Tag: quantum mechanics

Did you read Juanita Broaddrick’s New Book: There is no choice but to prosecute the Clintons and the Deep State that protected them

I heard a lot of backlash over the first week of 2018 regarding the obvious prosecution of Hillary Clinton and the members of the Deep State that participated in her protection.  The logic they asserted was that she lost the election and was now otherwise harmless.  Trump should move on and not prosecute a former political rival.  And on the surface among stupid people, I can understand their mode of thinking.  But we are not talking about just a political contest where Hillary lost and Trump won.  We are talking about the mechanisms of government that were used to prop up a political party which violated many laws for which the foundations of our entire society rested, and were used against the other party.  Hillary and her Democratic party broke a lot of laws, audaciously and unfortunately for her she lost anyway, and the responsibility for prosecution falls on the Trump administration.  Trump has no choice but to use the law to correct the situation, because the Democrats made it that way.  When crimes are committed punishment must follow otherwise there is no respect for the rule of law.  And the immensity of that statement couldn’t be more obvious than in the publication of one simple book just a few days into the 2018 New Year,  Juanita Broaddrick ‘s new book, You’d Better Put Some Ice On That: How I Survived Being Raped by Bill Clinton.  All the talk by the media was on the Michael Wolff book hoping to take down the White House, but Juanita’s book was ignored even though in it the claims of rape against a former United States president were much more atrocious.

https://www.amazon.com/Youd-Better-Put-Some-That/dp/1979834245/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1515255642&sr=1-1&keywords=You%E2%80%99d+Better+Put+Some+Ice+on+That%3A+How+I+Survived+Being+Raped+by+Bill+Clinton.

I read Juanita’s book right away, and for the second consecutive week in a row I managed to read seven books—which I consider a very productive way to start the New Year.  A lot of what was in You’d Better Put Some Ice On That: How I Survived Being Raped by Bill Clinton I already knew but what was astonishing is that we are living in a time where women from four decades ago are now bringing down celebrities for their sexual exploits.  Kevin Spacey who just a few months ago was at the top of the Hollywood A-listers and after allegations of child molestation came out for which he admitted, he has had his career literally destroyed.  He’ll be lucky if he ever works again.  His top show House of Cards wrote him out of the story after halting production and Ridley Scott literally digitally removed him from the movie All the Money in the World.  He’s far from the only one, but is certainly one that illustrates this new standard, that if at any time in our past something was done wrong, then it is fair game to destroy that person in every way imaginable.  So given that definition, it forces us to look at the crimes of the Clintons and pay justice to their doorsteps.  Based just on Juanita Broaddrick’s allegations in this stunning new book about how Bill Clinton raped her in the late 1970s—bad things need to happen to the former president so that others might think twice about performing such crimes in the future.

Yet the crimes didn’t stop with Juanita—Bill’s behavior moved on for several more decades making many more people their victims—and Hillary Clinton acted as a kind of pimp for power as a mediator for her husband’s activity enabling all this evil to take place unchecked.  Instead of correcting Bill’s crimes they instead used their attorney abilities to manipulate circumstances to suit their hunger for power breaking many more laws over the next three decades openly—and quite audaciously.  I read a book in the mid-1990s called Blood Sport by James Stewart which chronicled the crimes of the Clintons on their road to the White House and I thought at that time that these people were the worst in the world.  I thought they’d never make it to a second term because the evidence was so obvious.  I accepted that some of the work by Stewart might have been politically motivated, but certainly not all of it.  There was no way the Clinton’s would survive.  But they did and went on for a second term.  Then Hillary became a Senator, then through the 90s they created the Clinton Foundation which was a pay to play scam.  Hillary went on to run for president losing to Barack Obama.  She became the Secretary of State actually selling access to her office by foreign contributors.  She had an illegal email server to hide all this activity and when she was caught the FBI actually covered for her as they placed their bets that she’d be the next president of the United States.  They did not apply equal justice under the law; instead they bent the law to suit the Clintons for what they considered the “greater good,” a move toward global initiatives where the United States gradually surrendered more sovereignty to United Nations control.  And in the process the Clinton’s became wealthy beyond their wildest dreams.

Now we are all told that we are supposed to look the other way and let the Clintons live in peace?  Those same forces salivated over Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury putting the tabloid reporter on every news outlet they could while Juanita was ignored.  The accusers of Roy Moore in Alabama were given first class media exposure and we were told that every women was supposed to be heard no matter how outrageous the claims were, yet here was a woman claiming a former president had raped her and her pain was chronicled in a new book and everyone ignored it.  The game is obvious to everyone now—it’s no longer a conspiracy theory to suggest that the levers of government wanted the Clintons to succeed no matter what laws were broken.  Now all those people have been caught because a changing administration with different political priorities has been elected into power to reveal this banality.  On the surface we have what appeared to be an intricate system of law in order, but in practice it resembled a banana republic.  Astonishingly we saw how far our country had fallen at the hands of these Clinton supporters and now the responsibility falls on Trump’s people to fix it.

And why wouldn’t they—we are in an election year—there aren’t any real Democrats who threaten to take over the House and Senate.  Trump needs to hold his majorities in congress to get anything done over the next several years. The Clintons essentially made the Democratic Party all about them for the last thirty years so as they go down, so does the DNC.  The liberal party of progressives is trying to distance themselves from the Clintons for their own survival, but obviously the machine that supports the Clintons runs deep into every crack of the Democratic Party and into the cubicles of almost every newsroom.  The media of today were built by that Clinton machine and they are lost without their leaders. If the Clintons go down so does the Democratic Party.  That is why they are so desperate for this Russian investigation to produce something, and why they put so much hope into that Wolff book, and why they are utterly despondent that Donald Trump doesn’t seem to be fazed by anything they’ve thrown at him.  The evidence is there to put the Clintons away in jail for a long time and it has to happen.  They gave the Republicans no choice in the matter—which is how Trump had to have it.  Now early in 2018 we can see the evidence mounting and understand that it’s inevitable.  The desperation of many years of crimes now coming back to that Clinton family finally is in the air.  All Republicans need to do is pull the trigger and Democrats will be done for many years.  So do it.  And if you have any doubts as to whether it should be done or not—then read Juanita’s book.  You think you know the story until you read the pain she managed to put down on paper for all to see—if only people would have the courage to look.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Trump is Very Mentally Stable: The poor definitions for leadership that robs so many people of success, logic, and victory

Thinking even further about the assumptions made in the anti-Trump Michael Wolff book about life in the new White House the definitions for winning, and victory are not the same from each side. Liberals clearly do not understand what “winning” means because they are not a performance based political party. Trump’s methods of negotiating are foreign to them and the means of achieving wins is as well—which is very apparent by the kinds of things that the people around Trump said about him to the fly-on-the-wall writer. Steven Bannon in particular obviously was looking at the president and thinking, “I can do this, and I should be.” But that is a common mistake made by second-hander people. What they don’t understand is that the master negotiator, and the person who often wins most of their engagements are not the types of people who spike the football in people’s faces. They are the ones who build up those around them and teach other people how to win as the residual effects migrate into the circumstances of the leader whoever they may be—in this case Donald Trump.

Trump said a lot when he said that he makes winning look easy. Winning is a skill as much as it’s a strategic result. Most people don’t know how to win, but there is no question that there are people who always find themselves knocking on the door to victory time and time again while others consider it a mystery and an opportunity given only by luck. Anyone who has read Trump’s books, especially books by Trump University like Trump 101: The Way to Success, understand that there is a lot more going on with Trump than just powering his way into beating his opponents at whatever objective he seeks to accomplish. From day one in the Trump White House—even before, this is how the new president went about his work—learning what all sides on a matter wanted, then learning how to use that knowledge to achieve his objective.

Winning is not about out powering your opponent, or even check-mating them into submission. Often when it comes to negotiations you want the other party to feel good about what they are doing—even if its losing. Winning and crushing your opponent into oblivion is not synonymous with success. Sometimes it is—but often not. Winning is about achieving your objectives while letting everyone else feel that they were a part of the process—and that is why Trump ran, and still does to a large extent, a loose White House. People need to be comfortable, so they can reveal their needs to you, so that you can use that information to help build in their minds the parameters of victory.

From its inception in the modern sense—as in from the Dark Ages to the present, occupational responsibilities in Western cultures tend to be focused on specializations. In oriental cultures it is expected that an individual will become somewhat curious about many fields, but in the West we are projected to learn one thing and to stick to that relying on the next specialization to do their job correctly and if they don’t we throw up our arms and blame that person for failing. People who constantly win however are usually good at many things in life, and are curious about many others. What they have in common is that they tend to not be overly specialized, but have developed within themselves many skills for which to use in improvisational context to solve problems and build support for their viewpoints among other people.

What we have going on regarding Donald Trump in the White House is a fear from the majority in Washington D.C. that function from a specialized trade that a multitalented businessman will forever raise the bar of expectations for them. For those who voted for Donald Trump, that is exactly what we wanted, but for those who believe in a specialized skill conducted through institutional protections, Donald Trump is a nightmare. For Washington D.C. to work the way they learned it does requires that the formula of specialization be maintained. But for Trump to do his thing he needs to be part psychologist, part inspirational speaker, part numbers cruncher, part fashion model, part strategist and to be able to recognize in everyone he speaks with what their specializations are, so he can turn them to his advantage. The way to do this is to let people have a free rein and study their behavior so that it is easy to ascertain their characteristic tendencies. Saying that Donald Trump is stupid, or insane—or anything resembling an unstable personality is more of a wish than a statement. For the institutional addicts who need the structure of specialization to be maintained Trump is “unstable” because their definition of stability is to keep personalities within the specialization of their institutional expectations. Yet Trump is results driven which does not adhere to a structure—because often the structure stands in the way of the needed results—otherwise there wouldn’t be a need to fix anything—which is what the opposition against Trump is really after.

To those who have mastered the art of just about everything they have no need for advice—at least in the traditional sense. Trump has shown that he does listen to people, but not in the way that people hope—where their specializations are respected. Trump listens to what people say then he uses his experience to make gut judgment calls based on his unique leadership skills. This is something that most people in the world do not have the ability to do—including most major presidents throughout history. It’s not that Trump did anything wrong, it’s just that our current society doesn’t understand the nature of leadership very well—and why only a very few people per capita seem inclined to proper leadership. Leadership isn’t about following the rules of an established institution, it’s about getting good results even when the institutions let us down with poor resolutions. Solving those problems isn’t about doing so within the context of institutional boundaries, it’s about discovering the correct solution and then bringing about the conditions to implement those solutions. To be free to make decisions on your own is to be able to more quickly ascertain the needed objectives. If the problem is in the people who are advising, to protect their specialized roles within the institution, then speaking with them about their opinions won’t solve the problem, and this is why Trump has achieved so much in such a short period of time. He is not hindered by the limits of other people who don’t strive so far as he does.

In the traditional sense of presidential roles within the nation of America—it is expected that the Executive Branch be treated like the Monarchy in England—as kind of a figurehead that acts as the face of the nation while the specialized experts do their thing for whatever purpose is identified on their institutional charters. But most Americans during this last election saw that the process just wasn’t working, so we voted against the institutions themselves and put a CEO in charge instead of just another political hack. To a certain extent it is understood that people will have problems with that approach because they don’t have the definitions in their lives which explain why Trump is successful. They only know that Trump does not respect the institutional parameters for which they exist. Stupidity in this regard is a matter of perspective—and as history will chronicle, it is the institutionalists who will be shown as lacking. Trump is a change, a demand in real leadership—not token sentiments meant to protect the Skull and Bones Society, or the charters of the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security. Nor the secret societies, hate groups, or ideologies of long dead philosophers. Trump was hired to solve problems and that is what he’s doing, and history will respect what he did even if it does piss everyone off. The more he does piss off, the better our nation will be in the end.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Donald Trump is a Genius: The history of how we arrived where we are, intellectually

From the times of at least the Mesolithic era humans have built ritualistic centers of symbolic significance to integrate the experiences of the individual with the greater collection of society. The roots of communism and socialism in 2018 point back to this innate desire of humans to be accepted by their peers. There may not have been ever in politics at a high level a person like Donald Trump who is so self-assured that he doesn’t require the approval of others to function. He enjoys approval, but he does not require it to make decisions, and that is a very new thing relatively speaking in human development over the ages. And to those who control the transfer of power, or rather, have controlled it—this is a scary time. When they’ve needed to deny Trump social authority to keep him under control from their perspective, the United States President has proceeded on without them showing remarkable self confidence—which culminated in gasps of horror when the political left threw all their bets into a new Michael Wolff book about Trump hoping to paint him as insane—to stir up congressional sentiment to remove the president from office using the 25th Amendment. Instead, Trump stood with the leaders of congress and declared that he was so smart that he was a genius which is something a person just doesn’t publicly declare about themselves. Humans are not supposed to be that vain; they must await that assessment by others—aren’t they?

I didn’t talk about it at the time but on April 24th of 2017 the great American philosopher Robert Pirsig died at his home at the age of 88. Pirsig was a great thinker and created the metaphysics of quality philosophy which in the business world I consider much more important than the business shift to Lean manufacturing. Pirsig had a lot in common with the transcendentalist William James and his two books Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila were classics that stand up to even the greatest thinkers of philosophy. But life was not always good to Pirsig—his philosophy was forged from a hard life. Shortly after his second child was born Pirsig suffered a nervous breakdown and spent time in and out of psychiatric hospitals. As part of his treatment for what they called paranoid schizophrenia and clinical depression he was treated with electroconvulsive therapy. It was a rough go for Pirsig—his wife left him and he had to start all over as his children were growing. Less than ten years later Pirsig found himself on a motorcycle dealing with his schizophrenia taking a road trip with one of his sons. The result of this trip became Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The book was a hit catapulting Pirsig into the upper echelons of thoughtful Americans then in 1979 the son who went on the trip with him was killed in San Francisco, stabbed to death after a mugging. Although the work he produced in many cases was considered genius, everything he did was a product of his mind collapsing on itself and falling into insanity for a period, if not the entire time.

Just six years after the publication of the fantastic work by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra the German philosopher was hugging a horse outside his home trying to stop it from being flogged with a whip. He wasn’t even 40 years of age yet and the great man was having a mental breakdown for which he never recovered. His much maligned sister cared for him after the suicide of her own husband and it was under her care that essentially the Nazi party emerged. Not long after Nietzsche died did Adolf Hitler emerge who loved the work of the German philosopher so much that he built much of his ideology around it. How much of Nietzsche’s work was genius and how much was pure insanity is hard to tell because the definition of sanity is shaped by the masses. Those who step out beyond what is considered normal are what shape the thoughts of tomorrow, not compliance to a previous order. Yet to move too far from the norm means that a human mind is on its own—it loses the support of its peers which biologically has always been a concern.

And so it has gone for many generations, mankind has pushed against the psychological needs of society to conduct mass rituals publicly ordained and to align the yearnings of the human soul to an authentic experience specific to itself—and much of the time insanity has followed. In Nietzsche’s case his desire for anti-institutional mechanisms to free individuality from group think actually became the foundations for socialism in Nazi Germany and fascism in Italy—because mankind fell short of the high mark objectives of those uniquely new philosophies. And certainly the work of Robert Pirsig still is giving the world fits in how they could possibly bring together the two philosophies of East and West to arrive at a definition of quality that goes well beyond the subject-object scientific method. Just because the kids in the front of the class get good grades in school, it doesn’t mean they will become the best elements of our society—it may actually be them who become the destroyers of civilization—yet we continue to conduct our society in the fashion of such insanity—even though we have the books and understanding to know better. It’s like knowing you have diabetes and yet you eat a whole cake and a twelve pack of sugary soda anyway—then wonder why you have to cut off your legs because of nerve damage. One thing causes the other yet it is difficult for our group think to accept such a radical change in living pattern—so we continue on with the destructive behavior.

The genius of Donald Trump is that he has emerged through his life and all the tragedies that come with it, as a remarkably complete and self-assured man. Part of his genius is that he is able to act without the collective approval of the society at large—which keeps him from being manipulated by lesser minds. He’s been able to do this where so many others have failed before him—people we consider great in hindsight. However, we’re not yet ready to say that what Trump does is a genius because he does not let the second-handers come along for the ride like previous voyagers into thought have done. Trump is truly his own man and can function completely on his own. Although he does like approval of his peers, he is not crippled into inaction if he doesn’t get it, and that is something new. New for the human race—while there are certainly free thinkers functioning in the world, they have not made it into such a high office before. In that regard what Trump is doing is what Zarathustra was attempting to do in Nietzsche’s famous book. And that’s not insanity. The only insanity that is going on is the group thinkers trying to reconcile their collective yearnings to this new individualized standard. But the standard itself set by Trump is actually the sanest thing in the world and if he doesn’t say so—who will?

Human beings for over 300,000 to perhaps millions of years have required group think to accept a new idea and this has kept mankind from ever breaking a cycle of birth and death for which has loomed over all our efforts since the beginning of recorded time. It has held us back tremendously and it was only when the United States declared its independence from the world and survived the War of 1812 that a new philosophy emerged that climaxed long after Nietzsche, Marx and many others came and went. Robert Pirsig was onto it, and he went crazy trying to develop it—because it was essentially the first time in the history of the world that a human being scratched away at the protections of group think to see what might reside outside of our intellectual bubbles. The result has been and is Donald Trump—a character that essentially stepped out of the pages of Ayn Rand and the ministry of Norman Vincent Peale—and emerged from a uniquely American city to become it’s master of capitalism and the morality of money. Then for Trump to be voted into the White House to bring those values to the rest of America—the action becoming one of the greatest events in world history—not in a political sense, but a philosophical one. In that regard Donald Trump is a vessel of immense intellectual capacity, only it’s different from what came before. This time it is individually based whereas everything that came before was of a collective consciousness and we can see now that the madness was never in the individual yearning from the freedom of institutional controls, but the institutions themselves trying to hold back the individual from discovering their true potential all along.

(And for the record, it is quite obvious that humans and Neanderthals evolved separately, not in succession. The fossil record and radio-carbon dating of many human developments go well back to pre-Ice Age establishments. At this point science is saying that humans are much older than we previously thought.)

Rich Hoffman

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

Stephen Miller’s Take down of Jake Tapper: Fighting back in the right way

To see the wonderful interview by Stephen Miller on Jake Tapper’s CNN show; here it is.  Enjoy, and share it with a friend.

Rich Hoffman

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

Pot Users are the Clear and Present Enemy: The real reason California legalized recreational marijuana

There is nothing that comes good out of the legalization of pot, and it was quite astonishing to see how much exuberance there was on New Year’s Day when California made legal the recreational use of the vile drug marijuana. All of human civilization is built upon thought, no matter what the political predilections of the people—thinking is the core element in all society. Without thought there simply is no society and if you track the paths of the supporters of pot, you will find they nearly perfectly line up with abortion fanatics, global warming losers and other anti-capitalists of the political left. They are a contradictory lot of people who can be proven so by their support of every turtle crossing to hold up new roads and railways in California and their severe climate restrictions on new housing, but they support the utter destruction of the human mind with mind altering substances like pot. The reason they support the legalization of marijuana is that they are anti-human and are earth first fanatics who see the human race as a threat to the furtherance of our home planet. They are the natural extensions of the Marxist hippies which splashed on the scene halfway through the last century and they are intellectually aligned with anything that takes the human race back to the sun worshiping primitives of yesteryear.

The legalization of pot is the sign of a declining civilization and it reminds me of the many shopping malls around the country that are losing their brick and mortar stores to online shopping. I can think of one such mall in Cincinnati near where I live that was a thriving escapade of energy and excitement just a decade ago. Now it sits abandoned and decaying rapidly—and the reason is that the mall management failed to take proper action when they could have to save the enterprise. When their numbers began to decline at the start of the online shopping revolution, the mall management turned toward the youth to save it. They allowed for many nightclubs to infest its halls and they had late hours at the movie theater and gaming area to attract young people. Well, the mall was near several black neighborhoods where money was not easy to come by and there were many white neighborhoods nearby that were also poor, so turf wars erupted at the mall which scared away all the nice families who might otherwise spend their money there. Once mall management realized the error of their ways it was too late. The clientele of that establishment had found better places to spend their money and the customers never came back.

In a lot of ways that is what these states are doing when they legalize pot—they are looking for that short-term boost to their tax collecting endeavors while appealing to the young and the reckless. The youth to get more party laws enacted might therefore be expected to vote for Democrats to keep the fun going—but what they don’t see is that people move with their feet and soon there won’t be any economical means to help the state stay open for business. The logic of having a society that can function on drug activity is not realistic. Drug users of course will point to Amsterdam in Europe and Denmark as examples where this type of live and let live activity can thrive—but that’s in Europe—and it’s a very short-term social position. It cannot endure well into the future. When a state like California has to compete with Texas, Ohio, or Wyoming the people who support those high taxed states have options where in Europe they don’t. If you move from Amsterdam, the next socialist country like France and Germany have just as many problems. England is hardly a refuge, the housing prices are ridiculously high and the options for young people are quite bleak, because of their poor economic philosophies rooted in the work of Karl Marx.

Young people and those saddled with a lack of intelligence tend to view history by decades and often think of things that happened 30 years ago as being old. That is largely a condition of the political left in our modern era that teaches in public school that kids know more than their parents and that youth trumps experience—which of course it doesn’t. That is why they think from the vantage point of youth that they can legalize marijuana and that a society can thrive productively. It can’t, just as a drunk can’t be expected invent the next great step in human endeavor. A society of people stoned on pot are not going to advance civilization. No great society every sustained itself on intoxication—and it won’t start in California. There is nothing funny about intoxication—it is simply a step toward a culture in decline. The proper way to view civilization and the rules that govern each society is in the long view of 500 years or more. The question should be asked if any policy of social concern can enrich that society from the present to roughly 500 years in the future—and if it can, that is something to pursue. But to look at a society of pot users and think it could endure for even 50 years is a stretch. Pot use equates to a destroyed society and there is no flexibility in that assessment. It is a sure conclusion.

Many liberals who support the killing of humans through abortion—because they secretly think that the human species is something that should be nearly wiped away to protect the earth—also think that the American Indian is something special in the history of North America. The truth is that they were never Native Americans—they might be called rather native Chinese living in North America—or perhaps Vikings, Phoenicians—even Africans, but they came to be just as Americans did—they migrated from somewhere to start a life in a new world and they brought with them lots of stupid ideas. When George Washington was being inaugurated the various Indian nations were already in decline. If left to their own devices, they would have retreated into the primitive state of their ancestors as they emerged from the Ice Age. Their society was rooted heavily in sacrifice to the various gods of their mythology and they took mind altering substances as part of their socializing. The net result was that they were easy to beat when it came time to conduct Westward Expansion. Once beaten it was a tactic to get them addicted to alcohol due to their natural predilection for substance abuse and that pretty much sealed the deal on their claim to anything in North America. Many who support trends of less human intervention on earth are now seeking to turn the tables on Western Civilization by destroying the minds of our youth so that they are too stoned and drunk to further advance mankind into a Type 1 civilization—and that is precisely what is happening in California and these other places that are legalizing pot.

People will say that there are exceptions to this person or that who have smoked dope all their life and they were still bright functioning human beings. I suppose that may be true, although I have known many people who smoked a lot of pot (I never have and never will as it disgusts me) and all those people ended up dead beat losers—every one of them. I have watched so many lives be destroyed by pot use, and other drugs—alcohol included, that I have no faith that a society that accepts such intoxication can advance into the future. 100 years from now, the society that accepts pot as their recreation will be wiped away from the earth—which for progressives is the point. They will surely point to a possibility that Shakespeare smoked pot and declare that the intoxicant helps the mind—but they’d be wrong. There are no circumstances that pot is good for a human being looking forward to a fruitful future. It is a drug of decline and hopelessness. Every road that comes from pot leads to an end against a brick wall of human evolution and it’s a pathetic ingredient. It is in itself death which soothes an otherwise active mind to sleep perpetually giving victory to those aggressors in the world that hate the human race. It is not a coincidence that California will go out of its way to protect a rare fish, a forest of trees or even a specific kind of grass—but will support the destruction of human beings through the legalization of pot. That’s because they know pot will destroy the human race—its what they want. They want husks of human beings dead and vanquished like the poor fetuses of terminated pregnancies—yet they don’t want the guilt of actually killing anyone—so they have put their efforts behind pot to kill all humans and save the planet earth just long enough for it to be consumed by our own sun in a few billion years. Pot supports by their very nature don’t care about billions of years or even a 100 years. They are impatient ideologues of leftist philosophy with no concept of history—and they want only what they can see and touch right now which is a condition made worse by pot use. For those of us who do want to see a tomorrow—pot users are the clear and present enemy.

Rich Hoffman

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

Tom Steyer’s “Novacaine” Moment: Democrats learn ‘How to Live as Ghosts’

I hadn’t been paying much attention to Tom Steyer’s multimillion dollar campaign to impeach President Trump—because I don’t watch much television—so I didn’t see his ads.  With Netflix, Amazon Prime, new movie releases at the theater—countless books—family activities, a busy professional life followed by needed time for myself—my life and Tom Steyer’s just didn’t connect. Aside from that, I think he’s a loser and I only have room for a minimum number of losers in my life and he’s not on the list.  But I did catch one of his ads over the Holiday and was pretty amazed at his audacity.  What makes him think someone like me is going to let him get away with impeaching Trump?  If such a thing were to happen doesn’t that open the door to do things the other way—using violence if necessary?

Tom Steyer is exactly the reason we needed Trump in the first place.  There are all these billionaires out there who are very liberal, who don’t want competition—like Steyer, Soros—Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffett, Bloomberg and many others who have thrown their money at candidates America hates to take the country in a direction traditionalists don’t want to go.  They are used to controlling Hollywood, they are used to controlling the publishing industry, the mainstream media and virtually everything we see and hear—so it drives them crazy that a fellow billionaire was able to run for office and win—and he doesn’t need their money so is beyond their control.  And now they are getting desperate.  Steyer might otherwise throw his money behind Democrats in 2018, but guess what—there aren’t any worth spending money on so all they have as progressives is the hope that they might be able to push Trump out of office.  Obviously, because they aren’t very smart, they haven’t thought things through to their conclusions.  What they do now sets a tone for the future and they’ll have to live with the consequences.  Speaking for myself, I’m not going to get behind anything that Tom Steyer is involved in.  It’s just not going to happen.  Even by some remote fantasy Steyer and his progressives were to impeach Trump—does he really think we’re going to turn in our guns and say—“well, I guess you guys won.”  LOL, not a chance, they are cheating and those progressives have opened themselves to really bad times in the future if they persist.

There is a lot of unneeded concern about how the Democrats might do in 2018.  Let me remind everyone that I predicted an end to the Democratic Party within a few years, and they are right on track.  The desperation that billionaire donors like Steyer are exhibiting now are due to their lack of options and their ads sound foolish in reflecting that.  Trump had every right to fire James Comey—there was no obstruction of justice for a phony campaign created by Democrats to try to stop the inauguration of a justifiably legal election that Trump won.  Where FISA warrants were granted based on inflammatory and bogus information meant to unmask legitimate members of the Trump campaign. The Democrats and their progressive supporters have broken so many laws and made such embarrassments of our legal system that trust will never go back into their direction. That pendulum has shifted forever and Steyer apparently is so corrupted by ideology that he doesn’t see it.  But you know what bothers people like him even more—his money suddenly has no power—as it once did—and that has all these types of people terrified.

The other benefit to Donald Trump is that he largely made his money off his charisma—they guy is an all in one package master communicator.  These other guys, including Zuckerberg from Facebook are stiff nerds who come across on camera as idiots—and their money can’t protect them any longer.  They can’t compete with Trump and they can’t buy people who can for the first time in their lives.  In the past we’ve tried on the political right to elect our own wealthy people—like Steve Forbes and Ross Perot, but they were too much like Tom Steyer—they didn’t have great screen presence the way a very charismatic actor would.  Their political campaigns came out flat, and that’s what’s happening now with progressives.  They are discovering that with all their control of the media, with all their manipulation of the Beltway that now people have a choice, they don’t have candidates in their stables to compete with the world that Trump has established.  That is why they are in a panic, because they know the world as they have controlled it, is now over.

Trump’s New Year’s celebration bringing in 2018 was a rebirth of American spirit in many ways that we haven’t seen in this country since the Golden Days of Hollywood.  It was optimistic in all the ways you’d expect from a nation born by Adam Smith’s philosophy of economic morality articulated in The Wealth of Nations.  That is what people like Steyer have been trying to keep away from the American people yet it is happening regardless.  It’s only been one year of the Trump administration and he has accomplished quite a lot.  He’s on par with my expectations and has set up a 2018 that will be even greater, because now he has had a chance to put his feet in the water and started swimming.  The Republican Party needed to be united after a difficult 2015—and that essentially happened with the tax cuts at the end of 2017.  The Democrats have not had their come to Jesus moment.  They have people like Steyer and Soros ready to write them checks, but there is nobody worth spending the money on, only ghosts from the past.  Progressive ideas and Democratic Party platform concepts have been rejected and that is part of a new trend which is emerging.

Calls for impeachment based on loose accusations while the other side actually did break many laws aren’t going to cut it in this new age.  Watching Tom Steyer’s commercials against Trump is like watching the ghosts from the music video by 10 Years called “Novacaine.”  It’s a song from their album called How to Live as Ghosts and I think it fits quite accurately the condition of the current Democratic Party.  They are chasing ghosts, things that worked in the past but are no longer relevant in the world and they keep going through the same failures over and over ad infinitum.  No matter how many checks Steyer and his progressive insurgents write, he is still going through the same routine over and over going nowhere only to come back to the beginning and wondering if anything happened at all.  Meanwhile, Republicans are moving forward with a fresh guilt free philosophy of renewed interest in capitalism.

I personally consider Tom Steyer’s attempts to be an insult to my vote—but I have more faith in our government this year with Trump in control of it than I did last year when Obama was hanging on to power with everything he could utilize to stop 2017 from happening.  I know for myself if our government ever tries to present what they have, knowing what we do today, that I will exercise my rights to overthrow them—because they are not competent to run my government.  Now that I know how dirty the progressives really are in America, I have no desire to share my country with them.  They need to leave and go someplace else—like Europe if they want all the socialism that they seem to enjoy so much.  To Steyer, he is fine with socialism because he figures he can control the parties at play with his money, so he will always have a seat of aristocracy to enjoy.  But that just isn’t acceptable to the American way of life where anybody willing to work hard can have a shot at the highest levels of power.  To achieve those needs we had to have a president like Trump who didn’t need to appease people like Steyer, or even Mark Cuban, Bezos—really a countless list of very wealthy people who fundamentally want to change America into something else that limits opportunities for other people.  I am pleased to see that like the music video “Novacaine,” that Tom Steyer is already a ghost replaying his failed philosophy over and over again as the rest of the living world moves on without him—and that is a truly beautiful thing.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Death of Lean Manufacturing: Self confidence and experience can’t be tracked on a graph–but they make everything possible

I normally don’t cross the streams of my projects but I had an experience recently that was worth sharing, and well heck, it’s Christmas and if I can help a few people today—then why not.  For professional reasons I had to re-read The Machine that Changed the World which was written by three college academics, Don Jones, Dan Ross, and Jim Womack.  I never liked the book even though there are some very good things about business within it.  Instinctively I hated the message of Lean manufacturing—to me it was like a cult—but being in manufacturing in a leadership capacity I obviously had to know as much about Lean manufacturing techniques as possible to talk the language with everyone else.  I needed to re-read the aforementioned book because the project I’m working on requires it heavily so I had to pull the baby out of it while disposing of the bathwater you might say.  To me the elements of that book that are good are guided largely by Mr. Womack and are things I learned instinctively by working really hard for a very long time.  I didn’t need Womack to tell me to decentralize my processes, or to have horizontal management systems.  Or to build as much of a product as close to the same room as every other process to maximize efficiency—or countless other similar things.  I’ve understood those concepts since before that book was written for a 1990s audience.  Rather I am quite certain that Womack and his friends sought to use academia to become part of the manufacturing world for their own self relevance in the late 1980s and that they’ve scammed many businesses into buying in to this Lean concept which was essentially to use common sense techniques sharpened after several decades of mass production methods as a base point, and to unite the world and its governments under a common manufacturing technique which would unleash globalism to the masses.  However, Womack and his academic buddies were wrong—and I’m here to declare that Lean manufacturing is dead—if it were ever alive really in the first place other than selling itself as a Frankenstein monster of copied techniques not really understood for why they worked, but only that they did.  The next method of global manufacturing technique is likely somewhere along the lines of what I presented to my manufacturing team as a Christmas present witnessed below.  It’s a radical idea which I think was always the essence of Lean manufacturing but will be further drawn out by necessity in the future—the role the individual plays in utilizing minimal force for maximum results as a cascading effect of influence which comes from The Power of Positive Thinking. It’s a major metaphysical shift in thought which takes the globalism out of manufacturing and instead recognizes the immense power that an individual plays in the utterances of productive output.  I provided a demonstration using my bullwhip as a metaphor for daily action.

Once I cleared childhood and the natural fears that come from being little in a big world—like loud noises, water, falling and speaking in front of people, I have been fear free most of my conscious life.  I have never been a person who functioned from fear; I never feared authority figures, bullies, or circumstances beyond the horizon of the living world.  And no matter how harsh the world was, I never backed down from it.  In spite of living a very aggressive life I’ve never had a moment of crises where I gave up and turned away.  I’ve certainly wanted to, but I never have had that experience of defeat in the face of a challenge.  I never thought to because nowhere in my mind was anything ever supposed to be easy. I never had that contamination of thought.  Even as I read more books than any contemporary I know, I also understood that such a practice was quite common in the year’s past.  As a young man not yet out of my twenties I took my family to Thomas Jefferson’s home in Monticello because I thought it was important for them to have that experience in life.  Privately when our guide explained to me that Jefferson’s library started the Library of Congress, and that the former president had read voraciously over 1000 books—I silently endeavored to outdo him.  It was a goal I set for myself, and a lofty one.  In that regard my formal education has never stopped as I now read books like Womack’s for lunch.  I am currently re-reading Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations just because I am sure the message of 2018 will be all about capitalism as the Trump presidency turns it loose once again—and my role in all this is to explain it to people.   I enjoy my role and I love my books—but most of what I know came from the unique circumstances for which I learned to live in the world—and the many hard jobs I have had while being completely fearless about the actions that would come at me from day to day.  Over a twenty year period of my life I did every kind of job imaginable, from cleaning toilets to being a great sales closer.  I worked in every kind of assembly environment and at every level.  And while I was doing all that I became a very respectable bullwhip artist—and in my head all those things do go together.

Having no fear means that I approach things without restrictions of thought.  For instance, the little presentation I did professionally was unique because most in my position would never risk the credibility to their reputation to start with.  What if I had missed that candle, or not delivered my speech correctly?  I could have done more damage than good.  But the most important element to my life that makes me unique and good at what I do is my self confidence.  I never worry about not achieving something because I have enough personal love for what I do and know to trust it.  I have been tested in every way that a human being can be, and fear has tried to work its way into my life for decades, but it has never found an unlocked door for which to color my thoughts with even a single self doubt.  Part of my presentation to those very nice people was to show them that part of what makes people good is that practice and confidence which can deliver them to the promise land of prosperity.  And that it doesn’t always take force, it just takes focus.

What made the Toyota method work in Womack’s analysis which launched the Lean approach to most things business these days, was that the Japanese had a samurai culture which bred this kind of self-confidence, but additionally as people from Asia naturally worked well together in a team setting.  After World War II they were an occupied country dominated by their former enemy, the United States.  So with the same vigor that they kamikazed American ships at sea with a never say die attitude toward conflict, they sought to exploit the weaknesses of American manufacturing’s mass production techniques and applied their own spin built from their ancient warrior codes.  Using the American Deming as a foundation they invented Lean manufacturing as a way to put themselves back on top of the world and recover their losses after the war—and college academics like Womack and his friends saw a vehicle toward globalism for which they could hang their star.  But they all missed the point.   Europe as well never quite understood Lean manufacturing.  They certainly understood the team concept of brothers before stars and all that—but they could not get the idea introduced by the Japanese of lifelong employment starting at the bottom and working your way to the very top—always staying at the same company to preserve the assets in training for which each individual brings to the table.

The next wave of manufacturing philosophy will embody some formal core element for which I shared with my business partners above—and which I share with you today.  It doesn’t matter to me whether or not I am talking to only 150 employees or 30,000, the message of concentrated individual effort is the same—and the trust in themselves to do whatever task is needed.  For my demonstration, putting out the candle in front of a crowd when I have everything to lose and very little to gain was more than a stunt for some Holiday cheer, it was a demonstration in self-confidence that I wished to share for a more profitable 2018.  Nobody who works for me is the type of people I want to be scared when I walk into a room.  I wish for every human being on planet earth the same reality I have—a no fear approach to everything, and if I can get them there with some instruction, I’ll do it every time there is an opportunity. However, the keys to good business is not from formalized education or in methods of team building that ignore that there is no I in team, but there is in win—but that victories large and small come from the individual focused on what they are doing and sprinkle into their productivity a self assuredness that was always in the underbelly of Lean manufacturing.  That confidence never came from a European style chain of command, but from living and being confident in what you do in a microcosm so that the macrocosm was better off for it—and that is the real trick.

Just as I explained that to put a candle out with a bullwhip requires placing the small sonic boom right in front of the flame—a good productive life is just as delicate.  In putting out candles to do it successfully requires many thousands of possible trajectories of movement to get that sonic boom to occur in just the right place. My experience and practice allow me to find that spot quickly and within a few attempts.  When I did my demonstration the way to assure more accuracy would have been to mark on the floor the exact distance from the candle.  But I didn’t do that, nor did I use a targeting fixture for which I was accustomed.  While those things might have given more closer to 100% accuracy, they would have been meaningless for my demonstration.  I simply went down to IKEA for lunch and picked up whatever candle arrangement they had for the Holiday season.  Everything was very spontaneous which forced me to react to those changing circumstances and illicit to my audience the self-confidence it takes to pull off something like that.  Once they had seen me do it, then in their own minds it unlocked the possibilities they likely all thought about—and it was my hope that it didn’t just make them better employees for me, but in every aspect of their lives.  And in that statement is the key to the next generation of manufacturing and all things related to production.

Rich Hoffman

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

Realities of Sex Trafficking: Somalia, Ukraine and Thailand–American feminists are part of the problem

I really don’t want to hear from some American feminist how abused they think they are being treated every time a man looks at them in an elevator, or accidentally brushes up against their ass in a hallway until they get behind the effort of saving truly abused women around the world involved in sex trafficking. I would start by telling them this truly sad story about a young Christian girl who survived her experience with the terror group Al Shabaab in Kenya along the trade route from Somalia described below.  The region being discussed is a remote and impoverished area with very few options for women or men. Many of the men who are in Al Shabaab are there to be militant Muslims due to their limited economic options—so the root of the evil is poor economic conditions—for which adherence to open capitalism would solve.  For instance, if a lot of these militants could work at a local Dollar Store—or Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, they would gladly.  But if all there is to do is to be a militant to make money—then that’s what they do.  And sex trafficking isn’t limited to this type of remote African region. When people wonder why Donald Trump’s administration is now selling weapons to Ukraine, to free that country from its heavily Russian past, again there sex trafficking is the core issue.  Ukraine is now considered the Thailand of Europe where the unethical predators seeking illicit sex with young boys and girls occur openly.  No matter where the region limited employment conditions attract people to sell themselves to others for sex and that is a tremendous problem that requires diligence.  When American feminists attempt to villainize normal sexual behavior between men and women as a political power grab within the industrialized world, all they are really doing is exacerbating the global trend toward sex trafficking—and until they do address the illicit trade—what they say and do means nothing.

“Sex Slave Survivor of Christian-Killing Group Al-Shabaab Describes Gang Rapes, Forced Abortions,” by Stoyan Zaimov, Christian Post, December 12, 2017 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A woman who was held captive and repeatedly raped by members of Al Shabaab is sharing the horrific details of daily sexual abuse and forced abortions endured by those who are kidnapped by the the radical Islamic terror group.

Kenya’s The Standard reported on Sunday the story of one of the women who survived the ordeal at Boni Forest camp, identified as Fatuma, who said that she and others were raped by as many as six men at a time for five years.

“The women in the camp had to cook, wash clothes for the militants and undertake other household duties. The fighters frequently physically and sexually abused us. Some militants would beat us if they did not like something we cooked, which was often for me as I was not familiar with cooking Somali injera (bread) that was preferred by the militants,” Fatuma, who managed to escape the jihadists a year ago, explained.

She said the militants forced the women to use contraceptives and undergo abortions when they got pregnant.

The abuse reportedly worsened when Al-Shabaab fighters battled the African Union Mission in Somalia or Somalia National Army troops.

“They would drink and take drugs all day and night, whether celebrating the killing of Somalia National Army or AMISOM soldiers or mourning their own, and that’s when the gang rapes would happen,” she recalled.

Fatuma said that only the female captives who were married off to commanders were allowed to have children, and said that there were about 15 children at the camp.

The woman, who admitted that she was looking for work with Al-Shabaab before finding out what the group is really about, said that captives were also often forced to use drugs and were treated as prisoners.

“If you were lucky, a commander would take you as a wife and that would stop other militants from raping you. But those who were made wives were only native Somalis,” she said….

https://pamelageller.com/2017/12/sex-slave-shabaab.html/

It’s one thing when men and women decide to enter the sex trade as free people—the way they do in Las Vegas, or at Times Square in New York.  They could choose to work in the sex trade or become a cashier at Macy’s—they have a choice.  There are many options in America that the rest of the world doesn’t have.  But consider the kid in Thailand who is trying to support all his brothers and sisters in that impoverished country who works the sex trade in red light districts serving up sex to dirty old men who come there from around the world just to have under aged sex.  There are no options but to engage in the sex—and that is a vast evil all its own.  The correct thing to do is to bring options to those people so they could have a choice in the matter.

Showing the impoverished countries how to function as capitalist zones is the first step in correcting the behavior.   Bringing economic choices to such young people addresses the problem on the supply side.  And it also attacks the demand—which is vastly a larger problem than the poor kids getting lured into these shameful existences.  Much like the drug industry in America where demand is high so supply always finds a way to meet the market need, we must use the morality of capitalism to use financial options to alter the behavior.  For instance, there’s a reason American women don’t feel that they have to sell themselves on the street to pay for a bus ticket to see their mothers—that’s because they can work at a local McDonald’s, or the shopping mall to make the money they need.  Dirty old men are forced to go elsewhere looking for illicit sex.  It does happen in every town across America, but it tends to be a problem hidden largely from our first looks.  But in places like Ukraine, or in Thailand, the sex trade is as common on the street as someone selling refrigerator magnates to tourists are.

Frustrated men from around the world who don’t know what the rules are for sex any more in their “civilized” societies back home, flood these sex trafficking markets on business travel and sex vacations which has only increased the demand.  That behavioral problem is the next thing to tackle once economic mobility is introduced to even the smallest village in Africa or southeast Asia.  It is stunning how many women on any street in Europe will take off her clothes and have sex with anybody with a little cash—because cash is not easy to get.  Even in cities like London and Paris, economic options are very limited leaving women to be all too tempted to use their bodies to pay their high rent each week.  Rent in London is extraordinarily expensive making it very tempting for women to sell their young bodies in any way possible to cover the high costs of living in that town.  They may not do such things every day, but once or twice a year is too much.  They may pass off such encounters as casual sex with strangers in exchange for a little financial security.  They don’t work the streets directly but go to just about any dance club and the sex trafficking issue is fully at play.  The next morning they can blame it on the drink to save their reputations to some extent, but they shouldn’t have to make such a choice.  In America, finding women to sell sex is much harder, because they have so many other economic options.  The key to fighting this evil is economic mobility—not handouts from the government, but an adhesion to capitalist concepts.

Thus the cause of this very evil business is limited economic options, so that is where we must focus.  Feminists who complain that Harvey Weinstein grabbed their boobies so they could have a role in a Hollywood movie are just describing the high-end of this very world-wide problem.  Those girls have options, they could let a sleaze bag like Weinstein grope them, or they could work an office job for some respectable position—for less money mind you, but they have that option.  A poor girl in Kenya has no choice when she is captured by Al Shabaab and forced to be gang raped daily by 5 to 6 men for many years. She is in that situation because of limited economic mobility.  Even though Ukraine is part of the civilized world, Russia wants it back as a territory and has been trying to choke it off militarily to fall back under the mother country with impoverished conditions as the rest of Europe has been happy to have chaos rule.  Why you might ask, because the powerful men and women who could solve the problems in Ukraine go there for the sex, to satisfy those deep dark demons that lurk in their repressed imaginations.  That leaves Ukraine with very few options economically except to yield to the sex addicted tourists who have full pockets and are seeking the bodies of the young to spend it on.  That is a topic that liberal feminists in America won’t touch with a pole of any length—because they are as guilty as anybody for the perpetuation of such an evil—which makes them all pathetic hypocrites—and part of the problem as well.

Rich Hoffman

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

The ‘Star Wars’ Backlash: Disney’s choice to make progressive films has hurt their product sustainability for the future

Disney could have avoided the whole issue.  They will make their money regardless, but all the controversy surrounding their new Star Wars film The Last Jedi was completely unnecessary.  The movie will do good business in spite of a sharp drop off in the weeks after its release—but like The Force Awakens that came before it; it could have done much better.   Many will argue that these movies didn’t need to do anything—they are making more money than any other film in the history of planet earth.  But there are problems with sustainability here that are clear—especially in The Last Jedi.  These filmmakers decided to make a noticeably progressive film complete with an emphasis on girl power, the fair treatment of animals, interracial romance, and even trying to throw a bone toward the gay community by hiring Laura Dern—the girl who helped Ellen come out of the closet.  The white guys are the bad guys and everyone else is trying to climb out from under their wrath—which is the essential part of the story—so of course the critics loved it.  But the audience score is noticeably hovering at only 50% which was a stunner for many analysts in the week leading up to Christmas.  It really shouldn’t be—my thoughts about the film nearly reflect the review by Ben Shapiro below—which is sometimes very funny—because it’s true.

The original movies were conservative movies whether or not George Lucas intended them that way or not.  They were warnings of big government imposing its will on people. They were also warnings about how a group of leftists such as the Nazis could emerge in a society with “thunderous applause.”  So conservatives like myself and young Ben Shapiro tend to be drawn to Star Wars and the core message.  And yes, the Nazis were socialist radicals of a left leaning philosophy which they borrowed from the Democrats in America. That is all historically accurate, yet the modern progressive left is trying to suppress that history and attribute them all to the political right.  That mess of thought is what ends up in a movie like The Last Jedi—where all the major plot points only work because of nostalgia but all the actions of the characters seem goofy and foreign—which is forgivable in a kids film.  But these are not the kinds of stories that will be beloved for decades like the originals were.  The modern political left doesn’t know what it is or what it believes because everything they love is built on lies.  That trait is quite clear in most Hollywood productions now because the entire industry is functioning from the same neurosis.

As I said with The Force Awakens, Disney could have avoided all this by just sticking to the stories of George Lucas and the canon established by the Extended Universe.  It was all there for them—hard core fans would have embraced a new trilogy set 40 years after Return of the Jedi with Jaina Solo leading the way as the new protagonist—but Disney and Lucasfilm wanted to tell a more progressive story.  In the EU Luke had built a wonderful Jedi school that was defending the galaxy against threats even from outside the galaxy.  Han Solo was the every reliable dad who always knew best—and was a respectable grandfather.  And Princess Leia was learning to be a Jedi master.  Hard core fans would have been satisfied, and casual fans would have still enjoyed the stories for the reasons they like these new ones.  Instead Lucasfilm led by Kathy Kennedy and Bob Iger decided that gender was more important, that showing common people from anywhere could do anything was more important and that progressive concerns were the driving force of these new movies where traditionalists were the villains.  In the Kathy Kennedy movies Han Solo was a deadbeat dad who failed his son and ran away from his wife. Luke is a loser who tried to kill his student and when he failed he retreated to an island to hide from the responsibilities of the galaxy making everything that happened in the original trilogy pointless—in every regard.  So of course only half the audience coming out of the theaters like the new movie.  Critics only like the progressive elements, but the people who have been fans and kept the film franchise at the top for so long were certainly ignored—and they aren’t happy about it.

I gave up on loving these movies.  I enjoy them because my grandkids like them, and they aren’t so bad that they don’t do what good mythology is supposed to do, and that is inform young people about right and wrong.  For me just getting a new John Williams soundtrack is enough.  The music from The Last Jedi is absolutely stunning.  But I can’t help but think that The Last Jedi was the last real Star Wars movie because the modern filmmakers just don’t have it in the tank to know what made Star Wars great to begin with.  They are too liberal and really don’t understand history the way that George Lucas did and it shows in the writing.  The entire plot of Rose and Finn in The Last Jedi was a liberal diatribe on the evils of capitalism and the correct treatment of animals.  The climax of the whole exchange was to show that a chubby Asian girl could kiss a black guy after saving him from a pointless suicide mission.  All that might be fine for some show on Netflix but in Star Wars—don’t expect everyone to love the movie when that kind of obvious political garbage is being shoved down the audiences’ throat.  Sure it did what Disney wanted, and pulled great reviews out of the critics—but that only front loaded the anticipation.  When audiences got into the theater and saw all that crap, they were obviously let down—and that isn’t good for the future of Star Wars.

I won’t lose any sleep over any of it.  I’m an EU guy.  I’m trying to give these new movies a chance mainly because they are the movies of my grandchildren’s generation and I want to share these stories with them.  But they are really screwing it up for the future at Lucasfilm—and it was all so unnecessary.  I still think that Rey in the movie is the daughter of Han and Leia Solo—and at this point it’s the only thing that can really save the franchise.  I think that will be the big reveal in Episode 9.  If not that, Han and Leia Solo were the worst parents in the galaxy and all the events of the original trilogy were meaningless.  Disney could have had all the good stuff right out of the gate and gone much further if they had just stayed away from doing their own thing and ignoring the EU.  They chose to make some upfront money while sacrificing the whole thing down the road—they destroyed the sustainability of it.  And that is why there is a very real Star Wars backlash showing up in the audience scoring.  Those scores mean many millions of lost dollars and that is trouble down the road for everyone connected to these movies. They should have listened up front and not been so audacious to think they could change things and still get away with a beloved series.

Rich Hoffman

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

Equal Justice Under the Law: Why we should kick down the doors to the FBI and arrest Peter Strzok

If you didn’t catch Judge Jeanine’s segment on the FBI investigation led by Robert Mueller then you can see it below—or if you did you can see it again.  She does a really nice job of laying out the case of just how bad the FBI treated the incoming Trump presidency from the outset.  The reluctance that people who depend on these federal institutions is understandable do to their belief that FBI integrity keeps us safe from the bad guys out there in the world.  But once it is understood how serious all this is, and the depth of the crimes that were committed by the FBI, consciously—it becomes clear that the only recourse is to destroy that institution so that we can rebuild it better.  Trump said what we are all thinking, the FBI has lost its fine reputation and the ground agents allowed it to happen.  The people at the top were dreadfully corrupt, and the bootlickers below them did nothing about it because nobody wanted to jeopardize their opportunity for a promotion.  So we have a mess that needs to be fixed and we won’t do that playing patty cake with these guys.

As I write this I have full faith in the Trump White House to continue exposing this issue and shaming Capitol Hill into correcting the action.  But I have not forgotten how bad Eric Holder was during his years with the Obama administration.  I have not forgotten Loretta Lynch, or Lois Lehrer at the IRS.  I haven’t forgotten any of those things—and much more.  The only difference between now and then is that my kind of guy is in the White House and I’m hoping the situation can be corrected non violently and under the blind eyes of justice.  But for the record should I ever be deposed for some future actions—lets this little declarative statement cast light on my thoughts.  I’m not OK with Peter Strzok interviewing General Flynn and using that information to prosecute the guy ruining his life just because he was associated with the Trump campaign.  That same guy did not apply equal justice under the law to Hillary Clinton and her various associates.  It was he who gave them all a pass when serious crimes were committed.  And his activism was chronicled in text exchanges with his girlfriend who was working at the FBI as well.  When he stated to her that he intended to provide an insurance policy against the Trump election that was all any of us needed to hear.  He should not be working in human resources within the FBI until the smoke clears.  He needs to be at a minimum fired and likely put in jail—and everyone associated with him should be terminated as well.  Anything less would be criminal.

I’m not going to forget.  There won’t be some magical day ten years from now when all this will blow over and life at the FBI will return to normal.  No, it only gets worse from here.  The FBI, an unelected group of law enforcement officers, doesn’t get to decide who our president is or isn’t.  They are there to enforce the laws that congress creates-and that’s it.  They don’t get to go off and do their own thing and use the massive power we’ve given them to undercut the process.  People like me put up with Obama, Clinton, and many years of a government that certainly didn’t represent me.  We didn’t assassinate anyone or go into the streets with our guns to demand a better government.  We let the process run its course and we sought to fix the problems the correct and legal way—and it took a lot of time and who knows how many countless trillions of dollars of potential.  I could have easily have looked at the situation and said as Strzok did, that it was up to me to solve these problems for the good of the nation, because I knew better.  Only I don’t have a FBI at my disposal to manipulate things to my liking.  I have other things, but not control of a tax payer funded institution.  So under Strzok’s reasoning, it would be perfectly OK if I used violence and physical domination to turn the country back to the ideas that I think are appropriate—right?  That is the problem of Strzok, he opened up this mess and now we have to fix it.  Because if action is not taken against him, then there is no justice or trust in those institutions to correct themselves sending a clear message to the rest of us that if we really want to solve the problem, then we will have to do it with violence.

If that’s how the FBI wants it, I have no problem with that—violence.  Don’t think for a moment that anybody is going to come into my home kicking in doors and harassing my family in the middle of the night the way they treated Paul Manafort and that they’ll walk away alive that day.  It’s not going to happen, let me just say that.  I have no respect for a law enforcement agency that is guilty of crime themselves but don’t have that same treatment applied to them.  In my way of viewing the world Strzok should be arrested immediately, all his assets confiscated and he should be drug into the street naked and beaten into a bloody lump of flesh, until his jaw bone was dangling from his face with just a few pieces of skin—still alive, but a beating he would never forget.  That’s the only kind of justice I would respect after what he did.

Imagine you’re Paul Manafort—forget about any potential crime for a moment.  Paul is an insider who knew how the game was played and he was playing it.  The Clintons were playing the same game and so were the Podestas—so I don’t want to hear about any potential crimes that Manafort might have been engaged in.  If it was good for everyone else in the Beltway, it was good for Paul.  If it’s not good for Manafort, then I expect to see the same treatment for everyone else.  So let’s use that as a clarifying statement.  So there he was in bed with his wife and the FBI barges in with great urgency damaging property and wielding guns into their faces—in their private residence—as if the needs of the FBI were greater than the needs of Paul Manafort.  They call this a “no-knock” raid and in this case FBI agents picked the lock at 4:30 AM and barged into the residence to obtain documents that special investigator Mueller thought he needed for his case against a sitting president. I’m just saying, if I hear a sound at the door at 4:30 AM, there will be trouble.  And If I wake up to guns in my face, there will be even more trouble.  These types of raids are not permissible in the spirit of the United States idea.  The legal whizzes out there may have found a way to establish case-law precedent, but that doesn’t make them right.  The just thing would have been to gun down all the intruders on the spot because they were invading the sacred space of an American and his private property, which is the cornerstone to everything America represents.

https://michaelsavage.com/2017/10/30/manafort-charges-grew-out-of-records-seized-in-no-knock-raid/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/08/10/no-knock-raids-like-the-one-against-paul-manafort-are-more-common-than-you-think/?utm_term=.f79fc24a85a5

That’s where things get murky.  Manafort cooperated as the FBI thugs molested his wife and he turned over the documents—and Mueller spent another five months going over things before indicting Manafort costing him millions of dollars in losses.  If I were Manafort I would view the whole incident as something that ruined my life—I couldn’t live with that kind of imposition.  I’d have to get revenge on somebody and I’d require the skin off somebody’s back before I let the issue drift away.  If anybody points a gun in my wife’s face while she’s in bed, I’d have to do something—I don’t give a rat’s ass what the law says.  Just because guns are pointed at you that doesn’t mean you die.  Just because you get shot it doesn’t mean you die.  Pointed guns are not enough to stop violence.  Nothing out there in the world is more important than my castle, no social cause, not government, no “inclusive” concept about the “greater good.”  Nothing is better or more sacred than what goes on within the walls of my private kingdom–my personal residence.  To my way of thinking if you don’t have that there isn’t anything to live for to fight on another day—so why not give it everything you have right then and there?  What’s Manafort supposed to do now; he knows that the arrest was purely a political hit job.  His family has been abused in the process by the might of our government and he has had personal wealth stolen from him to feed an inefficient court system.  I feel a lot of passion about this, I actually wrote a book called The Tail of the Dragon which is about this very type of morality situation and with me it’s quite clear—we don’t protect ourselves enough from enemies within the state—and we damn well should.

Now though this case is well beyond the crimes against Manafort and Flynn, they are assaults to all of us who voted for Donald Trump.  I view the election of Donald Trump as the most important thing that’s happened politically in my lifetime.  True, it’s my point of view, but my point of view was in the majority this time—as the rules of the Electoral College mandate.  We played by the rules, we did the right things, and the FBI crossed the line—they broke the law and someone has to pay.  So is it appropriate under equal justice under the law to kick in the doors to the FBI guns wielding in the faces of these insurgents so that we can rip Peter Strzok out of his human resources job and ruin his life the way he has attempted to ruin the lives of others?  I say yes.  I’m willing to let the law do its thing, and I have hope that the process will work—I’d say it’s working right now.  But we won’t be going back to some good ol’ days within the bureau where these types of things got pushed under the rug.  We know too much, and we also know that because there isn’t equal justice that if we see FBI agents coming into our homes—then we have to defend ourselves.  After all if their agents are like Peter Strzok—what separates them from criminals breaking into our homes and stealing the fruits of our hard labor?  Nothing.

Rich Hoffman

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