Tag: education funding

The Liberal Loon Nasim Najafi Aghdam: Why all PETA activists are just a few bad experiences away from mass murder

So what happened to the Urmia, Iranian immigrant Nasim Najafi Aghdam to cause her to shoot up the YouTube headquarters just south of San Francisco—at the northern tip of Silicone Valley? In a bizarre attack on the Google led company she shot four innocent people before apparently killing herself thus ending a bizarre life of liberal crusades practicing veganism and the religious practices of Baha’I, for which her family reportedly fled Iran to practice spending roughly a year in Turkey two decades prior. She legally bought the gun she used, her family warned police who had spoken to her just 11 hours prior to the shooting and nothing set police off to look into Aghadam’s actions any further. Aghdam also didn’t know any of the YouTube employees—she just randomly selected them, so what gun law, or law of any kind could have helped the situation? What might we say was the cause and corrective action of this particular shooting?

The first thing I’d say about Nasim Najafi Aghdam is that she was obviously suffering from mental health issues, the way a lot of liberals currently are. The reason is that their view of the world is not conducive to what is actually happening. As a PETA activist Nghdam was crusading against the nature of life itself, where those at the top of the food chain eat those under them. To any rational person such an arrangement is insane and if the question of why god would ever design such an existence is legitimately asked, only insanity can begin to provide an answer. Most of us just accept that we are the superior life form and that if we want to eat another animal, then we do so. But to ask the question as to why, or to go so far to believe that one must be a crusader against the very nature of life to the extent that Aghdam was, then mental instability is the path such people usually find themselves on.

To satisfy the illusion of working against such a system of living, where people eat those cute little animals that were seen in Aghdam’s YouTube videos, the young liberal activist had to convince herself that the work she was doing through her art had merit. So using the First Amendment Aghdam made a series of bizarre videos dedicated to her 10,000 YouTube subscribers which paid her a little money and gave her a taste of American life. But the moment that was disrupted with a policy change her natural liberal tendencies formed in her home country of Iran clashed with the merits of American capitalism where everywhere she looked she could only see a slow killing evil—which is common to liberal people who hate capitalism—she felt her only option was to attack the company that brought her so much grief, which so happened to be the company that provided her with the vehicle of expression to begin with.

Of course, once the media learned that Nasim Najafi Aghdam was one of their target demographic groups—she was a foreigner from the enemy country of Iran, she was a young female, and she was a PETA activist, the story of her attempted murders jumped right off the front page within 24 hours. YouTube as a company touches most people in the world these days, so the public interest in the story was very great, but the story was pulled anyway because the gun control debate couldn’t be advanced otherwise. People like Aghdam face an American culture with only the objective of changing it and once they realize that they can’t they get frustrated and sometimes become very violent. The media on their part do not understand why it isn’t white NRA members who are attacking these places and shooting people up—because they don’t understand the essential meaning behind the NRA and the people who make up their membership. Yet it is the typical American heritage to use the gun to hunt for one’s own sustenance who fled European oppression, much the way Aghdam did in Iran. Only one side was in harmony with existence and the other was against it—trying to change that reality with activism.

The average PETA activist who takes off their cloths and puts themselves in cages in public are not that far away from the kind of murderous activity that Aghdam indulged in. Once they put animals at the same level of human beings and protest that all life is equal they are going against the laws of the entire universe and that can be very frustrating for them. The essential pitfalls of the typical liberal is that they fight for equality by trying to repress development, intellectual and scientific. That is the core argument behind all climate science and even religions that hope to deny science to support their ancient texts. Both approaches are seeking to bend reality to the desires of their observations and when those don’t align, mental instability is often the result. Not being in accord with life is to stand against the trajectory of its experience, and liberals are often guilty of that generality. Not all of them go so far as Aghdam did, but in her case she had not been in America long enough to understand how the country works at the epistemological level. She was using the concept of American capitalism provided by YouTube to communicate her radical ideas but the moment she lost that device, she couldn’t see any other way out but to commit murder.

Imagine Aghdam going to the target range learning to use her Smith & Wesson 9 mm knowing that she intended to use it to kill employees at YouTube, and speaking calmly to the police when they found her asleep in her car on her way to commit the murders—knowing that once she went that far that she would never have a normal life again, that she’d either be killed or put in jail for the rest of her life—yet her activism drove her on toward a level of radicalism that clearly crossed the line. Her desire to change the world superseded her desire to live within the context of existence.

Most conservatives that I know, particularly those who are in the NRA would never take such a radical step because they like life too much. They enjoy hunting, watching football games on Saturdays and Sundays while grilling out in the backyard. They by the nature of their values are aligned with existence, that we have to eat to live and that something has to die so we can continue on, and they find ways to deal with that universal conundrum—what makes us so special to be at the top of the food chain and thus able to decide what lives and dies? Such discussions are at the heart of the American experience and lots of people come to the United States so they can participate in that relationship. But for those like the liberal Aghdam, they don’t accept the basic concept of American life, so how can they assimilate to it? It is quite clear that a certain percentage of liberals are just crazy by the nature of their opposition to universal law. Not all of them kill people to bend those laws toward an equality that they dream might exist if only this happened or that happened. But I would say that all liberals who are activists against basic realities are prone to such meltdowns and should be considered dangerous. Any of them could be one disappointing event away from mass murder just because they don’t have any other way of interacting with the world except in protests and threats—and when those things don’t work, they have only murder to fall back on.

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

Why I am Thankful for Microsoft Office: Watching the tech company climb to a value of a trillion dollars

I have to say something about the news that Microsoft looks to be headed to becoming the first company to capture the worth of a trillion dollars. I’m not crazy that a lot of the people who run some of these big companies that I like so much, companies like Apple, Space X, Microsoft, Amazon, and Disney are run by liberal-minded people. However, what they have all done, in earnest is expand the power of the human being in magnificent new ways. Recently while I was reviewing the improvements of the Disney hotel complex at the Contemporary I felt Walt Disney would have been very proud of this particular line of steps marching up into our next future phase. What they did at the Disney Contemporary Hotel is to me nothing short of jaw dropping. It is the hint of where all this great technology could take every single person on the face of plant earth. Sitting in the hotel lobby as the monorail comes and goes to the various Disney Parks while working on laptops running Microsoft Office 365 is a powerful combination of the best human beings have the potential to do in wealth creation and pondering the vast resources available to the human imagination. As the Contemporary re-opened displaying all its greatness at Disney World it seemed to me appropriate to take a moment to thank Microsoft for their contribution to this wonderful world. You can appreciate Microsoft from anywhere in the world—but combining the effective use of their Office software while utilizing vacation time in what is arguably Disney World’s best vacation offering really elevates the optimism that is available to the potential that is coming.

While I respect deeply the origins of the United States as a philosophic opportunity to create a free enterprise system to unleash all these great companies, the challenge of tomorrow will be ti convince the rest of plant earth to follow the American lead. Much the way Disney World under the leadership of Walt Disney took a bunch of raw swampy land in central Florida and turned it into all the beautiful wonders that surround the Contemporary Hotel at the Disney World complex, I think the same opportunities are there for the entire earth and the next great frontiers will be frequent visits into space—and not just within our solar system, but well beyond. The opportunity for much of that rapid expansion in human development comes from Microsoft and how much potential they have freed from human beings. I can say quite confidently that I use Microsoft Office more than most people anywhere in this world, at any income level. I use some program from Microsoft Office every single day of a week, month, and year. Most days I use them for many hours, and I use that program on multiple devices. I am currently very happy with the Microsoft use of Cloud technology because it makes my iPhone such a powerful companion in the world of business.

When Microsoft says “we have more power at our fingertips than entire generations that came before us,” they aren’t kidding. It’s a very true statement and that power has led to great wealth creation for which that trillion dollars of value seems so high, I can easily see a day when earth will become a world of trillionaires and many lives will be greatly improved because of it. Being a millionaire won’t be such a rare thing anymore as it will become the new “middle class” and billionaires won’t be such an anomaly. It will take that to move humanity into space, and those first steps essentially start with Microsoft. I deal with people all over the world every day from several time zones and what we all share is communication through Microsoft Office. Every country has their own version of it that easily translates several languages into easily comprehensive data sharing which is the most ominous task of translation. Being able to put so many cultures with equal opportunities at information exchange has done more for wealth creation than any gold rush or oil discovery has previously.

Over the weekend I had several discussions with people about the tendency of so many children these days to have hyperactive disorders, for which I take offense. I don’t think that hyperactivity as defined by today’s public education institutions is correct. I think children are adapting to the world coming at them in a rapid way, so the worse thing that could happen would be to put them on drugs to level them out to the average displayed in classroom analysis. Being hyperactive is a gift, not a detriment. Anybody who looked at my life and my daily rituals would think that I have various hyperactive disorders, but of course that would be wrong. Just because I tend to work 12 to 15 hours of a day, I play a lot of video games, write books, am very active in politics and I still give my family unlimited amounts of my time—I watch a lot of entertainment, read a lot of books and I don’t really ever feel tired–that isn’t a bad thing. I think humans are evolving into such active creatures because for the first time in human history the means of communicating all their active thoughts are available to them at a speed that encourages more of that behavior. The kids on their phones all the time, or who play multiplayer games online while they are doing their homework and talking to other kids on social media platforms are learning to process information at the speed of future business. That world of tomorrow that is on display at the Disney Parks especially from the vantage point of the Contemporary Hotel is what the rest of the world could look like as more people use their natural inclinations to launch thoughts and dreams into our economies. Microsoft Office is the best mechanism for unleashing that vast power into the world.

I was working on a patent recently and was very surprised that while going though the final steps with the Patent Office Examiner in Washington D.C. that they still largely share information there with a fax machine. My comment to the examiner and the several lawyers on the phone was that it was no wonder it took government so long to do anything—because the speed of business was being artificially regulated to the limits of prior technology. The same could be said in dealing with companies who don’t all have the most updated versions of Microsoft Office. I am running Office 16 most of the time and Office 365 all other times across many different computers and it gets frustrating to deal with companies that aren’t yet doing so, because it slows everything down. Yet the tools are there for everyone and people come to them at their own pace. It’s not the task of the fastest to slow down to the slowest, it’s the other way around, and it is due to that opportunity why Microsoft is knocking on the door to becoming a trillion-dollar company.

More speed and more leisure time is the wave of the future. A 40-hour work week isn’t necessarily the most efficient way to make money. It is kind of the rule of the day, of the 20th Century, but certainly not of the 21st Century. I work close to 80 hours a week, but I also have entertainment and personal growth mixed into my work so that everything gets integrated in a healthy way, and nothing helps my life more than Microsoft Office achieve so many wonderful things in a day. To best see that potential a trip to Disney World at the Contemporary Hotel while taking a working vacation, meaning you still talk to all the people you need to while you are in line for Space Mountain in the World of Tomorrow at Disney World is still possible. Or that you can put together a Power Point from the hotel while getting ready for a big meeting at the convention center at the Contemporary to make a pitch to participants who want to hear what you have to say about something—and while you wait for the big moment you get on the monorail and go over to Epcot and experience the best the world has to offer for lunch while thinking of all the great inventions that are coming to the human race on display there. Working and playing become more intertwined unleashing vast potential through imagination which gets captured best on the various Microsoft Office platforms. There really aren’t any excuses these days for not achieving something, because the means to all creativity is literally at our fingertips, and the effect is now obvious to all. There is no going back at this point, and I think that’s wonderful. I enjoy every day of my life and Microsoft Office is a big part of that enjoyment. I love them as a company and I continue to look forward to each new thing that they do. They have certainly made life very exciting by taking away the limits that used to slow things down so much.

Rich Hoffman

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

Mexico Doesn’t Have a Good Heritage: The history of why we need a border wall

It is always good to know what we are dealing with and all the factors which helped shape circumstances. As President Trump bit by bit builds his wall which Mexico will pay for in drug confiscation alone, by the time its completed the pressure is really increasing on the forces which are behind the open border movement. A group called M.A.M.O.N. (Monitor Against Mexicans Over Nationwide) made a satirical fantasy sci-fi short film that explores with black humor and consequences of Donald Trump´s plan of banning immigration and building an enormous wall on the Mexico – US border. As a Trump supporter I thought it was pretty funny to see how “they” (Mexicans) see him and how they see themselves—as Mexicans. They obviously don’t know their history, but they also aren’t at fault being born in such a bad place as Mexico. They had no control over that part of their lives, and nobody could blame them from wanting to come into the United States to have some kind of life. But by doing it illegally, and assuming that they could do so, and that they would be operating on Donald Trump as a surgeon is pretty ridiculous, which is the premise for this short 5-minute short film.

Obviously, there are some major problems with the story, for instance, if Donald Trump was on the operating table having open heart surgery performed on him by an illegal alien who was deported during his surgery, then how could the president have been in the giant robot Donald Trump who was attacking all the illegals after they were deported. And how did the chicken Quetzalcoatl blow up the giant robot if we saw feathers from its destruction in the previous scene? It’s still pretty funny and well done even with those obvious little problems. I think the discrepancies tell us more than their complaint about Trump. One thing that the filmmakers did do a good job of was capturing the chaotic nature of what the Mexican people have always been. Once you understand the origin of Mexico and what the open border people are really after, then much more clarity is brought to this subject.

Personally, speaking I think the most moral thing that we could do as Americans for Mexico is to simply make it one of the next states within America. That would solve many problems and give the people of Mexico a chance at a much better life. Essentially when the Spanish took over Mexico from the conquered Mayans and Aztec people and integrated them into their society, but then attempted their own kind of revolution for independence, they were soundly defeated by Sam Houston and many others which caused the borders to be what they are today. If you know the great story of Kit Carson and his friend John Fremont who were sent by President Polk to win the land of California away from the Mexican government, it is obvious that what is happening now is revenge from the forces of Europe who are still upset at the assumption Americans had for Manifest Destiny. Fremont would eventually become the first Republican senator for California as he and Kit Carson united the territory to rise up against the Mexican forces with a series of small skirmishes all across New Mexico, Arizona and California by uniting American farmers to stand up for their work and fight back against the forces of oppression which refused them ownership of their hard work. These were good people in California who fought the Mexicans and made a state out of that former Mexican territory. Kit Carson and John Fremont would eventually fight in the Civil War on the side of the Union as they were both abolitionists who endeavored to keep slavery out of the West.

The way that John Fremont specifically used the farmers of California as members of a future army to repel Mexican forces is obviously what people who want to erase those chapters of successful American history are trying to do in present day illegal immigration politics. They hope to use illegal immigrants to undo American Manifest Destiny and to undo all the gains made in North America through wars legitimately won. When I say legitimately, I mean to say that Mexico was a defeated nation even before it formed—and the results are what present day Mexico is, a miss mash of cultures all still rooted in either the collectivism of Europe or the collectivism of the former Mayan and Aztec cultures. They did not have among them people of the kind of caliber Kit Carson and John Fremont were, or even President Polk for that matter. America was a nation of laws, and of philosophy. For as much as modern American haters take up the plight of the black slaves from Africa, the Indians, or the Mexicans, without people like Polk, Fremont, and Carson the American West would have never happened and slavery would have likely remained in America as it was a practice known throughout the world. The Indians had been living in North America as they were refugees from all over the world at the time—particularly from China and they weren’t able to do anything with the resources of the nation before the Americans arrived. Just as many today point at the wealth of California, which became the 5th largest economy in the world and call it looted wealth. In all truth none of those previous cultures knew what to do with the wealth they were living on. They had no means of taking the natural resources of America and turning them into valuable goods to trade with the rest of the world. If left to their own, North America would look like present day Mexico, a mess of different cultures stumbling calling itself a country when in reality it is just a big gang of organized crime that is less sophisticated than what it was before Santa Anna tried to maintain land north of the Rio Grande for Mexico.

You can’t go back into history and undo the things you don’t like, which is what the open borders advocates are trying to do today. Westward expansion and the Manifest Destiny of American civilization into the Rocky Mountains and into California was a good moral thing to have happened. The Americans didn’t steal anything from the Mexican government. If not for the Spanish there would not have been a Mexico, and if not for the Spanish the Aztecs and Maya might have remained as the rulers of Central America. The blacks brought in for slavery might have stayed in Africa only to become today’s socialists and Marxist revolutionaries which currently have the economy of a kid’s lemonade stand. The freed slaves in America became the pacesetters for the rest of the world where abolition of the slavery practice was born. And no Indian or Mexican would have been able to unlock the great potential of California because they were not a free people able to use their intellect to take something out of the ground and do something big with it. They knew how to survive as tribes of nomads, and that was all.

Even in the modern sense when Mexicans try to assume that they are equal to the efforts of the American people their arguments fall short in the jokes they make about their own confusing existence. They really think that they have rights to the ownership of American labor, to what we’ve done in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas because the real history is just too painful for them to understand. They were always a defeated people, whether they come from the heritage of the Aztec or the Spanish, both sides were up to no good and were blood thirsty cultures intent on domination. Lucky for the world good people like Kit Carson and John Fremont were pathfinding through the American West and putting that vast territory to good use because the morality of Westward Expansion put a light to the world of what freedom could look like, in why slavery should have been abolished, and instead of worshipping foolish gods like Quetzalcoatl mankind in America could actually do something productive and advance as a civilization. You didn’t see Indians building skyscrapers, railroads and using gold to advance society. You certainly didn’t see Mexicans doing anything with their land. They currently sit on some of the greatest resources in the world yet most of their people are struggling with poverty—because they don’t think correctly about the world around them. And that makes all the difference—and is why Trump’s border wall is needed so much. It is important to show the world the definition of values which became America instead of letting the chaos of multiculturalism blur the lines of morality for all to see and witness.

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

The Salk Institute: Declining new members at the country club of the everlasting

GE stock is tanking, as of this writing it is hovering just about the $13 dollar per share mark, which is embarrassing for one of America’s largest and most successful companies. But GE’s problems in a lot of way reflect America’s problems. GE as a legacy company controlled by labor unions for far too long, that used their sheer size to dominate their competition, pay their people too much and the people no longer working there are still on the payroll in the form of a pension. Since we are in a global economy and GE’s business model was formed in the years after the Korean War where really only America was making things the world wanted from appliances to avionics, GE could afford to be sloppy. The previous GE CEO Jeffery Immelt hedged the problems further into the future by befriending the Obama administration which was really the only move he had. The latest CEO, John Flannery is trying to straighten things out at the company now that it has a lot of divisions that are no longer competitive in the world, and that reality has contributed largely to the massive sell-offs of the stock. GE still does great things in the manufacturing world, but so does a lot of other companies, and so there isn’t any way to pay for all those top-heavy costs.

America too is at the same place. Our national debt is over $21 trillion. Trump’s plan to deal with it is to grow the economy by shutting off the rest of the world that is choking off American manufacturing while our government works out the problem of the legacy costs which is tying up most of the cash the United States has to work with through taxation. What America must deal with is ending the socialist program Social Security and solve the health care riddle by simply ending sickness. America cannot afford to have sick people who die and take their skills to the grave any longer. A sign of things to come can be seen in the Parkland radicals going after gun control in the wake of the tragic shooting there during February. If they are the future America won’t survive anyway. Not even with the promise of artificial intelligence will we survive. Most of the adults working today will need to work for at least another 100 to 200 years to retain the intellectual information they’ve acquire for the future economy which will be different. That is why the good people at the Salk Institute are working on ways to heal people through gene editing which has the real potential to cure cancer and many other human diseases, including old age. That is the key to not only solving America’s healthcare problems, but also the legacy burdens of socialist mistakes like Social Security. GE may have to break itself up or maybe even go out of business, but America can’t do that so solutions to the problem of legacy costs is the only answer.

I’ve been saying for a long time that regenerative medicine was the future of the medical profession. Why get old if you can just turn it off at the level of our DNA. And why should people even get sick at all? All of human development starts with the cell and ends with the cell. When we are born we grow everything we are ever going to need and the process of aging gradually takes away everything we acquire as children—which is a pretty stupid concept if you think about it. I am quite convinced that as we trace society back to a period well before the pyramids were built-in Egypt, well before Greek society—there was a period where humans lived a long time by either natural are artificial means and we lost that trait due to a philosophic introduction of ideas either through religion, or warfare that ended the practice, and we are still functioning from that depleted state. Noah lived over 900 years, so what happened and why to reduce our lives down to a mere 80 years? And if we could change it, should we?

My argument is of course. There is no profit in death. If the afterlife really wants new members at the country club of the everlasting then someone can come to the next board meeting and tell us, otherwise the human species led by the United States needs to dump Social Security with the trade-off of gene editing and other forms of regenerative medicine and to allow economies to expand around the world. As artificial intelligence contributes more and more to our rapid economic expansion since jobs are being invented quicker than humans can breed and meet those new jobs, we will be dealing with a new dynamic in work place maintenance. Humans essentially need to start thinking of themselves as machines which occasionally need to be repaired. What they have that is superior to the machines of our invention is the intellectual knowledge gained from lifetimes of experience. That is where everything is headed, it’s just a matter of admitting as much to ourselves.

The two things that hold us back from making the needed adjustments are religion and legacy habit. Like GE who is so big that so many employees have built their lives around outrageous pay packages and a company too big to move quickly on their feet to meet market demands, America is moving too slow to meet all the challenges of tomorrow and unfortunately the rest of the world is following our lead. The Chinese don’t do anything on their own without copying western civilization, so even with their rapid economy they aren’t exactly breaking any molds with new ideas. They just copy off the west and beat us to solutions because they have a communist system that doesn’t mind losing a few lives here and there to develop ideas. They make their livings with cheap knock-offs stolen from American patents. America is still the leader of everything and in the realm of science and biology it is companies like the Salk Institute who are paving the way for solutions tomorrow. It is up to our art and essential philosophy to structure our society in such a way to meet those challenges.

The advancements in just five years since I first started talking about these types of things has been astonishing. It has even exceeded my expectations and five years from now, while President Trump will likely still be in office, there will be a chance to make these new regenerative sciences mainstream. I think cures for cancer, extended life, and a cure for most diseases will be common practice instead of the drugs that are provided by pharmaceutical companies. They will soon be as primitive as a western frontier settler taking a swig of whiskey to solve the effects of the common cold. Everyone in the world should have access in the near future to a perfectly healthy 35-year-old body for the rest of time—however long time goes.

Obviously, earth isn’t big enough for all this activity—that is because we are meant to move into space as a human species. We are meant to work on the moon, Mars, and moons of Jupiter and Saturn and to move to and from the earth frequently. But humans are needed to settle the solar system and to harness the power of it to take those next great leaps of thoughtful development. I would argue that we are not meant to die a slow death like GE is currently undergoing because it has reached the top of its market and must now retract just to survive. We have the potential to reinvent ourselves for a new future that is not chained to the legacy mistakes of the past—and for everyone, a real chance at true equality. Nobody has to be old, nobody has to be sick and nobody would have to fight over the fledgling opportunities of a tomorrow that may never come, because tomorrow will always come. And humans can take that next step into an adventure of thought that can only be possible when intellectually the same people can see ideas mature over the span of thousands of years. That’s where we are, and that’s where we are headed.

Rich Hoffman

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

As Conservatives, We Should Make our Own Movies, Music, and Social Media Platforms: I’m thinking seriously of becoming a movie producer

After this week I am seriously thinking of becoming a movie producer for my next big project. After considering the astonishing success of Rosanne’s return to television, the box office take of Tomb Raider overseas—especially in China, the controversy of Facebook data theft and the general liberalism of all the tech companies from Microsoft to Twitter—I am thinking that there is a serious need for a conservative voice in the world filling these entertainment markets. That is the ultimate solution after all. I have all these scripts sitting around from my Hollywood pitch days which went on from roughly 1995 to 2006 that I have sat on for a long time because only liberals were putting money into films. It was obvious to all of them that they wanted to go in this liberal direction and I didn’t fit at the time. But it hasn’t worked out for Hollywood and there are a lot of lost opportunities to make a lot of money and to make people in the world generally very happy. It really hit home for me this week while Steven Spielberg was doing press for his upcoming Ready Player One movie. He is well aware that he has lost his touch, because essentially epistemologically he has change. Spielberg directed some of the greatest gunfights in cinema history in Raiders of the Lost Ark, but he never has since as he found friends in Hollywood that he didn’t want to piss off. He is now one of those people who put $500,000 behind the March for Our Lives anti-gun march which was an excessively liberal crusade. As conservatives feel vindicated somewhat that Disney put Rosanne back on television as a “Trump supporter” there is an obvious starvation out there for the kind of movies that Hollywood used to make, to be made again, and rather than complain about it, some of us should just get together and fill that market void.

As a Star Wars fan I had to get The Last Jedi Blu-Ray when it came out this past Tuesday. I liked the movie and I thought Rian Johnson did some really good work as the writer and director. But, it has epistemological problems with its foundation philosophy. These new filmmakers are just so San Francisco liberal that it gets in the way of their stories. George Lucas when he made the original Star Wars movies was not a liberal. He might have spent all his time around liberals, but he had enough small-town conservative in him to detest Hollywood. When he took a big chance and went to the bank to fund The Empire Strikes Back with his own money—that was not a Hollywood communist doing the work, it was a passionate filmmaker and that effort showed up on the screen. Lucas may have had liberalism on his mind as a Vietnam protestor, but he like his friend Steven Spielberg grew up on classic westerns that were about good guys against bad guys and he wanted to tell a modern story about those ideas—so they followed the well stated philosophy to great box office success. But George Lucas is obviously missing from The Last Jedi and it was excessively noticeable in the bonus footage this time as opposed to The Force Awakens by J.J. Abrams. Abrams at least is something of a protégé of Lucas and Spielberg so he was able to recapture some of that on-set magic. Rian Johnson was simply a fanboy of Star Wars who was a modern Hollywood Trump hating liberal that was taking the foundations of Star Wars and making a progressive film on top of that foundation.

With all the attempts to show women empowerment and to put Asian actors in various roles in The Last Jedi the film was rejected by Chinese audiences, which Disney and Lucasfilm were obviously trying to cater to. All the female roles in The Last Jedi were liberal embodiments of what the political left thinks feminism is all about, and it comes across uncomfortably political, and it certainly hurt the film. Yet Tomb Raider is all about the magnificent empowerment of Lara Croft and she has guns in her movie, and she kills people and enjoys it—and the Chinese went crazy over it rewarding it surprising in oversea sales. I listened to the bonus footage of The Last Jedi and carefully noted that Rian Johnson thinks the Force is all about altruism and sacrifice, and that his good guys in this movie were all about blowing themselves up for a greater cause—he obviously missed the point of what heroics are classically about in movies. Han Solo is one of the most powerful characters in Star Wars, and he’s all about possession, he loves his ship, he loves his friend Chewbacca, and he loves his friends and would do just about anything for them. Even though in a pinch he is a giving character he is still portrayed as someone who has personal value for things and people due to his selfish need to be attached to them. But the Jedi as Lucas and many other filmmakers struggled with are supposed to get rid of attachments otherwise they become like Darth Vader and this is where their epistemological liberalism destroys their concepts. Those things aren’t at odds with one another, they are connected—personal value and heroics. If the Chinese wanted to hear a bunch of liberal propaganda they’ll just turn on the state-run television—so they weren’t excited for this latest Star Wars movie. But with Tomb Raider, now that is something they can’t get in China and they soaked it up like there was no tomorrow.

Like I said, I think Rian Johnson did a good job with The Last Jedi. It’s good science fiction. It’s no instant classic that people will love way into the future. But its better to have a world with Star Wars in it than not to have it at all. I know Rian Johnson is a Joseph Campbell fan—as I am. But I want to remind everyone that deep down inside, Joseph Campbell was a conservative—and very much an individualist. He would often say, “are you the light or are you the bulb” which liberals immediately associate with values of collectivism. Without the bulb, the light doesn’t come into the world, so the value in story telling is and should always be on the nature of the bulbs. When a light bulb goes out, the liberal thinking is that you just unscrew the old one and put in a new bulb and the light continues. But in reality, the bulbs of our lives are missed. At the end of The Last Jedi you can see the struggle the filmmakers have on this very subject—they are missing the light of Han Solo not just in the story, but in the Star Wars franchise itself. You can’t just unscrew Han Solo and screw in Poe Dameron–then have him get thrown around the room by a bunch of girls and expect audiences to go along with things. It doesn’t work, as liberalism doesn’t work in the world because of the epistemological failures of the basic concepts of the story telling process.

I will continue to cheer on the efforts of filmmakers like Rian Johnson and Lucasfilm in general. And hopefully Disney learns something from their production of Rosanne on television. But I think we as conservatives could make better movies, better music, and even better social media platforms. I certainly know I could. That’s why I’m thinking of doing just that for my next big thing. I’m in the middle of one of those big multimillion dollar projects now, but I’m coming up on a time where I want to do the next big thing in my life, and by the looks of things, I may just start producing some movies. Not from Hollywood mind you, I’d do it from Cincinnati. Back ten and twenty years ago that was an impossible idea, but these days, the rules have all changed. So why not?

Rich Hoffman

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

There is No Society without the Second Amendment: Weeds in the garden and why we must remove them

Like we always knew it was, ANY form of gun control is a goal to eventually repeal the Second Amendment as former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens indicated on his New York Times op-ed piece after the March for Our Lives rallies the previous weekend. The same people who support murdering babies before they are born, the same people who support drug abuse, open boarders and have no respect for private property are the people who want to ban the Second Amendment. That is because the rights to possess firearms is to protect ourselves from those types of people as they emerge in any society—which they always do. Only in America we are meant to have a defense against them. Liberals are like weeds in a nice garden. If you don’t remove them from a well-cared for garden, they will eventually overwhelm all the nice flowers and bushes that are carefully placed there and in no time at all, a wonderful outdoor display ends up looking like a tattered mess. Guns are our means of maintaining our ability to clean out our garden should too many weeds arise to take over our healthy plants. Valueless weeds do not have the right to destroy what we put in our gardens that we value. Be it a shovel or a gun, we are talking about tools which allow us to retake what’s ours to begin with, and without the gun, there is no chance of that ever happening if society swings radically out of control.

The 93-year-old Stevens said a lot in his liberal New York Times piece—he basically stated what was behind all gun control measures. The implication is that government should be trusted therefore we have evolved as a society beyond the need to have a well-regulated militia. We have in the United States a wonderful military, the most powerful in the world—so we no longer need a militia to defend ourselves from foreign invasion, so its time to abandon the Second Amendment—and while we’re at it, probably the 4th, 5th, 6th the 10th, the 14th—and eventually the 1st. Heck, why not just re-write the entire Constitution with all these modern smart people like old man Stevens? That’s their assumption. To the liberal, the weeds of our society—they want to live just like any other plant in the garden and if there are more of them than the well cared for flowers of spring, so be it. Of course, as valueless weeds, they don’t have a problem with that.

But those of us who are really smart, who have worked hard to keep this Republic a nice garden full of wonderful diversity and esthetics understand that we can’t just let any willing nilly weed grow in our garden. We must have a set of rules to live by, which is our Constitution which says how the garden should be cared for—and anybody who wants to change it would be the weeds looking to overtake all the other plants for their own objectives. The difference in thinking couldn’t be clearer, travel to some place in the world that doesn’t have a gun culture and you will immediately see on the faces of their people the effect of growing up in a society of weeds. Their intellectual growth is stunted, the beauty of their culture hidden, and chaos is certainly ruling their lives. Even in downtown London such a thought is unavoidable. On the streets of Paris where the highest concepts of civilization realized through art danced on the imaginations of mankind, in their gun less society of today the weeds of liberalism have completely taken over. In Mexico they long ago had their own versions of John Paul Stevens and they have destroyed the lives of the people for any kind of prosperity—unless you are part of a criminal syndicate.

I will never accept a society that repeals the Second Amendment. I will go to war with any political insurgency that seeks to change one word of meaning in our current Constitution. The primary reason is that I do not see any evidence which states that we are a more sophisticated society today than we were in 1776. I have read Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations for which America was founded, and it is far more intelligent than the work of Karl Marx or any professor of economics seen in Harvard, Princeton or Oxford presently. In fact, I don’t think the university system has done a good job at all in the last 100 years of advancing society in any way. By my observation we have regressed, and that is because we have let the weeds take over the garden of human knowledge and they’ve brought with them lots of terrible ideas which is killing all the healthy plants of our society. The great minds that would otherwise be flourishing are being drowned out by the noise of the liberal left starting by thinkers like John Paul Stevens and drooling out of the side of the mouths of modern zombies like Sean Penn and Miley Cyrus.

As I watched Ariana Grande singing and dancing on stage at the March for Our Lives event in Washington D.C. I saw a weed sucking the lives away from the beautiful roses, and tulips of a spring time blossom. In the crowd were many potential great minds locked by the youthful sexuality of a pop star icon limiting their scope in life to her political ideology of collectivism and gun grabbing only to find themselves heading to a stunted existence for the rest of their lives. That’s not a good thing. We all know how the birds and the bees work in the procreation of the human race. Young women present themselves as blossoming flowers trying to attract the pollination process of potential males ready to discharge the ingredient B into the womb of ingredient A. When they are young bodies like Ariana Grande at the height of their sexual powers they attract a great many incumbents to their lairs of destruction. And too late many unsuspecting visitors find out that the tulip was really a Venus Flytrap—and their lives are sucked from them ensnared for eternity by the lures of sexuality—even weeds can look appealing at first glance. Twenty years from now nobody will care about Ariana Grande, she will just be another plant in the garden that will be plucked and replaced with something that will bloom in the spring with beauty as by that time she will have withered away into old age. That’s what the political left hates about capitalism and why they like weeds so much. In a competitive society, people have to always reinvent themselves and work to stay relevant beyond their sexual nature—their primal attributes. Intelligence is the real beauty of a capitalist society. Where weeds just want to grow and take what they can while they can. Liberals hate guns because they don’t want to live in a competitive world—because they require the looting of others just to survive the basics in life. They need to take value from others just to function.

Yet it’s the competitive world that generates all the greatness of society. It’s what caused the creation of iPhones and sent us into space. It’s the difference between an untended garden of weeds and a well-managed landscape. The value of that managed landscape is protected by the gun, as all things of life must have a way to protect themselves from the lazy parasites of existence. All life after all is not valuable. Some life yearns to advance, some life yearns to be parasitic in nature and to live off other lives—thus destroying what’s good in the other. Our value systems give us the ability to make that judgment call—to decide who are weeds and who are the plants in our garden that contribute to the aesthetic beauty of our landscape.

Of course, the eye of beauty is in the beholder and we are all left to our own versions of what type of gardens we wish to grow. We aren’t talking about social eugenics here, but personal preference based on our ownership of private property. If we don’t want a bunch of pot smokers in our garden, we can tell them to go away. If we don’t like a bunch of devil worshipping losers near us, we can tell them to go elsewhere. But we can’t do that if we can’t protect the value of our individual landscapes. We don’t have a right to tell them how to live, but we can certainly determine our own fates and that is why the gun is essential to American society. Without it the weeds of life will certainly seek to take over everything of value. So without the Second Amendment we don’t have an America. We would be no better than all the other dumps around the globe who have allowed the weeds to take over and the good that is within their cultures to be sucked dry of their value just as a withering flower fades away once youth has left it—only to be remembered by pictures, literature and a few passing spectators.

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

The Foundations of Good Government: It’s time to take a hard look at American politics

When a person is in the United States they should have some idea of what an American is. It doesn’t matter what sex a person is, what age or country of origin, an American should conger up some image of a common value system that is immediately recognizable. For instance, there are lots of different people in England who have lots of opinions that differ, but there is a kind of basic foundation of value that all English people share and we can term them as people of Britain. We could say the same about China, Japan, India, Mexico—pretty much anywhere in the world. Only in the United States is there an expectation that diversity is the key to a successful society when it clearly isn’t. And to that effect, Republicans and Democrats cannot live in the same country together and expect it to be run properly at the level of government so long as that American definition lingers. America is a big idea country but the nation cannot hold so many differing opinions about the very foundations of our thinking, as a people. It just doesn’t work and it never will. We cannot have such different political philosophies operating our country and expect it to survive. Further, it is easy to conclude that Democrats do not want America to survive as it has and they only care about changing the nature of the nation which is an assault on those who love it in the traditional sense so no matter what happens, somebody is going to be unhappy.

A common political philosophy is essential to any nation. Political philosophy is like the foundation of a house. With a foundation you know if you are going to have a basement in that house, and what the shape of the house will be based on how the foundation is dug out into the ground. You’ll know if the foundation is made of stone or is of poured concrete—but the foundation is something that everyone will have to agree on who are part of building the house that goes on top of it. Once a house is built people may differ on the kind of curtains that will hang in the house, what color the paint will be, what type of shingles will go on the roof. But the basic nature of the foundation of the whole building is constant and makes everything built on it possible. The political philosophy of our government has to have a foundation of belief that everyone can agree on otherwise building anything on top of it just isn’t possible.

Democrats don’t just want to argue over the nature of the cosmetics of a house of ideas, they want to change the fundamentals of the foundation itself. If our original house of our Republic was built-in Ohio for instance, complete with a basement Democrats want to move it to California and to have a slab foundation that makes the house much less stable but easier to rebuild after every earthquake. They have no intention of building a house on the foundation of our country, they want to change the location of it and change the basic design as well. We aren’t all talking about the same basic philosophy in how America should be run, let alone agreeing on even basic things because our value systems are just too radically different. Thus, there is no way to build a proper government for the people, by the people because all the people can’t agree on a basic foundation of philosophic thought. And in many ways, that is the point of attack that the political left has leveled at the United States. They never wanted to go along to get along. They always wanted to build the house in another place, a different way. They didn’t care to argue variations on a political philosophy such as a paint color, tile or wood flooring, or window shapes, they want a different house of political philosophy completely on an altered foundation and they are unyielding in that demand.

That is why I think war with those people is inevitable in America. We are currently in a new kind of civil war and both sides cannot and will not be able to live in the same house of a Republic together. It’s just not possible. We’re not talking about basic disagreements, we are talking about the most epistemological elements of a political philosophy. Every organized association regardless of the number of people within it requires a philosophy to unite their thoughts. It doesn’t matter if the organization is as small as a sports team, or it’s a community—there must be a basic philosophy that everyone follows. For instance, people know that if they move into a wealthy neighborhood, they will be expected to take care of their property, mow the grass, maintaining their cars and not run around naked in their streets. A poor neighborhood where people are addicted to government services would likely feature people who don’t care about how tall their grass is, or what they look like, or whether or not there are people running around naked. That’s why the neighborhood has a bad reputation because the people within it don’t have a philosophy that is conducive toward success. They are free to do and think what they want, but if they are competing in the world with a community that does have a foundation of successful thinking, they will lose in relation. If Democrats want to change America into something else while Republicans want to preserve the values that built the nation, how can the two function together?

There is always talk about how dysfunctional our congress is at not only the national level, but the state and local levels too. I doubt these days there is any city in America with reasonable council members who are plugged into reality on governing their municipalities. The reason is because they are not formed, and functioning based on the foundational philosophies that drive the capitalism of the rest of the nation. People who do not recognize the values of people who tend to live in America’s cities for instance, move out into the suburbs and essentially are running their own kind of country. This arrangement works until one group imposes itself on another and there is nowhere left to move to. Much or rural California is conservative, but the cities are very liberal taking the state into that direction governmentally and it has had a crippling effect on the state as a whole. They like Illinois have serious debt problems because they have governed themselves poorly in relation to the rest of the country and this is the essential cause of having two different political philosophies running the country. Its one thing to argue over curtains, flooring and paint the way the Founding Fathers envisioned. It’s quite another to argue foundations and the style of a house to live in. Our government could work if all Americans were functioning from a basic foundation philosophy—such as an agreement on the nature of our Constitution. But if one side wants to adhere to that foundational government and one wants to change the foundation of it, then there is no way the two sides can work out even easy problems because their philosophies are from different houses completely.

Before we can ask a government to work together well, we all have to get on the same page, and if we can’t do that, then we need to just admit that we are at war and one side will win and define the nature of America for all time. Dancing around the issue isn’t good for anybody. Pretending that liberals and conservatives can eat at the same Thanksgiving table is nonsense. Going along to get along isn’t solving anything—its just prolonging the inevitable. Before we can work down the debt, and even begin to ask congress to work together—we must all get onto a political philosophy that is built on a foundation we all agree to. Without that, we have nothing.

Rich Hoffman

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

Wayne LaPierre’s April American Rifleman Article: We should take away federal money from any school who teaches Karl Marx

I get it. Not everyone was born into a nice family in a nice area with opportunities raining on them from access to prosperity. I am very forgiving of people who have a little liberalism in them from starting out in life not understanding the glory of Adam Smith’s capitalism, because their upbringing didn’t give them exposure to it. However, in America, even the worst prepared of anybody can climb to the tops of society if they are willing to work hard enough, and that is something worth fighting for—with guns protecting those basic foundations. It was with those ideas in mind that I was enjoying the latest American Rifleman magazine that I look so forward to each month from the NRA. I was reading Wayne LaPierre’s pg. 12 column titled “Our Colleges are Breeding Grounds for Socialists Who Will Take Our Guns.” I’ve been saying that for many, many years—well before mainstream commentators like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity have been willing to go so far. I’ve been saying it since the days when Ronald Reagan was president—yet nobody wanted to admit to it. Well, these days its pretty obvious and it was a little surprising to see the executive vice-president of the NRA state so much in writing. You can read the article for yourself at the link below, it is quite telling.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/si_201804/index.php?startid=12#/14

All education both public and private shared in common with guns the promise of equality. If guns gave people of all types, shapes, sizes, color and creeds the equal ability to defend their private property—most spectacularly their very lives, education was supposed to give everyone an equal shot at knowledge and wisdom, and it was a lofty idea to make it part of the American experience. Public education is paid for by the American tax payers off the backs of private property, so it was a socialist concept from the start, but of course it was started with the promise of big social rewards—like everything always is. Only in America within the context of our tradition of freedom, there was a chance to truly make education a good thing if students were taught the correct things.

Even for me I was shocked by a couple of things that Wayne LaPierre reported in his article, such that The Communist Manifesto ranks third among most assigned texts in college. I can see that happening yet hearing it as a statistic was astonishing. There isn’t any place in American culture for Karl Marx yet in colleges today he is the most referred to economist in assignments. I can see letting students study Marx in philosophy class along with other thinkers so that they can draw their own conclusions, but for economics, if you are trying to teach students how to function in the American economy you must start with Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations. Without that starting point, the experience of teaching and learning is worthless. But according to LaPierre Marx is the go to guy in serious study of economic matters and that is actually dangerous.

I’ve read Marx—and I hated it, but I did it to learn how the other side thinks. To wash it out of my system I had to read Smith over again several times just to get the experience out of my mind. I think Karl Marx was an idiot and his philosophy is dangerous—dangerous to the world. I’ve been to the Great Reading Room at the British Museum where Marx worked, and I wasn’t impressed. I like the room, but the content studied there was not the right stuff and no university in the world should be studying it. Marxism is an economic philosophy of class warfare and poverty. It leads to repressed societies in every situation and should never be taught as the thing to do for a society.

I was also surprised that liberal college professors outnumbered conservative professors by a ratio of 33.5 to 1. I hadn’t checked in a while, but this was much higher than even I thought it was. That is a terrible statistic considering that many of our education institutions are funded with tax payer investments. Clearly what is happening is that we are funding these Marxist loving liberals to change our kids into socialists from the traditional backgrounds we instilled upon them as parents. It has been one of the biggest scams of our lives, to save up six figures worth of money to send to these colleges only to have them try to scramble the minds of our young people into this socialist indoctrination. I’ve written many articles about the start of the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Mexican Revolution—revolutions all over the globe and they all start with indoctrinated children not yet equipped with wisdom who take over political parties and destroy countries from within. What I saw in the March for Our Lives rallies over the last weekend of March 2018 were the same kind of brain washed masses taught incorrect concepts in public schools that we all paid for, only to have those kids turned into weapons of war to fight us ideologically in the streets of our neighborhoods. Wayne LaPierre wasn’t exaggerating—our schools have become institutions of socialism intent to change the way we live in America—everything from gun control to economic communism and socialism. It’s a bad situation with no clear way to turn back the damage.

However, I would start by saying this, any school that is teaching the works of Karl Marx should have their federal money cut—because they obviously aren’t preparing kids to live in an American economy. It’s not a free speech right to teach kids to be insurgents against the American Constitution and anything being taught by Marx, or Marxism in general should be considered anti-American in its basic intent. Colleges can teach whatever they want, but they shouldn’t get our money to pay for it. So long as we allow this socialism to go on in our schools, we will deal with a declining society—and its an avoidable situation. But first we have to admit that it’s a problem.

A lot of people, many reading this, have a little socialism in them. I happened to listen to Bill Cunningham on WLW radio talk about how emotional he was that his high school of Deer Park finally won a state championship. Cunningham thinks of himself as a conservative, at least he plays one on the radio, but his alliance to a public school—and all public education in general gives away the socialism that he was taught as a very young person who grew up without a father and a single mother trying to raise him. He’s in his late sixties now, but those emotions never really went away, so much so that several decades later, five to be specific, when Deer Park won a state championship, he felt he was one with the community. Many people think that’s a good thing, but it’s the entry to thinking like socialists. The reason we never deal with the socialism in our schools is because we fall in love with their sports programs and we spend the rest of our lives rooting for those programs long after we’ve graduated. Meanwhile, the institutions themselves have committed themselves to Marxism and the changing of students into radicals to do the work of collectivism around the world.

Yet the truth of what makes America great is not in its sports heroes that might play college football or basketball, its in the individuals who live and work where the cameras aren’t and what they protect with the guns in their homes. To really understand what makes America tick you must get rid of all references to socialism and to look toward the magic of capitalism—and it is the gun that makes capitalism possible. That is why the Marxists in these schools want gun control so bad, because they know what the plan has always been. To corrupt the youth into little bits of socialism until they march in the streets to give away their rights to defend themselves and to turn over their economies to the tenured professors who sip coffee all day and study the works of Karl Marx. Secretly they have always wanted to rule the world and they are taking that chance at the expense of the American tax payer. Now they figure they have enough students under their command to make their move—and they are doing it. Their first real target of course is the gun. They have to get guns out of American society before they can bring Marxism fully into America. They already have most of our population looking the other way by choice, because nobody wants to admit that their colleges and high schools were actually dangerous places destroying the future of mankind. But with a careful study of the students of our modern age, how can any conclusion otherwise be made?

Rich Hoffman

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

The Forces that want to Overthrow America: Mueller’s investigation, Affairs, and Stormy Daniels back fat

I know I’m coming to it late, but my wife and I have been binge watching the television show, The Americans. Its been on my radar for a while and our schedules cleared enough to start watching it. I am completely convinced that the whole idea for the Russian collusion story is because many liberals came up with it after watching that popular show. I am also convinced that the strategy of the deep state was revealed during the racket ball scene during season one between the lead FBI agent and his next-door neighbor, the KGB super spy. Overwhelm your target into making a mistake. Even though the show is fiction mostly, there are realistic elements to it and it only reminded me just how fragile governments can really be. The episode where President Reagan was shot was very interesting because Russia was terrified Alexander Haig was going to step in and take control of the country which of course wasn’t about to happen. The Russians assumed that things would happen in America the way they would in Russia and even though they had lived in the states for many years still couldn’t get the basic concept of how American life worked. Even as they worked really hard to overthrow it at every opportunity. I’ve known about these spies for a long time, I’ve written about them and discussed them on several radio shows, but watching The Americans really shows things in a dramatic way of how fragile things truly are behind the scenes.

Watching how sympathetic the media was to the KGB spies in The Americans and how the FBI operated on that show, it is easy to see how the plot against President Trump was hatched to force him into mistakes, which I think is why he signed that omnibus bill on Friday. I’m certainly not going to apologize for him. We should have had a government shutdown on the issue, but the enemies of our Republic are applying a lot of pressure on him, and he’s making mistakes that he is designed to take. I don’t think there is anybody currently out there better than Trump who could withstand all these forces. At least with Trump, mistakes and all, we can see just how many bad guys there are out there and what they are up to. When Trump was elected he and all his supporters thought they were playing a straight game. Obviously not, the forces already embedded in America were already too deep to fight legitimately through executive orders and populism. As right-thinking Americans, it was all we had to combat the vast tyranny on full display now except for coming to this fight with guns blazing. If Trump can hang on and keep doing his thing we will see improvements, but it won’t be pretty. Let me just say that. I never thought it would, but I am personally surprised that he has held up this long.

The Mueller investigation clearly isn’t about Russian collusion, it’s just a story that the deep state is using to sell their means of overthrowing the American presidency. As I said, the entire story is meant to align with what the public sees on television, shows like The Americans. The truth is far worse. There are many more forces working against American capitalism than what is showed on any television show—the attempted tyranny and the reasons behind it are far more severe, much more so than any Hollywood writer could even begin to put their finger on. To get an idea about that I’d advise you dear reader to read Peter Schweizer’s new book Secret Empires. He’s the guy who wrote Clinton Cash which proved to be way ahead of its time. If you added Secret Empires to the television show The Americans I think you can begin to see what is really going on with the Mueller Investigation. It’s not about truth, justice, and the American way—its about overthrowing capitalism in the world and literally looting off the tax payers to feed these many empires at conflict with each other on the streets of Washington D.C. Most people just want to live their lives, but these many forces at war with the American way of life—many of them are in our FBI, our congressional seats, and in our media and they want an end to all of it—any way possible.

And they really think we are stupid. Think of the absurdity of these controversies with the old Trump girlfriends. I knew when I elected Donald Trump that in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s that he was the very definition of a playboy. If Hugh Hefner was an old man with a collection of many beautiful women to play with—Donald Trump was the living embodiment of that image. It was the main turn-off for me when he first announced that he was running. But I knew fully what I was getting in Donald Trump and I personally think he should say about Karen McDougal that sure, he had an affair that lasted nearly a year and that he screwed her many times in many different ways. Most men, and women surprisingly, would admire and respect him for it—because that’s how people are. Nobody is surprised to learn that Trump has slept with all these women. He was never a choir boy. Trump fully intended to live a James Bond womanizing lifestyle and Melania knew what kind of man he was, and it took her years to calm him down. He had all these girlfriends while she was dating him and even when he finally put a ring on her finger some of those old flames were still burning, and some new flames starting. I’ve met Melania in person and she is a very beautiful woman, and she’s not stupid in any way. She was the one who convinced Trump to marry her and to move her into a golden palace at the top of the New York social world. And now she’s in the White House after being born into a communist country with little opportunity. Don’t cry for Melania, she knows what she’s doing and she makes Trump a much better person. In a lot of ways, I credit her with his presidency. But she’s not going to go to pieces over a bunch of old girlfriends looking for one last shot at the spotlight now that they are too old to pose for Playboy, and nobody cares about them physically any more.

The media is obsessed with Stormy Daniels because like the idiots in The Americans who thought Alexander Haig was going to take over the country after Ronald Reagan was shot think that the Christian conservatives will move away from Trump if they find out he has slept with all these women. Nobody cares. We all stopped caring about those kinds of things after Bill Clinton was in office. What made Slick Willy such a bad person was that he lied about it. Trump at least indicates that he isn’t living under the weight of shame. That gives him a fighting chance to withstand all these opposing forces. But the media, these are the same people pushing same-sex marriage, loose sex and a life of no judgments, yet they fully expect the Stormy Daniels story to sink Trump. If Trump is ashamed of anything regarding Daniels it’s that she is too fat of a girl to brag about. Looking at her with the lights on and the cameras at full aperture Trump would probably like to forget about that one. But it’s not for the reasons that the media hopes to catch him on. She’s just over his preferred weight class.

We are witnessing at every front a country of insurgents who work in trusted positions at all levels of our social classes to overthrow our nation in favor of something else. They want gun control so we can’t shoot them when they break down our doors once they’ve bankrupted our country for everything that could be sold, and they’ll be looking for the last scraps of food at such a time not caring at all for our wellness. They have already sold us out and now that the heat is on in their direction too, they are making their share of mistakes as well. Trump isn’t the only one screwing up—the hits are going the other way for a change—and that’s a great thing. I wouldn’t care if a tape came out showing Trump in a massive orgy with 50 chicks sucking on him like Karen McDougal. I would care if there were some dudes in on the action with him—that would certainly cheapen him in my eyes, but I don’t think that’s a concern. A man can do those kinds of things with hundreds of women so long as the women are alright with it—which in most cases they are. Women are often willing to share a top-level man so long as they get a piece of the action. But such a man can’t go stick his dip stick into the caboose of some other dude. That just isn’t acceptable. And with that said, the media doesn’t have a story because most people feel that way. The media have nothing to stop Trump which scares them to death. And for a change, it’s a good thing to see.

Rich Hoffman

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

Joe Biden and the Nature of Gun Control: The mobs of March for our Lives

As we prepare for the March for Our Lives event across the country where students inspired by their radical public educations are demanding gun control—Joe Biden said again at Miami University, Florida that he wanted to beat up Donald Trump. As we all know most of the mass shooters in America are left leaning political activists, CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW. This is because it is the political left who are the collectivists and require submission to their group think—and the way they enforce that need for their philosophy is through force. If they cannot inspire violence and thus fear of what might happen to people who don’t join their group, they are powerless. That is why the political left wants gun control and also why they have pushed the March for Our Lives events. It is also why Joe Biden feels he needs to rally the Democratic base with threats of violence against the current President. Trump’s response to Biden was appropriate understanding the real motivations. The way to beat collectivists is to take away the threats and to force them to debate the ethics of a situation—for which they are always at a disadvantage.

The gun debate isn’t a debate at all, it’s an essential philosophy of freedom to live one’s life outside of group pressures. To own a gun is to have the ability to stand against a mob who expects through a democracy to alter our lives against our individual wills. So it is ironic that leftist progressives are advocating marching against guns because it is just such mobs that the guns are intended to protect American civilization from. If a horde of people arrives at your theoretical doorstep at some future time demanding milk, cows, a bed, or even your spouse and children, you must have some means of fighting them off. If one of their leaders happens to be in congress at the time, or the White House, then they will expect to bend the laws of the land to their efforts, and we would all be defenseless at that point to the intentions of the democratic mob.

The assumption is that majorities rule in spite of the intelligence involved. As the rules of mobs go it doesn’t matter if the contents of the mob have an IQ of “0.” What does matter to them is the amount of people in the mob. So if there are thousands of people in the mob the belief is that there is intelligence there which surpasses the individual intelligence of any single person. Quantity matters, not quality—which is the biggest problem of any democracy and why all democracies taken at their face value lead to periods of anarchy only to reset society much later with a devolution back to theocracy. Joe Biden reminded us this past week what the real juice behind their movement is, the threat of violence if things don’t go as Democrats want. They want essentially gun control so that they can have a chance to take people behind the woodshed and beat them into submission. That is the way of the Democrats—it always has been and continues to this day.

Speaking personally, I love to fight—I have all my life. I’ve never been for anything that groups enjoy doing—I have always been happiest on the fringes of social thinking. It just so happens that more of my personal philosophies are at play with Donald Trump in the White House, but it’s usually not that way. I never liked public education because I quickly realized that the whole point of it was to assimilate kids into group think. I never liked college because it wasn’t about learning, but in learning how not to think—or to put it more accurately how to think what the group wants, not necessarily what’s correct. I’ve been involved in all kinds of unique situations and what they all have in common is a love of fighting bullies who try to impose group think on other people. I personally love fighting people like Joe Biden as I meet them. I enjoy driving them into the ground as far as they can go, because I have an obvious dislike for their core characters. People like me will never yield to the pressures of a group—I don’t care if there are 20 million people outside my home chanting toward me to think a certain way. It will never, ever happen.

When people tell you that you must change because a majority of the people here and there think this way or that way, they are essentially declaring war against your individual thoughts. And to me that is a major assault that is something that merits defense by the gun. There are obviously thousands of steps to exercise peacefully first, but ultimately if the other side threatens death or else, you have to be able to respond. Collectivists all essentially believe the same thing, that what’s best for the majority is best for society. The measure is never what the quality of thoughts are for the masses—for instance if the collective associations are all idiots, the merit of the group is still considered by Democrats to be superior—which is the ultimate mistake. If you are a good person, and you work to have a proper—thinking mind—why should I or anybody change that to the whims of stupidity just because the stupid outnumber the intelligent? That would be a disgrace to the human species as a whole. In the nature of human beings, it is the single sperm out of thousands that penetrates the egg during conception where life begins. All the other little sperms that don’t break the circumference of the egg don’t get a consolation prize. They just don’t get the opportunity to make a living being. The same is said about the single person defending their individual rights with a gun pointed toward the masses. The masses are not superior to the individual. They are not correct because there are more of them. And they don’t have a right to enforce violence against others to drive home their theft of intelligence.

Joe Biden said it not just once now, but twice. As a spokesman for his party he is articulating the basic essence of his Democratic Party. All for one, one for all—and if you don’t follow us, we’ll beat you up. Well, finally we have a president in Donald Trump who is willing to fight back against such threats and I’m glad, because it saves me the wasted time in doing it myself. Because there will never be a time where I surrender to any Democrat—anything. They can think what they want, but I am not compelled to follow them, and neither are you dear reader. Yet without that threat against us, they have nothing. They want to believe that by taking guns we won’t have the option to stand against them in the future, so they have used these children taught in our public schools as weapons against us. But it doesn’t matter. A mob is a mob and they don’t have a right to stamp out intelligence just for an adherence to their political ideology due to a lack of other options. They desire to destroy the options so that the masses have nowhere to turn but to the mob—and that is how they plan to always acquire power and how to keep it—which isn’t acceptable.

Rich Hoffman

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