Go Ahead, Shut Down the Government: Why we need Trump’s wall

Everyone did what they were supposed to, the House passed their resolution to keep the government running, President Trump supported that effort, but the bottom line was that the Democrats needed to gamble everything to attempt to hurt Republicans for the midterms, so they needed a shutdown. They needed to create some blame that might hurt the Republicans, so they can win majorities in the House and Senate this fall, and this shut down is their last chance to do it. As we sit and wait for what the Senate does, which will likely lead to a shut down at this point, I am excited. Whether it’s this time or the next, Trump is the right guy to have in the White House for this tough negotiation. Finally, we have a guy who will call the bluff of the Democrats and put the blame back on them for a change, which is a first. For just this kind of budget battle was another reason I have been supportive of Donald Trump for president from the beginning—because I grew tired of losing these battles with the standard kind of Republicans we had at the federal level.

I’ll go a step further, there is no way that Democrats will win a budget battle with Donald Trump. They don’t have it in them. The key to the bluff which Trump understands, is that most of the government is nonessential. If they can be shut down, and the business of the country can go on, then they aren’t needed positions, which is exactly what Trump will point out daily. The Democrats cannot afford to let the masses learn of this—so they’ll have to blink first, and by then it will be too late. They will lose seats this fall as a result and Trump will further solidify his coalition. In this kind of battle those who communicate best will win, and nobody is better at articulating an issue than Donald Trump on Capital Hill. A shut down works best for the GOP, so let them do it. It is an excellent opportunity to tackle the most basic aspects of our bloated government.

There is no other way to reduce the size of our government than to prove to everyone how little it really does for us, and a shut down will illustrate it perfectly. Once we get beyond the emotional aspects of the military and closing of the state parks, which is an extortion racket designed to flow countless billions into Belt Way fantasies, the real meat and potatoes of our budgets are in the non-essential employees who make huge salaries for essentially playing on Facebook all day. If there is a shut down, life will go on, the sun will still come up, people will still shop, live and love. People will see what little the government really does for them and the bluff will be called—and it will be Democrats who will pay for insisting that the world would have ended if a shut down happened. Just like the people who predicted the world would end when Trump became president, people will see who told the truth, and who didn’t.

Of course, the right thing to do is to try to reach a compromise, and the Republicans did, but everyone understands that this is a last stand for the Democrats. They have only in mind to try to stop this president and capture seats in the House and Senate and traditionally, this is how they understand to do that. Additionally, it doesn’t really matter that the Republicans control the House and Senate because they really don’t. Unlike Democrats, Republicans are not united collectivists, there are various degrees of conservatives and many traditional GOP types are actually closer to Democrats than they are Republicans like Trump, or Ted Cruz. In my way of thinking Trump is a bleeding-heart liberal, but he does have a conservative platform which I support. However, Trump I can live with, but people like Lindsey Graham don’t even register on my conservative scale. He like John Kasich—the governor of my state—are essentially liberals.

There is no other way to unite everyone under a common flag of America than to destroy these little separatist groups that want DACA or higher taxes before they’ll build a border wall to secure our nation from the Marxist nation to the south. Mexico became impoverished through their revolution at the turn of the last century where they took on a platform of social justice politically which destroyed their nation, like every other nation south of America’s border. When you have a country with little economic value next to a country of enormous wealth functioning under capitalism, of course you need a wall to protect one from the needs of the other. A wall isn’t needed in the north along the Canadian border because essentially that nation has adopted many American ideas, and they are not a direct threat to overtake our capitalist system. Although they are socialist by nature, their population isn’t nearly as out of control as they are in Mexico where desperation is everywhere except for the tourist spots, which are very small in comparison with the rest of the country. If Mexico wants to improve their situation, they need to become capitalists, or even perhaps become new states in the American way of life. But to be a sovereign nation of conquered people hell-bent on Marxism—that’s just not a possibility. We need a wall between America and Mexico to make sure that protections are there for the people who have value as opposed to those who don’t.

The money for a border wall will never come from the current House and Senate, so those members against it literally must be destroyed. The way to destroy them is to embarrass them right out of office with a catastrophic shut down like what we are about to face. Republicans have never done well in these kinds of fights. I remember the optimism I felt when Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich faced down Slick Willy Clinton back in the 90s. I thought Newt was going to be a tough guy, but he was the first to blink and while Clinton was getting his famous blow job in the White House, the Democrats beat on their chest in victory which essentially lasted for the last 20 years. Republicans have come close to trying a stand-off over the years, but they never had the heart for it. Until now. When I cast my vote for Trump in 2016 this was one of the reasons I did it—I was very eager to return to another one of these stand offs. This time I expect the Republicans to win—and for those who call themselves Republicans but are really Democrats, this battle will expose them fully—which needs to happen.

I’m fine with the government shutting down. It doesn’t do much for me, nothing I couldn’t do myself through the private sector. I’d even go so far to say that with the Second Amendment, that the military is a secondary concern. If a bunch of rice popping North Koreans want to attack my home town, I’ll enjoy the opportunity to defend against them. I don’t need a military to protect my home. It’s nice to have, but I consider it a luxury. It’s Democrats who need the government so the way to beat them all is to shrink it, cut their budgets and force them into self-reliance. In that game, the Republicans can win if they follow behind Trump and do what he tells them too. It’s time to break the vicious cycle of Democratic extortion to continue funding inflated budgets for every little thing. It’s time to destroy the Democrats with their own tactics and for a change let them take the blame for all the things they so adequately deserve.

Rich Hoffman

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

What We Learned from the White House Meeting with the Press over Trump’s Health: Our education system is a total failure in need of major reforms

Rush Limbaugh was on to something when he made his observations of the media uproar over President Trump’s medical exam—which was the most open that any president had ever offered. At 71 years old, Trump is a healthy guy and that seemed to destroy any last hopes that this media culture had of getting rid of his administration over the next seven years. As if Obama, the chain smoker who had to sneak out of the White House to get a Five Guys hamburger—because his wife wouldn’t let him otherwise—were the standard—Trump at an even older age showed a medical examination that many 30 years olds couldn’t have passed, and the president was proud enough of the report to let his doctor take questions for roughly an hour and let the media make jokes of themselves. It was really a pathetic display that has far-reaching implications into the quality of our overall culture. Limbaugh was right in his first hour of a show played on January 17, 2018—the deeper concern is that the reporters asking these questions represent the best of their fields, they are the top reporting prospects from the various media outlets—the brightest that our colleges have produced, and given their line of questions and the nature of their delivery—we are in real trouble as a society. They behaved with a great lack of intelligence and sophistication.

I can’t help but think back to when I was in studio at 700 WLW with Scott Sloan, over eight years ago as of this writing talking about the outrageous salaries of the Lakota school system and how that mismanagement of resources was causing dangerous property tax increases. After the show aired came a parade of levy supporters who called the station to complain about my appearance, mostly women who worked in real estate that were using the school system for easy sales transactions. They declared we were all products of the public education system and we owed it to the next generation to keep everything intact to pay back what we had been given. Well, that was a separate problem that I became more involved in as time went on. At that particular time the philosophical issue was the cost of public education, not the quality of it. However, after a few years of this debate, the quality was something I spoke about more and more until finally everyone was so far apart on agreement that we were ready to kill each other over it. But the fact remained, the public education system that we were working so hard to find money for, and charging property owners with enormous tax bills wasn’t doing a good job with our next generations and now things were terrible. We have an entire generation of grownups—who were kids at the time—who don’t know or understand the basics of life—they are pampered, spoiled, brats.

I was fortunate in a lot of ways, I was one of the last kids in my generation to have a mom who stayed home in the traditional sense to raise me and my siblings. We had a very traditional home and a mother who worked a lot harder than most to make life good for us. We had a father who worked in the traditional way as well, he was an executive who brought home the resources for us all to live a decent middle-class life—which to me always seemed like a put down, but it was a good life compared to the rest of the world. My dad grew up on a farm so he had a very strong work ethic which he taught to me. His parents operated a farm their entire lives and were so dedicated to it that they only left the state of Ohio one time in their 80 plus years of life, and that was to take a family vacation to Virginia Beach. On my mom’s side her parents were traditionalists who came up north from Appalachia looking for work in the Fairfield General Motors plant called Fisher Body. He worked third shift and very hard. She was a housewife and very dedicated to her family. They had a farm too and when they weren’t making money at the “shop” they worked hard on that farm. So I was fortunate to be surrounded by people who worked very hard and it rubbed off on me.

But I hated school. From the first moment I attended kindergarten I felt I knew more than my teachers—and this was more than just me being a rebellious kid. It came from me having a good family that provided me with lots of resources to learn from and I was too far ahead of my classmates who didn’t have such stable families. School was boring and unimaginative for me. I saw it as an uninteresting daycare and my parents believed that the system of education was more important than what they could do themselves, so I had to endure it. Back then we didn’t know what we do now, it was common to trust that the authorities knew more than the rest of us—so there was trust. This was at a time before there was a Department of Education and all these Marxist fantasies that were later revealed during the Reagan years for which was the whole purpose of creating the Department of Education in 1979 to begin with. My perspective allowed me to watch the destruction unfold year by year without the psychological attachment of really caring about my school experience. I hated it, so there wasn’t any emotion about what I was able to witness. If I had enjoyed it, I might have found reasons to ignore what my eyes and mind told me about the experience. But since I had a hate for it, it was easy to see the parasites which worked behind public education to destroy our society from within.
I went to college because everyone told me I had to, and I hated that too for all the same reasons. I had hoped that college would be different—more intellectual, but it was just more liberal propaganda. Not the kind of things I learned on the farms of my grandparents and in my traditional home. The whole process seemed more concerned about creating Democratic voters. I remember a particular fight my brother and I had when he went to college, he was five years younger than me. We of course grew up pro-gun. Back in those days we could shoot guns out our back door so he had a lot of exposure as did I. But in his first year of college he had become noticeably anti-gun which caused a major rift in our relationship. Its taken him nearly 20 years to start to untangle some of what he learned in those years, and I suspect it will take 20 more to completely wash it away—but the bottom line is this, our education system has not been about learning, its been all about programming us as a society into a liberal aimed philosophy–and that is counter to everything it should have been.

I’ve warned about it for many, many years. People used to think that my objections were due to some hatred of authority figures or a lack of scholastic aptitude. Nothing could have been further from the truth. I read more and have went further in my own education than most people do in their entire lifetimes. My favorite books tend to be those written prior to the 1980 as a point of note, because everything after has a little bit of social taint as the publication houses in New York became activists for the progressive trends of our times—and I trust them a lot less than I do when editors at those publication houses were people in the prime of their careers after the World War II generation. The quality of people intellectually has declined a lot over the last forty years and now we are seeing it really on full display during the Trump administration.
The clash between Trump and these kids in the media basically come down to this, the president is an old school guy from America’s good past, before the destruction of our people took place intellectually. He is one of the last of his kind—and he is trying to inspire a return to that type of America that existed before the creation of the Department of Education—people like my parents and grandparents, because back in those days they weren’t that uncommon. People had good, functional educations and they were smart enough to vote, and read the newspaper to keep up on things. They were the kinds of families we see and love in Christmas time televisions shows like A Christmas Story. We might make fun of the grumpy dad who is a little out of touch with the rest of the family while mom took care of all the little details, but it worked in America and we still yearn for that kind of stability in our lives. What we have now is what those reporters reflected, broken families, broken lives, false belief systems, negative outlooks about life. They are a mess and there is no way our society will last with people like them in charge of it. Globalists love it, they want an end to America so of course they are anti-Trump. But people like me, who were fortunate enough to be cognizant of the whole process along the way to be able to speak about it confidently even though it has gone against the stream of social concern—we’ve identified the issue correctly and now at least can point to history and demand a second look with hindsight being 20/20.

We must reform our education system, now. We cannot allow another generation of people to have their minds destroyed to populate our culture. It’s probably already too late, the evidence can be seen in the reporters of that White House briefing. Those are the best that our culture has produced, so imagine what the average people are like out there? I have kids in this age group and let me tell you this—its not looking good. Not good at all. We better change things quick, or there will be no return.

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

An Example of Great Police Work: What could have been a tragedy in Liberty Township, Ohio turned out well for everyone but the gunman

I took some time to consider the case of the 10-year-old boy who was held hostage by a drug crazed gunman just down the road from my house for 30 hours over this past weekend because honestly, I felt bad for the kid. He certainly didn’t deserve what happened to him. It’s not his fault the adults in his life put him in that kind of situation. His mother and her brother are at fault for even answering the door at 11:30 on a Friday night during a snow storm—one of the coldest nights of the year. His mother is even at fault for knowing the gunman—who conducts a relationship with a loser just let out of the state penitentiary six months prior—and expects things to go well? But after hearing the mother talk about the terrible ordeal, I felt sorry for her too. She made a mistake and she was at least taking some responsibility for it. However, this case which became nationwide is such a good example of positive police work that it would be terrible not to talk about it, so let’s do.

http://www.fox19.com/story/37258938/authorities-young-boy-held-hostage-in-liberty-twp-home-swat-trying-to-negotiate-his-release

Sheriff Jones and I have had a less than positive relationship over recent years. The Issue 2 initiative in Ohio where public sector unions were to be stripped of their power, Jones was obviously for preserving the way things were, and I was against it. Our relationship never really healed since. We were both on WLW almost daily at that time. He wanted to preserve the power of public sector unions obviously as a sheriff, and I wanted to see an end to collective bargaining of anyone on a government payroll. We have seen each other here and there and haven’t spoken much since that election of 2012. Additionally, I think he should have a much stronger stance on illegal drugs than he does. I understand the political difficulties from his point of view, but I don’t respect those restrictions so that is an issue of contention as well. It’s not that he’s a pro-drug Butler County Sheriff—but his position is not as passionate against it as I’d like it to be.

However, I have to say that I was very proud of the temperament of the law enforcement that engaged in the standoff at Liberty Springs townhouses just down the road from Liberty Center. That’s when Donald Tobias Gazaway came to the door of a single mom and her brother Rodderick Trammel to ask for money after a drug crazed party earlier that night had left the convict depleted of his mental faculties and an empty wallet. When the mom refused the scum bag took her little ten-year old boy hostage and from there a 30 hour stand-off ensued. The mom and her brother left the apartment for some mysterious reason to call police and the SWAT team arrived to settle the incident. I must say at this point I would expect the mother or her brother to have a concealed carry permit and to have shot the gunman at the point of danger, when Gazaway moved to take the little boy hostage. Gazaway wouldn’t have been able to do that if the mother and her brother had been armed—and the situation would have been solved right then and there.

The great thing about the police in this case is that they did have access to a large armored vehicle shown in the tweet by Craig Bucheit, Chief of Police. Having that vehicle allowed the police to barricade themselves safely behind it while the gunman holding the kid hostage inside the home shot over 20 rounds of bullets at them. The police at that point had every right in the world to use deadly force, but they didn’t. Instead, they let the gunman run out of gas allowing the standoff to end peacefully. The difference maker in the whole ordeal was that armored car. I thought it was a remarkable level of police work to utilize it to the full effect instead of becoming a bunch of panicky cops shooting at the slightest provocation. Even though Sheriff Jones didn’t take credit for all the good police work he did create a culture around the various police forces which allowed them to use their strengths against the weaknesses of Donald Tobias Gazaway.

When you hear debate about the militarization of American policing, please remember suspect fired 20+ shots at officers was arrested w/o injury, 10-yr-old hostage safely rescued, & many officer/citizen lives were safeguarded by use of this armored vehicle! https://t.co/CHlpV7TTZE pic.twitter.com/4w7YBrenlO

— Craig R. Bucheit (@craigbucheit) January 15, 2018

Even greater than that, the police kept a good relationship with the community turning the whole thing into a very positive experience, even as bullets were flying around. The police brought the kid and the criminal McDonald’s meals and gave them water to keep them hydrated and the neighbors allowed the law enforces to get warm in their homes and use their restrooms during the long hours of contention. If something like this had happened anywhere else in the country, I can’t say that it would have turned out any better. The combination of good leadership from Sheriff Jones and all the various police departments that fell under his jurisdiction was phenomenal. He deserves a lot of credit for setting the proper modes of success for which everything occurred, even after the arrest of the gunman. Jones could have really turned up the media heat, but he kept things even and cool which is a lot harder than many people think.

I’m not ready to go pass a police levy after all this to feed collective bargaining agreements with excessively high wages for all cops, but I am much more supportive of the kind of armaments that the police can have to take care of situations like this one. I’m a big fan of the SWAT armored vehicle which gave the police such an overwhelming advantage in the frigid cold of a January night during a snow storm. The fear of giving the police such powerful weapons is that they might turn that against us all—but in Butler County the tools were used properly, and to great effect. The little boy gets to live a hopefully good life. The mother gets to skid past a possibly much more dangerous situation and should consider herself lucky. Hopefully she learns from this. And a bad guy goes back to jail where he clearly belongs.

I often show great pride for the community I live in—I’m very proud of it. I could live anywhere in the world that I want to, but I chose to stay in Liberty Township because I think it is the best place to live. Sure, sometimes we get in little political squabbles, but we generally all get along most of the time, and the quality of life reflects it. Its very unusual to have scum bags like this Donald Gazaway hanging out in our community—at least out in the open. I would point to the tendency of past feel-good politicians who endeavored to make Liberty Township accessible to even the poorest and those of low ambition—so they could live the “good life,” and show them that their sentiments were pretty stupid in hind sight. You can’t mix people of poor quality with people of high quality and expect things to go well. I don’t think anybody out there would say that losers like Gazaway should be hanging out around the children of Four Bridges, or Wetherington so the social experimentation when it goes bad has a cost. Thinking back several years I remember when a friend of mine wanted to go into a partnership with me on that exact piece of property where this standoff took place. I wasn’t crazy about the idea because it was too far from the highway and I never thought it would produce much of anything in value. As it turned out they built these townhouses which attracted renters and people who have a tendency to be unstable. Many people are good, but some are not in those types of places and in this case we had a mom who wanted to walk on the wild side with a convicted felon—and it cost her and that entire community a lot in reputation. I’m glad my money wasn’t involved. But I am glad that our police department was in tip-top shape to handle a tough situation very well, and give a 10-year-old boy a new day to live, love and be free in the great community of Liberty Township, Ohio.

Rich Hoffman

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

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.

A Review of ‘Fire and Fury’: The profound sadness that emerges at the end of the controversial book

Michael Wolff is a total loser who made up stories in order to sell this really boring and untruthful book. He used Sloppy Steve Bannon, who cried when he got fired and begged for his job. Now Sloppy Steve has been dumped like a dog by almost everyone. Too bad! https://t.co/mEeUhk5ZV9

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2018

My first thought about the new Michael Wolff book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House is sadness. My second thought is that it is good for the book publishing business and that I think it’s wonderful that people are reading it. At least they are reading something. I went down to my Barnes and Noble store at precisely 9 am when they opened to buy it. They had two copies for promotion and were able to release them once the publisher moved up the publication date, due to Trump’s cease and desist order, so it was one of the more dramatic books to hit the shelves in a long time—and that is a good thing. But after going through it my opinion of Trump only solidified. It was obvious to me that Wolff took a calculated risk that will make him forever wealthy—but will always place him in the category of a tabloid writer. He threw away his reputation to exploit this one unique chance in history and that is what lead me to feel the sadness—not just for him, but the people who said the things about Trump that they did. It was a grim reminder to me of how small people most of the time think—and that is a real tragedy that I hope diminishes with each year that Trump is in office.

Of course Melania cried when her husband won the presidency. She’s a young woman still who could walk the streets of New York with her son and go to a store or restaurant and enjoy some anonymity. With Trump’s successful election she lost all that in a moment for the rest of her life and there is no question that it was a real punch in the gut for her. What shocked me about Wolff’s book, as a writer, was his complete disregard for those types of little moments and what they really mean. He simply took a Never Trump vantage point of all the events of the book and interviewed people who were ankle biters. Ankle biters are those second-hand people, who usually constitute most of our society, who need a leader to show them how to do something once, then they try to associate themselves with the original idea through group think and try to claim jump in some respect for shared ownership. You can know them by the type of people who stand around the coffee machine in any given morning talking about nothing until the boss walks through. The boss might say a thing or two about current events for which the ankle biters will laugh and agree with. Then the moment the boss leaves those people retreat into small-minded topics talking about the boss and how stupid he or she may be—and how they could do a better job if they were in charge.

Trump dealt with ankle biters all his life from his various businesses. However, given his later celebrity status and the role his children played at the top of his company, Trump had some insulation from them. In public life the ankle biters are much worse because there is a feeling of entitlement that often comes with their jobs and when Trump took office those second-hand people where literally everywhere. It took Trump about five months of working in the White House to start to get his stride and figure out who was doing what. He learned enough to figure out that Comey was a leaker on the intelligence side, but the people closest to him were harder to detect. Trump sincerely tried to show everyone in Washington D.C. that he had no plans of being a tyrant so he went to dinner with Mitt Romney, and put people on his staff that he hoped would bridge the gap between the Never Trumpers and the rest of the GOP—conventional choices that would make passing a legislative agenda a higher probability. Those people, and Steve Bannon turned out to be one of them, assumed that Trump’s attempt to do this meant that the new president had no idea how to go about his job. In their minds they fantasized that they could do a better job, so they were not loyal, and they found the ear of another second-hander in Wolff and their gossipy recollections produced the contents of this book.

Trump being the eternal optimist figured he could bounce though anything, so he didn’t mind taking the gamble, and when it began to be clear by May of 2017 that he’d need to get rid of quite of few people from the White House staff and replace them with new hires—he did it. Trump also obviously hoped to convert the Obama holdovers around the country who had been working on the previous administration. I found myself sympathizing with Trump quite a lot in Wolff’s book because I’ve been in similar situations—where you take over management of other people’s problems and you try to reform them with your much better personal philosophy—but they don’t get it and you eventually have to let them go. Trump at his core is a really nice guy. I’ve met him a few times and he truly is an eternal optimist and he and I have that in common. There are lots of places where we are different, but on that topic, I feel a real connection to this president. He is always hopeful and that is a unique trait, one that is making America great again. On the day that this book was released, the Dow exploded up over 25,000 for the first time ever which is astonishing. That is purely because of Trump, because the investors out there understand what this Trump presidency means. They are leaders in their fields and not the ankle biter types—so the economy reflects better than any other indicator how good this president is for the world. That’s where I felt a real sadness for Michael Wolff in this book, and Steve Bannon ironically. Their vantage point of reporting their opinions—as was the case of most of the quotes, was from that of a defeated state of mind. Wolff didn’t surprise me because there are a lot of people like him out there. But Steve Bannon did.

As Wolff stated the essential theme of his book was that everyone concluded Trump was essentially a man child—that he made everything about him all the time. I’ve heard this one before also, and that is why as I closed the book I felt a profound sadness for a lot of people in it. We start out lives as children with endless imagination and optimism. We learn all we can in a short time—usually before the age of 5 and it is a real miracle of the human mind that we do so much in such a limited time. But most of us—like more than 99.99999%–don’t make it past our teens and into our twenties with the gift of childhood intact. Slowly over many years we fall into adult habits of steady bed times, we learn what works and what doesn’t so we regulate ourselves to reality and thus find ourselves shaped by the weakest links of our society and their lack of ambition. Trump as a president still has that energy of a child who wants to build a tent in the living room—only he has spent most of his adult life building actual skyscrapers. To do something like that requires endless optimism—like children have. The great motivating pastor from New York City, Norman Vincent Peale in his book The Power of Positive Thinking attributed a genius status to those adults who carry that childlike quality of thinking throughout their lives. It is why Trump can see and do things that most people can’t and it is his best quality. However, Wolff presents it as a detriment and that is unfortunately what is wrong with most people psychologically these days. People see in Trump a quality they have long-lost and they feel resentment toward him reminding them of what it was. That hatred is not just politically ideological, it is visceral. It’s a mode of self-preservation that is not related to the performance of Trump—but the state of mind for which the readers and interviews of the book were conducted.

That visceral platform is what shines through in the end. Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House I thought only strengthened the Trump administration because it clearly places on the table the type of people who have been against him. Trump can now crack down on all his enemies—which happen to be the primary villains of American ideas—and he can say he tried. This book is the testimony of that effort. When it comes to people like Steve Bannon there are always people like him who fly too close to the sun and have their wings melt away. Most humans don’t handle power very well—the Lord of the Rings books can attest to that—power can corrupt the weak minds—and often does. But for those who do carry power with the mind of young people who just want to do and learn great things in life—power doesn’t corrupt—and Trump is at a place in his life where a hamburger in bed with three televisions on is his idea of a great life. He’s accomplished all the things most people associate with success and he is now a president who is in the White House incorruptible. What I learned from Fire and Fury is that Trump is far better than even I thought he was—but the people around him were not nearly equipped as such. They were mere mortals who have not yet touched the face of eternity—which most children do possess until they learn to stop listening. And that realization comes with it a profound sadness.

If you’d like to read the book but can’t get your hands on a copy, here it is in full PDF.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bt6BSc-kxJeTUpMEoJkkbEgEZaSmPjA3/view

Rich Hoffman

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

Steven Spielberg: Just another Hollywood political hack

It pains me to say this, I love Steven Spielberg, I love John Williams, I even like Amazon’s Jeff Bezos—so what on earth are these idiots talking about regarding the merit of the “free press.” In his new movie The Post, Spielberg, Tom Hanks and the eternally liberal feminist Meryl Streep act like they are changing the world with this rush job loser of a movie yet they had to get it out before the close of 2017 to qualify for the awards season. Aside from the obvious political message the film is very sloppy—like it was made by college students—not the most successful filmmaker in the history of mankind. The story is amazingly political. The premise suggested by the movie—that the free press is our only vanguard against corrupt presidencies is completely ridiculous. The Washington Post—the newspaper currently owned by Jeff Bezos isn’t a free press—it’s a liberal mouthpiece for the political left and a tool for trying to eliminate conservative politicians from races of consideration. They are as corrupt as any K-Street lobbyists and couldn’t be considered trustworthy by any stretch of the imagination. It’s amazing to me that Spielberg and Hanks would even suggest that there is some moral authority for which The Post had to speak from—because such a thought is one of the biggest fantasies in Spielberg’s long career at making movies—and that includes his version of Peter Pan in the movie Hook.

Like most things on the political left the foundations of thinking are rooted in disjointed emotions and a viewpoint from the bubble of the liberal neighborhoods they currently live in. The Obama administration as we have learned very late in the game was one of the most corrupt administrations in the history of the world—you’d have to go back to the Roman emperor Nero for a comparison—and The Washington Post has been silent on the matter—yet it has fully advanced the false notion that Russians are the reason Donald Trump won the presidency. The American people don’t have faith in the left leaning “free press” of The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN. Liberal people do because those outlets say what they want to hear just as Fox News traditionally might feed the political right a viewpoint favorable to their sentiments. But facts are facts and many news outlets including Disney owned ABC has deliberately sat on stories to prevent the political left from looking bad.

Before Donald Trump’s election to the presidency I would occasionally buy a New York Times newspaper at my local Barnes and Nobel bookstore just to thumb through the pages and see what was going on in the world from the viewpoint of New York City. I was able to overlook their obvious liberal bias because it wasn’t nearly as “in your face” as today’s anti-Trump media has been. I even would read The New Yorker from time to time to keep up with the cultural drivers of our time—so I’m hardly a closed-minded Republican. I’m a Ohio conservative so I am used to dealing with propaganda from the political left, even Fox News is now owned by the Disney Company so if I want to participate in the world, I have to deal with liberals. But my beliefs aren’t just regional—because I was born in a conservative area, had conservative parents, and conservative grandparents—etc. I’ve navigated through my adult life as an avid reader of history. I never get drunk for any kind of entertainment as I love my mind more than anything in the world—and I enjoy feeding it good things—so my thoughts on things are formed by evidence as it plays out in the world—not what “people” and their viewpoints think of it. For instance, for the third time in my life I am reading the big version of Adam Smith’s An Inquiry in the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations shown in the included picture. All the books in that stack for instance are my January 2018 projects and I will have them all read before the upcoming Super Bowl. That stack is a continuous one that resides next to my reading chair. The contents of the stack are ever-changing, but the stack is always there. The point of the matter is that I am not drawing my conclusions about the nature of the “free press” based on any kind of pop culture sentiment—it is through the long view of historical perspective—so it deeply surprises me that Steve Spielberg—as an artist would allow himself to get so caught up in the local vantage points of his liberal Hollywood friends—because if they think the current Washington Post is anything more than a blog for the liberal views of Jeff Bezos—they are smoking crack and should be arrested immediately.

When the free press becomes part of the problem as it is now, we have no choice but to fight them. We have watched them actively hide crimes from our faces much more severe than The Pentagon Papers ever were. If that is the criteria of merit as shown in The Post—then where is the outrage over the crimes Hillary Clinton herself committed? What about the FBI using the press as a way to hide their crimes and manipulate public opinion in ways they approved of? What about that smidgen of evidence which continues to pour out of the Obama White House when it used the powers of government to crush political opponents and unmask competing administrations as they came into power? The Trump administration was just trying to put together their team when Obama and his activist Justice Department was unmasking members of the transition team as a way to destroy them before they ever got started. What they learned they leaked to that “free press” to work in cahoots with the aims of the political left to advance a sentiment for which the American public had just voted against–so much for a “righteous” Washington Post.

The essential premise of the movie, The Post is completely ridiculous and I’d expect much more out of these seasoned filmmakers than to propose that the free press especially in this modern era is anything less than another potential villain of misinformation with an agenda. I’ve been involved in some of those little parties where some ditzy blond starlet yaks on and on about animal rights, women in the work place, and how wonderful Bill Clinton was in the White House with her tits falling out of her dress, drunk hoping to seduce her way into a movie role. That is the world of Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg—they are bombarded by those types of people almost every day. And actresses like that don’t really care about animal rights. If by some chance she thought the film producers were conservative, she’d go on and on about the greatness of the NRA and how tax cuts helped her buy a new car as she was trying to make ends meet until her next movie role—(wink—look at my boobies). But we expect more out of filmmakers who are as seasoned as Spielberg is. Sadly it appears he’s become caught up in all this anti-Trump Hollywood sentiment and he is looking for another Oscar by appeasing those liberal members of the Academy with some red meat to fulfill their fantasies. Yet all he’s really shown us is that he can’t be trusted to tell the truth either—as an artist. He has become just another political hack, like the rest of them.

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.

Trump Makes Idiots out of the United Nations: Gold always rules, not bureaucrats

Boy we’ve come a long way in such a short time. You know dear reader what I’ve said for many years—that the purpose of public education is for people to assimilate into their peer groups and for the pressure of those groups to enforce behavior patterns for which centralized societies can more easily control. Public education was never intended to teach children how to read, and conduct math. There are other ways to achieve those same objectives. But schools use those necessities as a cover story for their real intention—to teach people to follow the direction of their peer groups. That is the entire purpose, and is the primary cause of most modern forms of neurosis. But it was only five years ago where smart meters and other Agenda 21 United Nations initiatives were causing so much consternation among sovereign Americans. Now under Trump the United Nations has received a death-blow of its own by a President Trump who shrugged them off as worthless one day after revolutionary tax cuts cleared a House vote. The U.N. foolishly tried to apply peer pressure on the Trump administration with a 128-9 vote against the American measure to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/sns-bc-un–united-nations-us-jerusalem-20171221-story.html

The United Nations budget is around $7.8 billion dollars and the United States contributes around 28% of that—or $2.8 billion. I learned a long time ago from a business deal I had with the head of Servatii Bakery in Cincinnati that “he who has the gold rules.” It was a hard lesson for me, I was only 25 years old and my proposal which involved the head of the popular Cincinnati bakery involved many millions of potential dollars and a lot of private upfront investment. Essentially, I was working with no cash but a lot of effort I had done in partnership with a small team of people the leg work in showing this business leader how to get a change of use plan approved through the Cincinnati Building Commission. Once he had that information he changed the deal on me—which cost me a lot. When he flew back in from Las Vegas to a have sit down meeting with me for what I thought would be good news—he dropped the bomb that for him it made more sense to take what he learned from me and apply that knowledge to a partner who had deep pockets on another deal which had much less personal risk for him. Of course, I felt betrayed and that’s when he told me that line—which I’ve never forgotten. The same applies to the United Nations—they don’t have any gold, they have a lot of utopian ideas, but no cash to work with—so they are at the mercy of those who do have the gold—and that is the facts of life. Like it or not, that’s the way the ball bounces in life.

If you want to lead and make decisions for yourself and others who may want to follow you, you have to get your hands on some gold. You have to be willing to do the work, to have the proper philosophy in your life to allow you to have gold, you have to compete with the world to get it. In the case of the United Nations, they are running most of their countries on socialist economies, so they have very little gold. America is a fabulous capitalist economy—so it has a lot of wealth to work with. Yet it makes no sense at all to fund 28% of the United nations budget—for what? What do we get out of it? Agenda 21 threats—smart meters, washing machines that spy on how much water we use? The United Nations can mind their own business—and I don’t want to give those idiots any of my money—I can tell you that. However, for years no politician listened to us—instead they caved into the pressure of the United Nations as if it were an equal partnership. It was never equal. If it wasn’t for the United States there wouldn’t even be a United Nations. So why would any of our past presidents bow to anyone within the United Nations?

It took me nearly a decade to recover from that deal with the head of Servatii, but I eventually did. For many years I hated that guy and if I had caught him in the street after that initial shock wore off, there would have been trouble. But he was at the top of the pyramid and had cash to burn. He came to America as a German immigrant and worked his way to the top. I had a few opportunities to go to lunch with him and a few other multimillionaires and learned how those people thought—which ultimately was much more valuable to me than if the business deal had actually concluded. They certainly weren’t what the political left thinks of them—people like the Scrooge, or the Grinch—interpretations of wealth by socialist minded artists. They were smart guys who liked to compete and make money, and they were good people. That’s why it was so shocking to me to feel that sting of betrayal. At one dinner I was at with these guys I saw that the check came back at $13,000 which was all the money in the world to me at the time. When they saw my reaction, the laughed and told me that was a normal lunch cost—they did that everyday. And they were serious. I never forgot that either. So many people depended on those guys to spend their money on things–they had gold, they were the ones who ruled what happened and what didn’t. After my deal went sour it took me ten years and many jobs, sometimes three at a time to make ends meet and recover. For a long time, my wife and I only had one car which I left for her in case the kids needed to get somewhere. I rode a bicycle everywhere—all over the city of Cincinnati to whatever job I was doing, and I did that for many years. For a solid four-year period, I held two full-time jobs—both of them demanding overtime minimums at times of at least 10 hours each—a lot of times demanding Saturdays as well. All that time I read books on my break times and always strived to get back on my feet. I worked harder than anybody I ever met, and eventually I pulled back out on top and those expensive meals are something I experience again. This is what the United Nations is about to go through, they have now been cut off from the gold and they don’t have a means on their own of obtaining it. Will they work hard to solve their problem like I did on the microcosm? Probably not—and the result is that they will be destroyed.

The United Nations assumption that they had some ruling power over the United States was simply preposterous. They learned a hard lesson with Trump that gold truly does rule the world, not bureaucrats—the aristocratic societies of the past are officially dead—and it was Trump that killed them all with just a simple strategy of letting them defund themselves. You see, Trump always meant to defund the United Nations—that is after all why people like me voted for him as president. If he did it on his own he would have been a villain, just like that Servatii bakery guy needed me to figure out how to solve his permit problem so that his real objective could be fulfilled. Trump knew the United Nations would scrutinize his decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem. So when they made idiots of themselves by voting against the measure at the U.N. they gave Trump a free pass to withdraw the huge amounts of money that the United States pours into it. And who will win in the end—who do you think? He who has the gold always rules—and it is they who define fairness in the morality of value exchange. And that’s life.

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2017/feb/01/rob-portman/us-contribution-un-22-percent/

Rich Hoffman

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

	vwells34 on Where Evil Lives in Butler Cou…
	Rich Hoffman on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Mysterious London Stone: S…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Rich Hoffman on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Forbidden Archaeology…
	Rich Hoffman on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…
	Anonymous on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: