Tag: Trump

I Don’t Like England Anymore: Compliant people are dangerous to thoughtful innovation

I’ve decided that I don’t like England anymore. I did like England when Brexit was the rallying cry—a nation reclaiming sovereignty, shaking off the European Union’s bureaucratic grip. Nigel Farage embodied that spirit of independence, and I could respect that. But who they are now, or have really, always been? That’s a different story. Since COVID, my view has shifted dramatically, and not without reason.

The pandemic exposed something deep in the English psyche: a cultural obsession with compliance. During lockdown, police in England enforced rules with a zeal that bordered on authoritarian. They issued over 120,000 Fixed Penalty Notices for breaches of COVID regulations, ranging from meeting a friend outdoors to traveling without a “reasonable excuse.” Officers even had the authority to enter homes and forcibly return individuals to their residences if they were found outside without justification.¹ This wasn’t just about health—it was about control. It revealed a society that values safety over liberty, process over spontaneity, and certainty over courage.

And then came the social media policing. In England today, posting the wrong thing online can land you in handcuffs. Under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, police made 12,183 arrests in 2023 alone for “offensive” or “grossly offensive” posts—a staggering 58% increase since 2019.² That’s about 30 arrests every single day for speech crimes. Think about that. In a country that once gave the world John Locke and the principles of liberty, people are now being dragged from their homes for tweets.

Consider the case of Graham Linehan, co-creator of Father Ted. He was arrested at Heathrow Airport after returning from the U.S., his crime being posts critical of transgender ideology.³ Or the IT consultant who posted a photo with a shotgun during a Florida trip—police raided his home, seized his devices, and subjected him to 13 weeks of investigation.⁴ Then there’s Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, who faced a six-officer raid over a sarcastic WhatsApp message criticizing a school official.⁵ These aren’t isolated incidents—they’re part of a pattern. The UK now has elite police units dedicated to monitoring online speech for “hate” or “extremism,” often targeting those with anti-migrant views.⁶

This is not freedom. It’s thought control. And the cultural soil that allows this to grow is England’s love of process—its obsession with rules, procedures, and certainty. They plan everything: the route to the gas station, the tea ritual, the itinerary for a simple drive. It’s a society that trades spontaneity for safety, adventure for predictability. That might sound quaint until you realize what it means in practice: a population conditioned to obey.

Even their illusion of free speech is telling. London’s Speaker’s Corner is often romanticized as a bastion of open dialogue, but in reality, it’s a monitored zone—a symbolic gesture that says, “You can speak here, under our watch.” Outside that corner, the state’s grip tightens. Arrests for silent prayer near abortion clinics, for tweets deemed “offensive,” for Facebook posts criticizing politicians—these are not anomalies; they are the norm.⁷ The U.S. State Department has even flagged the UK for “serious restrictions on freedom of expression.”⁸ That should alarm anyone who values liberty.

And while the state clamps down on speech, another force reshapes the cultural landscape: demographic change. The Muslim population in England has grown from 4.9% in 2011 to about 6.5% in 2021—roughly 4 million people—and is projected to reach 13 million by 2050.⁹ This isn’t just a statistic; it’s a transformation. In urban centers, Islamic fundamentalism finds fertile ground in a society already conditioned to compliance. When a culture is beaten into submission by its own government, it becomes vulnerable to ideologies that demand even stricter obedience. That’s not diversity—that’s a recipe for cultural collapse.

Contrast this with America’s founding spirit. The United States exists because people rejected monarchy, hierarchy, and the suffocating weight of tradition. They fled Europe’s kingdoms for the unknown, embracing risk and adventure. That courage—the willingness to live without guarantees—is what built America. England, by contrast, never shed its psychological chains. Even now, with a “token” King Charles, the monarchy persists as a cultural anchor, a reminder that the people are subjects, not sovereigns. That mindset matters. A society that wants to be ruled already has something broken in its DNA.

Brexit was a flicker of rebellion, a moment when England seemed ready to reclaim its independence. Nigel Farage gave voice to that impulse, railing against the EU’s bureaucratic overreach. But where is that spirit now? Drowned in lockdown mandates, speech policing, and a nanny-state mentality that arrests citizens for jokes. Farage’s Reform UK party still fights, but it’s swimming against a cultural tide that prefers process to freedom.¹⁰

I’ve tried to rationalize some affection for England over the years. I admired their bookstores, their literary tradition, and their politeness. My own family ties made it tempting to look the other way. But honesty demands clarity: England today is not a beacon of liberty. It is a cautionary tale—a society that traded freedom for safety, individuality for compliance, and courage for comfort. And the world is watching. When London becomes the attack vector for global liberalism, when its cultural weakness enables ideological invasions, when its police knock on doors for tweets, we should ask: Is this the future we want?

America must never follow that path. Our strength lies in the unknown, in the willingness to risk, in the refusal to bow. England chose differently. And for that reason, I can no longer admire what it has become.  I would say that England has always been this way, and it has only excelled as a culture when it has endeavored to be more like America, as it did with Brexit.  But remember, this is the same culture that literally tortured and killed William Wallace, the Scottish rebel shown so well in the movie Braveheart.  When they killed him, to quell any future rebellions, they gutted him in front of the crowd and burned his intestines while he was still alive.  After they cut off his head after a very torturous death, they cut up his body and sent his arms and legs to the far reaches of the kingdom.  And they put his head on a pike on London Bridge and kept it there for a long time.  To remind people of what would happen to other rebels should they think to take the same path.  And that same behavior is present in their policing of social media posts.  Any culture that is willing to put up with that kind of oppression is not a good culture for the world.  And that is the value system they seem to support most: compliance with authority over freedom of thought.  English culture is built on compliance, and history shows us over an extended period what a disaster that is.  Which is why I no longer like or respect England and its role in the world.

—

Footnotes:

¹ UK lockdown enforcement: Fixed Penalty Notices and home entry powers 123

² Arrest statistics under Section 127 and the Malicious Communications Act 4

³ Graham Linehan case 56

⁴ IT consultant arrested over Florida photo 5

⁵ Maxie Allen & Rosalind Levine WhatsApp raid 4

⁶ Elite units monitoring online speech 7

⁷ Arrests for silent prayer and speech restrictions 89

⁸ U.S. State Department criticism of UK free speech limits 9

⁹ Muslim population growth and projections 1011

¹⁰ Farage and Reform UK political context 1213

Rich Hoffman

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

Dumping Biden’s Autopen Executive Orders: Destroying the silent insurrection by institutional manipulation

From a position of principled dissent, one must assert: it is both appropriate and necessary for President Trump to rescind the executive orders and other instruments signed by President Biden via autopen. This move is not a partisan slight against Biden himself—instead, it’s a justified protest against the institutional apparatus that hijacked executive authority during his presidency.

Trump’s decision signals a break with what has become a “fourth branch” of government. Bureaucrats, intelligence officials, and political operatives effectively commandeered presidential power behind the scenes, wearing its cloak while burying proper accountability. If MAGA goes silent—if it ceases to challenge the corruptive center of institutionalism—that deviation will be permanent. The people’s voice, once quieted by the elite through procedural manipulation, seldom returns.

Rooted in ancient traditions, the MAGA movement echoes the Teacher of Righteousness dissenters described in the Damascus Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls: insurgents who arise whenever authority no longer serves its constituents but rather entangles them in webs of venality. These protestations are not aberrations; they are hardwired into human nature and political life. Revolts are rhetoric, yes—but when discourse fails, and trust is broken, they become relentless, even righteous rebellion.

This moment is not historically unique. We are neither living through an aberration nor an anomaly—we are participating in a time-tested cycle of institutional decay and public backlash. Unless actively disrupted, this cycle does not correct itself. It requires decisive, uncompromising change.

Consider the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning in 2020, it became a vehicle for global actors to consolidate control—governmental, financial, technological—and push bio-political frameworks that were as deadly as they were deceptive. Millions perished under directives engineered from the top. Those who operate these levers today are leveraging their power to set conditions for continued control—some of which may require enduring Trump another three years, or at least until 2028.

Biden did not genuinely win control—an elaborate maneuver of autopen, election doubt, and pandemic-induced panic that carried over into his administration. This isn’t about policy disagreement; it’s about the subversion of election integrity and democratic process. The Republican moderates—the power brokers in both parties—are complicit. They reap the financial rewards of insider governance even as they masquerade as safeguards of free enterprise.

The result is a system in which corporate power is maintained not by competitive markets but by governmental decree. Industry giants lobby, they legislate, and they leverage regulated advantage into an immovable monopoly. This is neither capitalism nor democracy—it is centralized privilege.

Trump was placed in office to correct this—not because of policy disagreements but due to the growing realization that the system had mutated into an oligarchy, one that served the same servile beneficiaries from Washington to Wall Street.

But removing Trump in the middle of the purging process transformed what should have been a transitional restoration into something dangerously uncertain. The institutionalists within government, sensing their loss, have regrouped. Joe Biden is not a break in continuity—he is an extension of their covert agenda.

Consider Biden’s record: 162 executive orders in four years—an aggressive use of unilateral powers and far above average relative to modern presidents12. Nearly 41% were revoked by Trump within days of resuming office. These orders spanned everything from invoking the Defense Production Act on electric vehicles and biotech34 to mandating federal minimum wage increases4, forcing climate policies4, and rerouting federal dollars into union apprenticeship programs34.

The extraordinary scale and scope of these unilateral actions—used to circumvent Congressional approval—highlight why the MAGA movement fears complacency above all else.

The autopen controversy, then, wasn’t accidental. Biden’s use of an autopen—a device that mechanically reproduces signatures—became the focal point of MAGA’s alarm. Trump asserts that some 92% of Biden’s signed actions were processed via autopen and are thus inherently invalid 56. Among those, suggestions range from presidential orders to pardons, including those granted to Fauci, General Milley, and members of the January 6 committee 78. Critics argued that such coverage without the President’s direct signature was illegitimate—even perjurious.

Legal experts, however, dismissed this view. A 2005 Department of Justice memo confirmed that autopen signatures are legally valid when authorized910. Courts have noted that presidential pardons need not be in writing at all. Scholars point out that once issued, pardons are inviolable and immune from revocation by successor administrations.

Yet that technical legality missed the moral point. MAGA supporters argue that legality without legitimacy is insufficient. Just because the bureaucratic mechanism parses it as valid doesn’t mean it bears democratic authority. The autopen represented the final straw—evidence that control had left the people’s hands and entered automated dominance.

And Trump understood that scenery. So he initiated investigations, revoked dozens of orders, and canceled more—drastically—by first-day cutbacks, then March 2025 revocations, then this sweeping de-autopenization3414.

With every revocation, MAGA restored control to the people. But letting institutional leverage settle in would have been worse. Trump resisted governing by consensus because consensus had betrayed the people. These were not minor adjustments—this was a reset intended to reassert popular mandate over administrative stealth.

But MAGA supporters rationalize: corruption must be uprooted in bulk. If parts of the system are irredeemably corrupt, small-scale reform isn’t enough. Action requires either unyielding disruption, not temporary band-aids.

Looking ahead, that disruption must be institutionalized. It cannot rely on Trump alone. Political seats must be won—governorships, Congress, school boards, city halls—to institutionalize disruption.

Look at the midterms and below: they are won not by playing nice, but by embodying the fight. MAGA must not compromise away the only movements capable of checking deep corruption at its root.

Yes, Trump governed as though working within the system would tame it. But the system used that effort to reassure itself. Civil servants nodded in his face, only to conspire behind his back.

We saw the phenomenon in COVID policies, ending that contradictory presidency. Those pushing pandemic mandates operated beyond democratic oversight—unelected experts, bureaucratic rule. It took an insurgent presidency to expose the duplicity.

Now, Trump fights back by reclaiming the instruments of executive power—by drawing lines in the sand, and by vociferously naming those who conspired in executive hollowing.

If he retreats now—if MAGA shrinks in the face of institutional backlash—the effort is for naught. As Jesus said: A house divided cannot stand.

But if MAGA rallies—if cities and states choose representatives willing to enact true reform—then Trump’s disruption becomes permanent. That means a crackdown on conspirators, a legal reckoning for the autopen cabal, and an end to post-hoc presidential puppeting by hidden staffs.

Statistically, the number of executive orders matters. Biden averaged ~40 EO’s per year1718—a pace far above average, and far above what would be sustainable if the presidency were not treated as a governing elite office. Removing the excessive orders flipped control from institutions back to voters.

Yet the statistics also warn that Biden’s focus on memoranda, including national security memoranda—a bladeshot form of autocratic bypass—became a hallmark of invisible governance. Often, a memo could usurp statutory authority or declare an emergency under concealment.

This leads to election security.

After 2020, mistrust was deep. Pew reported that only 58% of Trump voters trusted that the outcome would be clear after counting, and 92% believed the result should be known within days19. Meanwhile, nine out of ten voters overall prioritize preventing illegal voting. That’s trust based on process, not rhetoric.

But trust evaporates when systems are vulnerable. Since 2020, 92% of local election officials reported enhanced security measures in 2021. That heightened security owes to both increased systemic threats and widespread mistrust.

MAGA’s claim: if the institutions are deploying executive power without transparency—or are altering election governance through memo rather than law—they steal not merely ballots, but trust, legitimacy, and authority.  Trump’s aggressive stance on revocation isn’t mere revenge. It’s a necessary action to preserve our republic.

For that to endure, strong, secure elections are the baseline—not tokenism. If elections are hacked or adjudicated behind closed doors, the outcome is irrelevant. No amount of EO revocation matters if the mechanism behind the vote remains under covert control.

If Trump secures seat wins in the next elections—not because of compromise but through campaign-first messaging—then the movement becomes structural, not merely rhetorical.

We fought for Trump for this structural change. We didn’t give him a mandate to play nice. We gave him a mandate to fight.

So—Go hard. Rescind, revoke, prosecute. Take out the institutional rot with precision. Shut down the cabals. If you’re going to mess with systems, do it permanently. Don’t hesitate. Strike fast.

It is time to institutionalize MAGA, not depersonalize it. If regulations housed the poison, uproot them entirely. If rival offices conspired, expose them and break them. If colluding agencies diverted funds, revoke and defund them. If secretive pardons sheltered corruption, expose them to the sunlight and eliminate their immunity.

And then, pivot—once the rot is removed—to reconstruction: a government that serves the people with genuine transparency, limited-term appointments, reformed election security, and executive power that is retrievable, contestable, and transparent.

It’s not enough to protest with words. Words are hollow if the power is in the hands of the few. Remove the instruments of unilateral control, and stand them up anew in the hands of governors, legislators, and citizens.

Let Trump’s actions serve not as a cult, but as a crucible: to temper institutions to service, not mastery.

The autopen exposes the lie. Insurgency confronts the machine. If MAGA falters, they reassert it. If MAGA stands firm, the movement morphs into stewardship.

Now is the choice—not tomorrow.

Footnotes

1. U.S. Department of Justice, Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President: Use of Autopen to Sign Enrolled Bills, July 7, 2005.

2. Congressional Research Service, “Presidential Pardons: Legal Authority and Limitations,” CRS Report RL31340, updated 2023.

3. Federal Register, “Executive Orders by President Joseph R. Biden,” 2021–2024.

4. Pew Research Center, “Public Confidence in Election Integrity,” October 2020.

5. National Association of Secretaries of State, “Election Security Measures Post-2020,” Annual Report, 2023.

6. White House Archives, “Executive Orders Revoked by President Trump,” March 2025.

7. Brennan Center for Justice, “The Autopen Controversy and Presidential Authority,” Policy Brief, 2024.

8. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Insider Trading Risks in Federal Governance,” GAO-22-104, 2022.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “COVID-19 Mortality Data,” 2020–2022.

10. Congressional Budget Office, “Economic Impact of COVID-19 Policies,” 2021.

11. Department of Homeland Security, “Cybersecurity and Election Infrastructure,” 2023.

—

Bibliography

• Brennan Center for Justice. The Autopen Controversy and Presidential Authority. Policy Brief, 2024.

• Congressional Research Service. Presidential Pardons: Legal Authority and Limitations. CRS Report RL31340, updated 2023.

• Federal Register. “Executive Orders by President Joseph R. Biden.” 2021–2024.

• Pew Research Center. “Public Confidence in Election Integrity.” October 2020.

• U.S. Department of Justice. Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President: Use of Autopen to Sign Enrolled Bills. July 7, 2005.

• U.S. Government Accountability Office. Insider Trading Risks in Federal Governance. GAO-22-104, 2022.

• White House Archives. “Executive Orders Revoked by President Trump.” March 2025.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “COVID-19 Mortality Data.” 2020–2022.

• Congressional Budget Office. Economic Impact of COVID-19 Policies. 2021.

• Department of Homeland Security. Cybersecurity and Election Infrastructure. 2023.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Greatest Weapon That There Is: Why evil hates the Bible

I’ve been here before, and I’ve seen the anxiety that grips people when they start talking about Islam in America—the building of mosques, the infiltration into elected offices, and the aggressive ideological attack vector aimed at dismantling Christianity. It’s not paranoia; it’s a strategy. I’ve read the Qur’an many times, studied it, and I can tell you this: as a piece of literature, it’s not inherently evil. But when weaponized, it becomes a problem. And that’s what we’re dealing with—weaponization. So what do you do about it? Do you take it? Do you let it happen?  There is no way to make peace with it, because its implementation into society is meant to be disruptive and destructive.  And it’s not a problem that will go away on its own. 

Let me tell you the solution to this whole problem, and it’s not what most people think. I learned it during a grand jury experience where I served as foreman. I swore in many dozens of people—maybe a hundred—over my term. And I brought my Bible with me. The same Bible I’ve carried through airports all over the world, the same one that sits on my desk in my office. Not because I’m trying to thump people into submission, but because it’s a reference point for me—a running dialogue I’ve had for decades.

When I set that Bible on my desk in the grand jury room, people gave me looks. In these progressive times, swearing on the Bible isn’t common anymore. They’ve moved away from it because they don’t want to offend anyone—atheists, Muslims, whoever. But I insisted. I was the foreman, and it was my call. That Bible sat there like a sentinel among the case files. And here’s what I noticed: the emotional reaction it provoked was profound.

People who were already anxious—victims, witnesses—reacted to the presence of something pure. It wasn’t hostility; it was respect, maybe even fear. And I realized something: the Bible, as a symbol, is more powerful than any gun I’ve ever carried. And I’ve carried guns for a long time. I’m known for it. People think of me as a writer and a very aggressive gun carrier. I’ve walked into convenience stores with a Desert Eagle under my vest, and I know the look people give when they see it. Guns intimidate. But the Bible? It unsettles evil in a way guns never can.

That experience modified my thinking of the Bible as a weapon against evil itself. The greatest weapon you can carry in this modern age isn’t a .50 caliber—it’s the Bible. Not because you’re trying to convert people, but because it represents the foundation of Western civilization. And that’s why there’s a war against it. They’re trying to remove it from society and replace it with radical ideologies—specifically, radical Islam.

Make no mistake: this is a crusade. They are infiltrating. We saw it with the Afghan shooter in Washington, and with cells springing up in Texas. They target heavily Christian areas and try to flip them. They use the Qur’an as their ideological spear, aiming to replace the Bible and, with it, the entire cultural framework of the West. Their goal is simple: take over society by eroding its foundation.

And here’s the truth: if you want to fight that, you don’t start with bullets—you begin with roots. Get to know your Bible. Let people know you have a relationship with it.  Don’t be shy because the perpetrators of this ideological war are trying to strip away that security so they can replace it with something else. If you hold firm, you make their task harder. And that’s how you win wars: you make the enemy’s objectives impossible to achieve.

The Bible is unique among religious texts because it chronicles evil. It names it. It defines it. And evil hates being named. That’s why radical Islam despises the Bible—it exposes the darkness they operate in. The Qur’an doesn’t do that in the same way; it’s often used as a justification for dominance, not as a mirror for self-reflection.

Western law, ethics, and governance were built on biblical principles. The Ten Commandments influenced early common law. Concepts like justice, equality, and individual rights trace back to Judeo-Christian thought. Remove that, and you don’t just lose religion—you lose the moral architecture of the West. That’s why swearing on the Bible in court mattered. It wasn’t just a ritual; it was a declaration that truth is sacred. When we abandon that, we open the door to ideologies that don’t share those values.

Radical Islam isn’t just about personal faith—it’s about political control. Sharia law isn’t compatible with constitutional law. And yet, movements are pushing for its implementation in Western municipalities. That’s not speculation; it’s documented. Infiltration happens through cultural erosion first—symbols, language, rituals. When you stop swearing on the Bible, you’re not just being inclusive; you’re surrendering ground.

So here’s what I say: stop running from the Bible. Make it part of your life. Carry it.  Read it. Let people see it because its presence alone is a deterrent. It frustrates the plans of those who want to replace Western civilization with something hostile to freedom. And it costs nothing—except your commitment.

If you want to combat radical Islam, don’t bend to the fear they are trying to invoke. Start with confidence in your own heritage. The Bible is unique in that it purposefully explores the nature of evil, and evil indeed responds to it when they see it.  They show noticeable anger toward it and want to supplant it whenever possible.  It should come as no surprise that evil people in the world want to remove the Bible and replace it with other religions, because the Bible does such a good job of combating evil as a collection of ideas.  Like no other piece of literature ever attempted by the human race, the Bible tells the story of a God perpetually frustrated by the workings of evil in the world and offers a means to escape the ramifications of an evil lifestyle.  But before it can do that, it points out what evil is, what it does, and how damaging it is to the perpetual existence of the human race.  And while other religions work to establish obedience to a godly premise, the Bible goes many steps further: it spells out the impact of evil, the root cause, and the impediment to its utilization.  And evil, as it embodies itself in other people, consciously or unconsciously, knows the threat that the Bible poses to a positive society.  And they hate it for it.

—

Supplemental Context & Footnotes

1. Mosque Growth in the U.S.: The number of mosques in America grew from 1,209 in 2000 to 2,769 in 2020, reflecting a significant demographic and cultural shift.1

2. Radicalization Trends: Since 2021, over 50 jihadist-inspired incidents have occurred in the U.S., with lone-wolf attacks being the dominant form of violence.2

3. Recent Attacks: The New Orleans truck attack killed 14; an Afghan migrant assassinated National Guardsmen in Washington 34

4. Historical Role of the Bible: Western law and democratic ideals were deeply influenced by biblical principles, including concepts of justice and equality.5

5. Psychological Impact of Symbols: Studies show that religious symbols in courtrooms evoke moral authority and solemnity, influencing behavior and perception.6

Rich Hoffman

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

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