Tag: John Kasich

Joan Powell Announces she is a Progressive: ‘Putting Women in Their Place’ and more feminist Misery

Just to prove that everything I’ve ever said about Joan Powell is 100% correct just have a look at this polished video done by the kind of people who supporter her for the West Chester Trustee seat she is running for on the November 7, 2017 election.  The organization producing this video is an openly progressive group called Putting Women in Their Place and they are part of that radical leftist ideology that attempted to put Hillary Clinton in office just because she was a woman.  Well, there is a great woman running for trustee in West Chester and her name is Ann Becker.  Yet these hypocritical progressives ignore women who are openly conservative and instead go after supporting candidates who will walk the line of radicalism and man hating that come with groups like this.  If you want a good laugh, just watch this video.

I don’t think Joan Powell is an evil person, or is even stupid.  But she has used her network of radical feminists to come after me before due to her massive failures as a school board member at Lakota where she heavily abused a very generous budget of over $160 million dollars per year and essentially caved to the labor union’s demands for higher wages, then asked tax payers to leverage the expense on their property taxes.  Under the guidelines of these idiots, the Putting Women in Their Place crowd, we aren’t supposed to judge any woman for anything.  We are supposed to always look the other way when they do something because the value of their progressive organization is to put women in charge of things instead of men—regardless of how incompetent those women are.

You can hear that in Joan’s voice when she says that the West Chester Trustees have a “father knows best” approach to life in what has become one of the best places in America to live.  Well, maybe father does know best in this case, because it has obviously worked in West Chester.  But in her video, obviously because she’s running against her, Joan fails to mention that Ann Becker is running for a trustee seat given up by George Lang, and she is the endorsed Republican in the race.  For those who need clarification, Ann is a woman, and a very good one at that.  What these progressive groups really mean is that they want man haters in these seats they are running for.  Just have a look at their website.

https://puttingwomenintheirplace.com/

You won’t find progressive women like Joan Powell and the rest of those latte sipping slobs on that website supporting Ivanka Trump’s quests as a representative of Donald Trump’s administration.  And you won’t see them talking about how wonderful of a first lady Melania Trump is—how gracious and caring she has been in her role as the first lady.  Honestly, the Trump administration has done more positive for women in just the last few months than previous administrations have done during their entire terms.  I don’t see these progressive women cheering on the great work of Sarah Huckabee Sanders as White House Press Secretary.  I mean women don’t need to win beauty contests to be great in those positions—but there is a beauty in competency and Sarah is one of the best that there ever has been.  Where are these progressive groups in support of these very fine women?

That’s how we get to the real truth about what these progressive women are after.  Everyone remembers when I called these types of women latté sipping prostitutes with asses the size of car tires and diamond rings to match, because these were the idiots who were running the pro levy groups at Lakota and damning all of us with high property taxes because they felt they had a right to function without being questioned.  When they couldn’t answer the questions they went straight to gender politics—because they had nothing else.  Their minds were flat and lazy and they relied on their control of sex in relationships to dominate the political landscape.   As an example a very powerful man wanted to give money to our levy fighting group, and it was for a substantial amount of money.  He asked us not to tell his wife who was also a prominent Republican socialite—because she was a school levy supporter and a progressive buddy with Joan Powell who caused all the mess to begin with.  I stood there looking at this very nice man who was a business tycoon in West Chester and he was worried about his wife finding out about giving us money to fight higher taxes because honestly he was worried he wouldn’t get any sex from her for the foreseeable future.  That’s how I came up with the prostitute notion, because these “progressive” women have used these kinds of tactics to bend politics into their direction for many years, and it has really crippled our society.  Men go along with it to keep peace in the house, but is that any way to live?

I have an aunt who is one of these bra burning progressives—a real man hater.  I never really had a bad experience with her except that I never agreed with her politics.  She was horrible to deal with on Holidays and the few times a year I had to see her, she always felt she needed to infuse her political opinions on us.  My mom was a housewife, one of the last ones, and this aunt felt it was her mission in life to change that status.  (Just as a footnote, you can tell the difference in the kind of kids the two families produced.  My mom’s kids are all successful in every aspect of their lives.  None of the aunt’s have been.  Not their fault, because it starts with the parents) She was molded as a 1960s feminist and we all sort of put up with her, and that went on for many years.  Well out of the blue about 15 years ago she contacted my wife for no apparent reason and wanted to take her to lunch.  You have to understand, I am politically as far from this lady as there are units of measure to cover the distance.  So her calling my wife was highly unusual, but she did and they went out for lunch.  The whole purpose of the lunch visit was to attack me for being a traditionalist and to recruit my wife who was a stay-at-home mom into the world of progressive women.

At the end of the lunch this lady actually told my wife, “we women must stick together—or else.”  She actually threatened my wife with implied violence if she didn’t subscribe to her version of feminist radicalism.   I have not spoken to that person since except to tell my family why I have completely painted her out of my life.  I mean I have never been a control freak about what my wife does. I am very easy to deal with in regard to people’s personal decisions.  I have always let my wife and two daughters do pretty much as they saw fit, but I always did make my opinions known.  I certainly didn’t deserve to have this bra burning feminist trying to inject herself into my marriage to create discontent to fulfill some progressive political objective.   My wife was a very strong woman taking great care of my family in a traditional way.  As a former model she was always very attractive and that drove this aunt crazy—so she felt she needed to get control over her for some perverse social reason.   It caused a rift in our family that still exists.  I never forget anything, and don’t intend to start now.

We have another one who is the mom of one of the people who have married into our family.  When we get together to go shooting she sometimes is there, but she hates guns.  Actually, hate is too light of a word.  She is insanely against them, yet she comes to these family events knowing full well what’s going to happen at them.  She is very dramatic in her hatred and she openly imposes herself on everyone at the gathering.  She loves all that hippie rock from the 60s and 70s and expects us all to just shut up and let her rattle on and on about it, and if we say anything to her she demands that we are women haters.   When we go on and shoot anyway you’d think we threw Holy water on her during an exorcism.  She is ridiculous.  Her husband who is a staunch conservative just sits there and smiles.  When she’s away we ask why he puts up with her.  The answer is an embarrassing one, but you get the picture.  No man wants to be locked out of their own bedroom and these types of progressive women feel that is their right to use sex as leverage to control the politics of a family.  If a man gets tired of it and goes to Vegas to have a weekend with a bunch of whores then those women want half of everything the man possesses—including the kids.  These progressive women have become a menace to happiness and they think they are empowered to create all this misery because they embed themselves like Kathy Bates into every part of our lives.

Speaking from my personal experiences I just think they are crazy.  Somewhere in their ideology and their menopausal hormones is the villain of insanity.   Most of them are older and beyond repair.  Younger women can find moments of sanity after a good romp, because they aren’t yet biologically disposed of.  As younger women they still enjoy the company of a good man, but when they get older and no longer care for sex, they hold their husbands hostage to it because he has nowhere to go.  He’s not allowed to cheat on her by their marriage contract, but if he wants if from her, he has to do what she says.  So the man does what most do and they develop a hobby out in the garage, whether its model airplanes, fixing up a classic car, or playing golf with the guys so they can get away from these progressive idiots and the insanity that always follows in their wake.  Speak to any of these progressive women for a little while and you’ll find some variation to the stories I have just articulated.  Insanity is a common theme with them.   They may speak well socially, but dig a little deeper and you’ll see it.

Progressive women don’t really want women in power; they want certain kinds of women in power.  Conservative women are not welcome, only the man hating radicals who will play the game of imposing liberal politics into their marriages so that they can corrupt every relationship they have in their contacts—from family events to manicures.  Progressive women have all the power and they do use sex to control the world around them.  They play the victim socially, but in their bedrooms that is how they expand their kingdoms and there are many, many men who are prisoners in those bedrooms.  They wish they had a wife that wanted to share a life with them, but those types of progressive women only want misery so they can maneuver everything around them to the insanity of their twisted politics.  And now you know dear reader what Joan Powell is, and what she wants to do.  And you know who backs her.  Now all you have to do is stop her at the ballot box—because she by her politics is a hypocrite, like all progressive women are.    They are hypocrites because they use politics to hide a deep hatred they have about women who are beautiful, or smart—or are truly happy on their own.  Progressives require group think and they need to pull in as many women as possible into their vortex of misery so they can still look in the mirror and deal with what looks back—a hateful loser who often ruins the relationships of all the sane people in their lives—and they need to hide from those mistakes behind some political cause invented to conceal their folly.   Remember that when you vote.

Rich Hoffman

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

Ann Becker and Mark Welch Work Together Down the Stretch: Lazy Lee Wong and many others fall short of a critical Tuesday election in West Chester

 

Now that we are coming down to the final days of the 2017 election for the West Chester Township Trustees it’s easy to see who really wants the job and who doesn’t—as well as who has the passion to do the job correctly, as opposed to those who only want the position for a social statement.   I was quite impressed by the efforts of Ann Becker and Mark Welch in the final days.  In the picture below you can see that they pulled together to go door to door on the last Saturday before the election which says a lot about them as candidates.  There are a lot of people running, but these two joined together to make a statement which reveals a lot about what kind of people they would be in office together.  It takes a lot of teamwork to pull together resources in the way that they have and in the world of politics, that is wonderful to see for a change.

We already know what we are getting with Mark Welch, he is the current president of the trustees and has done a great job.  Electing him only gets more of the same, which in West Chester is precisely what voters want.   However with Ann Becker, this is her first crack at the job, and she brings fresh ideas to that seat which would only expand its effectiveness.   I can’t imagine two better people running for a political office anywhere in the country than these two.  Ann isn’t a carbon copy of Mark Welch politically by any stretch of the imagination.  She brings her own flavor to the role, but as conservatives holding a very important office the team work they have shown during the campaign would naturally carry over into a good relationship working together to do the business of the people in West Chester.

That is the beauty of competition, and why we have competitive elections.  Most of the times the candidates put out a bunch of campaign signs and that’s it— those with the most money tend to get the name recognition because people generally don’t know who else to vote for but the name they saw on the side of the road at a traffic light.  They figure that if the candidate has enough money to put out a bunch of yard signs, that someone must like that candidate, so that is typically who they vote for.  But this year there are so many candidates with so many yard signs that they are all running together in the mind of the political novice, which most people are.  Few people pay much attention to-day to-day politics and the names behind them.  They just want the system to work like the gas gauge in their car.

Competition especially in this current election race has really separated the truly serious candidates from those who just want the social status of being elected.  That’s precisely what we have seen from Joan Powell the ex-school board candidate from Lakota.  In that position she was a big spender and had a reputation for caving into the union demands during teacher contracts which she paid for with tax increases against the public.  In the past she has supported cityhood for West Chester so she is one of those big government types—a person who thinks of herself as a Republican, but she’s more of a John Kasich Republican—a liberal who puts an “R” next to their name so they can get elected in a conservative county.  If Joan were running for the same type of office just ten miles south of her West Chester home she’d be just another Democrat that has virtually destroyed the economic viability of Hamilton County.   Watching her in some of the debates during this campaign season I would have thought that Joan was more savvy than what she showed, but she really fizzled out down the stretch.  She put out a few signs, but showed no energy in the days leading up to the election on Tuesday and even though I don’t support her, her presence in this competitive election was really flat.  Lucky for us all that we did have a lot of candidates to pick from because it has really exposed people like Joan for wanting the job more for a social statement in their personal careers than as a sincere person who really just wants to do a good job for the West Chester community.

Speaking of flat, Lee Wong is a current trustee and aside from a few signs has made very little effort to defend his seat.  One thing about Lee that is obvious to everyone, he’s just lazy.  He’s lazy as a trustee functioning from the politics of yesteryear where a trustee shows up for a few parades and expects free food when he goes out for lunch.  He relies mostly on his time served as a veteran to cover for his socialist tendencies as a trustee.   As an incumbent there is a lot of dirt on Lee that is floating around out there—a lot of smoke with some fire to feed it—you don’t see Lee out with his wife much.   Based on the smoke the fire that produces it says that Lee has issues with people—particularly females.  But that isn’t the most telling example of why he’s a bad candidate—he’s just a lazy person.  By nature, he doesn’t like hard work and it shows in the way he has been a trustee and in this competitive race, he’s far down the ladder as far as effort.  If people didn’t know better, they’d never know that he was running for re-election.

Lynda O’Conner is another one who put out a few signs next to Mark’s along the side of the road, but she hasn’t been out much to sell her candidacy.  In the debate that really counted, the West Chester Tea Party Forum, Lynda was a no-show, instead she sent a note.  As a school board member at Lakota she obviously thought that the run for trustee would be a lot easier than it turned out to be, so her effort matched that miscalculation.  I have supported Lynda as a school board member before, and she isn’t the worst in the world, but as trustee for the high-powered West Chester economy, she showed down the stretch that she just didn’t have the ambition to really make a name for herself.   Putting a few signs out in this election just wasn’t enough to show what kind of candidate she was, and she missed a lot of opportunities to make her mark yielding to Ann Becker when things counted most.  Lynda starting off was probably the best option but Ann clearly outworked Lynda by a lot.

That brings us to Jullian Kelley who has been a well-known socialite within the Republican Party of Butler County for a long time.  She has worked hard because she put her name out there and a considerable budget for signs—and she doesn’t want to lose.  In a typical election Jullian would likely win a seat just because of her name recognition, but in this competitive climate—especially during the West Chester Tea Party debate she has shown that she didn’t know much about the topics and was more like a room mom in school making treats for the kids in class.   Her heart was there, but her intellect just wasn’t prepared and she would likely be no better prepared for an average day at the office as a trustee than Lazy Lee Wong has been.  Getting elected into one of these positions is about more than just showing up and displaying that you can put out signs.  You have to actually know things, and do things.  On that account, Jullian is clearly lacking in competency.  Good intentions aren’t enough this time.

So on Tuesday November 7, 2017 make  sure to vote for Ann Becker and Mark Welch and reward them for a well run cooperative campaign.  Their partnership would only be good for West Chester.  As trustees it takes a lot of cooperation to manage a vast township like West Chester, which has enough people in it to be considered a city, but needs to stay small enough to maintain its competitive edge over Cincinnati to the south and Dayton to the north.  West Chester is the crown jewel of the I-75 corridor between two of Ohio’s best known cities, and it is the preferred destination for business and people of ambition who want to build a good life for themselves in a top 100 community in all of the United States.  It takes work and Ann and Mark have shown that they are willing to do the work, and to do it together—and those are the first foundations of success.  Before they can bring that success to the township however you have to vote for them, so be sure to do so.  You won’t regret it!

Rich Hoffman

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

Mueller Shouldn’t be investigating a Crossword Puzzle: The massive arrests that need to be made in our government of criminals

I have to agree with Alex Jones on this whole Bob Mueller investigation issue.  After all, as I’m writing this and you are reading it, the first charges in this long Russian probe against Trump are about to be revealed, but if there were a real smoking gun, it would have been revealed over the summer. If the former FBI director had to look this hard only to come up with one silly name just for optics then there is nothing there.  But!  Mueller and his establishment politicians have just set an impossible standard for themselves and as they wonder why the Trump White House hasn’t said anything about it yet—it’s because they’ve all just hung themselves.  It wouldn’t have looked good if Hillary Clinton and many other people from the Democratic side of things went to jail after the election, because everyone would have then said that Trump was a tyrant.  So Trump has been playing things as cool as he can and letting things happen, and with just that patient pressure, the other side is bumbling over every loose stone in their path, and it’s pretty embarrassing to watch.

I’m not one who advocates violence over every little thing.  I always look for the non violent answer when there is one—and have done that over my entire life.  As some might point out, I did have a pretty violent past, well that’s because as you get older you get smarter if you do things right and I have many more options available to me as an older person intellectually than I did as a young person still learning about the world.  Instead of just having a hammer in the problem solving tool box I can use many more tools to solve problems—and watching Trump as president he has quite a nice tool box also.  He doesn’t need to do what people expect him to about anything, because he has so many more ways to solve problems without violence or traditional Beltway politics having time to react in a predictable fashion.  I’m sure if I had the opportunity to have a dinner meeting with Bob Mueller I’d like him and would find that he’s in an impossible position.  As a creation of the swamp, he needs to protect it because all the people he cares about in his life are also born and sustained by the swamp that Trump wants to drain.  I am sympathetic to that position.  But I would also say in the very next sentence that this is why we have the Second Amendment—to deal with just this specific kind of institutional failure.

When I wrote the other day that public service was not enough for me–whether it was a military record, a cop, or some ex-FBI director this is the reason.  Mueller was put on the investigation by all the same Republicans and Democrats who had their hand in creating that fake Trump dossier that we have all been talking about where supposedly Trump hired a bunch of prostitutes in Russia to piss on a bed that the Obamas had slept in while visiting.  With that cover story intact as a method of investigation the American intelligence gathering agencies were then justified in spying on the new president-elect looking for any dirt they could find before the new boss took office.  Obviously everyone was trying to cover their asses before their political opponent had a legal means to destroy their lives—which Trump has not been quick to do.  Smartly, he’s letting them destroy themselves, but nobody knew at the close of 2016 what to expect from the former reality television star.  So they abused their power to attempt to override a decision made by voters and the FBI has all kinds of dirty hands on the job. My direct experience with all positions of power are that people with a low intellect tend to abuse their authority and that just because they “serve” the public it isn’t enough to give them a free pass on everything in their lives.  I don’t care how long Comey or Mueller “served.”  I don’t care how long John McCain spent in a Vietnamese prison being tortured.  None of them get a free pass to be government thugs for the rest of their lives.  It only takes once to ruin a reputation so we must not fall in love with the easy patriotism of these people who hide villainy behind the mask of sacrifice.  There is often more to the story and to why they seek such power in the first place, and we must always be cautious in regard to them.

Mueller shouldn’t be investigating the number of letters in a cross word puzzle sold at an airport bookstore with all the serious crimes his name comes up in—like Uranium One. Mueller was the head of the FBI when that Uranium One deal was approved by the Obama White House and that is proof of definite Russian collusion with our Secretary of State at the time.  Mueller was involved and should be considered a witness, not an investigator.  He shouldn’t have the right in any form to apprehend anybody connected to the fake Trump case where a former campaign manager is being set up to be a fall guy to put attention on—while all the criminals who were really involved skate free.   If I were Paul Manafort and the Mueller investigation sent people to my home to arrest me for an obviously corrupt court system, there’d be a lot of people not going home that night, let’s just say that.  When institutions fail, and they certainly have here, Mueller has lost all his potential authority in his part of the cover-up of the real crimes.  And we can’t have any trust in those institutions again until a lot of people go to jail.  It’s one thing to be cooperative and let trusted members of law enforcement do their jobs.  But once that trust is lost, nobody in their right mind would allow themselves to be a political diversion while the real criminals roam free.  I mean these are not the days of Henry the VIII where he threw one of his ex-wives in jail because he wanted a new wife and created a false narrative so he could have sex with the new woman openly.  That’s what we’re talking about here with Clinton and Mueller with the assistance of the national media.  There are so many guilty people we really should be building a jail right now to hold them all in.  The disrespect for the law that they have all displayed mandates action and if we can’t trust the institutions to deliver it, then I would argue that is the reason for the Second Amendment.  Because without that threat, these vile people have nothing to fear from the people they rule over.

The abuse of our institutions is so over-the-top that many people just can’t believe it.  How could anybody be so evil, yet there they are.  And how somebody like Bob Mueller is in charge of any investigation is like putting the father of a killer as the primary gateway to collecting evidence to prosecute that same killer.  Then there is the timing, just as the Uranium One story kicked up a little dust suddenly now Mueller has a person to throw on the fire.  Give me a break!  I’m sure Mueller is somebody’s father and he’s somebody’s son.  Talking one on one with him, I’m sure there are good qualities that are worth knowing.  But as the head of an institution supposedly committed to justice, we are better off with the barrel of guns pointed at these bad guys, because they are dangerous—and they cannot be trusted.   For me all it takes is the continuation of the Russian story of collusion with Trump’s campaign.  I don’t think that was ever a story, but especially now with what we know about Clinton and her friends.  There is much worse there and Mueller is standing in the way of justice, not helping protect it.  That is a crime in and of itself—which is of course, unforgivable.  These are criminals who have been running our government and they don’t have the power to investigate or arrest anybody.  Given their intentions which are now obvious with Trump—to just make things up hoping to create some impeachment proceeding and erase the election of a person we put in place to fix all this mess—I don’t think they thought this thing through.  We’re not just going to go away.  If we can’t trust the legal system, then what is our next option?  I’ll tell you what I see.  I can see it in the holster sitting right next to my chair right now.  I’m not going to allow criminals to run my government.  That’s just not an option.   People like me voted for Trump because we knew all along that these government people were dirty.  But if they prevent our elected representative from doing their jobs—then what recourse do we have?  Surrender is not an option.  So what else?

They did this to themselves.

Rich Hoffman

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

Trump’s Draft Deferments: Military service doesn’t always make for the best patriots–why sacrifice is a stupid value system

I don’t think it’s very American to die for one’s country. That is actually a very stupid thing to even suggest. To even say such a thing indicates that the state is superior to the individual and that institutionalism is to have more merit than personal sovereignty, and that’s just not right. I have never been willing to “die” for my country. My life is worth way too much. But, ask me to kill for my country and turn me loose to do so, and I’d have no problem facing down a 1000 villains if I could eliminate them without getting into trouble legally. But I would never engage an enemy and expect to die. I would expect to kill, but not to personally die—that’s just not in my thinking. Sacrifice is a stupid thing because the essence of human life is creation, and the villains of our existence are those who wish to deter creation in favor of stagnant barbarism—which has always been a force for evil the entire span of human evolution. If there were a military draft today, I would do everything I could to defer from it, because I just am not the kind of person who follows orders—from anybody. I’m happy to give them, but being drafted into the military to take orders from some institutional representative who has been instructed to break me into an order taking soldier was never an option for me.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/donald-trump-john-mccains-war-words-military-service/story?id=50657588

The news media seeking everything they can to defer the unfolding scandal involving the Clintons and the Uranium One deal with Russia has made a lot about President Trump’s call with the widow of a slain soldier killed recently in Niger, and even Senator John McCain’s comments about the days of the draft and eluding to the 5 deferments that Donald Trump had as a young man. The draft was a terrible period in American history, it was a very un-American thing to do, and for those who think we should have compulsory service of our young people into the military as the Israelis do, that would be a bad idea too. I would say that the most optimal path a young person could take is to develop themselves individually as much as possible, and avoid the college and military route if they are smart enough, and self-disciplined to carry themselves to success without yielding to institutional influence. The reason is that once a young mind is chained to some form of institutionalism, their minds are altered forever. Now of course that path isn’t for everyone, but often the best and brightest Americans who emerge from genius evolve without the guidance of institutionalism. As Americans we should always be looking for our brightest and best and should not be so willing to sacrifice them to the fires of evil wherever such threats arise. The expectation that lives lost are good for fueling America is just stupid.

I understand the position President Trump is in, and even General Kelly. When you are in charge of an institutional order, you have to protect the function of it, and the American military is a very important element to global politics. When soldiers die, it is good to respect their lives in the scope of a higher cause. But in reality, the notion of sacrifice for one’s country implies that what matters most is not the individual life of the soldier, but the sacrifice they make for the sake of everyone—and that is an old way of human thinking that is grossly outdated and is specifically very European. As I said, if I were given the task by my country to kill as many bad guys as possible, I’d do it in a second if I could be free of prosecution for the task. If I had to engage a 1000 losers on some strip of sand in the Middle East and it was only me or perhaps a few other similar people, I’d formulate a plan and would expect to be successful without losing my life. Embracing death is no way to live life. Some people might say that they are not Superman, so such expectations are unrealistic. I would say that being American means you should always think that way, or support people who do.

There is a lot of talk right now about the Battle of New Orleans, because President Trump reminds a lot of people of Andrew Jackson, and there is a new book out about Jackson and the famous American saving battle from the War of 1812. That battle along with many in the Revolutionary War, and even many in the Civil War, most of the most heroic acts were conducted by people with very limited military experience. Even the famous pirates of the Caribbean, the real ones like Henry Morgan and many others had great strategic victories against multiple odds of fearless institutionalism—soldiers perfectly willing to die for their various countries were often easily slaughtered by the loose acting pirates—so I would argue that being a soldier or having a regimented military is not the best thing in military victory. There are a lot of good people who served in the various armed forces, and I tend to like those people because they learn values in their service that is conducive to patriotism. But I would also argue that learning to take orders not based on merit, but on rank is a major problem in American thinking, making those people drags on our economic development instead of assets. I would also argue that the ability to think outside the box from one individual is more powerful than a whole army of compliant soldiers. Again, the value should always be in creation, never in sacrifice.

I listened to General Kelly defend Trump’s handling of the widow suffering from the ambush in Niger and while I admired his determined resolve—his constant talk about “dying for his country and the soldier knowing what he was getting into” disturbed me. I am all for an all-volunteer army where knowing what you are getting into is an option. I never did sign up for military service even thought I thought about it a lot. I wouldn’t have minded the aggressive parts of military life, but the structure was something I couldn’t have done. Even in sports I was like that, I always wanted to be the head coach, never just a player—and I wasn’t one that coaches found they could teach—because I was a know it all. I always have been. In that regard I didn’t play sports either in a structured organized way. But should our nation institute a draft where I didn’t have a choice, I would look for a way to defer any way possible. I could not surrender my life to the institution of military command under any circumstances. I would expect in any American system a better way to find soldiers for fighting than a draft. Just the concept of it is so European. Being compelled into service with the threat of imprisonment just isn’t motivating to a self-directed individual functioning from their own inner compass. The military is not built for such people.

Ironically this year my wife and I were both picked for jury duty, and I had a hard time with the language of the letter they sent me telling me the dates I was scheduled for. I’m the kind of person who would love to help on a jury to judge my peers. But I was instantly turned off by the way the letter started, “YOU ARE COMMANDED TO APPEAR.” Excuse me, I thought, who are these fools who think they can command me to do anything? I don’t bow to the flag waving merits of any institution. But if you thought my reaction was bad you should have heard my wife who called the Clerk of Courts office to complain about that first sentence. She and I didn’t plan it, or really talk about it, but when she opened her letter she immediately picked up the phone and unloaded on the people working at the court. I’m sure those people thought they had heard every excuse for why people wanted to get out of jury duty, and that is why they threaten people the way they do—to get people to participate in the system with the threat of imprisonment. That’s essentially what the draft was, which turned out to be a massive mistake. Our military went from an all voluntary affair to one of compulsion. My wife is like me, she would love to help a court with their cases, but the moment she learned that she could be imprisoned for not appearing she was PISSED OFF. It took away her natural enthusiasm for doing a community service and replaced it with a threat from the state that assumed ultimate power over the individual. Many people just assume that this is acceptable, because they have integrated John McCain’s soldier’s sacrifice creed into their daily life, that the whole is greater than the unit and that everything should subject itself to the authority of institutionalism. That’s not how it’s supposed to be, it never was. So this idea that patriotism is equal to self-sacrifice for the state is idiotic, and preposterous. There is no greater good than the merit of individual action and an adherence to the values exhibited by the morality of productive thought. None of that comes from any form of institutionalism, and therefore not by any work with the armed services. While they are valuable, and often good for young minds seeking direction in life, work as a veteran is not an automatic ticket toward lifelong merit status. Only good conduct can demand such a thing, and that conduct only comes from judgment on individual behavior within the context of performance.

Just because John McCain was a veteran captured and tortured during the Vietnam War, it doesn’t make him beyond judgment. The media that hates Trump and wishes that institutionalism could forever rule the minds of mankind—because that is what they need to survive—hopes that McCain will be the example that all should follow in sacrificing themselves to bigger causes—relative to their view-point. Trump has always been a self-absorbed person so being drafted into service where unfocused young people were expected to throw away their lives at the command of their “superior” just wasn’t an option. It would never be an option for me because I don’t acknowledge anyone as my superior. My life means more to me than surrendering it to the state for the causes of the state. To expect to die for my country is an unrealistic line of thought because honestly, I could do a better job on my own. Give me the weapons and let me kill the enemy, and I could do so and still be home for dinner. But to be told to run into gunfire and to be blown up on a landmine under orders given by some ranking leader just isn’t my bag—and it wasn’t Trump’s either. I don’t blame him at all from deferring. Choosing to do something isn’t the same as doing it under the duress of the state.

I would gladly run into a firefight if I could be free to win. I would always expect myself to be successful no matter what the odds were. But to be a pawn to the politics of statism is not a value system that should be attributed to Americanism. It is currently and that is leading to all kinds of confusing emotions. But the bottom line is that not serving as in the military forces is not a liability. The only people who think in such a way are those who need the structure of institutionalism to function responsibly in life—and many people are that way. But a gifted few do best on their own, and they are the ones you want to take orders from if you were so inclined. John McCain isn’t considered a better leader because he served in the armed forces and was tortured by the enemy. It was Trump who won the presidency because he took a different path in life—one driven by his own merit and if he had been drafted and accepted authority in any way—he wouldn’t be the kind of person who would eventually win the presidency. Trump doesn’t need to have been a soldier to oversee soldiers. He just needs to have a good mind—which he does. But better yet, a mind forged from his own unique individuality—which is what makes the best leaders known to mankind.

Rich Hoffman

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

All the Reasons to vote for Mark Welch for Trustee: The “invisible hand” of West Chester

With all the talk about education and how much money should be spent on it, and has been within America, there are a lot of people who are in dire need of a vast education.  Most of the people needing it are those functioning as pundits and news reporters—especially politicians who are doing important jobs but don’t have the intellect to do that job correctly.  That has been the case so far during Donald Trump’s entire time spent in the White House. People who should know better are surprised that he has done such a good job so far and has led an economic approach that is breaking records in the stock market—as I write this the Dow Jones is currently 300 points about 23,000!  And the reason is basic economics.  Trump is providing a hands off approach to government allowing investment to prosper and for our capitalist exchanges to be trustful, so people are putting their money to work instead of hiding it away to protect it from radical politicians who want to redistribute it to their voter base essentially to buy elections.   Trump’s approach works and it always has for those bold enough to utilize a less restrictive business environment and we know that because Trump hasn’t been the first to try such things.  In West Chester, Ohio Mark Welch has been utilizing a very pro business strategy that has been very successful and now four years after he was first elected West Chester is booming in similar ways that the Dow Jones is currently.  It’s all about a pro business strategy that allows for growth, and now that Mark is up for re-election of his seat the facts are there for all to witness.  Below is a collection of video segments from a West Chester Tea Party forum conducted to feature the candidates for this year’s election.  Mark as expected, performed very well, and gave great answers to the questions provided to him which should put everyone’s mind at ease about electing him for a second term to continue the good job he has been doing.

I suppose where the education failure starts it is that most people just don’t understand the basic concepts of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.  I mean, modern advocates for thought—and that includes everyone from the most highly paid attorney working for Beltway politics to the NFL player protesting on one knee during the National Anthem should understand well the idea of the “invisible hand” described in Smith’s epic work on economics.  The basic premise that self-interest regulates behavior far better than authoritative Theory X oriented fear of government—such as what occurred under Mark Welch when he first became a trustee in regards to zoning regulations.   Before Mark came along zoning was a radicalized venture in West Chester.  I can recall a case where a business was destroyed by West Chester zoning because they hosted Tea Party events on Tuesday nights and the rules of zoning were used to push it out of existence.  The heavy hand of government penalized this place of business for some signage displays on Sunday’s where a similar business right across the street was given a free pass—because it was a popular meeting place for Lakota school levy supporters.  It only took a few months once there was bad publicity unleashed for that place of business to close its doors—and that is just one example that government can destroy businesses by limiting the movement of Adam Smith’s free hand.   That building is still sitting empty years later, destroyed by government essentially.  The same story could be told all across America and when Mark talks in the video about beating an entrenched incumbent in the 2013 election, that’s why he won.  He has not disappointed West Chester, he’s made it much better over the last four years.

When self-interest goes from a focus on profitability and instead resides purely on survival it is then clear that we are living in a restrictive society confined to the artificial barriers imposed by government for the purpose of ideological control rooted in poor philosophic thinking.  It is hard enough to be in business competing in an industry without the hand of government sticking its nose into every little aspect of strategic implementation.  To an extent government is there to make sure that the game of business is played fairly, but they should not impose themselves on that climate, otherwise you destroy the “invisible hand.”  When government is too involved, that invisible hand stays in a pocket and doesn’t do what it should and that’s a bad thing.  Mark Welch certainly understands the concept of “the invisible hand” and West Chester is thriving in 2017 beyond anybody’s expectations.  Donald Trump is doing the same on a large national level.  Anybody who understood how these things work could do the same, but unfortunately such people are hard to find.

Maybe it’s because liberals—especially academic liberals, are inherently lazy in their thinking.  The works of Karl Marx is much smaller than Adam Smith’s works so perhaps it’s because it’s easier to read that liberals gravitate to Marxism and cower in fear of Smith. Most liberals that I have known love to smoke pot, have reckless sex with dirty unwashed people covered in tattoos and body piercings, and are weak people who like to hide in the safety of a crowd—so Adam Smith’s invisible hand is pretty scary to them—because they are scared people to begin with.   But that doesn’t mean you can build your society around their thinking.  Anybody who is in public office needs to understand the basics of Adam Smith’s concepts.  Under Trump’s presidency we can now all see how the Wealth of Nations is built.  It goes from concept in a large volume beautiful book to actual practice as represented by the Dow Jones records currently being broken by the day.  But before Donald Trump was Mark Welch in West Chester, Ohio who understood the invisible hand of Adam Smith from day one of his election during the first term.  The wealth of West Chester has exploded, and it’s not a mystery.  It’s all very predictable.  But Wes Chester is unique because it has had politicians like Mark who knew when to leave things alone—which is harder than a lot of people think.

Many years ago and up to very recently, in leadership training of people who need to learn those skills a common practice is to have a person stand on an elevated platform and to allow themselves to fall backwards into a group of waiting arms from your teammates to teach trust to the subconscious.  The thinking is to trust that the invisible hands of your team to know that they won’t let you fall because it’s in their self-interest not to let you.  For instance, if you are a smart person who holds the keys to their strategic success in life, you don’t have to worry about them backstabbing you from all types of success in life, because they need you for their own fulfillment.  So they won’t tend to let things happen to you if they find you falling.  Building that trust is one of those elementary practices in leadership training.  The people who are always terrible at this exercise are those cowering liberals who are afraid of their own shadows in life, so it is very difficult to fall back and trust other people because they don’t naturally trust anything—because of what they know about themselves if you really want to break it down correctly.  Let alone trust some invisible hand that is not controlled by government.  But their dysfunction cannot be the standard we all live with as a nation, or a community, because what they are experiencing is a psychosis not a healthy deduction of reason.  So when you get someone like Mark Welch, you grab on tight, because he is unique in the political world.  Hopefully with Trump’s successes on the larger stage more people like Mark will emerge.  But currently, people should be very grateful that Mark Welch is running for such an important trustee position, because he understands innately the nature of Adam Smith’s invisible hand, and it has been that hand which has loaded West Chester, Ohio with such magnificent options toward the enjoyment of life.

I was at Cabela’s in West Chester just yesterday buying up ammunition for some weekend shooting and I had to marvel at the work of the invisible hand that has been doing a good job in West Chester.  To have the option of visiting Cabela’s on a wonderful October day then heading down to Jags for a nice steak lunch with important people to make decisions that would increase the fortunes of many people.  Then to top off the night at Top Golf and enjoy the sunset of a fall evening—but before leaving to walk over to Barnes and Noble for some new books to read are all miracles of the invisible hand of Adam Smith’s capitalism.  Everyone should read Adam Smith’s work because they would find such things much better miracles for which they are.  They’d also understand that much of that lifestyle I mentioned is a result of Mark Welch’s proper management of West Chester as a trustee—to build the trust that investors need to fall back into the waiting arms of West Chester’s government to protect them without meddling into their work.  The trust goes both ways, government has to trust business to catch it when they fall back into their arms, and the same for the businesses who must take a leap of faith with their investments to make magical things happen in the realm of capitalism.  It sounds easy, but unfortunately most people just don’t get it.  Mark Welch does, and that is the primary reason that people should vote for him on November 7th 2017. The invisible hand of Adam Smith is alive in West Chester, and it’s beautiful to look at when you can see what it leaves behind.  But trusting that hand is hard, and lucky for West Chester, Mark Welch does, and the results have been explosively delightful, and something everyone—even  loser liberals—can benefit from.

Rich Hoffman

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

Joan Powell Comes Out Anti-Union as a West Chester Trustee Candidate: The difference between good management and being a suck-ass

 

One of the things that most shocked me from the recent West Chester Trustee Candidate Forum at Indiana Wesleyan College sponsored by the West Chester Tea party was that Joan Powell stated quite emphatically that she was anti-union and would like to see Ohio become a right-to-work state.  Who would have ever thought she’d say such a thing because it was Joan who sat on the Lakota school board for so many years caving into the union demands wrecking the budget with increased payroll with no management in sight.  Now that Joan is running for trustee in West Chester she has come out against labor unions which is interesting given the fact that many union radicals have targeted the trustees with their themes of dissidence exclusively because Mark Welch and George Lang had been exploring ideas to bring right-to-work legislation to West Chester specifically because Ohio’s governor Kasich has been soft on the labor unions due to his defeat of Issue 5 several years ago. Because of her friendly attitude toward labor unions in the past, strategists would have thought that Joan would seek the Lakota union votes in this trustee race but oddly she tossed that away with the statement seen below.

This may be the first time I’ve ever agreed with Joan Powell.  When I was heading the effort to make Ohio a right-to-work state in 2012 Joan turned her political guns on me and did whatever she could to erase me from what she was doing as president of the Lakota School Board.  At the time Joan was trying hard to give the teachers who worked for Lakota a raise when I had been showing that the exclusive cause of the operating levy she had been seeking was to add more to the wage rates which were already well over the average household income.  Joan’s position was extremely friendly to the labor union at Lakota, and her track record is her track record.  There isn’t anybody who can assume based on her history that Joan would do anything but lay down in future negotiations with the various unions that are in West Chester’s wheelhouse, like the police and fire departments.  I mean it’s easy to say that we value school teachers, fire fighters and police officers—and to give them all the money they are asking for.  It’s hard to tell them no, and that they already make too much money.  In the case of fire and police officers they always give you the speech about how they run into danger while everyone else runs away, so when their contracts come up public support usually favors the unions but as trustees elected to manage the finances, sometimes you have to do the hard things then explain it to people even when its unpopular.   The easy thing is to do as Joan has done in the past and that is to just give the union what they want to keep them from going on strike, then seek tax increases to cover the costs.  That’s why her statement here is so surprising.

If this Joan Powell had revealed herself 10 years ago we might have avoided a lot of bloodshed in the Lakota school district.  I might have gotten along with her!  But, my experience with her says that she knew what kind of crowd she was speaking to and she formulated her comments specifically to her audience.  What she really believes is something else entirely.  Nobody can look at the record of Joan Powell over the years as a president of the Lakota school board and determine that she was anything but excessively friendly to the public union effort.  Yet you can hear with your own ears her declaration that she is against labor unions so who could really know what to believe.

I personally think public sector unions should be illegal.  If you have a job funded by tax payers you should not be able to organize against tax payers or their representatives for more money.   In private business competition can help bring reality to labor union activism so the free market does the job of helping to manage the situation.  But in government, we are talking about monopoly status over the tax dollars in question so labor unions have unfettered access to the funds of the communities they are supposed to serve.  It’s easy to obtain the funds they desire because often the only people who stand in their way are politicians like Joan Powell who never want any bloody conflicts with their labor unions, just peace.  Elected politicians find the temptation to throw vast amounts of money at these public sector unions too easy.  It’s far easier for them to ask for tax increases from a faceless community hiding the effort behind children or the safety of our citizens.  That makes those types of people terrible managers and Joan Powell is certainly guilty of that.

Yet for the record in 2017 Joan has declared that she is against labor unions so as a note to the police, the firefighters and the public school teachers who might think that they might vote for Joan Powell looking for an easy run over politician to engage in future negotiations with—she has indicated that she is anti-union.   I mean perhaps she has learned some lessons over the years.  I wouldn’t vote for her as a trustee, the only people I think have a chance of doing good work as a West Chester trustee are Mark Welch and Ann Becker.  Lynda O’Conner may be a good pick for that third seat because Lee Wong is a disaster and Joan Powell has a terrible track record at managing big budgets.  But in regard to her statements on labor unions, I actually agree with Joan Powell on something.

In actuality Joan was likely just telling the audience what they want to hear, which is worse than being an open liberal because as a voter you can never be sure what the person you are considering really stands for.  Knowing a bit about Joan Powell I think she is very malleable—her thoughts always go to the path of least resistance and that’s fine if you are a grandma handing out cookies to your grand kids—but when you are supposed to protect millions of dollars from the greedy hands of public employees who want the most money for doing the least work—you want someone who will manage that money with some valor.  Labor unions may want to vote for Joan because they smell the blood in the water, but one thing they won’t be able to rectify is that she did come out against labor unions in the 2017 election.   Her comments are now part of the public record and they will be used against her in the future.  That’s why we have these forums, so that we can test the candidates in the forges of reality to see how they hold up to a little scrutiny.  Obviously Joan Powell says whatever she needs to in order to appease the people she is addressing.  If it’s labor unions, she gives them what they want.  If it’s the Tea Party, she does the same.  So there is nothing about Joan Powell that indicates she would ever do anything but tell people what they want to hear.  The damage she has always done, and obviously seems committed to in the future, is that she is more in love with the popularity of being a public official than in doing the hard work of management.  And that is what deciding this election of 2017 is all about.  If people want good management, Joan Powell is not their person.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Proper Use of Executive Orders: Why Trump is a hero and Obama was a loser

First of all, a note to the Democrats, the way Obamacare was created was as illegal as anything I’ve ever seen in my life.  The vote during Christmas of 2010 when everyone was looking the other way, the coercion—we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it, the weak Supreme Court ruling by identifying it as a tax when the Obama administration lied about the nature of it from the beginning—were all devious acts.  The notion that you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor when all along the Obamanites on Capitol Hill intended to destroy health care all together and give rise to a single payer system in the United States bringing one more socialist program to the freest nation on earth.   There were plenty of lies and manipulations congress did to bring Obamacare to life, then to have losers like John McCain force us like scandalous children to stay at the table of Obamacare just because of his silly vote was preposterous.  Given all that massive government dysfunction and intent to destroy free markets, Trump’s executive order to destroy subsidies into Obamacare was a much different thing than the typical executive orders of Obama regarding the impatient use of White House power to go around congress to get something done.   These powers were given to the president for just this kind of purpose.

Executive orders are not law.  What Trump did will need to still be made law at some point in the future.  But he can at least give the world a demonstration of what free market options look like while he works to get enough senate support to get real reform passed.  For that to happen John McCain likely will have to die in office and be replaced with a real conservative.  Other senators who were never Trumpers during the campaign, like Ben Sasse and several others will need to be removed from office and be replaced with more Trump oriented Republicans—and that appears to be exactly what the President is going to do.  Just because those never Trumpers put an “R” next to their names doesn’t mean they are the right kind of Republicans.  I know a lot of people who call themselves “Republicans” when in fact they are just Democrats in hiding—because they live in conservative areas of the country and couldn’t get elected any other way.

I watched the righteous indignation toward President Trump over his health care executive orders with great satisfaction.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot all the talk is about Constitutional respect and the value of checks and balances.  Yet when Chuck Schumer watched Barack Obama abuse his power to go around congress it was “heroic” and necessary.  Give me a break.  Trump’s executive orders are to fulfill a campaign promise in regards to Obamacare.  He can’t let congress stand in the way of a promise he was elected on—just so they can appease the lobbyists who have made them rich as public servants.   The original sin was created by Obama and his Republican friends in the Swamp who have secretly all joined together to carry America toward a single payer healthcare system which of course is a pay to play scheme for those remaining insurers who can use the lack of competition to solidify their costs with guaranteed subsidies.  It’s good for them and the politicians but terrible for the people it is supposed to serve.  So Donald Trump did the right thing and undid the whole mess so that everything can collapse and force everyone to the negotiating table which is a very different thing from what Obama had done.

Trump’s executive orders are not to subvert congress, they are to force everyone to the negotiating table to take positive action, and that is a proper use of executive privilege.  It’s why we should be electing more people in the future with real world business experience rather than community activists who have radical ideas constructed for them in academia.  Our current intellectual class of people around the world have subscribed to poor Marxist oriented philosophies and have been caught in advising the world toward disaster and that needs to change fast.  Trump is part of that answer.  Putting people into politics that are proven success stories is the trend of the future, not losers who are filled only with theories concocted in the dank old rooms of Oxford, then passed off to a bunch of oily skinned pubescents at Harvard, Princeton and Cambridge—who then carry those stupid ideas out into the world with disguised merit because they were spoken about from respected houses of academia.  Power and respect do not come from brick rooms and institutional hallways—they come from success and a reputation based on history.  Academia has ruined their reputations by teaching the wrong kind of things to their students.  Barry Obama learned the wrong things at the University of Chicago where progressivism was being launched from that particular institution to change the world from one thing to another.  Obamacare is every bit about that desire to change and academia has been proven wrong in their assumptions—yet they have insisted to carry all of us forward regardless of the facts—which is why they are being knocked out of power now.

It’s not that Trump happened to them.  It’s not that Trump had Russian help to win an election or used his celebrity to beat a loser of a Democratic candidate.  It’s that Trump has a track record of success in getting things done that spans four decades, and voters wanted to see something get done for a change—and they are tired of corrupt politicians ramming things down their throats like this single payer health care initiative that even Republicans are trying to steer us all to.  Trump promised free market solutions so we voted for him and expected him to deliver.  When congress didn’t play ball and sought to run out the clock on Trump by slowing everything down on Capitol Hill people recognized what was happening, so they support the actions of the president.  Of course liberals are mad, but who cares.  Their plots are coming undone under Trump and that is specifically why people voted for him.  That’s not Trump’s fault.  He’s just the messenger.  The reason he was elected in the first place is the fault of Democrats and the RINO Republicans who have not put American interests at the front of their considerations.   Instead they put forth plans created by a Marxist inspired academia around the world, and they expected that failure to solidify due to the lack of options they deliberately were providing to us.  With Trump now, free market solutions will at least see the light of day.  It will still be up to us, the voters, to advance that competitive formula into law over the years to come.  And that is the biggest difference between Obama’s executive orders and Trump’s.  Obama’s were radical ideas designed to change the nature of American life.  Trump’s are to force negotiations by creating options to consider.  And that’s why Trump is a great president while Obama was and will always be considered an insurgent who intended to destroy American sovereignty with one more crippling socialist program intent to put restrictive chains on our economy.   For academia health care was a Trojan Horse designed to destroy the American economy so it was a dream for them.  But it was a nightmare for the people of the United States—happily now because of Trump—we are waking up from the nightmare, and the new day is looking pretty good.

Rich Hoffman

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

Where Are the Pink Pussy Hats Now: The death of Hollywood over terrible customer service

It was roughly a year ago that the Access Hollywood recordings of Donald Trump were released intending to sink his potential presidency.  When I first heard the comments I couldn’t help but feel the hypocrisy because let’s face it, men and women talk that way to each other all the time.  Women most of the time like the attention of men and men are by their biological design built to pollinate females to procreate our species.  All these silly new rules of conduct of men being chastised for wanting to stick parts of themselves into females are artificial and counterproductive.  But  when the people of Hollywood tried to use these new, stupid rules of male to female conduct to destroy Donald Trump when in fact it was they who perpetrated and actually exacerbated the bad behavior to begin with I thought was astonishing.  After all, Hollywood’s product used to be a good back when they made westerns and big sweeping epics like Ben Hur.  Men treated women with respect in those old productions and all was well with the world until movie producers like Harvey Weinstein made a joke out of the industry abusing his power so he could look at the boobies of the young women who wanted more than anything in the world to become stars on the silver screen.   It was obvious that if the same standard that was applied to Trump a year ago were to be turned around on the entire entertainment culture that a lot of people probably wouldn’t survive, and that’s what’s happening now.  Hollywood just killed itself with its own weapons.  Sean Hannity did a remarkable job of positioning the reasons why Hollywood will never be the same in the following video.

I always liked the Hollywood product and the industry as a whole.  But for a long time they have moved so far to the political left that what used to be an event I enjoyed—the Academy Awards were now just another inward looking celebration by a bunch of liberals congratulating themselves on being anti-American insurgents.  If you weren’t liberal you weren’t going to work on a Weinstein movie and in a lot of ways Harvey Weinstein was bigger than Steven Spielberg in Hollywood—by the volume of his work and the number of Academy Awards he amassed.   As one of the leading spokesmen for progressivism, his platform in the entertainment industry was unparalleled and it seems ironic that all that could be torn down with these outrageous claims toward him that are in some cases over twenty years old.  I say they are outrageous because many of the women who are now accusing Weinstein of rape are now forty-year old women who are no longer sex symbols.  They used sex to get into movies when they were in their twenties and only when men stopped looking at them as possible places to pollinate did they suddenly become “outraged.”  But the fact remains that dealing with people like Harvey Weinstein turned them into the man hating feminists that they are today as their lives are now filled with regret on what they had to do to climb the ladder in Hollywood to become a leading lady A-lister.

Yet the way they all collectively pounced on Donald Trump over the Access Hollywood tape was remarkably hypocritical.  They created the industry and the rules.  What Trump was talking about in his famous lines to Billy Bush was the effect of celebrity which he had just learned about late in life with his success with The Apprentice.  Trump was enjoying the kind of attention by women that movie starts like Ben Affleck and Matt Damon had always enjoyed, and being a smart guy he was pontificating about it to Billy Bush.   Yes, women will do just about anything to be near powerful men—it’s a deeply biological response to the mating game.  But unlike most of those Hollywood hot shots, Trump had a nice wife who kept him grounded and the temptations of flesh that are often thrown at movie stars by the opposite sex just to have access to a memory with their idols was managed and Trump moved on to bigger and better things.  By the time the Access Hollywood tape was released Trump was a different kind of man largely shaped by his decision to marry Melania Trump.   But the desire for entertainment executives and major political pundits to go after Trump, and to try to destroy him over these new age male and female roles which they had perpetrated was always  dangerous because they also made up the rules of power playing the opposite sex into compromising positions just to work in the industry.   You don’t get to the level of being a leading Hollywood actress at the level of Angelina Jolie or Gwyneth Paltrow without showing somebody your tits.  Not when there is a line of young women from Santa Monica to Paris willing to do anything to be the next Hollywood star.  People like Harvey Weinstein made themselves the gate keepers to success essentially so they could see titties—and everyone knew it.   So who were they to criticize Trump?

After Trump was elected president and was sworn in, the Academy Awards ceremony to me was unwatchable.  The way they ridiculed President Trump just because he was the Republican in the White House was disgusting and it made me wonder if they knew who their audience actually was, because there are a lot of Trump supporters who are like me–they love to watch movies.  But if the movies and the people who made them were so anti-Trump, they’d be forced to go somewhere else for their entertainment and that’s what has happened.   Hollywood has had their worst box office performance in 25 years and they are down an incredible 16% just from the previous year of 2016.  That was before the Harvey Weinstein story broke which virtually connects every major star in the industry to all the ugly stuff they complained about in Trump.  Except with Trump it was largely made up and overblown, but in Hollywood they were actually doing the things they accused Trump of—and to a far worse degree.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/09/liberal-hollywood-worst-box-office-numbers-25-years/

Where were the pink pussy hats that the Hollywood stars wore in protest to the Inauguration after Trump spent his first days in the White House?  Former stars of the Hollywood machine ran by people like Weinstein were protesting Trump so they set the gauge by which they are all now choking.  If the same standards they were trying to apply to Trump were turned back on them, then what did they think was going to happen?   The Trump supporting public already voted with their feet, just like they have with the NFL.  The great American game of football is down 30% just because those stars in the NFL thought they were bigger than they were.  They learned a hard lesson; people in the stands don’t care about them if they are going to throw off the shared elements of our culture, like the American flag.  Fans of the NFL turned on those stars of sports in a moment which has been a harsh reality to all professional sports.  They forgot who their audience was and in their hatred of Trump they drew a line between themselves and the fan base that enjoyed their product.  They have a major customer service problem as a result.  And that is precisely what happened to Hollywood in 2017.  They are down at least 16% because of the way Hollywood came out against a popular president.  People who voted for Trump largely knew the Access Hollywood tape was a set-up job and that Hollywood was guilty of much worse.  Now that we have the truth, that movie industry is changed forever.  They’ll never bounce back because they have lost the trust of the public.  Ultimately it’s not people like Harvey Weinstein who make projects succeed or fail, it is the public that buys the tickets—and they have been voting against Hollywood for a while now.  Now that Hollywood has alienated most of the country in their hatred of Trump, the hypocrisy on full display in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein sexual meltdown will sink the entire industry—and that’s a good thing.

America can’t be great again if the art and entertainment community is so vitriolic toward a president that half the country wanted.   When they showed up against Trump during his Inauguration in 2017 and protested him as a sexual predator they set the bar impossibly high for themselves as a result and now they are being crushed under their own standard—because they can’t live up to any of it. As actors and film moguls they live in the make-believe world of their own creations but under Trump’s presidency illusions are being shattered out of necessity, and now these people are exposed, and they are burning in front of our faces.  Hollywood will never recover as an industry.  Sure there will be new forms of entertainment that will emerge, but the Wilshire Blvd culture for which Hollywood has built its own kind of Wall Street is dying right in front of our eyes, and because they made themselves into a political weapon of the left, I’m glad to see it.  They have let us all down and now it’s time to pay.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Most Effective Argument in favor of Guns in Soceity: What everyone misses about the need for the Second Amendment–Institituions cannot be trusted

The support for an armed society is a philosophical one, not one of just emotional attachments to tradition. There is a reason the Second Amendment was inserted into the Bill of Rights and was so important to the Anti-Federalists in the 1790-time period of American history that is just as relevant today as it was then. The human race has not “progressed to a certain level where a one world government like the utopian Star Fleet Command is running everything on earth—and it never will. The reason is that there are traits to human beings that so long as they exist prevent the complete trust of individuals into all institutions created by society. To properly have a check and balance against absolute power, individuals must have the ability to overthrow their institutions before they get too big, and too power hungry to handle the affairs of civilization properly. Guns are that fine line of control which keeps our institutions in check with the fear always in the back of their minds that at any moment the population could remove them from office under armed rebellion and replace them. The issue has never been about “assault weapons” or “bump stocks.” It’s about the nature of people and what they do when they have power over other people. Those who want more power over more people obviously are those who support removing guns from society—to whatever degree. But the essence of the argument is that we would be fools to completely trust any institution created by the minds of man. The gun allows us to manage that power we give those institutions—and without that management assistance, institutions by their nature spiral out of control and become oppressive. Because at the heart of most humans who crave power is a laziness that always retreats to default mode and would rather run society as a bunch of compliant automatons rather than free thinking variables.

To put the issue in the most simplistic forms I will provide an example that I have used actually quite often. To provide a little background about myself I am a person who loves personal freedom likely more than most people, and I have always built my life around the ability to be free of institutional control. In my youth I was a martial artist and had developed the personal ability to defend myself no matter what was presented. Growing up I never had the feeling that anybody could “kick my ass” and I still feel that way. I don’t care how big the person is or how skilled, I made a point physically to be the top of the pecking order in regard to fighting in hand to hand combat and that allowed me a certain freedom to think properly about these matters of institutional control. But melee weapons are one thing, if a person approaches you with a gun physical confrontation is not the best way to deal with a threat like that. You really need a gun no matter how skilled you may be in disarming people. The best way to prevent a threat is to show them you have a gun and give them a choice as to whether or not to continue.

For a short while I was a repo man in my early years and I was shot at on occasion. That was back in the old days before there were the kind of rules that there are today. Back then the bank would let you do quite a few things to recover an asset, so I know what it feels like to be a bit of a thief sneaking up on a car to take it away from a hostile person likely armed. I even know what it feels like to break into a home knowing a person was armed to get the car keys. This wasn’t an accepted practice but it’s always better to ask for forgiveness than permission when dealing with bureaucracies and if I could get my hands on the keys, it meant doing less damage to the asset to retrieve it so breaking into a home to get the keys was forgivable—if you were successful. But people did get mad and they did shoot to kill. So in speaking about this kind of stuff I understand it from both sides very well.

I’ve also been to Europe and can report that the people there are pretty much a defeated people. Their gun laws and progressive societies have destroyed individual initiative and expectation. They live in small homes that are too expensive and do not have an expectation of personal sanctity the way that Americans do—and this really does trace back to gun ownership. In Europe the chances of being robbed in your home are much, much greater than in the United States because thieves know that nobody is armed in the home. They think nothing of breaking and entering to steal a person’s possessions even if they are there—because being shot is not on their minds. If they have managed to get a gun off the black market then they suddenly have become the strongest person around and they use that force to their advantage—because that’s what most human beings do when they acquire power—they tend to abuse it unless they are governed by a personal constitution of morality and valor. Without those elements they become tyrants quickly—whether they control a vast institution, or are just petty street criminals. It’s all the same human dysfunction on the micro or macro levels.

The person who trained me in martial arts during my teenage years was a thug. He was a lot like the karate school owner in the movie Karate Kid. His sole purpose for the school was to teach young strong males to be killers so that they’d go to tournaments and win trophies for his wall, so that he could then charge high fees to provide instruction. I thought of him as an evil person and he eventually was busted for many crimes and did jail time, but I learned a lot from the guy. I learned that it wasn’t hard to kill a person with your hands, in fact it was pretty easy and once you learned the basics you had leverage over every other human being that didn’t know that information. Most of his students went on to become terrors—and they got into nearly as much trouble as he did. Once they had the power to literally kill with their bare hands they had no fear of anybody and they began to be bullies that nobody could stop. It was the same concept as the robber with a gun who had something everyone else was missing. Outlawing a gun doesn’t change the nature of dominating others as a human predilection. Until that problem is solved, where humans wish to dominate others, whether it’s the liberal using institutionalism to control individual behavior, or a common street thug beating people over the head with a pipe to steal $25 dollars—the desire to rule over other individuals is the problem that must be solved. No institutional laws will have any effect—because the problem at its core is an institutional issue.

More times than even I can recollect I’ve used the threat of violence to keep peace. If someone is robbing you the way to handle it best is to say, “Hay man,” show them the gun under your jacket “you don’t have to die today. I won’t even call the cops. If you keep walking you can go to sleep tonight.” It’s that simple. Just say that, have the gun to show them—even if they are pointing one at you, letting them know you have a gun and are willing to use it, will most of the time cause them to leave you alone. These things don’t happen like they do in the movies. Criminals want a nice easy hit on someone. They don’t want to die or risk injury. If they have to risk that with you, they’ll move on most of the time. That also goes with hired killers. I’ve also known several of them as well, and deep down inside they are just people like anybody else. They don’t want to die. They know that just because you shoot someone they don’t die instantly. They know if you have a gun on you that you could still shoot them even if wounded. Because of guns in our country, we see much less crime than we otherwise would because nobody really knows who has guns in the house and who doesn’t. That secures our private property in the correct way and allows for Americans to think differently than other people around the world do because private property and ownership is the essence of personal responsibility—and protecting those elements makes for a much more civil discourse at the macro level.

Any person advancing gun control measures of any kind, even the “bump stock” debate after the Las Vegas massacre are avoiding the real issue in human failure in dealing with one another. Human desire to control other humans and their thoughts is the problem and until respect at a fundamental level is established for individual sanctity, violence will always be a threat. Those threats often come from institutions because responsibility for individual behavior is disguised. However, gun ownership is more than just symbolic, they are a proper check against the human tendency to inflict through force beliefs of one group against another. The gun creates a level playing field and forces people to respect each other—which is the first foundation of proper human interaction. There is a fine line between fear and respect, and the gun helps society get there better than any law that human beings could invent. And that is the key to a properly managed society. There is nothing barbaric about gun ownership. In fact, the concept is quite a sophisticated one because it takes the human race to a level of thought that has never been achieved before in the history of the world, and the United States is the evidence that it works. Not in the presence of an active gun culture, but in the type of society and options that Americans enjoy that nobody else around the world has. Guns are key to advancing our civilization in very positive ways because they take the bullies out of contention and allow average people to rule their own lives however they see fit. And if their institutions get out of control, then people have guns to retake control, and that is the most important thing of all. Just having the gun does wonders. Hopefully nobody ever needs to use them. But I can say from personal experience that guns work very well at keeping things……..peaceful. Better than anything else ever could hope to. Institutions want to believe they can, but they can’t. They can’t control individual behavior at its core. They can influence it, but they can’t manage it without the occasional madman emerging to destroy innocent people over any little thing.

When I hold a gun, or buy a new gun, I am making an investment into the kind of human freedom that only a gun can provide. And that is not a symbol of violence. It’s a declaration of independence that is philosophical and unique to our species.

Rich Hoffman

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

Donald Trump’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Moment: Venezuela’s epic failure due to their commitment to socialism

 

I know, I write about Donald Trump a lot these days.  Yes there are many other things going on in the world—especially local issues,  but as I see it we are witnessing the greatest political trend change that the history of the world has ever seen—and I can’t think of anything more important.  It dosen’t do any good to chase the tail of something as long and elusive as our current social trends which are like a very long snake.  What Trump does today will have a tremendous effect on tomorrow, so it is important to capture those little moments as they occur.  Specifically it was the great United Nations speech that Donald Trump gave which illustrated so many positive things for American culture, but none as great as when the topic of Venezuelan socialism was brought forth and put on the world stage for all to see.

I was surprised years ago when so many people were upset that the great American novel Atlas Shrugged was being made into a movie.  I knew the filmmakers, and was a friend of the crew throughout the production and for them it was a love project.  They had a small budget in order to tell a gigantic story—an epic on the scale of Game of Thrones.  Yet Hollywood wouldn’t touch the project through a legitimate studio with A-list actors essentially because the media companies were so deeply contaminated with socialist and communist supporters that such a pro-capitalist story like Atlas Shrugged was never going to get “green-lit.”

Hollywood has always been a little left but it has only been recently that they were so overtly advocated out-right socialist—as a general philosophy.  Their A-list actors, even people like Harrison Ford, have stepped out of reality and onto the socialist band wagon because it is the social trend of Santa Monica valley these days.  If you go into a bar there by the pier talking about the merits of capitalism those weak-kneed she-males and braless bitches will be ready for a fight—they believe in socialism that much.  So when the independent filmmakers of the new Atlas Distribution Company wanted to make a movie out of one of the great American novels for which Atlas Shrugged is and has always been, all the studios laughed at them.  Many years before the studios laughed at Star Wars too, but that’s another story.  I only say that because “group think” does not understand how to make good movies, or how to detect social trends.  Individuals do.  Remember that.

I thought the movie attempt at Atlas Shrugged was ambitious and they managed to do a pretty good job getting the high points down in a visual form.  I would like to see a big budget Netflix series done for Atlas Shrugged that spans for 10 one hour episodes, because I think that’s what it would take to properly tell the story—but it was a bold attempt even as the entertainment unions pushed back hard on anybody associated with the project.  The production could not keep actors from one film to the next as the movies were divided out into three parts.  The actors were beat on so much by the rest of the Hollywood community that all three movies had a different cast and the only ones who signed up were actors looking for something to do.  It was a real challenge and showed me how bad Hollywood really had become.  All the friendly meetings I had with various people over the years flew right out the window as their true intentions were revealed during the production of Atlas Shrugged.

For those who have read the book you know what I’m talking about.  The modern situation in Venezuela is essentially the plot of the book.  A successful country (the United States in the story) is pushed into socialism by their government and the world plunges into darkness.  Once the government establishes things like price controls and root themselves into a severe crony capitalist market, the world falls apart and it is the point of Atlas Shrugged to identify why.  Essentially the “engines” of the world go on strike and that leaves everyone else starving—literally.  The beauty of Atlas Shrugged is that it does something that Karl Marx never achieved—it identified why some people make everything happen while others destroy the world around them—so if the makers of the world fail to participate, economies fail and countries wither away into dust.   The political Left has never come to grips with this phenomenon and this is the aspect of our civilization that is most important to our continuation into the future.  Marxism and all the fruits that fell from it like socialism, communism and fascism all turned out to be rotten short-lived fantasies first breathed by Sir Thomas More in his classic book Utopia—that were destroyed during westward expansion in the United States.   While Marx and his followers were pushing for labor unions to take over the world by controlling the means of production the railroads, the gold rush and the promise of private property in America used capitalism to fill the sky lines of the worlds next great cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles which until that period was just a border town–until the gold rush then the movie industry gave people a reason to live there.

Venezuela had been a pretty good place to live; it was a thriving country living off its oil reserves until Hugo Chavez brought socialism to their economy.   Once Chavez died a member of his inner circle Nicolás Maduro, a former bus driver (seriously) rose to power as a union leader and became the next president.  If you want to see what happens when labor unions get their way by controlling the “means” of production, just look what happened to Venezuela in just a few short years. As the state took over more and more of its industry, they became much less productive and their economy essentially died right in front of the world.  Now the people of Venezuela are starving—literally, and nobody seems to understand why, at least those who have advocated for socialism. Yet it is the nearly seventy year old book Atlas Shrugged that provided an almost page by page analysis for all to read—but the world watched and let it happen to Venezuela anyway.

What was remarkable about Donald Trump’s speech was that most of the people in that general assembly at the United Nations have emotional connections to socialism.  They are either members of Socialist International or they have been thinking about it.  Only the United States has maintained a defense of capitalism and our economy shows it.  The way for more countries around the world to prevent more people from being poor or from having terrible GDP numbers is to unleash capitalism and reject communism.  China’s communism only works if it attaches itself to a capitalist country and can keep the other nations around them poor so that they can maintain some form of price controls.  But if a country to the south like Vietnam were to adopt capitalism, or Cambodia, India or even North Korea—Russia and those types of places—China’s economy would sink because of their communist system.  What happened to Venezuela was that the price of oil went down and they couldn’t compete. That is all the unsaid story before, and no American president would strongly defend capitalism allowing everyone to shrug their shoulders as if they had nothing to do with anything happening to countries like Venezuela.  But when Donald Trump said what he did it put the issue on the front burner in a way nobody was prepared for, and it properly articulated the problem—boldly, people had to listen.  And that was a significant moment in the history of the world that will be remembered for many centuries.  I thought it was tremendous and it will prove to be bigger than anything that happens on the local level because that culture change will flow into the rest of the country rather rapidly.  And I love it!

Rich Hoffman

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