Tag: quantum mechanics

The Answer to Sam Zeil’s White House Question: Why we can buy “weapons of war” at the local store

I was impressed with the 18-year-old Sam Zeif who spoke at the White House after the Parkland, Florida school shooting. He lost his best friend and was very sad about it. He spoke very intelligently and was extremely articulate. But he asked a question that deserves an answer, and a lot of people who don’t shoot much, or understand the philosophic premise of the Second Amendment are asking the same question. Young Zeif said it a couple of times, he wanted to know why he could still buy “weapons of war” at the store and suggested that we’d all be better off if America adopted a similar policy as Australia—and had a general gun confiscation policy. I heard that and a natural tension went up my spine wanting to defend the basic assumption. However, I don’t blame the kids so much for not understanding the scope of the situation, they have learned it in their schools and in the temperament of their intuitional interaction. Yet most gun owners know and understand otherwise, and that knowledge is often traditionally transferred from generation to generation for a reason that is specific to American culture and is why we can go to the store and buy weapons of war. Young Sam apparently has not had the benefit of this generational exchange, so I’ll offer it here for him and those of a like mind.

Whenever I buy a new gun it is always a magical experience. I love every single new one and the thrill of it never stops. Guns always represent power and strength and the bigger and meaner the better. Being weapons of war is a very foundational way to look at them, but what they represent is aggression and defense. Yet ultimately, they stand for freedom, freedom from aggression, freedom from authoritarian rule, freedom from any sinister forces that might want to steer your life in a direction of their choosing, not yours. Having big, mean, powerful guns means you are on equal terms with even the most vicious aggressor out there in the world that may have ill intentions toward you, and having an option against those forces brings about freedom that only a gun can yield.

The world that many rock stars have sung about, and what Sam Zeif by default articulated does not exist. There is no institution in the world that is completely trustworthy, especially with our lives. We may wish for that to be the case, but even in the Parkland school shooting there were so many hired people who failed from the institutional point of view that no reasonable argument in their defense can be made. We would be fools to trust completely that the FBI would do their jobs 100% of the time. We’d be idiots to assume that local law enforcement will get it right in every circumstance. In the Parkland shooting there are reports now that up to four officers near the incident failed to confront the shooter, so even those officially sanctioned to use guns get it wrong a lot of the time—more than is acceptable. That doesn’t mean we should scrap our society into anarchy, but it does mean that we need another layer of security in our lives that is individually driven. We should leave it to the professionals—those we pay to worry about security and the laws we make as a society, but we should always look to ourselves first.

To assume that if all the guns in the world were confiscated that we would all by default fall into a society of peace is just ridiculous. Human beings probably have at least 100,000 more years of evolution before the basic natures of our existences change for the better, where aggression isn’t part of our interaction with each other. People are always competing with one another, there are always bigger people, smarter people, faster people, better looking people, etc., who will leverage their talents and abilities against others to acquire what they think they need to live. It was only through the invention of the gun and the general distribution of reading through the printing press that freedom from static institutions began to falter and the cultures of individuality began to spring up around the world, most notably in the early American colonies for which our Constitution was written. Before people could read things for themselves and defend what they acquired through that knowledge with personal defense, societies were strung together through kingships and nobility. The gun freed us all from that enslavement.

But go to any corporate environment and you will see the same primitive mechanisms at work, people using whatever skills of superiority they have over others to acquire advantages for themselves. War is a trait of human beings, even two nicely mannered women will fight over who has the best flower bed, the best pie, or even the largest diamond ring. It is in the nature of human beings to be competitive, even if the foundations are rooted in destruction. But when a person has a gun and they are smaller than another person with a gun, they are both suddenly equal. Guns are the ultimate equalizers, having guns puts everyone on the same footing essentially making firearms a major contributor to the furtherance of a human species working toward objectives that supersede the typical primitive motivations of past millennia. Many of the advancements made in America are because of the gun, not in spite of them. People who might in any other society be pushed to the back of the pecking order line were able to profess their ideas about things knowing that they wouldn’t be gunned down in the street for professing them, because everyone is armed and retaliation is always a possibility. For the first time in the history of the world, individuals had power over the institutions so they could contribute to the nature of existence. If the threat of retaliation is not present, such as a big person being tempted to abuse a person of smaller stature, too often with humans an abuse of that relationship will take place because the larger person can, then the smaller person will find themselves in a weak position individually. If the smaller person has a gun, suddenly the size of the other person no longer gives them an advantage and a more equal exchange of information is possible leading to a better relationship.

Owning weapons of war even though nobody of a right mind ever thinks of using them for a destination of violence eases a mind that may always be concerned that the size of institutions may inhibit their options in life. Having big scary weapons in personal possession means that the big scary authorities who have lots of weapons of war will think twice before kicking down your door in the middle of the night to abuse their authority—just because they can. When there are people out in the world carrying around big scary weapons to prevent terrorists from attacking the foundations of our society there must also be checks in place to keep law enforcement from using that power to abuse their authority to take the possessions of people they are supposed to be watching over. We all hear of cases where traffic cops pull over a car full of girls and have forced them to perform sex acts to get out of expensive fines. Or cops detain an attractive woman and force them into a state of undress accusing them of carrying dangerous weapons just so they can have the power to strip down a beautiful woman. It happens much more than it should. The people we pay to protect us are much less prone to abuse that relationship if they have to worry that people might shoot back if they abuse their authority. We’d hope that such a thing might never happen but just looking at the abuse of the FBI against the Trump administration tells us that even at the highest levels of our government that trust is only as deep as the threat of danger that might come back at the perpetrators. Without that threat, abuse often happens in any relationship.

Ironically weapons of war are the foundations to a civil society. You will never see a lot of pushing and shoving going on at gun events where everyone is armed with a gun. Big people, small people, smart people and dumb people all treat each other respectfully because in those meetings everyone is truly equal because it’s not the biological gifts that we have which make us that way, it is the invention of the gun that takes over and puts everyone on equal footing. By taking away the temptation for aggression it forces everyone to treat each other fairly and with great respect. That’s why you don’t see mass shootings at gun shows or NRA events—and why those people tend to be very polite and respectful. The gun is an invention of equality and it works wonderfully.

So to answer Sam’s question, why can he go to the store to buy weapons of war, well, because those weapons are needed to keep human beings on an equal playing field. Institutions by themselves cannot be trusted, they often do abuse their power and so long as that is the case, which isn’t necessarily a learned behavior, but a biological one, equality must be achieved between people through an inventive process. The beauty of a fine weapon that is big and scary is that it gives the owner the ability to function in life with a level of equality that has never been possible prior to the invention of the firearm. Having that firearm forces others to deal with you at a level of respect that is unmistakable and takes away the temptations to abuse relationships for the gain of a one-sided exchange. If young women had more guns in an open carry part of their fashion, they would get harassed sexually a lot less. Because the natural relationship between a large man of 250 pounds is to show superiority over the 120-pound woman. But when she has on her hip a nice Glock or a Smith & Wesson revolver, the large man will treat the woman differently because his size and strength are no longer assets that he can claim superiority over. She is just as strong as he is just because she has a gun. If he has a gun as well, then the two are truly equal.

Traditionally when a father or grandfather gave a young man his first gun, the gift wasn’t just a weapon of war, it was an assignment of equality that let the youth engage with the world on an equal footing—even among his parental peers. For instance, the implication of the dad to the son, “you are now as strong as I am and I trust you enough to give you this gun.” Many such people never use their guns in any kind of aggressive manner, but they know if they needed to, they could and that leads to a society of greater respect in personal exchanges. If the behavior of Nickolas Cruz, the shooter in the Parkland massacre, were to be studied correctly it would be revealed that the kid was small, had been picked on for much of his life and his parents failed to give him a good philosophic foundation to live with. So he turned to the gun to become superior to his oppressors. If people at the school also had guns, then Cruz would not have such a claim to superiority that he had on the day of the shooting. But taking guns away doesn’t solve the problem—Cruz was still a kid who was picked on for being such a small person, humans are always looking for leverage over one another. Only in an equally armed society do we actually have the basis for a proper interaction based on fairness. That is why we have weapons of war for sale at an area store. They are essential to a proper and justice-based society.

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

Guild Socialism: The real problem behind schools, activist students, and gun control debate

I understand what President Trump is doing listening to anti-gun advocates and the really sad stories of loss that have come from recent school shootings. But it is deeply disturbing to even let the anti-gun forces gain just a small victory in how they are exploiting children to advance the general public-school position against an armed society. The only term that comes to my mind that properly articulates the situation as that of guild socialism which is the rule of, by and for mediocrity. “When brute force is on the march, compromise is the red carpet,” which Ayn Rand stated many years ago in response to the Berkeley riots. “When reason is attacked, common sense is not enough.” What is going on is that children raised in these public schools have been taught all these progressive positions and have been loaded like guns themselves for an awaiting target to spring forth at a moment’s notice—all funded by our tax dollars to work against us. Then when a crisis like the Parkland shooting does happen, these kids wherever they reside are ready to strike at their targets in behalf of the education institutions that created them. Suddenly its OK to have kids skipping school to protest our American gun culture, and out of thin air, expensive buses are on sight to bus these students turned activists to state capitals to wreak havoc on our governmental process through the brute force of demonstrations. The primary culprit is a brand of guild socialism that is at the core of our education system for which we are all instructed, and corrupted at early ages, and it is the real crises for which we are challenged.

After all the events of the past week it was good to hear that President Trump was supporting concealed carry in the classroom for teachers who are inclined to meet this very specific 21st century challenge. It is even better that my local sheriff in Richard K. Jones of Butler County is leading the nation-wide charge on the issue. If we are looking for an immediate solution to the crises of school shootings we must put guns in those gun free zones and be ready to defend our lives and the lives of our children when required. The obvious next step is to attack the problem culturally. For instance, watch the old western The Gunfighter from 1950 starring Gregory Peck. It’s a great classic western about the pressures of being the absolute best gunfighter from his time, where every young man looking to make a name for themselves wants to challenge the aging legend. The older and wiser gunfighter just wants to retire to a good life in California with his wife and son, but his legendary status chases him to the ends of the earth until he meets an eventual death. There are a lot of very good lessons about life in that movie which would serve our youth today. But what do they get as a cultural reference point in their art? They get The Hateful Eight—a movie about nothing but killing and betrayal set in the West, but having nothing to do with values of any kind. Watching movies like The Hateful Eight, can anybody expect an adopted kid like Nikolas Cruz, who lost his new father at a young age, then lost his mother just a few months before he went on the killing rampage in Parkland, Florida now causing so much commotion? He was kicked out of school because the institution there rejected him leaving him virtually defenseless in the world. It doesn’t take much to feel sorry for the kid, but once he turned that anger toward society in general he deserved to be shot dead just for being a menace. What is really tragic however is that in a different time under similar conditions if the young Cruz had exposure to films like The Gunfighter and a barrage of films by John Wayne, he may have chosen a different path in life—and maybe have stayed at his employment at The Dollar Store and worked his way through to some level of success at life. Instead, everywhere he went there was something negative, including the school he attended, which was more concerned with guild socialism than in individual development of their students.

Whenever you hear from someone, “it’s not my job,” you are dealing with the resulted education of a participant in guild socialism, where a guild of occupational endeavor rally to each other’s cause for the benefit of a collective whole—such as a labor union or even a baseball team. When people accept a position of mediocrity in favor of comfortable lack of responsibility for greater issues, the villain ultimately is guild socialism. The kids being used in these school shootings have a foundational premise that is rooted in the guild socialism that they learned in their public schools—that they are students/activists for progressive causes and should not be expected to be anything else—least not defenders of themselves or are responsible for the way they conduct their lives. They were taught that other people out there in the world are in charge of their safety and thus need to be coerced through mass force to change their behavior if the kids are to survive into the future. And for most kids, they don’t know any better, so they accept that premise without question. The premise of guild socialism however was taught to them by the public education institutions to begin with, which is where all these problems begin.

We are guilty as a society in giving a blank check of value to our public education system. We want to believe that educating children is of a high, moral endeavor. But we seldom concern ourselves with what we are teaching our children, and this has had a terrible effect on many generations of students who have now accepted guild socialism as the ethical behavior in a competitive world. This means that nobody is really responsible for anything, including behavioral issues, and that through thuggish protest individual rights can be destroyed through group assimilation. Case in point, if enough kids scream at politicians with CNN running the cameras to bait the debate, then the assumption is that change is mandated because of the democratic process of majority rule. It is never considered that every one of those children might be wrong, and that they were taught incorrectly from the beginning to believe what they do while a minority in the world may actually have the true answers. Guild socialism practices over many years has devolved our social awareness to such a degree that nobody is responsible any longer for anything, only groups can mandate the morality of our world—and that is a false premise that will only lead to epistemological destruction of the basic foundations of our civilization.

I support Donald Trump on most things he’s advocated, even through times of intense controversy. I think contextually you might say I have great love for him as president of the United States. But I don’t support everything, his yielding to age limits, back ground checks and bump stock restrictions will only fuel the gun haters by thinking that they can continue to use children and the power of guild socialism to change our society. Like it or not, the Second Amendment is there to keep our own government in check, because as we learned with the FBI, government does go bad and can be used against us. In my view, the government is a lot better off with Trump running things than at other times, but we are still a country with massive debt and a society on the verge of panic if they lose their electrical power and access to food for more than a week. Guns, “military equivalent” grade weapons are needed for a civil society because if government goes bad, and natural disasters erode away the basics of all humanity, there is no other way to protect our private property—including our very lives. Guild socialism believes the opposite so of course they will not support the position I’m advocating, but that doesn’t make them right and me wrong because they outnumber my opinion, it simply makes them advocates of change from what we are as Americans into something else using the masses to sell it—and that something else isn’t good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Stop Mass School Shootings: More guns not less will help correct the behavioral failure that is increasing in our youth

The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida won’t be the last, and Nikolas Cruz the former student there will have followers to his antics that will lead to more death and destruction. And there isn’t a single law or regulation that can prevent it—the problem is one of ethical behavior, not legal compliance. So long as the human mind desires such things as the destruction of others, violence is always a threat and the only way to be equal in such a world is with a well-armed society. Considering the level of corruption, we have witnessed regarding the FBI over the last couple of years, more cops, more military, and more government will do nothing to stop the desire of kids falling through the cracks from wanting to inflict harm on others through mass violence. As I’ve been saying for a long time now, we are on a social trajectory that will only get worse. Kids these days aren’t going home from school and watching the Andy Griffith Show, as might have happened thirty years ago. The political left has infected our education institutions with their mind tampering utopian ideas that have had the opposite result, and now failure is everywhere. We’ll be cleaning up the mess for at least the next century. That really leaves us with one choice, an expansion of guns personally carried by good, people—teachers, administrators, and parents so that schools are no longer soft target zones ripe for the fulfilment fantasies of our much distraught youth.

It is stunning to hear so many people soaked in the images of these tragic events to demand that something must be done—as if some government agency out there might have an answer. The only two things that can save our society from the brink it is currently resting on is greater intelligence among our people and more personal defense so that when a kid like Nikolas Cruz does snap—which they are prone to do given our depleted moral compass these days, someone can shoot them dead on the spot before they have time to roam the hallways of defenseless public schools essentially shooting fish in a barrel. The death penalty, or more scrutiny of gun legislation will not stop the emergence of people like Nikolas Cruz. I’m sure we’ll learn all the reasons this kid was troubled, and what we will learn is that he turned out not to be a processed piece of meat churned from the local public-school intent to bring about Sir Thomas Moore’s Utopia—he was rejected from that system and he was wrathful about it. That utopia doesn’t exist, and it never will. Schools should never be a gun free zone because we are supposed to be teaching kids to live in the world, and the world can be a violent place. Guns are a part of modern life, millions of adults that these kids are going to deal with are concealed carry holders, so guns are going to be there in American society. The fault of public schools is that they have taken a stance against such American traits, and that has put them at odds with reality when losers like Nikolas Cruz emerge to wreak havoc among the innocent.

Many pondered how a young person like Cruz with their whole life out in front of them could come to a school armed the way he did and consciously set off smoke alarms to create more soft targets created in the panic, or to toss smoke bombs around the halls to help the effect of an apocalypse to satisfy the twisted fantasy that emerges from the mind of the discontent and intellectually limited. But likely they haven’t gotten to know very many 19-year old’s these days—kids coming from broken homes with family chaos derived straight from our soup operas of entertainment. They haven’t payed attention to the music these kids listen to or watched the video games they play. These kids aren’t growing up with even a basic foundation of religion to give them the most fundamental values so what do they have—a sense of self-entitlement and no consequence taught to them in public schools which disconnects behavior from reality. I’ve been saying for a while that we will see more of this behavior, not less. A lot of people think about doing the kinds of things that Nikolas Cruz did. The difference is that most people don’t act on the fantasy. A certain percentage of our population will however, so the problem to deal with is why such a fantasy is in the minds of people to begin with.

We live in the age where at least two generations of youth have been taught that the world should not judge them. What is it they say, “don’t judge.” Well, that runs counter to the very basic instincts that human beings have. Every time a young girl turns down someone a date they are judging the premise of the proposal. Maybe the guy is too ugly, too creepy, or maybe he just smells bad. It used to be if a guy wanted to date a cute girl he might spiffy up his appearance and come back to her again with a second, a third, or a fourth try, and in that manner, society improved because for the young man to have the ability to mate with the girl, she made him do things to improve his social stature. But these days the young girl is not supposed to judge. Heck she is even taught that if she wants to be a boy, she can be—and vice versa. Sex is something that people just do, it’s not something to work for, the value of it has been completely eradicated from our society. Sex is no longer leverage for young females to inspire improvement among the males—these days its “bros before hoes,” and every woman is a potential hoe in hip hop culture. If young people want to do anything and be anything at any give time, they have been taught in public school that they can and that the world won’t judge them. Yet the world does judge, it judges a lot—and that is never going to change. Our mistake as a society is that we let this go on for far too long and it will take at least a century to correct it. In the meantime, we need to carry more guns and to shoot the failures as they trespass upon our freedoms and personal sanctity to satisfy their distorted fantasies provided to them by a portion of our society that has failed their social experiment.

There is a morality in guns that is missing from our present society, a code of conduct that extends beyond the limits of governmental power. American society is not a lover of more institutionalism—so answers along those lines just won’t get the job done. If some kid like Nikolas Cruz starts down some hallway in a gun free zone like a public school and shows intent—meaning he shows an aggressive posture even if the gun he has is just a water pistol, then he should be shot dead on the spot without further inquiry, and the mops should be brought out to clean up the blood, the cops called to file the paperwork, and everyone in the school needs to get back to work. If that is the behavioral characteristic that we adopt as a policy, then we will begin to see an end to these school shootings and the mass acts of terror that we’ve seen in places like Las Vegas. We must empower ourselves to stop this violence and the behavior which causes it, which means we must judge more, we must carry deadlier personal weapons to protect our environment as first responders to aggression, and we must not prosecute people for getting it wrong. If we have a teacher carrying a gun in school and he accidentally shoots someone who is acting like a terrorist using toy guns and masks to hide their features, then we need to give them a warning and put them back to work without further prosecution. Only these types of actions will prevent further deterioration of our social fabric, and believe me, there isn’t much time. Our public schools are putting out a lot of loser kids like Nikolas Cruz. The opportunity for more occurrences is only increasing by the day, literally.

Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

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

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.

Why Members of the FBI Must Go To Jail: The legal system depends on it

From my perspective there is no choice, members of the FBI, the CIA, the former Obama White House and even the NSA are going to have to go to jail for the crimes they committed against the incoming President Trump administration. If they don’t then don’t expect me to ever respect anything they do going forward, I do not give them the right to barge into my home, or to confiscate my property without retaliation, because a nation without laws, isn’t a nation at all. If they aren’t restricted to the same laws that the rest of us undergo, then none of us are. In the scheme of things, the FBI works for all of us, we pay their bills and look to them to be the blind eye of justice to keep the wheels on our republic. But a failure to do such things essentially wipes out everything we stand for, so those who have abused their power must go to jail at a minimum. There isn’t any choice in the matter. If Martha Stewart had to go to jail for laying to the FBI, then so must the FBI when they lie to us.

I’ve said it many times in the past, but I’ll say it again for context, I’ve been to court more times than any collection of adults together would entertain even under the worst of circumstances. I’ve hired lawyers, I’ve fired lawyers and just done the work myself, I’ve even represented myself under personal lawsuits and come out favorable, so I know a thing or two about how the potatoes are turned into French fries when it comes to the legal system. I know more about the game of law than a lot of people who work in the business as a matter of fact. So with that qualification I can say that going forward, knowing what we do, the FBI must act correcting its behavior before they can initiate any further prosecutions in any court of law any time in the future. Because its only a matter of time before these actions are brought up in a court of law and the cases presented get thrown out based on the reputation of the FBI. Any smart lawyer is going to look to these events to defend their clients which is the greatest danger to our republic that we have witnessed in our modern age.

The FBI knows it too, they understand the ramifications that just the text messages uncovered by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are enough to destroy the credibility of the FBI all by itself. But of course there is much more to the story that has to be dealt with. But as things stand now, if the FBI were to break down my door under some suspicion, why would I treat them under any condition but by that of a common law-breaker, because they have shown themselves all too willing to break the law and destroy evidence? If I’m looking for justice why would I trust that I could get it with the FBI, or by my own actions in defense of my personal sovereignty? I can say that without a lawyer to represent my case that I could defend actions against the FBI in a court of law and win because of the dirty nature of the organization itself. I would also say that any good lawyer could do the same, because the merits of the institutional foundation of the FBI itself is now under scrutiny and cannot hold up to the case-law that is being established currently.

So to those who say that none of these people are going to go to jail, or that the Obama people will skate—I have to tell you, that they really can’t. If our legal system is going to survive this uncovered crises—which I hope they do honestly–many people will have to go to jail otherwise our process of justice has lost its teeth unleashing upon our nation anarchy. Speaking from experience it isn’t difficult to make a case for reasonable doubt especially if you have a good reputation and the accusers do not. After all, most cases come down to that simple fact. A person’s reputation means everything which is why it’s important to always maintain a good one in the face of any fire, or circumstance that you might find yourself in. If you are a good person 24 hours a day, 7 days a week even in the confines of your home when you think nobody is looking, then you can stand against a villain with a bad reputation even if they have much more political and financial power than you do and destroy them in court. All the money in the world can’t buy goodness. Goodness on its own has a capital that has more value than money. A six-figure defense by a lawyer in court can’t beat a good reputation that is beyond dispute. A good reputation is worth millions if you have it, and will serve justice better under any circumstance.

Knowing that there are field agents like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page out there having affairs, breaking FBI protocol by sending text messages to each other that create paper trails of evidence very recklessly, because they felt they were above the law, destroys the credibility of every agent in the field. If the FBI fails to discipline obvious breaches in their basic ethics how can they send a field agent to kick down the door of some terrorist suspect, or some witness holding needed testimony and not expect to be retaliated against as a domestic threat? They can’t. Then if you compound that with the actions of James Comey, who lied obviously to Congress, leaked government documents to outside sources—and who know who else, then we have a seriously systemic problem legally. If the guy running the show is a character willing to show such disregard for the law then how can that person ever expect to have credibility in bringing forth any prosecution? Comey’s actions actually create doubt about any case he oversaw during his time as director of the FBI. Everything he did as the top law enforcement officer in the land now comes into scrutiny giving lawyers for clients found guilty an easy case to resurrect for their convicted clients. Then consider that James Clapper—the former Director of National Intelligence—also lied to Congress when he stated he didn’t know anything about a FISA warrant illegally obtained to spy on the incoming Trump administration. How can anything he did during his tenure as an intelligence director be trusted? You see dear reader, this is a real legal problem that most of the insiders in the legal world are afraid of the general public learning about.

I had a meeting with some very smart national and international lawyers just last week, it was a meeting over patent law and one of the people in the meeting was a career government type who works within the system that has bosses like these idiots James Comey, James Clapper, and even Bob Mueller. Where most people who don’t deal with such people very often might assume that these types of people are “super smart” and have something the rest of us don’t in regard to knowledge, guess again. While many of them are good people and are good at their specific career choices, they are just people. And the “just people” parts of them are very worried that the general public will start demanding justice because of what we have all learned about the terrible behavior of our intelligence agencies paid for with tax payer resources after we had a free election. Seeking, plotting, or otherwise tampering with that election is a serious offense, but to make matters worse, they sought to create a false case of Russian involvement creating possible international tensions when it was they who colluded with a political party to change the results of an election. That is very serious stuff and until they resolve that issue, they better not come to my house looking to violate any of my Constitutional rights. If my door gets burst open like Paul Manafort’s did in the small hours of the morning, a lot of those people won’t be going home to eat dinner that night—let me just say that. Before all this happened, I would obviously assess the situation and cooperate assuming they had bad information and that mistakes were made. But the FBI and law enforcement in general has lost that benefit of doubt and until they correct that situation with a purge of their corrupted officers and we see the villains going to jail, I have to assume that they are up to no good and are inflicting justice based on political affiliations. And that just isn’t permissible.

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.

Trump Landing in Cincinnati 2-5-2018: See the President and First Lady at Lunken Field

This is information for my readers who might want a chance to see the President in person.  Here is the information on where and how to do it.  Plan to give President Trump a nice welcomed return to the Cincinnati area.

Good Afternoon,

We are looking forward to having President Trump in Ohio tomorrow!

The President will be landing at Cincinnati Municipal Airport – Lunken Field on Monday. The shuttle bus parking lot opens at 11:15 am and will closed at 12:45 P.M. Please arrive early. Once the President’s plane lands they will not let people into the greeting pen. They will have security scanners in place so we recommend that you don’t bring any excessive bags or items with you.

Date: Monday, February 5th
Location: 4265 Airport Rd, Cincinnati, OH 45266
Time: Parking opens at 11:15 P.M. // No entry after 12:45 P.M.

We are looking forward to seeing you in Cincinnati and appreciate everything you have done to make America great again!

Thanks,

Max Docksey
Ohio Republican Party

Rich Hoffman

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