Tag: racism

Don’t Play Nice with Democrats: If we have a true representative republic, made by the will of the people, Republicans will always hold a majority

The recent decision by the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais, handed down on April 29, 2026, represents a watershed moment in American constitutional law and the long struggle to restore color-blind principles to our electoral system. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court declared Louisiana’s congressional map—specifically Senate Bill 8, which had created a second majority-Black district—an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, made clear that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not justify the state’s predominant use of race in drawing district lines. The map, which stretched across more than 200 miles to link disparate Black communities in a serpentine fashion reminiscent of earlier racial districts struck down decades ago, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition on racial discrimination in voting. This was not a mere technicality; it was a direct rebuke to the practice of engineering electoral outcomes by segregating voters according to skin color, a tactic we have seen deployed for years under the guise of “protecting minority rights.” The decision affirms what we have long contended: treating citizens differently based on race to create artificial voting blocs does not advance equality—it undermines it. 

We must pause here to appreciate the full weight of this ruling. For too long, certain political actors have exploited the Voting Rights Act not as a shield against genuine discrimination but as a sword to carve up the electorate into racial fiefdoms. Louisiana’s 2020 census data showed a roughly 33 percent Black population, yet lower courts had ordered the legislature to draw two majority-Black districts from the state’s six congressional seats, even though the state’s 2022 map already complied with traditional districting principles and partisan considerations. When the legislature complied by drawing SB8 to include a second such district, non-Black voters challenged it as an impermissible racial gerrymander. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the Voting Rights Act, properly construed, did not require Louisiana to engage in such race-based line-drawing. As Justice Alito explained, Section 2 cannot be read to collide with the Constitution itself; it enforces the Fifteenth Amendment, not overrides equal protection guarantees. This disentangles race from politics in a way that prior cases like Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP had begun to demand, forcing courts and legislatures to prove that race, not partisanship, predominated. The implications ripple far beyond Louisiana’s borders. Maps in states across the nation that relied on similar racial balancing acts now face renewed scrutiny, potentially shifting dozens of seats toward fairer representation based on actual voter preferences rather than engineered demographics. 

To understand why this decision has Democrats in such visible distress—melting down in public statements and media commentary as if their very survival depended on it—we have to step back and examine the deeper history of gerrymandering and its evolution into a tool of racial politics. The term itself dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a redistricting plan that created a salamander-shaped district designed to favor his Democratic-Republican Party. A Boston newspaper coined the term “gerrymander,” blending Gerry’s name with the creature’s form, and the practice became a bipartisan sin in American politics. Both parties have engaged in partisan gerrymandering over the centuries, drawing oddly contoured districts to pack opponents into fewer seats or to crack their support across many seats. The Supreme Court, in cases like Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), has rightly held that pure partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions best left to legislatures and voters. Yet racial gerrymandering occupies a different constitutional plane because it triggers strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. When race becomes the predominant factor—subordinating traditional criteria such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions—the state must demonstrate a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. This doctrine traces directly to Shaw v. Reno (1993), where the Court invalidated North Carolina’s bizarre, snakelike majority-Black district drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that such plans “reinforce the perception that members of the same racial group…think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls.” We could not agree more; this racial essentialism treats citizens as members of monolithic groups rather than individuals with diverse views. 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 itself was a triumph of the civil rights movement, dismantling Jim Crow barriers like literacy tests and poll taxes that had disenfranchised Black Americans for a century. Section 2 prohibits any “standard, practice, or procedure” that denies or abridges the right to vote on account of race or color. In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), the Court established a three-prong test for Section 2 claims: a minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority in a single-member district; it must be politically cohesive; and the majority must vote sufficiently as a bloc to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate. These were narrow, remedial tools for cases of extreme dilution. Yet over decades, activists and Democratic strategists stretched Section 2 into a mandate for maximizing majority-minority districts wherever possible, often ignoring the Gingles compactness requirement by creating sprawling districts that connected far-flung communities solely by racial data. The 1982 amendments to the Act, passed by Congress amid debates over “results” versus “intent,” further encouraged this by allowing plaintiffs to prevail based on electoral outcomes rather than on proven discriminatory intent. By the 1990s, after the 1990 census, the Department of Justice, under the first Bush administration and later Clinton, aggressively pressured states to draw as many such districts as possible, leading to the very plans that were scrutinized in Shaw. We saw this pattern repeat after every census: 2000, 2010, and especially 2020, when population shifts and court orders forced states like Louisiana, Alabama, and others to redraw lines with race front and center. 

Contrast this with the Court’s 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan, which required Alabama to create a second majority-Black congressional district. There, the majority (including Chief Justice Roberts) upheld a Section 2 claim under Gingles, finding Alabama’s map diluted Black voting strength. Yet even then, the Court cautioned against race predominating unduly. Fast-forward to Louisiana v. Callais in 2026, and the conservative majority has drawn a sharper line: the VRA does not compel race-based remedies that themselves violate equal protection. Justice Alito’s opinion meticulously dissects the record, noting that Louisiana’s initial 2022 map was not proven to violate Section 2 when race and politics were properly disentangled. The state’s later map, drawn explicitly to create the second district, failed strict scrutiny because no compelling interest existed once the VRA obligation was clarified. Dissenters like Justice Elena Kagan warned that this renders Section 2 “all but a dead letter,” but we see it as restoring the Act to its original, limited purpose: preventing intentional discrimination, not mandating proportional racial outcomes. Proportional representation by race has never been the constitutional command; the Fifteenth Amendment guarantees the right to vote free of racial denial, not a right to districts engineered for group success. As Justice Clarence Thomas has long argued in concurrences, race-conscious districting perpetuates the very stereotypes the Constitution abhors. 

This brings us to the heart of the matter that has Democrats so alarmed. For years, we have watched as one party systematically used racial profiling in redistricting to manufacture “victimized sectors” of the electorate. By drawing districts that packed minority voters—often urban Black and Hispanic communities—into safe Democratic seats, strategists created the illusion of broad demographic inevitability. The theory was simple: identify groups historically aligned with Democratic policies on welfare, affirmative action, and identity politics; concentrate them to maximize those seats while diluting their influence elsewhere; then portray any challenge as racist. This was not organic coalition-building; it was engineered balkanization. Data from the 2020 census and subsequent analyses showed that without such maps, Republicans would hold significantly more congressional seats nationwide. The same pattern played out in state legislatures and local governments. Urban versus suburban divides, Black versus White, immigrant versus native-born—all were exploited not to heal divisions but to deepen them for electoral gain. We have argued repeatedly that if everyone is treated equally under the law, without regard to skin color, the natural political leanings of the American people—favoring limited government, individual responsibility, and opportunity—would produce Republican majorities far larger than the razor-thin margins we see in national “horse race” polling. Democrats have never been the 50-50 party they claim; their power has always depended on these artificial constructs and, we contend, supplemental mechanisms like extended voting windows, ballot harvesting, and lax identification rules that invite abuse. 

Consider the broader pattern of election manipulation that this ruling exposes. We have documented for years how Democrats have benefited from rules that prioritize turnout over integrity. Voter ID requirements, which enjoy overwhelming public support across racial lines in poll after poll, are derided as “suppression” precisely because they make fraud harder. Extended early voting, same-day registration, and no-excuse absentee ballots were sold as accommodations for the “victimized,” yet they create opportunities for chain-of-custody problems and ineligible voting. In 2020 and even into 2024, despite a Republican presidential victory, we saw House and Senate seats flip or held by suspiciously narrow margins in precisely those jurisdictions with the most permissive rules and history of irregularities. States like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona became battlegrounds not because of natural demographic tides but because of procedural advantages Democrats had institutionalized. The Supreme Court’s gerrymandering decision is one piece of a larger corrective: when race-based districting is curtailed, when maps revert to neutral criteria, and when combined with voter ID and same-day voting standards, the playing field levels dramatically. Republicans do not need to “cheat” to win; we need elections that reflect the will of the people without artificial inflation of turnout among low-propensity voters who require constant mobilization through grievance narratives.

The meltdown we observe among Democratic leaders and aligned media is telling. They know, as we have long suspected, that their electoral success has hinged on these mechanisms. Remove the ability to pack districts by race, and suddenly, safe blue seats become competitive. Eliminate the fiction that minority voters must be treated as a bloc, and the coalition fractures along class, values, and policy lines—lines where working-class voters of all backgrounds increasingly gravitate toward Republican messages of economic growth and border security. For decades, Democrats have victimized groups: minorities told they cannot succeed without government largesse, women pitted against traditional family structures, urban cores against suburbs, and even generational divides exploited through student debt forgiveness promises. This was never about equality; it was about dependency and turnout. The color of skin became a proxy for presumed political loyalty, just as the Supreme Court has now ruled impermissible in districting. We see this as a return to first principles: the Constitution is color-blind. As Chief Justice John Roberts famously wrote in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), “The way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.” The Louisiana ruling applies that wisdom to the ballot box.

Of course, this victory is not the end of the fight. Gerrymandering litigation will continue, with states now free to prioritize partisan advantage without the VRA as a racial cudgel. Republicans must seize the moment while holding majorities. We have advocated for years that the filibuster, once a tool of minority protection through extended debate, has been weaponized against the will of the majority. With a Republican Senate and House, and a president committed to reform, the time has come to consider nuclear options or carve-outs for election integrity legislation. A simple majority should suffice to pass nationwide voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements, same-day voting cutoffs, and chain-of-custody rules for mail ballots. These are not radical; they mirror practices in most democracies and enjoy supermajority support among voters, including majorities of Black and Hispanic Americans in recent surveys. The uni-party elements within Republican ranks—those globalist RINOs who benefit from the status quo—must be challenged from within the movement. True conservatives understand that power must be used aggressively to restore the republic, not conserved in the name of bipartisanship that only one side honors.

The demographic reality further bolsters our case. National polls and voting patterns consistently show that, absent fraud and racial engineering, the electorate tilts Republican. Most Americans, regardless of background, value self-reliance over dependency. Actual election outcomes and shifting attitudes among working-class and minority voters have debunked the “emerging Democratic majority” thesis popularized in the early 2000s. Hispanics, in particular, have trended toward Republicans on issues like immigration and inflation. Black support, while still heavily Democratic, shows cracks among younger men and church-going families. Women are not a monolith; suburban mothers prioritize safety and education over cultural radicalism. By correcting maps to eliminate racial packing, we allow these natural coalitions to form without artificial distortion. Democrats’ “meltdown” stems from the fear that, stripped of their rigged advantages, they cannot compete in a fair fight. History proves the point: when elections are clean—as in many red states with strict ID laws—Republican performance exceeds expectations. The 2024 presidential result, where Donald Trump secured victory despite headwinds, would have been even more decisive without the lingering procedural vulnerabilities in key states.

We must also confront the philosophical rot at the core of the opposition. Identity politics, rooted in Marxist class struggle rebranded as racial grievance, teaches that society is a zero-sum battle of oppressors and the oppressed. Democrats have mastered this, victimizing groups to harvest votes while promising free stuff—reparations rhetoric, affirmative action, welfare expansion—in exchange for loyalty. This is not empowerment; it is patronage. The Supreme Court’s ruling strikes at the foundation by saying the state cannot use skin color to segregate voters into blocs. It echoes the color-blind vision of civil rights pioneers like Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr., who dreamed of a nation that judges citizens by character, not race. Modern “progressives” have abandoned that dream in favor of power. We reject it outright. A free society treats individuals equally; anything else breeds resentment and division.

Looking forward, the path is clear. Republicans must act with the same urgency Democrats have shown in pursuing their agenda. Pass election reform now, while the moment allows. Enforce the Louisiana precedent nationwide through Department of Justice guidance or legislation. Challenge remaining suspect maps aggressively. And purge the party of those dragging their feet in the name of “institutional norms.” The filibuster, if it blocks basic integrity measures, should yield to the majority’s mandate. We are not seeking one-party rule; we seek a representative republic where votes count, and outcomes reflect the people’s will. Democrats have never commanded a true national majority without these crutches; their 50-50 self-image is a myth sustained by fraud, gerrymandering, and demographic manipulation. Remove the crutches, and the illusion collapses.

In the end, the Louisiana v. Callais decision is cause for celebration, not just for Republicans but for all Americans tired of race-obsessed politics. It restores integrity to the franchise and dignity to every citizen by refusing to reduce them to racial statistics on a map. We have waited decades for this correction. Now is the time to build on it—voter ID, secure elections, neutral maps, and a return to the constitutional promise of equal treatment. The Democrats’ power was always borrowed from these distortions; its return to baseline is long overdue. The American people deserve nothing less than a system where every vote counts equally, every district reflects the community, and no one is profiled by skin color. This ruling is the first major step in that restoration, and we must follow through with resolve. The republic hangs in the balance, and the people—united, not divided—will prevail. 

Footnotes

¹ Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. ___ (2026) (slip op. at 1-2, Alito, J.).

² SCOTUSblog, “In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory” (Apr. 29, 2026).

³ NPR, “The U.S. Supreme Court strikes another severe blow to the Voting Rights Act” (Apr. 29, 2026).

⁴ Associated Press, “Supreme Court weakens the Voting Rights Act and aids Republicans” (Apr. 29, 2026).

⁵ See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).

⁶ Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).

⁷ Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023).

⁸ Wikipedia entry and SCOTUS opinion summary for Louisiana v. Callais.

⁹ PBS NewsHour analysis (May 2026) on nationwide implications.

Bibliography

•  Alito, Samuel. Opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. ___ (2026). Supreme Court of the United States.

•  Amy Howe, “In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map,” SCOTUSblog (Apr. 29, 2026).

•  “The U.S. Supreme Court strikes another severe blow to the Voting Rights Act,” NPR (Apr. 29, 2026).

•  “Supreme Court weakens the Voting Rights Act and aids Republicans,” Associated Press (Apr. 29, 2026).

•  Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).

•  Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).

•  Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023).

•  Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019).

•  Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq.

•  Abigail Thernstrom, Whose Votes Count? Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights (Harvard University Press, 1987).

•  J. Christian Adams, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery, 2011).

•  Hans von Spakovsky, The Election Fraud Handbook (Heritage Foundation, various reports 2020-2025).

•  Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013).

•  Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845) and speeches on color-blind justice.

•  Martin Luther King Jr., “I Have a Dream” (1963).

•  Additional conservative analyses: Heritage Foundation Election Integrity Project reports (2024-2026).

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

Getting Out of Bed to Fight for Your Country: Most people don’t have the guts to be President Trump

There are a lot of sunshine patriots out there who will fly the American flag over the Fourth of July and cook their hot dogs on a grill. But when it comes time to do any kind of heavy lifting and to stand for something, they are nowhere to be found. Most people bootlick their way through life, and they will do so to make the most money possible while doing as little work as they can. And when times are tough, they hide under their covers and turn off the alarm clock until the danger is averted. The world is full of such people. And it is because of them that there is so much evil in the world, empowered and doing what they are doing to destroy the world. I have been warning about these things for most of my life and as people ask me about some of the chapters in my book of life and wonder about all the carnage and hurt feelings, it points back to this essential issue. When times were tough, who got out of bed and did something about it. And one thing I can say, with all the violence and debate, I did not turn off the alarm clock and go back to bed while it was storming outside. I got up, went to where the trouble was, and did what needed to be done. When I fly an American flag, I do so knowing that I have done all I could to make it proud, because the fights to have the right to fly that flag are always under threat by hostile enemies foreign and domestic. It would have been easy to just do like everyone else, take a nice vacation, go to fancy dinners, and play golf without ever talking about anything too serious. But that would never be enough for me, because there was always a lot of work to do, and America needs as many people doing it as possible.

And I saw in Trump many years ago, 2012 to 2014 a person who had achieved a certain place in life where he wanted to do the work that it takes to keep America alive and well. I would point out even back then that Obama was a socialist, and that his birth certificate had major problems and that he probably was not qualified to be president. Which at that time sounded crazy. I remember what I was doing on 9/11 when terrorists attacked the symbol of American capitalism, the World Trade Center. I sent my wife to pick up my kids from school as everyone around me was as floored as everyone across the country and our skies stopped having air traffic for a couple of days. But I never believed the narrative, what made those terrorists think they could get away with it. Globalists looking to topple America are always involved, and they are sloppier these days than back then when people still had some trust in authority figures. 9/11 was a provoked terrorist attack meant to expand government and to give the FBI, and the CIA more authority, which they have obviously abused. And it all happened right under our nose, while people went about their lives worrying about being too controversial, because they might become social outcasts. But out of all that came a few people here and there, like President Trump, who were able to do something to help the flag, so he started thinking of running for president and he was visiting Tea Party groups to build up his brand in that direction.  And I was a supporter, because I knew what kind of work really needed to be done in America, and most people were not willing to do it.

When history looks back on this time, it will remember all the sunshine patriots who sat on their hands and never engaged the enemy, which empowered that enemy to the levels of menace that we are seeing now. Their neighbors might think they are swell people. At the local wine tasting where everyone is talking about sending their children to college so they can learn about Karl Marx, essentially, people might complement the high heels of an attractive woman, but talk behind her back at all the men she is sleeping with, while an American flag flies outside looking for someone to defend it from the tyranny of a jealous world.  But it will also remember that it took 12 years of Trump to return our country back to all those worthless people who should be more grateful than they are. Everyone will be grateful in hindsight even though they did extraordinarily little to help along the way, including most of the current Republican Party. They talk tough, but when it comes time to go out into the rain to engage the enemy, they stay where it is safe, and let others do that. The very few others. Trump is one of them. Thank goodness he won that first term in 2016. And in many ways, what happened in 2020 had to happen because people needed to see just how bad this current government of criminals really was. How deep the rot really extended. They did not believe me when I told them in the 1990s, then the 2000s. And of course, in 2020. But now, because Trump was essentially a president in exile in Mar-a-Lago, and all these horrendously bad people have come after him to destroy him, do people finally see the danger. 

It was always going to take three terms of a presidency fully committed to the preservation of American life to do the job. And Trump seemed poised to do that job going back to the Reform Party. I am not new at this. I remember talking to Ross Perot’s family in the parking lot of their Texas company on the eve of the 1992 election about all this. And most people just would not get out of bed, they wanted to stay asleep. I did all I could, including being in that parking lot with the Perot family in Texas, and 19% of America knew something had to be done and supported Ross Perot anyway. That number has grown over the years to around 38% who would stand by Trump no matter what, because they get it. They are out of bed with the alarm clock off. And I think now, because of these previous two terms of Trump, one official, one in exile, that a third Trump term will put that number closer to 60% of America will finally get out of bed and do the work of patriotism that is required. And as bad as it is for Trump, he has inspired others to finally get out of bed and to fight for our flag. Sometimes it takes a person like President Trump, or a Ross Perot, people who have achieved a certain level of success in life to turn away from polite society, roll up their sleeves, and fight for their country in ways that very few have the courage to do, because they are too busy trying to build a life for themselves to get to some level of independence.  I know what it has cost me, and many people just will not do it, because they do not have the stomach for it. But that did not take away the requirements of the job. It will take three Trump terms to start to fix our country from the hostile communists who have been attacking it for most of the last one hundred years. And it will take another decade or two to implement patriotic policies to restore America to greatness. But we are seeing that process play out now, and thank goodness for people like President Trump, and an exceedingly small group around him who are doing the right things for all the right reasons. I have a lot of respect for them because I know how hard it is. And everyone should appreciate the effort for many thousands of years to come, because it was necessary.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

The War on the Mexican Border: Ukraine is a fake diversion to bring America down from within with 5 million invaders

Another scam we have been dealing with in the United States is the war with Ukraine. Thanks to the Trump Administration, it is now fair game to look back on all these foreign wars, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, and many others, and understand that America has become the police force for the Desecrators of Davos ideas for collapsing borders and giving the United Nations world domination from the perspective of a centralized, administrative state. If you understand history and politics, it’s as obvious as a blue sky on a sunny, cloudless day. China was propped up and built by these same forces, and it is that model that the World Economic Forum proposes to utilize to gain control of every person on planet earth. The tools have been put in place, and they are making their move. And as they always have, a diversion is created while the real effort goes on somewhere else. This is clearly the case with the fake war in Ukraine, where globalist forces provoked Vladimir Putin’s sense of nationalism with threats of NATO membership with Ukraine to attack and defend his perception of border security.   And the United States suddenly is sending over 54 billion dollars to Ukraine to protect its border, while in the United States, the border to the south is wide open, and an open war is occurring as we speak. It’s a bloody and terrible war meant to topple America from within. The assumption is that defending that border is racist while defending the Ukraine border with infinite amounts of money is morally justified. Yet it’s all the same characters provoking both circumstances. 

Margorie Taylor Green was correct when she brought up this discrepancy in the middle of November 2022. I’ve been covering events on the American border with Mexico for many years, and I remember seeing lots of bloody pictures of severed heads that often happen in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas from drug cartels sending messages to homeowners there to keep their mouths shut otherwise the same will happen to them. The violence on the border between America and Mexico is a tragedy of violence, rape, and murder, which is going largely unreported. It’s a purposeful attack on America by hostile forces, and the Biden administration knows full well what they are doing there. Since Biden took office, over 5 million illegal aliens have crossed over into America. That’s a lot of people. For perspective, there have only been 82,000 people from Russia who have attacked Ukraine. Yet we are sending billions of dollars to Ukraine to defend their border, but the Biden administration is operating with an open border policy with Mexico. Can you smell what’s cooking? We are being lied to and purposely invaded for our own destruction. 

And if we point it out, the political left will call us names like “racist.” Hey, I was at Costco the other day looking at books. It was a busy day, and I was at their book display with about 30 other people. My wife and I were the only “white” people at that table. There were lots of people from India, China, and of course, Mexico there bargain hunting. But there were no other white people. Now in my life, I am far from a racist; few people deal with people from all over the world more than I do. I greatly respect the work people from other countries do because they often outwork traditional Americans.   I find that their countries of origin still have a good work ethic.

In contrast, in the United States, through labor unions and other liberal activities, Americans expect too much money for doing too little work. I greatly admire the work ethic of people from other countries and have a long history of supporting them. So for me to say that I was the only white guy at the Costco book table isn’t racist. It’s a statement of fact. The Americans were probably too lazy to read a book, which would explain why they weren’t there as much as anything. But that so many people of different backgrounds could assimilate into the United States under a common flag is nothing short of a miracle. From the way I see things, the invasion wasn’t working because many of the people were fleeing other countries to come to the United States to get away from the kind of garbage that the Biden administration and his partners at the World Economic Forum wanted to bring to America. So when it came to voting, they were more likely to vote for Trump than any Democrat, which wasn’t the plan. The belief in the attack was that all the illegal immigrants would vote for Democrats and that the nation would be changed into some third-world country through the Cloward-Piven collapses of our population and financial system. 

The media was apocalyptic when Margorie Taylor Green even questioned Ukraine instead of the Mexican border. The television pundits on MSNBC were appalled that anybody who had seen the dead bodies in the streets in Ukraine could not be moved to send endless amounts of money to the corrupt country run by a comedian who was best known for playing a piano with his penis before becoming president of the United Nation’s next conquest. And yes, the pictures are terrible of the dead bodies in the city streets of Kyiv and other places. But they are mainly staged; what about a society that purposely kills people so that they can send the media in to take pictures and exploit those pictures so that billions of dollars of foreign aid would be sent to Ukraine? The intentional murder of people is even worse. It’s not like Putin has been acting alone; the war between Russia and Ukraine is more about destroying Russian sovereignty and questions of nationalism than it is about sentiments of post-Cold War strategy. If the media showed the violence on the American border with Mexico, the violence would be far worse; it’s even worse than in the days of ISIS cutting off people’s heads on television. The drug cartels run Mexico and are a military threat to the people of America who live along the border. And the Biden administration knowingly allows violence to advance a globalist political agenda, and many innocent people are being harmed along the way. Yet nobody is talking about spending money on the American border to defend it from an obvious foreign invasion. The situation is so bad that the Biden administration will be viewed as an impeachable offense. That is another reason that Democrats are so prone to cheating in elections to hold senate seats because they must maintain the votes to prevent the Republican-controlled house from impeaching Biden over his handling of the border war that is far more dangerous than anything happening in Ukraine. There are far more examples of violence, beheadings, rapes, and terror along the Mexican border than anything the media could show us from Ukraine. But they won’t show that violence in the media which tells you who is advocating for that American invasion and who is against it. That is the real fight, and the guilty parties are the ones who don’t want to look at it but instead want us to look to Ukraine. The war isn’t there, it’s here, in America, and the intent is our complete destruction and nothing less. 

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business

The Truth About Racism: Democrats are trying to keep them on another kind of plantation

For the wall-to-wall news coverage on race, especially coming out of CNN regarding the nightly protests over police shootings, the real story is the attempts to hide the wounds that have never healed over Reconstruction after the Civil War.  No, it is not going too far back to think about such things.  Any student of history could see it; there is a reason that Democrats want to destroy public education to control what you know and learn from history, how you might come to think and solve problems.  If they’re going to hold you, they must control what you know, and concerning the Progressive Movement that came about around the 1890s, you have to understand the scam they have been attempting to cover up for which they are most guilty. But to know it, you would have had to read books that are pretty obscure because nobody is covering this topic very well.  When we learn about the Civil War, we understand that it freed the slaves, but they never talk about the hows or whys.  And we certainly don’t remember much about Reconstruction after the Civil War.  I think Dinesh D’souza did some of the best modern work on showing who the racists of society were and what needs to be done about it, which is the great secret of our day. 

I usually wouldn’t pour any gasoline on the fire but watching this garbage on the news has forced me to reveal what nobody wants to think about.  What I see on the riot coverage are not blacks.  I know many people of color, some that I am very close with and care about very much who are black.  I see from the rioters, slaves made that way through a terrible public education system and a liberalized media hiding a terrible secret.  They only care to riot for an opportunity to steal televisions and tennis shoes. They do not care about racism or how we managed to get racism in our country and understand that.  I would point the curious mind to one of my absolute favorite books on planet earth, the incredible book about western gunfighters called Triggernometry by Eugene Cunningham, first published in 1934.  Good ol’ Eugene was around in the days of the gunfighters and knew them from first-hand accounts.  And he certainly knew the hatred that still existed, especially among bloodthirsty killers like John Wesley Hardin and Jesse James, how political their killings were.  Hardin was forged from the political circumstances in Texas during Reconstruction after the Civil War, where black police were put in charge as a stick in the eye of the defeated Democrats provoking much violence.  One of my favorite Wild West sheriffs came to have one of the most remarkable law enforcement careers in history through Reconstruction, which nobody knows about because he was a black man, Bass Reeves.  Jesse James was far more political than just a killer.  He believed he was fighting against Reconstruction, attacking radical Republicans who had freed the slaves and forcing slave states like Missouri to integrate blacks into society against their southern will. 

Democrats failed, of course, and they eventually gave up their fight against Reconstruction directly.  Instead, they entered government in the North and began undoing much of what Republicans under Lincoln and Grant started.  Of course, this took a long time to occur to mask their efforts; they adopted this new Progressive Movement that was coming out of Wisconsin, and even Teddy Roosevelt fell for it.  But it was a platform for Democrats to rebrand themselves after Reconstruction and regain power over blacks and get revenge for losing their slaves.  Through big government communism and socialism, Progressives sought to put slaves into the inner cities to control them on a new kind of plantation.  They rotted the minds of blacks through public education, gave them free government services, and sought to destroy all family structures so that the people themselves would have no support mechanism to defend themselves intellectually.  Then finally, they would highjack the Civil Rights movement by using Martin Luther King to flip the script on Reconstruction, which was around 90 years old at that time.  It may seem like ancient history to us today.  Reconstruction was very much on the minds of Democrats.  In the tumultuous 60s, where Russian communism was penetrating our colleges overtly, and blacks were being used to hide the Klu Klux Klan past, the old bushwhackers from the Civil War were still stinging from the pain of Reconstruction.  The South lost their way of life and economy to the do-gooder radical Republicans who came to power under Lincoln and Grant, and they never got over it. 

The plots to kill President Lincoln for defeating the South in the Civil War are now well known.  And the constant political scheme to ruin Grant can be studied to significant effect by reading Ron Chernow’s book titled, appropriately, Grant.  It wasn’t much different from the way Democrats and some Republicans treated President Trump.  Grant was attacked by Democrats constantly because of Reconstruction and his administration in controversy.  I remember a report I did on Grant in the third grade where I talked about him as a war hero.  I wanted to think so because he was from Ohio, essentially southern Cincinnati. So I talked him up in one of my early writing escapades, which my teacher didn’t like, even back then in the 70s.  She was all caught up on the Democrat position on Grant and wanted me to portray him as a drunk, bankrupt scallywag.  I, of course, didn’t change my report, and I did get a lousy grade, although my teacher did admit that I showed great promise with my writing ability.  But you get the point with that bit of example of the kind of extremism. This kind of situation is taught to people, especially blacks freed from slavery by Republicans and abused right up to these modern-day race riots by Democrats, and exploited for everything that Progressives can give themselves through this racism theater.

It’s not hard to find the evidence if you care to find it.  Joe Biden has a long history with former members of the Klu Klux Klan, the types who came into office and stayed there for 50 years or more, elected because of Reconstruction in the South to dismantle the efforts.  The blacks like Frederick Douglass showed great promise of the kind of people who could benefit the American way of life. Democrats compelled blacks into the inner cities for the next hundred years, up to the present where they know nothing else to do but burn down buildings, turn over cars, and steal things to make a living because that is what Democrats want out of them.  For Democrats, it is revenge against the Republicans for what happened during Reconstruction.  Yes, it goes back to that point in history.  And slowly, over time, the best revenge was for Democrats to repackage themselves to the blacks their former and current slaves.  Now you know why they want to burn books telling the stories of the past.  So that people wouldn’t learn about these kinds of things.  After all, it’s how Democrats recaptured the blacks through voting by erasing their history and any knowledge of the excellent work that Republicans did to free them the first time.  And the danger that terrified Democrats most about Trump was that he was freeing blacks again, which showed in the last election.  And that is the truth of the matter, which is the key to understanding everything you need to know, dear reader, about the racial tensions we have now. 

Cliffhanger the Overmanwarrior


Share, subscribe, and see you later,https://rumble.com/embed/vciikp/?pub=3rih5#?secret=FUwbbCpIjT


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

Lee Wong Strips and Shows Everyone his 70-year-old Nipples at a Trustee Meeting: Using racism to hide incompetency

I heard about it after it happened and was waiting for the video to come out from the West Chester Trustee meeting to see for myself.  However, by the time the video did come out it was a national story because it fed a media narrative, especially from NBC that they were pushing, and Lee Wong served it up on a buffet for them to delight in.  Sure enough, on the NBC Nightly News there was the video of Trustee Lee Wong stripping off his shirt and showing us all his 70-year-old nipples after grandstanding for several minutes about his old military record which he retired from and showing off what he’s calling a scar he received during his service.  I wasn’t going to talk about it unless the video proved to be as ridiculous as I heard it was because Lee Wong is an old story in my community of West Chester and honestly, I thought the guy had embarrassed himself enough over the years.  But in a lot of ways he stuck a stick in the eye of the community that can’t be forgiven and he tried to buffer the effect with this grandiose strip show he provided at what should have been a professional trustee meeting where all the elected representatives do the township business.  But the level of radicalism was just the kind of thing that filled a national narrative that wants to divert away from the follies of the Biden administration, the mountain of evidence of voter irregularities due to all the Covid rules made willy-nilly by more radical Democrats all across the nation, and the sudden outbreaks of gun violence under the new administration that is really a major policy breakdown from liberals that they want to paint as anger toward Asians.  That’s where Wong came in.

This is what’s really going on which you never hear about in the news these days because they take the sensationalism and apply their own context to a story to fit their political agenda.   In this case, they don’t want to know anything about Lee Wong, they just wanted to see his nipples from him taking off his shirt at a township meeting.  So let’s set the record straight on Lee Wong for the national audience who doesn’t know anything about him which are now looking at West Chester as a cesspit of racism because of his pure selfishness in trying to hide his internal poll numbers which show him slipping in our community in popularity during an election year.  Hey, if there is any anger at Lee its not because of the color of his skin or his face resembling an Asian, it’s because he is a Democrat putting a Republican next to his name because that’s the only way he could get elected in a very conservative county.  He’s been in elected office for many years and people get tired of him legislating like a Democrat then when people call him on it he goes straight for racism to cover it up and try to keep people from looking too closely to what he really is as a representative in our community. 

It used to be that people were more accepting of RINOs who were obviously not very politically passionate toward the party they run under.  A guy like Lee could get away with it for decades in the past until people started waking up during this last decade and realizing how the shell game worked, and Lee has been caught in it.  Recently he made a run for the 4th Senate District in Ohio and he came in 3rd out of three which was very embarrassing to him.  And the word on the street is that he has lost his brand even within West Chester where he has been a trustee for a very long time.  Its obvious to political people who see these kinds of things, and fundraisers who give out money to politicians for their campaigns that Lee is a dead duck.  There are several challengers who donors like a lot better than Lee coming up to challenge him in this year’s race as trustee and fresh off his embarrassing loss for that senate seat, Lee Wong had to do something to get some attention.  So he did what Democrats always do, they accuse the community of racism hoping to freeze people’s true opinions about him so that they are afraid to not support him in fear of being called a racist.  And of course, NBC took the torch and lit it for all Democrats to see.  Maybe now, Lee thinks, he might get some fundraising for his fall election so he can put out some signs hoping to turn the tide that has built against him.  

In West Chester, Lee has been elected, and he has served in office, but he has failed over many years of trying.  People have voted for him, but they have grown tired of him acting more and more like a Democrat than the Republican he claims to be.  Not having an answer for that behavior, Lee turned to the nuclear option of racism hoping to increase his public persona, which obviously worked for attention.  I would say it’s the wrong kind of attention and will hang on his neck like a weight he doesn’t want.  Some of the biggest follies Lee has had fairly recently is when he aligned himself with China several years ago as tensions well before President Trump came on the scene started escalating with the communist country.  There are lots of Chinese people and Asians in our area and people accept them openly.  But not all of them go around looking to build bridges where they came from like Lee does.  Most Americans figure that if people left somewhere, its for a reason.  However, Lee has continued to show support for China any time he can, especially in the Sherry Chen case who was a scientist accused of spying for China who lost her job.  Lee’s defense was simply that it was racism that caused her to lose her job, not that she was thought to be a spy for China.  People don’t forget things like that, and that’s why people have been questioning Lee’s patriotism.  It’s his track record, not his face that is the problem.

In a time where China is more and more openly hostile toward the United States, Lee has went well out of his way to promote China as a friend which taking off his shirt in public and showing a couple of scars he received in military service a lifetime ago were meant to hide.  Yet Lee did it to himself and now he’s made it worse by trying to play the race card to get himself some attention during an election year where he has challengers and very few people who want to give him money this time around.  That fundraising gap was quite obvious during his senate run, and it looks like these other candidates are going to get the money to knock off Lee.  So its not a matter of racism that has hurt Lee Wong, it’s his own incompetence which those types of people always look to hide behind some social cause.  This latest Asian aggression story, which was made up by the media in reaction to the Atlanta shootings to divert away from the cause of sex addiction is the same tired tricks that has gotten Lee in trouble before.  Only this time, he’s gone way too far and put West Chester in an embarrassing national spotlight, all for his selfish reasons to attempt re-election when its obvious that people don’t want him anymore.  Not for his race, but because he’s incompetent.  

Cliffhanger the Overmanwarrior
Share, subscribe, and see you later,


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

No Real Republican Can Ever Be a Racist: Exploring the history of Neo Nazis, Antifa and “Unite the Right”

We have to talk about the various protests on the one-year anniversary of Charlottesville, one of which took place right outside the White House over the weekend of August 12th 2018. About two dozen white supremacists had filed a petition for permit to have a rally called “Unite the Right” which inspired the aggressive leftist anarchists Antifa to the site to engage in hostilities. As far as political theater the media tried to paint the picture that it was right versus left in a prebattle for the midterms. But in reality it was like Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini arguing over who was more to the political right than the other—which would be odd since they are all extremist lefty groups. Communism is certainly a concept of the political left. Socialism for which Germany was driven by is another extreme leftists’ philosophy, and fascism which was the theme of Italy was somewhere in the middle of those two on the political spectrum as Mussolini operated. There is nothing even remotely conservative about any of those three things. There is nothing conservative about a “neo Nazi.” And I would propose that no real conservative could ever be considered a racist. It’s just not possible.

Conservatives believe in individual merit and rights. That makes any group associations a definition as to how conservative a person might be. If a person is white and is in a country club full of rich white people who are mostly male and have incomes over a million dollars a year, they are more liberal and less Republican than the auto mechanic down the road who minds his own business, votes in every election and teaches his family values diligently every day of their life. The country club people tend to think in group associations by their very nature which erodes their conservative foundations epistemologically.

One of the reasons that America is such a melting pot where people from all over the world have been able to successfully come and make good livings is because of Republican government and the concept of our Constitution, which enables individual rights as opposed to group associations. Any real conservative would never look a person and judge them by their skin color or their ancestry. No person on earth should be judged by the lives of their parents or grandparents. They should be judged based on what they do as individuals.

Following that logic, no race of people could be scrutinized if the individual merit of their actions is taken into account. The KKK was never a branch of Republican thinkers, they were all Democrats from the south. It was Republicans that ended slavery, they didn’t conduct it. And in modern times, it is Republicans who offer opportunities and prosperity through proper government, not Democrats who seek to exploit races of people for political gain. Nobody who looks at groups of people and tries to lump them together as one identity can properly call themselves a Republican because the philosophic meaning provides a quandary that is impossible to resolve through logic.

Ironically this problem was solved by Clint Eastwood in several of his movies during the 70s and 80s. The left leaning media often attacked Eastwood films as being right leaning and part of what’s wrong with America. So Eastwood tackled the situation directly in his comedies such as Every Which Way But Loose, Any Which Way You Can, the cop drama Magnum Force and the romantic comedy Pink Cadillac. In each of those movies Clint Eastwood showed the difference between the Neo Nazi and himself as represented by a kind of libertarian Reagan Republican. Eastwood was always the loner individual who had groups of neo Nazi’s always chasing after him. American audiences loved Eastwood and those films made a lot of money and are still very popular to this day because they represent how most Americans see themselves. The distinction Eastwood made in his movies was clear and that’s why even at age 88, he is still loved by much of the Trump political base.

Racism has never been a part of Republican ideas. There are of course various degrees of conservatism, there are the country club types and they consider themselves as a group superior to the mechanic because there are more of them present at the cigar bar on Tuesday nights, but we are talking about subtle differences. I call such people RINOs. John Kasich is certainly one of those types and the split in the Republican party presently is due to this philosophic distinction. Kasich expanded Medicaid in Ohio under Obamacare in an effort to exploit the poor. He says God made him do it, but even that concept of God is a kind of leftist notion because when you really pull back the layers of religion, any religion, you will find many of the same ideas that make communism, socialism and fascism so attractive to weak-minded people today. But Kasich as a left leaning Republican wanted to run for president so he expanded Medicaid to pull in middle ground voters. He didn’t deal with people on their own individual merit, he packaged the poor into a nice demographic group, threw some money at them to win their votes and called it compassion. I call it racism. Whether it was white poor, or black poor, it was still group assimilation for the benefit of political power.

There were no conservatives protesting in front of the White House at the “Unite the Right” protests. There was no “right.” There were only various degrees of left leaning radical’s hell bent to take society back to a theocracy and fulfil the requirements of the Vico cycle. Tattooed skin heads and KKK members with white masks are not members of the Republican party but by their own names. To hide their acts of left leaning sentiment they have attempted to duck behind the Republican party in the same way that some modern loser sitting in a Waffle House in the middle of the night reading the Bible and proclaiming that God tells them to hate black people using some long dead uncle who knew someone who married someone who had an affair with someone in a king’s court in France 400 years ago to justify their worth in life as an utmost failure because they can’t stand on their own merit.

Most Republicans don’t defend themselves from these accusations and the media knows they won’t, because most conservatives are so independent that they never make the connection that the people being called racists are them because they don’t see themselves as a group. That is why they seldom ever defend themselves from attack, because their minds just don’t think that way. However, that is exactly what the media is trying to portray, and they count on nobody hitting back from the conservative right. That’s how these vile people have gotten away with such things for so long. But that’s coming to a close now. People are learning. Trump has given people their own version of Clint Eastwood in real life to rally behind and that Genie is not going back into the bottle. The media has just made themselves less relevant in the process because there are options out there where smart conservatives can go and not be called a racist just because some liberal tried to connect the dots where no dots appeared. And that distinction will only grow in the future leaving all these radical leftists with no place to hide, which makes them violent at first, but heavily exposed to the realities of the world.

Rich Hoffman

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

No Conservative Can be a Racist: Understanding the nature of merit based exsistance

We need to clear something up about our present time, it is impossible for those who are philosophically aligned with conservatism to have any remnants of racism in them. No real conservative could be a racist. Its impossible in every way imaginable. When a Democrat or some 26-year-old reporter writes an article explaining how Donald Trump is a racist due to his border policy, they are expressing their own vast ignorance at the meaning of such a word—they simply don’t know what it means, or how its applied. Racism is a very ancient form of stupidity and is a left-over remnant of mankind’s past in experimenting with superstition and religion. It’s the ultimate group think, to assume that all Jews think this way, or that all Germans think another way, or that people from the continent of Africa have limits of this kind or that kind—all those thoughts are rooted in a misunderstanding that cultural behavior is directly connected to genetic structure—which its not. For anyone who believes in individual rights, it is disingenuous and ignorant to chain people to the group association of their past. It just doesn’t make sense.

To get to the roots of this debacle examine the nature of the type of people who are doing all this genetic research these days, into their own family trees. I have listened to many crazy lunatics over the years go into extreme lengths to discover who in their family’s past was a rug cleaner in the court of some European king, or some great, great-uncle cleaned the gun of a letter carrier in some great American war. Or that their grandfather or father knew a guy who knew a guy who was friends with a guy who knew the agent of a popular rock band and managed to get back stage passes—and for that the entire family is supposed to be proud of their association with touching celebrity in their lives and to actually brag about it. Such thoughts are the foundations of racism, and people who believe in any way that the genetic fortunes of some family member from their past equates to some rubbed off merit passed down through the ages are simply wrong.

You can see this same type of behavior when people inherit unearned wealth after a powerful character dies in a family and the less intelligent descendents try to figure out how to manage the wealth that was left behind. Often those direct family members didn’t have to work hard and learn intellectually how to manage wealth, so millions of dollars that took a lifetime to build are squandered away in months or years by the relatives who inherit it because they do not possess the skills that built the wealth just because of their genetic makeup, or that they happened to marry into a powerful family. The world functions off merit-based intelligence not whether or not a person becomes great and just because they have a son or daughter that all that greatness magically rubs off on the offspring. What does rub off is the access to such greatness and for people within a circle of influence to learn from some older person, but to assume that magically success will just happen because of genetics is a preposterous concept that has long left the minds of anybody intelligent. Those types of thoughts might have had a place in primitive times, but they are long outdated and have been proven wrong and are not part of any conservative movement. The very concept of conservatism puts values on individual behavior, not group assimilation and racism is all about group identity.

Those on the political left do not think in individual terms so everything they see has some primitive form of group association. For instance, there are actual discussions about President Trump’s Supreme Court pick and what school of law they might have attended as if the school itself might make a Supreme Court Justice better than another from a different school. The failed assumption is that it is the school as a group that is responsible for a brilliant legal mind, not the actions of the student in becoming great through hard work and perseverance. It is in the mind of the liberal the association with groups that deserve the credit for excellence. We hear the same type of comparisons in sports, a team that wins a lot often umbrellas the credit for frequent victories on “team philosophies” not the individual efforts of the team members themselves who are responsible. Even with the great play of LaBron James the other individuals on the 2018 Cleveland Cavaliers weren’t very good and they could not beat the Golden State Warriors for the championship. Just because LaBron James was on the Cleveland Team, the entire team wasn’t suddenly good as a whole. The team sucked and only found themselves in the playoffs because of LaBron James. When they had to play teams with other talented NBA players, they couldn’t match the effort and they lost. A school, a team, or a family lineage cannot make someone great, only individualized hard work and effort.

Knowing all that, it is impossible for a race of people to lay claim to any level of intelligence or aptitude. There are brilliant people born along the shores of the Congo River and in the mountain tops of the Andes. They can occur anywhere at any time, and it is up to them to develop those skills as individuals. America was never a racist nation. There is no place on planet earth that has such a diverse and successful assembly of individuals achieving greatness. A successful American is not a person of any kind of color, not even white. Such concepts are entirely made up by people who are liberal in their thinking because they don’t understand the basics of individualized achievement. People aren’t successful in America because they inherited some business from their father or that they went to a certain school. They are successful because they worked hard and developed themselves as individuals to do what others could not, or would not. But once done, the achievement doesn’t carry over into all the children and grandchildren. Doing a heredity search two hundred years from now won’t automatically make some future person more successful just because someone in their family was successful once. It takes the actions of an individual to brew success and that comes from a well-developed mind, not skin color or sex.

The misconceptions of the ignorant, which most liberals are, do not make reality a defined state. Their ignorance and lack of philosophic understanding does not change the rules of the universe. All existence is merit based. A success today does not make a success tomorrow and it certainly doesn’t hide in the genetic makeup of a human being. Only really dumb people would think such a thing. Conservatives are by their basic epistemology those who believe in individualized achievement, and that goes for a person of any color or sex. If a person is good, it doesn’t matter what their background, and it doesn’t matter who their parents were or if their family lineage at some point in the past touched greatness. All that matters is whether the individuals who make up the human race are working to become exceptional in some endeavor and whether or not they manage to have success. There is no racism in the conservative political parties because they are all based on individual behavior, and that knows no genetic limitation. Only the effort behind the mind of individuals.

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

Rich Hoffman Supported Herman Cain: So why did ‘Yahoo News’ call him a racist?

I enjoyed greatly the accusations from The Atlantic Wire featured on Yahoo News recently that declared I, along with Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer and writers at The Free Republic were racists because we did not support the President of the United States due to the color of his skin, and that our dislike over federal welfare programs were racially motivated instead of performance oriented. Read the article for yourself at the following link:

http://news.yahoo.com/people-hear-mitt-romney-talks-welfare-222622356.html?_esi=1

(Check out this wonderful video on racism by Bill Whittle)

It is always interesting when the other side, particularly progressive oriented people, use name calling when they can’t debate an idea. In this case President Obama has been an absolute embarrassment in his role as President, and I am personally ashamed of the guy. For many years in the future there will always be a footnote over The Obama Presidency where America tried the closest member of Communist Party U.S.A to ever get into The White House—we had to try—the hippies needed to have a chance to show how terribly they could screw up the world, and Obama is the candidate of the messed up, drug induced flower children of the 1960’s. But my dislike of Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin, as Yahoo News led thousands of readers to believe. Anyone who knows anything about me knows that out of all the Republican candidates running for President in 2012, it was Herman Cain that I most supported, and still adore.

Contrary to what progressive Democrats who eat out of the hand of Emperor Obama think, Herman Cain is a black man—and he’s a rich black man. If Herman Cain were running for president right now, I’d vote for him in much the same way that I would have voted for Alan Keys in the 90’s against Bill Clinton. Proof of my admiration for Herman Cain goes all the way back to over a year ago when the presidential race for the Republicans was just beginning to heat up. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW, so sorry Yahoo News and The Atlantic Wire, my comments about Obama being a welfare panderer and behind the door communist have nothing to do with the color of his skin. It has everything to do with his world view, and political philosophy which I find reprehensible.

In fact when I said that Obama thought he was speaking to an audience of welfare recipients I never even thought of black citizens as there are over 110,000 million Americans on welfare. There are whites on welfare as well as blacks. If there is any racism going on it comes from people who only look at situations that involve blacks and single them out for exclusivity and political advantage. But the accusations from the political left in this case is to make any discussions of welfare reform or Barack Obama’s handling of the economy an issue of race because nobody can actually defend the terrible job performance of the mob elected president. Many in the democratic mob of America were seduced into supporting him because of his “hope and change” message. The truth behind “hope and change” as well as the current campaign of “Forward” is tag lines for subtle communism—and yes, that’s what it is.

When organized groups proclaim “workers of the world unite,” and the “rich need to pay their fair share” those terms come from Karl Marx—the inventor of communism. Marx is the treasured author in the Obama White House which is beyond refute. CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT MARX AND WHY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS WHITE HOUSE ARE PUSHING COMMUNISM. When advocates for the President suggest that people like me are racist because I don’t blindly support a seriously flawed President who happens to be black, they also ignore other presidential candidates who are black because they are not down and out poor. The progressive political machine desires very much to always keep the race card handy so they don’t have to answer any tough questions. They make sure the black voting demographic stays in a state of economic need so that progressives can always exploit them in a whim.

When Herman Cain was running for president it terrified progressives because if a “rich” black man were seen by the black population across America, it might break up the bloc voting demographic Obama has over the black population. So they found a way to get rid of Cain, using the press to exploit some of Cain’s loose relationships with women, which certainly isn’t new in The White House. Bill Clinton let a woman his daughter’s age give him a blow job in The Oval Office and nobody cared, because Clinton was a progressive and part of that whole Shadow Party progressive machine. Cain only had rumors of girl friends and he was embarrassed and lambasted daily until he left the presidential race to protect the continued harassment of his family. Wasn’t it racism to protect the white president in Clinton who groped and fondled many women while President, yet to attack a presidential candidate who was black because he was a Republican that was wealthy and didn’t fit the desired profile? Where was Yahoo News on that story?

No, it’s not people like me who are the racists, it’s the people who make race the issue because they have no answers for the behavior of their President—their leader. The people who do such things are despicable, because they are openly exploiting citizens of a particular race just to maintain a voting demographic stronghold. In their view when welfare is criticized it’s because of race, since they can offer no solutions as to why progressives started giving out other people’s money in the first place to redistribute wealth when in fact there are many whites who are just as addicted to free government money as blacks or any other voting group. Bringing up the name calling racial allegation is an old Saul Alinsky trick that reached its fever pitch in the 1990’s and directly led to electing Barack Obama in the first place–to prove that America was not a racist country. The race baiting is a one trick pony and we’ve already seen it. It doesn’t work anymore because people have been scammed badly by it.

But thanks Yahoo News for the national attention. A lot of people scanned over my articles and realized that The Atlantic Wire edited carefully my comments to appear as racially motivated as possible, but even then such a connection was not made by readers. Out of thousands of hits on that particular article, I received not a single derogatory comment once they read the article I actually wrote in the context for which I presented it. Further, all anyone has to do with me is compare how many times I openly supported Herman Cain to know that I could care less if the President of The United States is a black man, a white man, or a yellow man. I just want the President to be a smart man who is a free market guy. When I send my hard earned money to the federal government and see that they give it away like candy it makes me very angry. So I have a right to be angry at Obama for putting my nation 16 trillion dollars into debt on his reckless communist ideology. I’m not angry at Obama for being black. I’m angry at him for all the damage he’s done as president and the division he has exemplified in my country using trivial nonsense like “race” to hide the crimes of a fool.

____________________________________________

This is what people are saying about my new book–Tail of the Dragon

“With Tale of the Dragon, Rich Hoffman combines NASCAR, Rebel Without a Cause, and Smokey and the Bandit. If you like fast cars, and hate speed traps, this is the book for you. And just every once in a while, any real American wishes he had a Firebird like the one in Tale of the Dragon.“

Best Selling Co-author Larry Schweikart, A Patriot’s History of the United States  (CLICK ON THE LINK TO VISIT US ON FACEBOOK)

Visit the NEW Tail of the Dragon WEBSITE!  CLICK HERE and help spread the word! TELL SEVEN PEOPLE TO TELL SEVEN PEOPLE!

Rich Hoffman
https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/ten-rules-to-live-by/
http://twitter.com/#!/overmanwarrior
www.overmanwarrior.com