Tag: Trump

The Ohio Governor Race: Vivek Ramaswamy vs. Amy Acton—”the lockdown lady”

You know, people keep asking me about this Ohio governor race, and I’ll tell you what I think: Vivek Ramaswamy is going to win, and he’s going to win big. But that doesn’t mean you sit back and assume it’s all going to happen on autopilot. Campaigns aren’t won by assumptions; they’re won by hard work, strategy, and relentless execution. And if you’ve seen some of the chatter online—polls showing Amy Acton up by a point or two—you might think, “Wow, is Vivek in trouble?” No, he’s not. But let’s break this down because there’s a lot of smoke and mirrors in these early numbers.

First, let’s talk about Amy Acton. Who is she? Most people don’t even remember her name right now, and that’s part of the problem. She’s the former Ohio Health Director who became the face of lockdowns during COVID. Back in 2020, she was the one telling you to stay home, mask up, and cancel your life. She shut down schools, businesses, county fairs—you name it.¹ She was Ohio’s Dr. Fauci, taking cues straight from the CDC and enforcing some of the harshest restrictions in the Midwest. And it wasn’t just policy; it was the tone. She leaned into fear. She made people miserable. And when the heat got too much, she resigned in June 2020 because she refused to lift bans on county fairs.² That’s her legacy.

Now, fast forward to 2025. People have short memories, and Democrats are counting on that. They’re hoping voters see “Dr. Acton” and think “compassionate health expert” instead of “lockdown czar.” But here’s the reality: once she starts talking, once Vivek and his team start connecting her to those lockdowns, it’s game over. Ohioans haven’t forgotten the pain of 2020—they’ve just moved on. But if you remind them who caused it, they’ll move on from her real fast.

And what’s she running on? Abortion rights, reproductive freedom, and vague promises of “public health leadership.”³ That’s it. No major accomplishments since leaving office. No executive experience beyond a failed stint as health director. She’s endorsed by unions like AFSCME and UAW, and big-city mayors are lining up behind her.⁴ But endorsements don’t erase a record of failure. And in a state that leans red, with Trump back in the White House and MAGA energy surging, that’s not enough.

Now, Vivek Ramaswamy—he’s the opposite story. Entrepreneur, author, former presidential candidate. He’s smart, articulate, and aggressive. He’s raised nearly $10 million for this race, compared to Acton’s $1.4 million.⁵ He’s got Trump’s endorsement, JD Vance in his corner, and the Ohio GOP machine behind him.⁶ His platform? Bold: eliminate income and property taxes, merit pay for teachers, work requirements for Medicaid.⁷ He’s even courting unions, which is a savvy move in a state where blue-collar voters matter.⁸

So why the tight polls? Because polls lie. Or, more accurately, they mislead. Early polls oversample urban areas, lean left in methodology, and create narratives that help Democrats fundraise. RealClearPolitics has Vivek up by 6.5 points (49.5% to 43%).⁹ But Impact Research claims Acton is down by just one point, and Hart Research even shows her up by one among likely voters.¹⁰ Sounds scary, right? Until you realize these are snapshots taken before the campaign really starts. Acton hasn’t been vetted yet. She hasn’t faced Vivek on a debate stage. She hasn’t had to answer for the misery she caused during COVID. When that happens, those numbers will swing hard.

Here’s what I told people: don’t panic, but don’t get complacent. Vivek could walk out today and win by 15 points, maybe more. On Acton’s best day, she loses by eight. But campaigns aren’t about best days; they’re about execution. Vivek needs ads, billboards, ground game, and a war chest big enough to drown out the noise. And that’s why he’s smart to push fundraising now. Take nothing for granted. Because Democrats will throw everything at this race—they know Ohio is a battleground, and they’d love to embarrass Trump by flipping it blue.

And let’s not forget the Trump factor. If Trump does a couple of rallies in Ohio for Vivek, it’s lights out for Acton. He probably doesn’t even need that help, but it would seal the deal. MAGA voters will turn out in force. Independents? They’ll break for Vivek once they see Acton’s record. And suburban moms—the group Democrats are banking on—aren’t going to forget who kept their kids out of school for months. That’s political kryptonite.

So what happens when Acton starts talking? Disaster. She’s awkward, ideological, and out of touch. She was a radical during COVID, and she hasn’t changed. Democrats think they can hide that, but they can’t. The minute Vivek’s team rolls out ads showing her press conferences from 2020, it’s over. She’s the lockdown lady. The face of fear. And Ohioans aren’t voting for that in 2026.

Now, let’s talk strategy. Vivek needs to keep doing what he’s doing: stay aggressive, stay visible, and keep hammering the contrast. He’s a builder; she’s a bureaucrat. He’s about freedom; she’s about control. And he needs to remind voters that elections have consequences—because if Acton wins, Ohio goes backward. More mandates, more government overreach, more progressive nonsense. That’s the choice.

So, bottom line: Vivek wins. Easily. But only if he fights like he’s ten points down. No coasting, no assumptions. Raise the money, run the ads, knock the doors. Because politics is like football—you don’t win by reading the headlines; you win by playing the game. And when the game starts, Amy Acton is going to get crushed. She’s going to be exposed for what she is: a failed health director with no vision, no leadership, and no chance. 

And let’s not forget just how angry people were at Amy Acton during and after those lockdowns. This wasn’t mild criticism—it was rage, rage that she provoked.  People had been pushed beyond their limit, and she knew it as she did it. Protesters showed up at her home in Bexley, some carrying rifles, shouting slogans, and waving signs with anti-Semitic slurs.¹ Armed demonstrators patrolled her street while others plastered her address online.² She had to be assigned a security detail and eventually went into hiding because the threats were so severe.³ People doxed her, compared her to Nazis, and called her a “globalist” for extending stay-at-home orders.⁴ It got so bad that she resigned under pressure, citing concerns for her safety and her family’s well-being.⁵ That’s the level of backlash we’re talking about—the kind of fury that doesn’t just disappear. Ohioans haven’t forgotten that, and once voters are reminded, it will come roaring back.  And all that was just for a member of the DeWine administration.  Imagine her as the head of the Executive Branch. 

Notes on doxing actions:

1. Forward. “Ohio Protesters Gather in Front of Dr. Amy Acton’s Home.” May 2020.

2. Times of Israel. “Jewish Ohio Health Official Resigns After Anti-Semitic Backlash.” June 2020.

3. FOX 5 New York. “Public Health Officials Resign, Some Assigned Security Detail Amid Threats.” June 2020.

4. WKYC. “Why Did Dr. Amy Acton Resign as Ohio Health Director?” November 2020.

5. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Amy Acton Faced Anti-Semitic Backlash After Lockdown Orders.” February 2021.

Bibliography

1. Cleveland.com. “Amy Acton’s Role in Ohio COVID Lockdowns.” June 2020.

2. Columbus Dispatch. “Acton Resigns Amid Controversy Over Fair Bans.” June 2020.

3. Cincinnati Enquirer. “Amy Acton Campaign Platform: Abortion Rights and Public Health.” October 2025.

4. Dayton Daily News. “Unions Back Acton for Governor.” November 2025.

5. RealClearPolitics. “Ohio Governor Race Polling Average.” December 2025.

6. Fox News. “Trump Endorses Vivek Ramaswamy for Ohio Governor.” November 2025.

7. Politico. “Ramaswamy’s Policy Agenda: Taxes, Education, Medicaid.” November 2025.

8. Wall Street Journal. “Ramaswamy Courts Unions in Ohio.” December 2025.

9. RealClearPolitics. “Ohio Governor Race Polling Average.” December 2025.

10. Impact Research and Hart Research Polls. “Ohio Governor Race Polling.” November 2025.

Rich Hoffman

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

FBI Delays, Media Spin, and the Brian Cole Jr. Pipe Bomber Case: What They Don’t Want You to Know

The Brian Cole Jr. pipe bomber case is more than a criminal investigation; it is a lens into systemic failures within the FBI and DOJ, compounded by media complicity in narrative control. Despite clear evidence linking Cole to pipe bombs planted near Republican and Democrat headquarters on January 5, 2021, his arrest came nearly five years later. Why? The answer lies in a troubling intersection of bureaucratic inertia, political bias, and deliberate concealment. This case shows how the Cole case, recent assassination attempts on Donald Trump, and the broader pattern of FBI delays in politically sensitive investigations, alongside the media’s role in shaping public perception, have come together to initiate a level of corruption that will require more than civilian oversight through an elected president in the White House.

Timeline

• Jan. 5, 2021: Pipe bombs discovered near RNC and DNC headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• 2021–2024: FBI claims “ongoing investigation,” releases grainy surveillance footage of masked suspect.

• Dec. 2025: Brian Cole Jr. arrested after new administration reviews dormant case files.

The case was never a mystery. Surveillance video captured Cole’s gait and clothing; cell-site data placed him near both bomb sites; and receipts showed purchases of bomb components. When interrogated, Cole confessed, citing anger over alleged election fraud as his motive. Yet, despite this evidence, the FBI stalled for years.

Internal sources suggest the case “languished” under prior leadership due to its political sensitivity. Acting on it in 2021 would have reignited debates over election legitimacy — a narrative the establishment sought to suppress. Instead, the case was buried until a new administration prioritized transparency.

On July 13, 2024, during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania (often referred to as Aurora in shorthand), Donald Trump narrowly survived an assassination attempt. The shooter, Thomas Crooks, fired from a rooftop, killing one attendee and injuring two others before being neutralized.

Secret Service agents reportedly spotted Crooks 20 minutes before shots were fired, but failed to act. The FBI later declared Crooks “acted alone,” though his digital footprint revealed a mix of ideologies and possible external influences.

Media coverage was muted compared to hypothetical scenarios involving Democrat figures. Within days, the story vanished from the front pages — a stark contrast to the saturation coverage of January 6.

The Cole case and Aurora attempt are not anomalies; they reflect a systemic pattern. Politically sensitive cases often stall for years, while less controversial matters move swiftly.

Statistics

• Median DOJ decision time: 61 days for standard cases.³

• Politically charged cases: often years, as seen with Hunter Biden laptop probe and Clinton email review.

• White-collar prosecutions have declined 40% since 2016, while resources shift to “domestic extremism” narratives.⁴

• Epstein files heavily redacted, shielding high-profile names.

• Indictments against James Comey and Letitia James dismissed due to unlawful appointments.

• Internal memos reveal obstruction in probes tied to Biden and Trump.

The media’s role in shaping perception cannot be overstated.

CNN initially described the suspect as “a White male,” contradicting later photos showing Cole as African American. ABC framed the motive as “belief in false election fraud claims,” reinforcing a narrative that dissent equals extremism.

Networks downplayed the assassination attempt, using vague terms like “popping sounds” and avoiding deep dives into security lapses. Compare this to the exhaustive coverage of January 6 — a clear double standard.

From Operation Mockingbird to the Twitter Files, evidence of media-government collusion is undeniable. Today, editorial scripts often mirror DOJ talking points, conditioning public opinion to accept selective outrage.

When law enforcement delays justice and media manipulates narratives, public trust erodes. Worse, these dynamics enable the weaponization of institutions against political opponents. The result? A chilling effect on free speech and a dangerous precedent where questioning authority becomes synonymous with terrorism.  There should be statutory timelines for politically sensitive cases, so these investigations don’t get shelved in disorder.  There should also be independent oversight of FBI investigations.  We could say that’s why we have Presidential investigations, and that’s how Kash Patel came into the power of his seat, as we elected a president who would be independent and in charge of these career FBI types.  There also needs to be transparency mandates for media-government interactions. There is way too much collusion going on.  It is good that the Trump administration is bringing in anti-establishment media sources to add competition to the press pool, but the level of collusion that goes on between the administrative types and the official media narrative has been excessively alarming. 

The Brian Cole Jr. case, Aurora assassination attempt, and FBI’s pattern of delay expose a sobering truth: America’s justice system and media ecosystem are vulnerable to politicization. Reform is not optional — it is imperative.  Clearly, the FBI saw the direction in which the pipe bomber cases were going with Brian Cole Jr., and they did not want a resolution to the case.  It would have changed the entire January 6th narrative.  It would have changed the impeachment case against Trump.  And the prosecution of many Trump supporters, such as Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro.  Instead, the FBI, when they arrested Peter Navarro at Reagan International and put him in leg irons in front of everyone for the perp walk of embarrassment that they clearly staged for maximum public impact, knew at the time that Brian Cole Jr. was likely the guilty party, and they had their own fingerprints all over the information.  And they declined to act in the best interests of the case and instead dug in to their own complicity in the violent conditions that occurred on January 6th.  The efforts of the FBI to blow on the embers of anger to drive that day toward an objective they had to quell the outrage over mass election fraud, for which they played their part. 

But this isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last.  We have seen the FBI behave in this way before, in many cases, going back to the Ruby Ridge massacre, to the Islamic terrorism of the San Bernardino office killings, and their allowing the media into the apartment of the suspects to taint the evidence before the investigation could proceed.  They have a long history of this kind of radicalism and are terrible at their jobs.  They need a lot more than civilian oversight through elected presidents.  They are a corrupt organization that appears beyond reform.  And this recent pipe bomb case is just the tip of the iceberg.  Sure, we might like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino now, but they won’t be there forever.  They will be gone eventually, and who will replace them?  More Jim Comey types?  People who clearly have had the power of the offices go to their heads?  When you have evidence like this case against Brian Cole Jr. so obvious, and abundant, and they didn’t act on it, it just reveals how political all their investigations are, and that we can’t trust anything they do, because they require so much oversight to get at fundamental truths.  Based on the evidence, there is little that can be done to save their reputations.  We might get short-term improvements in their performance, but the bottom line is that the government can never have the kind of power that we have given to the FBI and the CIA.  Without a doubt, they will abuse that power and, when caught, will deny and manipulate the facts to cover up their crimes.  And in the case of Brian Cole Jr., they were complicit, without a doubt. 

Bibliography

1. CBS News. “FBI Arrests Suspect in 2021 Pipe Bomb Case.” December 2025.

2. ABC News. “Trump Rally Shooting: What We Know.” July 2024.

3. TRAC Reports. “DOJ Case Processing Statistics.” 2024.

4. Newsweek. “FBI Under Fire for Politicized Delays.” 2025.

5. Columbia Journalism Review. “Media and State: A Symbiotic Relationship.” 2023.

6. Fox News. “CNN Misidentifies Pipe Bomber.” 2025.

(Additional sources: TIME Magazine, FBI Press Releases, The Hill, WABC, DOJ internal memos.)

Rich Hoffman

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

Free Tina Peters: The Battle for Honest Elections in America

You know, here’s the thing: if President Trump doesn’t get Tina Peters out of that Colorado prison, then everything we’ve fought for on election integrity is just theater. It’s all optics without substance. Because if you don’t control your election systems, you don’t control your government. And that’s the bottom line. People say, “There’s no evidence of fraud.” Really? Then why is Tina Peters sitting in a cell for nine years? She was the Mesa County Clerk, the one person in Colorado who had the guts to blow the whistle during the heaviest part of the 2020 election scandal. She saw irregularities, she reported them, and for that, they threw her in prison.

Let’s get the facts straight. Tina Peters was convicted in October 2024 on seven counts—four felonies and three misdemeanors—for allegedly breaching election systems during a 2021 update.¹ They said she conspired to commit criminal impersonation, attempted to influence a public servant, and violated her official duties. Nine years in state prison for trying to preserve election records? That’s not justice; that’s retaliation. And where is she now? La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado, locked away like a political prisoner.²

And don’t forget, she wasn’t alone in this fight. Mike Lindell—the MyPillow guy—stood shoulder to shoulder with her, pouring millions into exposing voting machine companies.³ Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro? They got four months each for contempt of Congress because they wouldn’t play ball with the January 6 narrative.⁴ Rudy Giuliani? Bankrupted for daring to question election results. This is a pattern: punish the whistleblowers, destroy the evidence, and control the narrative.

Now, here’s the legal reality: Trump can’t just sign a pardon and free Tina Peters. Article II of the Constitution gives the president the power to grant pardons for federal crimes, not for state convictions.⁵ Colorado prosecuted her under state law, and Governor Jared Polis isn’t about to hand Trump a win. So what do we do? Sit back and let her rot? Absolutely not. There are practical steps Trump can take, and they start with leverage—political, legal, and financial.

First, a pressure campaign. Trump needs to call out Polis and AG Phil Weiser by name, which he has been doing lately. Make it politically toxic for them to keep Peters locked up. Rallies, Truth Social posts, interviews—turn up the heat. When the public sees a grandmother rotting in prison for questioning election fraud, the optics shift fast.

Second, DOJ leverage. This is where it gets interesting. The Department of Justice can’t override a state conviction, but it can make life very uncomfortable for Colorado. How? Start with federal election law hooks. The 2020 election was a federal election. Peters’ actions were tied to preserving federal election records. File a federal habeas corpus petition arguing her imprisonment violates constitutional rights under federal election statutes like the Help America Vote Act. Force Colorado to defend its conviction in federal court.

Then there’s civil rights enforcement. Frame this as retaliation against a whistleblower exercising First Amendment rights. The DOJ Civil Rights Division can open an investigation into political persecution. Even if it doesn’t overturn her sentence immediately, it creates a legal basis for federal intervention and puts Colorado under a microscope.

Now, here’s the big one: federal funding leverage. Colorado gets millions in federal grants for election security and compliance under HAVA and EAC programs. Those funds are discretionary. Condition future funding on transparency and whistleblower protections. Announce that Colorado risks losing federal election security money because it retaliated against Peters. That’s constitutional under the Spending Clause, and it hits where it hurts—the budget.

Another angle: federal subpoenas and custody transfers. If Peters has evidence relevant to federal crimes—say, election tampering—the DOJ can subpoena her testimony. Request a temporary transfer to federal custody for questioning. That doesn’t erase her sentence, but it moves her out of state prison and into a federal process where deals can happen.

Finally, amplify public awareness. Trump should feature Peters’ case in speeches, rallies, and interviews. Get Mike Lindell, Steve Bannon, and the Warroom team hammering this story every day, give them some red meat. When people see the truth—that Peters was jailed to bury evidence of election fraud—the pressure becomes unbearable.  And Trump is naturally good at that kind of thing.  But if he’s waiting for help from other Republicans, they don’t have the guts.  It will have to come from him, and him alone.  The damage from this case will benefit other efforts around the country.  Allowing the radical left to control the discussion, as they have, will not help with the Midterms, where Democrats are planning to cheat, because it’s their only strategy.  This case could greatly frustrate those efforts. 

And let’s talk numbers because facts matter. The Heritage Foundation database lists 1,561 proven cases of election fraud over decades, with 20 cases in 2024 alone.⁶ Brookings says fraud rates are minuscule—0.0000845% in Arizona over 25 years—but those stats ignore systemic vulnerabilities in digital voting systems.⁷ Globally, we know electronic manipulation happens—Venezuela, China, Russia. You give people the illusion of choice, then flip the results. That’s the game. And it happened here in 2020.

So when they say, “There’s no evidence,” what they mean is, “We buried the evidence and jailed the people who had it.” Tina Peters had the proof. She tried to show it. They raided her home, seized her devices, and threw her in prison. That’s tyranny, plain and simple. And if Trump doesn’t act, it sends a message: whistleblowers will be crushed, and election integrity will remain a myth.

Here’s the bottom line: Trump has tools. He can’t wave a magic wand, but he can apply pressure—legal, financial, and political—until Colorado cracks. And he must. Because if we don’t fight for Peters, we don’t fight for honest elections. And without honest elections, we don’t have a republic.

Summary of Key Actions for President Trump

1. Launch a Pressure Campaign

    • Publicly call out Colorado Governor Jared Polis and AG Phil Weiser.

    • Mobilize grassroots and media to demand Tina Peters’ release.

2. Leverage DOJ Authority

    • File federal habeas corpus petitions citing election law violations.

    • Open a Civil Rights investigation into political retaliation.

3. Use Federal Funding Leverage

    • Condition Colorado’s federal election security funds on transparency and whistleblower protections.

    • Publicize potential funding cuts to increase pressure.

4. Subpoena Tina Peters for Federal Testimony

    • DOJ can request a temporary transfer to federal custody for testimony related to election integrity.

5. Amplify Public Awareness

    • Feature Peters’ case in speeches, rallies, and media appearances.

    • Encourage allies like Mike Lindell, Steve Bannon, and WarRoom to keep the story alive; they need red meat to pound away at the base.

This is one of the most critical agenda items for the Trump administration because much remains unsaid.  All the horrible things going on in the world with Hamas, China, Russia, Venezuela, and our own domestic money policy that is under siege are nothing compared to the villainy that occurred against Tina Peters.  If she is allowed to be held in jail by a corrupt, leftist Democrat government in Colorado, people will lose faith in fighting for an honest election in 2026.  And without an honest election, the radical left plans to capture enough seats to impeach Trump and give the government back to the Deep State.  So this is a critical time.  We need a very vicious pressure campaign that forces this issue on the nightly news, because so far, they have been able to ignore it.  Once Trump won the last election, all the hostile forces treated it as a concession to buy a little time.  And the Midterms were their target.  If Tina Peters is not freed, then Trump will have a hard time holding power, and those who will fight for him will become discouraged.  So freeing Tina from jail is a must-do occasion.  There is no other option. Yes, there was election fraud in the 2020 election, and those who committed it, numbering in the many thousands, have to be punished for what they did.  Otherwise, we don’t have a country. 

Bibliography (Chicago Style)

1. Colorado Judicial Branch. “People v. Tina Peters: Sentencing Order.” October 2024.

2. CBS News. “Tina Peters Sentenced to Nine Years in State Prison.” October 2024.

3. Fox News. “Mike Lindell Faces $1 Billion Lawsuit Over Election Claims.” 2023.

4. ABC News. “Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro Sentenced for Contempt of Congress.” 2024.

5. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2.

6. Heritage Foundation. “Election Fraud Database.” 2024.

7. Brookings Institution. “Election Fraud Rates in U.S. Elections.” 2023.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Cannibals of China and their Democrat Party Friends: Collectivists literally want to eat the living

The recent shooting of National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C., allegedly by an Afghan national with ties to intelligence networks, underscores a profound ideological divide in American politics. The incident was not merely an act of violence; it became a prism through which competing visions of governance and societal order were revealed. While some sought to frame the tragedy as a consequence of deploying the National Guard—a measure implemented to restore law and order—others attempted to deflect responsibility by invoking narratives of provocation and systemic grievance. This rhetorical maneuver, blaming the presence of security forces for inciting violence, reflects a deeper philosophical orientation rooted in collectivist ideologies that have historically justified chaos as a means to consolidate power.  Democrats, like Mark Kelly, who have recently found themselves in a lot of trouble due to attempts at seditious behavior against President Trump’s administration, are showing a much deeper problem with their entire political ideology that traces to ideological roots from the home country of their movement, Chinese communism.  And the cannibalistic nature of that country and its general philosophy of life, compared to the West. 

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., during periods of heightened unrest significantly reduced crime rates. Under Trump’s administration, violent crime in the District fell by approximately 35% between 2023 and 2024, with homicides declining from a peak of 274—the highest since 2005—to markedly lower levels in subsequent years. Even in 2025, violent crime decreased by an additional 26% compared to the previous year, signaling the deterrent effect of a visible security presence.¹ These figures stand in stark contrast to earlier trends under Democratic leadership, where policy emphasis on police defunding and social work interventions coincided with escalating urban violence.²

The paradox of Democrat lawmakers advocating stringent gun control while privately securing concealed carry permits further illustrates the inconsistency of their position. Representative Anna Paulina Luna recently highlighted that numerous members of Congress, including those who champion restrictive firearm legislation, have obtained permits to carry weapons in the District.³ This duality—publicly opposing individual self-defense while privately embracing it—reveals a pragmatic concession to the realities of urban crime, even as ideological commitments demand the perpetuation of vulnerability among the populace.

To comprehend this contradiction, one must examine the intellectual lineage of collectivist thought. Marxist theory, which informs much of the progressive agenda, posits that individual identity is subordinate to the collective good.⁴ Within this framework, personal sacrifice is valorized as a moral imperative, and systemic inequities are construed as justifications for redistributive violence. The logic underpinning such views is evident in the rhetorical claim that the Afghan assailant’s actions were provoked by the presence of the National Guard—a formulation that shifts culpability from the perpetrator to the state apparatus tasked with maintaining order. This inversion of responsibility is not incidental; it is symptomatic of a worldview that privileges structural explanations over individual accountability.

Historical analogues amplify the gravity of this ideological orientation. During the Great Chinese Famine (1959–1961), precipitated by Mao Zedong’s collectivist policies, an estimated 15 to 55 million people perished.⁵ The obliteration of market mechanisms and private property rights engendered conditions so dire that cannibalism became a widespread survival strategy.⁶ Archival records and eyewitness testimonies recount instances where families consumed the flesh of deceased relatives, and concubines reportedly volunteered for slaughter to sustain their households.⁷ These macabre episodes were not aberrations; they were logical extensions of a system that negated individual sanctity in favor of an abstract communal ideal. The psychological residue of such practices persists in cultural norms that valorize self-abnegation, reinforcing the collectivist axiom that the organism of society supersedes the autonomy of its constituent cells.

The resonance of these historical patterns in contemporary American discourse is disquieting. When policymakers suggest that victims of crime should acquiesce to dispossession for the sake of social harmony, they echo the same moral calculus that sanctioned atrocities under communist regimes. The proposition that one’s property—or even life—may be forfeited to appease the grievances of the marginalized is not merely a policy stance; it is a philosophical commitment to the erasure of individuality. In this schema, the Afghan shooter is transfigured from a culpable agent into a symptom of systemic dysfunction, and the act of violence becomes an indictment of order rather than chaos.

Such reasoning is inimical to the principles of a constitutional republic. The sanctity of individual rights, enshrined in the American political tradition, is antithetical to the collectivist dogma that animates these apologetics. To capitulate to narratives that rationalize violence as a byproduct of structural inequity is to invite the dissolution of civil society. The deployment of the National Guard, far from constituting a provocation, represented an affirmation of the state’s obligation to safeguard its citizens—a function that cannot be abdicated without imperiling the very foundations of governance.

The Afghan shooter incident is not an isolated tragedy; it is a harbinger of the ideological contest that will define the trajectory of American democracy. The attempt to reframe culpability, the oscillation between public disarmament and private armament, and the invocation of systemic grievance as exculpation—all bespeak a worldview that esteems the collective over the individual. History admonishes us that such a worldview, when operationalized, engenders not utopia but barbarism. The cannibalistic horrors of Maoist China are not relics of a distant past; they are cautionary tales inscribed in the ledger of human folly. To ignore these lessons is to court a future in which the logic of sacrifice metastasizes from metaphor to corporeal reality.  And that is what Democrats are proposing for our society when they speak of defunding the police, or yielding to crime with chaos, and in suggesting that gun control should be a priority when crime is used to perpetuate their power through fear by the ruthless and aggressive.  They want the crime because they literally feed off it. 

I was eating with some friends the other day at a nice Chinese restaurant buffet in West Chester, Ohio, that had a lot of great options.  I reminded everyone that all this nice food would not be typical in China.  In China, they actually eat just about anything that moves: dogs, cats, turtles, moms and dads, and body parts.  In most places in the world, where collectivist politics reside, the food is not as sanitized from the violence behind death as you will find in Chinese restaurants in the United States.  The standard of individualized thought is enough to affect how we eat.  Let alone process government functions.  But make no mistake about it, if it were up to the Mark Kellys of the world and their seditious function as communist insurgents, they would drive a society into cannibalism because that is the unspoken party platform.  They represent in America the Great Leap Forward that all academic leftists in the world, and especially in America, have been yearning for.  They aren’t trying to preserve society.  They are trying to eat it and gain the power of their enemies from the literal consumption of flesh and the destruction of the living.  And the Afghan terrorist, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who shot the two D.C. National Guard members just a block away from the White House, serves their aims at the destruction of society for the consumption of its contents, just as their home country of China would be very proud of.

—

Footnotes

1. Metropolitan Police Department, “Annual Crime Report,” Washington, D.C., 2024–2025.

2. U.S. Department of Justice, “Crime Trends in Urban Centers,” 2023.

3. Luna, A.P., Congressional Briefing on Security Measures, 2025.

4. Marx, K., Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875.

5. Dikötter, F., Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 2010.

6. Yang, Jisheng, Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958–1962, 2012.

7. Chinese State Archives, Oral Histories of the Great Leap Forward, 1961.

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

From Bomb-Throwing to Governance: The Case of Marjorie Taylor Greene

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation doesn’t surprise me, though the commentary swirling around it is fascinating. There’s a fundamental truth here: campaigning and governing are two entirely different skill sets. It’s one thing to be a firebrand, to throw bombs and rally people off the couch to vote. It’s another thing entirely to manage the daily grind of legislative work—bullet-point tasks that must be accomplished to keep momentum alive. Once you’re in the House, you’re no longer just shouting from the sidelines; you’re negotiating with people you’d rather not talk to, navigating a body of representatives from every corner of the country. That transition—from rhetoric to action—is where many stumble. Greene’s story is a case study in that struggle, and frankly, I’ve seen it before. I watched the Reform Party rise under Ross Perot in the ’90s, morph into the Tea Party in the 2000s, and then evolve into MAGA with Trump around 2015. Each phase had its own language—small government, term limits, anti-bureaucracy—but the moment you win, the game changes. Winning isn’t the finish line; it’s the starting gun for a more challenging race.

Greene’s difficulty wasn’t ideological—it was managerial. She thrived as a bomb thrower, but bombs don’t build coalitions. Once you have the House, the Senate, and the White House, the question becomes: now what? How do you turn victory into governance? That’s where the metaphors matter. Think of my favorite football team, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers: they started the season strong, dominated the power rankings, and when every team studies their film, they make the Bucs the game of the week.  And now they can’t find wins under any condition.  They are getting the best of what everyone has to offer.  And that is a familiar story, no matter what the sport or endeavor. Suddenly, staying on top is more complicated than getting there. Winning demands adaptation, resilience, and a willingness to play the long game. Trump understood that. He’s the Rocky figure who keeps getting off the mat, who knows that staying on top requires more than bravado—it requires strategy. Greene never made that pivot. She kept throwing bombs even as the battlefield shifted to committee rooms and policy negotiations. And when the Epstein papers resurfaced—a story long litigated and largely devoid of new substance—she tried to weaponize it as if it were fresh ammunition. But that playbook belongs to the Democrats now, a desperate attempt to tarnish Trump when other avenues failed. Greene misread the moment, and that miscalculation cost her.

Her emotional framing of the resignation—likening herself to a discarded wife—reveals something more profound. Politics isn’t just strategy; it’s psychology. Greene tied her identity to Trump, and when she realized she didn’t have the levers she imagined she did, the disillusionment hit hard. That’s not unique to her; thousands of activists and politicians experience the same whiplash when the fire of insurgency cools into the gray routine of governance. The Epstein saga, for all its grotesque realities, is a metaphor too—a Pleasure Island for the powerful, where short-term indulgence costs long-term integrity. Trump, for all the speculation, walked away from that world years ago, building a family life that insulated him from the fallout. Greene, by contrast, clung to the drama, hoping it would keep her relevant. But relevance in politics isn’t sustained by outrage alone; it’s earned through results. And when outrage becomes your only currency, bankruptcy is inevitable.

So Greene exits the stage, and the movement moves on. MAGA will evolve, just as the Tea Party did, just as the Reform Party did before it. The question isn’t whether the fight continues—it will—but whether its champions learn the hardest lesson of winning: victory demands governance. It demands coalition-building, patience, and the humility to trade the thrill of bomb-throwing for the grind of policymaking. Greene couldn’t make that trade, and now she joins a long list of figures who mistook the campaign trail for the summit. The truth is, staying on top is more complicated than getting there. It’s the eye of the tiger, the discipline to keep punching when the cameras are gone, and the work is thankless. Trump understood that, which is why he remains the center of gravity. Greene didn’t, and that’s why her story ends here—not with a bang, but with a quiet admission that winning was never the hard part. Staying a winner was.

1. Campaigning and governing are distinct skill sets. Greene’s resignation underscores this divide, revealing the structural and psychological hurdles that confront insurgent politicians upon entering formal institutions.

2. Historical Context

The lineage from Ross Perot’s Reform Party in the 1990s to the Tea Party in the 2000s and MAGA in the 2010s illustrates a continuum of anti-establishment energy. Each movement promised disruption but faltered when tasked with governance. [Footnote: Skocpol & Williamson, 2012]

3. Legislative Record and Statistics

According to GovTrack, Greene introduced 26 bills in the 118th Congress, none of which gained bipartisan cosponsors, and missed 5.7% of votes—ranking in the 84th percentile for absences. [Footnote: GovTrack Report Card, 2025]

Congressional productivity overall has declined, with only 34 bills passed in 2023—the lowest since the Great Depression. [Footnote: Brookings, 2024]

4. Comparative Populism

Similar patterns emerge globally: Bolsonaro in Brazil and Le Pen in France faced analogous governance challenges, often resorting to executive maneuvers when legislative coalitions proved elusive. [Footnote: Norris & Inglehart, 2019]

5. Psychological Dimensions

Political identity theory explains Greene’s disillusionment. When identity is fused with ideology, setbacks trigger existential crises. [Footnote: Mason, 2023]

6. Victory demands governance. Greene’s failure to pivot from insurgency to coalition-building exemplifies the Achilles’ heel of populist movements.  The form of rebellious movements traces back logically to the Teacher of Righteousness in the Damascus Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they will continue no matter who thinks they are running the government in the background.  It is not enough to throw stones at the establishment and go home in frustration when things don’t go the way you want them to.  When you win, you have to build on those wins.  And the effort of the win may not be about personal satisfaction, but about the evolution of governance in general.  People do not wish to be ruled over by kingly figures, so they will continue to support bomb throwers.  But it’s up to those bomb throwers to connect the dots and to actually accomplish something.  You can’t just say you proposed a bill and everyone rejected it.  Or that I tried to call President Trump 50 times and he never answered.  So I quit!  To win these fights, you have to be willing to do the thankless part for all the thankless, but critical reasons.  And to wake up each morning as a winner, intent on staying a winner.  And not lost because the definitions of success moved under the pressure of reality.  Winning is what people want, and it’s what they expect out of their government.  And if Margorie Taylor Greene can no longer have that attitude, then she should leave and turn it over to someone who will.

References:

– Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2012). The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.

– GovTrack.us. (2025). Legislative Report Card.

– Brookings Institution. (2024). Vital Statistics on Congress.

– Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Populism and Authoritarianism.

– Mason, L. (2023). Political Identities. Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology.

Rich Hoffman

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

Justice Deferred: Why Prosecutions Under Trump’s Second Term Remain Slow—and What Global Parallels Reveal

Donald Trump’s second term reignited expectations of sweeping accountability for political corruption. Yet, despite strong rhetoric and high-profile promises, major prosecutions remain elusive.  One year into Trump’s second term, the question persists: Why haven’t the big names gone to jail? Hillary Clinton remains free, despite years of allegations. The Clintons’ ties to corruption, Epstein’s network, and the weaponization of law enforcement against Trump allies have fueled public frustration. From Rudy Giuliani to Peter Navarro, loyalists have faced bankruptcy and imprisonment for defending election integrity. Meanwhile, figures like Letitia James and James Comey—central to prosecutorial misconduct—walk free after cases were dismissed due to procedural irregularities, not innocence.

This paradox underscores a deeper truth: prosecutions are not merely legal acts—they are political acts requiring stability, mandate, and timing. In a polarized nation, aggressive prosecutions without securing legislative dominance risk triggering retaliatory cycles, undermining the very agenda they aim to protect.

The dismissal of cases against Letitia James and James Comey illustrates the fragility of prosecutorial authority. A federal judge recently threw out charges citing the unlawful appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney, despite clear evidence of misconduct. The crime was procedural, not substantive—a loophole exploited to shield political elites from accountability1.

This is not unique. DOJ statistics reveal that high-profile political cases often span 3–7 years from indictment to resolution, with declination rates exceeding 39% when political volatility threatens institutional legitimacy2. Prosecutors, like any actors, weigh personal risk: firebomb threats, reputational ruin, and career destruction loom large when partisan control can flip overnight.

Trump’s own experience reinforces this caution. His first term saw relentless lawfare—Mueller investigations, impeachment trials, and civil suits—weaponized to cripple his agenda. The lesson? Without a stable mandate, prosecutions become pyrrhic victories, inviting reciprocal vengeance when power shifts.

The human toll of this legal warfare is staggering. Rudy Giuliani, once America’s Mayor, now faces $1.36 million in unpaid legal fees, with bankruptcy looming3. Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO, has liquidated assets to fund election integrity lawsuits, burning through millions4. Tina Peters, a Colorado clerk, sits in jail for investigating election fraud—a chilling precedent for dissent5.

These cases illustrate the asymmetry of lawfare: defending truth costs fortunes, while weaponizing law costs taxpayers. The financial attrition of Trump allies serves as a deterrent, signaling to future operatives that loyalty carries existential risk.

Enter the Epstein files—a political gambit disguised as transparency. Democrats, desperate to derail Trump ahead of midterms, embraced Epstein disclosures as a “gotcha” strategy, betting on salacious ties to tarnish MAGA credibility6. What they miscalculated was Trump’s counterplay: full release of the files, exposing a Democratic nexus of sexual trafficking, influence peddling, and elite corruption7.

This maneuver exemplifies asymmetric warfare: bait the opposition into overreach, then detonate the trap. As Trump played it, “rat poison in the nest”—a tactic to implode the colony from within. The fallout promises to be seismic, not for Trump, but for the progressive aristocracy entangled in Epstein’s web.

Brazil offers a cautionary mirror. Jair Bolsonaro, ousted after contesting election fraud, now faces 27 years in prison for an alleged coup attempt8. His successor, Lula da Silva—himself a convict released to reclaim power—embodies the cyclical weaponization of law. The message is clear: in politicized systems, justice is not blind; it is partisan.

For MAGA strategists, Bolsonaro’s fate underscores the imperative of institutional entrenchment. Without securing Congress and insulating the judiciary, Trump’s prosecutions risk reversal under a Democratic resurgence.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 61% of suspects in matters concluded in FY 2023, with political cases often delayed beyond five years due to appeals and procedural challenges2. The median time from investigation to decision: 61 days, but high-profile cases involving political figures skew far longer, often requiring special counsel oversight.

Public impatience for “perp walks” is understandable. Yet, in the calculus of power, timing trumps theatrics. Immediate arrests may gratify the base but jeopardize the agenda if Democrats reclaim legislative control. Trump’s restraint is not weakness—it is war by other means.

The Epstein gambit, midterm positioning, and structural reforms signal a long game: secure the mandate, then strike decisively. Until then, justice remains deferred—not denied.  I would say to all who are seeking justice, defend Trump for the midterms, keep the Democrats running for the hills.  And sweep them up once the rat nest is poisoned and they can no longer do any harm.  But don’t play nice with them.  They would never give you the same benefit. 

References

NBC News. Judge dismisses cases against James Comey and Letitia James after finding prosecutor was unlawfully appointed. Nov. 24, 2025.1

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Federal Justice Statistics, 2023. March 2025.2

USA Today. Rudy Giuliani must pay his defense lawyers $1.36 million. Sept. 17, 2025.3

CBS News. Convicted Colorado election clerk Tina Peters transfer controversy. Nov. 23, 2025.4

PBS News. Trump signs bill to release Jeffrey Epstein case files. Nov. 20, 2025.7

CBS News. Jair Bolsonaro arrested before serving 27-year sentence for coup attempt. Nov. 22, 2025.8


To understand why prosecutions under Trump’s second term remain slow, we must situate this phenomenon within a broader historical and theoretical context. Lawfare—the strategic use of legal systems as instruments of political warfare—is not an American invention. It is a global sport, played with Machiavellian finesse and Foucauldian precision

Consider South Korea: former presidents Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak were imprisoned for corruption, only to be pardoned later in a theatrical display of political mercy. This oscillation between punishment and absolution mirrors Michel Foucault’s thesis on power as a dynamic, relational force rather than a static possession [1]. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trials have dragged on for years, punctuated by coalition collapses and judicial reforms—a case study in how legal timing intersects with political survival [2].

Historical parallels abound. Watergate, often romanticized as a triumph of accountability, was in fact a slow burn. The scandal erupted in 1972, yet Nixon resigned only in 1974 after exhaustive hearings and strategic delays. Roman legal systems offer an even older template: prosecutions were frequently deferred until political winds shifted, illustrating Cicero’s dictum that law is the servant of politics, not its master [3].

Theoretical frameworks enrich this analysis. Machiavelli, in The Prince, counseled rulers to appear just while wielding power ruthlessly—a maxim evident in Trump’s calibrated restraint. Foucault’s Discipline and Punish reminds us that law is a technology of control, deployed to normalize behavior and consolidate authority [4]. When Trump delays prosecutions, he is not abdicating justice; he is performing sovereignty, signaling that timing—not immediacy—defines true dominion.

Global data corroborates this thesis. Transparency International reports that high-profile political prosecutions in democracies average 4–6 years from indictment to resolution, with delays often justified as procedural safeguards [5]. In Brazil, Lula da Silva’s conviction and subsequent resurgence exemplify lawfare’s cyclical nature: today’s convict is tomorrow’s kingmaker [6].

This expanded lens reframes Trump’s strategy as part of a transnational pattern: justice deferred is not justice denied—it is justice weaponized. The playful irony? While pundits clamor for perp walks, seasoned strategists know that the real game is chess, not checkers. Arrests gratify the mob; timing secures the throne.

Footnotes:
[1] Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
[2] Peleg, I. (2023). Judicial Politics in Israel: Between Law and Power. Israel Studies Review.
[3] Cicero, M.T. (54 BCE). De Legibus.
[4] Machiavelli, N. (1532). The Prince.
[5] Transparency International. Global Corruption Report, 2024.
[6] Hunter, W. (2020). The Politics of Corruption in Brazil. Journal of Democracy.

Bibliography

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.

Machiavelli, N. (1532). The Prince.

Cicero, M.T. (54 BCE). De Legibus.

Peleg, I. (2023). Judicial Politics in Israel: Between Law and Power. Israel Studies Review.

Transparency International. Global Corruption Report, 2024.

Hunter, W. (2020). The Politics of Corruption in Brazil. Journal of Democracy.

Rich Hoffman

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

Armageddon as Process: From the Teacher of Righteousness to Modern Political Movements

For centuries, people have imagined the Battle of Armageddon as a climactic showdown—a single day when good finally triumphs over evil. But what if Armageddon is not a moment in time, but a perpetual struggle? What if the battle has been raging for thousands of years, manifesting in different eras, cultures, and movements? Today, as millions rally behind reformist causes like the MAGA movement, many wonder why evil seems so entrenched, why corruption persists even when righteousness gains ground. The answer lies in history: the fight against systemic evil is not episodic—it is eternal.

To understand this, we must look back to the crucible of Western civilization: the Holy Land during the turbulent centuries before and after Christ. There, in the shadow of empires, a small sect called the Essenes waged a spiritual and cultural rebellion against corruption. Their writings—the Dead Sea Scrolls—reveal a figure known as the Teacher of Righteousness, a man who defied the “Wicked Priest” and inspired generations of resistance. From Qumran to Megiddo, from the Copper Scroll to the mosaic affirming Jesus in a Roman garrison, the story of righteousness versus evil is a continuum that stretches into our own time.

Around 150 BCE, as Judea reeled under Hellenistic influence after Alexander the Great, a separatist sect emerged—the Essenes. Disillusioned by Jewish priests who compromised with Greek rulers, the Essenes withdrew to the desert near Qumran. They lived by strict purity laws, followed a solar calendar, and anticipated an apocalyptic showdown between the “Sons of Light” and the “Sons of Darkness.” Their writings—the Community Rule, War Scroll, and Damascus Document—outline a worldview obsessed with righteousness and divine justice.

Central to these texts is the enigmatic Teacher of Righteousness, a leader who clashed with the “Wicked Priest,” likely a Hasmonean high priest aligned with foreign powers. The Teacher’s mission was clear: restore covenantal purity and resist systemic corruption. His life foreshadows later figures like John the Baptist and Jesus, who also confronted entrenched elites. Without the Dead Sea Scrolls, we would never know this man existed—yet his influence rippled through history, shaping the moral architecture of Western thought.

Discovered in 1952 in Qumran Cave 3, the Copper Scroll stands apart from other Dead Sea texts. Unlike parchment manuscripts, it was etched on metal—suggesting permanence. Its contents? A list of 64 treasure caches, possibly Temple wealth hidden during Roman incursions. This reveals a critical truth: rebellion was not merely spiritual; it had economic dimensions. Control of resources meant survival for communities resisting imperial domination. The Copper Scroll is a silent witness to the material stakes of righteousness—a reminder that corruption thrives not only in temples but in treasuries.

Megiddo, perched at the crossroads of ancient trade routes, was more than a city—it was a symbol. From Canaanite stronghold to Israelite fortress, from Greek outpost to Roman garrison, Megiddo embodied the clash of civilizations. By the second century CE, it housed Legio VI Ferrata, a Roman legionary camp with 5,000 soldiers. Roads, amphitheaters, and barracks testify to imperial might. Yet Revelation would immortalize Megiddo as Armageddon—the stage for the ultimate battle between good and evil. In truth, that battle was already underway, fought not with swords alone but with ideas, faith, and sacrifice.

Among the most stunning finds at Megiddo is a mosaic floor dated to around 230 CE, discovered in a Roman military compound. Its inscription dedicates worship to “God Jesus Christ”—the earliest archaeological evidence of Jesus’ divinity. This predates Constantine’s Edict of Milan by nearly a century, proving that Christianity was infiltrating the Roman world long before it became state-sanctioned. The mosaic, displayed at the Museum of the Bible, marks a turning point: the empire that crucified Christ was slowly bowing to His name. This was not an overnight revolution but a gradual transformation—a testament to the endurance of righteousness.

Before Rome embraced the cross, it worshipped a pantheon of gods—Jupiter, Mars, Venus—and demanded emperor worship. Greek deities like Zeus and Athena lingered in cultural memory. Against this backdrop, Christianity’s rise was nothing short of miraculous. Persecuted believers faced martyrdom, yet their faith spread from catacombs to palaces. By 313 CE, Constantine legalized Christianity; by 380 CE, Theodosius made it the official religion. But the seeds of this revolution were sown centuries earlier—by rebels like the Essenes, prophets like John, and visionaries like the Teacher of Righteousness.

What does this mean for us today? The struggle between righteousness and corruption did not end with Constantine—or with the crucifixion. It is a permanent condition of human society. Modern movements like the Tea Party, the Reform Party, and MAGA echo the same impulse: to resist entrenched elites and restore moral order. Just as the Essenes defied the Wicked Priest, today’s reformers challenge systems that profit from decay. The hostility they face—from media vilification to legal persecution—mirrors the fate of ancient rebels. Why? Because evil never surrenders quietly.

History teaches a sobering truth: fighting evil is hard, slow, and often bloody—but it works. The Teacher of Righteousness did not live to see Rome fall, yet his stand against corruption helped ignite a movement that reshaped the world. The Essenes’ scrolls lay hidden for two millennia, only to inspire us today. The Megiddo mosaic whispers across centuries: righteousness wins—not in a day, but in the long arc of history. So when despair creeps in, remember: Armageddon is not ahead of us—it is all around us. And every act of courage, every stand for truth, moves the battle forward.

— Additional notes and reference —

Abstract:

This work examines Armageddon as a historical continuum rather than a singular event, tracing its roots from the Essenes and the Teacher of Righteousness through Greek and Roman occupations, Jewish revolts, and the rise of Christianity. It integrates archaeological evidence from Megiddo, textual analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and modern political parallels to argue that the struggle between righteousness and corruption is an enduring condition of human society.

1. Introduction

Armageddon is often imagined as an apocalyptic climax, yet history reveals it as a recurring process. From Qumran to Washington, the battle between systemic evil and reformist zeal persists. [Footnote: Collins, 2010]

2. Historical Timeline

– 332 BCE: Alexander the Great conquers Judea, introducing Hellenistic culture. [Footnote: Josephus, Antiquities]

– 140–37 BCE: Hasmonean dynasty asserts Jewish autonomy but succumbs to corruption. [Footnote: Schiffman, 1994]

– 63 BCE: Pompey annexes Judea; Roman rule begins. [Footnote: Goodman, 2007]

– 66–73 CE: First Jewish Revolt ends with destruction of the Second Temple. [Footnote: Josephus, Wars]

– 313 CE: Constantine legalizes Christianity; 380 CE: Theodosius makes it official. [Footnote: Brown, 1989]

3. The Essenes and Teacher of Righteousness

The Essenes, a separatist sect, withdrew to Qumran to resist priestly corruption. Their texts—the Community Rule, War Scroll, Damascus Document—reveal a dualistic worldview: Sons of Light vs. Sons of Darkness. The Teacher of Righteousness emerges as a prophetic figure opposing the Wicked Priest. [Footnote: Vermes, 2011]

4. Megiddo and Armageddon

Megiddo’s strategic location made it a stage for imperial clashes. Excavations reveal layers from Canaanite to Roman eras. Revelation’s Armageddon draws on this geography as a metaphor for ultimate conflict. [Footnote: BAR, 2015]

5. Dead Sea Scrolls and Copper Scroll

The Copper Scroll lists 64 treasure caches, underscoring the economic stakes of rebellion. Resistance was not merely spiritual but material. [Footnote: Allegro, 1960]

6. Greek and Roman Context

Greek philosophy and Roman law reshaped Judea’s cultural landscape. Emperor worship and Hellenistic syncretism clashed with Jewish monotheism, fueling sectarian movements. [Footnote: Hengel, 1974]

7. Modern Parallels

Reform Party → Tea Party → MAGA echo ancient insurgencies. Each arose to combat perceived corruption, facing vilification and systemic pushback. [Footnote: Skocpol & Williamson, 2012]

8. Conclusion

Armageddon is not a prophecy deferred but a pattern repeated. From the Teacher of Righteousness to modern populists, the fight against entrenched power endures.

References:

– Allegro, J. (1960). The Treasure of the Copper Scroll.

– BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review), various issues.

– Brown, P. (1989). The Rise of Western Christendom.

– Collins, J. (2010). Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

– Goodman, M. (2007). Rome and Jerusalem.

– Hengel, M. (1974). Judaism and Hellenism.

– Josephus. Antiquities and Wars of the Jews.

– Schiffman, L. (1994). Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls.

– Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2012). The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.

– Vermes, G. (2011). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English.

Rich Hoffman

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

Sedition, Civilian Control, and the Afghan Shooter: A Constitutional Crisis in Motion

The foundation of American governance rests on a principle that distinguishes it from authoritarian regimes: civilian control over the military. This concept ensures that elected officials—not generals or unelected bureaucrats—command the armed forces. It is a safeguard against military coups and tyranny, preserving the democratic structure envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. When this principle is undermined, the entire system of governance faces existential risk.

Recent events have brought this issue into sharp focus. On November 26, 2025, an Afghan immigrant—Rahmanullah Lakanwal—opened fire on two National Guard members near the White House. This attack, occurring on the eve of Thanksgiving, was not an isolated act of violence. It was symptomatic of a deeper ideological war being waged against law and order, fueled by political rhetoric and systemic failures in immigration vetting. At the center of this controversy lies a video released by six members of Congress, including Senator Mark Kelly, urging military personnel to “refuse illegal orders” from President Trump. While framed as a constitutional safeguard, critics argue that the video constitutes sedition, a crime punishable by death under U.S. law.

Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, ambushed two West Virginia National Guard members—Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe—near the Farragut West Metro station, just blocks from the White House. Armed with a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver, he critically injured both soldiers before being subdued and hospitalized. Authorities have charged him with assault with intent to kill while armed, with potential escalation to murder charges if the victims succumb to their injuries.1

Lakanwal entered the United States in September 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome, a Biden administration initiative to resettle Afghans who assisted U.S. forces during the war. Approximately 76,000 Afghans were admitted under this program, many on humanitarian parole. Lakanwal, a former Afghan special forces commander who worked closely with U.S. and British troops, was granted asylum in 2025.

While the program aimed to honor commitments to allies, critics argue that vetting was rushed, creating security vulnerabilities. The Trump administration has since halted Afghan immigration processing indefinitely pending review.3

The FBI is investigating whether Lakanwal acted as a lone wolf inspired by jihadist ideology or had operational ties to terrorist networks. While no direct links to ISIS or al-Qaeda have been confirmed, authorities are treating the case as potential international terrorism.4

This incident underscores a broader trend: according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the U.S. has averaged three jihadist plots or attacks per year since 2020, most inspired rather than directed by foreign groups.5

The ideological dimension cannot be ignored. Radical Islamists view Western democracies—and particularly Christian-majority nations like the U.S.—as adversaries. Acts of terror serve as both symbolic and tactical blows against these societies. When political rhetoric within the U.S. appears to legitimize defiance of lawful authority, it creates fertile ground for extremists seeking justification for violence.

Who Were the “Seditious Six?”

1. Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ)

2. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (MI)

3. Rep. Jason Crow (CO)

4. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (PA)

5. Rep. Chris Deluzio (PA)

6. Rep. Maggie Goodlander (NH)6

The lawmakers urged military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders” and uphold the Constitution. While they claimed this was a defense against tyranny, critics—including President Trump—argued that the video that the “seditious six” produced constituted sedition, punishable by death under federal law. The Pentagon is reportedly investigating whether Kelly could be recalled to active duty for court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).67

Legal experts counter that advising troops not to follow unlawful orders is correct under military law. Sedition requires intent to overthrow the government by force, which the video did not explicitly advocate.8  And that’s the problem, because the clear intent was to inspire people like Rahmanullah Lakanwal to do it on their behalf while the “seditious six” claim innocence.

Legal Definitions

• Sedition (18 U.S.C. §2384): Conspiracy to use force to overthrow or oppose U.S. authority or hinder execution of law. Punishable by up to 20 years.9

• Insurrection (18 U.S.C. §2383): Violent rebellion against U.S. authority.10

January 6 Context

Prosecutors charged organized groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys with seditious conspiracy for plotting to block certification of the 2020 election.11

Key Difference

January 6 was a reaction to election fraud—a protest against what participants saw as the destruction of democratic governance. The Kelly video, by contrast, sought to influence military obedience, striking at the heart of civilian control. While both raise constitutional questions, the latter arguably poses a more systemic threat because it undermines the chain of command that preserves a representative government that reports to the people and is obedient to them.  With January 6th, the government was picking our president, so we are dealing with a big difference and a major problem in context.  And it’s the same bad players in all cases.  The political left, and moderates in their back pocket, do not want a representative government that reports to a president they pick.  They want to put a complete loser like Joe Biden in power to rule over the masses as a fourth branch of government that rules from Tyson’s Corner mansions. 

Civilian oversight of the military is not a mere tradition; it is a constitutional mandate. Article II of the Constitution vests executive power in the President, who serves as Commander-in-Chief. This structure prevents military autonomy and ensures accountability through elections.

When elected officials encourage defiance of presidential orders, they erode this foundation. If the military becomes a political actor, democracy collapses into oligarchy or dictatorship. The Kelly video, regardless of intent, introduced ambiguity into a system that depends on clarity.

The Afghan shooter’s attack illustrates the real-world consequences of ideological destabilization. Political rhetoric that delegitimizes lawful authority does not exist in a vacuum; it reverberates globally, influencing actors who seek chaos. Immigration policies that prioritize mass over security compound the risk.

Moreover, the selective application of legal standards—aggressive prosecution of January 6 participants versus leniency toward lawmakers flirting with sedition—undermines public trust. Lawfare becomes a weapon, not a shield, when used to destroy political rivals rather than uphold justice.

The events of November 26, 2025, are a warning. When civilian control of the military is questioned, when immigration vetting fails, and when political discourse normalizes defiance of lawful authority, the republic teeters on the brink. Sedition is not a partisan label; it is a legal reality with grave consequences. Whether the Kelly video meets that threshold will be decided in courts and history books, but its implications are undeniable.

The Afghan shooter’s bullets were not just aimed at two soldiers; they were aimed at the constitutional order itself. Preserving that order requires vigilance—not only against foreign threats but against domestic rhetoric that erodes the foundations of governance.

• Operation Allies Welcome admitted approximately 76,000 Afghans between 2021 and 2022, with DHS reporting that 40% lacked full biometric vetting. [Footnote: DHS Report, 2023]

• CSIS data shows an average of 3 jihadist-inspired plots annually since 2020, with 68% involving lone actors. [Footnote: CSIS Terrorism Trends, 2024]

• Gallup polling (2024) indicates only 45% of Americans trust civilian control of the military, down from 62% in 2010. [Footnote: Gallup, 2024]

Legal Framework:

• Sedition prosecutions surged post-January 6, with DOJ charging 17 individuals under 18 U.S.C. §2384 in 2021–2023. [Footnote: DOJ Annual Report, 2023]

• Comparative analysis: Brazil faced 11 sedition-related prosecutions after Bolsonaro supporters stormed government buildings in 2023. [Footnote: Latin American Security Review, 2024]

Both Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation and Kelly’s video highlight systemic stress points: erosion of institutional norms and the weaponization of rhetoric. Greene’s failure to govern parallels Kelly’s flirtation with sedition—each case underscores the fragility of democratic guardrails when political actors prioritize ideology over institutional responsibility.

Academic Perspectives:

• Huntington’s “The Soldier and the State” remains foundational, warning that politicization of the military invites democratic collapse. [Footnote: Huntington, 1957]

• Recent scholarship (Feaver, 2022) argues that partisan signaling to military personnel correlates with declining trust in democratic institutions. [Footnote: Feaver, 2022]

Policy Recommendations:

1. Reinforce UCMJ clarity on unlawful orders.

2. Mandate bipartisan oversight for immigration vetting programs.

3. Establish congressional ethics review for rhetoric impacting military obedience.

References:

– DHS Report on Operation Allies Welcome (2023)

– CSIS Terrorism Trends (2024)

– Gallup Polling Data (2024)

– DOJ Annual Report (2023)

– Huntington, S. (1957). The Soldier and the State.

– Feaver, P. (2022). Armed Servants: Agency and Control in Civil-Military Relations.

Cross-Reference: Greene’s governance failure illustrates parallel institutional stress.

Rich Hoffman

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

Thanksgiving, Family, and the Weight of Choices: Why Generations Rise or Fall Together

Thanksgiving is one of those rare moments in American life where everything slows down just enough for us to notice what really matters. The smell of turkey fills the house, football hums in the background, and for a few hours, the world’s chaos takes a back seat to mashed potatoes and pumpkin pie. I love this time of year. I love the family gatherings, the laughter, the jokes that only make sense to people who share your last name. But, Thanksgiving is also a fascinating study in human nature. You sit around that table and, without saying a word, you can see the weight of another year on everyone’s face—the triumphs, the mistakes, the quiet regrets.

What is family, really? People say it’s blood, but I think it’s more complicated than that. Family is biology, sure, but it’s also choices—every choice we make and every choice our kids make. And those choices stack up like bricks over time, building the life we live. Some people build palaces; others build prisons. Thanksgiving is where you see the architecture of those choices on full display.

When you’re born, you don’t get to pick your family. You’re handed a set of people and told, “These are yours.” But as life goes on, family becomes less about biology and more about decisions. Who you marry, how you raise your kids, what values you teach them—those choices ripple through generations. I’ve raised kids and now grandkids, and I can tell you this: the quality of a family gathering isn’t determined by the turkey on the table; it’s determined by the choices everyone made to get there.

I’ve seen families where bitterness hangs in the air like smoke because bad decisions piled up—wrong marriages, financial disasters, grudges that never healed. And I’ve seen families where people genuinely enjoy each other’s company because they made better choices. It’s not luck. It’s not fate. It’s choices.

I’ve always said this—and sometimes people look at me funny when I do—but I treat kids differently than I treat adults. Why? Because kids still have options. They haven’t stacked up a lifetime of mistakes yet. They’re like a blank canvas with endless possibilities. Adults, on the other hand, well… by the time you hit your 40s or 50s, the mistakes start showing. You can see it in their faces, in their posture, in the way they talk about life. Every bad decision leaves a mark.

I’ve sat at Thanksgiving tables and watched this play out. You see the cousin who married the wrong person, and now every conversation is about how hard life is. You see the uncle who spent his 20s chasing quick thrills and now looks like a relic of his former self. And then you look at the kids—bright-eyed, full of energy, thinking they’re invincible. They don’t know yet that life is a marathon, not a sprint.

That’s why I invest in kids. I talk to them differently. I try to steer them away from the mistakes that everyone else seems determined to make. Because if you can help a kid avoid even half the bad choices their peers make, you’ve given them a head start that will pay off for decades.

Life is like a marathon. At the starting line, everyone looks the same—bunched up, full of energy, ready to run. But five miles in, the pack starts to spread out. Some people are way ahead, others are falling behind, and the gap keeps growing. That’s what choices do.

And the stats prove it. By middle age, the spread is enormous:

• 41% of first marriages end in divorce, and the odds get worse with each attempt.

• The average U.S. household carries $105,056 in debt, with mortgage debt alone averaging $268,060.

• Over 40% of adults are obese, and the highest rates are among people in their 40s and 50s.

These aren’t random outcomes. They’re the result of choices stacked up over decades. The people who finish strong aren’t the ones who sprint early—they’re the ones who pace themselves, make smart decisions, and stay disciplined when everyone else is falling apart.

Here’s something I’ve noticed over the years: misery loves company. People who make bad choices don’t just suffer quietly—they want everyone else to make the same mistakes. Why? Because it makes them feel less alone. If you’ve wrecked your finances, married the wrong person, and let your health go, it’s comforting to see the next generation do the same. It’s almost like a twisted form of validation: “See? It’s not just me. This is how life works.”

But let’s be honest—it’s not “how life works.” It’s how bad decisions impact outcomes. And the numbers back this up. Divorce, debt, obesity—they’re all connected. Stress from debt leads to overeating. Relationship breakdowns lead to depression. Depression leads to bad health habits. It’s a cycle, and once you’re in it, climbing out feels impossible.

I’ve seen this at family gatherings. You hear the stories—another year of bills piling up, another kid in trouble, another health scare. And everyone nods like it’s normal. But it’s not normal. It’s the result of choices. And the sad part? People cling to the idea that something magical will fix it—a lottery win, a miracle from God, a quick fix that wipes the slate clean. But most of the time, that fix never comes.

Here’s the good news: the cycle can be broken. It’s not easy, but it’s possible—and it starts with the next generation. The key isn’t to make kids perfect. The key is to help them avoid the big mistakes—the ones that derail lives. Teach them that life isn’t about following the crowd. Because the crowd? The crowd is headed straight for debt, divorce, and diabolical outcomes.

So what do you do? You teach kids to think long-term. You teach them that every choice is a brick in the house they’re building. Pick the wrong bricks, and the house collapses. Pick the right ones, and you’ve got a fortress.

I tell my grandkids, “Don’t chase what everyone else is chasing. Most people are running toward misery and calling it fun.” I remind them that life is a marathon, and the people who finish strong aren’t the ones who sprint early—they’re the ones who pace themselves, make smart decisions, and stay disciplined when everyone else is falling apart.

And here’s the beautiful part: when you do this, you don’t just change one life. You change a family. You change a legacy. Because good choices ripple forward just like bad ones do. Imagine a Thanksgiving table where everyone is healthy, happy, and financially secure—not because they got lucky, but because they made choices that built that reality. That’s possible. I’ve seen glimpses of it in my own family, and it’s worth every ounce of effort.

Thanksgiving is more than turkey and football—it’s a mirror. Every year, when the family gathers, you can see the story of choices written on people’s faces. Some look vibrant, full of life, laughing easily. Others look worn down, carrying the weight of years of bad decisions. And it’s not just physical—it’s in the conversations. You hear who’s struggling with debt, who’s on their third marriage, who’s battling health problems.

But here’s the thing: Thanksgiving also gives us hope. It’s a chance to reset, to remind ourselves what matters. For a few hours, the bills and the stress fade away, and we just enjoy being together. And if we use that time wisely—not just to eat, but to inspire—we can plant seeds that change the next generation.

Family is a gift, but it’s also a responsibility. It’s not just about biology—it’s about choices. Every choice we make ripples through generations, shaping the lives of people who haven’t even been born yet. That’s heavy, but it’s also empowering. Because if bad choices can create misery, good choices can create joy.

So this Thanksgiving, as you sit around the table, look at the faces you care about and ask yourself: What legacy are we building? Are we passing down wisdom, or just repeating the same mistakes? Because the truth is, the cycle doesn’t have to continue. We can break it. We can teach our kids to run the marathon wisely, to pace themselves, to make decisions that lead to health, happiness, and freedom.

And if we do that—if we choose better and inspire better—then maybe, just maybe, the next Thanksgiving will feel different. The laughter will be louder, the smiles will be brighter, and the weight of bad choices will be replaced by the joy of good ones. That’s something worth being thankful for.

Rich Hoffman

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