Tag: corruption

The Reason MAGA hats are Important

My recent interests in all things Constitutional is essentially because I have been considering the legal foundation for removing our present government from power and replacing it with something better. I consider the Trump administration something better, and if they were allowed to do their work unimpeded, I would not be thinking of such things—I’d just be happy to vote in elections and let the world turn. But that’s not what’s happening, the Jussie Smollett case in Chicago is all the evidence we need to see to understand just how bad the problem is. What Smollett did by hiring a couple of friends to attack him so that he could make Donald Trump supporters look like crazed lunatics is not exceptional, it’s quite common and is increasing in frequency. It’s quite clear that Democrats understand that the Make America Great Again hats from the Trump campaign are keys to winning in 2020 and they have no such message to compete with. So they are trying to tear down the message and put Republicans on the defense so that those hats can’t be used in future campaigns. That’s the game they are playing and the media is dying for examples. That’s where Jussie Smollett thought he could increase his profile by playing into that media game and it almost worked. Everyone on that political side of things knows the game. He was trying to be a hero to them and he got caught. But everyone from the FBI to most movie studios is in on the game and it has provoked the obvious need for perhaps an open rebellion to remove those people from our governing forces.

The real essence of the problem is that the entire platform of the Democrat party is a below the line one, meaning everything they stand for is about a lack of personal accountability and victimization. As we’ve discussed in the past no matter what size the organization is, people who think below the line must be removed before any level of success can be implemented. Governments and countries are not too big to fail, which is obvious by the current national debt in the United States. Much of that debt is created by below the line thinking, by throwing lots of money at groups of people who use below the line thinking to receive help from the government. The system obviously can’t afford that relationship which is why we have a debt. But the original cause is the below the line thinking that created the situation. Below the line thinking and above the line thinking are not conducive to each other. It’s like saying that you want to maintain good air conditioning in a building that has no windows and everything is open to the outside. You can’t have both things. A country and a government can’t have below the line people always trying to undo what above the line people create.

The real fight in America is for the below the line people to not be left behind as above the line people desire to advance as a nation and grow into new and exciting things. With Trump’s MAGA hats and overall campaign message, the below the line people understand that if the nation values those types of things once again, that there isn’t anywhere for them to hide so they are of course very opposed to such a national position. That is the reason for the violence, such as what happened on the campus of Berkley this past week to the conservative activist who was punched in the face by another person quite violently, and with no real provocation. The attacker obviously is a below the line thinker fighting for their right to maintain that status. The MAGA hats are a very positive message that is a threat to all below the line people because it doesn’t just give them political cover in a big scary world, but it indicates that changes are on the horizon for which they are terrified of. That is the only explanation for the kind of evil shown in the Berkley video where the attacker just wanted to smash the face of an above the line advocate through sheer intimidation.

The attempted destruction of the young fellow Nick Sandman from Covington Catholic is another such case, he and his friends were just wearing MAGA hat souvenirs from a field trip they had taken to Washington D.C. when they were systematically attacked by below the line people, which ended up being a national story. The media picked up on it because they were trying to change the narrative of the young kids learning positive things in Washington D.C. to an indigenous person who had their ancestry robbed from them by white Europeans standing up to the MAGA hat culture. Only that wasn’t the real story, the aggressor was the drunk old Indian who was simply a below the line loser living off the efforts of his ancestors. From there the story fell apart in much the way that the Smollett story did. Both cases were examples of a below the line culture trying to prop up their circumstances against the efforts of above the line people to elevate the efforts of the nation. That is essentially what the MAGA hats mean, they are refusals to accept below the line conditions and to take the country to above the line thinking.

If there is anything great about Donald Trump that any point in history would agree with, it’s that he is overall a very positive person who insists on functioning above the line. President Trump may not have led a perfect life, but he has always tried to even if it took smoke and mirrors sometimes to get there. His popularity through the many storms that have been thrown at him are that people want to move into the direction of being an above the line nation. But yielding to the whims of below the line people isn’t compatible so Democrats know that the longer Trump keeps the nation looking above the line, the less overall power they will have which is the reason for the all out panic they are now experiencing. If below the line thinking, specifically victimhood, is taken away as one of their public sentiment weapons, the Democrats won’t have a platform to run on. If Trump is successful in encouraging a majority of Americans to think above the line again, Democrats will lose most of their elections in the future because they have become completely dependent on the victimization culture.

The MAGA hats are a symbol not of hate, but hope. But to people who want to hide their own personal failures in a below the line culture, those hats are terrifying, and they will fight for the right to be a loser. And given that understanding it may be needed to use the Constitution to justify a complete takeover of our current government which is a very below the line exercise. In that case it is more important to be an above the line culture rather than a nonviolent one. There is no value in being a passive recipient that does not protect value in society through attacks of below the line thinking. And under those conditions the need for violence is obvious and likely very much-needed.

 

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Guns in the Ohio Constitution

We have been hearing and seeing so much about what the Democrats want for America, from open border policies, to high taxation, murderous abortions, and abuses of the standing armies to raid private citizens in the middle of the night and throw them in jail just over political maneuverings, an obvious abuse of authority. I’ve always been a bit of a Constitutional hound, I trust mostly the decisions of the Supreme Court at the federal level, even when they don’t go my way. When I don’t like the direction of the country for instance, instead of taking up guns and overthrowing the government, like we are expected to do when things get out of control, I settle on elections. That’s why I supported Donald Trump for president, he was a needed change done in the most peaceful manner. However, after the arrest of Roger Stone, Trump’s first campaign manager into the 2016 elections and the obvious bad treatment of other people directly connected to President Trump by the FBI I have been going back and rereading the Constitutions that have founded our nation and thinking differently about what to do next. It started for me by asking what I would do if the FBI or local police were instigated to come to my door to arrest me, how would I handle it. That answer provoked me to revisit the law and consider the correct options.

But too often we assume that the federal government has supremacy law over the states, which we know from the Tenth Amendment that it doesn’t which means that the Constitutions of whatever state you live in are important considerations as well, and I can say that the Ohio Constitution is not an easy thing to put your civilian hands on, which it should be. Anyway, I picked one up and for current reading. A previous copy I had from something like thirty years ago was missing so a new one was needed and once it arrived, I found a modern reading of it to be quite refreshing. Assuming that I have to say I know a few Ohio Supreme Court Justices, not well enough that we swap spit in the shower, but well enough to call them neighbors whom I speak with from time to time so I understand the nature of case-law which has been shaped by the Ohio Constitution over time, but what I want to focus on are a few very nice quotes listed in the Preamble of the Article I: Bill of Rights, which read very similarly to the federal Bill of Rights inspired by the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Specifically, I found the language of #2 of the Ohio Bill of Rights to be much more specific than the federal Second Amendment which we all hear so much about. It makes it quite clear what the intention of a society of gun owners is supposed to be doing and why they have the power to do it. There is no mistake about it, it says: Right to alter, reform, or abolish government, and repeal special privileges. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary: and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the General Assembly. Essentially, if the government of Ohio gets too far out of control, everyday people need to be able to abolish it and start over. Things that come to my mind as causes for such a thing to happen would be massive debt and abuses of authority. Lucky for all of us living in Ohio, it’s a pretty well-run state, but part of the reason why is that there are a lot of gun owners who don’t have much tolerance for nonsense. We are not obligated to just deal with a bunch of spoiled brat government employees. If they screw up and over extend themselves, we have an obligation to end that government and start a new one.

Another part of the Ohio Bill of Rights that jumped out at me was #4 Bearing arms; standing armies: military power. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; by standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Now this was written in 1851, not that long ago. And when reading it I can’t help but think of the Roger Stone case and the corruption we have seen at the level of the FBI under James Comey and Andrew McCabe. Granted, these actions were not in Ohio, Stone was arrested in Florida and the core of the FBI characters were likely regulated by other constitutional parameters not specific to Ohio, but the intent behind the language could not be clearer. A standing army in times of peace tends to breed corruption, when a police state is established where they represent the arm of a corrupt government and they have power over people who don’t, bad things tend to happen, and we see it all the time. I find this portion of the Ohio Bill of Rights to be particularly potent in establishing legal precedent. Government even at the level of the Supreme Court of the state or at the federal level cannot trump this basic premise with case-law assumptions. Because if we have to abolish the government for whatever reason the grounds for doing so revert back to this basic foundation of law in Ohio for which we all agree is the law of the land.

Maybe this is why the Ohio Constitution isn’t more publicized. I’m sure I read these things before, but in the context of our modern times they are much more distinct than their federal brother. Later during the progressive era of 1912 there were amendments to the Ohio Constitution which complicate things a bit, but essentially the 1851 version is the law of the land, so why don’t more people know this stuff? It should be more broadly broadcast not just through the state of Ohio, but in other states trying to understand the foundations of their own government. I mean without question the State of Ohio evokes the privileges of eminent domain and public welfare rights in regard to private property as written in the 1851 Ohio Constitution, so why not apply the same to the #2 and #4 section of the Preamble where gun rights are the obvious emphasis? The obvious answer of course is that much of the Constitutions that make our country what it is at both the federal level and the level of the state are interpreted by government employees for the benefit of themselves. But behind it all is the expectation that the people for whom the constitutions are written are expected to enforce justice when needed, and in these modern times, it looks like its needed. There are worse things than violence in a society, and that is a civilization that is just asleep at the wheel and has lost itself to the powers of government reverting back to an aristocratic existence. It is far more dangerous to become an overly compliant society that has lost its freedoms than to take up arms to remove corruption from office. Just a few things to think about as we learn more about how our government really operates and what little respect they have for our current president or the people who put him in office.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Why We Should Bring Back Duels

I’ve said it before, but it is worth stating again, especially after the behavior of McCabe from the FBI. In reading the Constitution of the United States there is an element from that time which I think we should bring back, dueling. Pricks like Andrew McCabe have evolved thinking they are dominate players largely because we have a society that doesn’t challenge each other. When the Constitution was created, if one person gave insult to another the other person could demand satisfaction (a duel) which had a tendency to bring value to the exchange. People had a tendency to respect each other because if they didn’t then they might get pulled into a duel where death might become an option. So the general level of correspondence was higher among people, and the education level was additionally more of a factor. For our American Constitution to work the people it protects need to be somewhat intelligent and that was a byproduct of a society that understood the individual necessity for satisfaction. Dueling ironically seems to be a mandate for a civilized and intelligent society, because it increases the level of language and interaction between people. People tended to treat each other better so that they wouldn’t evoke a desire for another person to “demand satisfaction.”

Many people consider it barbaric to have a gun duel to the death, they think that the act of violence is a true breakdown of social behavior. But I would argue not. It is far worse to have prickly passive aggressive losers like Andrew McCabe operating behind rules and regulations instead of the ethics of respect and justice. The reason the FBI became such a corrosive force in modern America is precisely because they don’t respect the people they are supposed to be protecting. They are the ones with the guns and power, why do they need to respect some lowlifes under their care. The relationship they have with society thus became corrupted because they lost sight of what their role was with people. When there are no mechanisms to demand respect, one side gains too much power while the others are forced into subservience. In the days of the duel, this exchange equalized law and order, it didn’t corrupt it.

Of course, the great mistake was that people of law thought they could eliminate such a need by replacing violence with legal books and lawyers, but this has only served to distance valor from every day activity, and valor is at the heart of ethical behavior. Without being able to protect your name, it leaves such things up to the courts which takes away all the personal responsibility and thus then corrupts the society at large. Such a system allows people like Andrew McCabe and James Comey to have the illusion of power without the actual check for such things under the assumptions of valor. Valor is in taking responsibility for defending your name and the people who rely on you. Going to court to sue someone or to defend your name in such a way removes the valor from the process and greatly reduces the quality of the effort.

Not that people should go around fighting each other all the time. A few times in a lifetime is probably all it would take as an earned reputation tends to keep hostile agents from constantly challenging you, such a society is far more civil because of the emphasis on valor and honor than our present society of legal defense by lawyers and books. Such a system allows masters of the law to appear much more powerful than they really are and invites to their minds the temptation to become corrupt. If someone could have dueled Andrew McCabe at a dinner party for some reason or another it is unlikely that he would have evolved into such a corrupt figure. The origin of his corruption is in the lack of valor in McCabes life. Being a lawyer who can hide behind mountains of paper and procedure has lessened the ethic behavior of our society, not made it better. Early legal minds assumed the opposite would happen, but that has not been the case.

Most young men go through some form of dueling in their lives, whether it’s the fight with a bully after school, or a fight over a girl, it is the way that males test each other. In this age where progressive influences are attempting to paint such behavior as toxic masculinity, we should not be surprised to see the behavior of the males of our society deteriorating rapidly. Without some way to evoke valor in our society the values of people deteriorate rapidly. In the time that the Constitution was written duels were still quite common. The legal minds of those times tried a different approach but that has turned out to be detrimental to our civilization. Fighting another human being can be a terrifying experience and when someone challenges you, it’s up to you to overcome those fears to protect the valor and ethics of your individuality. Without that means of doing so, values disappear from society. The law by itself is not enough, it has empowered corrupt people to rule over others without the fear of overcoming another person and facing your own terminal end.

Most of the time, when a fight occurs between two people, after the conflict friendships usually form because the relationship is cemented in respect. Legal battles are not conducive to those types of exchanges. A fight between two people is a way of establishing valor and respect and once that is robbed from society the expectations of civility is much lowered. Having to face down an enemy with a gun in a fight to the death is a pretty terminal endeavor. There is the likelihood of not going home to your bed that night and that your life could end right then and there. That makes people behave better than they would if the conflict is just a bunch of name calling and legal assumptions. The terminal nature of a duel is a needed ingredient in a society of any kind.

Even though we have all been taught since the time we were little that guns are a barbaric sentiment and that our legal system is far superior to a duel in a dusty street, I would argue that the opposite is the case. We were better off and more respectful of each other when we could call someone out and demand satisfaction for their smearing of our good name. In order for a society to value something as well written as the American Constitution is, it requires a society to be knowledgeable and respectful of each other and the best way to do that is not to hide behind a legal system to resolve differences, but to fight it out among each other when those circumstances occur. When such moments of valor are robbed from people you get corrupt people like Andrew McCabe running our institutions and that is not a good thing. It is far more dangerous to have passive aggressive activists such as McCabe manipulating the law behind the scenes than to just have a duel in a city street to resolve a conflict. The duel is a much more honest and ethical resolution and perhaps its time we bring it back.

Rich Hoffman

A Dangerous and Ominous Case

The Jussie Smollett case tells us everything we need to know about the FBI and the Andrew McCabe situation where a tendency to lie and fabricate a story without a grain of truth in it is possible and could be accepted at face value. I have said many times that the FBI coup against the incoming President Trump is the worst political disaster in American history and would rank as relevant anywhere in the world so far as corruption and high crimes. But the problem with it is people have a hard time believing people could possibly be so vile and evil, especially when they act like James Comey, as an honest Boy Scout. We live in an entertainment culture where we get our inputs of the world from actors and news anchors, so given the typically lazy nature of the average person, they want to believe what Comey and McCabe were saying about their involvement in overthrowing an American president even before he could even take the oath of office.

Jussie Smollett was riding high on the hit show “Empire.” He literally had the world eating out of his hand, so he had no real reason to become a political activist hiring two fellow actors to stage an attack against him outside his Chicago apartment supposedly yelling “This is MAGA” country while they poured bleach on him and threatened to hang him lynching style. As it turned out he made the whole thing up, but not before going on major news outlets such as Disney owned ABC to give interviews in an attempt to build a case against the Trump presidency by suggesting that it was the MAGA hats that were inspiring violence all across the country and needed to be stopped. It looked phony at the time, but over time it was proven to be a complete hoax giving an insight into just how radical and desperate the political left is. If Jussie Smollett would do such a thing with no real political motivation other than trying to get Democrats fired up against President Trump, then what would the FBI do to cover their own tracks of actual crimes committed in trying to put their favor behind Hillary Clinton over President Trump? The answer is pretty ominous and should be a lesson to us all.

We have to consider how a young kid like Jussie Smollett working successfully in the Hollywood culture could have even put together in his mind that doing such a thing was acceptable, or even needed. He had to know the risks, yet he did it anyway. What does that say about the mentality of the people he works with every day, who he thought would be impressed with his antics? Even when things were turning south on him, it took the media a long time to admit that they had jumped the gun on him and should have kept their mouths shut. But in the scheme of things Jussie Smollett is small potatoes, certainly not a national emergency, but an indicator to what extent a person will lie to support their industry held political beliefs.

However, lets take what we know about Hollywood, the media, and people like Jussie Smollett and apply them to the culture of Washington D.C. which is much more motivated to push out challenges to their way of doing things and would even go to breaking the law to protect themselves. Is it so far-fetched to believe that James Comey, Robert Muller and Andrew McCabe would go much further in lying about things to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump? Obviously not because Andrew McCabe was caught doing it. He was on 60 Minutes this past week trying to put a happy face on the crime of the century, but the essence of what he did was attempt an overthrow of a newly American President by making up a complete fiction about him to justify the action. Anybody could say a person was colluding with Russia for instance and force them to defend themselves in a court of law, especially when the accusers control the law as enforcement officers and policy makers.

If we have learned anything from the Smollett case, which isn’t the first time in human history to be sure, but these days with social media serving as a checks and balance against the liberalized media, we have more evidence than ever that these things go on, routinely. We should then figure that Watergate wasn’t the first time a political party tried to get an advantage over another party through some nefarious means. Then it should not come as a surprise that behind the scenes for many years, a deep state of insurgents who have always thought they knew better than the rest of us have functioned from the shadows to overthrow threats to their existence. And what they tried to do in the modern era with President Trump was an ostentatious display of arrogance and criminal conduct. They tried to overthrow the President the same way the CIA might try to instill some dictator in a foreign land to provoke a regime change. Only this happened within our borders, and against American law with great disrespect and arrogance.

At the very least all those involved in this FBI mess should go to jail. They should be prosecuted to such an extent that nobody would ever try such a thing again. It’s not OK to lie about things to shape public opinion and certainly not to overthrow election results. In the case of election tampering it was the smellers who were the fellers, the FBI was caught manipulating an election in the favor of Democrats. The lie was obvious. It is just as much of a lie as the liberal actor Jussie Smollett attempting to invoke a race war to create public sentiment for his side by forcing MAGA supporters to defend a negative that never happened. Maybe the kid should have watched Scooby Doo more as a child because he should have known that once he went on ABC and started running his mouth that people were going to check out his story, and he’d be exposed. But the FBI was so audacious that they thought they could control the story and that even if they were caught, nobody would have the guts to come after them. Which is how McCabe found himself to be in the situation he is in presently. He’s trying to make a martyr of himself, to sound like the lone rebel standing up for the corruption of an election by people who didn’t know as much as he did. But how is that any different from a typical terrorist who thinks that only they understand the way the world should be and are equipped to protect that vision even from people who aren’t as smart as they are. Andrew McCabe made himself into every Bond villain in movie history, the only guy in the world who knew the right thing to do and took it upon himself to take action against the rest of society. Only in this circumstance, it wasn’t just McCabe, but the culture of the FBI itself. And that is why this is such a dangerous, and ominous case.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Why Jimmy Buffett is Bad for America

I was admiring the very nice resort in Orlando, Jimmy Buffett’s Margaritaville Resort when a realization of profound significance dawned on me, everything I was looking at was pure evil and anti-American. What Buffett had done with his beach bum do as little as possible in life drunk on Margaritas was a tremendous contributor to much of the below the line thinking that has mired many Americans into a perpetual state of desiring to be on vacation rather than being passionate about their work and the efforts it takes to move mountains sometimes to accomplish great things in life. I don’t blame Jimmy Buffett for discovering a sentiment in America that caught on with his popular songs about wasting away in Margaritaville, it’s people’s own damn fault, to quote his franchise building song which isn’t that old. The song itself was released in 1977 but it has grown to build a fan base of so-called “Parrot Heads” since which has grown into quite a phenomenon giving Buffett great success. He often does multiple sold out concerts every summer in my home town of Cincinnati and certainly has a special relationship with the Queen City. But I would argue that none of it is good in relation to the philosophy of a nation and the people who populate it.

My relationship with Jimmy Buffett fans has never been a good one. We come from opposite places in the universe. It first became distinguishable to me in the early 1990s while I was a waiter at Frisch’s on Fields Ertle Road just north of Cincinnati, Ohio. At the time I was working three jobs, my waiter job at Frisch’s was the one where I made most of my money that I lived off of and I hustled hard to get as much in tips per night as I could to cover my life needs. My other jobs were working an investment deal me and a few other people were trying to get off the ground that involved many interesting, and important people in City Hall within Cincinnati, and the other was a janitorial job cleaning a local business office complex during third shift. I was in my early twenties and was working very hard, harder than most people would ever want to. But it was by choice, I wanted to do a lot, life was hard and had given me some very bad cards yet I was determined to turn them around. So I worked a lot, didn’t sleep much, and hustled to get through every day.

I learned at Frisch’s to identify different types of people quickly. I could tell what type of tables would pay the best tips and which ones weren’t worth the effort. For instance, there was a smoking section at Frisch’s back then and sometimes I’d be assigned to it. Well, I hated working there because the tips were much less, smokers tended to hold on to their dollar bills to fund their cigarette habits so you ended up working much harder for less money, which didn’t make sense to me. I always liked the nice families of Mason and Deerfield Township who came in with a husband, wife and two kids. They tipped well if you worked hard because they were functioning from a value system that matched my efforts. Its hard work raising kids. It’s hard work to keep a marriage together. It’s hard work to be so busy that treating the family to a night out at Frisch’s is considered a real treasure, so their experience with me came out well, and they tipped better than the average customer. It was those people who I always tried to have at my tables.

Jimmy Buffett was in town and I had a party of six at a big round top who were going to the Buffett concert down I-71 at Riverbend, a popular outdoor venue in Cincinnati. They were already intoxicated slightly when they arrived and looked to be endeavoring to become more so later that evening. For many unsaid reasons we just didn’t like each other. I treated them the way I treated all customers, which was very good. I made good money with my tips so I was doing something right but these six people, three couples dressed in typical “Parrot Head” attire, loose shirt, shorts from J.C. Penney and flip-flops decided they disliked me from the moment they sat down, and I didn’t like them either. Things started off well enough, but as I took their order and they made jokes about not expecting me to work too hard and how it was going to be great to “hang loose” during the concert and maybe smoke some dope our relationship quickly disintegrated. My reaction to their statements was not what they expected, they thought they were a bunch of middleagers who were being cool in front of a young person, but what they were saying was as far from my daily thoughts as a person could get, and they could tell. I tried to hide my disdain for them, but it wasn’t working. They ran me for about an hour getting them lots of stupid little things like extra catchup, and salt even though they already had plenty and when it came time to leave they left me four pennies for a tip intended to be an open insult. As they got to their car outside in their parking lot they lit up a marijuana cigarette and were giving me the finger as they saw me starting to clear their table and noticing the tip. One guy grabbed his crotch and motioned me to come outside to fight, which much to his surprise I did. The moment I opened the front door to come outside he quickly got into the car and off their drove to their concert hoping to avoid a confrontation they started. It was then that I realized that Jimmy Buffett was bad for America. It took me a long time to put together why, but I knew back then that what he was selling was poison for the American mind and those six people were certainly the products of it.

Over the years I have always been a 7 day a week 24 hours a day worker, from then until the present it has been the way I function. I like to work and I am very busy because of it. Even when I’m not working, I’m working so it has always befuddled me why people are so happy for Fridays and so depressed on Mondays. I never understood why people were in such a hurry to do nothing, but that is precisely what Jimmy Buffett has captured in his songs, such as “Hamburger in Paradise” and “It’s Five O’clock Somewhere.” The theme is to do as little as possible and get to the end of the work week so you can get shit faced and just lay around relaxing. When people talk to me through the week, I hate it when they say something to the effect such as, “It’s four days to Friday,” or “Thank God it’s Friday.” The meaning of course is that they will be free of their jobs and their bosses so they can lay around and do nothing all weekend. I think those types of meditations are unhealthy and very unproductive. In the richest country in the world I can’t help but think that if not for people like Jimmy Buffett, our adult class of people might work much harder and better becoming happier with their lives than the poor example provided in a typical Buffett song.

Jimmy Buffett is selling below the line thinking to lazy people, which is obviously very popular. The resort in Orlando is very nice, as are the Margaritaville restaurants around the nation selling the island life experience. But the essence of what they are selling is drunkenness and unproductive lifestyles and it hasn’t been good for American culture. The meaning of life can’t be found wasting away in Margaritaville, its in discovery of new ideas while working hard to uncover them. It’s in accomplishment. It’s in getting your hands dirty on Saturday and Sunday just as much as you did on Monday and Tuesday. But Jimmy Buffett has made laziness mainstream, his songs have let people off the hook of expectation and allowed them to think that being a beach bum is much more important than a corporate executive. And that is just wrong. Ultimately that’s why those customers didn’t like me all those years ago, they knew I was one of those stuffy people they were running from that evening and they didn’t want the reminder during their dinner before a Buffett concert. They didn’t want any above the line reminders. But that should have said everything, and perhaps its time we examine this relationship that Americans have with laziness, made all too possible by the type of loser life that Jimmy Buffett sings about. Maybe its time that all Americas stop wasting away, and get to work.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Public School Teachers are Bad for American Culture

By now we’ve all heard that the Denver teacher’s strike is over and it ended the way they all do, with the school board giving way to more money and projected pay increases. In this case the Denver district has committed to 23 million dollars with an average increase of 11.7% over next year. I hear those numbers and I think its pure insanity, and only strengthens the argument that all labor unions should be illegal when attached to tax payer funded projects, such as the teaching profession, police and fire departments. The international trade unions are communist in their origin and are disgracefully global in their commitments so nothing about the Denver strike is positive for anybody. The district will now have to turn to the tax payers to fund this pay increase only to get essentially what they had before, before the teachers walked off the job and left parents hanging with no baby sitters to watch their kids for a few days. The details of the strike resolution are shown below, but in watching the interviews it reminded me of the real issue centering on public education—are the teachers even worth the money? I would say no, because what the kids are learning in public schools is so detrimental to their adult lives and the nature of America’s capitalist system. In many cases, once children learn to read, they should have alternatives to their educations that do not include low life idiots like these.

My argument about the whole education issue is that what children are learning is mostly worthless. Looking around at the products of public education, the young people of today, I truly believe most of them would be better off in an unlearned condition so that they wouldn’t have to unlearn so much just to function properly in society. At the core of this statement is the complete lack of understanding people have about leadership and how it is produced, and what it does. In public schools students are taught this nonsense that collective efforts are the way to go and this just isn’t true. All people are not equal, some work harder than others, some are smarter than others, some people are just better than others and those efforts can’t be watered down just to preserve the feelings of the less ambitious.

I see the detrimental results every day, people are naturally lazy because they had their natural autonomy robbed from them as children in public education, “stand in this line,” “stand in that line,” “sit down,” “stand up,” “do what you’re told.” Those are the value systems of a lazy society that desires a large centralized government that instructs its people to take orders all their lives for the greater good. But the truth about all life is that uniqueness is what drives culture forward and that we shouldn’t be pursuing sameness in our schools, but uniqueness. Diversity acceptance isn’t enough because the trend behind that effort is to state that equality among all is more important than uniqueness.
Dealing with people all over the world, I have learned one primary thing about them, most are lazy minded and seek always the path of least resistance toward whatever objective we have on the horizon—and they are never in a rush to get there. The entire world has a serious lack of urgency about anything and that is dangerous, as is most obvious in our national debt clock in America where we are now at 22 trillion dollars in the hole. Much of that debt comes from deals like that Denver teacher’s strike. Lazy people who use collective bargaining to get paid too much money just to keep the doors open. Our federal government is filled with lazy, unambitious people who make too much money to underperform in their tasks, and as a society, we are all too lazy to even tackle that problem. We are too lazy to even read about why the teachers shouldn’t be paid that much money. Most parents just want their baby sitter so they can get to their jobs and make their money so they can rush home and do nothing. That is the path of life that most people are on and it all started in public education when the natural autonomy that they had as children was destroyed by teachers like the fat slobs shown in the video above. I wouldn’t want those losers to teach anybody I care about how to walk down a sidewalk, let alone direct them into some philosophy on life. The teachers are not equipped for any kind of complicated thinking.

Years ago, I had teachers angry at me challenge me to teach their classes for a week, as if I’d be scared away from my assumptions. I responded to them, and the superintendent, and the school board personally that I would be very happy to teach their classes, in fact I told them to pick any four classes and put them all together with 90 to 100 students and I would teach it for a week. I know how hard the teaching profession is and I’m not impressed with modern teachers and their skills. I would consider it a nice job that could be mutually beneficial to both the student and the teacher. But I wouldn’t call it hard. Nobody took me up on my offer because they didn’t want to know the truth. I could take any child for one week or any group of children and teach them for one week and I would bet that would be the best week of their lives. And I’d do it for free. There are other ways to make money in life, teaching children to me isn’t one of them. There are many wise people in every community who if given the right autonomy would be happy to pass on their knowledge to the next generation in a school setting and most of them would do it out of the love of their hearts. That is what labor unions stand in the way of, and it disgusts me.

We have allowed our federal response to education to be based on labor union demands, we think that the key factors of education are report cards, performance standards set by the state, and the group interactions of the students learning to function in a compliant environment. But obviously, none of that is true, look at the kids of today. Most of them are losers. Not because of any fault of their own, but because the adults of their life let them down, teachers, parents and government officials. They all have gotten the education question wrong. They focus on the wrong things, they go about everything incorrectly, and they have no understanding of what they are trying to accomplish. Public schools in the vacuum of all that just work to get compliant students into their adulthoods. But what we get are messes of people who spend the rest of their lives lost and empty because their natural autonomy was destroyed during their school days. And for that we’re supposed to spend fortunes on teachers who wear red shirts in support of their communist oriented labor unions—backed by the federal government as a way to take their false assumptions and hang it on the neck of the property owner. The whole system is a joke. We would do better by doing nothing, which says a lot about just how screwed up the entire system truly is.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

The Enemy Ilhan Abdullahi Omar

After the testimony of Eliot Abrams consistent with the line of questioning Ilhan Abdullahi Omar unleashed, it is obvious that the freshman congresswoman is one of the enemies of America that I have been talking about. The problem with Democrats is that they have all the wrong values about what matters, in Omar they only care that she is a woman of color elected into congress and that she is one of the first Muslim’s to be in that body of government. She is one of those cases where a person was born in a region of the world hostile to American influence and she is now serving in our government to effectively change it into something else and everyone is supposed to just leave her alone because she’s a young kid, a woman, and a person of color. Yet after her over the top aggressive stance with Elliot Abrams, she lost all assumptions of goodness, because her actions could only be considered hostile to American positions and declared herself hostile to our Constitution. Whatever oath of office she may have taken obviously has no meaning, her interests are foreign and hostile to North America serving a theocratic “god” and nothing more, and is one we should all consider an enemy based on her behavior in congress thus far.

It is important to understand why enemies of American ideas want so much to push an emphasis on the Muslim religion and on visual conditions such as being women or people of color, because those value systems support the human trajectory of continued regression and rebirth that follows the Vico Cycle that I’m always talking about. In the Giambattista Vico 1725 book New Science the Vico Cycle of the rise and fall of societies was articulated properly as theocracy, aristocracy, democracy then anarchy are the traditional phases that all cultures go through. Understanding that it should be clear to everyone that the religion of Islam is a very theocratic one and by imposing it on the American nation, which traditionally is Christian, the hope is to take the United States back to a theocracy as opposed to a democracy as viewed by the enemies of the American Constitution. As I’ve explained quite emphatically over many essays, American culture is not a democracy but a Republic which has been a very effective hedge against the traditional Vico Cycles and made life in North America unique against the backdrop of global events. Of course this has spawned hatred by jealous rivals, but the results are unmistakable and extremely positive. The Christian religion has moved from being overly theocratic to much more conducive to the invention of capitalism and that is where change agents have the most problem and are trying to establish the Muslim religion as a more theocratic option. Thus, that is why Ilhan Omar gets a free pass to make an ass of herself in what was supposed to be a respectable hearing with a Trump official.

But Omar wasn’t trying to be civil, she is not in place to be part of the American experience, she simply wants to change it to reflect the views of her foreign experience and that is a hostile act by any measure. Accommodating her Muslim faith within a framework of anti-American sentiment is dangerous and downright insulting. She should never be put on any kind of committee assignment given her obvious hostilities against American values. I would have to think hard at any point in history that a congress person of any kind treated witnesses providing testimony so disrespectfully as she did of Elliot Abrams. Omar to my mind has lost the right to ever ask another question of anybody as a congresswoman and she doesn’t get a free pass just because she’s a young, inexperienced, radical woman advocating for a religion that is not traditionally part of the American legal order established at the start of the country. While part of the American experience is that people from anywhere in the world from any background can make a go at success under our capitalist system the fundamental values were Christian in nature. Any oath of office has to have some resemblance to that context otherwise a hostile agent can put their hand on a Bible and cross their fingers behind their back protecting their hostilities quite openly.

The enemy doesn’t get to hide in plain site just because they have physical characteristics that are suddenly off-limits for discussion, such as visual cues society has decided is more important than intellectual ones. Listening to Omar speak to Elliot Abrams it was clear that the only reason she won an election was the belief people from her district had that a woman of color should hold some kind of office, no matter what her actual beliefs were. It is the Obama complex all over again, people were tricked by the Democrats to electing a person of color into the White House just because he was black and we felt as a country that we had to prove we weren’t racist in our natures, which was again entirely an invention of the Democrat Party, to propose the question so that we were all forced to answer it at the voting booth. We weren’t supposed to really care what Obama believed, that he was a socialist who wanted to change America into something Indonesia would feel more comfortable with. The same is going on with this radical congresswoman Omar. We aren’t supposed to care about what she believes, only what color she is and that she is a “she.”

I don’t discriminate, I think everyone should be judged equally based on their conduct and creed, and for Ilhan Abdullahi Omar she is an obvious menace to the American way of life and its time to think of her that way. To call her a villain is an accurate description of her actions obviously on full display in the way she abused her power to make Elliot Abrams have to sit and take abuses in front of a large audience just for the political points it gained her. She wasn’t trying to uncover any kind of truth about the affairs of Venezuela. She simply wanted to attack the Trump administration any way she could so her party could continue to demonize capitalism and the Christian foundations of our nation so that the enemy could change us all into something else. That something else is why they are, and should be referenced as the enemy. As everyone knows in their hearts, evil can come in many forms and packages—if evil always looked ugly, nobody would follow in its wake. Often evil is presented as attractive and hidden behind taboos which give it strength to emerge into poplar culture. And that is clearly the status of Congresswoman Omar, she is evil trying to hide her malice behind concern for America as an imperialist terror she was taught it was in her youth. And to take action in favor of her original countrymen she has managed to get herself elected to congress so that she can dismantle it from within. And that is the danger most obvious in our republic, when democracies are driven not by intelligence, but visual based stupidity, the path to anarchy, then back to theocracy is clear. And once a society moves back to a theocracy, a strong central government can then take over the affairs of all people as individual rights give way to heavenly ones. But it’s always been a trick, and in the entire history of the world only America broke that cycle, for which the enemy of our nation seeks with everything in their power to put us back on.

It’s great that America was there for her as she came here to get away from where she came from.  But she does not have a right to change us into what she ran from.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

The Neccessity of Gun Ownership

The problem with all progressives in government and in society in general is that they are functioning from a false assumption, that history is a linier exercise that progresses day by day, week by week, and year by year from one accomplishment to another for all recorded history. They believe that once a society learns something that it has it forever and that all ideas and concepts progress off one another toward a more enlightened understanding of the world. They are wrong, what in fact does happen is that the human race is continuously climbing and falling and relearning things it long ago forgot and that the reality of progress and understanding is that gunpowder essentially broke the Vico Cycle for which we all followed for many thousands of years and from that invention of a new philosophy took root and America that was born as an opportunity to truly change the course of history. This gave way to the idea of self-rule and the American Constitution which in our present time is a deeply philosophic work that would have never emerged if not for the personal ownership of guns to protect it. That makes Nancy Pelosi’s reaction to President Trump’s national emergency declaration to secure funding for a border wall along the southern states touching Mexico a serious blunder driven from a lack of understanding about the nature of reality. A national emergency declared by some future Democrat inspiring any restriction to the Second Amendment is not comparable to what President Trump did and will not be allowed under Constitutional consideration.

There are a couple of facts that must be addressed in relation to Nancy Pelosi’s progressive position and the general attitude of her insurgents in the current congress, that likely some member of the Trump family or the current cabinet will continue to be president of the United States well into the future, well past President Trump’s eight terms. I don’t see people turning away from the prospects of a good economy to hurt themselves with the progressive notions of social justice wealth redistribution. The American presidency has changed forever under the Trump White House and I just don’t see any Democrats or Republicans understanding at this point what happened. In some cases it will take them decades to figure it out and by then there will be several Trump spawns who will inhabit the White House and will continue the work that has been started, in Making America Great Again. The second aspect of Nancy’s meanderings is that it is the Second Amendment that essentially holds together the concept of law and order created by the American Constitution. It is rather funny that Democrats spend so much time with their counter-culture fantasies of breaking and even ignoring laws then they think that if they were in power, that people would automatically follow their laws. Sorry folks, it doesn’t work that way. If Nancy’s clan ever managed to put restrictions on the Second Amendment those laws would be ignored because they are not based on Constitutional principles and would be therefor worthless.

Part of the beauty of gun ownership is that it is directly responsible for a period of law and order in the United States that has been very successful and allowed a culture to flourish under the natural autonomy of its citizens. The stability of the law under the American Constitution is unique in the world and is largely responsible for the success of our economy over a long period of time. It wasn’t that long ago that Japan was an enemy of the United States functioning under a tyrannical emperor, or the Soviet Union was openly communist, Iran was free and taken over by communism as was Cuba. France was actually a territory of the conquerors in Germany. How many times have the countries of Europe, Asia and Africa been invaded and reinvented by rival factions always changing the nature of their law and order? Even in South Africa consider the changes to their society under the communist Nelson Mandela. Most places in the world have been around for a long time as societies, but they have not had stable governments to carry from one generation to the next ideas and understandings built on philosophy that lasted well into the future essentially because their people could not protect their laws and order from invaders, either from outside their countries or from within. That is not the case in America. With more guns than people it is impossible for some insurgent to take over mass population centers in America and to therefor eradicate Constitutional concepts from the minds of our population.

Losing gun rights in America just isn’t permissible under any conditions because it is the fundamentals of gun ownership which preserves the nature and intent of the American Constitution. Gun ownership is one of the most wonderful aspects of our culture because it has allowed the philosophy of good law to provide rights to individuals in ways that has never occurred before in history and allowed for a true break from the grasp of the Vico Cycle. So gun confiscation is simply not an option under some future Democrat president or any other political attempt to remove them from the general population. Without gun ownership there is no law. So giving them up will never happen. If such a proposal were actually made, breaking that law would become quite fashionable and if troops were sent home to home to grab them, there would be open gun battles to stop the incursion. Guns trump laws of a progressive nature because the foundation document of the original Constitution understood the need for the protection of individual liberty.

When gun laws are proposed what is being asked or demanded is an expansion of federal powers over the natures of individual citizens, which is a loss of legal concept which protects the very idea of American laws. The way many police react to CCW holders or homeowners known to have many guns on their property is completely beyond the scope of their business and in violation of the nature of American law, hedging dangerously close to a police state mentality where government has more power than individuals. The nature of the American Constitution is to limit the powers of government and when Nancy’s gang of lunatics propose even offhanded the idea of Second Amendment restrictions, they are championing efforts at federal expansion of rights over the rights of individuals citizens which is not a permissible concept.

Guns and their ownership have been proposed by power grabbers as being part of a backwards way of thinking by the uneducated and stupid. The way that Democrats speak about gun shows and NRA supporters is actually quite an insult. The truth is quite the opposite, gun ownership is part of a sophisticated concept of modern legal understanding and enforcement and is directly linked to the wealth of our nation. Without gun ownership it is unlikely that the American Constitution would have lasted for 50 years let alone more than 200. And it is also unlikely that America would be as wealthy as it is, because wealth is a creation of individual free people, not the nations themselves. And that is not a negotiable position, no nation is permitted to make laws that power themselves, so therefore no national emergency will ever supersede the need for gun ownership and the philosophic advancement that they provide to a society of individuals.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

When Fighting Law Enforcement Becomes Neccessary

No matter how you slice it, Andrew McCabe is a dirty rotten scum bag as one of the top insurgents within the F.B.I. who attempted to overthrow the election of President Trump by participating in the 25th Amendment discussion to put a Constitutional end to the new presidency. I think it is also astonishingly arrogant that he admitted this detail in a new tell all book which further demonstrates the level of arrogance that we were all dealing with top officials in the intelligence community. I am proud to say that I was one of the first people in the country to call out McCabe as such a menace well before the F.B.I. found itself in the middle of a political insurrection that it joined completely on their own. And knowing that, I can say with certainty that I am willing to use the First and Second Amendment to stop them from removing my president. That’s where I am these days and why many of my discussions in these essays are leaning more toward legal arguments than just buoyant opinion. After the obvious harassment of Roger Stone and many others, I made the decision that my situation would be different and I’m explaining the legal argument ahead of time, before losers like McCabe stop the information flow as a law enforcement weapon to destroy individual liberty under tenuous conditions.

Sure Andy McCabe was fired from the F.B.I. But how many like him are still there? I am not willing to say as Sean Hannity has that people like this are unique and that all the F.B.I. agents and officers of the D.O.J. are any different. I would say that McCabe represents the general opinion of such people and that most government employees are a potential menace by the nature of their positions and culture for which they evolve. I think we know plenty about how the F.B.I. operated during the opening months of the Trump presidency, we know more about the behavior of their antics than we do about things we’ve studied for a long time, such as the moon and Mars. The evidence that we have by way of text messages just from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok tell us all we need to know, and they were working directly for Andy McCabe and James Comey. These people were tyrants who thought they knew better than we did about who and what should be in the White House and they actively plotted to remove him from office—against the wishes of those who put him there.

I feel quite justified to speak openly about using violence against these people to preserve our Constitutional Republic going forward, because for one, its our obligation as citizens of the United States and two it’s the right thing to do when abuses of power are obvious. As I write this President Trump is working out the details to declare a national emergency to build the border wall shielding America from Mexican crime elements and Nancy Pelosi wasn’t happy about it. She stated that when a Democrat was president in the future then Trump was opening up the possibility to confiscate guns as a “national emergency.” See, that’s how these people think and if such a time does come to pass, that’s when there will be blood in the streets, because I can just say from my perspective, that ain’t happenin.’ The McCabes and Pelosis of the world can be viewed only one way by our own Constitution, as domestic enemies and we are obliged to encounter them and destroy them to preserve our way of life as Americans.

Electing President Trump was part of that Constitutional path to remove such people from the public domain and so far, it has worked. President Trump has done a great job as president. He has certainly done what I wanted him to do. But the arrogance of people like McCabe assumes that he knows more than me as a voter and that he felt perfectly justified to take action against me to remove my president from office by any means available to him and the F.B.I. That’s where this whole thing goes off the rails because the government has never been in charge. I’m in charge of my own life and so are you dear reader. And if Trump has not been so willing to stand in the pocket and take such a beating, I would contend that there would already be a bloody civil war going on right now. Nancy and her domestic enemies won’t be taking any guns under a national emergency. A fight much bigger than anything they can image will happen at that point and things will be very messy. I have said it many times, they are very lucky that Trump was elected president because in many ways it saved them from themselves. I remember the Election of 2016 very well and what I was willing then to do. With Trump becoming president it restored in me some sense of legal means to get the country back on track. But I am keenly aware that there are a lot of people like Andy McCabe functioning in government right now, and likely the only language they will ever listen to is force, and I am ready to go there if need be.

Considering all that think now of the Robert Mueller investigation and all the people who have suffered around the President directly, like General Flynn, and Paul Manafort who is currently sitting in jail just because he was a campaign manager for Trump. Sure, he broke some laws in other endeavors which were looked into because of his relationship to Trump, and that’s why he’s in jail but if he had not been involved with Trump he would be a free man to this day. He’s cleaner legally than McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Comey and many others. And the entire investigation which cost many millions of dollars and destroyed so many lives supposedly for national security was all for nothing, essentially to fulfil an original strategy by McCabe and his associates to overthrow an American president with the 25th Amendment by running him out of office under legal pressure. Just that last sentence should send shock waves through every American. If they would try such a thing with Trump, they’d do it to any of us. So why go peacefully when they come to your door with guns pulled at 5 AM in the morning? Why not just engage them as hostiles right then and there because we’ve seen what they are willing to do, even to an elected office holder of the Executive Branch.

I am personally happy to see the Constitution working, and am glad that so far such fighting has not been needed. The system is working. But it’s the intent that concerns me and why I am more than ever looking toward the Constitution and the Founding Documents as my bases for interacting with such criminal conduct among what should be trusted public employees who are obviously corrupted beyond repair. But it would not surprise me before its all said and done that actual violence may be needed to preserve our nation and that is coming from the same mind that knew Andy McCabe was dirty well before the media caught on with all these self-admissions. I hope not, but it would not surprise me in the least.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

The Invasion

There’s no other way to put it, from the very beginning it was an invasion of American soil by enemies of the Constitution and we allowed it to go on far too long. No sane person could say otherwise. The idea that people from other countries should be able to pour into the United States openly and without passports or any kind of identification is insane unless the perspective is viewed from the position of an enemy. Democrats clearly have been willing to play their part as a political party that can’t compete in the realm of debate and must rely constantly on new membership to stay in the game. For them they must have illegal immigration to stay relevant because they have essentially turned their backs on American ideas of ownership and responsibility to advance their causes. That is why anything they propose, such as the current bill in congress to eliminate the sales of private gun transactions, or extended restrictions on gun show loopholes should be considered as a hostile act by a foreign power, because all Democrats by their very affiliation have sided with the anti-Constitutional forces seeking from outside the United States to attack the foundations of freedom which prevent their open molestation of our continental resources.

The invasion was planned long ago, likely before World War II ever started. The Great Depression certainly was a direct result of the progressive invasion where government was seeking to put the clamps on the Roaring 20s open capitalism which flourished after World War I. So this isn’t a new thing but when we talk about making America Great Again, we are talking about an American sovereignty that wasn’t present before these events. We aren’t talking about racism, women’s rights, and immigration policies—these were all conditions that were on path to improvement because of the American Constitution. Meaning, they would have happened regardless of any progressive influence. The Civil War was fought by Republicans to free people of color and the women were on the same trajectory to vote. Democrats didn’t make those things happen, the American Constitution did. The world didn’t pay much attention until two world wars later the economic powerhouse that American capitalism produced showed that the United States was on a path to outpace the rest of the world in innovation, demographic freedoms, and individualized wealth, and the world couldn’t have that.

That’s when it was decided by enemies of the United States Constitution that the very foundation of America had to be scrutinized and challenged. Those enemies sought to take over American companies and institutions in an effort to deface the foundation documents which made so many good things happen. They sought to take over our media, they took over our public schools and embedded themselves in both our political parties with deep tentacles into the lobbying community to fund the effort. And that has now been going on for many decades and was and is currently an invasion—not with guns, but of voting power. The idea of flooding the American border with illegal immigration was to destroy the sovereignty of America and ultimately the Constitution of the United States, and we should all consider that an extreme violation of our good natures.

For every person who now supports the legalization of drugs and other socially disastrous practices it’s not cool to be a loser, and that is precisely what forces against America want, they want the people of America dumb, drunk, stoned and disasters of the human condition because it makes for an easy conquest. They want corrupt lawyers making huge sums of money off Americans divorcing each other over reckless sex antics and other unfocused adult pursuits rather than learning the words and meanings of the American Constitution so they can defend it under assault. The enemies of America want the citizens of the United States to bend over backwards for global approval and a surrender of sovereign values rather than defending themselves from the inevitable tyranny of jealous hostiles from around the world wanting to topple the most successful country in the world.

Anybody who is for open borders, unregulated socialist instruction in our public schools, and evolving legal understandings of the Constitution itself is an enemy of America and is taking part in the invasion, and they need to be dealt with. We have played nice with them for decades and gave them the benefit of the doubt, but they have shown themselves to be what they are, part of the invasion force that has intended to destroy our way of life and impose on us hostile intents from across both oceans—and they are happy about it. None of this was by accident, it was purposeful, and malicious and has been as cold as their proposals to destroy human life in the womb of a mother, and to push mothers out into the world under the banner of human rights just to have the ill intent to destroy the American family so that future bold specimens of freedom fighters defending the Constitution would not even be born, or conceived. The target of these attacks from day one of the invasion was the American family and the mothers who stood at the front of them. They didn’t want to just destroy them, but the children who would never be born.

Viewed in these ways the invasion is every bit as maniacal as any in history, as when Hitler bombed London, or took over Paris. The invasion is as audacious as anything history has ever presented but because it did not come with guns, but with policies and voting numbers, they managed to disguise their intentions and to hide their military maneuvers behind political correction. We blush at even suggesting that such an invasion is even happening because it’s not cool or socially mandated to even speak in such ways. Yet it has been happening before our very eyes. The borders are being invaded, our debt is up to $22 trillion and the global powers who have launched these efforts are wringing their hands together hoping that their plans will hold, that President Trump’s economy won’t turn the tables and that Americans won’t catch onto the nature of the invasion until it’s too late.

Part of the plan was to mire Americans in chaos so that they didn’t take the time to even read the Constitution and understand it, let alone defend it with their very lives. Most Americans today are so distracted by really stupid concerns that they don’t even see the invading forces. They are too drunk and stoned to care, which was part of the plot and it should sicken everyone to the conditions of their countrymen. This is the fight of the millennia and most are too illiterate to even see it. But that doesn’t take away the reality. Truth doesn’t change just because millions of losers believe something to the contrary. This invasion is happening, and the targets are not men, women, minorities or even sexual preferences, they are the protections provided by the American Constitution for the benefit not just of Americans, but to those in the world with no hope but our bright lights and sharp ideas for which they gaze and yearn for. The enemies of America want that light to go out, and its up to us to not let that happen.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.