Tag: education

What the Little Baby Trump Blimp Says about Europe: The difference between the lazy and the productive

Since they took that little baby Trump blimp to Edinburgh, where President Trump was staying with his family at his Turnberry golf resort I have to pick on the balloon. I was going to leave it alone, but for crying out loud, the blimp was so tiny. It was astonishing that the world’s media made such a big deal about—it shows just how much they wanted to show a resistance to Trump from Europe. While there were significant numbers of protesters who did hit the streets in London, then in Scotland it showed more what Europe was fearful of than what they really wanted to protest. I’ve seen some of those protests up close, especially up near Parliament and it surprised me how openly socialist they were. Socialism has always been a dirty word in the United States, but in London you always see that red Worker’s Party tent when they do big events to protest capitalism, and it has brought about their own detriment, which brings us to that stupid blimp.

If Ayn Rand were alive today she would be very proud of Donald Trump. Here was a beacon of capitalism unapologetically defending it even in the face of the very hostile socialists and the biggest stunts they could come up with where some strangely painted people, a skydiver breaking the no-fly zone, and that silly little blimp as Trump played golf at one of the nicest resorts of its kind in the world for which Trump actually built himself. I’ve read biographies on most American presidents and there simply is nobody like Trump. I have said for years that what America needed was another Teddy Roosevelt that was less progressive, or a Winston Churchill—even a modern version of Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, but Trump is better than all those people for the simple reason that he knows how to think big, and he has put the nation on his back to help it return to that mantra. And Europe can’t stand it. It must have been something for Trump to play that Saturday game of golf at Turnberry with his sons and to see all those things he worked so hard for coming together in the same place at the same time. As president of the United States shaking the world up as the greatest salesman of capitalism that has ever been he was playing golf at a resort he built which many consider one of the finest in the world. As a best-selling author well before he was ever president he had accomplished what many never thought possible in their wildest dreams and all his opponents really had to throw at him was that stupid balloon.

What really struck me while traveling through Europe is how small everything is. I’m used to how things are in America, where the restaurant helpings are big, as are the roads and homes. In Europe especially in London when you ask for a Coke they give you this little glass of warm dark liquid that barely tastes right since much of the sugar is regulated out of it. I could tell the story with great fanfare of the time my wife and I were starving for a good old American meal while in England and we found a Burger King. I ordered the largest value meal they had and what they gave me was this little cup that I thought was for a kid and it tasted like Diet Coke, so I assumed they handed me my wife’s order. No, it was the one intended for me, their big Coke was the size of a child’s in America and it tasted different due to the differences in regulation there. I found living in Europe for most of a month to be difficult. The roads, sidewalks and general thinking were all too small for me to the point where it was very uncomfortable, and clearly that was due to the various amounts of socialism that most everyone had some little part of in their thinking. It was easy for me to see coming from a capitalist country that was very successful. Europe felt they were superior to my American sensibilities because they had such a deep history within the world. But in the modern sense they have never really come out of the Dark Ages, socialism gave them an excuse to stick with their old ways of thinking.

Then here comes Trump with all his big things, his big car, his big persona, his big resorts, his big American plane, his big challenges and he literally turned everyone over on their head and made socialism whither in his presence. The socialists knew they’d be challenged so they prepared for his visit by getting out the word to all the potential protestors they could find to show solidarity against his arrival. So they had that little baby blimp of Trump made and they were so proud of it that the world’s news outlets carried the coverage extensively. Then when the London protests were over once Trump left England to stay in Scotland the protestors took that little thing up to Edinburgh and it was covered as if it was a significant thing. The whole situation was laughable, that blimp wouldn’t even have made it on the local news in the United States because most children have things like that in their homes. But in Europe, that blimp was what they thought was a big deal because their minds had been scaled down with socialism to think that little things like that were acceptable.

In so many ways the contrast did all the work that Trump could have hoped for and occur without any real effort by him. Any reader of his many best sellers knows that he is an unapologetic capitalist and why shouldn’t he be? Capitalism is a wonderful invention of human intellect. Socialism is a destroyer of that same human intellect. When a reporter went through the town of Turnberry and asked them if they had played golf at Trump’s resort they answered that they couldn’t afford it—so no. That is the socialist in them speaking. The capitalist would say, I haven’t yet earned enough money to do so, but I hope to soon. That is the difference between socialists and capitalist and between the rest of the world right now and Trump. With Trump anything is possible and that is a very hopeful resonance to convey to the world. Obviously, it is carrying Europe out of the gutter and getting them to think properly about economic matters for the first time in their history, and it is Trump who is leading them. Socialists know the danger is that the work of Karl Marx is falling apart in front of their faces like a soaking wet paper towel trying to pick up a car. Only when there is no competing thoughts can socialists hope to sell their small thinking and their scam to protect the lazy with a social philosophy that puts sharing at the front of the train. Sharing in a socialist culture means a few hard-working people give their good work to the crazy lunatics who protested Trump in London allowing everyone to feel equal in the exchange when in fact they are nowhere close. In Trump’s capitalism if a person wants to work hard enough and earn enough money, they can play golf with Trump at Turnberry. If they want to be lazy, they will just have to look at the gates and wonder what goes on behind them.

That is why the little baby Trump blimp is so hilarious. To the socialists they thought it was a big deal, and the media did their best to cover it that way. But in reality, it was just a stupid little kid’s balloon that anybody in America would think is pathetically small. To the Europeans it was massive, and that says everything. I hear from people all the time some of the remnants of America’s own temptations with socialism, especially the thoughts left over from the Depression and pre-World War II days of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. I catch people saying all the time because they learned such things from their parents and grandparents who lived through that era where government tampered with supply and demand to the point of economic restriction. They’ll say things like “we can’t afford that car, or that house, or those clothes.” What they really mean is that they are too lazy to work for those things. It’s possible that they just don’t care about the material aspects of possessions, and they might even use Bible verses to justify their laziness, but when someone says something like—“I can’t afford that” they are essentially saying as the residence of Turnberry were relegated to state, “Trump’s resort is too expensive for us. We’re just common folk who like to see an appearance from the queen from time to time and sip our tea.” Trump’s visit to Europe was a direct challenge to the entire premise of western civilization which had adopted socialism over capitalism and all they had to defend themselves from it was that silly baby Trump balloon. It was small thinking at its best which showed why America was clearly pulling away in the modern age leaving the socialists of the world in the dust. And Trump understood his role in pointing out that difference and he was quite comfortable with it. And that is why these Trump years will not just go away with future elections, the imprint will last for centuries, and that is something that needed to happen for many years.

Rich Hoffman

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

I Was Struck by Strzok’s Testimony: Louie Gohmert represented me well during the House Oversight Committee hearings of 2018

This is what happens when being “under oath” has no meaning. When we live in a judgeless, valueless society where nobody is supposed to use values as a hammer against others, you get a lying, deceitful, arrogant FBI agents like Peter Strzok. His testimony in front of the House Oversight Committee was extraordinary, the disgraced FBI agent who had run the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation and started the whole debacle against Donald Trump and the phony Russian conspiracy showed the nation what the true face of evil looked like. Many in the aftermath of the hearing were critical of people like Louie Gohmert from Texas who lost it a bit during his portion of the interview, but I thought his quest for sincerity and honesty were at the core of the entire endeavor. Not that I have any love for Peter Strzok, but if I had been his attorney I would have had him take the fifth, because the disgraced FBI agent said too much in what he figured would be a Beltway endorsement of his bad behavior.

The miscalculation that he and many of the Democrats made approaching the hearing was that the value of institutionalism would triumph over the bad deeds of Peter Strzok who was having an affair with FBI lawyer Lisa Page and was sharing copious amounts of information while on the job and using FBI communication devices to essentially start the ending of the Donald Trump presidency before the election even took place. It’s no conspiracy theory to conclude that the FBI using Peter Strzok sought to tamper with the election of 2016 in many ways, first in meddling with the Hilary Clinton campaign, allowing her to be a candidate when she technically should have been facing the same type of prosecution that was targeted at former celebrities like Martha Stewart. But when Donald Trump emerged that summer to head the Republican ticket, Peter Strzok along with several other agents purposely sought to destroy his candidacy and they hid their efforts behind a completely made up Russian story to give them cover from public judgment. And the whole thing had blown up in their face leaving the arrogant Peter Strzok to appear before the committee to attempt to talk his way out of the mess and restore faith in the FBI. Things did get heated, as they damn well should have.

Louie Gomert wasn’t just interviewing a witness in what appears to be one of the biggest scandals in American history, he was literally sitting in front of a devil, a representation of evil that overwhelmed him with emotion to confront such a beast. I can’t blame him one bit. Peter Strzok wasn’t testifying to get to the truth, he was there to take one for the team at the FBI who desperately needed him to show up and earn back the respect of the American people. Instead of pleading the fifth, Strzok offered a defense in public that was supposed to satisfy people and to take Republicans off the conspiracy case and turn America’s judgement back to Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian tampering of the Trump campaign, as if such a thing would explain to the institutionalists why Trump was in the White House and not one of their own kind. It used to be that no matter how villainous a person was, there was at least some agreed upon civility that we could all find in each other under a respect for a God and an oath taken with a hand on the Bible to him. But we aren’t living in those times. Few people believe in anything anymore, especially whether or not their eternal souls will burn in the damnation of Hell for lying. People like Peter Strzok these days pledge their oaths to the institutional values of their respective group associations instead and that makes them very dangerous when they attempt to play on the traditions of American civil conduct.

The Democrats were just as bad as Strzok, they were using the same deflective tactics to explain away Peter Strzok’s very dangerous conspiracies as they did to explain the law breaking of Hillary Clinton in both her email scandal and the debacle in Benghazi where in both cases at a minimum she showed terrible judgment. If her behavior wasn’t grossly illegal, which I think it was in both situations they certainly showed that she was an incompetent leader, which was a clear indicator that the Democrats should have been looking for someone else to run for president. Instead of judging Hillary Clinton on the content of her character they were supporting her for president just because she was a liberal woman—and nothing more. It was up to the FBI to fix up her mistakes from the vantage point of the intelligence community and put a stick up her back to keep her standing so she could be elected president. What nobody counted on was that those smelly people who live between the big cities and shopped at Wal-Mart were so mad at the system that had evolved out of the Beltway that they were poised to vote for Donald Trump, which is precisely what they did. To support their own illusions of how things were supposed to work, the FBI, the DOJ and the Obama White House created the fake Russian story, which had new revelations that came out of this hearing which came from Jim Jordan’s line of questioning. The point of the Russian story was to divert attention away from the reality that American’s were rejecting liberalism as it had evolved in Washington D.C. People didn’t want a House of Cards type of representative republic, they wanted Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

To sell his position, Peter Strzok and the rest of the FBI behind him miscalculated what was really happening behind the Donald Trump presidency, even up to the House Oversight Committee testimony. For them the entire testimony was about selling whether or not Peter Strzok’s bias toward Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump played a part in his investigations into two presidential candidates to help shape the nature of the election. He needed to establish in is testimony that even though the text messages he exchanged with his lover Lisa Page showed bias that he professionally was above and beyond that kind of behavior and that the investigations he worked on were not corrupt with his influence. That is why he didn’t take the fifth, because he needed to offer an explanation that the Democrats could then sell as a way to still believe in the integrity of the FBI. But what they don’t know—actually they probably do because they spy on us extensively—is that people like me were planning to turn toward the Second Amendment if Donald Trump wasn’t elected, because if a guy like Peter Strzok ever came to my home to obtain records or make an arrest, he and his associates would be in big trouble. The people doing the arresting needed to be turned around. I voted for Trump to turn things back toward justice, back to an America where a hand on the Bible still meant something. Not an FBI agency that was trying to give the White House to Hillary Clinton by not only tampering with the election process, but in destroying the people who would run against her.

It might not have been civil, but Louie Gohmert represented my thoughts on the matter, he asked the questions I wanted him to ask, he represented me in that hearing. If a man like Strzok will lie to his own wife and use such bad judgment in sending 600 text messages a week while he’s supposed to be doing the work of an FBI agent to a lover of his, then how can we believe anything he has said ever—especially on the matter that he didn’t have any personal bias against Donald Trump and favored the election of Hillary Clinton and intended to use the tools and power of the FBI to steer the election in that direction. That is very serious stuff and if not for Gohmert’s line of questions what other option do we have to remove such people from the FBI or reform it back to something that it should be—at least an organization that can take an oath of office and mean it. If a man won’t keep an oath to his wife, how in the hell can he keep one to a company he works for? It really does come down to that. Such thoughts are not popular these days in a world that isn’t supposed to judge anything, but in essence, that is the central argument in this case. We are supposed to believe that Peter Strzok can lie about this or that, but not about that or this and everyone is supposed to live happily ever after. Well, no, that’s not how things work. And if not for these hearings, things would be much worse. What happened this week at the House Oversight Committee hearings was civil discourse. It’s a whole lot less violent than armed insurrection to take back our country. Democrats should be grateful that such mechanisms are still options in the pursuit of civil discourse. Louie Gohmert’s comments to Strzok are a whole lot more peaceful than what I had in mind and for that, they should consider themselves very lucky.

Rich Hoffman

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

Stormy Daniels Arrested in Ohio: Why wilted flowers should be illegal

Well, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black, that the porn actress Stormy Daniels was arrested at a Ohio strip club in Columbus for allowing a customer to touch her while performing on stage, then claiming that the arrest was politically motivated. Michael Avenatti has made a name for himself trying to use the old porn actress who allegedly had a sexual relationship with Donald Trump many years ago, to advance his career and attempt to be the latest Never Trumper to destroy the new American President. So he, CNN, Saturday Night Live, and many other media outlets have tried to use the porn actress to achieve what they could not, hoping that there was more than just smoke, but a raging blaze of guilt that would bring down Donald Trump. If anything has been politically motivated or tried to use obscure laws to advance their position, it is the claims of Stormy Daniels who settled to a confidentiality agreement with the Trump team to keep any story that did occur between consenting adults, quiet. It was Avenatti who had used every obscure law he could to advance this story toward his own relevancy and caused even the Mueller investigation to raid the office of Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen to find dirt on Trump. Why did Avenatti and Daniels think that they would be able to come to Ohio, which is Trump country with a solid red backing, and push the limits of the law without consequence?

Nobody in their right mind would want to go to a strip club and see the saggy assed Stormy Daniels who has been pillaged by so many men perform on stage in the nude as such a withering flower. The nature of things is that females are like fine flowers who are in full bloom in their late teens and twenties. A freshly cut bouquet of flowers is quite nice to look at, the petals are nicely formed, the color is very sharp, and the stems are straight and attractive. But a few days later those flowers start to wilt, and they don’t look so good. After a few days on the table, any rationally minded person will throw them out for something new. Nobody wants to look at a bunch of wilted flowers that have lost their color and their shape. Stormy Daniels is a bouquet of flowers that have been on the table for about a week too long and what she presented of herself on that Ohio strip club stage was a has been of a flower plucked by everyone but was marketed as a tourist marker saying “Donald Trump Slept Here.” Most women make a transition from beautiful young flower into something else successfully, but for Stormy, all she has is her sex appeal, and in that regard it’s quite pathetic that people like Avenatti would exploit her in such a way. You almost feel sorry for her because at 39, she needs to make herself known not for her sex appeal, but for something more intellectual.

Unfortunately, Stormy Daniels has nothing else but a melting body that looks more like a blob than an object for pollination in the game of the birds and the bees. Is it fair for women that this is the way of things—sure it is. Selling sex to a bunch of horny men is easy and Stormy Daniels exploited that nature to enrich herself. But she is also dying by the same sword. And to make up for her aging sex appeal she has chosen to make herself the front of the Never Trump movement which of course will bring her way enemies. When you have enemies, they are always looking for a way to bring you down so if you make it easy for them, of course they will do so. It didn’t matter that Stormy Daniels performed that sex show in strip clubs all across America in front of hordes of desperate men who drink so much that they still see value in the petals of a withering flower. Some of those men came because they wanted to touch what they thought Donald Trump had touched, and Stormy was happy to fulfil that fantasy. But Trump is loved in Ohio and she came to the capital of that state and performed in a manner that was scandalous toward the Trump name, and she expected that she would get away with pushing the limits. She might have gotten away with it if she where ten years younger and not at the front of an attack against a beloved president. But in her present state, it would just take the slightest little thing, and that’s exactly what happened.

I would argue that nobody should go to strip clubs, they just aren’t good places conducive to proper conduct. But if you view them for what they are, essentially flower shows for men to remain interested in sex, especially after their own wives wilt away into old age, then some understanding for their function emerges. But women who present themselves as clean fresh flowers available for the plundering by men appealing to their animal prowess have chosen a short career. Woman in the sex industry are used up by the time they are over 25 years of age. Stormy Daniels is 39. Even when she claims to have had her affair with Donald Trump, she would have been in her late twenties which is still old for people in that industry. I think he probably took a picture with her and tried to make her feel good by flirting with her given her reputation, and the rest is a fantasy of hers. But playing the game of taking off clothes and pushing up against the barriers of illegal prostitution is not something a political figure should do, and Stormy Daniels is now a political figure. She made herself that way, so she should expect more of this type of treatment in the future.

The same type of people who are defending her actions are the same losers who want legalized pot, legalized prostitution, and open borders. They are against the type of country that Trump supporters want. Avenatti and Daniels might think its fun to come to states like Ohio and flaunt their careless values in our faces as this state is the buckle on the Bible belt but they should not be surprised when they get bit by their own antics. Stormy pushed the limits and she was busted by police loyal to Trump using the laws of the state to arrest her. Michael Avenatti doesn’t get to pick the laws that he likes and doesn’t like to defend his client. If he can dig up obscure terminology to attempt to bring down the President of the United States which is his stated intention, then Ohio cops can arrest Stormy Daniels for presenting herself in an indecent way and inspiring sexual contact with customers of a palace of sin in Columbus, Ohio.

I would add to those charges the extra insult of being too old to take off her clothes in public. It should be illegal to allow Stormy Daniels to present herself as a withering flower, and to charge money for the experience just because she may have had some contact with President Trump over a decade ago. What she is doing is similar to writing graffiti on some monument, such defacement should be illegal. But nobody wants to see her saggy body eroding before our eyes and to sell the experience as “sexy.” That all by itself is justification for arrest and I don’t think this will be the last time.

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

Why Candace Owens Should be President of The United States: Apparently Twitter thinks so too

I wasn’t kidding when I said it, but I was surprised to see such a reaction from people when I said on Twitter that I thought Candace Owens would be a great candidate for president of the United States. I mean she’s only 29 years old now but to me she has the whole package and is presently just as qualified as Barack Obama was. Candace is an organizer so with the bar of pedigree being lowered during the Obama years, just as Bill Clinton lowered the expectations of personal behavior paving the way for Donald Trump, it really can’t be said the running the Executive Branch is beyond the reach of a political novice. What we have learned over the last 32 years, first with Clinton, then with George W. Bush, eventually followed by Barack Obama is that it doesn’t take a great genius to be president. It takes a person exceptionally skilled as a promoter from the White House and knowing how to manage the people around them. It’s the perfect job for a person like Trump who has made a great living up until his presidency promoting visions. The White House is uniquely suited for that type of personality and we are learning that we should have been putting people like Trump in office for centuries. But once his job is done a decade or so down the road, what kind of people will be good for the office and to me it is obvious that it will need to be someone like Candace Owns.

After watching Candace Owens on several cable news shows I made a simple remark on Twitter that I thought she should run for president someday and that I’d support her when she was ready. That unleashed a firestorm of interest generating over 160,000 impressions in just a few hours, the response was very encouraging in the affirmative. I mean let’s be honest, even though I replied to people that we should always be color blind and not promote people in our society just because of sex—if all things are equal in the world we are currently living in conservative ideas would best be sold from the Executive Branch by a young black woman, because it would completely disarm the political left’s accusations of the Republican Party. I think Democrats are over as a party anyway. It may take another half of a decade to realize that reality, but I’m all for finishing them off by taking away their most powerful weapon, identity politics. Candace Owens in the White House would be devastating to Democrats especially when they saw that the same people who have supported Trump would support Candace. In 2018 they rationalize that Trump supporters get behind him because he’s an angry, rich, white guy. But when those same people would support Candace, a young, nice black woman, it would literally tear their minds apart because it would force them to recognize the true reality of the situation.

I have been looking for years for a chance to show that it was Republicans who are best at putting people in the White House that free up individual merit as opposed to group think. I have supported Elizabeth Dole for president, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and many others because I wanted to show that Republicans were certainly not the party of old white guys. Republicans certainly weren’t Nazis resembling Hitler from Germany or Mussolini fascism from Italy. They were the party of Lincoln who freed the slaves and gave Frederick Douglas a platform to rise in politics while many blacks in the south were still considered slaves. Once liberals started painting conservatives a certain way, as traditionalists who were against everything, it was difficult to answer such a negative and with conservatives tending to be too nice to defend themselves, it allowed the more aggressive Democrats to take shots at conservatives unjustifiably. So for many years I have been looking for a way to prove that identity politics were not part of the Republican platform in any way, and to prove that we had to have identity politics to prove it—we needed a good woman or a person of color to rise to the top of the Republican political process.

What Donald Trump will leave in his wake will be a great thing. He is doing such a great job in selling the benefits of individualism back to the American way of thinking. When people ask what making America great again means, it is simply the mindset where individual rights were protected over group rights. I personally don’t need a tribal leader to “lead” me anywhere. The person I pick for president doesn’t need to be wise in the ways of the world, or a master strategist. I just need my representative in the White House to protect individual rights and to get the bureaucrats out of my way, and I’ll take care of the rest. The nation is presently doing well because Trump has taken away a lot of the crippling regulation and taxes which were holding back our economy, and that’s all we really need out of the White House. Trump has additional business skills which are giving him a fun retirement job, but essentially conservatives don’t need any leaders to show them the way to a good life because the core of Republican thinking is in individual rights. Democrats on the other hand like Barack Obama purposely used regulation and taxes to hold back the American economy so that other places around the world could catch up to us, which has hurt individual rights in favor of group associations and peer groups—breaking the world down by race, religion, sex and income potential. Making America great again means to conservatives not a throw back to where women were in the kitchen making pies for their husbands, but in putting the center of focus of value back on individual rights, where someone like a Frederick Douglas could become a leading spokesman for the newly released slaves. Part of making America great again would be in creating a White House that could have someone like Candace Owens running it, and the country would be just fine.

The failure of Barack Obama is that we were supposed to overlook his socialist agenda for America because he was black. We were supposed to be handicapped by his race into making any opinion about the guy because of his skin color. That is not an enlightened position and people generally know it instinctively. That is why they supported Donald Trump. But when Trump’s years are done and Republicans are looking for the next great movement, I think Candace Owens would be the perfect type of person to show just how big tent the Republican Party is. If we needed Trump to resell America on the power of individual liberty after many years of socialism have tried to cripple the United States from the White House, we will need Candace Owens, or someone like her to continue selling those ideas to a public growing older from the Millennial generation that will be learning to continue that string of success well into the future. It is not for immigrants to bring their socialism from their destroyed countries with them to destroy American culture as the political left desires, it is up to people like Candace to sell them on individual freedom and to take away the restrictions of small thinking government to allow those individuals to flourish and bring the American economy great things that benefit many other people as the 21st century matures.

My suggestion in favor of Candace Owens for president at some point once the Trump family is done with their part of making history is to sell individual rights to a society of people who have been told their entire lives that their personal salvation is in the string pulling of the political class. Those of us who already know better don’t need to be taught, but there will be many who will, and it will be easier learning from Candace than from just about anybody else. That is why I think a pretty, young, intelligent woman of color would be the ideal presidential candidate in the near future, as soon as she comes to age to do it. By taking away the weapons of the political left it would further destroy their hold on the minds of people and pave the way for learning which needs to happen anyway. So Candace would be as good as anybody, and she wouldn’t need a lot of political experience to do the job. Quite the opposite.

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

Compromise is a Dirty Word: Republicans and Democrats are not conducive to an equal and profitable exsitance

It was nice to see so many requests from the liberal left asking that everyone unite under a common cause of America for the day of July 4th. A call for civility is always a good thing, only behind a few layers of social acceptance crept an ominous villain which went unnamed—and that’s usually how it is with conservatives. All parties in the matter are not equal, the political and the left and the political right are not “equally” complicit in the crimes against the American Constitution, are not “equal” in their desire for social change, or even their basic value systems. One party is not equally aggressive, or beholden to an equitable measure of the responsibility for bringing about a day of peace so that all Americans could enjoy a few fireworks. And that assumption was very disturbing because it essentially lures conservatives to believe that they are equally complicit in the crimes of division, which of course they aren’t.

If in a married couple one member of the relationship is always trying to make the other behave in a manner that keeps the marriage alive while the other is always running around cheating and bringing bad elements into the union—both parties are not equally responsible for making the changes needed to make things work. It doesn’t take two to always compromise in order to make concessions for a husband and a wife to get along. If the husband wants to cheat it is not the wife’s responsibility to compromise with her husband and just let him surf dating websites for entertainment. She is not equally responsible to compromise toward his defects emotionally. The man might say to the wife that she doesn’t dress sexy enough to hold his interest, or that the wife is too much a sexual puritan to full satisfy his desires, it is not the responsibility of the wife to sacrifice all her beliefs so that the relationship can work. Maybe she doesn’t want group sex, maybe she doesn’t want to yield to anal sex, maybe she wants a sexual relationship that is more intimate and caring, not filled with so many taboo driven characteristics. It is in the value judgments of the two married people to determine what is acceptable and what isn’t, but if the wife finds the request for sexual fulfilment disgusting, the burden is not for her to scrap her value system in order to get along with a defective husband. It is the husband who must figure out if his values are even conducive to being in a marriage if those are the types of things that he’s interested in.

A marital example is something that just about everyone can relate to and perfectly captures what is being asked when civility between political parties is suggested. It suggests that conservatives and democrats come together equally and put away their weapons just for one day while all Americans watch fireworks and enjoy American pie at their local parades. However, reality knows better and what everyone is fighting about is not a resolution that both sides will meet in the middle and join hands to live happily ever after. When the value systems of both sides are so opposed, the philosophy of the two cannot magically be bonded, reality has parameters for behavior where some things just aren’t conducive with each other. Good is good and bad is bad, they are not relatives to one’s position within the universe. Good behavior or bad behavior is good or bad here on earth or on the other side of a black hole on the far reaches of the universe. We would call that a universal truth. To use the marital example as a foundation of thought, if a man cheats on his wife or demands reckless sex in their relationship the violations against the marriage are the same here as they would be on the far side of the universe. Good and bad cannot be mixed together to form a stable reality.

Conservatives are not responsible for yielding to the ANTIFA protestors’ desires for anarchy. Conservatives are not responsible for the liberal desires for open borders. Conservatives are not responsible for the progressive political platform on abortion where actual death of babies is a negotiating point—is life formed at conception or during the 12th week, or moments before the baby leaves the womb during birth. Conservatives are not responsible for the liberal desires to tax everyone and redistribute the wealth of their society to the lazy bastards who refuse to work and would rather be homeless. In the case of the relationship between conservatives and liberals it is the liberals who want to take from the value of conservatives to sustain the lives of others that is the problem. Conservatives are asking for individual rights not the rights of groups to exist, and that sums up the fundamental difference as to why the two sides will never get along. One side will have to conquer the other and a basic philosophic position going forward will have to be decided upon. If a man is going to cheat, he is deciding to bring bad things to the relationship which makes a marriage unstable. He might complain that the wife doesn’t do this, or that she doesn’t do that, but ultimately it is her value systems which set the restriction for which he is trying to bend. If the purpose of a marriage is to bring about children into the world and to nurture them into a profitable existence than what does anal sex have to do with the happiness of a family, other than the husband is dealing with his own perverted desires? The fight between conservatives and liberals are just the same, if the purpose of politics is to lay the foundations for a proper society, yet one political philosophy wants to support group think and social welfare while the other supports individual rights those two positions cannot be mixed together to make everyone happy. It’s impossible.

Everyone can think of people in their lives who are defective, where they eat too much, drink too much, or have destructive characteristics that harm themselves and others around them. Yet it is not the responsibility of the good to yield their values to the destructiveness of those broken people. You can try to help them by bringing them to the light, but you cannot yield the light to darkness and expect light to survive. The destructive people out there hell-bent on personal failure have nothing to offer, they can only take from value. They don’t assist value, so there can be no equal merging of the two sides. Compromise is never really a compromise because it is always value which is traded away, one side takes while the other gives, that is the nature of good and evil. One side has it, the other side takes it, so there is never an equal partnership and in order to share value with non-value the essence of that value is what gets stretched out and diminished in the process. Everyone wasn’t born equally right from their point of view. It’s not just a matter of democrats talking to conservatives to find common ground. It’s about discovering a philosophy that actually works and building a society that works on principles of good and rejecting concepts of evil that we are talking about and with such ideas, compromise is a dirty word.

Rich Hoffman

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

How to Have a Happy Life: The nature of love and meaning of Pavarotti’s ‘Nessun Dorma’

I ran across this unique article linked below which of course inspired comment. So many people in life are drowning in misery and self-doubt which is a real tragedy because it’s all avoidable. It’s one thing to have little regrets in life which start when we are all very young, but if not dealt with properly they become monstrosities as we age, and it really destroys people. The burden of regret is a tremendous liability on most people as this little article explores in Best Life. Things get even more complicated philosophically for people as we instruct them that a sense of “self” is selfish and that they should always put others before themselves 100% of the time. Such a position in life is not conducive to a successful existence, so for the sake of inspiring people to live just a little bit better not just in the short-term, but the long-term as well, perhaps a few encouraging words are appropriate.

https://bestlifeonline.com/this-is-biggest-regret-in-life-most-people-have/

From my earliest memory I have always had a strong sense of self and I’ve protected that concept vigorously for over 50 years now. I’m not a believer in reincarnation, but my inner compass has always pointed toward the need to protect my individuality. For that reason, I have never struggled with peer pressure attempting to take me away from my personal goals which later led to regret. I can honestly say that at age 50 that I have no regrets in life. Not a single one. That is true of both good and bad memories. Of course, not everything is always rosy, but when I’ve needed to I’ve certainly defended my sense of self with arguments and fist fights—and even though some people did get very hurt, for me those events didn’t lead to regrets because I was defending my sense of self. I think a lot of people go wrong in their lives because they feel like they should say this or that when other people impose themselves, yet the target of those negative emotions never say anything, they just internalize the emotions leaving them to reflect later in life back to a regret, which then destroys them in thousands of negative ways always from the inside out. Speaking personally, when I felt I needed to do something to defend my sense of self, I have always done it, sometimes recklessly and against the advice of everyone. At the time such things seemed crazy, but it has led me to a life without any regrets and that is a huge benefit to me now.

We are all taught that there is something bigger than ourselves, which is really stupid. The person that people fall in love with and want to be near and to learn from is what we are, not what we sacrifice to others. If you are the type of person who is always giving of yourself and your time you should not be surprised that the people you attract in your life are all people drowning from their bad decisions in life, and that they migrate to you to take whatever you can give them. So unhealthy relationships persist under such conditions. On the other hand, you can’t be psycho about your sense of self either going to the extreme opposite, never letting anyone near you because you feel you are so weak that you can’t let people tow in your wake. I find that the definition that we all have for “love” is wrong. Love isn’t about “falling” for other people, a spouse, a child, or a friend, it’s about taking the substance of one’s existence and allowing people to share in the fruits born from the pronoun “I.” If a person does not have a strong sense of self, than what is there for anybody to “love” about you.

What people love is not what you can give them, but what they can “love” about you—that strong sense of self. For instance, children might love their father but if the guy is just sitting around on the porch of his house thinking about all the things he regrets about his life, the times he should have made more money, or the times he stepped away from a fight with a neighbor over grass clippings, or even gave up his seat in the employee cafeteria to avoid some kind of conflict, there isn’t much for the children to love about such a person except for the sacrifice they provided to their own existence. Compare that to the father who builds a model train set in his basement which the grand kids play with whenever they come over. The material representation of the train set is a reflection of the sense of self of the grandfather which provides some hook for which others in his life can love about him, and the relationship is much more beneficial for everyone. The self-interest of the father to pursue a train set is much more value to a family than a regretful shell of a man rocking in a chair at the end of his life handing out twenty-dollar bills to his children who appreciate the gesture but are craving a sense of love for their father.

I had a tremendously bad day the other day at the start of it and as I am known to do on such days things got a little hairy. One of my daughters was coming over for dinner that night and as the sun was starting to set they asked me what I wanted for dinner and were putting their toes into the water to check my mood. By the time we had the conversation I had solved many of my problems and my response to them was that I had taken a lot of curvy roads through the mountains that day and turned them straight through a desert terrain. Upon further inquiry they asked for details so I sent them by text this video of Luciano Pavarotti singing the famous opera of Nessun Dorma. It is a favorite of mine not because it has inspired me to great things, but because it often matches my mood and approach to things in my life. When I hear Pavarotti sing this opera it reflects my sense of self for which provides many people in my life with something to love about me. I had two choices in such an interaction, I could say that “oh, my day was so bad, I just don’t know what to do” which for me would be uncharacteristic, because I always know what to do. Or I could send them an uplifting message for which they could invest their love—which they could trust because they understand my need to turn curvy roads into nice straight roads and solve problems—no, to “conquer” problems.

It is far better to live a life with bumps and bruises and occasional broken legs than to learn to live with regrets. Similarly, on that bad day I described I gave a little class to some of my employees who needed to hear It about the road less traveled which I’ll share here for context. Do not expect in life to take the safe paved roads that are provided for you and expect to find rare treasures just laying along the side of them. All you ever find is pocket change that people who came before you accidentally drop. The way to really find treasures in life is off those paved roads in the places in the forest where no trail exists. That is where snakes will bite you, thorn bushes puncture your skin and you can even break a leg stepping on the uneven surfaces. But it is also there where treasures are more likely to be found and they don’t all come from actual gold, but in other valuable forms that are otherwise left unmolested due to the difficulty in retrieving them. Yes the road is safe, but the sense of self that we have for which people fall in love doesn’t like safety—because it leads to regret. Not asking that girl for a date, or not taking the time to read that book, or driving that car, or taking that vacation to Hawaii because it’s too expensive leads to a life filled with regret. Life can be difficult and it often can be punishing just to breathe in it, but for me I expect to end each of my days with that feeling you get from Pavarotti singing Nessum Dorma “I will win.” Win what and why, that is defined by our sense of self, and you must have that to know what winning means and how being a winner brings more love to the people in your life who care about you than just being a loser that stays on the safe roads of life and does what everyone tells you to do, leading to an obvious life of misery and regret that isn’t good for anybody.

Rich Hoffman

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

With the Election of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador Mexico is now an Open Enemy: People will finally understand why we needed to build the wall

In a lot of ways the election of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as the new Mexican president is a good thing because it removes the masks of pretense and allows us to deal with the true nature of what Mexico is. Mexico has never been a friend to the American government. It is a socialist hell hole that has been barely surviving off the tourism of Americans looking to do things there that they couldn’t do in their home country. It is a country run by drug cartels as that is their primary export, and Lopez Obrador knows that, which is why he is seeking amnesty with the main drug lords to just make everything official. As a radical leftist, his election will just take the mask off what the Mexican people always were—social radicals desiring an openly socialist state-run confiscation of all wealth. At least we know what we are dealing with without the fake handshakes and kind words through the media.

There is no heritage of the Mexican people. They are a conquered people infused by the country of Spain and have been on a social justice campaign experiment that nobody would have tried in Europe that was a spectacular failure. Most of the Central and South American countries that have attempted the kind of turn to the left that Mexico has have not survived which is why they have gangs running their economies instead of legitimate governments. That is certainly the case in El Salvador and Guatemala, but at least in Mexico they benefited in spill over money that came from the richest country on earth.

Out of frustration since the election of President Trump the real strategy of Mexico as a country has been revealed, the desperate poor have been encouraged to flood the U.S. border and to overwhelm the court system and to bring all that destructive socialism into America to loot the value of the capitalists and destroy the country from within. That attack was to take place on two fronts, with poison from the drug cartels infecting the youth of the United States then by mixing socialist people desperately poor with the American people to change the voting patterns. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador not surprisingly has proposed to make peace with drug cartels and to use drugs as one of Mexico’s greatest exports, openly. People in Mexico who elected Lopez Obrador are desperate to try something, and conservative ideas are not in the Mexican vocabulary, so at least we are dealing with villains that we can see for once. Instead of pretending to be friends to America, the open hostility has been revealed for what it always was.

This will help the Trump proposal of a border wall and secure the funding much easier than before where too many Americans were willing to give the Mexican people the benefit of the doubt. But essentially you can’t have one of the world’s poorest economies right next to the richest and expect everything to go well. It’s like leaving a mansion unlocked at all times with a next-door neighbor living in a double-wide. The poor will always seek to steal from the rich because they are poor for a reason. A lot of people from the Mexican culture are hard workers, but they lack a proper philosophy that would allow them to become wealthy, as much of their “heritage” has either come from the collectivist based Aztec and Mayan cultures, the socialist Christian conquistadors from Spain or the Marxists from Germany. The people of Mexico need a capitalist revolution in their home country before they are ever ready to be a proper neighbor to the United States and I can’t think of any better way for them to get there than to learn what will happen to them under a Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador presidency.

It was stated during the Lopez Obrador campaign that he desires to sit down with the United States as equals and negotiate NAFTA. The trouble is, Mexico is not “equal” to the United States. Capitalists and Marxists are not equal—one takes from the other so there can be no terms that promote a conducive relationship. That is like a robber negotiating with their victim, either I shoot you and I take all your money, or you give it to me so I don’t have to shoot you. That is the kind of negotiating that Mexico is proposing under Lopez Obrador. There is no equality, and its time that people who don’t pay much attention to politics in the United States finally learn what kind of neighbor Mexico has always wanted to be.

For a long time, open border progressives have attempted to fuse the two countries together playing on the sympathy that most people have for each other. Nobody wants to see some of the dirt-poor conditions that people live under in Mexico. Any right-thinking person would want to help, and Americans have, which is the only thing keeping Mexico barely hanging on. But the two cultures don’t mix as their value systems are radically different which is why there needs to be a wall to separate the two. Up to this point there just haven’t been enough Americans willing to admit that such divisions existed between Mexico and America. Large American businesses wanted to believe they could move to Mexico and run manufacturing plants, but now that will be nearly impossible as socialists will seek to take control of their facilities now that the pretension of civility has been removed leaving Mexico to rely on their primary export—drugs—poison.

Things needed to get worse in Mexico before anything would ever get better—and with the election of Lopez Obrador they have. As a far-left leaning activist everyone on all sides will finally get to see what it looks like to be an openly socialist country interacting with North America. Canada is another socialist leaning country that is now finding itself at odds with the American government under Trump. The business community of course wants peace between all countries just as Mexico hopes that Americans will still travel south and spend their money on Mexican tourism. But you can’t have something of value next to something seeking value by looting it from others and that is where Mexico is as a country. Canada is as well, only their mixed economy interacts with North American capitalism in more dynamic ways which blurs the lines for people who don’t see the socialism on the surface of things. But Mexico doesn’t have such blurred line.

While its true that the election of Lopez Obrador likely wouldn’t have happened if not for the election of Donald Trump, trying to maintain the illusion of civility would have only prolonged the inevitable. So, we might as well get to the meat and potatoes of this dilemma and let the American people see what has always been going on in Mexico. We’ve always been at war, we just never talked about it. Now we will, and now the intentions will be obvious. The border wall will further define the differences between the two cultures. The pain of that difference may have elected Lopez Obrador, but it has also caused Mexico to reveal their true problem, their Marxist roots and the failures that were created in that country because of it. By stripping away the civility that has camouflaged that difference for too many years, now we can all deal with reality, Mexico is a country of leftists made that way from the very beginning and they want to attack America. Some within our own country who call themselves leftists want to see that happen and they are domestic enemies for attempting the insurrection. But now the illusions have been lifted and we can see what really divides us and that is ultimately a very good thing.

Rich Hoffman

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

No Conservative Can be a Racist: Understanding the nature of merit based exsistance

We need to clear something up about our present time, it is impossible for those who are philosophically aligned with conservatism to have any remnants of racism in them. No real conservative could be a racist. Its impossible in every way imaginable. When a Democrat or some 26-year-old reporter writes an article explaining how Donald Trump is a racist due to his border policy, they are expressing their own vast ignorance at the meaning of such a word—they simply don’t know what it means, or how its applied. Racism is a very ancient form of stupidity and is a left-over remnant of mankind’s past in experimenting with superstition and religion. It’s the ultimate group think, to assume that all Jews think this way, or that all Germans think another way, or that people from the continent of Africa have limits of this kind or that kind—all those thoughts are rooted in a misunderstanding that cultural behavior is directly connected to genetic structure—which its not. For anyone who believes in individual rights, it is disingenuous and ignorant to chain people to the group association of their past. It just doesn’t make sense.

To get to the roots of this debacle examine the nature of the type of people who are doing all this genetic research these days, into their own family trees. I have listened to many crazy lunatics over the years go into extreme lengths to discover who in their family’s past was a rug cleaner in the court of some European king, or some great, great-uncle cleaned the gun of a letter carrier in some great American war. Or that their grandfather or father knew a guy who knew a guy who was friends with a guy who knew the agent of a popular rock band and managed to get back stage passes—and for that the entire family is supposed to be proud of their association with touching celebrity in their lives and to actually brag about it. Such thoughts are the foundations of racism, and people who believe in any way that the genetic fortunes of some family member from their past equates to some rubbed off merit passed down through the ages are simply wrong.

You can see this same type of behavior when people inherit unearned wealth after a powerful character dies in a family and the less intelligent descendents try to figure out how to manage the wealth that was left behind. Often those direct family members didn’t have to work hard and learn intellectually how to manage wealth, so millions of dollars that took a lifetime to build are squandered away in months or years by the relatives who inherit it because they do not possess the skills that built the wealth just because of their genetic makeup, or that they happened to marry into a powerful family. The world functions off merit-based intelligence not whether or not a person becomes great and just because they have a son or daughter that all that greatness magically rubs off on the offspring. What does rub off is the access to such greatness and for people within a circle of influence to learn from some older person, but to assume that magically success will just happen because of genetics is a preposterous concept that has long left the minds of anybody intelligent. Those types of thoughts might have had a place in primitive times, but they are long outdated and have been proven wrong and are not part of any conservative movement. The very concept of conservatism puts values on individual behavior, not group assimilation and racism is all about group identity.

Those on the political left do not think in individual terms so everything they see has some primitive form of group association. For instance, there are actual discussions about President Trump’s Supreme Court pick and what school of law they might have attended as if the school itself might make a Supreme Court Justice better than another from a different school. The failed assumption is that it is the school as a group that is responsible for a brilliant legal mind, not the actions of the student in becoming great through hard work and perseverance. It is in the mind of the liberal the association with groups that deserve the credit for excellence. We hear the same type of comparisons in sports, a team that wins a lot often umbrellas the credit for frequent victories on “team philosophies” not the individual efforts of the team members themselves who are responsible. Even with the great play of LaBron James the other individuals on the 2018 Cleveland Cavaliers weren’t very good and they could not beat the Golden State Warriors for the championship. Just because LaBron James was on the Cleveland Team, the entire team wasn’t suddenly good as a whole. The team sucked and only found themselves in the playoffs because of LaBron James. When they had to play teams with other talented NBA players, they couldn’t match the effort and they lost. A school, a team, or a family lineage cannot make someone great, only individualized hard work and effort.

Knowing all that, it is impossible for a race of people to lay claim to any level of intelligence or aptitude. There are brilliant people born along the shores of the Congo River and in the mountain tops of the Andes. They can occur anywhere at any time, and it is up to them to develop those skills as individuals. America was never a racist nation. There is no place on planet earth that has such a diverse and successful assembly of individuals achieving greatness. A successful American is not a person of any kind of color, not even white. Such concepts are entirely made up by people who are liberal in their thinking because they don’t understand the basics of individualized achievement. People aren’t successful in America because they inherited some business from their father or that they went to a certain school. They are successful because they worked hard and developed themselves as individuals to do what others could not, or would not. But once done, the achievement doesn’t carry over into all the children and grandchildren. Doing a heredity search two hundred years from now won’t automatically make some future person more successful just because someone in their family was successful once. It takes the actions of an individual to brew success and that comes from a well-developed mind, not skin color or sex.

The misconceptions of the ignorant, which most liberals are, do not make reality a defined state. Their ignorance and lack of philosophic understanding does not change the rules of the universe. All existence is merit based. A success today does not make a success tomorrow and it certainly doesn’t hide in the genetic makeup of a human being. Only really dumb people would think such a thing. Conservatives are by their basic epistemology those who believe in individualized achievement, and that goes for a person of any color or sex. If a person is good, it doesn’t matter what their background, and it doesn’t matter who their parents were or if their family lineage at some point in the past touched greatness. All that matters is whether the individuals who make up the human race are working to become exceptional in some endeavor and whether or not they manage to have success. There is no racism in the conservative political parties because they are all based on individual behavior, and that knows no genetic limitation. Only the effort behind the mind of individuals.

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

The Blue Wave of Liberalism: As the Supreme Court rules in favor of tradition, tears are all that come from the left leaning insurgents

We are seeing a blue wave, a blue wave of liberal tears, that’s a whole lot better than the blood of slain socialists and communists in American streets. With the two biggest Supreme Court decisions coming this past week leaning the court in directions it should have always been, liberals should consider themselves lucky. The court system is working properly for once not just because it is representative of a conservative view for a change as there aren’t surprises such as we had in the Obamacare case years. The High Court under the guidance of President Trump is working competently especially in two cases, their support of the Trump travel ban which had been challenged by the lower courts and the reversal of the mandatory union dues to be paid by non union employees. By adding these decisions to the bakery case of a gay couple trying to compel a business owner to bake a cake for a ceremonial practice that they didn’t wish to do, a positive pattern is clearly developing which is good for the human race, but bad for liberals who demand the sanctioning of their bad behavior from good people in order to live their lives—and the Supreme Court is philosophically aligned for a change on the correct premise of all Constitutional debate—the act of compulsion over individuals.

In essence the nature of the travel ban where people from war-torn communist and socialist countries are fleeing to America can be summed up simply. Why are there people from bad places in the world trying to get into America—because America has value where El Salvador and Iran have lost that value. People wanting to survive desire to leave for the opportunities that America has to offer. However, bad guys who want to destroy America hide in the great numbers of migrants so that they can embed themselves like a Trojan horse into that culture of value and soon the problems of gang violence that is in El Salvador are in the streets of New York and Chicago. The main problem is that the failures of socialism and communism have created violent clans for which people are fleeing from in those host countries causing an immigration problem. Liberals like socialist behavior and have always been fans of communists so they ignore the failures of the origin countries and seek as all Marxists do, the looting of value wherever they can like some sick insect destroying a garden. The Constitution grants our president, whomever they may be, to protect American borders from just such a menace and that is what Trump has done, and the Supreme Court has upheld that right. The American people cannot be forced to sanction evil, in this case giving socialists and communists a path toward continued existence by forcing Americans to fund illegal immigration and allowing dictatorships and totalitarian governments to thrive off the looted wealth of America by flooding the border with immigrants and collapsing our legal system under the weight of sheer chaos.

And it was 41 years ago that a previous Supreme Court putting their finger to the air and trying to predict the future allowed labor unions to compel employees to pay union dues to them for which they would then spend on liberal political candidates. As I’ve pointed out many times the concept of labor unions were always socialists in their nature—their aim was always to compel the many to support the views of the union leadership—which were always Marxist in nature. The decision was wrong then and thankfully this modern court reversed that bad practice which will go a long way to restoring sanity back into our employment sectors. By allowing labor unions to compel employees to give them money it was no different from some mob boss compelling business owners and the people of a community to pay for protection not from the world, but from the mob bosses. Always behind the effort was the desire of the many to steal value from the few to sanction behavior that individuals didn’t agree with, which has the adverse effect of weakening our Republic style of government. America was never a democracy where the mobs rule by sheer numbers—which was always the desire of socialists and communists, because the lazy, the stupid, and the evil will always accompany the masses giving democracies their proper place in the Vico Cycle. Looking back at the failed countries of the Trump travel ban, failed societies of democracies that have allowed their cultures to be overrun by evil have destroyed the value of their homelands and they as a sheer survival instinct seek value where it is so they can loot from it—which is the cause of illegal immigration. The same holds true of labor unions who seek the input of the most valuable to loot that wealth and convert it to collective oppression to sustain their own existence.

The argument that labor unions have against such a Supreme Court ruling is that it supports “free riders.” People who benefit from the union negotiations without paying for the service. But what labor unions really mean to say is that they require compulsion and surrender of individual will to the mass desires of a tribe mentality to function effective as a leverage holder of a place of business. That is bad enough in private businesses, but it is absolutely detrimental in government jobs where tax payers are forced to fund this chaos then to have the looted money confiscated turned into liberal weapons in the realm of politics. By allowing the practice of such looting of individual wealth in favor of collective benefit, the previous Supreme Court of 1977 opened the door to the artificial financial support of a liberal party in America that would have never existed but for its thuggish roots into socialism which stole its value from people who would not give them that value unless the highest court in the land had said that such a thing was legal. The high court finally after more than forty years corrected that mistake and we are all much better for it.

yPhilosophy is the key to our civilization, and without it, we have chaos, which is what previous governments have been exporting up until this Trump administration. With President Trump showing that he is willing to protect the bold, the current Supreme Court has shown that it is willing to uphold individual rights over the protests of the group assimilators who want to turn our Republic into a mob driven democracy well on its way to anarchy—quite on purpose. The case-law from just this week’s Supreme Court cases will resonate for the next century in very positive ways Constitutionally, and that is good for everyone in the world—even the illegal immigrants. It protects what they are seeking. Even though the dream of America might be put off a few years through the legal immigration system that is merit based it means that when they do get to the greatest country on planet earth that their dreams will be intact and opportunities will be there for them to utilize as individuals. The socialist influences that have destroyed their homelands are finally being pushed back in America which keeps that light on in North America for the rest of the world to follow and that is truly the greatest aspect of this week’s rulings by the Supreme Court. While the liberals may think its all unfair they should at least take refuge in the fact that they are shedding tears, and not blood, because their continued incursions into traditional American life is not permissible and if we did not have the courts doing some of this suddenly good work, then it would be war in the streets against their collectivist ideologies, and they wouldn’t like the result of that. They should consider those tears a lucky byproduct.

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

A Note to the Political Left: You want to fight, I’m more than ready

https://twitter.com/overmanwarrior/status/1012131397878865920

31% of people polled in a recent Rasmussen poll believe that we are headed to a second civil war in America.  I am one of them and when and if it happens, I offer myself to help win it on behalf of traditional America.  Just let me know.  It would be fun, and is greatly needed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2018/31_think_u_s_civil_war_likely_soon

I am an excellent communicator with a great vocabulary. I’ve done radio broadcasts, television, given public speeches, written a few books and conduct myself at a high professional manner in business. Additionally, I have a martial art background, am a professional bullwhip artist and am one of the fastest gun owners on the draw from a holster to target that there is in the United States. No matter what kind of confrontation I find myself in, I can deal with it easily. I can debate any topic with any person at any time and any place in any format, and I know that 99.9999999999999% of the time that will be enough. For that rare time that physical violence does erupt, which the older you get and the smarter you get is much less often—that I can take care of the situation. The reason I bring this up is that I know how to avoid conflict and prefer debate over violence any time. But I also know where the limits for debate are and when physical violence is unavoidable—and I am quite certain that the situation the political left is in currently, a year and a half into the Trump presidency, that likely violence is the only thing that will work against the threats that are being made against conservatives. Liberals cannot and will not listen to reason about the things that are going on in the world because their entire political platform is about avoiding reason and functioning from pure emotion—how they would like the world to be, not how it actually is, so no matter what format they choose to fight on, they are going to lose leaving them to retreat to the most primal of threats—physical violence.

I have said often what the purpose of public education is. I know a lot of school board members both current and former, and many of them want to believe that they can have some positive impact on public education, but they really can’t. The way public education was designed from its inception as a government instruction tool it’s primary concerns were not to make children literate or to learn math. It was to shape them into peer groups for which they would be controlled for their entire lives. The children were always meant to confront bullies in school and to learn later in life that when a neighbor, a homeowner’s association, a boss, an IRS official, a FBI agent or a mob of leftist protestors confront them that they were to yield to that bully. The reason there are bullies in public schools is because the system is designed to bring them forth and to confront the masses to teach them conformity to the system as a whole—not to nurture individualized feelings.

In addition to the things I mentioned above I had a very unusual period in grade school, from kindergarten to my senior year in high school—I never once in all that time yielded to a single bully so naturally I stepped into adulthood unbroken completely—which is an unusual vantage point. I learned these lessons very early in life when getting a paddling from the teacher and being sent to the principal’s office were supposed to be the scariest things a kid would have to endure. I’ve told this story before but it’s very relevant to this situation, in the first grade there was a really scary bully that everyone was terrified of and the teachers avoided because he was impossible to deal with. He had terrible parents and they knew there was nothing they could do with the kid. Yet he was learning in a classroom environment with all the other kids. He was twice the size of all of us and he was just mean. He was smoking cigarettes in school in the first grade! So he was hopeless and everyone knew it. But the suggestion was that we would all have to learn to live with him and learn to like it. We were supposed to go out of our way to appease the kid so that we wouldn’t get beat up. Well, not me, he happened to sit in front of me and I didn’t like the way he smelled or spoke, so we never got along. And one day he turned around to punch me in the face for smarting off to him and to defend myself I poked him in the eye with my scissors, as a raw reaction to his aggression. I got into a lot of trouble, and essentially the rest of my school years I was in and out of the principal’s office not because I was a bully, but because I refused to yield to them. The bullies never got into any real trouble, but I sure did. I was the good kid that was supposed to be molded into a productive citizen that would learn his place under the rule of the bullies. I did learn to be a productive person, but I never learned to yield to any bully. That has given me clarity to speak from regarding this present problem.

The political left is largely untested radicals who were nurtured from their youth to be bullies in their adulthood, not individually of course, but as pack hunters. Their greatest weapon is the kind of mass force that was experimented with during the Berkley Riots of 1965—where the students were used to drive social issues in a left leaning direction by essentially using mobs as a bully to instigate fear into the voting public. They were created in our public schools and deep in their subconscious have key words programmed into their minds which are activated by media buzz words for which they act like robots upon hearing them. And just like that they are trying to kick out Sarah Sanders from The Red Hen, or confronting Mitch McConnell outside his Georgetown condo and are roaming the country under the hoods of ANTIFA threatening to rape, destroy and vandalize any Trump supporter because they have the sense that the mood of the country has finally turned away from them and they may very well lose the next election cycle to even more Republicans.

Violence is all the political left has, they don’t have ideas, they don’t have a strategy, and they don’t have a future. All they have and all they ever had was fear driven by emotions. If they fail to evoke fear in their audiences, they have no impact legislatively, and as we all know, all rules in society should be made by reason, not emotional fears. The strategy of the old conservatives who hold a Bible in one hand and tell us to have compassion for our fellow people on the other side of politics are wrong. You cannot appease a bully when they are programmed to do nothing else but destroy. Like that bully I mentioned and many that came after him, there was no talking to or reasoning with the guy. He had to be destroyed, because that’s all he understood. And that is what we are dealing with now, people who will destroy you if you give them the chance. They are not ever going to listen to reason, they will never seek peace from thuggish aggression—because they don’t know anything else. We have to deal with them the only way that anybody can, with the offer of debate, but the moment that doesn’t work, violence. I certainly know the difference between the two, debate and violence. Debate is always preferred, but this fight before us isn’t a rational one. All the political left has in their arsenal is fear. And without that they have nothing. So when an opponent is intent to use the only weapon they have left, you have to meet them with at least an equal force. That means the time for talking is over, they will have to be beaten into oblivion in order for peace to ever have a chance. You must take away the only weapon they have before anything can change, and that takes courage, and the self-confidence to do so.

I can only speak for myself in this matter but when I hear the political left threatening violence against Trump supporters it makes me want to confront them and actually beat them into submission. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, I have all the tools to engage them with methods other than with violence, but if they think we are going to yield to them out of fear, they have a lot to learn. I would say, again, speaking for myself, it is impossible for them to beat me. I’ve been threatened in every way possible in the past and been through more than enough to know what happens during physical confrontations and there is nothing that worries me about anything they have to offer either as individuals or as mass groups. If you know how to defeat such people it doesn’t matter if the threat is one or a million, they can all be beaten—easily. Nobody is going to hurt me under any conditions. And nobody is going to hurt my family, friends or associates. There is no way for them to make a person like me comply to their brute force tactics and peer pressure. Being very Kantian philosophically they are inclined to believe that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody was around to hear it, that the event didn’t happen, because for the event to happen, they as a collective would have to accept that the event occurred. But reality says that if a tree falls in the forest it doesn’t matter if anybody heard it or not. It fell, and it happened regardless whether everyone agreed that the event occurred. That is the game that political leftists are trying to play with the Trump presidency. They are in denial that it happened, and they are willing to use whatever force necessary to deny its existence, not just from us, but from themselves. So for the good of mankind and of reality, we must take away their weapons and meet them with force equal to or superior to what they offer. And they must be destroyed, utterly, and completely as a philosophic species and be reborn as children of reason. That is the only option there is in 2018.

Rich Hoffman

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