Tag: Hollywood insight

Mueller Didn’t Just Attack Trump with Lawyer’s Raid: The FBI and many others in the Beltway are testing all of us

If the FBI had treated the Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch situation with the same vigor, I wouldn’t have any problem with the raiding to President Trump’s personal attorney on what is an obvious Deep State witch hunt to overthrow an American election. After all, if Trump was innocent, like I think he is, there wouldn’t be anything to worry about—except for the obvious violation of his personal sanctity which is a problem all its own for a separate discussion on unreasonable search and seizure. But they didn’t, in fact they did the exact opposite. There is a real problem with the FBI seizing through a secret raid on April 9th 2018 the office of Michael Cohen and his privileged communications with President Trump. What the whole incident evokes is cheating, where the referees of a game essentially penalize one team while allowing the other team to conduct their business unmolested in an attempt to give a win to one side at the expense of the other.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/‘a-bomb-on-trump’s-front-porch’-fbi’s-cohen-raids-hit-home-for-the-president/ar-AAvHeTw?ocid=spartandhp

I get that the other side doesn’t like Trump. I never liked Obama and I certainly felt that there were many issues that should have kept Obama from being in the White House, like his background with known American terrorists, his associations with communists that were on the FBI watch lists, and even his sketchy birth certificate that was never resolved to my eyes because what they produced was an obviously doctored document that had technology on it that did not exist in the 1960s. But Obama stayed president and I went to work to elect my own kind of president, which is how Trump ended up in the White House—because a lot of people like me came to the same conclusion. Trump is our answer to the obvious corruption that took place to keep Obama in the White House—even to the process that put him there to begin with.

But when the other side loses as badly has they have, and the refs try to snag away the advantages of the obviously superior team (the Trump team) and give it to the losers of yesteryear (the Deep State) then I have a problem with it. I’m not going to put up with it, let me just say that. Seeking evidence that the FBI can then leak to The New York Times, and The Washington Post, the way James Comey did which led to his termination as Director of the FBI—is simply not proper conduct. I’d go so far to say its illegal. For instance, for the FBI to cheat and take secret communications between Trump and his lawyer over the Stormy Daniels tabloid story so to alter the elections of 2018 is something that could happen to any of us. For the FBI to just take evidence that they are supposed to acquire through investigation means that they could use anything against us whether or not we exercise our right to remain silent. When the law can use evidence acquired by changing the rules of attainment as they go, the rules of any game are fluid to the point of ridiculousness. It’s like playing a game with a 5-year-old that makes up all the rules so that they can win no matter how poorly they play.

The Robert Mueller investigation was always a sham meant to exonerate the reputation of the poor way James Comey conducted himself during the election year of 2016. But the more that has come out the worse he and the FBI under him look, and so now the entire focus of the investigation is to keep the FBI out of court itself. What are we supposed to do when the top law enforcement in the land fails to investigate itself and when they will break into the office of the President’s private attorney and steal evidence they hope to leak to the press to make their case not look so bad by tearing down other people who do have the power to end their careers? Trump does have the power to end Mueller and everyone else attached to the top of the FBI and Justice Department and he probably should because they are out of control. But he won’t because the entire Republican Party is not behind him as they should be. Many of them hope to see Trump removed from power so they can have a chance at a power seat, so they allow this FBI to conduct an obviously illegal investigation with the same hopes that the political left is praying to, that it will push Trump into a mistake.

Trump figures he can outlast it all because of his innocence, but that doesn’t change that fact that none of this should be happening. The premise that is being established is excessively tyrannical and is a nightmare of Constitutional violation. A political Party should never have this kind of power, to manipulate the levers of government to entrench themselves to tax payer funded resources. The way that Hillary Clinton’s case was handled shows the bias, and anybody who thinks that Trump can be prosecuted for nothing when the Clinton case was about everything they are accusing the President of conducting is smoking crack if they think they’ll get away with it. What’s going to happen is that they’ll start a war with normal American people—which wouldn’t be a good idea.

I happened to read about this raid into Cohen’s office while we were celebrating my 50th birthday in the middle of Indiana at a Cracker Barrel. The short story with that is a lot of people care about me, particularly my daughters and we wanted to do something very unique for my 50th. I can promise that my experience was unique to just our family—nobody else out there could lay claim to sharing that experience with me. Just two days prior however I had the opportunity to spend time with some real Washington D.C. insiders so my particular experiences at life allow me to see things through the eyes of Beltway types and the kind of people who eat dinner at a Cracker Barrel in the middle of Indiana surrounded by farm country. It was a happy place for me to wait for my food and catch up on the day’s events with news clips on my iPhone. It was very apparent to me that Mueller wasn’t just testing how far he could get away with that kind of thing with Trump—but that he was testing all of us. And in that Cracker Barrel if they had to pick between the FBI and President Trump—they’d pick Trump. And as I say that I know the Beltway types have no idea why. That’s also why I was celebrating my 50th at a Cracker Barrel in the middle of nowhere and not at a $10,000 party at the Westin in downtown Cincinnati—or even in New York as had been discussed. We had a table near the fireplace and I could smell the wood smoke from my seat as a gentle snow fell outside and I was around the people I most cared about in the world. What more could you want? But the additional contribution to such an experience was perspective. I have perspective where many people lose it in the chaos of a day and that is a kind of birthday gift I give to myself. Many friends of mine were all twisted around an axle over the Cohen raid and the Ohio HB 478 bill that was being floated for passage. But I was sitting next to a nice fire, eating good food with people I care about and digesting the news surrounded by people who are the buckle of the Bible Belt.

If Trump were to be impeached for some silly thing, the people in Indiana wouldn’t suddenly become boot looking Washington D.C. lapdogs ignoring the politics of things like this FBI case just so they could keep a job, or their lives. People like Robert Mueller and James Comey forget that the reason Trump was in the White House in spite of his past reputation as a billionaire playboy was because of people who filled that Cracker Barrel on I-74 just 30 miles outside of Indianapolis. They are Christian soldiers in the purest sense of the word, but they have given up on honesty in politics. They simply want someone like Trump to drain the swamp of their capital city. They don’t want alligators and snakes like Comey and Mueller kicking down their doors and taking naked pictures of their wives and daughters and declaring the action “protection.” They want justice because they gave up trust in the FBI a long time ago. And if I had turned to them in that restaurant and asked who would be with me to stand against an out of control government—most of the men and a lot of the women would have signed up right then and there.

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

The Art of Holly Denham: Seeing hope beyond the facade of a negative reality

I think raising children is the most rewarding thing you can do. Raising my children was likely the happiest time of my life, and what they have become makes me infinitely proud. What they become largely is the complete responsibility of the parent and any little mistake made along the way can translate into massive problems later down the line. So to see my kids arrive into their late twenties being nice productive people unbroken by the realities of existence is something I never get tired of. Both of my children do unusual things creatively which for me was always my hope for them. Most parents just want their children to be successful and moderately happy in life, but I always expected more with some of the unusual experiences I introduced them to as kids. Then like all parents must—although most don’t accomplish it—you have to have the guts to keep your grubby hands out of their lives and let them live it as much as possible—so that they can authenticate their own way through a complicated world, and you have to trust that what you taught them along the way would give them what they need. My oldest daughter is a successful photographer and is doing great things very early in life. And now her sister is applying her own brand to the world of art which can be seen below.

My first impression of my youngest daughter’s Holly Denham Art platform was pride because she had moved her abilities well beyond just sketching basic pictures, which a lot of people can do, but do it at the level of a top illustrator. It was great to see her arrive at that level, and to witness her work on the many products displayed at the website below. But then peeling back the first impression at the depth of the work and noticing her interest levels, it was obvious not just because she was my kid, that she had developed a truly artistic outlook toward the world. Upon seeing these drawings, I reflected the drawings I had seen of Pablo Picasso recently at the British Museum in London that the famous painter had made about every day life, and I had to tell Holly that I thought she was better at this stage of her work. The reason was that she had managed to reach deeply into her subjects and pull out an optimism that is very distinct for her and show it in her work. Even if at first glance the subjects are dreary and in the style of the pessimism typical of most millennials, there is always a glimmer of hope in what she does that makes her stuff different from similar works of art.

http://hollydenham.bigcartel.com/

I remember how it was when I was her age, I used to hang around with all the crazy artists at 4 AM in the morning at the Perkins in Corryville at the University of Cincinnati campus, and then the Perkins in Montgomery where all the affluent rich kids who wanted to be nothing like their stiff parents came to express themselves with grunge art, music and literature over hamburgers and free refills of Coke all night. There were similar scenes played out all across the world, young people who thought they were the first to stumble out of childhood and into the injustice of the world rebelling with non-conformity—until the age of 30 came closer and the demands of children, house payments and a steady job forced them to do what they knew best, what they learned from watching their parents go through the same cycle. Thus, artists, even the really good ones, find themselves limited greatly by this cycle of observation—even Picasso’s sketches were very didactic in their worldview—featured so prominently at the greatest museums of the world. Most young artists while their window of free thinking is open to them, before the pressures of life close that window only get to the point where they ask questions and represent those questions in their art. It is therefore pretty rare to see an artist who can ask and answer some of those observational questions.

If an artist isn’t breaking through into some realization not obtained any other way, then it could be argued that the work is simply reflectional—and other than looking neat, is useless to the viewer. But capturing some hidden reality, obscured by the lenses of daily pressures is the difference between a good artist and an average one and to me it is quite clear that Holly is peaking at that goodness. Many of the pieces she has shown me recently are already there. I can only imagine what she will be like after another 2000 drawings, which she is well on her way to producing. She has always been a very interesting person and has had a need to express that uniqueness—so its very nice to see that wonder hatching early in the 21st Century for the world to enjoy.

For me however the pride is in elements that aren’t so obvious in the various sketches. Artists in order to be good need to have lived some life and been pushed to the breaking points a time or two, and most people inclined to such endeavors often turn to substance abuse to alleviate the pain of such moments where expectations don’t meet reality. In my daughter’s case, she has a vast intellect that is capable of a great deal—and because of that she can endure observations that are quite harsh without being broken emotionally, and thus can then articulate those elements onto a printed page. As a parent it is hard to let kids live and to defend them when the world thinks they should be doing something else. But the payoff is in the results which I am enjoying from her. Referencing all the “artistic” types that I’ve known over the years where they all fell short was that they become bitter and rather stagnant in their work. But the human mind craves more than anything optimism, the yearning to turn one more corner to get to a new reality and if a person can last long enough, they can achieve anything. Its one thing to identify what ails the world, it’s quite another to see it and work beyond those limits and I can see in Holly a path where she does this naturally, which puts her in a category of uniqueness that no school can teach—only the realities of a life well lived.

All life is about conflict, and the best of art shows those situations resolved, or the preparation of that resolution. Even the Da Vinci Mona Lisa is about that mysterious look captured in the midst of tumultuous times—that steady gaze from the mysteries of time peering at the future with a knowing smile. Exploring the Louvre in Paris the art shown there is mostly of this type and I don’t see it much differently from today’s comic book artists expressing themselves based on modern observational tendencies. Only today there are more options, and the artistic noise is much greater than it was in Da Vinci’s time. But the artistic process is very much the same, an individual witnesses’ life and puts to it hopes, fears, anxieties and even dreams that can punch through the imagination of a viewer to varying degrees. And to see any young person do that is a wonderful miracle of existence—especially when they turn out to be a kid that you’ve cared for from their very first moments to the present with lots of detail, yet without interrupting their own boons to self-awareness. Pride is a limited emotion to describe such a feeling, but it’s a start.

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.

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.

The Death Penalty for Drug Dealers: Why its a good idea with historical context to illustrate the need

For some reason President Trump’s idea that some drug dealers should be given the death penalty is controversial. I’d say that the fact there is even controversy regarding that statement shows just how much damage has been done to the moral fabric of our society. Without question drug dealers should be given the death penalty. I’d even go so far beyond Trump’s statement to say “most.” Anyone who peddles mind altering substances, legal or illegal, is killing people. The death may not be fast like it would be with a gun or by running someone over with a car, but the death is certainly on the accelerated trajectory of a life toward a premature end with the consumption of mind altering substances. It doesn’t even have to be drugs, it could be said that a poor education does the same thing—anything that limits the mental ability of a human brain I would put in the category of acting as an agent of death—and subject to the death penalty. Why the death penalty, and not something less severe—well, there isn’t space in jails and nobody really wants to put money into an incarceration system that holds these losers, so we should just kill them. Why not? If they are worthless people to society and show themselves irredeemable because they intended to poison the people of our civilization, then why should we not rid ourselves of those parasites? If rabbits are eating the crops of our garden, we shoot them. If a snake enters our homes and slithers its way into our beds, we kill it. So if a drug dealer seeks to corrupt the minds of our people—we should treat them the same way. It’s perfectly logical. Parasitic entities do not deserve consideration and it is up to the quality of our fully functioning minds to make such judgments.

Many in the legal community of orthodox political banter immediately criticized Trump’s plan by declaring that we must hire even more government workers to process all these criminals. Think of all the additional appeals hearings that will have to be implemented if the death penalty is added to drug incarcerations, they’d say. But they are thinking incorrectly on the matter and assuming that more government is the answer, as they always do in reflections about their own employment relationship with society. Instead we are merely talking about enforcing many of the laws that are already on the books in a lot of cases. Like the case of the sanctuary city situations where lack of law enforcement is blamed on a lack of resources, the assumption is that death penalty cases will require more government employees just to process all the necessities of incidents.

However if the $30,000 to $50,000 per year for each additional prisoner that a lot of these drug related incarcerations add to our tax burdens were wiped away with clean jail cells serving not as homes for complete losers over a time span of 10 to 20 years only to be ruined within the correction institutions and no good to society for the rest of their lives, then think how much money could be then transferred over into the prosecution of these cases. Not only would we save room in our jail cells where we must feed these inmates for most of their lives, but we could really get the bad guys off the streets where they are doing irreparable harm to the future of our society.

Liberals on this issue remind me of how the British used the efforts of the Indian Nation led by Tecumseh around the period of 1811 to halt the efforts of America’s frontiersmen into the Ohio Valley—by using the Indian plight as a cover story for their own protection of the fur trade they were shipping back into Europe. England didn’t want an organized America forming from coast to coast so they inflamed the resistance of the disorganized Indians to fight their battles for them. Of course, the Indians were defeated and America prospered to one of the greatest nations the earth has ever seen. For drug dealers who make their livings poisoning America’s population, the Mexican government is quite happy to let it occur. In fact, most of the socialist countries around the world from Venezuela to China are quietly rooting for America’s people to rot themselves into such a depleted state intellectually that they will then be easy to conquer giving their left leaning societies a renewed advantage among the countries of zombie thought collectivism. Mexico relies on two things for their economy, American tourism and the drug money that flows through their political system from drug sales in the states.

Major drug dealers in Mexico that many consider untouchable because no court in the world would dare to prosecute them—because the bribes have literally bought the opinion of the masses to the point where prosecution is impossible—they know they are poisoning the American population and destroying the minds of its people. To them they consider it revenge for Western Expansion, for the Spanish-American wars which took place all during the 1800s culminating in the Marxist Revolution between 1911 and 1917. Like the Indians of Tecumseh who lost their land to the frontiersman of America these societies of collectivism seek revenge and the issue then comes down to which political philosophy is correct in their foundational thoughts. Well, if you are an American you must choose, you can’t have it both ways and turning to drugs to take the pressure off won’t solve the problem.

The forces of evil—(blind collectivism of the ancient tribal natures) are using every trick in the book, political pressure, confusing national dialogue, guilt, sex, intoxicating relief of all the said pressures of existence, to seduce good people into turning to villainy so to advance their own insurrection against the creation of The United States. So it is quite relevant to look at the behavior of the drug dealer and consider their actions a war crime—because in every category of definition, it is. Sure people have a right to do what they want, if they want to get stoned and ruin their minds as individuals, there really isn’t anything that can stop them from doing those terrible things. But as a society of rules, a nation has every right to define what it’s values are so that the potential of individualism can best be unlocked for the ultimate gains of nation building. Everyone benefits when a society is working properly and for that to happen intelligence must be a high priority—which it presently isn’t in America. The opioid crises in America is the obvious byproduct of the greater symptom.

Under my definition anything that attacks the human mind purposely is essentially seeking to kill the human being the mind occupies. Without intelligent thought, a person is really as good as dead anyway. Living a valueless existence isn’t living—its just taking up space and resources from those who do want a shot at a good life. Criminals who seek to ruin the lives of others shouldn’t just be locked up, they should be killed. After all, liberals are all for abortion, even late-term killings of babies for the benefit of the mother’s life—for her right to not be chained to a child to raise. So why would they insist on giving dangerous drug dealers a second chance to kill our people in many different ways over the course of a lifetime? Because they want these drug dealers to end America and to turn the land of our nation back to the collectivist hoards of yesteryear, the Indians, the Marxists of Mexico and the European continent representing itself in modern-day Canada. They all want revenge for the wars that were won in America against their efforts and if they can’t do it by force, they’ll do it through the minds of our youth. And so far, they are succeeding. So, let’s kill the drug dealers and restore America to an intelligent nation. I see nothing controversial about protecting value with force and wiping away villains forever when the opportunity arises. And the definition for villain in this context is anybody, anywhere, who intends to diminish the mind of another human being into a continued declining state. That to me is the worst crime that there is, even worse than the fast kill of murder. Slowly killing somebody with drugs is still killing them—but a lot more damage gets done during the process, which makes these situations far more dangerous.

And if anybody wants help killing these drug dealers, small and large alike—I will volunteer in less than a second. There is nothing I despise more on earth than a drug dealer, except for maybe a human trafficker. I am all for treating those types of people with very harsh realities—specifically a death penalty.

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

Ending the Mueller Investigation: What it was ever about and what a waste

It’s easier for me to say these days than when the shoe was on the other foot. There is always a degree of hurt feelings when a political aspect of our culture is on the losing end. When people pointed out that Obama was associated with radical Islam, American terrorists, and that he had birth certificate problems, those were all true—yet the presidency itself was respected as a priority. I hated Obama not for any other reason than that his political foundations where harmful to the type of America that I related to. So to some extent I understand the resistance to Donald Trump’s presidency from supporters of a more liberal America. With that said it is important that people from all sides of the argument understand that the Robert Mueller investigation into Russian manipulations of the 2016 election are purely political and have no basis in reality. Not even to the extent that people from my side thought Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States. Even after eight years of the Obama presidency there are still lots of things to doubt about the former president’s past and whether or not he should have ever been president to begin with. There is even less to the story of Donald Trump’s validity to that high office for which the Mueller investigation was only designed to create doubt and pressure on the incoming administration to look the other way from all the crimes committed by the DOJ in those final Obama years.

People like James Comey, Andy McCabe and Robert Mueller live in that Washington D.C. bubble which those of us on the outside hate so much. They are the institutionalists who have formed their own morality within the context of Beltway politics and like Hillary Clinton share a view of the world that is not rooted in reality—but in the rules of the government employment game. There is a sense of entitlement that they develop with each day of their careers where they assume that the work they are doing is special and they have some greater service to the mysteries of the universe the rest of us aren’t aware of. And they believe it down to the last cell in their bodies. With that understanding when half the country such as myself realizes that people like this with overly paid government salaries have entrenched themselves in our government and need to be removed, we elected a guy like Donald Trump who had going in a reputation of firing people. If there was one thing that made Trump into a celebrity before he ran for office it was the term, “you’re fired.” It should come as no surprise that the new president would fire lots of people. That’s why we voted him into office, because we grew tired of the Washington D.C. types like Comey and McCabe who functioned from their own brand of morality.

From the beginning the plan that Comey and McCabe had to preserve their control of the FBI as a fourth branch of government ran by unelected bureaucrats was to use the threat of a special counsel investigation to keep their jobs in the new administration and to keep the Executive Branch always looking over their shoulder as a means of control. Personally, I have the background as an employer so when I provide these little words of wisdom there are foundations to my opinions that are rooted in reality. As an employer presently, I have hired many hundreds of people over the years and fired a lot more than seems necessary. But the call is mine to make for the sake of the enterprises I’m responsible for. In that regard I’ve seen and heard every excuse possible that an employee of some kind will make in defense of their own perception of their work. A few weeks ago, I had to terminate an employee who clearly wasn’t working to the level of ambition that I expected and they were stunned to find out. It was a very heart-breaking moment for them, the information was truly devastating. But they had worked up in their minds that they were the greatest thing since sliced bread and why wouldn’t they. After all, they have to look in the mirror every day and like something about what they saw. When they found out that reality had a different opinion it was truly an emotional crisis for them and I’ve had to go through that process now almost as much as the number of people I’ve hired over the many decades that I’ve done that type of work—leading people. But literally just yesterday I had a kid who quit. He walked into my office thinking he had me where he wanted me. He said he found a job with more money attached and that he was quitting. He also said that there are other people thinking of doing the same thing. Obviously, he was looking to use the fear of losing a significant number of people as leverage to demand more money out of me. Well, that’s not how it works with me. My reputation is such that there are a lot of people in the world who want to work for me because the benefits far outweigh the draw backs even in a tight economy where low unemployment makes recruiting challenging. My response to the kid was, good luck. See ya later. I’ll have a replacement for him in about five minutes and I always keep myself leveraged in that way to keep any kind of mutiny from unfolding itself at my expense, and any good manager of people would do the same. It helps that I’ve done every kind of job imaginable, so I know when someone is bullshitting me. Understanding the real values for things is the key to not being taken advantage of.

The very first thing Comey did when Trump entered office was let the new president know that the FBI had embarrassing information from that fake dossier which was used to spy on the campaign in Trump Tower. Most people have some embarrassing aspect of their lives that the FBI for years has used as leverage against opinion of their efforts. Trump not coming from a government background, but that similar to mine in the private sector who has employed lots of people over the years, in his case many thousands, knows these tricks all too well. The first thing such behavior is inclined to trigger in Trump is, “what’s this guy up to.” That led Trump to look at Comey deeper and decide he didn’t want the guy running his FBI agency. Yet Comey thought that might be a problem so he came up with the threat of a special counsel investigation to not only protect himself from Trump but also people like Andrew McCabe. Just like that kid I mentioned who wanted to quit by suggesting that other people would follow if I didn’t do this or that, Comey intended to use the threat of embarrassing information to control the White House. Yet Trump wasn’t going to play that game which is why we elected him in the first place. Whether it was true or not, no American president wanted the distraction of a phony investigation looming over their every action which is why Comey was leaking information to the press, so that he could trigger an investigation if his employment was terminated. Upon meeting Trump for the first time Comey realized he was in danger so he started the path toward the special prosecution we know today as the Mueller investigation.

Robert Mueller was simply commissioned to make life tough on the president if he insisted on making terminations to key Beltway positions. And the point of that commission was always to keep eyes from looking at the real crimes the FBI had actually committed in propping up Hillary Clinton and seeking to destroy Donald Trump in an American election. The blame was passed along to the hapless Russians who have the economic power of a child’s lemonade stand. But most people don’t know that—leaving people likely to believe in some FBI accusation. However, Trump never capitulated and supporters like us never believed what the FBI was saying because this is actually why we elected Trump to begin with. We want McCabe and Comey fired—as well as many others. There are plenty of people who want to work in those jobs and the great myth is that there isn’t anything special about people like Robert Mueller. I have a cat who could probably be more successful at an investigation than what he offers. The Russian investigation was always only supposed to be a distraction to keep the incoming president on his heels while the Deep State kept their pensions—and its as simple as that. Only it hasn’t worked, and there will be many more who will lose their jobs because that is the key to solving so many Beltway problems.

Government positions had become radicalized and empowered over many years to allow people like Comey to develop a morality specific to their culture. And that has created a double standard in criminal behavior that revealed itself during the 2016 election to a majority of Americans. The same FBI that prosecuted Martha Stewart for lying to the FBI then lied often to the American public to lay cover for a liberal presidential candidate. Even though the FBI may not have liked everything about Hillary Clinton they knew she was clueless enough to keep their employment culture intact so they made a decision to support her and to work against Donald Trump in every way possible to preserve their workplace culture. And that’s all the Robert Mueller investigation was ever going to be—a weight around the neck of the White House to keep bad people in jobs where they should be fired. In that regard the claims to ending the investigation have long matured. It’s a nothing case which is wasting millions of dollars to essentially overthrow an election in favor of the Democrats, and its their last real hope at maintaining power. No matter how anybody slices it, just by the act of the investigation they are doing far more harm to the American election process than the Russians could ever hope to. And as we speak that is coming unraveled by the moment revealing even more criminal conduct than any logical person would have ever imagined made possible with the election of a business guy who understands the real value of employment unlike anybody else who has ever been in the White House. And it’s about time.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Trump’s Trade Policies are Brilliant, and Bold: Resetting value from gross wealth redistributuion practices that have supressed economies

I am a little surprised that so many people are against Trump’s tariffs on foreign aluminum at a rate of 10% and a 25% rate on steel. Critics are declaring that Trump is messing with free market concepts and that utilizing an America first policy will drive up prices and harm industries needing cheap aluminum. Rather the opposite will turn out to be true, a lot of the great wealth that China has enjoyed as a communist nation is this international propping up through wealth redistribution that has been occurring for several decades now. China has enjoyed a different kind of crony capitalism that has used regulation and trade policies meant to harm American interests and transfer the wealth to recipient countries, which they of course have enjoyed tremendously. But in any situation the way to determine who will win and who will lose in these types of engagements is to understand who has the leverage position and who doesn’t.

As if we are supposed to care but The Beer Institute, a trade association and D.C. lobby firm said that a 10% increase on aluminum would cost the industry $347 million and more than 20,000 jobs. Really? People who drink beer even if the cost per can did go up like they say it will of .20 to .24 cents per can aren’t going to stop drinking the product. Ever go to an NFL game where beer is $8 a cup? People who drink beer really don’t care how much it costs so how are beer manufacturers going to lose 20,000 jobs? People just got a raise in their weekly checks. Granted, they should net a weekly profit, but if they are going to drink beer, they don’t care if the price goes up .24 cents. If anything, I would think beer consumption would increase because people’s expendable income has increased under Trump and that’s the real issue.

Obviously, the trade imbalance has been a real problem for many decades and people have come to get used to it—and accept that the United States would just get the short end of the stick. As the richest capitalist country in the world there were many jealous countries that wanted very much to ride the coattails of North America to greater prosperity for themselves—primarily China. China with even its billion people still has an economy that is behind the United States and that is due to the fact that everything is state-run. Russia has a similar problem, this past week it was released that they had some kind of invincible weapon that could attack the United States without detection. Well, why does anybody think they released that information—for the same reason that North Korea does, to scream like a child to let people know they are at the negotiating table. But they have nothing to offer, so what is there to talk about?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-impose-tariffs-steel-aluminum-imports-article-1.3849233

When we pick something up that is a material possession do we say—“hey, that was made in Russia, or China, or even North Korea. Look at that great craftsmanship?” We don’t. Russia and China occupy most of the world’s land mass together yet they are behind countries like Japan and the United States in economic output per capita and the only reason it’s never pointed out is that the stunted growth is due to the history of communism in those two places. Many in the media markets still hope that communism can find its way in the world but it never will, because the epistemological premise of economic philosophy behind communism is incorrect. The world has literally tried to fake it for most of the last century and they’ve used the United States as a way to prop up the concept with looted wealth.

I’m not anti-China, but I am very much anti-communism. China is a pretty neat country and has always been before they turned to communism in the aftermath of World War II. If China would like to adopt capitalism I think they could truly explode as an economic force around the world. The same as Russia, if they would truly become free market capitalists, they’d have a lot more to work with than the United States has had to work with.

I would recommend to anybody interested in economic matters of any kind to read the great book by Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations. I have the older 1976 copy of its many renditions, and on page 364 paragraph 3 it states “The annual produce of the land and labour of any nation can be increased in its value by no other means, but by increasing either the number of its productive labourers, or the productive powers of those labourers who had before been employed.” For instance, if some Chinese person is making baskets and they can make three in a day by hand, the way to increase those baskets would be to either add more workers to make baskets, or to make it so that the basket maker can produce more per hour. The productive work has a measurable value and the Chinese and Russian markets have an abundance of people who want to inject more “labour” to a task, but the problem for them is that the need for that product is created by American capitalism. So the only way that there can be a global market of shared wealth in this present world where communism has destroyed much of it economically, is to have the needs for products arise in America and to have the job fulfillment going on in the communist countries. Since China has an abundance of people they can afford to throw their labour at the market demand and charge a cheaper rate—whereas in the United States the per capita output is necessarily much higher meaning the labor demand for each product garners higher value because that labor value is being divided over many market trajectories. In short, labor is cheaper in markets that have parasitic economics and that ratio has been encouraged by world leaders who still believe that the way to social fairness everywhere is through various philosophies of socialism and communism.

There isn’t going to be any trade wars with the world, not in China, not in Europe, not in Russia. China needs the food the United States produces so they’d be hurting themselves by jacking up the price for their own people. They can’t feed all their people because the incentive for work has been taken away from their economy by the state-run communism which mandates all their policies. That leaves people to do only what they must, which makes them staff all their labor needs in the most inefficient means possible. Without basic capitalist ideas like private property ownership and incentives for innovation, the cost of labour is mandated by bodies, not innovation meaning a state-run country always gets only the minimum of that effort because of the human predilection to only provide what they must since the state is the entity which collects the efforts for its own economy. Yet product is developed for those who can possess it, and that is why all the lucrative markets are still in the United States which puts all the leverage behind Trump’s tariffs.

Given all that understanding it is incorrect to artificially bring down the price of foreign goods at the expense of American wealth, because the wealth of the nation was created by the United States under the means of capitalism and that wealth has been looted to prop up the failed philosophies of tyrannical dictatorships—and that is what China has been for quite a long time. Russia is also too authoritarian which is left over from when they were one of the largest communist countries in the world. Apple has more value as a company than most of the Russian economy which is very sad considering the vast wealth that Russia has that is underutilized. When they were allowed to feel like the big kids on the block by charging NASA to fly into space and were pandered to on the world stage it made Putin look legitimate as the former KGB officer turned politician. Now under Trump all that artificial leverage has been taken away leaving him to be just another saber-rattling despot threatening global destruction if someone doesn’t give him some money. China will be the next, but the real matter on the table is that these countries can do nothing, because they don’t have the money for it. Russia barely has enough money to launch a missile, let along build a lot of them, just like North Korea doesn’t. And the best way to keep China from sneaking money into places like North Korea is to cut them off from American wealth as well. Then when they are faced with the failures of communism compared to nations that aren’t so limited will they be forced to change. They might scream and threaten in the meantime, but they are harmless, because they don’t have the gold that rules the world. America does—and it’s not because we are functioning from raw imperialism. It’s just because we adopted Adam Smith’s economic philosophy and the rest of the world hasn’t yet. But they need to.

A few years from now people will realize how brilliant Trump’s tariffs really were. They will re-establish balance around the globe for economic value without propping up communist regimes, and the truth will finally be revealed. America will of course prosper, people will still drink beer, buy cars and build things. Costs will align with the practice methods of innovative business means to combine the efforts of labour to the effect of national GDP. Some costs will go down, some may increase, but the net yield will benefit America for the better and that’s all that really matters. The parasites will have to adapt and if we really want to see an end to communism in the world and free people from its tyrannical effects, we will let the tariffs destroy it for the good of the people suppressed under it. We don’t need tanks and troops to do that—all we need to do is let market forces do their work and that is how the world will be much better and freer at the end of Trump’s four years than it ever was before. And that will be good for everyone—except the tyrants.

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

Why to Love the NRA: Give Wayne LaPierre the credit to stand tall when everyone else failed

If you really want to piss me off then drag me into the insanity of what I would consider very stupid people desiring to engage me into their bad decisions. I’m pretty open-minded about what people do with themselves and how they live—that is, until they try to make me a part of it. Then I have no tolerance, because if there is one thing I truly desire in life it is to live well, and the way I want to. My life is not the possession of anyone else. Its mine, and I love it. Honestly, I don’t need a firearm to protect myself. But if someone threatens my life they’d be an idiot to think they are going to walk away from that engagement alive whether or not I happen to be carrying a gun or not at that moment, because I know how to protect myself and the people I care about. However, a gun is the most efficient way to equalize a conflict with someone with ill intentions, and these days due to many social breakdowns, that threat is greater than its ever been before. Even in a week when President Trump has let us down with a move to the left on gun control and I find myself at odds with people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the issue, it was so nice to hear Wayne LaPierre speak on behalf of the NRA at CPAC.

My membership to the National Rifle Association is one of my most treasured memberships. I am proud every time I see the words, “NRA.” I am equally proud of my membership to the Cowboy Fast Draw Association, which is an NRA affiliate. Those are some of the finest people I know and not to brag too much, but I know a lot of people. I’m a business professional that does work with many hundreds of people all over the world so I’m not living in some cave in Montana when I say how much I love the NRA. It’s not some wacko group of right-wingers like the gun hating press would like you to believe, they are good people who want what America has always been about, the pursuit of personal freedom—and the support of guns is the most efficient way to protect that freedom.

The gun haters want, and expect that society at large has all the answers that an individual may need in their life, which is pure fantasy on their behalf. If you’ve ever been to Europe or get a chance to go you will quickly get an idea what left leaning people want to do to the United States, they’d like to replicate European culture. But what Europe has is a deep history that is at the heart of everything that they are—they are a people always looking back at what they were, not what they want to be. America is different, it is a country always looking forward at what individualized potential might drive forward culturally. And to facilitate that optimism, individual freedom is encouraged and treasured, whereas in Europe its frowned upon. Even on the topless beaches of France and Spain where women declaring themselves liberated and equal to men sunbathing with their breasts exposed we see the basic foundations of collectivism, because the women are cheapened into a collective entity as opposed to a sanctimonious specimen of a treasured loved one holding her treasures for the father of her children in the most idealistic individual fantasy of love, honor, and privacy. In America we don’t necessarily like to share ourselves with the world as we guard against the unwanted appraisal of others as innovation pours forth from our minds hoping to ride the waves of capitalism to a better life, and we protect that life from encroachment by parasitic personalities with a gun.

If we look just at the case of the many institutional failures of the Parkland assassin Nikolas Cruz, who was rejected by his school, kicked out so to preserve the sanctimonious public school. Over a seven-year period the local sheriff’s office visited Nikolas Cruz 39 times due to concern over the kid’s behavior. 39 times! The FBI directly had tips on Cruz and failed to act on those observations. When the shooting happened a hired gun that was supposed to be protecting Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School by the name of Scot Patterson took up a defensive position outside the school never engaging the active shooter for over four minutes. Patterson resigned in the aftermath in disgrace. His failure cost 17 lives. But then there was the tape delay on the security cameras and the slap stick cops’ scenario of the police radios trying to figure out what was happening. While Cruz had already killed his targets and was having a sit-down meal at a local McDonald’s, the police were viewing videotape that they thought was live of the shooter moving from the third floor of the school to the second, only to be embarrassed by the revelation that they were watching something in past tense. The killer had already come and gone. It was only by luck that one alert officer an hour later thought correctly that he had spotted Cruz apprehending the killer. It wasn’t just one failure that caused the death of 17 people and wounding many others, it was several—really a failure at every level of the supposed safety nets that were supposed to be in place. Yet the anger leveled at Marco Rubio at a CNN anti-gun forum was astonishingly brutal as everyone there advocated for more of that kind of mess. More laws, more police, more mental health screening, more, more, more institutional control mechanisms when we just observed that even the ones in place had failed at every level.

When it really comes down to it we are all we really have. We must guard our own lives with responsible action and through that effort, others around us are saved. The only real solution to most of our modern problems is an improvement of individual action. If everyone took care of themselves and declared responsibility for their lives, then a lot of these problems would go away. We don’t have a gun problem in America, we have a responsibility problem. And the reason things are so dangerous these days is that responsible people, good people are at risk from the many lunatics out there especially on the political left who are starving for attention and salvation created from their rotten lives and they want what good people have. Guns have always provided a barrier of protection for individuals against those who would seek to take from them what they personally possess—even their very lives. At the most fundamental level, our lives are our most treasured possessions, and the destitute of our species do not have any collective right to the merits of our lives. They don’t get to walk across our yards unimpeded, they don’t get to drive our cars. They don’t get to molest our children, our wives, even our mail boxes without the threat of engagement—because all those things are products of our individualized lives and the hours of hard work it took to build such a life. The world of our institutions may have good intentions, but as we have seen, when lazy minds inhabit those institutions from the FBI to the local police, to the ultimate failure of Scot Patterson we can’t trust them and there has never really been any evidence that we ever could.

Every gun grabber who ultimately wants to confiscate all our firearms in America and send us to the league of nations around the world drowning in socialism and repressed governments perpetually looking into their own pasts—to their better days—expect us to trust completely the many intuitions that failed in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School case. They have president Trump’s ear about stricter background checks, but what about the crazy ex-wife who wants to burn her husband with false accusations of misconduct because she is jealous of the next woman? Would that husband pass a background check if there is a pending case with a traumatized former wife? What if she is really jealous of his guns and she makes up some story of abuse, and acting on that the police come and take all his guns away? Is that fair to the man who did nothing but decide he didn’t want to be married to the woman? And those are just a few examples that most people can relate to in some way or another—there are countless ways that someone’s background check could be corrupted to lose their Second Amendment rights, and that is what the NRA is fighting against. The NRA stands against all those left leaning encroachments because ultimately the gun is there to protect individuals from a world that has a tendency to fail under institutional control. Our best hopes for the future are always in the conduct of individuals. So even if a man makes a mistake and runs off with a girl half his age and the ex-wife is upset about it, he shouldn’t lose his right to possess firearms. He may need that right for other things going on in his life—because all life has value, and deserves to be protected from the aggressions of others who might have intentions of dark design.

It is for all these reasons that I love the NRA so much and because of this aggression against the gun culture of our nation, I feel compelled to make more gun purchases, to support the industry. Gun makers, sellers, and the people who buy them are some of the best people you will find anywhere in the world. Not very long ago I was on the balcony of a very rich man in Japan overlooking some of the most expensive real estate in the world. This was a guy at the top of the world and could literally have anything he wanted, but do you know what he desired? He was in love with images of a Montana rancher who had a big pickup truck and a shotgun in the back window, and even a concealed carry gun under a warm jacket overlooking a vast plain of endless horizon. The NRA protects that very specific lifestyle from the jealous hordes around the world who secretly want what America has, and will do anything to get a piece of our lives. And the only real protection we have is ourselves and the guns we carry. Because as much as we’d like, we can’t trust anything else.

Rich Hoffman

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

The New Han Solo Book Covers Look Great: But isn’t Disney against guns?

To say I’m looking forward to the new Solo: A Star Wars story would be a mild understatement. I am enjoying each new piece of information that is coming out now rapidly for the upcoming May release of the highly anticipated movie. Just yesterday the new books for the movie were teased which largely come out in May and on most of the covers were images of Han Solo holding his famous blaster in what I think are very traditional cowboy artwork reminiscent of the 1940s to 1950s0—the “golden age of Hollywood.” They are the kind of thing that many of us older than 50 grew up on as kids and I find it refreshing to see. But the mother company of Disney who is benefiting greatly from all this Star Wars merchandising, everything from Star Wars figures sold at Target and Walmart to the films themselves has positioned themselves in this new #onelessgun movement prominently and most disgustingly where another one of their companies, ABC showed a lady cutting up her gun in a workshop so that nobody could use it again. The anti-gun stance of Disney is extremely hypocritical and is worth a bit of analysis.

As I’ve said, I’m a fan of the Disney product and I like Disney as a company—especially in the traditional sense. But what is disgusting is that the head of the company doesn’t seem to understand what the tail is doing, they don’t connect cause and effect at all. Concerning the new Han Solo publication art, what if they didn’t have characters holding guns in their promotional material—do they think they could sell the movie? If kids couldn’t buy action figures to shoot at each other would they even want to play with them? Of course, Disney knows that young boys aren’t going to by Star Wars toys unless there are cool guns to play with. Kids aren’t buying Star Wars toys to simulate cooking, or domestic needs in playing house. Guns are as much of what makes Star Wars popular as anything is, and without guns, the story would be pretty boring.
This brings us to the broader issue of Hollywood taking a stance against guns yet producing in nearly every blockbuster they make a story that prominently features guns. It’s kind of like a porn actress preaching celibacy before marriage. You can’t play this issue both ways. The stories we like as human beings are typically about the drama of life and death situations for which the gun plays a key narrative. To the young boy who looks at covers of Han Solo brandishing a powerful looking gun, the fantasy is to use that gun to fight for the kind of personal independence that everyone wants. The gun is the means to personal protection and asserting oneself in a dangerous world. This is typically what is at play when children play with guns to shoot at each other, they are creating the roots for their primary foundations of independence which will go with them for the rest of their lives. Disney understands this basic concept in marketing strategy which is meant to reach into people’s subconscious and inspire them to go see the new movie that has a cool gun on the poster.

Yet out of the other side of their mouth they support these gun control measures which run counter to everything that the human race stands for. From their elevated progressive vantage point that isn’t based on any kind of reality, but only in hope and personal desire from their timid vantage points, Disney hopes to use their media position to change human behavior—which is where they go wrong. This is also why the mainstream media and entertainment companies that have moved so radically left of center are struggling to figure out why they can’t move the needle on Donald Trump or the gun issue in the slightest. Not with all the protests, or all the programming they commit to the matter, people love guns wherever they are in the world. Guns sell movies, books, comics—just about anything they are put on because what the gun represents is personal freedom which every human being craves in some form or another. Therefore, we can conclude that companies such as Disney are not culture shapers so much as they are cultural reflections. They can make money and benefit off the art they produce so long as it is aligned with human need, and guns are. But if they think they can change the human need from their art, they don’t appear to be able to.
Disney as a company has not had much success with original material, often they have made most of their money off pre-created ideas—fairy tales that had already made their mark in our human mythologies. What they’ve done best is to take those stories to the next step of marketing and consumer reach—which is what they are doing with Star Wars. True, the new Star Wars films and television shows are not as good as they were original creations from George Lucas, but they still offer people something in the realm of entertainment and mythology. Disney isn’t powerful enough to change people’s minds about guns, violence, or political desires, but they can feed the needs that are already there.

That’s of course is not always the case, sometimes a truly great artist can change the minds of people and they often try, such as in the case of the musical group, The Beatles. They were obviously advocating for a left of center political world, and they did pull people in that direction. What seems to be happening in entertainment is that artists judge each other based on their social impact in the art they create. For instance, people might look down their nose at Dwayne Johnson because he makes so many blockbuster action movies and is getting very wealthy off them, but he doesn’t seem to be trying to change human culture for the better, and until he announced that he wanted to run for president against Trump in 2020 he was not considered much of an “artist” in Hollywood. In the entertainment community being an “artist” means being a “change agent.” It is the ultimate power of their ability to manipulate mass audiences—to actually change the behavior of the human race, and it appears to be a grand fantasy that most in entertainment have. Even with all their wealth, they still judge each other based on their “change agent” appeal.

This obviously seems to be the case with ABC News, they want to think they can move the needle on gun control by featuring some overly emotional woman who cuts up her gun in a workshop and wants to be featured prominently as a hero for it. That might be fine if ABC and their parent company Disney were consistent, but they aren’t. On the very same day that ABC featured the crazy anti-gun lady, Disney put out the art work for the new Han Solo movie which featured the hero on all the book covers holding a gun. You can’t have it both ways Disney. Unfortunately, you have to pick. Do you want to give the public what they want and hope they continue coming to your theme parks, which I enjoy doing? Or do you want to be a “change agent” using your media platform to change the human race? In doing so you will likely lose most of your core audience, because they will reject your philosophic premise. I will go see the new Han Solo movie enthusiastically, because he is a hero who uses a gun to instill a brand of justice that I can agree with, and its good entertainment. But if Han Solo were to become a bleeding-heart liberal and anti-gun zealot—you can bet that I’d be the first person off the ship. Because that’s not entertainment to me, its political propaganda from a bunch of spoiled brat artists. And I don’t want anything to do with them—or their beliefs.

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

The Ex-Wives of Rob Porter: Nobody, not even the White House, should make employment decisions based on battles between the sexes

Since when does the accusations from ex-wives mandate a national crisis? Why did Rob Porter have to resign again—just because his ex-wives put up some pictures of themselves with black eyes? How do we know those were caused by the former White House aide, Rob Porter? Women, especially if they feel a man they were involved with sometimes can be very vengeful if he’s moved on to someone else. They will do some pretty crazy things to get attention—so how do we know that’s not the case here? Has this #metoo movement drove everyone into insanity? And now we’re saying that the White House Chief of Staff should be fired just because of the comments of some women? We are living in a crazy period where it is assumed that anything a woman says is true and cannot be even contemplated in a court of law, and that is just insane. Nobody in their right mind would allow for such a thing because regardless of what is being proposed in the #metoo movement, women can be just as devious and manipulative as men, so everything has to be taken within reason—especially in the White House.

Domestic violence is one of the most dangerous elements of any of our lives. As I’m writing this on Valentines Day of 2018 the sweet parts of courting a potential mate is the fun part—what we all celebrate as part of the relationship experience. But reality dictates that most of the time a relationship between and man and a woman is difficult, because the two versions of human being have much of the time completely opposite biological impulses and matching those up is hard for even the most seasoned communicator. Dealing with the depressing fact that a relationship of more than five years with another person beyond the realm of friendship is often disappointing, affairs often become part of the equation which then brings more complications to an already difficult one and emotions can become very erratic. A perfectly calm person can turn into a monster when all their hopes and dreams are leveraged against them by a vengeful spouse and domestic violence may appear to be the only way out.

Men are not the only villains in domestic abuse. Where men tend to hit or punch their way out of trouble when they feel the walls closing in on all sides of them, women tend to be more cerebral in their cruelty, using sex, family, or even collective assets as forms of slow, sustained mental torture against someone in their life whom they are trying to dominate into their way of thinking. Just because physical violence may not be part of that reality doesn’t mean the abuse isn’t going on. That doesn’t mean a man can just haul of and slug a woman who is mentally abusing them, but just like a child that cries when they don’t have the communication range to articulate a challenge to their intellects, grown men will often lash out with violence when they feel pressed to the point of having no other option. Just because a man hits a woman in a domestic fight it doesn’t mean that the woman was free of guilt. It just means that the man lost the fight because he surrendered thought and used his usually greater strength to shut down the conflict through the only means he felt he could dominate. The woman certainly plays her part in propelling the anger usually.

How people manage their domestic affairs is largely a personal problem, it’s not one for the greater society. Look at what happened with the tragic situation of Quentin Smith who was fighting with his wife when she had called 911 and officers Anthony Morelli and Eric Joering showed up to save the day. Smith had a long history of criminal conduct and it is a bewildering case of masochism that the abused wife was even conducting a relationship the Smith, which from an outsider’s perspective she shouldn’t have been engaged in. The result of the confrontation was that tempers where hot and Smith shot and killed the two officers—and he’s going back to jail, where he had spent time previously. The woman in this case had a relationship with a known loser, and usually in such cases kids are involved and so is money needed to raise the needs of a family—so there’s always pressure in how to allocate resources. The police did what they had to do, they were called into a family’s home to resolve a fight that the couple couldn’t take care of themselves and they ended up losing their life in the process—because the couple couldn’t manage on their own. Likely, Quentin Smith isn’t the sharpest tack in the box so when pressed he gets angry and tries to use violence to get leverage over the people he deals with. In the case of a physically weaker woman, that was his default mode and the wife understood that about him, and probably at some level liked that threat of violence. Some people like to walk on the danger zone, especially masochists. There is a very fine line between couples who experiment with versions of sadomasochism and physical abuse. Sex between such couples who are already riding that fine line can be rough and dangerous. Things can become deadly when the context of that rough sex translates into the anger of real life events where barriers get blurred under emotional distress.

Not much has been said about Rob Porter’s ex-wives. But speaking from experience, they both likely enjoyed that Porter was a man who could access power, otherwise he wouldn’t be working in the White House in the first place. Sex with such a man likely made them feel safe and secure even if it was a little rough. They probably liked it. That is, until they couldn’t move him where they wanted emotionally and the relationship crumbled, and they became ex-wives instead of just wives. That’s when the daggers come out. Perfectly nice people can become extreme villains from the perspective of the other spouse under such conditions and that little harmless guy who just wants to mow his grass on a Saturday and hide in the garage to avoid the wrath of his crazy wife suddenly becomes the equivalent of a mass murderer when the antics of the husband are talked about insistently by the wife looking for a divorce, but not wanting to be the bad one to ask for it. Emotions can get pretty out of control. An ex-wife can really get vengeful if her old husband is doing well, hanging out with the president of the United States and is starting to bang a much more attractive woman—or a younger woman at that. Women in such a position may do some pretty crazy things, like hit their face against a wall and blame the ex-husband when there are bruises. Or even perhaps the woman had a rape fantasy that occurred within the context of their former marriage and there were pictures taken for the fun of it, but those pictures were resurrected to gain leverage during divorce proceedings. What is promised in pillow talk often disintegrates in a courtroom because judges almost always listen to the woman’s side of the story right or not. What happens in sexual relationships can get pretty strange and are fine until the relationship ends and there is evidence to condemn the man.

So what was the White House supposed to do with Porter? What the guy does in his private life is his business, and especially what he does with women. If he’s doing a good job at work, the employer really doesn’t have the right to go any further into personal affairs. Any employer has that restriction, we can’t go around firing people just because ex-wives are engaged in legal battles with their former lovers. We don’t hire and fire based on acquisitions and we don’t get into other people’s personal business. The courts can do what the couples desire through divorce proceedings and custody battles. But Trump and his administration were smart to take the high road. There is no scandal in the White House involving the employment of Rob Porter. Women can say a lot of things for a lot of different reasons, and so can men. How people conduct their personal relationships shouldn’t be a deciding factor on how people perform at their jobs. If we do add such a thing to the mix, we would likely find that most human beings aren’t qualified for employment. And we really don’t want to open up that can of worms, because nothing good will come of it. The #metoo movement isn’t about saving women from abusive husbands. It’s just a power move by a political class of women looking for their own advantages in the battle of the sexes. And in that battle, they are hardly innocent.

Rich Hoffman

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