Matt Clark Interviews Congressman Mike Rogers: Learn about the Bostom bombings and CISPA

Matt Clark interviews Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) on WAAM who believes there are still people of interest in the Boston Marathon bombings. Live on the Clarkcast, Matt asked the congressman to comment on evidenced gathered around a Saudi national, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, who was injured in the Boston bombings and tagged as a “212(a)(3)(B)” – the U.S. immigration designation for “terrorist activities.”

Read more:…

Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) then discusses the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) on the Clarkcast. Matt raises some concerns about privacy with the congressman.

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

Matt Clark Interviews Mike Maharrey: Learn about the Tenth Amendment

Matt Clark from WAAM radio interviewed Mike Maharrey from the Tenth Amendment Center ( to talk about his group’s work and ensuring the Constitution is followed. Mike talks about states nullifying the NDAA, health care exchanges, drone usage, and more.

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

Capitalism: The new political party of one

I am starting my own political party in America.  So far I am it’s only member and I really don’t care if one year from now, or 30 years from now, that the number remains at one, because if history has taught us anything, it’s that the masses are fools and it is individuals who always prevail, and there isn’t a greater signifier of individuality than the number “1.”  I have traditionally been a Republican most of my life, yet as a party they are not freedom oriented enough for me.  I sure as hell am not a Democrat as there isn’t one cell in my body that understands their socialist diatribes of collectivism.  And I enjoy freedom too much to be cast into an oven with Libertarians, Objectivists, or any other political philosophy associated with “group” behavior.  Yet America needs a political philosophy that is uniquely an invention of The United States Constitution, and it needs people who will not cower in fear to defend it.  All of the above have to some extent, with the exception of the Libertarians, and Objectivists who currently find their social identification cast into the quick sand of marijuana legalization by the other two established parties, are on the wrong path–completely.  My new party of which I am so far the only member is The Capitalism Party.  And when I speak of capitalism I’m talking specifically about laissez-nous faire capitalism.  The reason is that such a brand of capitalism is the only moral choice for the modern age, and is the absolute best way to defeat all pretenses of statism in all political parties across the world.  Tactically, since it is well-known at this present date that ideologically the world is well involved in World War III I see capitalism as the most effective component to winning that war not against other nationalities, but dangerous collective ideologies.  Capitalism disarms the enemies of freedom in a way nothing else can, so it is my determination that capitalism gets a political party dedicated to fighting not against any machine political rule, any lobby force in state and federal capitals, or the type of tribal chieftains who have destroyed every culture on the face of the Earth with their infantile notions of collective sacrifice—capitalism trumps them all in logic, moral value, and effectiveness and it is time to use it as a means to bring the human race true freedom once and for all.

Very few people know what is meant by laissez-faire capitalism.  The way political parties have established the meaning is in a connotation of greed, wealth, and distorted excess.  It has been ostracized not because it’s bad, but because capitalism is good.  The worst elements of human society have recognized that capitalism favors those with value and makes those without it easily recognized so their objections to capitalism are to prevent those revelations from being seen by the world at large.  Enemies of capitalism have sought to knock out the lights of capitalism just as they were turned on following the American Revolution.  The small period of near laissez fair capitalism emerging from 1780 to 1850 in America brought The United States most of the wealth it currently enjoys.  But it could do more, and many more people could have benefited if capitalism had not been abandoned in favor of socialism and big government fascism.  Laissez faire capitalism get’s its name from the French period of Louis XIV who was the archetypical despot of Europe.  He is certainly not alone in history as there are many Louis the XIV types currently in The United Nations, and current American White House.  There are wheel barrel loads of them on the current Capital Hill in the House and Senate.  There are even more in the court rooms of our free country who seek elected office at some point in their careers to assist in their legal business and establish themselves as advocates of statism by advancing “political pull” as their path to success.  Anyway, under Louis XIV there was the chief advisor by the name of Colbert who believed that government regulations created national prosperity, and that higher tax revenues created economic growth.  It is easy to see where Karl Marx and the theory of Keynesian economics derived their elementary ideas—from the rulers of Europe and early advocates of world statism.  Colbert was not stupid however; he understood that business was important to the country’s prosperity.  Often he would attempt to wine and dine fattening them on the opulence he had access to under Louis the XIV in hopes that they would become willing facilitators of collective success.  This reflects the type of behavior currently seen in American politics and then as in now, businessmen through tokens of appeasement in the direction of Colbert by way of bribes to keep the government off their backs as much as possible, sought to protect themselves from government interference.  Yet one businessman, a manufacturer named Legendre told Colbert that if he really wanted to help industry in France that the government would: “Laissez-nous fair!” meaning (let us alone!)

Those who advocate statism of any kind tend to be mentally lazy, and short on original ideas.  Their desire for statism is to leech off the efforts of the very few who do have original ideas so that they may show the world that they also have value.  However their only means of achieving that value is through collectivism, as they are not able to generate such value on their own.  This is why large masses of people find themselves seduced by socialism, fascism, and hard communism because it takes courage to stand at the front of an idea and to be successful.  Most people do not have that courage.  So like Colbert, they understand that they need the big ideas of those who start corporations so that jobs are provided, but like abusive husbands who fear a cheating wife, they prevent them from having unlimited freedom to disguise their own insecurities, thinking that the they will run away if they are given free choice.  Colbert sought partnership with business in much the same way, and the same holds true to this very day in America.  Government seeks a partnership with business to elevate their moral authority—to fill the empty vessels of their souls with value—not because they want to help advance liberty, or even make people safe.

I have studied history and political philosophy for many years, and all the systems are lacking the type of value I personally have, so I must reject them.  All current political parties can fall under one of the three primary influences known to the world today, socialism, fascism, and statism.  The definitions of these three forces need to be understood adequately.  First, socialism is a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, etc, for the community as a whole. When a school levy in America is attempting to appeal to the moral authority of their right to take tax money off private property they are functioning as socialists.  The value of the property is for the good of the “community”–the collective whole.  Their premise is that by spending money on children they are investing in the future of the community, but in reality, what is really happening is that public schools are tactically attacking private property by penalizing those who have it, and benefiting those who don’t—such as renters of apartments who have an equal vote, but do not pay an equal share of the taxes.  This is socialism.

Fascism is a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc).  This is what the EPA is doing, the ATF, the FDA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the IRS—just name the federal agency, and you will see the definition of fascism clear as day.  Then there is statism, which is the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.  When a school says they must teach a certain thing to students because “The State” has mandated it, they are indicating that they are committed to teaching statism to students and they expect tax payers to supply the costs of that statism with tax increases.

Obviously our modern society is a mixture of all three of those definitions, and none of those political theories are dedicated to individual freedom, quite the opposite.  Instead, they are 100% dedicated to the idea of “rule by consensus.”  Rule by consensus is the surrendering of the good to the bad so that the murky middle can rule all by fairness.  However, this is only fair to the bad that have little to contribute to society.  The only entities that make a sacrifice under such compromises are the good.  So the rule by consensus ideology that is so prevalent in our modern times is unfair to those who produce and have value, but is fair to those who are scandalous, tyrannical, and emotional despots.  Ironically, in any democracy there will always be more of those types of people, so they will perpetually vote in favor of statism—as they only can gain from such an arrangement.

This brings us back around to capitalism and why I am committing my political philosophy to it for now on.  The definition of capitalism as it needs to be rightly understood is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.  That sounds simple enough and it needs to be, but the idea of ownership permeates every level of society and virtually everything that is seen.  When someone owns property even if it’s just an idea, they tend to take care of it.  When they share the responsibility with others, they neglect the property—its human nature and is as old as time itself.  So to encourage the most value in society that brings the most benefit to the most people, capitalism needs to be the political philosophy most strongly advocated—world wide.

I understand that it will take a long time to make my case.  It may take several lifetimes to change the minds of mankind away from the idea of tribal sacrifice and embrace property ownership.  The planet Earth in 2013 is being ruled by tribal consensus.  Every continent except half the North American continent has a deep history of mystic faith and voodoo beliefs, and the political philosophies have forced their people to live in huts, cramped up housing, and sub par conditions because they have embraced either socialism, fascism, or statism in their tribal cultures from their inception.  Only the United States took a step toward capitalism and the benefits were obvious.  But under the rule of consensus, America has been made to feel guilty and has been expected to crawl on its knees begging for atonement—begging the lethargic buffoons of five continents to impose their beliefs on American success and that has to stop.

In our representative republic of America I do not have anyone who reflects my beliefs not because my beliefs are wrong, but because they lack the courage to defend them.  I will not crawl on my knees for anybody, especially Europe.  And if I’m the only one who thinks capitalism is the proper political philosophy for America, I am fine with that.  But I will continue to make the case for capitalism going forward because only it represents my personal values and does the most good for Earth and everyone on it.  For an example, see The Epcot Center in Disney World for proof and evidence.

There have been a few writers in history who have defended capitalism properly, but not nearly enough.  So I will endeavor to contribute in that area.  Already I have two books with separate characters in Rick Stevens from Tail of the Dragon and Fletcher Finnegan from The Symposium of Justice who can tell a story in mythic form why capitalism is the preferred political philosophy in America.  This is the best way to understand a complex concept.  It may take me the next 100 years to write more stories, and create more scenarios that articulate properly why capitalism is the proper political system that America should function under, but that task is one that’s appropriate to the type of odds I enjoy.  There are nearly 7 billion people living on Earth presently, and I would guess that nearly 98% of those people currently believe that the world’s political philosophy should either be socialism, fascism, or statism.  Yet they are all wrong—every one of them.  Since I do not accept rule by consensus, I am happy to take on each and every one of them in tandem to defend capitalism as the most moral means of political philosophy ever invented and to expose the holes in their corrupted theories in a battle that even though the numbers are dramatically against me, are in my favor by virtue of honesty.  So the time to make a commitment to capitalism is now.

I suppose I’ve always felt this way but what really sharpened my teeth on this idea was the school levy fights I’ve been in and how I had to watch good people whom I knew that were factory owners, developers, and other creators of jobs and ideas cower before the likes of people like Laura Sanders, a radical levy addict in my home school district. I had to learn why, and how. CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW.   Now that I understand the problem, it is time to do something about it. That is why I am starting my own political party that is not dedicated to holding elected office, but in the type of philosophy that built America in the first place, and one that will bring prosperity and freedom to every breathing soul in the entire world.  That is a task I find honorable, and one that deserves top priority and tenacious dedication even if the effort is solitary.

Rich Hoffman

166701_584023358276159_1119605693_n“If they attack first………..blast em’!”