The Respect for the FBI is Gone: Justice begins and ends at my door step

This is why all the FBI agents and Justice Department officials under the Obama White House who participated in the anti-Trump Spygate controversy need to be prosecuted, because they have lost their moral ground to function due to their actions. They have tainted the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to the level where the trust has been broken beyond repair, and the only way to fix it would be to throw justice their way and let the chips fall where they may. If Robert Mueller sent a team of agents to my house right now to confiscate my cell phone, take my computer and go through my records I would say no. And if they tried to force themselves on my property there would be big trouble for them, because I now view them as members of a hostile activist political enterprise for the other side, and their legal arms of justice I do not recognize. They are part of the problem, not protectors of the Constitution and that leaves us to do the job of justice ourselves, since the people we hired can’t be trusted to do the job, and that is a problem.

What the FBI allowed to happen in the Hillary Clinton case, with destroying their cell phone evidence, with the meeting of Loretta Lynch in a private plane with Bill Clinton to obviously cut a deal for how the prosecution of his wife would be covered so that she could still run for president, to the Peter Strzok debacle where Director Comey put an anti-Trump activist on the Hillary Clinton case to help her get through the 2016 election season. The FBI had been weaponized, clearly, and in doing so they lost their good name and authority to obtain compliance from a person like me. And that status will remain until they fix it with justice. James Comey needs to be prosecuted, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Loretta Lynch and Hillary Clinton—at a bare minimum. Until any of that happens, I consider the FBI to be a hostile force. As a Trump supporter I have to assume that they’d come after me as they are him presently and hostility would be their primary intention, so there would be no cooperation and compliance from me at my household.

Just some advice to congress as they decide whether or not to give Andy McCabe immunity for his testimony, which he obviously wants. I’d be inclined to do so because he is likely to tell a story that takes this whole corruption case into the Obama White House and that would allow for the prosecution of the really big fish in this deal. As members of congress who still support the deep state, it might be tempting to let McCabe take the fifth and allow the facts to destroy his reputation, but to contain the case to just him. For the members of the swamp who have caused all this trouble it would be very damaging to the institutions of justice to have all the names I mentioned, like Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and Loretta Lynch get drug over the waterboard of justice—but that’s what needs to happen. Without question a court case that drags those people and the Obamas in front of a judge would be the biggest political event in history and it would shatter the confidence many people have in their government. But I’m already there. The truth would do more to repair that problem then more lies. If McCabe can take this case to Obama’s doorstep, then we should give him his immunity and let him sing under a witness protection program. Its far more important to get to the truth than to prosecute one sacrificial victim.

I remember the outrage I felt when I learned that the Hillary people turned in smashed up laptops and phones to the FBI and that we were supposed to be alright with that. The news was reported like such a thing was an everyday occurrence, and here she was running for president of the United States. We didn’t know at the time that there was a spy in the Trump campaign put there by the FBI, we didn’t know that Hillary Clinton was going to get a free pass by the FBI and that decisions were made by James Comey before the Clinton team even submitted their evidence—destroyed as it was. We didn’t know about the phony Russian conspiracy that the political left would attempt to use to discredit the Trump election, the firing of James Comey by Trump and the leaking of documents by the former FBI director to the media to inspire the Robert Mueller investigation led by a small army of Clinton supporters. We just knew that the Clinton people destroyed their evidence, hid their private server so that nobody would ever learn what was on it to begin with—which is how all this trouble started in the first place, and we were all supposed to just accept those facts and move along. I found the situation back then laughable, now it is just amazingly corrupt.

I’m not exactly the type of person who breaks laws—I’m probably the most reliable person that the law enforcement community could hope to deal with—solid family man, respected businessman, helps people whenever possible, isn’t a public menace in any way at all. Yet because of my political affiliations, I’m likely at the top of every watch list that there is and if this kind of behavior at the FBI is allowed to continue then it doesn’t take long for good people to be villainized through the lens of collectivism. Look what happened to General Flynn. I can sure as hell say that such a thing won’t happen to me. Nobody is coming into my house and ransacking my stuff while my wife and I are held at gunpoint. That’s not going to happen. If the FBI were functioning under normal conditions, I might give them the benefit of the doubt, but not presently. I think we all have to assume that they are up to no good until they prove otherwise.

This whole Inspector General report that is coming out really has me bothered, because it’s completed and little bits of it are being leaked to the press to smoothen out the blow. But those types of calculations are part of the problem. Trying to hide or suppress information from the American people in favor of the accused is very dirty stuff. It further displays that are branches of justice cannot be trusted and that the waters of the swamp, where the “Deep State” resides is actually quite deep. Much deeper than any of us thought a year ago. So just for the record, until the FBI cleans up their own, don’t come to my house, or expect any level of compliance from me. I see the whole organization as a threat to constitutional government presently, and the burden to change that perception falls on them, not me. The way the top levels of our government functioned under the Obama White House, and still does because there are many holdovers, wasn’t much different from third world countries and banana republics trying to use fake elections to prop up dictators. That is not how things are going to be done in America and if that line of justice has to be drawn at my front door, then so be it.

Rich Hoffman

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

Speaker of the House Debates, 5G Coverage, and Expensive Bike Paths: Just another day at the office for the West Chester Tea Party

The West Chester Tea Party was always about education as opposed to activism. The purpose was and still is to this day, an organization that brought education to the public on the various topics that faced the community from month to month and even though Trump is now 500 days into his administration and has had great success, the needs of the Tea Party movement are still a necessity. And that couldn’t have been truer than the June 6th meeting of 2018 where many very important topics were presented to a fairly large gathering. Everything was covered from the state speaker of the house race in Columbus to the bike paths of West Chester, with school board news, debate about 5G phone networks, and the senate race of Jim Renacci in the upcoming fall. I managed to get some video of the event shown below, the first of which is from George Lang, the state representative from my district who was at the meeting to discuss the very contentious speaker situation ahead of a key vote which just occurred today to resolve the matter.

Kathy Dirr and George Lang have a contentious relationship over the 5G proposal that Kathy presented at the meeting. Only a small part of Kathy’s presentation ended up on my videos in the little preliminary speech shown. Later she had a 45-minute presentation illustrating what she thinks are serious health risks coming from the new cell tower technology. What she was presenting actually reminded me of a plot point from my 2004 novel called The Symposium of Justice which featured a local municipality using water towers to broadcast a signal designed to manipulate the pituitary gland in people into become overly sexualized, and mindlessly consumer based, so that they could be more easily controlled. So I can relate to the passion Kathy exhibited, however, I am a technology lover. I think the ultimate solution to the cellular breakdown that comes from all the wireless networks that are taking over our daily culture will be a concern of the past once we can just download our essence into a newly constructed body in a few years. We’ll change bodies like we change cars in the near future, so I wouldn’t be inclined to worry too much about such a thing. But that’s what makes these Tea Party meetings so wonderful, there are lots of diverse opinions that inspire great debate.

The next video was that of Mark Welch’s presentation on a compromised bike path connecting 747 to Becket Ridge instead of a very expensive multimillion dollar tax payer connection through West Chester into Mason and eventually connecting the Loveland Bike Trail with a large network. To pull off that Agenda 21 project eminent domain would have to be enacted and tax payers would be forced to pay for some hippie utopian idea that United Nations losers came up with years ago. While some elements of bike paths are positive and beneficial to communities, the idea of replacing cars with bicycles is a primitive and stupid one. So Mark came up with a way to navigate that issue quite nicely and he put in a lot of work on the matter, which is evident in his presentation. Hey, I love to ride bicycles, few people over the years have ridden them more than me, and the idea of having bike trails that could take cyclists over vast distances is appealing to me. But tax payers who won’t use those trails shouldn’t be on the hook for the cost, and property shouldn’t be taken from people for a “greater good” intention. What Mark is proposing as a trustee of West Chester is a reasonable appeasement of the mild necessity for our modern age, and better yet, it keeps the cost impact down to something that is manageable for private investment, the way things are supposed to be.

What I thought was interesting about this West Chester Tea Party meeting was that it showed the challenges of governing. Not everyone agrees on everything all the time. A lot of people present had different ideas about how to do various things that needed to be done and that was a good thing. Unlike other politically oriented meetings of this nature, the West Chester Tea Party has transitioned over time from an ideological organization to a functional one. It is easy to sit around and read books and talk about the basic philosophy of how things should be, it’s quite another thing to try to apply that ideology to real world situations. It takes guts for people like George Lang who are in the middle of the storm in Columbus with lots of tempting treasures being constantly thrown at him to stand in front of an organization he helped get off the ground over a decade prior and defend his position. Healthy debate is a great thing and that is what was going on at this meeting. The press should be covering these events because a lot of good goes on at them, more than goes on at the other regional get togethers. There is a lot of value on the table at every one I attend.

The way things used to be was that politicians were elected, and they went to their offices and people never heard from them again without the protections of their social roles to insulate them from the public. But at the West Chester Tea Party meetings, the local politicians were part of the process. The speeches by Lang and Welch were not part of the evening agenda but were spawned on the spot due to questions and comments from the attendees. Lang and Welch simply came from the back of the room to address the questions which became the speeches shown in the videos. I couldn’t help but think that this was the way things were always supposed to work in the republic for which America is. But the whole thing starts with the foundational educations that were always a part of the West Chester Tea Party. Without the basic understanding of how things are supposed to work, intellectually, nothing like what took place at the meeting could have occurred.

It is easy for politicians to make promises to get elected, and it is easy for people to vote for people then expect politicians to go off to battle and do everything right, then to complain about them when they don’t do ideologically everything that you think they should do. That’s why Tea Party events like the one in West Chester are so valuable. It gets everyone together to hash out ideology from reality and to do the best job possible in ascertaining value from the legislative experience. I thought the whole thing had evolved into a very positive thing for everyone involved. It was to me a sign of how things could be for the entire nation as the Trump administration is flowing down this intellectual attitude from the Executive Branch. The Tea Party movement is no longer just about getting people like Barack Obama out of office, but it has become a legitimate part of the legislative process because it brings proper education to the people who need it and will act on it, without the filter of the local newspaper to put a liberal spin on it. The information was good and raw and that’s just the way things should be, and it was great to see it alive and well on a pleasant summer night in West Chester, Ohio.

Rich Hoffman

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

‘The Black Panther’ Was Racist, Toward White People: Roseanne’s cancellation to fullfil Disney’s political objectives

https://twitter.com/overmanwarrior/status/1001959361470754816

Bob Iger of ABC called Valerie Jarrett to let her know that “ABC does not tolerate comments like those” made by Roseanne Barr. Gee, he never called President Donald J. Trump to apologize for the HORRIBLE statements made and said about me on ABC. Maybe I just didn’t get the call?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2018

So what was wrong with Roseanne Barr saying about the Obama administration activist Valerie Jarrett if “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj?” For that Tweet ABC owned by the Disney Company cancelled the top-rated show. I’m not seeing the problem with the hard-hitting comedian saying such a thing, Valerie Jarrett isn’t a black woman or anything—she’s fair game in the public realm, she was born after all in Shiraz, Iran. Many other comedians, even those employed by Disney in some way or another have said much worse about President Trump and white men in general. So why isn’t there allowed a banter back and forth—because in the context of things, that’s all Roseanne was doing.

I watched The Black Panther the other day not knowing much about the character or the movie other than it did very good business and I was shocked at some of the lines by the characters which were obvious put downs toward the white actors. Was that supposed to be funny? What if the white characters said something like, “you black people are all alike,” or something to that effect, how would that have gone over? Likely there would have been riots in the streets and massive protests at the box office. Even though I am pulling for Disney to do well with the new Solo Star Wars movie I couldn’t help but notice the political activism in the film, the very deliberate white guy kissing a black girl, or Han Solo arguing with an Imperial officer that they were attacking the home world of their enemy and that they were in the wrong. Does every movie these days have to have some kind of social commentary?

So it’s “racist” to make this comparison if a conservative does it, but when the left does it they get a complete pass? I can’t be the only one who sees past this selective outrage and hypocrisy…. #RosanneBarr #Roseanne @therealroseanne pic.twitter.com/xMyJydoAz0

— Mindy Robinson 🇺🇸 (@iheartmindy) May 29, 2018

https://twitter.com/overmanwarrior/status/1001620657233387520

Can’t people just tell a story? Largely the film is good fun and avoids some of the political pitfalls that have contaminated the other three Star Wars films from the Disney era, but when you do see it the radicalism is quite jarring. At the end of the Black Panther the heroes go to the United Nations and agree to share their awesome technology with the rest of the world. That’s fine for a fantasy story, but there is nothing politically factual about the story of the Kingdom of Wakanda having all this technical power. And the United Nations is not a governing body of any influence, so much of the premise of The Black Panther is purely political, in that they are trying to create a philosophic reality by tossing out the facts of the matter.

I enjoyed The Black Panther mostly, and I root for Disney to do well most of the time. I like Star Wars, I enjoy their theme parks, I’m even looking forward to the new Incredibles 2 coming up. But they are just entertainment options at best these days, and nothing to take too seriously, until they make themselves political. And Disney is certainly guilty of that. I understand they are a company with globalist aims because that’s where the new markets are, but in doing so they are spitting in the eye of Walt Disney himself who was a very stout American patriot. If Disney were alive today he’d be a Trump supporter and likely a leader in the Tea Party movement. Bob Iger on the other hand thinks serious of being a Democratic nominee for President of the United States—is not the same type of person. Iger is pushing liberal politics into the Disney brand, and that has worked for a while so long as they didn’t cross the line. But over the last four or five years the line is being crossed constantly and the only way they’ve managed to get away with it is because there are no other media platforms out there who can really compete with them.

Obviously, the Disney Company was looking for the first opportunity to get Roseanne’s show off the air. While it was making a lot of money for the company the profits from Infinity War alone nearly erase the losses from cancelling Roseanne’s show, and for Bob Iger, feeding the political platform of the other side was something he couldn’t let happen on his watch. The message couldn’t be clearer, it is alright if liberals make fun of conservatives even crossing the lines of racism calling Trump a monkey and all types of terrible names. But if someone calls a liberal a name—especially if she’s female, then all hell will break loose. That is if people care about the Hell that is breaking loose. Honestly for me, I can take it or leave it. I watched one episode of the new Roseanne Barr show and couldn’t handle it. It was just too slow and stuck for me. It certainly wasn’t a conservative show as it was being sold. I couldn’t relate to any of the characters, so I didn’t watch another episode. They were all too negative to me, so it’s no skin off my back for the show to be cancelled. I’ll cheer for Star Wars to do well, and I like the efforts of the Marvel movies, but more and more Disney is losing people like me to their radicalism—and in the long-term, they are making a mistake because its people like me who will support them in the future. Not Valarie Jarrett, who is a well-known progressive radical who invited some rebuke from someone with enough guts to do it—because that’s the nature of the world we are living in today.

What is really going on with Disney and liberals in general with this whole two-faced duality they have going on is that as liberals they want to believe that there is a Wakanda out there, which is an obvious rip off from Ayn Rand’s classic novel Atlas Shrugged. But also as liberals, they have no way of knowing how to get there. They just say that it exists and expect audiences to accept that reality without understanding the foundation of the philosophy. They associate liberalism with skin color and advanced technology and everyone is just supposed to go along with it until someone like Roseanne comes along and makes them look at the world of Donald Trump that they are so desperate to ignore.

https://twitter.com/overmanwarrior/status/1001597600548687879

Back to the Han Solo reference from Solo: A Star Wars Story, Donald Trump is probably the least war hungry President America has ever had. By the end of his term many of the wars around the world will be coming to an end and that should make Disney and the liberals behind the company very happy. Donald Trump literally is like Han Solo in the new film asking why America is in all these foreign wars. He wants out. But liberals can’t handle that reality, so they choose to ignore it, and when someone like Roseanne gives them an excuse to turn away from the truth, they are more than willing to do it—even if it cuts off their own noses to spite their face.

I wouldn’t have called Valarie Jarrett an ape from the Muslim brotherhood because I have a lot more descriptive terminology to use because I have an extensive vocabulary to draw from, but many people I know of all shapes sizes, sexes and races think the same way about Valerie Jarrett, they just don’t have the intellectual means to express it beyond frustrated terminology, which is why Roseanne had a number one show. Disney can turn their eyes away from that reality, but they can’t outrun the truth. While they are doing well as a company presently, that won’t last forever. There are only so many Infinity War movies out there that they can make as they are quickly turning off conservatives in America with their radicalism. I’ve been one of their biggest fans over the years and they are turning me off, especially after watching The Black Panther. The political activism couldn’t be more obvious. And not having Roseanne on the air won’t have any impact on how people feel. It just means that they go deeper into hiding making them a phantom menace toward future political endeavors. Democrats can’t win by ignoring the facts—they have to come to terms with reality and that is obviously something they aren’t willing to do.

The situation is so bad that I had to send Ron Howard a Tweet today reminding him to keep his liberal mouth shut so that he didn’t further hurt Solo: A Star Wars Story in a very critical week where the film can make some money. I’m not interested in helping Ron Howard, Kathy Kennedy or Bob Iger and their political ideologies, I’m trying to help Star Wars. The American domestic market is still half of all box office totals and it’s not smart to only try to appeal to half the American nation. Like it or not, half the nation voted for Donald Trump and his approval ratings show it. Wasn’t it Michael Jordon who famously said, “Republicans buy tennis shoes too.” The old Star Wars movies didn’t have roots in current politics, so they were films that spoke to higher concepts. They were obviously anti-Nazi, but that was about it. The big problem with liberals is that they are participating this activism in an attempt to erase their own history with radicalism, because it was liberals who were the racists supporting slavery, and it was liberals who took over the German political machine and invented the Nazi. It wasn’t conservatives. So they hope that by overreacting to every little thing, like Roseanne Barr Tweeting about Valarie Jarrett in the same way that other comedians from the political left do toward Republicans like Trump—that they can erase history. But guess what, they can’t. Most of America knows the truth and pandering to demographic groups like Disney has been doing cannot justify liberalism as it is. Because what it always was have been the source of racism and terror. Just like the secret city of Wakanda in The Black Panther Disney can’t just say something is good without showing how, what, why, when and where, and when they attempt to history is always there with a grim reminder that it’s not on their side. Valerie Jarrett is not one of the good people, she’s at best a villain—she will never be a Disney princess. And cancelling Roseanne won’t erase that factual reality.

I find it baffling that you are going political again while there is still a good box office week to make some money for Solo. Don’t throw in the towel yet. Don’t you guys see that these political divisions are costing Star Wars? https://t.co/t8GqtF8o7O

— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) May 30, 2018

Rich Hoffman

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

The Millennium Falcon Experience was SOLD OUT: What everything tells us about what type of society we want to be

In case you hadn’t noticed dear reader, there is a lot going on out there in the world. Even as the White House Correspondents Dinner over the weekend of April 28th showed truly how much we are living in a society well declined, a large number of really big Supreme Court cases are about to have decisions made that will shape American society for the next century. Primary elections are happening in May that will have a major impact on the midterms this upcoming fall, and the Korean peninsula is uniting for the first time in over 70 years. I’ve been writing on this blog site for around a decade now and things are happening so fast that they have defied intellectual saturation, but I have noticed one thing lately that simply amazed me and the start of it came as we were having Millennium Falcon waffles at my house before leaving to visit again the Millennium Falcon Experience at NKU. The new Avengers movie called Infinity War made over $250,000 domestically breaking all kinds of box office records and that was important for a number of reasons in relation to the grand scheme of things. If Jim Cameron was hoping that superhero movies were about to fizzle out, this news would upset him greatly, and many who have tried to use the film industry as a propaganda arm of the liberal left.

The plan was always to take the larger part of my family down to see the Millennium Falcon Experience on Sunday morning at 9 AM—which is why we scouted the event on Friday to figure out how we could take a large group through it. My family was very excited to go see the reproduction of parts of the Millennium Falcon and get some good pictures. One of my daughters is a professional photographer so we wanted to get some great pictures at the Millennium Falcon Experience since we are all Star Wars fans—its seemed like a good opportunity for us. Plus, the character of Han Solo has always been my favorite and without him in a movie, Star Wars has never really been Star Wars. I have been very critical of the new Star Wars movies, except for Rogue One, so I have been nervous about what Lucasfilm and Disney would do to my favorite Star Wars character. Han Solo certainly isn’t a liberal character by any measure, so my concern was that Disney would push to water him down to make it part of their overall liberal agenda at the company these days. However, indications are that the exact opposite will be happening. It appears that Lucasfilm has been listening to their fans since the Force Awakens problems in killing off the character, and the direction they had taken him. This new movie Solo: A Star Wars Story looks like they understand what the character is supposed to be and to what impact that will have on our society as a whole.

Like I always say, my favorite topic isn’t politics, funding challenges, or even scientific endeavor, although I do talk about those things a lot—my favorite topic is mythology. I am mildly obsessed with the way cultures form and what mythologies are used to bring people together, what themes work and which ones don’t. Han Solo is the most popular character in the Star Wars series for a reason, he is a very traditional alpha male who is reckless and in pursuit of his own independence often at whatever cost. I’m sure the progressives within the Disney Company and at Lucasfilm have discussed Solo at great length, and I think much of the reason that Ron Howard was brought in to take over the directing duties was because Donald Trump was elected and wisely Lucasfilm knew they needed to change a few things that were becoming obvious about the world after President Trump moved into the White House.

I was in London while Solo: A Star Wars Story was shooting at Pinewood and I was watching the protests against Donald Trump in those opening months and I listened carefully to the two original Solo movie directors show great support for the movement against Trump. While I don’t think that Kathy Kennedy is a conservative by any measure, the tide of movies that were going to make money certainly had to accept that Trump voters were going to decide if a film succeeded or failed at the box office. So they made some adjustments on the Solo set and brought in Ron Howard who understood that this movie about Han Solo was more about American Graffiti meets A Fistful of Dollars than a space version of 21 Jump Street. Han Solo actually means something to a lot of people, not just me, and Lucasfilm recognized that and decided to make the movie that needed to be made to pay respect to Han Solo, not the movie they wanted to make about Han Solo as a bunch of social progressives, and that is a very important distinction.

This Millennium Falcon Experience was meant to tour city to city with three sections of set reproductions from the Solo movie to generate interest in the film. My wife and I along with two of our grandchildren went to the opening of the event on Friday April 27th and I was impressed with the crowd. I saw what was going on pretty fast, on the public relations side, the event had printed a limited number of tickets that they gave out for free and when they were gone, they were gone which would get people talking about the whole thing on social media, sharing pictures, and generating interest in the new Han Solo movie that would come out on May 25th. The Millennium Falcon Experience would start in Northern Kentucky at NKU, then travel the following weekend to Atlanta, then to Denver before settling in Los Angeles ahead of the premier for the movie. My scouting report, which is seldom ever wrong, which I conveyed to my two daughters was that the big Star Wars geeks would hit this event on Friday and the thing would fizzle out by Sunday after a weekend of being open. After all, there were only so many Star Wars fans out there. Our plan was to show up at 9 AM on Sunday morning when the tickets would be issued, and we’d walk onto the exhibit, get our pictures, then go somewhere nice for breakfast. That’s not what happened.

We arrived at precisely 9:07 AM and found out that all the tickets were gone. People had started lining up at 4:30 AM that morning and the line had wrapped around the building of the BB&T Arena and the whole day sold out well before the event even started. The crew hosting the event wasn’t prepared for such a large crowd, so they issued the tickets so that people could get their tour times and leave, since there were no bathroom facilities. The event was open from 9 to 5 PM and tickets were given at intervals that would allow for about ten minutes of personal touring for each ticket which was good for five people. So doing the math, a lot of people didn’t get a ticket who wanted one. If we hadn’t gone down to the exhibit on Friday, we wouldn’t have been able to see it at all, which just mesmerized me. The opposite of what I thought was going to happen, happened. The Millennium Falcon Experience had more interest in it by day 3 than it did on day one, which I thought was remarkable given the fact that it was a free exhibit for a movie about Han Solo that didn’t come out for another month. There are many in the industry who think that people are going to get Star Wars saturation given that this is the second Star Wars movie within a year, the first was The Last Jedi. But like the Avengers Infinity War, audiences were hungrier than ever for mythological products like these movies—and that said something very important.

Both films talked about here are products of the Disney Company and while the overall movie industry is declining, Disney at least has kept their ear to the ground to give audiences what they need in the characters produced in these movies. There is a theme which all these movie characters represent that speaks to the yearning people have for individualized freedom. Han Solo is certainly all about that restless lust for personal freedom and that Millennium Falcon Experience spoke to that yearning directly. People weren’t just watching it in a movie, they were able to put their hands on it and that hunger surprised even me. I pay really close attention to these kinds of things and this went well beyond the passion I thought was out there. With that in mind I think that by the time this Solo movie hits at the end of May, after Infinity War had been out for over a month, there will be some cultural influences from these movies that will percolate into our society as a whole, in the fields of science, fashion, art and entertainment—in everything, and those things will be happening at a time when the Supreme Court will make decisions on some big cases that will affect us all. I think we are in a world that is changing dramatically, and not for the worst. I think we have been there already and are on the way out of it. But more than that, I think the movies reflect more about what we want to change into than what we just want to participate in as escapist fantasy. And that is a very interesting occurrence for our modern-day experience.

Rich Hoffman

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

Mr. Marijuana, John Boehner: While draining the swamp we are learning what was always underneath

When John Boehner said nine years ago that “good people don’t smoke marijuana” he was trying to appeal to the kind of conservatives that live in his community—like me. Since then he has been rooted out of the Speaker of the House position as a RINO that the Tea Party wing of the party hated, and he has since become a gun for hire lobbyist who smokes and drinks too much. I would argue that he hung around Republicans but never really was one. He is more of a Never Trumper type of old style politician that is being put out of business by the new Trump control of the Republican Party as it is now. I would also argue that Paul Ryan doesn’t fit in that new conservative party that views marijuana as an assault on American sovereignty in similar ways that illegal immigration is. These new Republicans are self-made largely, like Trump and Jim Renacci are, they don’t smoke and drink a lot so they don’t have sympathy for those who do, and they are much more market based economic expansionists due to their business backgrounds than the old rule of Party domination of the private sector. While many of the same people who are mystified by Donald Trump’s presidency think that John Boehner’s joining Acreage Holdings as a marijuana legalization advocate is a shock, it’s not to me. Boehner is just what he has always been, a malleable figure that will mold to the powers of money wherever those sources come from.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/boehners-bombshell-weed-reversal-a-big-boost-for-marijuana/ar-AAvLQIu?OCID=ansmsnnews11

John Boehner lives in my neighborhood and he’s interacted with my family for a number of years. I supported him as Speaker of the House initially, but after a year and a half it was obvious that he wasn’t up to the job and that politics was changing under his feet. The definition of RINO was being articulated while he was in charge of the House of Representatives and he helped write it. But as far as RINOs in the Republican Party he certainly wasn’t the only one. I could write a long list of RINOs at the local level in Butler County where John Boehner lives all the way up to the current President. In fact, the battle of the RINOs and the new Republicans is what the Mueller investigation is all about with Trump—the old guard trying to preserve the meal tickets that come out of political life for which John Boehner entered as soon as he left public office. Acreage Holdings is just one of those meal tickets, a company that wants to use a former politician against legalization on their board to try to build public support for their product.

Yet what many of us have known for a while and many are learning day by day, people like Boehner are like characters from WWE wrestling. They are actors. That’s why it was important that Donald Trump get elected because that was the game all along and the conservative movement needed someone who could speak that language on behalf of real Republicans, not the RINOS—and that has disrupted the entire purpose of the political world that John Boehner thought would last for the rest of his life. For people like Boehner and Paul Ryan, they know they better get the goods now because those opportunities won’t be there in a few years.

To understand the difference in the philosophies and how to detect who from whom no matter which political party we are dealing with a definition of producers and moochers will serve best. There are plenty of people in politics today that have achieved and are self-sustaining people all their own, without the network of politics to drive them. Trump is a good example of this, and so is the senatorial candidate Jim Renacci in Ohio—these are guys who were successful in the private sector and politics is kind of a retirement job for them. Then you have people like Paul Ryan and John Boehner who were filled with good intentions but were in politics at a time in their lives when they should have been out in the world doing good business. With Ryan I had high hopes that he was an Ayn Rand fan so that his brand of conservatism would be conducive to trimming back the deficit. But the moment that Mit Romney put him on the presidential ticket in 2012, Ryan put away his love of Ayn Rand because it was a method to attack him by on the left and he became something of a Judas in the world of Objectivism. The same with John Boehner, he talked tough, and he made people read the Constitution on the first day that he took over as Speaker of the House, the third most powerful position in the world regarding politics, but when the pressures came and the temptations that come with such a powerful office spoke, he as a moocher in life couldn’t act out of his ethical desires—and that’s what makes guys like those two RINOs—or otherwise, political moochers.

There are at least 24 Republicans leaving Congress this year and several leaving the Senate which is increasing day by day—and to many who keep score cards on politics this seems devastating. But it’s really not. If you add up the effects of the Trump presidency and the vitriol coming from the political left—and the now revealed power of the Deep State, this isn’t a game many of these people were prepared for. For the people who thought they could talk their way through it and disguise their moocher natures so to enrich themselves in public office, this isn’t what they signed up for and they are getting out of the business—which I think is a great thing. After reading Peter Schweitzer’s Secret Empires there are a lot of crooked elements to both parties, so who cares if they retire? What good is a House and Senate majority if most of the people in those seats are really liberals trying to enrich themselves by moving laws into their favor, so they can get rich. If Boehner was such an anti-marijuana guy how he could have a change of heart in just nine years. The truth is that he thinks what the money tells him to think, and he is like that because he’s a moocher, not a producer.

This is what draining the swamp looks like. There is nowhere for people like John Boehner and Paul Ryan to hide, because there is now an expectation of performance that producers like Donald Trump require and that game is changing. Falling in love with the score card is not really accomplishing anything because the quality of the people in those political seats are still leveraged in favor of the moochers. With that said however I don’t see a Democratic wave hitting congress. I think the Democrats are even worse off so I wouldn’t lose any sleep. It is better to get rid of people who were never really conservative, so they can go lobby liberal issues like marijuana legalization, so we can know who they really are. That is far more important than the number of Rs and Ds in congress—because Boehner didn’t “evolve” as he says he did. He was always a short meeting and a paycheck away from seeing the other side’s point of view. The fact remains that good people don’t smoke marijuana. I don’t care how much pain they are in.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ryan-poised-to-earn-millions-even-if-he-sheds-weekend-dad-role/ar-AAvNx5W?ocid=spartandhp

Legalizing marijuana as a compassionate medicine for people suffering ailments is ridiculous, because we have it in our means right now through regenerative medicine to eliminate the root cause of the ailments. Nobody needs the brain killing drug marijuana to have a better life. Just fix the person, don’t give them more drugs. But to the moochers out there who can’t think like a producer, that kind of talk is scary—because otherwise they don’t have a means to make money for themselves. And that is what drives them, fear of making a good living. Which is why they are so dangerous in politics to begin with. So let them go, let them quit and become lobbyists. Let them get what they can get while they can. Because the swamp is draining and it won’t be long before those options will go away all together.

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

Fire Every “Red for Ed” Protesting Teacher: Public Education sucks, why pay teachers for a crappy–anti American, job

Every single teacher participating in the “Red for Ed” walkouts across Arizona, Oklahoma, and Kentucky—and anywhere else for that matter, should be fired for their radical behavior and recklessness in not doing what they are paid to do in their communities. In spite of what they will tell you their slogan means—the designation of red is a communist sentiment left over from the origins of the labor unions behind this radicalism and is the root cause of their demands for “worker’s rights.” Those rights they are talking about demanding excessively high wages and pension benefits for providing a service that has been very destructive to the education of all Americans is just ridiculous and in need of major reform. The best thing we could do for ourselves as a society is fire every teacher participating in these radical protests and replace them with one of the new automated information devices that are being produced by Google, and Amazon. I am quite serious when I say that Alexia could replace 95% of what teachers in front of a classroom provide and they don’t cost anywhere near the kind of money that an actual employee does. So fire every single one of the teachers and replace them with something much better, an Alexia. Those mechanical devices never strike, they don’t have sick days, and they don’t smell like coffee and bad perfume. Kids will learn a lot more from Alexia than they ever would some fat assed socialist teacher demanding a higher pension and pay for doing what a machine could do much better.

I would dare say that there is nobody reading this who enjoys education as much as I do. I love education so much that I hate the teachers of our modern education system because they teach people all the wrong things. Most adults functioning today are crippled from their youthful educations and their children are even more so. The situation has become increasingly worse each decade essentially starting in the 1930s when communism from FDR’s administration was seeping into the curriculum of public education. It took 30 years for that first communist wave to hit our population which unleashed the problems of the 1960s. Then 30 years after that the “no child left behind” efforts at not raising kids up, but by pulling the smart ones down to the level of the mob—up to the present. The protesting teachers are part of a very destructive process of a public education system designed by big government lovers not to unleash the power of individual thought, but to cripple minds to remain in a nicely manageable herd—easy to slaughter by those who seek to rule over others in society. Public education has been a very destructive endeavor in American society. The evidence of its crippling effects is everywhere. To see it best go to a gambling casino in Las Vegas or a Golden Coral smorgasbord.

There are plenty of opportunities to learn and that has been the bright spot in a capitalist society. There are alternatives to public education for which to learn much more effectively. Over this past weekend I was very delighted to go to The Children’s Museum in Indianapolis, Indiana and talk to some paleontologists there who were working on a T-Rex bone fresh from the Bad Lands. The lab where they worked was open to the public and you could reach in and touch the actual bone they were working on. I asked them why they allowed the oily fingers of people to actually interact with the raw bone of such a rare creature and they explained to me that at The Children’s Museum their policy is to let people interact with their exhibits—because that’s how people learn. That made me very happy to hear. Ecstatic actually, I love talking to people who are passionate about learning and discovering new things. The employees at The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis were passionate about learning and were to my mind the model of what education should all be about. I don’t like public education for the same reason that I’m not a fan of public parks, public restrooms, and public libraries—there is a value that is lacking in anything that doesn’t have private ownership as part of the institution. When any of the employees use collective bargaining as their means of acquiring compensation there simply is no way to properly balance a budget without driving the cost of the endeavor beyond the scope of the project. For instance, the two ladies who were working as paleontologists at the Indianapolis Children’s Museum I watched all day, from the start of their shift to the end. I spoke to them several times and they were as interested in their job at the end of the day as they were at the beginning. If I were running things I’d pay them six figures to keep doing what they were doing with the expertise that they displayed. But for a teacher who just shows up and complains about taking work home each night, doesn’t want to work weekends, doesn’t want to work more than 7 hours a day—I’d rather replace a live teacher with something like Alexa.

I was thinking about all these problems as we drove back from the Children’s Museum back to Cincinnati, Ohio. I used Google Maps on my iPhone to locate a Cracker Barrel outside of town, far enough away to thin out the rush hour traffic. As I plugged in my phone to my car my music played seamlessly while giving me directions to the highway street by street working far better than any atlas I ever owned. I was slow to accept Google Maps because I’ve always been naturally good at directions and reading maps, but I have to admit that Google Maps is far better than the atlas book I used to keep under my car seat. While I was driving people called me and the navigation system, the music, and the people I was talking to all seamlessly worked through my car’s speaker system and I was able to interact with everything without taking my hands off the wheel. That is a lot better than how things used to be, and education is no different. There are many better ways to educate people than the old system of a dominating authority figure in the front of the room designed to press students into a peer group—a concept invented to spread communism into American society during the 1930s under president FDR and his New “communist” Deal. That old way of education has crippled so many people intellectually, why would we continue to throw so much money at it? What are all these teachers thinking who are protesting now for higher pay and pension security? We aren’t living in that world any more just like nobody uses an atlas to navigate while traveling. It’s archaic to even think about it. Education has even more potential for reform than navigation and the only reason we haven’t yet gone there as a society is because these labor unions scare people into taking away their baby-sitting services. Because that’s all that’s happening in public schools, parents get to drop off their kids as a babysitter paid for by the state. In exchange the “state” gets to try to program children into the ways of big government communism, thus the “Red for Ed” campaign.

Most people don’t really want communism as the means to a social philosophy, even though that’s what they’ve learned in public school. I’d say that the quality of public education has been garbage rooted in Marxism that has been proven to be crippling to the human race and should be abandoned knowing what we do today about the nature of that social philosophy. But this article is about cost. Why should we pay so much money for something that produces such bad results as public education does? People obviously aren’t very smart coming from the public education experience. Observing the poor conditions that most adults live in intellectually, public education could be said to be as destructive as smoking, or alcoholism, crippling the mind of the participants to the point of uselessness. At this point anything would be better, and I actually think people would learn better with Alexia, or some other similar device. That means that every protesting teacher in Arizona, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma and everywhere else could be, and should be fired for any form of collective bargaining protest. Their education methods are not good. Their service to the community is old and outdated. And their epistemological foundation for the passion for learning is missing leaving their students crippled for their entire lives thereafter. So why should we spend all this money on public education? The answer is, we shouldn’t.

I’m willing to spend a lot of education. In my life I can say that my family has spent a small fortune on education, not institutional education, but the essence of education which is discovery and emotional exploration of personal intellect. I value speaking to other people who are very passionate about education as well, such as the two employees I mentioned from the Indianapolis Children’s Museum whom I promise conduct their work and never think about the money. They do a good job in their fields of endeavor regardless of how much money they get paid and that’s what I expect in a teacher. Compensation is for management to sort out in a capitalist country. If someone is valued a good manager will find a way to pay employees what they are worth. Bad employees are a dime a dozen and get a lot less money—and that’s how it should be. This collective bargaining nonsense is as useless today as an atlas under the car seat. It’s not good for the teaching profession and it’s not good for the recipients of the education. It makes the bad equal to the good and that is just stupid—and it shows. I don’t want to pay a fortune to teachers who complain about their work day, who complain about their work they have to do at home, or about the amount of kids they have to teach in a classroom. I want teachers who love to teach whether the room is filled with 26 students or 2000. I want teachers who are into the job 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all year-long. And I want teachers who spend their spare time reading and getting better, not sitting around watching sitcoms while making their assess even fatter with potato chips and nachos bitching about their bratty students to their friends on Facebook when the school day is done. Those types of people aren’t worth the money we spend on them. Alexia could do a much, much better job, and kids would learn more in the process.

Rich Hoffman

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

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.

Why America Needs a Southern Border Wall: How Mexcio will pay for it

Even the most aggressive estimates of the Trump proposed border wall indicate that the cost will be at around $25 billion. When Trump has said that Mexico will pay for the border wall it is was always my assumption that the president wasn’t expecting a check from Mexico, but that the money to fund the wall would come from squeezing it out of the drug cartels. Over the past few decades drug cartels have become integrated into Mexico’s economy. Approximately 500 cities are directly engaged in drug trafficking and nearly 450,000 people are employed by drug cartels.[57] Additionally, the livelihood of 3.2 million people are dependent directly in Mexico on the drug cartels.[57] Between local and international sales, such as to Europe and the United States, drug cartels in Mexico see a $25–30bn yearly profit, a great deal of which circulates through international banks such as HSBC.[57] Drug cartels are fundamental to Mexican local economics. A percentage of the profits seen from the trade are invested in the local community.[57] While these cartels bring violence and hazards into communities, they create jobs and provide income for its many members.[57] This is precisely how Mexico will pay for the wall. By cutting down on the profits flowing back to Mexican manufacturers, the money will be confiscated at our border wall and put back into the costs to have built the wall to begin with, and it will force Mexico to get into another line of work. Drug cartels and the Mexican government are one and the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade

There is nothing more disgusting than a drug dealer, legal or illegal. Talking to my mom about the potential to get knee replacements which she needs, she suggested that it wasn’t worth the effort. Every surgery she has had over the last twenty years has shown her that our medial industry is rotting away into incompetency. This has become the trend as the market indications were that liberals would be moving more toward socialism in the health care professions taking the competency that is generally associated with profit from the industry. This has delivered us a generation of lazy doctors who make too many mistakes during surgery, because they will get paid one way or another, and a trend to put their patients on too many pharmaceutical drugs to deal with the pain of lingering ailments. That is simply an embarrassment of American medicine, that average people no longer trust the system to fix their problems because of their history with botched dealings with doctors. This of course has been the primary cause of the current opioid crises where too many drugs have been prescribed by an all too trusting public—and now there are massive addictions in the American people. Some of the drugs are obtained legally, but many are not, and they come from Mexico to satisfy a market of drug addicts made that way through the failures of our health care system.

Yet even worse than that is the illegal trade where Mexico essentially has their entire economy built off the poisoning of American users. While it can be argued that supplying illegal drugs to Americans is a market driven need that the laws of supply and demand are engaged in, there is nothing that says that a government assigned to protect us from bad, illicit things should stand by and let it happen. If there was ever a threat to the American way of life, it is the illegal drug trade. The end users are poisoning themselves and the money is going to support a hostile Marxist government in Mexico that is filled with corruption. Nothing good comes out of the drug trade, legal and illegal. People get temporary relief from their ailments, but the world for which they live is slowly destroyed in the process. There are better ways and none of the drug manufacturers legal and illegal want those facts getting out to people, because they will lose a lot of money in the process. But for society to continue, we have to make those decisions anyway so why not now. Not even the most drug supporting libertarian can defend the enormous costs of destroying a human mind with drugs so the discussion of our times needs to move from should we judge those who desire to do drugs under their own free will, to a society that looks down on such people destroying their lives and those around them with paralyzing thought patterns rooted in mental escape from the realities of life—pain and all.

It is safe to say that the Mexican government is essentially the illegal drug trade and their desire for open borders is to make it much easier to ship illegal drugs into the United States to take care of their basic economic needs. Its an open secret but should there be even a slight disruption of that illegal drug trade which would be confiscated by the Trump administration’s border patrol, then there would be a major impact on Mexico’s economy. It would not take long to pay for the Trump wall with the confiscated wealth of the illegal drug trade. The wall itself is just a barrier. Drug dealers would still find a way to get drugs to their North American markets but the long-term goal is to make the process cost them more. Let them dig their tunnels. Force them into tight places at great cost which makes them far easier to catch. Force them into the air where they’d be easier to pick up at airports. Make them have to sweat it out at border crossings wit drug sniffing dogs going through their luggage. Anything is better than just walking across the Rio Grande and throwing drugs into the back of a waiting truck there along thousands of miles of open desert.

It doesn’t take much research to discover that the same people promoting open borders around the world are also the same people who want to legalize more mind-altering drugs to dumb down the societies of the users in order to give third world countries a seat at the tables of power. But in order for that scam to work, they have to destroy the power of the first worlds, and they plan to profit off the demise. Make no mistake about it, philanthropists like George Soros and his progressive friends are not interested in the United States surviving. If he could poison every American youth into being easily destroyed by the Marxist infiltrators coming across the southern border of the United States, he will gladly do it without losing any sleep. In the way of thinking militarily about such things, poisoning the enemy from the vantage point of Mexico and the progressive advocates of Central and South America funded by Soros types, makes sense. If the Americans want to poison themselves, the cartels of Mexico that has the government on their payroll are happy to provide that service while they build their crime empires.

We don’t like to talk about it much in the United States, especially in connection with gun control, but the gang network of MS-13 is a perfect example of why every home in American should be armed, because they are dangerous, and they have their foundations in Mexico—with Latino illegal immigration. Whenever you see some stupid kid covered in tattoos, especially neck tats, you are either seeing a MS-13 member, or a kid trying to look like one. The killings these gang members perform are beyond prosecution because they are largely so embroiled in illegal activity that jail is the least of their concerns. There is no way to prosecute such people living that far outside of the law and they are a real threat to the security of the United States. If they could go door to door and murder innocent people they would—which is why they form their gangs largely in cities where there are lots of gun control laws. They can thrive in such places because there isn’t anybody around to shoot them back. Not surprising the same people who are for open borders, expansion of drug use and even the destruction of American capitalism are also the same people who advocate for gun control. Imagine that?

A border wall that makes it harder for MS-13 and other gangs from getting money and drugs back and forth to Mexico would go a long way to starving out the criminal elements who are openly operating as a hostile force within the American nation. And by busting MS-13 the money confiscated that is meant to go back to the mother country of insurrection can go pay for the wall. So by the time its all said and done, Mexico will pay for the wall, and they will hurt because of it, which they should. The border wall is needed on the southern frontier of North America because of the hostile forces in Mexico that are intent to enrich themselves by poisoning American consumers. Without meeting these hostile forces with aggression, we are guaranteed to get more of the behavior. For the benefit of all, the border wall is the best option that gives Mexico time to find some more productive way of building an economy for themselves by taking away the temptation to support the illegal drug trade. By clamping down on the drug dealers in America operating as dangerous gangs, the money meant to be sent back to Mexico will pay for the wall, and that is a wonderful way to spend the money. The wall is absolutely necessary to add a major deterrent to all this illegal business which largely funds the entire GDP of Marxist Mexico. And those are the facts of the matter that enemies of the American way of life don’t want articulated. There are too many people making money off poisoning American people to stop doing it on their own. A border wall is the first step in changing that destructive culture, on both sides of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

The Elephant in the Room: Democrats kill people with guns, not Republicans or NRA members

According to Ayn Rand’s definition in her books, which is as good as anyplace to sink roots into a definition, politics is the study of the principles governing the proper organization of society, it is based on ethics, the study of the proper values to guide man’s choices and actions. Politics and ethics have been fundamental branches of philosophy from the beginning. Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence. The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. With that being said liberals and conservatives really can’t get along, because their fundamental approaches to even the most basic attributes of life are different. In such a case, one philosophy will have to dominate the other—they cannot coexist.

This is a new thought for me, I have tried for many years to be open-minded to other people’s thoughts, but when it comes down to the rubber hitting the road, liberals have no desire to coexist with conservatives. They only want to convert them into aspects of the liberal. They are very militant even for supposedly representing the more pacifist nature of the human species. They only desire peace so long as you think the way they do, which is to essentially not think at all. They require you to not think in order to get along with them, to not have opinions, to not judge, to assume that history is one month old and that interpretations of anything are subject to being redefined based on the sentiment of the day.

Considering things that way it should come as no surprise that liberals in the form of Democrats are the gun grabbers of society—while they have always been the perpetrators of violence. If we consider history, such as in the case of mass shooters and murderers it will become very obvious that they are largely always Democrats—more specifically liberals. Below is a list of major shootings over a long period of time that was sent to me by a reader of these pages. It doesn’t take much to see the pattern that has emerged and persists to this day. After reading it consider how absurd it is to even allow such people to lecture our society on the nature of how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted. And even more so, how these idiots expect us to live in a gun-less society and share resources with them.

In 1865, a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1881, a left-wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States, who later died from the wound.

In 1963, a radical left-wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

In 1975, a left-wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983, a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

In 1984, James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonald’s restaurant.

In 1986, Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in a Oklahoma post office.

In 1990, James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991, George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, TX.

In 1995, James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999, Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001, a left-wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

In 2003, Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007, a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010, a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011, a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012, Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

In 2013, a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT.

As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats with guns.

Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or conservative Republican was involved in any of these shootings and murders. Guns don’t kill people; Democrats do. The same basic logic could be applied to the mass shootings since 2013, especially the Vegas shooter who was a millionaire gambler—and a Democrat. Many of the ISIS inspired killers are also politically speaking, associated with left leaning philosophy. Radical Islam for instance has very little in common with conservative philosophy. It is not enough to suggest that people of all kinds can get into a room and get along, because their essential political philosophies are not conducive to one another. And it is not even appropriate to assume that such people should not talk about their foundational beliefs out of respect for those who don’t feel the way they do about things. People who have radically different political beliefs cannot function in the world together.

Democrats are not shy about their desire to use force to impose their will on others. They are, historically speaking, very intolerant of other people’s beliefs. You don’t see people from the NRA running around killing people. It just isn’t in their political makeup to behave in such a way. They certainly aren’t on the list shown above. Yet Democrats are the ones who have resorted to violence when things have not gone the way they’ve desired. In extreme cases they’ve grabbed guns and tried to kill people, such as the Democrat that attacked Republican baseball players in 2017 by trying to kill them while in the field of play. But you don’t see Republicans doing such a thing because their fundamental philosophy about life keeps them from even thinking about it. Most people I know, myself included, who happen to be very conservative don’t even talk about shooting people, because that goes against the nature of life. The gun is to protect life in the mind of a Republican. To a Democrat the gun is there to take life. The Republican tends to be for the life of a fetus, to the Democrat they are for abortion—the killing of a human if it inconveniences the life of a woman. The differences are epistemological in nature. Politics isn’t a dirty word, it’s an essential element to understanding what kind of person we are dealing with, and to that effect how they view the basics of life.

Literally the elephant in the room is that conservatives stand for life and act in accordance with life in most everything they do. It is not in their nature to become mass shooters, or to even impose themselves on another life because they respect life—all life. Liberals in the form of Democrats however are all about imposing themselves in a group think way on anybody and everyone. If Republicans do not have guns and a way to protect their lives, it will be Democrats who will raid homes in the middle of the night trying to steal what is valued there. It will be Democrats who will say to everyone who they can, “join us or die.” To those who assume that Nazi types and racists like the KKK members of the American south are some brand of conservative, that would be wrong as well. It was always Democrats who formed the KKK and all racist organizations because like all liberals—Nazis included, they don’t value individual life. Only the collective efforts of the mob that rules by force against the defenseless. And it is those people who are screaming for a gun free society. That is pretty funny when you consider the absurdity of it. Because it will be Democrats who will steal a gun breaking the law many times over and use it as a sacrifice of themselves for some liberal cause. And that kind of thing will continue to happen as long as liberals are allowed to coexist with the life loving conservatives of American sentiment. There will never be peace between the two political philosophies because the two just aren’t conducive to one another. Only one side will survive, because that is the nature of philosophy. A truth and a lie cannot live in harmony. Death and life are not after the same goals. And that is the cold hard truth of this matter that is before us presently.

Rich Hoffman

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

	vwells34 on Where Evil Lives in Butler Cou…
	Rich Hoffman on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Mysterious London Stone: S…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Rich Hoffman on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Forbidden Archaeology…
	Rich Hoffman on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…
	Anonymous on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: