Rich Hoffman's Blog, page 303

The Trump Speech in Saudi Arabia: “Drive them from the earth”

@POTUS had a historic first day in Saudi Arabia- today he delivers a speech about Islam to leaders from Arab and Muslim-majority nations. pic.twitter.com/x2cQXdU4TP

— USA Association (@USAAssociation) May 21, 2017

This is what an American president looks like https://t.co/aOy44w3YsI

— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) May 22, 2017

After Trump’s fabulous speech in Saudi Arabia I watched the news and even those who don’t like the president, and wish him ill will at every turn, have to admit that everything that happened over the weekend of 5/20 2017 was history making.  I was incredibly impressed with the Trump visit to Saudi Arabia, in many ways the speech he gave sounded like something I’d write.  His focus on the word “evil” was appropriate and he used proper metaphors regarding the human soul in the correct context while setting the stage for negotiations between Israel and Palestine.  I’ve been waiting all of my life for an American president to do what Trump did in the heart of Islam.  If you didn’t see the speech, watch it here.  Then send it to a friend.  It was historically an incredibly relevant declaration of authority.  “Drive them out!  Drive them from the earth!”  That is big stuff.

Rich Hoffman

 

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

Knowing the Difference Between Good and Evil: Definitions that need to be understood

It occurred to me after some feedback on an article we all explored here together on the topic of designating evil as a proper psychiatric disorder to explain the common behavior of Washington D.C., that after all this time many people may not have a proper definition of the word evil for which to use as a foundational reference.  Of course such things cannot be allowed to happen.  For our cause dear reader the definition of evil is as important to understand as it is to reference the word “hot” in a cooking class.  Without a proper reference there simply isn’t a way to comprehend the material.  So let’s define evil properly so that we can all advance this treacherous topic forward for the betterment of mankind.

Many of my readers have taken note over the years that I love a lot of things—I love McDonald’s on road trips.  I love music, movies, Mello Yello soft drinks.  I love accomplishment, I love video games.  I love family.  I love television documentaries.  I love little children who aren’t yet five but can say three syllable words fluently without struggling to find the proper applications.  I love, I love, and I love.  It is never hard for me to find some reason to live no matter how bad a day may be because there is so much that I love about life that it’s really never a challenge.  For me, it is that love that makes it so easy to spot the villainy of evil as it seeks to spread among us unmolested.  I think for many, especially those with poor reading comprehension who clearly associate evil within a Biblical context that is discussed on Sunday church services, they tend to regulate their understanding to just religious discussions but are shy about making such judgments in everyday life.  We are all taught these days starting in our public schools not to judge others.  Our media then carries that torch and declares that judgment is something that we shouldn’t do so thus, evil doesn’t get a name so many people wonder through life never really loving anything because evil is present and molesting their thoughts without anybody really saying anything about it.  Those authorities will point to someone like me and say, “Rich Hoffman declares himself to be “good” yet he doesn’t turn the other cheek as the Bible insists or that he has a history of violence when things don’t go his way—so how can we trust what he says and does on the subject of goodness?”  And it is in that way that evil camouflages itself against the chaos and confusion of daily life so that without clear understandings of what it is, we throw our hands up in confusion and hope to navigate ourselves into an afterlife where a supreme being will eventually spell all this out for us.

So here is the easy way to understand evil and it’s workings at the most fundamental level.  Good is life and the desire to live.  Evil is bad and the desire to strip away life, love and natural passions.  For instance, I would say that Democrats as a political party represent evil because they are against human life.  While standing for equal rights, women rights and economic level playing fields they are foundationally committed to death in their support of abortion, drug use and attacking excellence because it takes human beings away from the premise of Mother Earth dominance.  The equal rights portion of their political platforms is a mask used to cover up the evil of their primary objectives which is a commitment toward death.  Put simply evil is “LIVE” spelled backwards.  Anything that is against life is evil and Democrats are against human life in favor of collective life.  Their morality might be in their preservation of “mother earth” so they’ll justify the killing of millions of human babies so to take away the pressure put on earth’s ecosystem.  In their minds they value the life on planet earth as if it were so special and unique that the sacrifices made by the human race and their personal comfort are justified.  Yet their entire political party is built on the foundation of death—of loathing, of jealously—of anti-life.

A simple cricket might go through its whole life and never contemplate good and evil.  It just lives, it eats and it dies without ever knowing the difference.  If it happens to be hopping along a driveway and one of our cars run it over not meaning to, nothing but a human mind might consider the entire exchange as a possible evil.  Democrats might say that if not for the invention of the car by humans the natural life of the cricket might have continued and life on Earth would be enhanced if not for those pesky humans.  But the Bible thumping conservative would consider such a thing as unfortunate but that all of God’s creatures are placed here for man’s use as the highest possible life form created in six days before God put up his feet on the seventh and watched a football game with a nice beverage in his hand to reflect a job well done.  Humans, unlike the cricket do contemplate that by losing life that such a thing would be evil because it robs the life form of all potential trajectories of life which comes to a conscious mind.  But only once a mind thinks does it become manifested into the fabric of reality.  If something just lives and responds to life under the umbrella of biology then such a concept of evil cannot be applied.  Only when considering a love for life can a thinking being evolve into separating acts between good and evil.

The mystic sage from the far East attempts to step beyond these pairs of opposites toward an enlightenment which holds the mind firm when disappointments rob people of the joy that life offers.  In Buddhism they call it the “immovable spot” and it is a good technique for not losing one’s mind when disappointment floods our lives with sorrows when joy was expected.  Democrats tend to point to the East and say, “ah, they know where they are doing over there.”  But they really don’t. Women, especially in China, Vietnam, Cambodia and all the way to India use the immovable spot narrative in their lives to endure terrible evil that is cast upon them.  Too many young children are abused by tourists, too many women sell themselves to the sex trade just so they can buy bread—evil is soaking the Eastern cultures of the orient to an extent that many people live every day miserable and praying for the day when it will all end.  They look toward Buddha’s immovable spot, or some other transitory explanation as a way to endure evil—but their culture doesn’t do much to combat evil other than hope that the “gods” might spare them from the intentions.  So they are slow to name evil in much the same way that Democrats refuse the judgment.  That’s not good.

To love life is to be good. To respect living to the point where you can say you love it—then you are espousing  goodness—even if the love is so trivial as to loving a Big Mac from McDonald’s.  The love of life, the creation of a new hamburger by human minds, the marketing of it and the convenience of experiencing it while traveling are all things that make them good—we think, therefore we are.  The cows at the slaughterhouse lost their life so that we could eat them at McDonald’s and hope to get a nice Happy Meal for our kids with the latest toy promoting some new movie.  Life was lost so that we could eat it and live at their expense.  Only the cow has no ability to love life or fear death—it just exists as part of a biological machine.  Human thought brings meaning to that life.

By saying that something is evil it by definition it works against life either by kicking up dust so that we can’t properly see our subjects, or in maintaining their camouflage by preventing judgment from identifying their workings in modern society.  But the motivations are always against living.  If it goes against the human desire to appreciate life, it can be said to be evil.  Getting drunk is evil because it goes against human thinking—the desire is to turn off the mind instead of turning it on.  Abortion is evil because it kills life.  Being a workaholic is evil if it prevents you from enjoying life in service to some faceless institution.  Collective based sex—orgies, multiple partners, and mass consumption of pornography is evil because it cheapens the individual experience that was always supposed to be reflective of procreation with an emphasis on life.  The guy who rapes an inebriated young woman passed out from too much drinking at a college party commits terrible evil because he takes the sex without the emphasis on enjoying it with another human being willingly.  What’s the point unless the exchange was mutually beneficial and a celebration of life?

By understanding the nature of the word, “evil” as being “live” spelled backwards we find that it is much easier to understand it.  If something stands against life, it is said to be evil—not necessarily cosmic life, but human life in that as an intellectual being meanings are created that evoke either love for life or the thought of it being gone the next day.  Just yesterday a bunch of people who work for me occupationally, had a party.  My intention was to celebrate a little bit of living life because things have been tough for the last few weeks—so dozens of people brought food and drinks all with the intention to have a little fun and celebrate just being alive. There was a lot of very nice food, some of it very exotic, but even with all those selections someone thought to bring a bag of Grippos barbecue potato chips which I just love and they obviously had me in mind when they did it.  They did it because they know my passions and love for that specific brand.  Because I “love” so many things it was fairly easy for these guys to think, “Rich Hoffman will love these,” and then to act on that impulse in the name of goodness.  There was nothing evil about the exchange—goodness was the centerpiece of the event. After it was over I was walking back to my car and across the parking lot I spotted a little worm that was squirming around under the hot sun cooking against the black pavement.  As I looked around I saw hundreds of similar worms that had been cooked after the recently heavy rain so one more worm wasn’t going to have much impact cosmically.  I could have easily have gotten in my car to drive away but instead I picked up the little guy and took him over to some high grass.  It might have still died, but at least it was cooler in the grass.  The worm has no consciousness to thank me for such a thing just like the people who brought Grippos to the party didn’t do it to get a raise or some special benefit.  Those types of things are done in recognition of a love of life and to respect it enough to give life a chance is always good.  To be good is to want to live.  To be bad is to want to commit evil by working against life.  And that is how you can tell the difference between good and evil.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Benefits of Julian Assanage: How the dynamic intellectualism of pirates save the world

I was very happy to hear that Sweden had given up on its rape allegations against Julian Assange taking one burden away from the international fugitive. As everyone here knows I am a law and order guy who has a very black and white view of justice.  In the great parody of pairs of earthly opposites, I always side with the good, the pure, and the blind efforts at justice, fairness, and honorable civility.  But I’m also the first to recognize when the other side isn’t playing by the same rules and in such cases I’m willing to do whatever it takes to pummel them into oblivion.  And from what I’ve seen, I do not trust the United States government in its current form and I certainly don’t have any love for the Deep State—the American intelligence community dedicated to the Skull and Bones creed of global governance through constant panic and war.  Further, it is my strong conviction that without Julian Assange’s “WikiLeaks” organization, America would have fallen deeper into despair than it already has been.  WikiLeaks has done us a tremendous favor.  I’m happy that Pamela Anderson is taking care of Julian Assange—but honestly, the guy should be working for our American intelligence department—not being a fugitive from it.  Save Pamela some airfare and constant harassment through the TSA by letting her visit Julian in Washington D.C. or perhaps even at Langley.  Free Assange and put him to work for the good of everyone.

I’m sure it was more than just a fleeting sensation—I do get to travel around and see things, but by far the most exciting place I can remember seeing in this decade was the Ecuadorian Embassy in London just down the street from the great Harrod’s department store. I normally don’t pose for pictures but on that day I did, and it was one of my best days in London to date—because behind those windows just above my shoulders Julian Assange was captive under diplomatic conditions.  And Assange and his WikiLeaks was doing the job of holding off giant international governments without troops, or even the bureaucracy of a country to challenge everyone to stay honest. While we were there my family was a little mystified at my intense desire to see the place and after I explained it after they sort of “got it.”  I am convinced that if not for WikiLeaks our American media would clearly be gone.  There are few if any reporters who are willing to do any hard investigating without a bias, but through WikiLeaks we at least get raw information for that same media to chew on.[image error]

People who know me best also understand that I have a natural love for pirates—which confuses them, because I am a law and order guy. Pirates by their very nature break the rules and make new ones up as they go.  I see that process as healthy because under the terms of dynamic intellectualism we need dynamic forces to challenge static forces in order to institute healthy societal growth.  Put another way, the best way to not have too many mice contaminating your food supply is to get a cat that hunts down and kills the mice.  We want to have a certain level of mice as a species, just not enough to destroy our society with disease.  So cats even though they can be uncaring, selfish little bastards that spray smelly piss everywhere are necessary to keep down the varmint population. The Introduction of cats is a dynamic to the static population and behavior of mice.  The same holds true with our media, without competition, or intellectual challenges such as what we see with one party clearly dominating the kind of thinking that the press articulates, we have a very static situation.  So to keep them honest, and controlled we need a dynamic force.  Piracy in this case has a moral element that might be brutal to watch but the results are beneficial.  Julian Assange is a kind of pirate in many ways that Henry Morgan was during the golden age of pirates.  We don’t want the lawless behavior but what poured forth from the Morgan pirates was the freest country on earth—the United States roughly 100 years later after many thoughtful people took note of the kind of society Morgan created in Jamaica spawned the idea for America.  The United States wasn’t formed from law and order, it was created from a lawless leap for freedom—a dynamic force challenging the worldly “static” orthodox.

Under normal conditions in life, law and order is fine, but when you get too many mice—otherwise—too many disease infested varmints that roam through life unchallenged, you get an unhealthy stagnation that is detrimental to our existence. Pirates even though they live as lawless bandits serve as a challenge to static institutions that are about to fail under their own weight for lack of external competition.  The original Pirates of the Caribbean led by Henry Morgan under direct supervision of the King of England at the time invented something new.  It was rough and a lot wild, but ultimately it was healthy and we celebrate it today with romanticized movies and books on the subject.  But when it comes to international intelligence gathering for which the United States is the biggest player and has become over time—“too big to fail” and see themselves as “bigger” than the elected presidents of our republic—then a dynamic challenge is certainly in order.

Being a modern pirate doesn’t mean you have to wear a crazy hat or rape women during pillaging missions. It doesn’t mean you have to kill anyone or even be a villain dressed all in black.  But it does mean you are a dynamic force challenging the static patterns of our society and for that we all owe Julian Assange some thanks. That is precisely why I was excited to see the Ecuadorian Embassy in London out of all the cool things there is to do there—because behind that glass just over my shoulders was one of the greatest dynamic forces of any lifetime functioning for the first time in human history without any major troop network with minimal resources that was openly challenging the static corrosion that has infected all of our institutions around the world.

Many will say that Julian Assange is a criminal, that he’s “unpatriotic,” and that he’s a villain. I say he is a pure human being looking for honesty among a bunch of plague infested rats and he is the cat that has determined himself to catch and kill them for our benefit. It takes guts to challenge the world the way he has.  With his talent, reputation, and resources he would serve everyone better if he were sanctioned and not kept a fugitive.  Who cares what the media thinks about the issue.  They are part of that static problem—and they need to either be challenged and cured through competition, or they need to be utterly destroyed.  I mean if there wasn’t a Juilain Assange just think how terrible newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post would be left unchecked.  We’ve witnessed how Comey’s F.B.I ran as a partisan machine for the Democratic Party.  In many ways things are far worse than anybody imagined, but we only know that because WikiLeaks is there as a threat to expose the truth when these guys get caught.  And if they weren’t there, what cat out there would be around to catch these mice?  The answer of course is that there wouldn’t be.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Confronting Evil in Washington D.C.: Establishing a proper psychiatric diagnosis for the “swamp”

I think the great psychiatrist M. Scott Peck M.D. had a good point in his fantastic book about human evil titled People of The Lie when he thought that evil should become a proper scientific diagnosis for people emitting thinking disorders.  Evil people just don’t think properly about things and there are a lot of people out there who should be titled as such.  Many more than there should be.  And I think that what we have seen in Washington D.C. for a long time could best be collectively summarized as an evil embodiment of human degradation.   The cause of that degradation was summarized quite brilliantly in that mentioned book.  The evidence of its merit can clearly be seen in how various evil groups have challenged President Trump in the opening days of his new administration and as far as I’m concerned this is the biggest topic on the market and why I cover it almost daily.  What we are seeing in America is evil being exposed like a demon from a possessed host and that evil is screaming in fear from the top of their voice.

The tendency to view rich people as evil is what has allowed this terrible evil to foster so undisclosed. To the anti-capitalists for which this evil use as hosts Donald Trump is the definition of the word because he is diametrically opposed to their ominous objectives.  After all, the Devil rejected God in every way and is not shy about his hatred mythologically of the Supreme Being.  Donald Trump in our terrestrial sphere is good because he is the embodiment of capitalism and a love for it.  We’re not talking about moral precedence as viewed through Biblical doctrine, but the honesty of ego based ID which drives individuality and the competition that drives all life forward into the best emerging for society to enjoy.  We would term this good in America because it means the best products, the best people in their field, and the best ideas emerge for the necessity of value driven profit as opposed to the evil intentions of the moocher who desires to live off the exploits of others so that they can live in stardom as second-handers robbing merit along the way.

With that little qualification of evil out of the way we can then proceed to identify with clarity that evil is fully at work and that we must destroy it without any compassion. We’re not just talking about draining the swamp here in a political sense, we are talking about eliminating evil from the political process and restoring to the United States a sense of decency indicative toward the morality of capitalism.   Under such a morality people hold the door open for each other because you never know when you might have to work with them somewhere—because competition forces you to always consider the ramifications for your actions—whereas in a statist society there are never consequences because actions are committed under a collectivist cloud and nobody is responsible for anything.   It is that tendency which propels evil to emerge—under collectivists clouds where responsibility is often shunned without competition present to keep everyone honest.

Washington D.C. is a long way away from what the Founding Fathers embodied as people who were attempting a thought experiment which challenged aristocracy and even the concept of slavery to allow a nation of free people to emerge with all the difficulties that 18th century thought prevented.  The evil of our day would want you dear reader to focus on the evils of slavery and not the means of eliminating it.  Slavery was very much a part of the aristocracy movement of the time—but these Founding Fathers of America during their lifetimes stepped beyond that status symbol to eventually see people as individuals—even slaves.  So looking at Washington D.C. in that light, and the man from whom the place was named—it should be a very special place.  However, the evil that has dominated there for so long wishes to cloud the facts and to chain people’s minds to guilt, fear, and loathing so to elude a thinking mind from the miracle for which America is.

As a president, Donald Trump is the embodiment of the American miracle. True he has had too many wives, he’s had business ups and downs, and he’s certainly had his share of mistakes.  But what is morally righteous about him is that like all great Americans, he never caved to pain or pressure and always emerged better than when he was knocked down.  You can look back on his long-storied career of deal making and see a person who never cried over silly things or used personal tragedies as an excuse for not making the most out of every day.  Trump lost both his parents yet he never had a day where he loaded up on anti-depressants, or had stints where he was crawling around drunk and inebriated on a sidewalk into a taxi. Trump has always attempted to excel in everything he did and there is a lot of purity in that high standard.  The expectation has a great morality about it as opposed to the slack-jawed loser who uses everything as an excuse, takes no responsibility for their bad condition in life and seeks to tear down other people because achievements make the evil person look bad for their lack of them.

What I see in the criticism of Donald Trump by virtually everyone in the media are evil people shaken to their very cores by the sudden expectation of performance establishing itself as the very definition of good and evil in a way that was always intended in our American system. Our politicians should have always been such people—accomplished capitalists who have achieved the most among us through the honesty of competition—so that our society could accelerate toward unknown optimism for the first time in all human history.  This anger at Donald Trump from the entire Washington establishment is more than just political theater, it is the entity of evil which has captured so many minds, and its illustrious desire to remain in power which is now being challenged by this current White House.

This is precisely why those most wrapped in the blankets of evil wish to have no judgment cast upon them. That’s also why M. Scott Peck’s books used to be on the New York Times bestseller’s list for entire decades in the 80s but you can’t hardly find them in a bookstore at this present time—because evil wishes to do its ignominiously corrosive work undetected—in the shadows.  As an example, James Comey as F.B.I director was evil.  He obviously picked and chose laws differently depending on different people of political power and used his office as a way of sustaining party manipulation while hiding everything behind a Boy Scout like honest appearance.  But his actions deceive his intentions.  When he gave a speech not long ago declaring that he would remain F.B.I director for a long time he was challenging Trump with political pressure not based on merit for a job well done—but for the optics of his various investigations and how it might look to a media inspired by the same kind of evil to become his weapons in case of backlash.  When that backlash came Comey’s evil surrogates did what was always expected and they came at Trump and all his supporters with the fury of an exorcised demon.  The right fight was to do what Trump did and that was face down the evil onslaught because the purity of goodness wasn’t in the discussion, but in the fact that evil was upended and was angry for the first time in ways most of us have only dreamed of.

Evil is a very real thing. It is in people you know.  It is in institutions.  It is lucrative in every way that weak people find enchanting.  I’d go so far to say that most people have evil in their lives in various degrees and they are unaware of it—until they wake up one day and wonder where their lives have gone and why they are so miserable.  Evil as M. Scott Peck advocated for should be designated as a psychiatric disorder because it is.  It is the result of a depleted state of thinking and indicative of poor mental health.  Mental health just like other forms of health can be lost if it is abused.  Collectivist thinking is terrible for mental health the way that cigarettes, booze and too much soda pop can be for physical health.  If you think wrong about things you can destroy your mental health and evil will govern your actions.  And until Donald Trump came along in Washington D.C. most of the culture there was functioning from evil and were content with it.  But now a new value system is being established and evil is upset about it.  For that we should all be happy—those of us who strive to do what’s right—even when it’s the hardest thing to do in the world.  We should always do what’s good, and hard—because it’s what’s right.  Then as just an extra bonus is that is pisses off evil to its very core—which is always a good thing.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Washington Post Declares War Against America: Being the “Last Man Standing”

This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 18, 2017

I knew we were going to arrive at this “pivot point” for several years now. It just wasn’t clear how we’d get here.  But even so, the results are astonishing–so far down the rabbit hole of liberal control America has been on as a country. Probably the most obvious shot across the stern of conservativism has been the removal of two major prime time shows for which perceived Trump supporters might enjoy, The O’Reilly Factor and the ABC comedy, Last Man Standing.  The obvious move by the heads of both networks was to unplug the Trump base from nurturing information in the form of entertainment for the exclusive objective of converting them to liberals—which isn’t going to happen.  I have until very recently never seen Last Man Standing but now that it’s been cancelled I’ve caught clips of it and was astonished that it was even on a Disney owned network.  However, the behavior of The New York Post and The New York Times regarding President Trump has been over the top.  Each day of this past week, since the firing of James Comey and the passage of the Obamacare repeal in the House has emerged stories from those two papers designed to tie up the cogs of government preventing Donald Trump from achieving anything more—and I thought it astonishing—even for these liberal radicals.  Because each of their stories involved really nothing of any substance, yet the wall to wall coverage didn’t fit the accusations.  Then there is this constant talk of impeachment.  Really?  After what we’ve become used to under the Obama White House these idiots in the liberal media actually think that type of thing will take root? If the media wants to talk about impeachment then they should look at their lack of action on the items discussed at this link then understand why nothing under Trump is going anywhere.  He hasn’t even been in office long enough to merit such discussion—yet this media thinks it can pick and choose law to support their political agenda and that makes them not just a nuisance, but dangerous.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/25-impeachable-obama-scandals-far-more-serious-than-comey-firing/

 

If liberals think that by removing Tim Allen and Bill O’Reilly from television is going to defang the conservative movement, they are grossly misinformed—and I suppose that is what is most shocking to me. I mean, listening to their very small issues for which The Washington Post is making so much rhetorical comment when they were completely silent in regards to actual known crimes committed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the motivations behind their actions are obvious.  They are in insurgent mode seeking to destroy and reshape The United States into some third-rate country and they expect to do it in full view of people like me—and that’s just not going to happen.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the constant reports from that same media about the possibility of North Korea shutting down the American power grid for months or years with cyber-attacks—which I don’t think is possible, but you never know. If such a thing would happen who would survive in America, the Berkley kids protesting everything in favor of communism or the rugged American individualists that Tim Allen played on television—the demographic type for which the show reached out to?  Within a week of a major power outage food will become a problem and people will start killing each other over it, so what would happen to that leftist utopian society under those conditions?  Obviously, it would fail quickly and all these stylish moves made by our technological society would revert back to primate behavior nearly over night. All the female CEOs of media companies would soon find themselves having to reprioritize their entire existence where food acquisition would become their number one concern—not whether or not ABCs lineup involved immigrant sit-coms as opposed to white men over 40 who cling to traditional American values.  All the tenets of progressive society where women have replaced men and those women have babies then turn them over to the state for their upbringing and education would fly out the window in less than a month.  The people who would survive most would be the gun carrying farmers of the Midwest.  Cities would fall to depravity and cesspools of murder quickly.

A society cannot credit itself as being successful or advanced if one little thing such as power loss could throw it into an unstable condition so fast. Yet the people fighting to erase the Trump Presidency want and expect to do exactly that—even down to attacking the entertainment options that such people enjoy.  That dear reader is a declaration of war and I take it that way.  What I’ve seen from our mainstream media is nothing less than a complete government take-over.  The Deep State was always much deeper than anybody thought and they are making themselves seen really for the first time.  I wanted this to happen and it was always my intention that the Trump presidency would expose these villains, but the depth of their activity has truly been shocking, which was revealed in all its glory over this past week.

So here is a little message to the people who run The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, NBC, ABC—all these leftist’s organizations—your media groups did not invent “conservatism.”  Even the great westerns which Hollywood produced in its finest years did not make American society conservative.  The people of this country were already that way by nature of the Constitution for which we function.  The media outlets of entertainment and news back then simply provided the kind of content that those types of people wanted.  What is happening now is that those same outlets believe that they are the creators, which is a mistake.  “We”—the Tea Party types, the NRA members, the farmers, the steel workers, the coal miners, the cowboys and the monster truck drivers—we put Trump in office as a last chance to fix the country from the lefty insurrection.  By taking away conservative news, television shows, books and movies, you think that this utopian folly of liberalism is going to take root–you have a hard lesson coming to you.  Conservativism is a philosophy derived from the essential ingredients of society whereas liberalism is a utopian theory untested against reality.  It exists in places like college campuses and big cities like New York where reality is often pushed away from people’s minds—but it doesn’t hold up to feeding the basics of foundation societal thinking.  Liberalism is one power outage away from being extinct from all human thinking and that is the hard truth.  Yet people like me—and there are millions who think the way I do—are not going to let things get to that point.  Trump was our preferred answer, but we can take it to violence if that’s what leftists want.  I can say this, I’m not going to put up with liberalism any more.

For years conservatives have looked the other way and been very inclusive in regard to people who think differently than they do. Even when we knew that there were crimes committed by Hillary Clinton we were angry, but we didn’t try to shut down reality the way these Washington Post writers are doing.  They expect to sell themselves as respectable journalists while everyone can see that they are just conducting hack jobs.  You’d have to be a complete idiot to think otherwise.  Liberals may in fact be that stupid, but I certainly am not and neither are many of the conservatives I know.  Conservative ideas are forged from the fires of reality—not theory.  It’s one thing to be compassionate toward other people’s opinions—even if they are stupid opinions.  But it’s quite another to yield to evil and turn away from the truth feeding villains to destroy our society.  I’m not going to stand for that—and it doesn’t matter if Bill O’Reilly or Tim Allen are on TV to tell me so—if the Trump experiment doesn’t work—the next step is violence and the liberals won’t like that.  They won’t last in that fight.  Before Trump was elected I was very close to organizing my own group to restore America back to greatness any way possible—and likely the 2nd Amendment would have been needed.  Yielding to liberals is simply not on the table.

Then there’s Trump, I know enough about him to know this—in this current fight in Washington D.C., he will be the Last Man Standing, which is likely the real fear that liberals have in regard to the white wealthy males they seek to destroy in order to change America into their progressive utopia.  Execs at ABC blame themselves for creating Trump, and the voters who elected him with shows like the Tim Allen comedy, but they give themselves too much assumption of power.  They don’t make us, we make them.  We decide if a media company is successful or fails.  It used to be they didn’t always come out and say to half the nation that they hated them.  They wanted people to watch their networks and read their newspapers so they kept politics as light as possible.  But now, now they’ve went and done it.  They’ve declared their hatred for us, they’ve not treated our guy in the White House with the respect that we at least showed their people over the many years, and now the gloves are off.  And it’s an insult to those of us who really are tough, and forged from reality to be cast into a stew with these liberal idiots and have them expect that they should rule over us in any way.  Even if they could manage somehow to impeach Donald Trump—what do they think would happen?  That we wouldn’t take revenge for their assault?  No, I figure they are lucky that they have Donald Trump—because he protects them from us.  We have hope that Trump can fix things in the D.C. culture.  If he can’t, then we’ll have to do it ourselves, and liberals certainly won’t like that.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

How Trump is the New Normal: The media can’t really make or break people

I heard something truly fascinating the other day from the liberal political left when they said that they were afraid of interviews like the one done with Lester Holt, because it might “normalize” the Trump presidency—as if they had some hope of stopping that now. I mean the guy is President of the United States.  From the Executive Office he is setting up the kind of culture that we will have in the United States likely for the next several decades.  I mean being a bunch of loser lefties, I can understand that they don’t like him as president, but hey, I’ve had to put up with presidents I didn’t like for the last 24 years—so shut the hell up.  It’s our turn—“Trump supporters” to enjoy the Executive Branch for a change.  I had to watch years of embarrassments from the lefties and it’s only fair that now they have to endure what I’ve had to for once. But worrying about “normalizing” Trump—if that’s what they’re worried about, they have some big problems on the horizon because the way the Executive Branch works in America it sets the discourse for our nation from a leadership position.  What is “normal” is what Trump does—not what the lefties desire—otherwise they would be winning more elections.

It reminded me of something that happened to me once, I had been in the newspapers, on the radio, and on television all the time and my political enemies just didn’t understand how I was doing it. They lobbied the radio stations and the publishers decrying them for given me “legitimacy.”  Well, I had news for them, I am a perfectly “legitimate” person.  In many cases I was smarter, faster, had loads of more stamina, worked much harder than any of them and here they were preaching to these media types that I shouldn’t be given coverage for my political issues because in doing so they were legitimizing me.  Eventually they became frustrated and they organized a hit against me much like they did recently with Donald Trump and Bill O’Reilly, only I didn’t cave in which of course infuriated everyone.  They couldn’t understand why such a thing didn’t ruin my life—and of course I still did television, gave interviews, and did radio.  I stopped answering the phone from those who had betrayed me, but by no means did I stop getting coverage because I had discovered that I could give myself everything I needed.  I didn’t need them—which is largely why I write on this blog everyday.  It’s my own newspaper and people read it, and visitors can pull up stories that are very old and read them again—which you can’t seem to do anymore with the major newspapers.  And of course in the world of today, the ability to hold information for retrieval is the key to news exchange because so much comes at people so quickly that customers want the ability to revisit stories later.

The point of the matter was that I understood my own “legitimacy.” When I did a now famous photograph on the cover of the Cincinnati Enquirer it wasn’t they who made me into anything, it was me who they wanted on their cover to sell newspapers—and putting an anti-tax person on the cover with a cowboy hat and a bullwhip was a sure way to get people reading.  They didn’t create the story at the Enquirer, I did. But those lefties at Gannett Publications want to believe that they make or break people—that they give rise to governors, senators and presidents—but in reality, they don’t and Donald Trump is the evidence.

Anybody who wanted could go back to the business section of any bookstore and see the three to seven books that Trump has written over the years and understand that Donald Trump is the self-contained essence of “the power of positive thinking.” He is a person not at all interested in what people think of him and when he constantly highlights his consistently high ratings it’s his reminder that he is the one in control, not the media.  They didn’t make him, but he does them. So the media, and everyone else for that matter, have no ability to make or break Donald Trump because the billionaire businessman has never given that power over to anybody.  He developed power within himself and he does not give it away to anybody.  Media outlets may seek to ride in the wake of the stories he creates—but they don’t make him.  That is the important distinction that virtually everyone fails to understand when it comes to Trump or even the Republican Party.

I tried to explain all this to the Republicans who run the county I lived in, but they weren’t used to thinking in these ways and what ended up happening was a fractured, divided party—which was purely their fault. I was happy that they did invite me to many events where only VIPs were allowed to attend because of my contributions, but after the hit job on me, they put some distance between me and themselves.  Well, my life went on just fine.  All that changed was that I had a few less social engagements to turn down because I don’t have time for that stuff anyway, but as for the things I do I still do what I want to because my life was not contingent on the actions of other people.  If it was, there is something wrong—and even though 99% of everyone lives in a way that requires “people” It is not “people” who make or break something.  It is individual behavior.

In grade school probably the biggest thing we learn, which I think is an incredible negative, is how to conform to peer pressure. It is in grade school where we learn our social clicks which are supposed to guide us though life under the lefty’s Brave New World vision.  We learn how to take orders from our peers and from what peers that we are best matched—group associations.  It is there that we die to our individual selves, the little creature that was coddled by our parents and given all kids of special treatment as infants.  We are born again as collectivists who require other people’s approval in order to function.  We want peer approval of our cloths, of our musical choices, of our speech patterns—and thus we become something much less than we were before—by default.  The media happens to care very much about the same types of things because of their continuous drive for ratings, so they immediately fall into this default mode.   But they fail to understand the kid in the public school hallway who dresses the way they want, does what they want—and doesn’t give a rat’s ass if anybody wants to be their friend.  And when one of those people end up in the White House, the press are truly terrified because it runs counter to everything they understand.

So thus the great misunderstanding has occurred, the collective masses do not determine reality—individuals do, and no collective agreement can erase a fact. And the fact is, Donald Trump is President of the United States and he cannot be “de-legitimized.”  The media cannot “un-make” him.  And as far as being normalized, it was always the popular kids in school who decided what “normal” behavior was.  I have noticed over time that those “normal” people ended up in life absolute messes who are boring, and very unhappy as adults.  They are not the type of people who should be in charge of walking a dog let alone running a country.  So for a change the exceptional person is now in the White House and that’s the way we wanted it.  What the lefties are really worried about is now that he is, Trump will make the new normal “exceptional.”  Which is exactly what I expect from him—and so far he has delivered.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The DNC Murders: What The Washington Post knows about the slain WikiLeaks informant

Now we know why the media made such a story out of a totally false allegation that Trump leaked classified information to the Russians during a visit last week to the Oval Office. It wasn’t because it happened, but because a private investigator revealed that the slain DNC staffer Seth Rich was in contact with WikiLeaks.  So, all the evidence as it appears now indicated that members of the DNC had Seth Rich killed for leaking documents which turned out to be the downfall of the Democratic Party.  This story was much bigger than Watergate before this bombshell information was released—now it’s in a category all its own in American history.  And the media is complacent in the cover-up.  They know it so they came up with this ridiculously stupid Trump story about leaking classified information to the Russians hoping to put the president on his heels and turn the attention of the world away from this very vile act.  This Seth Rich story isn’t a conspiracy at this point as there is hard evidence to the crime—far more evidence than anything linking the Russians to the 2016 election—so given that as a criterion, many in the media along with several members of the American media need to go on trial for their role in covering up a murder.

I don’t believe anything anybody says about Trump because many of the same kind of loony terms have been thrown in my direction in the past. These days they all hope to ignore me all together because their acts of force against me went nowhere—and believe me, they have tried.  So now they just use passive aggressive strategies hoping that nobody notices.  I see those same strategies being applied to Trump so nothing they say I believe—from personal experience. That’s important to clarify because I’m certainly no conspiracy theorist when I’ve pointed out all the people who ended up dead around Hillary and Bill Clinton over the years.  When the facts point you in a direction you have to follow them to a resolution and that would be that the Clintons run their political apparatus in the same way that mobsters do.  When someone gets in their way or threaten what they want to do, death is not off the table—and what was revealed in WikiLeaks showed that the DNC was as corrupt as the Al Capone mob in Chicago—and naturally people died when they tried to expose it for what it was.  Using the facts as evidence, we can draw no other conclusion than Seth Rich was killed for going rogue and that his murder was made to look like a break-in as a cover story and that the reason the case was closed so quickly was that the mayor of Washington D.C. likely pulled back the investigation to prevent further analysis.

Meanwhile, to take the light off themselves the DNC has come up with the Russian cover story hoping to throw people off the trail that leads to their door. They are doing this partly out of old Cold War paranoia and to be honest they probably came up with the idea after watching the Steven Spielberg movie, Bridge of Spies.  In reality Russia isn’t a threat to us any more essentially because they don’t have the money for a fight.  They might get a little raucous from time to time, but they are hardly a competitor on the field of play.  The DNC and Hillary Clinton lost the election because they are out of fashion and their mobster ways are not conducive to modern politics.  They can’t kill enough people to get elected any more out of pure fear.  They must have ideas—which they don’t and that is the heart of the whole conspiracy.  It’s not anything that Trump did, it’s all them.

When people start dying over another group of people’s lack of ideas that’s when this matter is no longer just politics, but a pursuit of justice. Obviously in this case the villains are in the media because right on the mark they came to the defense of their political party, the DNC without much provocation that we can see on the surface to make up complete falsehoods about President Trump.  Both papers citing this negative story on Trump are anti-Trump newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post—hardly unbiased outlets.  In fact both have been hostile toward Trump from the beginning. The Post is owned by Jeff Bezos from Amazon.com fame who is as anti-Trump as you can get, so there obviously isn’t any hard news reporting behind the accusations—only rumors and speculation started in the board rooms of those two lefty news publications trying desperately to hang on to the old-world controls they enjoyed.  However, their timing on this story shows they know more than they should because they released the information just hours ahead of the Seth Rich story which means the people at The New York Times and The Washington Post know more than they’ve let on over this whole case.  Apparently, many people within the DNC know what has been going on behind the scenes which resulted in the death of a young staffer providing information to WikiLeaks—for which he was obviously killed—by the facts presented so far.

Given the way that the media has treated Trump and his supporters, making accusations on evidence that under normal circumstances would require a lot more vetting before drawing conclusions, we must assume that both The New York Times and The Washington Post are complicit in the murder of Seth Rich because of their obvious support of the DNC—a criminal organization—and the timing of their latest hit piece on Donald Trump—for which they wouldn’t have had even an ounce of evidence from which to report.  Their willingness to go off the deep end at the particular time they did implies guilt which certainly deserves aggressive prosecution.  One thing is for sure in this matter—they are not without guilt to some degree because they obviously have knowledge of the crime otherwise they wouldn’t have made the decisions that they did make on May 16th 2017.

I might not think all these things except for personal experience and if you magnify that to this rather global case, these newspapers that broke the Trump/Russian story are guilty as Hell is hot. I thought it was odd that the lead headline at 6 PM everywhere yesterday was that Trump leaked information (that he is privileged to declassify as president) to the Russians as he was trying to make a deal between Ukraine and Russia by getting them to focus on a common problem.  That wasn’t a story worthy of such commotion, but then the real story broke, that a private investigator confirmed that Seth Rich was speaking to WikiLeaks and that it was highly likely that he was Killed by the DNC due to the incriminating evidence.  And that cover-up extends all the way into our mainstream media and our justice department’s at the doorstep of James Comey—which is really why he was fired.

The scheme obviously worked because talk radio powerhouse Rush Limbaugh spent the first two hours of his broadcast defending Trump’s White House on The Washington Post allegations.  To his credit Rush did explore the ownership connection and rivalry of Jeff Bezos and his political motivations in using that paper to harm the Trump presidency.  But it wasn’t until hour three that Limbaugh even brought up the Seth Rich story, and I’d attribute that to him avoiding being labeled as a conspiracy theorist, which conservatives are always worried about being called, even though the lefties come up with the most bizarre theories of all—but are never called such bad names by the press.  Even more telling though is that this Seth Rich story is so terrible, like a lot of things the Clintons have been involved in were, conservatives simply can’t get their minds around it.  They have a hard time understanding the kind of mass evil that would have to take place for something like that to even happen.  Rush knew a certain part of his audience would want to hear what he thought about the DNC killing so he put it on the part of his show where most of his audience have gone back to lunch.  Hour three is towards the end of the day and most of his listeners are busy with other things by then, so that was the safe time to talk about it.  But to my experience it was the headliner and when everything is revealed we’ll discover that it was the big newspapers who are in on the killings—maybe not by act, but in complicit behavior.  They knew this story was breaking and they attempted to deflect it—and that is indicative of criminal activity.  It is for these types of reasons that we can never trust institutional government—because there are just too many people out there who desire power to conduct themselves properly when they have it.  That’s why we have freedom of speech and the right to bear arms—because things do go bad and one of our political parties is operating as a shadow government in full view of our press—and under the assistance of it.  And if someone gets in their way, we can see that lives will be taken and no form of justice will stop them—except for a loaded gun.

Keep that in mind as the months come.  Click here to read more:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php#axzz4hH5diAWI

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Killing Bill O’Reilly: When attacked you always have to fight back–any way possible

He’s a little too New York liberal for me, but I like Bill O’Reilly quite a lot.  I watched him on Fox News for many years like a lot of other people and have enjoyed his books.  He’s a very smart guy and I think he’s the best that there is in the news business.  But sometimes he’s dead wrong and one of those times was when he advised Donald Trump to settle out of court to make the parade of women seeking an apology for sexually inappropriate behavior to go away so he could focus on winning the presidency. That is always the wrong move.  When these people come after you in every case you have to fight them.  It doesn’t matter if they are men or women—if they attack your reputation, you have to fight them.  In that regard Bill O’Reilly should have never settled the cases against him because the media used that as an admission of guilt and Fox News simply didn’t have the backbone to defend O’Reilly in public.   O’Reilly may have wanted to protect his family from long court cases where he’d eventually be proven “not guilty,” but having the money sitting in a bank account to make the problem go away, Bill did what he thought Trump should have done and that’s just pay the extortion to shut everyone up so he could do his work.  And that was the wrong move which was now obvious as Bill went on Glenn Beck’s radio show for the first time after being fired at Fox News to talk about the situation.

Bill O’Reilly being a nice old-fashioned guy is exactly the type of person that Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was designed to freeze and pummel in the court of public opinion.   Not that O’Reilly is a conservative, but compared to the extreme liberals of today, Bill is a traditional guy from an older time who believed that taking the high road would eventually pay off.  And in O’Reilly’s life, he was enormously successful so why would he do anything different?  But when the unthinkable happened and Fox News went soft and wouldn’t defend Bill, suddenly he was exposed.  These strategies have worked against conservative people for years because Saul Alinsky knew that decent people would always yield to evil due to the Christian premise of always turning the other cheek.  Alinsky didn’t believe in God, so that gave him and his followers a tremendous advantage over people like Bill O’Reilly who believed that by taking the high road that they’d always come out on top.

I’ve personally seen this process up close and many people whom I know have gone through it.  But I’m part of a new generation who have decided that we’re going to take this whole Rules for Radicals strategy head on and throw it back in their smudgy liberal faces.  And the way to do that is to not turn the other cheek.  If they come after you—you go get in their face and you fight them.  You start off legally and use the tools there to the extent you can.  But if that doesn’t work, then you hang the bastards’ upside down over a bridge and you skin them alive and make a metaphorical flag out of their hide.  You have to have that attitude to beat people who follow Saul Alinsky’s teachings which at this point are most of the people on the political left—most popularly Hillary Clinton herself.  You can’t beat those people being nice to them and you certainly can’t beat them with an intellectual argument because they aren’t interested in facts, charts or honor.  You have to take it out of their hide and when Bill O’Reilly settled, he admitted guilt and gave them everything they wanted—true or not.

The gains that the big government types have made over the years in both parties is with their forceful instance on admitting guilt from innocent people.  Even if innocence was the truth teller those gains have incorrectly advanced liberal thought and destroyed many aspects of American culture.  Once they have from you a confession, even if they beat it out of you by using your family and friends as hostages, then they own you forever and that’s why they throw in the case of Republicans like Trump a parade of women who would likely give a blow job on a sidewalk for the right amount of cash—to put a powerful person on the defensive and make them admit something against their will under duress.  That clearly was happening to Donald Trump during the election.  Nobody but maybe me and a few others I think thought he was right to fight back the way he did–which I had done on a much smaller scale in the Cincinnati media a few years prior.  Trump was the first to do such a thing at the level of the presidency and that was a relief.  Thankfully Donald Trump didn’t listen to Bill O’Reilly because if he had, the same thing would have happened.  When someone attacks you and you are fighting on the side of conservatism, you have to fight back.  You can’t do this turn the other cheek thing and expect to win any of these arguments.  The other side doesn’t believe in God—they are emphatically evil, and they will do anything to destroy anybody or anything that is in their way.  So you can’t play nice with them and unfortunately Bill O’Reilly has had to learn the hard way.

Right after Bill O’Reilly was taken off the air at Fox News the same lunatics turned their guns toward Sean Hannity who did the right thing and gassed up his defense.  He had the money to put some lawyers on retainer and he put them to work at attacking even small media outlets for falsehoods against his name—and that’s what you have to do.  Glenn Beck hasn’t held up too well over the years, his Blaze news outlet isn’t nearly as successful as it needs to be.  I’ve done my little things to help Beck and so have many others but Beck shifted toward the political center under great pressure and this fight wore him out—and that’s what the political left does. They beat on you until you either give up or you just are destroyed beyond hope—and in a lot of ways they managed to Kill Bill.  Bill O’Reilly played respectable with them and that gave the political left a way into his fortress to destroy everything he built over his many years of broadcasting.  And the political left needed the victory because time is running out for them with the successes of the Donald Trump Executive Branch—so they had to make their move now rather than later.  O’Reilly additionally made the mistake of telegraphing his response to the sex allegations when he advised Trump on the air to settle.  Insurgents at the George Soros funded outlets knew exactly how to get at Bill, all they needed were some washed up, do anything for money types to say publicly that they felt threatened and that was the end of Bill O’Reilly.

I do hope that O’Reilly takes Beck up on his job offer.  I’m not the biggest Beck fan these days—but he does have a media company that could use someone like Bill O’Reilly.  And if things took off it would stick the more centrist Fox News in the eye and contribute greatly to their downfall, which at this point obviously needs to happen.  There needs to be consequences for actions and the people running Fox News, the Murdoch boys, need to learn a lesson starting with their pocket-book.  That’s how you have to think about war, and this is war.  Don’t make any mistake about it.  In war, you have to be willing to take a life for a threat, an arm for a finger, and a tongue for a whisper. While I admire people who take the high road and try hard to live by Christian honor—I say if someone attacks you in any way you utterly destroy them.  Trump gets it, and listening to Bill O’Reilly on his radio interview with Glenn Beck I wish he would have not been so naive, because this experience has obviously hurt him.  He’s too good of a guy to suffer through that.  I’d like to see him get back on the horse and charge into battle once again.  But this time—don’t pay off the bitches.  Because that’s all they were—they put themselves out there for fame, fortune, but more than anything—the fantasies of insurrection.  Don’t settle court cases ever again.  Fight them until there is nothing else and make sure they are utterly destroyed—because that’s really the only way you can make them stop and do justice to our nation.  These people are villains and nothing else—and they deserve complete conquest without an ounce of sympathy.  That’s how you beat them which we must do if we want to keep America–America.

Rich Hoffman

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

Donald Trump at Liberty University: The Roads Less Traveled

50,000+ react to @POTUS @realDonaldTrump on the jumbotron this morning at @LibertyU. Congratulations to the Class of 2017!! @JerryFalwellJr pic.twitter.com/MxJTG6QwVV

— Dan Scavino Jr. (@Scavino45) May 13, 2017

There was so much news that one of the greatest Donald Trump speeches yet slid by pretty much unnoticed over the weekend.  But I didn’t miss it and as I listened on the radio from my garage during a wonderful spring day in southern Ohio, I heard something special.  As Donald Trump spoke at a commencement ceremony at Liberty University to a packed 50,000 plus crowd Trump essentially told the story of “the road less traveled.” I would have thought that just the crowd size alone might melt the faces of the liberalized press—but the contents of the speech was amazing for a sitting president.  I can’t think of a similar speech from anybody anywhere.  Usually these speeches are full of empty cheer leading but what Trump talked about as a successful person himself had a lot more meaning and contained within it the keys to why his Executive Branch is so effective evoking so much criticism from those I would term losers.

It surprised me even though I suppose these kinds of speeches are common at commencement ceremonies, but this one was different in that Trump specifically spoke on the details of “The Road Less Traveled” which is another of my favorite books by M. Scott Peck M.D.  It’s quite something to have a person as successful as Trump to speak as a president of the United States.  The story of Liberty University is much like that of Donald Trump—it’s a little school guided by the evangelist Jerry Fallwell Jr., that has went from a small campus with big dreams to one that is actually about to compete at the top-level of NCAA football.  It’s a good school that is doing what colleges are supposed to have always been doing—educating.

Trump actually hit on why people fail at things in life in an honest fashion that should have done anybody listening a lot of good.  People often fail because they are afraid of peer critics who often don’t have the same courage to achieve things outside the norm.  Stamina has a lot to do with success too; very few things in life are easy.  But most kids at most colleges this spring and from the past hear a bunch of flat talk about success without ever really getting to the meat and potatoes of how it’s achieved, and Trump did those kids a tremendous favor in addressing the keys to success which none of them should ever forget.

Throughout a work week my wife often sends me texts asking me how my day is going hoping that one time I’ll tell it that everything has been OK, because it never is.  This past week we had lunch together and it was a particularly terrible day full of so much stress that my teeth hurt.  I could taste blood in the back of my throat and the calcium on my teeth felt thin as a direct reaction to enormous amounts of stress.  It had been one of those days where 99.9% of the people doing work in a similar fashion would just say to hell with it—and they’d give up.  And who could blame them except for the measures of success for which everyone mutually wishes to achieve.  I mean, nobody sets out to fail, everyone wants success in things at life—in their professions, in their personal life—spouses, kids, friends, etc.  But most people lack the basic ingredients to achieve success and it’s often a very lonely road so sharing the thrill of conquering some difficult obstacle is often something you can’t relate to others. In that way success is very personal and you either do it for the right reasons, or you don’t.

The world is full of people who don’t succeed in life—and most of those people who seek public office or jobs in entertainment—and I’d consider mainstream media part of entertainment—are the type of people who fail on their own accord.  They need someone else to give them success and as second-handers they climb a ladder and hope someone at least puts one in front of them.  These people will cheat, sleep, and manipulate others any way they can to achieve success at the expense of what the true measure of achievement demands—that life isn’t easy and that overcoming your greatest fears is really the only way to win.  And on those days where you look around and all you see is pain and misery from failure after failure to the point where you can taste the blood in your own mouth—you thrive because that’s the way you get there—and you learn to love it.

During that aforementioned lunch I quietly looked out the window thinking of my response.  We’ve almost been married for 30 years so these aren’t new discussions but every so often something remarkable gets discussed—and this issue about having a good day was one of them.  I can’t say that if I woke up in the morning where everything worked the way I intended it to, that I’d really be happy.  I love the battlefield and I love overcoming adversity.  I like beating the odds and I like being the only person in the room who thinks something is possible.  In fact, you might say I live to beat the odds—I like signing up for things that should be impossible and making them work.  I’ve been doing it all my life and it’s a consistent pattern that I embark on.  When someone says that you shouldn’t do this or that because there isn’t some metaphorical path taking you cleanly to some destination at the end—I always take that rough path because often that’s where treasures that everyone seeks usually hides.  Think about it, if you want something unique in life whether its happiness, riches, love, wisdom—why would you do things the way that people who are obviously unhappy with life do them—people who are unsuccessful—people who have to take drugs to avoid depression, or people who drink too much, eat too much, and can’t maintain relationships?  You can look at a man sitting in a park on a beautiful day on his third divorce chain-smoking cigarettes and know exactly why he’s in that condition.  If you talk to him he’ll blame the women.  But if you really peel back the onion, there are things wrong with him that cause the failures in his life—and it usually starts with the cigarettes—the reason he smokes.  I told my wife on that lunch day that I don’t think human beings should wake up wanting a good day, but that as thinking creatures we should seek to imprint our intelligence on the world against its wishes and take those days with all the twists and turns presented and straighten them out flat.  Problems were meant to be solved and you either tackle them aggressively, or you don’t.  And if you don’t tackle problems then likely you won’t have success in life unless a pile of gold just happens to fall in your lap.  But that is almost never the case.

Success is hard and it’s not something a peer can give you.  It’s just something you have to be willing to take with a fearlessness uncommon to our species.  That is after all why Trump is president and most people hate him. They hate him for what they aren’t.  They can cuss and spit at him talking about how unconventional he is, and how he does his own thing—but what they hate most about Trump is that he does have the fearlessness, the stamina, and the courage to strive for success in everything he does.  And that makes him different from them—and they hate the contrast because it makes them feel guilty.  So Trump’s Liberty University speech was certainly one of the greats for the history books.  It may have only spoken to the 1% out there who strive to think the way he does, and Liberty University seems committed to finding those types of people in the world—so the speech was appropriate.  But for many, the speech spoke at a key to life that many of them gave up on a long time ago and for them it was difficult to listen to.  When something sucks in your life and you are in midlife and miserable the answer is really easy—and you can see it clearly every morning when you look in the mirror.  That reality can be very painful, but such a person, which is in the majority of our so-called “democracy,” should not cripple intellectually the next generation.  That is why Trump gave not only a wonderful speech, but one that actually had true meaning.  What he did was a gift to the students of Liberty University—and to all those with the courage to hear it.  The key to success in life with all the pains and perils is, “The Road Less Traveled.”

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

A Commentary on Will Hayden’s Life Sentence: A good workbench is far better than sex

Every day I have a little place on my property where I can go at the end of the day and shoot my .45 Vaquero.  I wish every person in the world could have that wonderful feeling of standing at a very nice work bench surrounded by lots of unique tools and sip on an ice-cold water with the smell of gun smoke fresh from a good score on an automated reaction timer that I use to practice Cowboy Fast Draw.  I think it’s one of the most satisfying things you can do as a human being for so many reasons.  And I know many people in the gun industry that understand what I just said exactly within the shooting sports professions.  Guns are a mix of precision machining, ballistic science, and a practice which is rooted in psychological freedom from a societal tendency to strive for personal freedom for which the individual ownership of firearms most spectacularly embodies.  So it is baffling to me why someone like a Will Hayden would even think about doing what he did as a serial rapist to young girls over a long period of time.  Yesterday the founder of Red Jacket Firearms and star of the Discovery Channel’s Son’s of Guns television show about gunsmithing in southern Louisiana, was sentenced to life in prison for what he did, and it’s just a terribly sad situation.

I loved the Son’s of Guns show and I thought the people in it were just fabulous.  Looking back on it there was always something I didn’t quite trust in Hayden, but I loved Joe and though Flem among others who were incredibly talented people who were in the business for the right reasons.  That last season I turned to my wife and told her that something was really wrong because after all the success Red Jacket had with their television show, there was no way that Hayden should have been hemorrhaging that much cash where he struggled to pay for his machining lathes and a new facility.  His kids Stephanie and Chris were acting strange too attempting to start their own business under the Red Jacket umbrella and it just didn’t make sense—because they all had a good thing going.  Now we know that there were things going on regarding this problem of raping young girls that Hayden was engaged in and now that the case is concluded it has left me and many millions of others scratching our heads.

I’m currently the same age now that Hayden was in the best seasons of that show and I just can’t imagine any situation where a man in his late forties would even want to engage in sex with a 13-year-old girl.  It just doesn’t make any psychological sense.  I mean biologically the impulse to those kinds of things shouldn’t even be there.  As a man you have so many young ladies in your life who depend on you, daughters, employees, members of an audience who see you as a celebrity—to rape a young girl or even to think of her in a sexual way is just pathetic, and irresponsible. So I’m happy he’s going to do such hard time for the rest of his life.  I’m a big fan of ruthless sentencing and I don’t care if we have entire states full of inmates in our prison system.  I loved Jeff Sessions’s announcement yesterday reversing the policies of Eric Holder.  If there are bad guys out there doing bad things, let’s get them locked up and figure out a way for them to pay for their food and shelter aside from tax payer burdens—but they shouldn’t be free.  And for what Hayden did, he should be locked up.  You just can’t ruin the lives of young ladies and expect to live a free life—just like a criminal cannot take anything from us individually at our homes or within the private sanctity of our cars without being shot dead in defense.  All these issues fall under the umbrella of personal respect and being a great gunsmith, Will Hayden should have known better.

Little girls look to older men to protect them.  When a 3 to 10-year-old girl sits in the lap of a grandpa, or even a father they need that reassurance that they are within the protection of a powerful male and it will establish in her a lifelong trust that she actually needs to live a full and happy, healthy life.  So no man should ever do anything to jeopardize that trust.  A sexual thought should never even enter into your mind and if it means it harms your sexual life with a wife or otherwise because you have turned off those desires—then so be it.  There are many better things in life to think about besides sex.  It can be a fun thing to do, but it’s a pretty primitive and messy act that is overrated in my opinion—if your mind is conducting itself properly on other activities. In Hayden’s case, he had this beautiful gun shop with all the great tools of the trade and he was being paid to do what he loves.  He was on television and was very successful meaning he could then buy more guns to play with and everything should have been perfect. So in light of all that, what he did was reprehensible and goes far beyond the crimes of our legal system—he violated much more than that, he broke the trust of young women including his older daughter Stephanie and that is the worst of it.  Losing the trust of young women and giving them the burden of shame to carry throughout their lives is one of the worst crimes a man can do toward any emerging women.

Then there are the political consequences.  Already there are those communist insurgents within American culture who look for anything to wear away the gun centered lifestyles that the best of us have in the freest country on earth.  Will Hayden just fit the stereotype of the target they present, a powerful middle-aged white guy from the south who loves guns and abusing women just put the Discovery Channel in a public relations nightmare and he hurt the gun industry in incomprehensible ways.  I mean how could he of even thought it was worth all this damage to have some primitive sexual encounter with an unwilling victim who was only a child?  You have tool boxes filled with some of the greatest tools in the world and gun oil filling the smell of your office with leather holsters always lying around—why?  It’s just irrevocably stupid.

Most of the people I know in the gun professions, at shooting ranges, within the NRA and elsewhere are like Joe and Flem from that Son’s of Guns show—they are guys who are fascinated by great machining with intensely tight mechanical tolerances and the science of ballistics which is really what most young boys love about toy guns, and eventually real guns.  It’s not in the ability to shoot someone dead like the political left likes to portray—it’s in the working of tools, the smell of gun oils and the power of science in your hand that makes the gun industry one of the most important industries on planet earth.  Speaking for myself, my work bench on a rainy Friday night with the garage door open and bullets all over the place while listening to a recap of the Rush Limbaugh show sitting on my bench stool working with a couple of pin punches from my gunsmith tool box is about as good as anything ever gets in life.  I really can’t think of anything that I have ever done that gave me a better feeling.  When you’re young and biologically your body is looking to plant seeds in some woman for the primitive act of procreation—I can see being distracted by sex.  I’ve been married for almost 30 years to an attractive woman.  We’ve traveled the world and done things together that most people dream of in their wildest fantasies.  But I’m telling you dear reader that at nearly 50 years old, working on guns at a nice bench on a Friday night next to a talk radio broadcast sipping on a chilled drink is one of the best things you can do.  Will Hayden had really everything a man could dream of.  And he blew it spectacularly and made an ass of himself that brought great harm to the women in his life.  So I’m glad he’s serving hard time for the rest of his life.  He deserves worse.  Under no circumstance should a man ever trade the workbench for sex—especially for a girl a generation younger even if it’s legal and inviting.  It’s just not something any older man should ever do—for the sake of humanity.

Rich Hoffman

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