Tag: President Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

The Trouble with Troubled Youth: Shootings at Great Mills High School and the Austin bomber are just the start

As I have been warning for quite some time, and it is certainly culminating now, young males, especially white young males—are on a directionless rampage due to terrible upbringings and improper personal philosophy taught to them during their public education process. Austin Rollins before school started on March 20th of 2018 at Great Mills High School in Maryland, just south of Washington D.C. shot a poor young 16-year-old girl in the face along with a 14-year-old boy in the leg. Likely the situation was a romantic spat which has happened in every high school across the country for generations—only these days where kids play video games like Grand Theft Auto and watch movies like The Hateful Eight after being taught that reality is based on feelings and that nobody is really at fault for anything, take those raw emotions to terror all too quickly now. And violence is becoming the norm. Fortunately, this school shooting at Great Mills wasn’t a big story on the news because a good guy with a gun, a resource officer was at the scene within 60 seconds to exchange gunfire with Rollins killing the kid—and ending the angry rampage.

Yet the lead story of the day was the mysterious bomber in Austin, Texas who had been creating terror around the capital city for several days. Shortly after a 5th bomb was discovered police found the 23-year-old Mark Conditt in his car and moved in to make an arrest. That’s when the kid blew himself up. After literally picking through the pieces of the young terrorist they could at least identify that he also was a young white male. The motives are yet unknown but what we can say with certainty is that what we are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg, there are some very disturbed young people functioning in our society and they are looking to place blame on the greater tapestry of our civilization for their problems. Where past young people may have had a fight with another student in a parking lot or found some other way to discharge the energy of a rivalry through sports, or even within their domestic families, these modern young people are open soars that liberalism has continued to poke and prod to breaking points. Most young people do not turn out to be mass murders and terrorists, but a predictable amount do get left behind and those tend to be the type of kids who are committing all these acts of violence.

The recent liberal crusade of directing anger at white males specifically hasn’t been a good strategy. The idea of chasing white privilege has only sent to young people this idea that they are being reverse discriminated against. While the idea of fairness, of promoting cultures within the United States from backgrounds that haven’t been so fortunate may seem to have merit, the downside is that it has been at the expense of a race of people—whites. Through historical context white cultures have had a tendency to dominate other cultures and so success through lineage has been something that whites have enjoyed. But it’s not the fault of young white kids that they were born white just as it isn’t the fault of a young Asian kid, or a black kid that they have a skin color that is different. Yet public schools and society in general has promoted this idea that there will be social justice in the future and if you are a white male, that the future doesn’t look like there will be many opportunities for them. There is a cost associated with taking away hope from anybody, white, black, red, brown or yellow—all people want a chance to have some sense of the American dream—which is why they came to America in the first place. But the big government fairness approach to build up bloc voting patterns has been disastrous, and public schools seeking copious amounts of school funding have played along pushing white males to the side and promoting other demographic types to the front of the line creating even more artificial anxiety than there was before.

That is why I have been proposing more guns in not only schools, but in the general public. We are facing as a civilization a massive erosion of values and an onslaught of young people who have been pampered beyond recognition, raised largely in daycare facilities since they were two and three years of age. Few people really loved them as they were growing up. Like most children they all started with big ideas and lots of questions but during those formative years of 1 to 8 years old they’d ask the adults of their life questions and what they got back was “I’m too tired,” “or leave me alone and go play in your room.” That’s when kids stop asking and expecting to do great things in the world and they begin the process of compromising their existence to the hopelessness they see around them. The teachers are often too radical to take a personal interest in kids, the parents are too busy and out of touch themselves, the media is hyped up on everything panic driven and neurotic, and religion has been watered down to be valueless. Once you toss in the influences of puberty, where young kids with all their young hopes and dreams realize that everything they were ever meant to be was to simply breed, then fade away into old age that sense of hopelessness can be overwhelming and young people like this Rollins kid or the Austin bomber take some action against that hopelessness.

Most young people simply accept that the expectations they may have had as young kids was the flight of fancy from being a baby—that didn’t know the limits that the world would impose on them later. I again would argue that many of those limits are philosophical, they are artificially created by our modern politics for purely political reasons—but there are real consequences to that kind of activity. And we are seeing the results of those failures. It’s too late of course to change direction too quickly now. We are stuck with this mess for several decades to come. Even if we made a major shift in the way we deal with our youth we wouldn’t see the positive results as a culture until halfway to the next century, because it takes a long time to change cultural behavioral patterns. 50 years isn’t long in relation to the many thousands that humans have done their work in the world but compared to the shallow waters of today’s historical perspective, 50 years is an eternity.

As sad as it may be, we must have more open carry of firearms to frustrate the rampages of our modern disturbed youth. The danger can come from any direction—any race or background. Likely it will be males that will create the trouble since violence is not typically associated with females. But with half the population having males, there are plenty of dangers now that the emotions of several hopeless generations have been stirred inducing violence on a scale we’ve never seen in the world. And its only going to get worse. That’s why we must come to terms on how we will deal with that onslaught of violence. Hopefully the open carry guns in society may minimize it, and at worst, prevent mass carnage. But we are facing a major problem that no law in the world can alleviate. The problem is very epistemological and that can only be fixed at the foundations of human thought—and to go back to the family first drawing board where troubled youth are dealt with before they become a menace to society.

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats with guns.

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Modern Criminal Case of Jason Lehman: Passing judgment and saving lives in the face of changing social conditions

Recently I wrote an article about Jason Lehman who attacked a day care facility in West Chester, Ohio for no apparent reason, and I suggested that in the future that we shoot people like this on site to alleviate the risks to others of such irrational behavior. That isn’t the typical mode of approaching such a problem, but I suggested that due to the immoralities of our age that we should alter our approach to a more aggressive one to counter the decline of our social fabric which confronts us currently. Obviously, I thought it might inspire thoughts of concern and one person who did not agree with me wrote what I thought was a nice comment laying open the critical elements of the entire argument. Read the original article here. Now let’s examine what she said:

I often read things and mull over them. Keeping my thoughts to myself. This time I feel the need to share my thoughts and feelings with you. I know Jason Lehman and I have for many years. While I do not understand why he did what he did, nor do I condone this behavior in any way shape or form. I whole heartedly disagree with your opinions 100%. 1. His tattoos do not define him. period. – His behavior does, judge him on that. 2. Shoot him dead?!? This is someone’s child. Obviously, he needs help, not a death sentence. 3. You obviously have zero compassion. you do not know him. You are not required to care about this tattooed freak, as you see him. Again, he has family and friends who may not agree with his actions, but also do NOT like to see, hear or read that others think he is a waste of space who should be dead. I am upset with his behavior, I would like answers, but I would also like whatever caused him to behave like that addressed.

At this point, I do not know what caused him to behave like that, but calling for death? Let’s not be so cruel, as you never know, someone you may know and care about may just act like an asshole and make bad choices, upsetting others and I’m sure you would not like to see/hear the exact things that have come out of your mouth said about them

This freaks only father that he has ever known has died while he sits in jail because of his dumbass behavior ( see, we all agree on that).

Think before you speak (write). Words hurt and no I’m not a snowflake. Just a compassionate person who happens to have been rubbed the wrong way and hoping that you’ll take a few moments to see things from another perspective.

Obviously, this person is functioning from an emotional position of having some personal knowledge about the criminal, Jason Lehman. And in spite of the temperament of our times, where women can do no wrong and must be listened to without any critical analysis, she is obviously suffering from “mom” syndrome, which is a paralysis of thought inspired by the immense self-sacrifice that women pour into their babies and is a rather specific emotion attached to the females of our species. I withheld the name of this person out of respect for them, but can say that she is a woman. For a woman who can relate to the process of giving birth it is understandably undesirable that anybody might erase away all their hard work with a simple gun shot, so this is typically why women are sympathetic to more firearms restrictions in our society—which is logical from a personal psychosis standpoint. To her, Jason Lehman has value just because he’s somebody’s little boy at some point in his life.

But then we get to the real issue of this criminal coming from a broken home, a person who didn’t know much about his biological father and had a step father of some kind who served as a mentor—if not a limited one– likely contributed to the conditions in the life of the criminal that inspired such violence to begin with. And it is here why I suggested more violence to deal with these types of people than less, which might have been appropriate in the past. We live in a time when more people than not do not have biological fathers in their life and if they have fathers at all, society has washed out the image of the all-knowing father away and left society with these husks of worthless human flesh that belch, fart and complain like a bunch of sissy’s. That has had a major impact on the condition of our youth—especially our young males. It certainly isn’t the fault of the fatherless kids who grew up without that advantage of a real father. Jason Lehman certainly didn’t have a choice in the matter—yet the parts of him that were underdeveloped due to a bad home life are now the problem of society at large. Lehman’s inability to grapple with the complexities of living life become all of our problem when he attacked a day care center in the middle of the day with a rage that nobody could explain.

I think we are dealing with a world that has a lot of Jason Lehmans in it. They may be pretty cool guys sitting around a sports bar watching an NFL game, or talking about how to change the tire on a Ford Mustang or a Chevy Camaro and how the jack stands in the trunk are better than the other design. But when they lay their heads down on their pillows at night and the demons come into their minds, demons created from the fears and anxieties given to them from not having fathers in their lives to control those beasts of terror, then they are prone to become the next great menace to civilization. It is one thing to have compassion for such people and to live and let live. It is quite another to let them ruin the world for the rest of us.

Pushing fathers out of the home and seducing moms into the arms of government was a progressive failure by the political class of liberals who tried and failed to change the very nature of the human species. It was their tampering with that basic biological need that has presented us with all these modern problems of young men suffering from so much anxiety. Where older mentors of men might tell a male of youth to shut up, sit down and do your work without crying about it, now we have everyone telling those young males to cry about everything and when the crying doesn’t provide the results they desire, to throw a fit. It’s one thing when a little kid throws a fit, nobody much worries. But when a scary looking tattooed freak of a man throws a fit, he may have guns, knives, or just a menacing 270-pound body to wreak destruction on the innocent, and we just can’t have that—can we? Again, the fault can be placed on a lot of places. It’s not the fault of these people who grew up in broken families or pasts mired in tragedy where nobody in their lives provided a stable base they could rely on. But we can’t just throw our arms up and allow ourselves to be victims to their wrath either.

My suggestion is that we just shoot them dead when they act up. I think it’s the most compassionate thing we can do. I’m a guy who will fish an insect out of a summer pool to save it from death. I’m also a guy who hasn’t hit an animal with a car in my entire life, in over 30 years of driving. I swerve way out of my way to save animals and preserve life when they run out in front of my speeding car. I love life and want to see people live the best lives possible wherever they can, whether it be an insect or a human being—I feel for all life. But it is also out of that same compassion that I say when we see someone who is beyond hope of redemption acting up, that we should just put them out of their misery—so that they can’t ruin the lives of other people. It seems like the most humanitarian thing to do. It may go against the laws of our current legal system, but maybe with the dangerous condition of so many males disparaged in their lives without stability running around these days, maybe we should change it before a lot more innocent people get hurt.

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

The Kislyak Conundrum: Everything you need to know about the Russia Investigation into the Trump campaign

Let’s face it, the Russia story as it has been instilled to the Donald Trump presidency had nothing to do with justice, or any kind of pursuit of the truth. Otherwise the advocates of injustice would see the clear hypocrisy, and I don’t think they do. It’s safe to say at this point that nobody in the Donald Trump campaign for president nor his transition team conspired with the Russians to win the election in the United States and even if they had, the Russians couldn’t have helped them. The Russians did not and still do not have the methods or tactics to inflict change in an American republic. Any conversations with the Russian ambassador Kislyak were harmless exchanges that any member of an incoming administration would speak with to pave the way for more formal talks later. Functionaries working in such positions talk to lots of ambassadors of many nations, so it is ridiculous to assume that the correspondence did anything to alter in any way the American election. Yet the hatred of Donald Trump’s victory by some go much further than any one person could possibly fathom. The Beltway culture that is most in opposition of Trump is a professional class of bureaucrats more interested in job security than in solving problems, and they see in Trump and in the way he was elected by pure democratic methods as a violation to everything they stand for and for them this first year of his presidency was their last stand. The Kislyak story was only one last hope for them to keep things the way they were. Meanwhile the real collusion story occurred under terms of massive law breaking and manipulation by our top law enforcement—something many people like me suggested—and now we know it was the truth bringing us all to the infinite precipice of decision-making.

The whole Russian case was laid out by Franklin Foer in Slate on July 4th 2016. At that time Brexit was all the talk in Europe, Hillary Clinton had turned in her destroyed evidence to the FBI and had her unsworn testimony contributed to the record, and the police were at my house because I had launched a firework show that had terrified some of my neighbors too far down the road to know me very well. Foer wrote the story to plant a seed just in case Trump gained much ground in the upcoming election. At that point Trump was going to be the Republican nominee and people opposing him were getting worried. Foer got the idea for the article himself when Trump feeling good about getting down to just a few remaining Republican challengers to win the nomination held a press conference and asked the Russians to give us the deleted emails of Hillary Clinton which was threatening to destroy her candidacy before her own nomination process at the Democratic Convention. He was kidding of course. At the time it wasn’t looking good for Hillary. The DNC had been caught rigging the election in her favor pushing out Bernie Sanders and Wikileaks was unloading many emails from the Clinton Campaign that was very disturbing and painting a picture of the Democratic candidate that would put chills down the spine of anybody. So to try to even the field and create some kind of controversy that Trump would have to deal with, Foer used his imagination to connect the dots to the Russians and the Trump campaign. Likely, he figured that at the very least Trump wouldn’t ask the Russians to unleash the Clinton emails any more just in case they really had them—because it would put the presidential candidate on his heels in defense.

On January 6, 2017 nearly six months to the day of the Slate article the CIA, FBI, and NSA announced in a joint conclusion that “Vladimir Putin had ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.” Their statement was produced based on the provocation of the Democrat funded Christopher Steele dossier and leaks from the U.S. intelligence community. And by “leaks by U.S. intelligence we are talking about pussy hat wearing anti-Trump lunatic feminists working at the DOJ who would do and say anything to keep the Republican challenger out of the White House—even if it meant abusing their power. After all, as women with these new fangs of sexual harassment that they make every five seconds they leveraged in their minds that nobody would call them on their bogus leaks—especially if their notorious feminist leader Hillary Clinton was in the White House. So what did they have to lose? They threw their credibility behind the Slate article in a last-ditch effort to wreck the Trump presidency before inauguration day within a few weeks of the joint statement on Russia and Trump.

It was that same dossier which we now know led to the FISA abuse and spying that went on looking for any way to trap any member of the Trump campaign and destroy them entirely to preserve their comfortable Beltway structure—the life at the Four Season and those who had not yet earned the right to dine there. They had created a Kislyak conundrum that was far too complicated for average Americans to digest designed to cover their crimes of actually trying to overthrow an elected representative into the White House—and they did this knowing they were breaking the law and betting that they’d get away with it, which proposes the obvious question as to why. Why would they go to all this trouble?

Trump brought to Washington a management method developed in his business practices which terrify most human beings. Our education methods utilize front of the class learning where authority figures such as parents and teachers instruct us what to do, when to do it and how. In these exchanges the sharing of information between peers is highly encouraged, but a strict chain of command is also meant to keep everything in line based on authority figures. Managers like Trump are very laissez-faire seeking to get the most out of people based on identifying the self-interest of their employees and align them with those interests. That to a structured person, and by means of “structure” a person trained to function within the pecking order of classic education methods—top down enforcement of information flow through the rank and file—but the threat from any member of the private sector trying to bring such recklessness to Washington D.C. politics is a real threat to their lives—to everything they know. When Trump was elected basically by following his own gut instincts and pushing aside all the advice of lawyers, professional strategists and the pundits who make a living selling access to the Beltway everyone in Washington who made a living off that crazy system found Trump to be a threat to their very way of life—so they proposed to join together no matter which side of politics they were all on and destroy him.

It didn’t matter if there was an ounce of truth in what they accused Trump of, they figured that the American people would just write everything off as the same kind of conspiracies that were leveled at Obama, the birth certificate issue, the connection to Islam, and the desire to throw America to Socialist International and be ruled by the United Nations. But this time it was different, because the Trump case wasn’t even connected to any truth, it was just a made-up Slate article designed to take the heat off the Clinton campaign at a critical time. What’s really embarrassing is that in a last-ditch effort to keep Trump out of the White House our supposedly neutral intelligence agencies with all the resources at their disposal retreated back to that silly Slate article that Foer had written as their last-ditch effort not to save the nation, but to save themselves, which is incredibly pathetic. And those are the facts.

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

Much, Much, Much Bigger than Watergate. The FBI lied to us about their collusion with the Democratic Party

As everyone knows, my first love in any topic is human culture. I think the human being is one of the greatest most inventive creations in the universe. For instance, as we look into the deep recesses of space, we don’t see planets, black holes and clouds of dust doing anything special. They are simply following the laws of physics as we are learning to understand them. But humans, they are very imaginative creatures that are always thinking and inventing—and I find the byproducts of their thought to be endlessly fascinating. Just yesterday I was talking to a few women about the upcoming Super Bowl and how exciting it was to live in a society that had something interesting always going on—whether it be Thanksgiving, Christmas, Super Bowls, March Madness—we have found something at all times of the year to drive our culture forward and find joy in it. The Super Bowl is unique because it falls in the dead of winter for much of North America and it certainly provides an intellectual break from the cold temperatures and dirty snow that forces people inside more than they’d like.

Of course, those women looked at me a little strange because people don’t normally talk so enthusiastically about such common place items—but I routinely do because I see the miracle in such observations. Yet my bouts with consternation usually also come when I see humans wasting themselves and their very unique ability to think where the nature of social discourse clearly turns to the lazy ambitions of evil. To a certain extent, I have certainly committed myself to eliminating this behavior from human discourse so when something political occurs that illustrates this discrepancy clearly, I cover the topic ambitiously. With that little prequel to the sequels of much discussion this issue of the FBI and the revolting behavior of the Democratic Party in the wake of the released congressional memo about the behavior of the FBI specifically in relation to the now famous Trump dossier produced by Christopher Steele—we are dealing with a topic that extends well beyond political theater. We are talking about the essence of what’s central to everything the human race stands for, and we are now forced to make a permanent change in the status of being human.

Students of history understand the context of the fallen top cop at the FBI, James Comey. When a person talks the way he has in the wake of the released FBI memo, on how he signed off on using a phony document to spy on and if possible, overthrow a newly elected American president—it is clear that Comey is very guilty of functioning from pure evil behind a façade of goodness. It’s shocking now that we know the facts just how evil Comey and the FBI under his direct was allowed to function. If you’ve ever been to court or even in a human resources office where you have to terminate an employee, the behavior is always the same. Of course, the people under scrutiny are in denial. They are the ones who have to look in the mirror when they brush their teeth and dress every day. They have to look at themselves and try to find something good so when they are caught in something disgraceful, they try to push the responsibility elsewhere as a basic survival instinct. That is where James Comey the criminal revealed way too much of himself in the wake of President Trump releasing the contents of the memo which essentially presents a very spectacular case against the top cops at the FBI for weaponizing the institution against the will of the American people.

What Comey and his agents did is quite different from regular political opinion. When Obama was elected many people such as myself joined the Tea Party movement because we did not want to see a socialist change in American ambition. We didn’t like Obama or the direction the country was going under Washington D.C. control. So we challenged him, but we did it within the context of the law and at the level of philosophic debate. The results were positive, and continued to be over the next decade. In the process we witnessed that the IRS had been weaponized against our efforts which was the first time many were able to peek under the hood of real political corruption. If it wasn’t for the competition of a philosophic debate in politics, we may never have known to what extent a weaponized IRS was working against us. Then of course as time moved on and the pressure continued to mount, we had the election of an outsider into the White House followed by even more criminal activism from our political institutions. In this case, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, former President Clinton, his wife a presidential candidate, the second in command at the FBI Andy McCabe, James Clapper, John Brennan—head of the CIA, President Obama, and several field agents at the top of the political ladder, were directly involved in a massive scandal to overturn an election within America—and they saw themselves as patriots for doing so. Quite simply put, they broke the law in a spectacular fashion and violated every human trait of trust and honor.

They lied to us, all those people mentioned and many more. We have uncovered a massive culture of corruption that entails the biggest in the history of the world due to the role the United States plays on the global stage—and that’s saying a lot given the world wars experienced and many empires that have risen and fallen over the years. What is amazing is that this time the always present tendency to fall toward corruption and power sifted out those most guilty without having to fire a shot in a war, or to stage a rebellion to overtake a regime. A hidden government ruling from the confines of layered law worn like a mask to protect them from us was discovered leaving the perpetrators terrified of what comes next, because honestly, none of us know. The human race has never survived anything on this magnitude before—but I am fascinated by the inventions of human thought that have caused such a thing to emerge.

Yes, this is bigger than Watergate—much bigger. I have watched movies like All the President’s Men and this recent film The Post and I marvel at how clear the filmmakers are on the corruption that took place in the Nixon White House. For many of those young people who witnessed that crises in 1971 it was a traumatic undertaking for the entire country, to watch a president resign amid such corruption as spying on the Democratic Party with some tapes that had a small section of information missing. Yes, the cover-up was greater than the crime, but you won’t find many conservatives who would defend the actions of Nixon, even though what he did is mild in comparison to what Comey and the FBI has been caught doing in colluding directly with the Democratic Party to overthrow an election. Then to make matters worse, to try to make it look like Trump had something nefarious going on with Russia and to dismiss all the evidence uncovered as simply a partisan hit job. No, this is much bigger than partisan politics. This is something that strikes at the core traits of being human and how we conduct ourselves as living beings. What we have uncovered is so big and corrupt that many people just don’t know what to do with the information. But yet, here it is and now we have to sort through it. And one thing we now know that we weren’t sure about before, James Comey is guilty as hell and deserves a punishment that is severe and decisive—and many in his wake have it coming too.

Rich Hoffman

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