadership is not domination. It is stewardship under justice. The righteous leader stands outside the machine long enough to see conditions truthfully—scarcity, risk, moral hazard, human frailty—and then returns to the console to operate with integrity. Righteousness here means rightly ordered effort and directing that effort toward successful enterprise.  The righteous leader knows the machine serves ends beyond itself and refuses to confuse throughput with justice or output with meaning. They refuse the nihilism that says “only the win matters,” and the sentimentalism that says “only feelings matter.” Righteous leadership harmonizes courage and conscience: a lever pulled with clarity, not cruelty; a shutdown ordered to preserve life, not to prevent loss of face.

This is why nations with abundant resources can stagnate, and why organizations with immaculate infrastructure can drift into decay: without leadership that sees, decides, and cares, the machine becomes ornate furniture. Oil rigs rust; factories idle; supply chains fray. Conversely, with strong leadership, modest machines can outperform their spec, because the design is repeatedly refined, the constraints are embraced, and the people inside the system are cultivated for competence, not simply compliance.

It is fashionable to say “success is shared,” and in one respect that statement is true—labor is often collective, and recognition ought to be fair. However, success is not collectively decided. Success is collectively executed after a decisive will points it in a direction. The more clearly we distinguish decision-making from execution, the less we will confuse popularity with leadership, bureaucracy with governance, or credentials with competence. Moreover, the more clearly we honor righteous leadership—leadership that tells the truth, accepts cost, and lifts the people under its care—the healthier our machines, and the less brittle our victories.

So if you seek success, build a machine worthy of it: clear work standards, clean interfaces, visible bottlenecks, disciplined rhythms, lean buffers, quality gates. Then seek, become, or empower a leader of conscience. Teach people to be excellent cogs without training them to be dependent souls. Reward initiative alongside reliability. Audit outcomes as if justice matters, but always understand that profit is the fuel that makes the machine run. Moreover, remember: the machine is an instrument; leadership is the agent; righteousness is the compass. When those three align, the lever is pulled at the right time—and the win, when it comes, is more than luck and more than noise. It is the visible fruit of invisible virtues: courage, clarity, and care.  However, just because it is invisible, does not mean it does not exist.  Only that people from their perspective do not see it, because they are just cogs in the wheel, and their understanding of the big picture is severely limited.

—

Footnotes

[1] Peter F. Drucker, The Effective Executive (HarperBusiness, 2006).

[2] W. Edwards Deming, Out of the Crisis (MIT Press, 2000).

[3] Eliyahu M. Goldratt, The Goal (North River Press, 2014).

[4] Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (Simon & Schuster, 2013).

[5] Brendan Ballou, Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America (PublicAffairs, 2023).

[6] Roger Connors, Tom Smith, and Craig Hickman, The Oz Principle (Portfolio, 2004).

[7] F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 2007).

[8] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (Penguin Classics, 2003).

[9] Jim Collins, Good to Great (HarperBusiness, 2001).

[10] Andrew Grove, High Output Management (Vintage, 2015).

—

Bibliography

Ballou, Brendan. Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America. New York: PublicAffairs, 2023.

Collins, Jim. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Do not. New York: HarperBusiness, 2001.

Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013.

Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.

Drucker, Peter F. The Effective Executive. New York: HarperBusiness, 2006.

Goldratt, Eliyahu M. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press, 2014.

Grove, Andrew S. High Output Management. New York: Vintage, 2015.

Hayek, F. A. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. London: Penguin Classics, 2003.

Connors, Roger, Tom Smith, and Craig Hickman. The Oz Principle: Getting Results Through Individual and Organizational Accountability. New York: Portfolio, 2004.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Affordability Crisis: Price increases to fill vacant personalities are the folly of socialism looming in the background

The question of housing affordability has become one of the most pressing socio-economic issues in the United States today. With the average home price reaching approximately $400,000 in 2024, many young families and individuals find themselves priced out of the market. This reality raises a critical question: why does the housing industry continue to prioritize large, expensive homes when market signals clearly indicate a growing demand for smaller, affordable housing options? Historically, the American housing model was built on accessibility. Following World War II, the United States experienced an unprecedented housing boom driven by the GI Bill, which provided returning veterans with low-interest mortgages and educational benefits. Between 1945 and 1960, the average home price increased from roughly $8,000 to $12,000 [1], while median household income rose from $2,400 to $5,600 [2]. These homes were predominantly single-story ranch houses designed to be affordable for working-class families. They featured simple layouts, modest square footage, and efficient construction methods that allowed developers to build entire neighborhoods quickly and inexpensively. This model supported rapid suburbanization and contributed to the rise of the American middle class. By contrast, the late 20th and early 21st centuries saw a shift toward larger homes, often called “McMansions.” In 1980, the average home price was $47,000 [3], but by 2000, it had climbed to $120,000 [4], and by 2020, it had skyrocketed to $320,000 [5]. This escalation far outpaced wage growth, creating a structural imbalance in housing affordability and leaving younger generations unable to enter the market. The cultural and economic forces that once prioritized affordability have been replaced by incentives that reward size, luxury, and perceived status, setting the stage for today’s housing crisis.

The persistent trend toward building larger homes is not driven solely by consumer demand but by systemic incentives in the real estate and finance sectors. Developers maximize profits by constructing high-value properties, while municipalities benefit from increased property tax revenues. This dynamic discourages the development of smaller, entry-level homes, even though demographic data suggests that younger generations prefer affordability and functionality over size and luxury. According to recent affordability indices, the ratio of median household income to qualifying income for a median-priced home fell to 0.68 in 2024 [6]. This indicates that homeownership is increasingly unattainable for average earners, reinforcing the argument for a return to smaller, cost-effective housing models. Yet the financial ecosystem—from banks to zoning boards—remains locked into a paradigm that rewards high-margin projects. Mortgage lenders often favor larger loans because they generate higher interest revenue, while local governments prioritize developments that promise substantial tax inflows. These incentives create a feedback loop that perpetuates the construction of oversized homes, even as market demand shifts toward affordability. Furthermore, inflationary pressures and speculative investment exacerbate the problem. Between 2000 and 2024, housing prices grew by more than 230%, while median incomes increased by less than 75%. This disparity underscores the structural imbalance between wages and housing costs, a gap that cannot be bridged solely by traditional market mechanisms. Without intervention, the housing market risks becoming increasingly exclusionary, limiting access to homeownership and eroding the foundation of economic mobility.

Beyond economics, cultural factors play a significant role in shaping housing trends. For decades, the pursuit of status through material possessions influenced consumer preferences, encouraging the construction of larger homes as symbols of success. Golf memberships, luxury cars, and sprawling properties became markers of achievement, reinforcing a cycle of materialism that drove housing design. However, contemporary social values are shifting. Younger generations prioritize experiences, sustainability, and financial flexibility over conspicuous consumption. They are less interested in impressing neighbors with square footage and more concerned with affordability and quality of life. This cultural evolution underscores the need for housing policies and development strategies that align with changing societal norms. Yet the industry has been slow to adapt, clinging to outdated assumptions about what buyers want. Compounding the affordability crisis is the growing influence of institutional investors such as Blackstone, Invitation Homes, and other private equity firms that have acquired tens of thousands of single-family homes across the country. These firms often purchase distressed properties in bulk, outbidding individual buyers with cash offers, and then convert these homes into rental units. This practice accelerates the transition from an ownership-based society to a rental-based one, echoing predictions from the World Economic Forum that “you will own nothing and be happy.” While such statements are controversial, they highlight the structural forces reshaping housing markets globally and the erosion of the American Dream. Institutional investors operate with access to cheap capital and sophisticated financial instruments, enabling them to dominate local markets and set rental prices that further strain household budgets. When ownership becomes unattainable, wealth accumulation stalls, and generational inequality deepens, creating a society increasingly divided along economic lines. The presence of these investors also distorts housing supply, as homes that could serve as affordable entry points for families are removed from the ownership pool and repurposed for profit-driven rental schemes.

Failure to address this imbalance has profound social and economic consequences. Young adults delay marriage and family formation because they cannot afford homes. Communities lose stability as homeownership declines, and wealth inequality deepens as property ownership consolidates among institutional investors. Ultimately, the American Dream of homeownership becomes unattainable for a growing segment of the population. The current housing crisis reflects a failure to adapt to evolving market realities and cultural values. Continuing to build large, expensive homes in the face of declining affordability and changing consumer preferences is economically unsustainable and socially detrimental. A strategic pivot toward smaller, affordable housing—akin to the post-WWII ranch-style model—offers a viable solution to restore accessibility to the American Dream. Developers, policymakers, and financial institutions must recognize that the market is in charge, not the egos of those who seek to maximize profit at the expense of social stability. If this shift does not occur, the consequences will ripple across generations, transforming a nation of homeowners into a nation of renters and undermining the very foundation of American prosperity. The time to act is now: by embracing affordability, sustainability, and inclusivity, the housing industry can realign with the values that once made homeownership a cornerstone of American life.  But price increases, as a solution to fill the empty minds of vacant personalities, are the driving force here.  Everyone can’t be rich; they don’t have a mind for it, nor do they want it.  But we have been caught in giving everyone a sense of wealth without them doing the work of wealth, and in the process, we have opened Pandora’s box of illusion that many are perfectly willing to exploit for a short-term gain.  But the cost of those short-term gains is now before us, and it’s wrapped up in this whole affordability debate.  And looming in the background is the mechanisms of Marxism that knew what they were doing all along.  Once people throw in the towel, what will they want?  That’s what has happened in New York with the new communist mayor there.  And behind it all, there is a push to hide from the world the moral bankruptcy of the instigators if what gets ushered in behind the carnage is socialism and government-driven price controls.  When really, what was needed all along were market-driven sentiments of pure capitalism; if only people had listened to those market forces instead of trying to control them.

References:

[1] U.S. Census Bureau. Historical Housing Data, 1945–1960.

[2] U.S. Census Bureau. Median Income Trends, 1945–1960.

[3] National Association of Realtors. Housing Price Trends, 1980.

[4] Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED). Median Home Prices, 2000.

[5] Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED). Median Home Prices, 2020.

[6] Housing Affordability Index Report, 2024.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Trump’s War on Drug Cartels Is the Right Fight for America: Blow up more drug boats and dealers

For decades, America has tolerated a slow-motion disaster disguised as “due process” and “fairness.” While courts crawled at the speed of molasses, drug cartels pumped billions of dollars’ worth of poison into our communities. The result? Generations destroyed, families shattered, and a culture softened for collapse. President Trump’s decision to take the fight directly to cartel operations—blowing up drug boats in international waters—is not just bold; it’s necessary. This is not about policing petty crime. It’s about defending the United States from a military-grade invasion disguised as commerce. Fentanyl alone killed 73,960 Americans in the 12 months ending April 2025, according to CDC data. That’s more than the total U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam. When Trump authorized strikes off the coast of Venezuela, he signaled a new era: America will no longer play defense while cartels wage war on our soil. Critics in Europe wring their hands about “due process,” but let’s be clear—cartels are not misunderstood entrepreneurs. They are terrorist organizations, and their weapon is chemical warfare.

Why did it take so long to get here? Because cartels mastered the art of hiding behind our own institutions. They’ve turned the American legal system into their own version of a Trojan horse. Every time a kingpin gets caught, billions flow into law firms to stall extradition, manipulate loopholes, and buy influence. The Sinaloa Cartel alone generates up to $11 billion annually, and much of that bankroll fuels legal defenses and bribery. Lawyers addicted to cartel money are as dangerous as people with an addiction to heroin. This isn’t hyperbole—it’s systemic corruption. Court cases drag on for years, not because justice is complicated, but because money makes complexity profitable. Meanwhile, politicians posture about “comprehensive reform” while quietly pocketing donations from interests tied to the drug economy. The result? A judiciary that moves more slowly than a glacier, while cartels move faster than a hypersonic missile. Trump’s approach bypasses this charade. No more plea deals. No more courtroom theater. When a cartel boat crosses international waters loaded with fentanyl, it’s not a defendant—it’s a target.

If you think this is just about drugs, think again. Cartels are not mere suppliers—they are warlords. Since 2006, Mexico has recorded over 460,000 homicides linked to cartel violence, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. That’s nearly half a million lives erased in less than two decades. In 2021 alone, 18,000 people died in cartel-related conflicts. These aren’t sanitized numbers—they represent real atrocities: beheadings, bodies hung from bridges, families slaughtered to send a message. And it’s not confined to Mexico. Along the U.S. border, innocent Americans have been kidnapped, tortured, and killed—crimes that rarely make headlines because they don’t fit the narrative of “immigration reform.” Illegal immigration has been the perfect smokescreen for cartel operations, scattering enforcement resources and creating chaos by design. Every migrant caravan is a Trojan horse, hiding cartel scouts and smugglers among desperate families. This is not immigration—it’s infiltration. And every fentanyl pill that slips through is a bullet aimed at America’s future.

The time for half-measures is over. Trump’s strikes on cartel boats are a start, but they must be the beginning of a relentless campaign: destroy cartel mansions, burn their plantations, seize their offshore accounts, and dismantle their propaganda networks. Treat them as what they are—terrorists. Fentanyl is not a recreational drug; it’s a weapon of mass destruction. In FY2023, U.S. authorities seized 27,000 pounds of fentanyl at the southern border, a staggering 480% increase since 2020. That’s enough to kill every man, woman, and child in America several times over. Over 107,000 Americans died from overdoses in 2022, with fentanyl responsible for 70% of those deaths. This is not a market—it’s a battlefield. And the enemy is winning because we’ve been too polite to call this what it is: war. Trump called it. He acted. And for that, he deserves not just support but a mandate to finish the job. Blow up more boats. Raid more compounds. Cut off the financial arteries that keep this beast alive. America cannot afford another decade of courtroom theater while cartels wage chemical warfare on our streets. The choice is simple: escalate or perish.

History will judge this moment. Will we continue to let cartels poison our culture under the guise of “due process,” or will we fight back with the full force of a nation that refuses to die on its knees? Trump chose the latter, and that’s one of the reasons we elected him.  Drug dealing is not a harmless, free market enterprise; it is meant to feed the worst of any society, the slack-jawed losers who supply the poison and the diabolical menaces who use them, and make them both the moral imperative of all social structure.  Because of the United States’ power and its successful military, threats against it have taken the form of guerrilla warfare.  They have no plans to fight a direct war with America, but they indeed plan to subvert it, which has undoubtedly been the case of many socialist countries around the world, and yes, Mexico and Canada fall in that category.  They are OK to support a power like the drug cartels to cause the inward destruction of America, and even the lawyers play their part by putting their personal profit over the good of the nation.  Just like the drugs the cartels deal, the money that spawns from it has given significant amounts of wealth to the legal profession in America to keep the dealers out of jail, for the most part.  The drugs themselves aren’t the only addiction meant to exploit a culture to its own self-destruction, and many enemy countries to America have learned to use a much more passive-aggressive approach to military attack.  Venezuela certainly falls under that category.  So knowing all that, I would like to see more drug boats blown from the water.  I would like to see their drug mansions raided and destroyed.  I would like to see all drug assets eradicated and the perpetrators punished to the fullest extent.  Drug dealing and use is not an innocent crime; it’s the poison of society itself.  There is no innocent drug use when the destruction of human minds is the intent.  And when you look at the many socialist countries where many of these drug dealers spawn from, the endeavor is all too obvious.  They let the cartels be their military and chaos their agent of destruction as they seek to overthrow capitalism and to usher in communism as the replacement for sanity.  And in large sections of America, it has been working.  When you trace back the origin of many of the anti-ICE riots in America to its root cause, the perpetrators are primarily drug users who have had their minds poisoned by the cartels, and in many cases, they are proud of it.  The many members of all communist movements, in most cases, also have a relationship to drug use because, in their destroyed minds, they lose the ability to think for themselves and instead seek centralized authorities to do it for them.  And that is the reason why these drug dealers need a spectacular end to their life of crime and villainy.  And the Trump administration couldn’t destroy enough of them to make me happy.   But I am glad to see the intent headed in the right direction.  I am looking forward to a lot more blowing up of drug dealers, and if the Trump team ever wants any help, call.  It would be a privilege. 

Rich Hoffman

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

We Have To Teach People Why Capitalism is Good: The Vivek Ramaswamy approach to Zohran Mamdani

I think people misread Vivek Ramaswamy’s comments about Zohran Mamdani incorrectly, for the most part.  However, when Vivek placed an ad in New York challenging the socialist candidate for mayor to a debate, it raised several interesting questions that will undoubtedly be part of future discussions about politics.  Vivek, of course, is jumping into the conversation about New York politics because, as a capitalist who made a lot of money in New York and is now planning to be the governor of Ohio, he is uniquely positioned to have a debate with what the political left thinks of as a bright young star, in Mamdani.  But critics of communism and socialism expect a more visceral hatred of Mamdani than Vivek shows to people.  I’ve had the fortune of knowing Vivek personally, and this is true for most people: bright individuals who can debate any topic with anyone don’t have to get defensive every time a challenge arises to their belief system.  So Vivek can have a very cerebral discussion about Mamdani without getting too upset that the trend in Democrat politics is a radical leaning towards far-left, Marxist policies.  And most people have been taught, through years of Cold War policy from the over 50s crowd and onward, that we are to approach communists and socialists with anger, like they are the invaders we saw in the movie Red Dawn.  Vivek comes from a much younger generation, and that’s a good thing because, in the post-Trump years, many things are going to change.  People are realizing right now, and with Mamdani, just how dangerous all the socialist instruction in our public schools has been.  And most young people have had extensive exposure to it through public education. For too many voters, this issue has snuck up on them, evoking a lot of fear in people like Mamdani.

I have been warning everyone about the problems with socialism for many years.  And while public schools don’t overtly have classes teaching Marxism in general, it is implicit in the background of almost everything done in the teaching process, including in kindergarten, when the teacher instructs you to share your toys with your neighbor.  And that everyone is equal.  Vivek Ramaswamy’s approach to the communist problem is to debate it, because he can.  Not to fight them in the streets or call them names.  There are many young people, like Zohran Mamdani, who will be able to utilize social media to capture the attention of young voters who lack opportunities to surpass their parents’ achievements.  For many young people who can’t afford to buy their own home or have children, life seems unappealing and not worth fighting for.  While most MAGA supporters of today’s politics likely have their own car, their own home with lots of property, maybe even a boat.  Several kids.  A pretty good life, and something that they want to defend from people who want to take all that from them.  Vivek understands that the under-50 crowd has vastly different motivations and perspectives, and that they don’t feel the need to fight for anything, because, from their perspective, they don’t have much to fight for.  Their minds have mainly been rotted out by the public education experience that taught them all the wrong Marxist things about social equality and the value of private property ownership.  Therefore, portraying our political enemies as revolting figures will not win over new voters, because those new voters essentially share Mamdani’s perspective. 

That’s why the future of the MAGA movement needs to include people like Vivek Ramaswamy and J.D. Vance, who can debate any issue with anyone, anywhere.  And Vivek certainly can, and that is the way to win over the next generation of voters.  If, during the Trump years, the goal was to overcome all the lies that had been told to us by a government that sought global socialism as its governing principle, now the shoe is on the other foot.  It’s not enough to question the government of socialists and to run them out of office.  The problem that J.D. Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy will face with young people is that many of them have to be taught the virtues of capitalism from scratch.  We can’t just hold up Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and tell them to read it.  They need to understand it relative to their thoughts as young socialists who we have let get out of control, rob away their hopes and dreams.  Fighting socialism and communism with the kind of Cold War hatred that we have in the past won’t work on today’s social media.  Capitalism has to be sold to people all over again.  It will help to have a successful Trump administration to point to so that young socialists can see for themselves how much better a capitalist system is than their socialist and communist teachings.  In the world’s plans, they never thought a Trump character would ever hold a position of power, revealing just how powerful capitalism could be.  His election was crucial in many ways at this particular point in history.  But do not assume that the new generation will have a hatred for communism as previous generations in America have.  It’s quite the opposite.  Most young people will have to be taught from scratch why capitalism is so much better, because they certainly haven’t been taught why in school, or entertainment, or their social groups. 

The shock everyone has felt at hearing Mamdani utter outright communist sentiment, wanting to be the mayor of New York City, what many think of as the capitalist capital of the world, is the reality that this new generation of young people is more prone to accept elements of Marxism because it’s all they know.  And for many, this issue snuck up on them as they realized how much of modern-day social media is dominated by young people who are just like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and now Mamdani.  We say today they won’t and can’t win elections if this is what the Democrat Party is.  However, this is what the Democratic Party has been for quite some time.  They just hid it all behind a social mask, but it’s always been there, and now that people see it and hear them talk, the realization they have toward it is hatred.  However, be cautious not to demonize all these young socialists, as the goal is to win over that generation in a competitive race for the minds of a new generation.  And understand that capitalism has to be sold to them because they were not taught its value, and they do not have a natural love for it.  It will take someone like Vivek Ramaswamy to explain it to them and show them why it works.  They can’t expect just to read Adam Smith’s book and draw their conclusions.  They will have to be taught, with considerable debate.  And Vivek is just the right mind for all that.  He understands the problem all too well, even as many are just now waking up to it and have been caught off guard.  The next generation in America has to be mainly taught from scratch.  Their minds have been ruined.  And hating them won’t convince them to join you.  We have to earn them to our side person for person. 

Rich Hoffman

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

Showing Courage on Ohio Property Taxation: It was always a socialist game that should have never started

It takes a lot of guts to try to override a governor’s veto, and that is just what Matt Huffman and the House Republicans are poised to do on July 21st, 2025, in Columbus, Ohio.  They have been trying to reform property taxes in House Bill 96 in three key areas, eliminating replacement levies, which often lead to tax increases.  Republicans want to phase them out.  The second thing is that they wish to implement county-level cuts, giving county budget commissions the authority to lower property taxes if the local governments or schools collect more than they need.  Then the third thing is to adjust the 20-mill floor, changing how the formula is calculated to reduce school funding as property values continue to rise, potentially.  DeWine vetoed these parts of the bill, arguing that they’d create enormous problems for schools by disrupting funding stability.  It takes a lot of guts for Huffman and other Republicans, including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, to stand behind these reforms and push for a 60-vote majority.  It will be close.  If the House can get it over to the Senate, the Senate has the votes, so it really will come down to whether Republicans dare to part with DeWine and override him as they should.  Many people talk tough on the campaign trail, and this is one of those times when real courage is needed.  It would be beneficial if Republicans could step up and take the lead at this critical juncture.  Many people would take pride in a good government headed in the right direction.  Because what DeWine is protecting is loaded with bad government misery that is headed for reform regardless.  There is no stopping the reforms to private property that are going to take place. 

I feel like everywhere these days, I have to say it, and there are a lot of people who don’t think about these things very much who don’t want to hear it.  However, I’ve been pointing it out for years, so the road to this July 21st vote is a very long one.  And it’s just the start of many things to come.  The next governor, Vivek Ramaswamy, whom I had the chance to discuss this very topic with just a few weeks ago, is looking at major reforms on private property taxation.   President Trump is discussing the same concept, namely, the elimination of private property taxation all together.  It will take several years to get there, but that’s where the current sentiment is headed.  And people like Mike DeWine, who have been a part of building that old system, know that it will disrupt the way they envisioned funding for government and services.  However, those old trends are what have put us in our current budgetary situation.  We are going to have some tough discussions, just as we are currently with the Federal Reserve.  A group of independent bankers can’t be allowed to strangle billions of dollars of opportunity cost out of our economy just to protect lenders’ profit margins, when the growth potential of reform could generate so much more than the old static measures.  For those who think that punishing property ownership is the way to fund the level of government we may want as a society, it essentially comes down to choice: do you trust the free market, or the minds of humanity to impose burdens to pay for government services, such as school funding?  For DeWine, he’s just never going to be ready to admit that years and years of socialism are behind the creation of property tax penalties to pay for public education.  And, of course, the teachers’ unions control that entire industry, leading to cost overruns that our out-of-control local governments must deal with, leaving behind expensive chaos.

So you can’t help but talk about socialism, communism, and Marxism in general when we discuss how taxation against private property came into our culture to begin with, because we have gone through a period where Democrats and soft shelled Republicans didn’t want to believe to what level Karl Marx influenced legislative policy making going back to the beginning of the last century.  Much of the American expansion period, from 1850 on, saw a significant influx of European socialists who entered the country and introduced their Karl Marx-inspired ideas, which ultimately infected our free enterprise system with penalties against private property.  And it has gone on for so long that we just assumed that’s the way it has to be.  However, this has led to runaway costs, as we have seen in public schools currently, and penalties against those who own property, as they pay more for the same services than, say, an apartment dweller who requires far more tax services, far more than they pay.  It’s a very unfair system that undermines the premise of private property, destroying the American idea, and it was baked into all the progressive taxation policies that came with the creation of the Fed in 1913, a mistake at its inception that has only worsened over time.  There are old politicians, like DeWine, who have carried these mistaken ideas throughout their entire political life, and they are trying to preserve them for all kinds of unhealthy reasons.  However, the temperament lies in reforming that basic concept. 

Of course, what would replace these revenue devices would be a use tax of some kind, as well as sales tax in general.  However, that relies on the market’s growth mechanisms, similar to Trump’s tariffs.  People were against those for the same reason, and only now, a few months into his second term, are people beginning to see the logic, fruitfully.  After a few years of Trump, many significant economic developments will become a reality that people cannot see now.  Yet, as with the trend on private property, we should incentivize people to own as much private property as possible.  The taxes on it are part of a socialist scheme from the beginning that was always part of the plan to grow government.  There is no way to determine the correct funding model for public schools if property owners bear the burden for the benefit of those who can’t afford property.  It’s a wealth redistribution scam that’s baked into the policy of collecting taxes to grow government in ways that nobody can reliably control, because it’s a tax against the few for the needs of the many.  And it takes away the incentive to invest and create.  What we know now is that encouraging growth would generate significantly more revenue through optimism, as opposed to the current system of oppression.  In short, take the socialism, communism, and Marxism out of the legislative process, and the economy works far better, and at that point, you can see what your actual revenue stream would be, and can make much better decisions for how to construct society, such as elements of school funding and per-pupil budget needs.  With the system as it is, we can’t even have the discussion.  There is a significant chance for the Ohio House to take a bold, Trump-like action.  However, the trend, regardless, is working against old politicians like DeWine and is moving away from penalizing private property ownership.  Whether that happens on July 21st, 2025, or at a later time, the taxation of private property is headed for significant reform and disruption of the current methods.  It would be better sooner if people could find the courage.  But eventually, it’s happening anyway, and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop it.  Because it never should have been created in the first place.

Rich Hoffman

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

In Florida, You Can Run Protestors Over: Fighting communists rioting against ICE deportations

You did notice that there are no mass protests in Florida, where communists trained in our colleges take to the streets in one of these anti-ICE deportation mobs to block traffic with their bodies.  In Florida, if people throw their bodies in front of your car to stop you, you are allowed to run them over.  There are some technical and legal gymnastics involved, but in essence, protesters are not allowed to block traffic in Florida.  Because drivers won’t be prosecuted for driving over their scummy, dirty, communist bodies, and that’s how it should be in every American state.  It’s nice to have Free Speech, but that speech cannot impose itself on other people and cause them discomfort or even harm.  And blocked traffic is reprehensibly disruptive.  But there’s more to it than that, even.  We are not obligated in America to tolerate enemies of our nation.  And to hide hostile, treasonous intent behind any form of Free Speech.  And this is what the social Marxists, communists, and open socialists want to do by working against the values of America while using the values of Free Speech to attempt to undercut the foundations of society itself.  We must recognize what is truly happening with these individuals. Suppose they show up to a rally outside of Sheriff Jones’ jail in Butler County, for instance, as they have been doing, wearing a t-shirt indicating membership in a socialist organization. In that case, they are openly declaring war against the United States and the self-governed people of that nation.  And actions worse than legal prosecutions are more than justified.  Those people are declaring war on our way of life, and we need to treat them that way.  We have no obligation to be accommodating to people who are trying to overthrow our country, and these protestors against the ICE deportations are with their stated intent.

There is a lot to unpack behind the supporters of these protestors who have blocked traffic in Los Angeles and made themselves into a menace to society.  Having different opinions on a matter and expressing them openly in the marketplace of ideas is one thing.  Impeding people’s lives with those opinions, with the explicit intention of using force and inconvenience to convey their point, is not acceptable.  And for the people who are financing these protests, there is a lot of action that we must take against them.  Everyone needs to stop thinking of the government as something separate from themselves, done by some mysterious people in power.  Self-government means we elect people into positions that need to be filled, and they work on our behalf to accomplish the tasks assigned to them.  So we must protect that government from attack when it does happen.  In this case, Trump was elected to do our work.  And we must preserve his ability to do that work on our behalf.  That work cannot be stopped by a bunch of lifetime appointed judges with both feet into Marxist causes as they have been lured into that political philosophy during their Friday night wine tasting social gatherings, and they have learned to drink the brew with their pinky out to disguise from their spouses detrimental elements of porn addiction and diabolical life choices they want to hide behind collectivist living.  The people who are attacking our country are attacking us, and they use these mindless, dumb kids right out of college, and the old hippies of the Flower Child generation who are still alive to provoke them into antagonisms against all things American.  Even in some of these protests, the American flag was burned while the Mexican flag was hoisted with reverence as if domination over occupation were a forgone conclusion. 

Most of the wars that Americans have fought over the last century were against socialist, Marxist, and communist forces and their attempts to overthrow our capitalist system of economics.  We have gone to war, for instance, to prevent Korea from being overrun by communism.  We did the same in Vietnam.  What’s left of the Soviet Union, which Vladimir Putin is trying to unite Ukraine back under the home country from its fall from communist power, is at the heart of the modern conflict.  China is a communist nation that is exporting communism all around the world, including providing financial backing for many of the ICE protests.  The conflicts in Central America have been over the spread of communism.  Communism took over and ruined Cuba, creating a lot of trouble for the United States.  And the military action of choice by these communist groups has been to change their tactics from open aggression to legal challenges.  For instance, rather than go to war again with the United States in Korea recently, the communists just penetrated society to the point where they rigged elections so they could steal the government as they just did in South Korea, and took over the country without firing a shot.  They have tried to do the same thing in America.  The Joe Biden presidency was a good example of that very intention.  A presidency was stolen and given to a communist supporter, which Joe Biden was.  They did the same thing in Brazil with Bolsonaro.  They used election fraud to remove him from office, then lawfare to strangle him in court.  This is how the communists, who are the enemies of humanity, work in the world.  They have changed their approach, and in America, they attempt to conceal themselves behind free speech, expecting not to be identified as hostile agents of the American way of life.  And when they show up to a protest wearing socialist membership t-shirts, they are making it easy to identify who they are and what needs to be done to them.

There has been considerable debate about the role of communism in a free society.  For a long time, people on the left assumed they had an equal right to express their opinions in that free society.  But Democrats, socialists, and communists of Marxist thought are a political party that is hostile to American values.  When we discuss the political right and the political left, we are referring to support for Adam Smith’s economics on the right and Karl Marx’s on the left.  One is hostile to the other, and they can’t all coexist in the world, which is the moral of the story behind all the conflicts we have had up to this point and the blood that has been spilled, defining those parameters.  And that is what they are protesting with the immigration issues, open supporters of overthrowing America are trying to import communist ideas into the nation to change the voting standards of a free country, so that they can topple the nation with the pressure of the policies.  So, illegal immigration is an invasion of our country by hostile agents trying to hide their radicalism behind loopholes in the law, which think only countries can declare war on our nation, and that we can’t fight them if a nation hasn’t openly declared war.  But Mexico has come pretty close to it by supporting illegal immigration into America and all the violence and chaos it brings.  But to the protestors themselves, who were taught in our public education system and colleges to become agents of Marxism, we have been too friendly and accommodating to them.  We should be openly hostile and even violent when they show up in our communities with t-shirts showing an affiliation with socialism, communism, and Marxism.  And if they block our road with their communist bodies uttering Marxist values and expect to stop our progress from point A to point B, we should run them over and not look back for a second at their broken bodies and hippie rantings.  It is more valuable to acquire our gallon of milk from the store than to consider for a moment the fractured lives of those hostile protestors and their ill intent toward our great nation.  Their destruction would be an improvement to the quality of our country, and we should defend it accordingly.  We aren’t required to put up with communists in our society under the guise of free speech.  When we see them and they identify themselves as such, we should always be at war with the basic premise of their diabolical existence.

Rich Hoffman

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

Put All The Drug Dealers and Terrorists to Death: Why Mexico needs a lot more guns

Watching how the system defends itself as an issue of much greater levity than the H-1B visa issue emerging in Mexico is interesting.  As we saw an obvious coordinated attack by terrorists in both Las Vegas and New Orleans on New Year’s Day 2025 there is a common theme behind it all. These are the anti-civilization people of global crime syndicates who hide behind a created weaponized religion from 600 AD to stifle the world under the tyranny of fear. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves and stay focused here. One of the biggest stories that nobody is talking about is how Mexico, ahead of Trump returning to the White House, is trying to sue American gun manufacturers, specifically Smith & Wesson, for the border violence that their country is causing.  Essentially, they are saying that the gun violence that their out-of-control drug cartels are utilizing would not be possible if not for American guns.  It was an astonishing segment on 60 Minutes during the Holiday season of 2024, where the proposal to go after American gun manufacturers was presented as a proactive measure by the country that is most causing trouble, as Mexico doesn’t have an effective government.  They are run by organized crime from the drug cartels, which is precisely why we have to finish the wall and essentially go to war with those criminal syndicates.  It’s the typical leftist approach, which, of course, the official government of Mexico are hard-left socialists and has been for several years now, so they are a real problem.  For a lot of people, Mexico is a vacation destination where you can do things you can’t do in other places in the world, such as seeing women topless on the beach in some areas.  There aren’t as many social rules for vacationers, but some people find the lack of rules in Mexico fun.  But I’ve pointed out that there is a lot of crime just behind the veil, such as Cancun.  For years, on the way to and from the airport, there is a sex mall where you can get anything and everything, and the cartels run it.  And it’s all very evil and horrible and will continue as long as the drug cartels run the country. 

President Trump has made it quite clear that he is going to make drug dealing a capital offense and that tolerance for the drug cartels is over.  That American troops would be used to enforce justice among the drug cartels that have run wild for way too long.  And ahead of the mass deportations of the illegal immigrants that have occurred under Biden and Obama, the radical leftists of the world are trying to defend themselves from the change that is coming, and 60 Minutes came oddly enough to the defense of the drug cartels.  Instead, they found a different way to package their desire for gun control legislation.  To destroy the gun companies rather than to destroy the drug cartels because, after all, the drug dealers get their guns from America.  Mexico only has one gun store in the whole country, according to 60 Minutes, so they couldn’t be the problem in supporting the supply chain of gun violence.  It was pretty astonishing that they, as a representative of legacy media, could propose something like that with a straight face, given what we all know about the truth of the matter.  In reality, the real reason that Mexico has trouble with drug cartels is for that very reason: they don’t have enough guns.  If people had more guns, the drug cartels wouldn’t be the only ones who have them.  But in the world of micromanaging lefties, they think that if guns were eliminated, gun violence would stop. Instead, the reality of the matter is that vicious personalities, as people who choose to be in a drug cartel are, will always use violence to impose themselves on others, whether the object of violence is a brick, a rock, a knife, a stick, whatever they can get their hands on, they’ll use it.  And Mexico has made it hard to get guns for their legal population, and because of that, drug cartels don’t fear that anybody can fight back against them—even the Mexican government.  So, the 60 Minutes position favors the continued power and abuse of the drug cartels. 

Personally, and my local sheriff knows it, if he wants help busting these scum bags in Butler County, Ohio, he can call me any time of day or night.  I hate drug dealers; I hate drug use.  I hate people who do drugs, even soft drugs.  And drug dealers knowingly try to harm people when they sell drugs that are no good to anybody.  So, I fully support President Trump’s policy to give the death penalty to drug dealers.  And to invade Mexican drug cartels where they live with the American military and destroy them from the nest they reside in.  Taking guns away will never solve the problem.  Giving the Mexican people more guns is the direction everyone needs to go.  Ultimately, I think that the real solution to the Mexican problem is to make it a 51st state.  I have no problem making places like Mexico and Canada new states for the United States.  It would be optional of course, they could vote on it, but I think everyone would benefit from the relationship.  But before that, we have to have mass deportations to ship back the illegals and to build a wall to keep the values of the two countries separate.  Mexico is a dangerous place, and it’s run by a bunch of crazy communists and socialists that hide in the background, and they use the drug cartels as their version of a kind of brownshirt army.  Mexico is a mess, and we can’t have an open border with such a hostile country toward American ideas. 

Very, Very True

Mexico is friendly to American tourists as long as everyone stays within the tourist zones.  But if you travel extensively around the country, it’s not uncommon to be pulled over for a shakedown where you have to pay a bribe, be arrested, or even killed.  It happens all the time.  The Mexican government is deeply corrupt, and the drug cartels are even worse.  You can’t travel freely in Mexico like in America, and people should be able to.  The problem in Mexico is a lack of trust in their authority figures to protect people daily.  And it happens often, especially in Cancun; violence happens when rival gangs get into a turf war.  Mexico needs a lot of things that would make a lot of people better if they just became an American state under American law.  The people of Mexico wouldn’t be trying so hard to flee their Marxist governments for the freedom of America at significant cost to themselves.  Mexico could use American law to make their people safer.  And they could use a lot more guns in Mexico to fight back against the drug cartels and their corrupt government.  Between those two oppressive forces, the Mexican people don’t have a chance.  And it’s all been allowed to fester because the global Marxists wanted to overwhelm America with illegal immigration to bring socialism into America through an open border.  So, it’s not just the massive amount of drugs and violence that we are talking about coming from Mexico.  But the most dangerous element of all is political poison to destroy America from within.  So yeah, attacking American gun manufacturers is not the way to go, and 60 Minutes should be ashamed of themselves for even advocating for such a thing when the real problem is the violence that is allowed to happen in Mexico for all kinds of political reasons and the innocent lives that are destroyed in the process.  The best thing for everyone is that Trump gets back in office and gets tough on the drug cartels in ways they have never seen before.  And putting drug dealers to death is a good start.  But more than that, Mexico needs more guns for its private people so they can fight back the way that Americans can.  Private gun ownership and many more guns in Mexico are part of the solution.  And it can’t happen fast enough.

Rich Hoffman

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