The Socialists of California: Porter Standsberry was correct–and the west coast is the first to fall

During the last Republican convention it was a big deal that the debt clock hit $16 trillion dollars.  At the time it seemed like an insurmountable number to overcome.  Yet in four years since, and a Republican controlled house and senate, nothing has been done to even slow it down.  Now as we approach the 2016 Republican convention, the number is $19 trillion and looks to jump to 20 to 21 trillion within a very short time—it is quickly escalating out of control and is my number one concern.  You might remember the article I wrote five years ago about Porter Standsberry.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  Well, it’s all happening now.  Corporations are moving overseas to avoid the high corporate taxes, socialists are running for president, and capitalism is about to be sentenced guilty by the looter Washington class of public officials and know-nothing politicians.  All these things have been quite deliberate—the communists and socialists have infected our political system and made decisions that are directly designed to topple our capitalists system of government with debt and excessive expectations while on the other end they have destroyed the means of production.

This has never been more evident than in the city of Detroit—utterly destroyed by socialism.  Chicago is not far behind and is currently propped up exclusively by debt incurrence.  Chicago doesn’t have the wealth building ability to pay their debts at the rate that they are acquiring them.  But they are small potatoes compared to California—which was once one of the great economies of the world.  Now it’s quickly on its way to becoming an empty husk of what it once was and now they have delivered to themselves one of the final nails into their coffin—they approved an increase in the minimum wage with a plan to get to $15 dollars per hour within a few years.  Without question, based on the strength of the Bernie Sanders campaign in the West, the entire coastline has been destroyed by progressive politics greatly crippling the American economy.  Now with the minimum wage hike they have fully committed to socialism which of course will deplete their once great state of its wealth quickly.

As I’ve said before, I have worked in fast food for a number of years as a second job.  I understand the nature of it—and how hard it can be—and at no time did I ever consider that those positions should be paid any kind of “living wage.”  Nobody should seek to make a long career out of a fast food job.  They are entry-level jobs that should encourage people to improve their skills and value to the capitalist marketplace.  For instance—when I worked in fast food, while other people goofed off on their breaks, I read books so that I could become smarter for better things to come.  I worked many odd jobs for essentially the first 15 years of my adult life—up until about 35 years of age.  Some of those odd jobs were at fast food places—like Wendy’s, McDonald’s, Frisch’s and so on.  During that entire period I never wasted one single break on needless exercises.   I was always reading books and trying to improve myself—and there isn’t one person from my past who could step forward and say otherwise.  I learned a lot of things in these jobs which obviously helped me later on in life.  No, I didn’t get paid much, but the wealth I took away from those jobs was invaluable.  But always there was a hunger to do better for my family which pushed me to continuously improve.

Without that motivation to step away from fast food, a lot of talent in America is sure to be wasted.  Getting paid so much money for the entry-level workforce weakens all the market mechanisms which make capitalism so successful, which of course is the point of progressives who have been advocating the $15 dollar an hour minimum wage.  Of course if the minimum wage is set at $15 then all the jobs upstream from fast food will have to increase which is how the socialists have always planned to attack the American economy—by striking at the profit of corporations for the good of the “people” as if they had equal ownership of the means of labor.

The unintended consequence is that companies like McDonald’s will either downsize and further automate their operations lessening their reliance on labor, or they will relocate to some other area of the country that does not have such hefty financial burdens toward their profit margins.  Every video game player should understand this concept.  Without some measure of profit—whether its points gained, or trophies won in competition with others—there is little incentive to play a game or open a business—if there is no profit.  Human beings are driven by profit.  As an example—I am a big fan of the Assassin’s Creed video games.  There are lots of ways to “profit” in those games—as you succeed you get to open up new areas to explore, you get achievement trophies to share online with the friends in your network, and of course you earn upgrades to your playable character.  Every Silicone Valley geek understands how this works—yet they have a hard time applying these lessons to real life—such as in politics.  The same young people who will play an online game for 24 straight hours trying to grind it out to earn bonuses—will stand on a street corner protesting McDonald’s for a minimum wage hike without understanding that they are weakening the game of life for which we all live by.  In their minds the two worlds are separated by fantasy and reality—but in the human mind—they are one in the same.

No video gamer wants their achievements and hard work penalized so some newbie can just come into a game like Assassin’s Creed and instantly be as good as everyone else.  They are expected to work hard to earn the right and respect of everyone else.  Well, the same holds true in a capitalist society.  No top executive wants to see some snot nosed kid step directly into a corner glass office in a high-rise firm who hasn’t fought and earned the right to be there.  And no straight out of college kid should earn $6 figure salaries unless they’ve done the work to be the top of their field of endeavor.  By giving fast food workers an instantly high minimum wage—they are penalizing all those in life who play the game of capitalism hard and create all the jobs for which socialists are so eager to give away for free.

The net result will be fewer jobs in California, higher prices because of the lack of competition, and a general gradual lessening of their global economic prowess. The benefits that so many Californians take for granted today, such as having a McDonald’s down the road for a quick coffee and a breakfast will evaporate the higher that the minimum wage increases rise.  McDonald’s will automate and implement those new devices into their stores to protect their margins—which is the lifeblood of their company—it’s not to serve society—it’s to make money—to earn points in the capitalist system.   Then what California will end up doing along with socialist Seattle is force McDonald’s to reduce their staffing levels all across the country minimizing job opportunities—not increasing them.  For the guy like me who just wanted to earn a little extra money and experience—those jobs may not be available if McDonald’s has to drop their minimum staffing levels from 6 or 7 employees to 3 or 4 to maintain their current margins.  Once they develop a formula in California for dealing with the increased costs—they’ll implement that strategy to every store they have around the world.

So it is very sad to see that California took the plunge further into socialism.  But I did tell everyone a long time ago that all this was coming—and we know what it looks like—and what impact it has—yet they did it anyway. It further prevents our national GDP from ever having a chance to overtake our massive debt with increased productivity.  It certainly puts us all further in the hole—which was always the strategy.  How does that make you feel America?  It should make you VERY angry.

Rich Hoffman


Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

Donald Trump Wins the Presidential Nomination Easily: Ted Cruz womanizing story gets no traction because there’s no money in it

It is surprising that this video hasn’t had more airtime.  Obviously the #NEVERTRUMP people are salivating at an opportunity to pounce on Donald Trump after he effectively took off for a week to rest and welcome the birth of his latest grandchild.  Cruz moved up on him in Wisconsin and the media thinks they have him cornered finally and can knock him out of the race with a gauntlet of criticism that has been unheard of in American politics.  Meanwhile, this Cruz story is pretty important.  There is obviously something very diabolical going on.  If the guy cheats on his wife and is claiming to be a “Christian” this is a big deal.  Carly jumped in entirely too fast, and Cruz is giving off the entirely wrong body language to be innocent.  He never answered the question which is pretty bad. 

Look dear reader, Donald Trump even if he doesn’t win states like Wisconsin, Colorado, Indiana, Oregon and several other places still wins easily with 1237 delegates by June.  He may not even need to win California to get those delegates.  I’ve done the math.  Donald Trump would have to have a major meltdown to lose.  Granted, the questions at this stage get harder and he has a lot against him—literally at every turn.  But even if he only does “OK”, he still wins the nomination without a brokered convention pretty easily.  If Trump keeps his swagger, the nomination is his.

The media wants people to believe that the whole presidential race is closer and more dramatic than it really is.  They want Trump to keep working hard to win the nomination because it makes them all a lot of money having him on the news every night.  So if they can delay it, they’ll do what they can to keep him in the news until the general election against Hillary begins.  They would like a solid eight months of Trump ratings to generate several years worth of cable news projections.  The Cruz story is going nowhere because there is no money in it.  But for voters, they should be asking hard questions about Ted Cruz.  He doesn’t have a chance to win as president, but he is a sitting senator and a Tea Party favorite.  If he’s a cheater we need to know.  Watching that video of Cruz and Carly indicates that something is very, very wrong.

Rich Hoffman


Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.


The Paradox of Metrosexual Conservatism: Traditional roles between men and women mean more than historic reference

I know this may not sound very enlightened based on the progressive atmosphere of today’s “man,” but I am substantially sick of friends of mine—who are like Ted Cruz—and have adopted a metrosexual lifestyle–then declared that Donald Trump and his supporters are not “conservative.”  To my view—and this is fine if someone so chooses–I have many family members who fall in this category that I like a lot, but in our family my wife and I are very traditional, and we made a conscious decision to be that way—if the man shares in the domestic duties like cooking, laundry, diaper changing and other tasks of a similar nature—I would not call those people conservative.  I would call them modern, and diminished as to their masculinity. (For context to this viewpoint, CLICK HERE to read a more scientific explanation to the biological roles that the sexes play with each other within a household.)  Participants to this “modern” view of household roles certainly isn’t to my mind conservative.  A lot of women don’t have a choice but to do everything in this modern world—that is because men have become so terribly lazy and lackluster.  It’s not the fault of women.  But nevertheless, men who call themselves “conservative” while they ride the coat-tails of their wives careers are not caretakers of conservatism by my definition.  Modern politics may give them a free pass—but I don’t.

I say that knowing such viewpoints are considered outdated these days. Believe me, my regard for the household chores that are burdened by a man gives them far more personal weight to carry than women should have to endure—it’s not like men should sit around being couch potatoes being served by the women like maids.  I expect men to be gentlemen, to help hold the door open for women wherever they are, to treat them with the utmost respect like the vessels of life that they are—and to put their lives and importance before any man’s personal comfort.  Progressives would call that view “old fashioned.” I would say that they are idiots to criticize that formula which evolved out of biological and psychological necessity.

In that context, and I’m not going to embarrass him with calling him out, because he’s certainly not alone in this thinking, but one of the most national critics that I know of Donald Trump who is on the radio broadcasting support for Ted Cruz is a guy who has a wife with a far more prestigious job than he has, makes a lot more money, and she relies on him to share many of the household chores so they are done when she gets home from work.  I know this because he’s a friend of mine.  Just like Ted Cruz—that friend is failing in his conservatism because he has adopted in his life a progressive metrosexual lifestyle that is not becoming of tradition.  He has no right to point to Donald Trump—who does have similar views about conservatism and family life as I do—and says that he as a candidate is not a conservative.  In his family life, Donald Trump is far more conservative than Ted Cruz—if we are basing conservatism on traditional values—not progressive manipulation of family lifestyles.

I do not fault people who make these types of arrangements within their marriages—it’s their choice.  But I do judge them as lacking conservatism.  There was a lot about the old stereotypes about breadwinners and domestic tasks for women that helped tag team successful family growth that has been thrown out due to progressive marketing within our country, which should be revisited regarding conservative philosophy.  I’ve been married for over a quarter century and honestly I don’t think marriages can last without a proper division of labor specified toward the roles of the sexes.  Women are built through estrogen to project a certain level of sign stimuli to be appealing to the opposite sex, and domestic tasks achieved are part of that femininity. Men are built through testosterone to endure physical challenges that don’t always require great intellect, but will make them sweat and project masculinity—which females are biologically inclined to find appealing.  It is quite natural for a woman to watch a man chopping wood in the yard from the kitchen window then desire to take him a cool refreshment to get a whiff of his sweaty masculinity.  Men find such odors disgusting, but women enjoy them for reasons of mating customs.  When we change those rhythms with the family unit we change the nature of philosophy for which human society is built.  That is not a good thing when what did work produced many of the positive gains our culture has enjoyed for the last several thousand years.

Of course there is a reason that progressives advocate homosexual rights, just as they have attached themselves to the feminist movement.   They have always been after the destruction of the family unit—by feminizing men and encouraging masculine women so that the barriers to primal mating customs could be destroyed and conservative traditions eradicated.  The strategic necessity in this endeavor has of course been to turn family control over to the state and pave the way for National Socialism.  Given the popularity of the presidential candidate Bernie Sanders—we can see how effective that marketing has been.

When men try to tell me that my ideas about families and the relationship between men and women is outdated—I feel sorry for them, because they are in denial.  They will point at their successful dual income lives and declare themselves victors of economic achievement.  But they often lack the types of deep love and understanding that our grandparents knew when men were men, women were women, and everyone knew what their family and social roles were—before progressive tampering with biological natures.  A lot of the mess we see today can be directly attributed to this condition. Women have been told that they have to be everything to everyone—but most of all, that they must make personal sacrifices for the good of all women and their social obligations as a village.  That is why so many women are willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in spite of her terrible record and obvious dishonesty.  This is also why Donald Trump’s numbers are so low among women—because instinctively they come to each other’s collective aid when they sense another is in trouble—like the banter between Trump and Cruz over who was more attractive, Heidi Cruz or Melania Trump.  When that didn’t work out so well for Cruz, he proclaimed that Trump didn’t like “strong” women—which he insinuated means a career driven maniac who has put her career before her family for the benefit of what she believes is important.  The insinuation also was that Melania Trump was a bimbo of some sort because she’s pretty and has decided to be a happy housewife—and to withdraw from collective feminism.  Melania in her own right had a successful modeling career and she had done well with a jewelry line as an entrepreneur.  But when given an option to have a life for “herself” or to stay home with her son Barron and raise him properly, she picked service to her family over service to collective society—and that is looked down upon by most women who have been trained to think that these feminist arguments about “self reliance” from a “man” was actually good for them.  And to the men who have married such women and taken a “progressive” role in their own families—they often find themelves miserable or divorced before it’s all said and done.

I often love talking to old people, because to the 70-year-old couple who have survived a 50 year marriage and has 20 grandchildren and 5 or 6 great-grandchildren, they have lost their estrogen and their testosterone and are as equal within the sexes that human beings can truly be.  But they still play out their roles within the family for the psychological maintenance of their children and grandchildren.  The man might work out in a tool shed carving wood while the woman works at being experts in the kitchen.  Of course the man could learn to cook and could rival any woman, and the woman could learn to carve wood and mow the grass.   But successful marriages learn what works and how they can use their sexual roles to bond their families to an idea of conservatism for which the family can last through the ages.

So I find it preposterous that Ted Cruz feels inclined to lecture Donald Trump on the family roles of his wife—because Trump does not have“enlightened” outlook feminism.  Cruz obviously does, and so do many men that I know who have confused themselves by thinking that mixing up the sexual roles of family business is somehow considered “conservative.”  I can think of about ten men right now who are either national figures speaking out against Trump in favor of Cruz or they are just local business associates who share with their wives the tasks of cooking, cleaning and bread winning—and they are all either divorced at some point in their lives, or they are miserable and secretly hate their wives. The wives secretly know this so to keep the marriage together for their children they occasionally let their men go to Vegas to blow off some steam and make fools of themselves.  The women giggle at Pure Romance parties and watch chick flicks together and these idiots think that behavior is rooted in conservatism and will produce a successful family existence.  They are mistaken.

Trump is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime that has not backed down from this issue.  If he thinks someone looks like a radicalized feminist—he chews into them the same way as he would a man—and that is equal treatment.  If women want to play with the boys, that’s the way it goes.  But in his family life, he is very traditional—at least by today’s standards.  I would argue that Trump is much, much more conservative than Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and all the writers at the Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, and at Fox News.  The men who have given in to this progressive feminist push for equality without the consequences of being dominated by an A Type male—have to justify their failure somehow.  These metrosexual conservatives play the same games feminists do, they say that Trump is not a conservative in the way that women have been told that they need to have an “independent” life by service to collectivism.  And that just isn’t how the situation is in actuality.  Ted Cruz and his supporters have become feminized and tricked into thinking they are still conservatives.  But they are not.  Sometimes being “enlightened” isn’t a great.  Tell that to the bug that reached for the light only to be incinerated by a bug zapper.  The human race is doing the same thing to itself—and it’s not very becoming.  Putting up with people who have consciously made all the wrong decisions in their life is one thing—but being lectured by them is something else.   And I really don’t want to hear Ted Cruz with his little Kermit the Frog voice lecture me about “strong women” when he obviously has issues in his marriage.  Save it for counseling—but don’t pretend that the insane behavior is a pinnacle of conservatism.  All it really is, is embarrassing.

Rich Hoffman


Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

Photos of a Modern Gunfighter: The many benefits of a healthy passion


IMG_0159You might have noticed dear reader that I have some different pictures on my websites.  It has been a long time since I’ve updated any profile pictures and it was appropriate to reflect my new stage in life.  So my daughter at Brooke Townsend set up a time to do a photo shoot with me and the result was some of these pictures that you are now seeing.  I have a complete life, I do a lot of things—I’ve been all over the world and done a lot of important tasks that people think are important.  I’ve raised children that I’m very proud of and I’ve been married to the same woman for over a quarter century.  By all accounts I am a very successful person bulging with skills and accomplishments that many would be envious of.  I don’t say all that to brag, but I work hard every day to be the best that I can be, and I have certainly done that.  So my daughter and I were talking about what kind of pictures to take of me—how to sum up my world views and essence into a simple photograph.  It’s not just my opinion, but those of her clients, my daughter has emerged on the world stage as a highly sought out photographer and her rates reflect the quality and uniqueness of her work, so I trust her professional recommendations.  She and I set out on an early spring morning recently to capture my essence that best represented this stage of my life and the result is what follows.IMG_0217

Of course I can pretty much buy whatever I want these days so it should say a lot that the possession I most love is my fast draw holster rig for my .45 Vaquero.  It is specially made and is my single most cherished item that I currently have.  With that said we focused on it for these photographs because as I said some time ago, I consider my new career to be that of a gunfighter.  Standing up for the Second Amendment, taking constitutional positions that are regarded legally as Anti-Federalist instead of Federalist—and my love of history really prevents me from any other type of career.  I like to stand up against bullies, at every level of the social spectrum—in manners of career, politics, and private life—that life as a gunfighter is really my only choice.IMG_0303

Being a gunfighter to me isn’t what it was during the period of the Old West.  It’s not about killing other people—it’s more of a sport, like being a basketball player, or a football star.  Being a gunfighter is what I enjoy most in this case within the sport of Cowboy Fast Draw which I practice at every day in some fashion or another.  A lot of men my age get heavy into golf—and I can see the appeal.  It can be magical to go to Dick’s sporting goods and pick out top-of-the-line golf clubs and spend many afternoons playing rounds of golf with the material acquisitions acquired through financial success.  But that is too stereotypical for me to really enjoy because so many people do it.  I need something that represents my unique life, and a gunfighter embodies my decisions much better—to the level I am quite excited about it.IMG_0254

My daughter did a wonderful job of capturing the light in a way that embodied how I feel about this stage.  If I look proud wearing the gun and holster rig from Mernickle it’s because I am.  For one reason or another I spent ten years planning on how I could incorporate these things in my life.  Most of the reason was that I worked too much so I didn’t have time for a hobby, or career as a gunfighter—because it takes a lot of work to do it right.  It’s the same situation with my .500 Magnum from Smith & Wesson.  I thought about those guns for a very long time and finally picked them up when I was able to make a clear decision to commit some time to caring for them as a sport.  I’m not the kind of person who just buys things to have them, then puts them on display in my home for other to look at.  I actually have to make them a part of my life.  The Mernickle holster rig is something that I plan to make a part of my daily life, so it is now a constant companion to me.  I thought about it so long that of course finally wearing it made me proud.IMG_0283 (2)

I think it’s a shame that firearms in general have such a negative stigma applied to them.  To me guns are all about great precision machining, and science—the combustible elements of lead projectiles mixed with gunpowder in closed dimensional quarters guided by human skill toward an intended target are the keys to their utilization.  To get an idea of what I’m talking about click the picture on the sidebar next to this article, the one where the gun is pointed toward the camera.  That is a reaction timer test that records your ability to identify a target and react to it within thousands of a second. A good time is anything in the .100 range, from the time you see the light to when you click the mouse button.  Mastering those types of skills don’t just help you in shooting sports, but in all aspects of life—because it forces your brain to think faster and to work more efficiently.  The difference between a time in the .300s and .100s is barely perceptible to human measurement—but by practicing, you can begin to feel it when you get a good time and when you don’t.  For instance, it might be remembered that I survived a very serious motorcycle crash last year.  It was only because of lightning reflexes that I managed to walk away with all my body parts and only a few cracked bones.  My $12,000 motorcycle was totaled, but I still made it to a very important business meeting an hour later because of how I develop myself though my hobbies—with an emphasis on speed and accuracy through working with bull whips for so many years.IMG_0248

Dedicating time toward the skills it takes to be a gunfighter has a spillover effect into all aspects of life, so I see it as a tremendous benefit.  While it might be out-of-step with mainstream thought, my gun rig with my Vaquero is my most prized worldly possession and my daughter did a good job of capturing it in our photo shoot.  I wear it all the time at home and whenever I’m in my garage, it has become mandated to always be at my side while on my property.  Whether I’m in my shop reloading ammunition, or target shooting for hours on end, my new Mernickle holster rig has become emblematic with my personality, so we are making it an important part of my life going forward—which is reflected in the pictures that will be taken of me in the future.  Guns have always been a part of my life, but they’ve always been in the background.  Now they will be very much more a part of the foreground.  As society has become more progressive, those of us who love traditional American concepts should stand up proudly on its behalf.  And that is what I intend to do with each year that emerges hereafter.

Rich Hoffman


Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

Why You Should Not Vote For Ted Cruz: “Take over the world, rich, powerful, that sort of stuff” while building a North American “community”

Up until really the National Enquirer article I was not adamant that Ted Cruz should not be the presidential nominee.  But after hearing him get the endorsements of people like Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, and after Cruz actually hired a Bush to work in his campaign, then witnessing all the dirty tricks that Ted played before Donald Trump hit back—like the hit piece on Melania—I have decided that under no circumstances am I going to support any sitting politicians for President. If someone holds a political position now or ever—I will not vote for them in the upcoming election.  The political establishment is doing everything it can to protect itself from a rebellion they created because of their mass incompetence and dysfunction—and watching their behavior has made me sick of the process.  I don’t believe any of them.   It is obvious to me, and I’m hardly one who falls for disillusion and fantasy.  Yet I have many friends, several who make livings thinking about this kind of stuff—some who actually work for Glenn Beck—who say they won’t vote for Donald Trump because he’s not a conservative.  Well, I think Trump is a conservative in a very liberal part of the country.  He may not be Montana conservative, but he is certainly bold enough to call himself a Republican in the very blue state of New York.  People can argue and debate all they want, but Trump has a wealth building track record that you can see and touch.  Cruz does not.  Instead you get conspiratorial information about Ted Cruz when you do a little digging—and it’s not good—like the following videos. Watch them all then decide if you really believe that Ted Cruz is what he says he is.

If there was anything I liked about Ted Cruz it was during his filibuster speech in front of the Senate where he mentioned Ayn Rand.  Like Paul Ryan he claims to be a fan—which gave me hope for both of them really.  But then again, so was Glenn Beck—and all those people have missed the point she was trying to make.  Ted Cruz is no closer to living in the world of Galt’s Gulch than Jessie Jackson and now that he is being pressed as one of two front runners—his story is breaking down.  This is why we have a long primary season and why running for president is so difficult.  Everyone has to be vetted and we need to see how these people act when they start sweating.  Cruz has not done well.  Even if he didn’t cheat on his wife with five women—he didn’t do a very good job of stepping out in front of the story.  His body language was obviously implicating him behind the tough talk.  He came across to me like the kid seen in the below video who blamed Donald Trump for putting teeth marks in a chair.  Trump because he is the political outsider—is a convenient punching bag—and Cruz’s team uses dirty tricks too much against him in a passive aggressive manner.  They played dirty with Ben Carson, and several others as well.  Then when they tried to appeal to Mormons in Utah with Holy-roller ads using a naked Melania to smear Trump, it was obvious to me that when pressed as a possible president, Cruz would behave in the same fashion.

Of course Cruz wants to debate Trump one on one—it is his strongest aptitude.  Trump would be crazy to fall for the invite—to give a competitor a chance by playing to his strength.  That is not how you win competitions conservatives—you must exploit the weaknesses of your rival—you don’t prop them up.  Cruz is a great debater on policy and all the things that politicians talk about.  But what has he done in his life that says he could do anything but talk?  We’ve heard the talk before and look where it’s gotten us.  No, we need now a man of action and I don’t think there is a single one in public office these days within the Washington D.C. culture who can do the job of president.  There are a few here and there around the country that gives me hope for the republic, but not enough to matter at the federal level yet.  We are in a gunless rebellion right now.  Instead of casualties and collateral damage we are seeing people lose or gain their careers.  That you could say is a more humane way of dealing with insurgents who have failed at their jobs of running the country—and they neurotically respond as if they’d rather die than just lose a social status.  But this rebellion has to happen.  We either take back our country through an election or we do it with some militia organized force—but things cannot continue as they have.  And what I’ve seen out of Ted Cruz is that he’s part of the system—not fighting against it.  Even if Cruz did love the novel Atlas Shrugged—being married to the spouse that he has now would prevent him from acting philosophically from it—which makes him no more effective in government than one of the Bush presidents or the worthless senators like Graham.

Then there was Cruz’s little speech about strong women as he defended his wife Heidi from the wrath of Donald Trump after Ted threw the first punch.    Not that women have to be barefoot and pregnant, and must spend all their time in the kitchen caring for their families to have value, but Cruz did not sound very conservative to me.  There is this whole metrosexual revolution of men who do cooking for their wives and share in the domestic tasks like doing laundry that are derived from the whole progressive push to make everyone equal, and Cruz like a lot of men are a part of it.  In human society the only real differences between men and women are those regarding the sexual roles—that really is it.  If we all placed our brains on a table and took away all the physicality, only then would we truly be equal.  But with physical bodies, we have roles on earth that point straight into the bedroom.  For instance, most women like to take the submissive role in sex, and therefore, they like to pamper their men with domestic obligations—but only if that man has went out into the world and conquered it in some fashion—with either a big paycheck, or in protecting the family from some disturbance.  Men and women must respect each other, but the roles they play in their family life are like foreplay to what happens in the bedroom.  In the most biologically primal fashion that directly leads to a happy sex life, women like to know that a man is changing the tire on the family car and the man likes to see his woman cooking the dinner he worked so hard to put on the table.  That respect leads to a healthy sex life of mutual fulfillment.  In this modern age of high divorce rates and mousey men who share all the cooking and laundry duties with their wives—they don’t understand why the women in their lives don’t want to plop up on the hood of their car in their garage and have spontaneous sex.  It is because the women don’t respect men who endorse all those beta male attributes.  Of course there are exceptions—and some people make it work through sheer will—but biologically we are all wired the same way through our physical bodies—and so long as we live on earth together—those rules apply to everything we do.  Trump understands those rules—Cruz certainly doesn’t and you can see it on Heidi’s face—she is suffering.  Most women in Heidi’s position use career to substitute the closeness they lack with their husbands.  These days’ women have been taught from little girls that this progressive method is the way they must conduct their lives—so they usually enter marriage confused as to their roles within the family.  But just a note to men in general, if you have to get your wife drunk to want to have sex, you are screwing up your romantic life with her.  Men in that situation need to change things for the benefit of the woman.  Society won’t acknowledge this problem, but it’s quite obvious—and it is destroying an entire generation of relationships.  Ted Cruz came out in his chastisement of Donald Trump sounding like a silly soccer dad justifying his own personal failures—and it was certainly pathetic.  It wasn’t presidential, and it certainly wasn’t “conservative.”

That of course brings us back to Donald Trump and the Cruz supporters who declare that the New York billionaire isn’t a conservative.  Trump is rich and he didn’t get that way giving away money.  He has a happy housewife at home taking care of his family.  Trump is pro gun, pro border security, against Common Core, and favors lowering taxes with an aggressive plan that might actually work.  He is decisive and a natural leader and never backs down from a fight.  What’s not to like?  And he has a track record of accomplishment both good and bad–we can see what we are buying with him.  With Cruz, who says he’s the ultimate conservative—what do we really know?  Because when you peek under the hood there is a lot not to like—he’s underpowered, feminized, and all talk.  The holes in Cruz are showing.  If he’s a true conservative then we are in a lot of trouble.  Because he does a lot of things and holds positions that are quite contrary to true conservatism—and you can see that in his campaign.  And now that too much has been said, there is no going back for me.  If the Republican Party does not embrace Donald Trump I’m done with them.  If there is anybody but a pure independent from the political establishment in the White House—then I’m done with the process and will turn from elections into Sam Adams.  Look people, I’m not a Constitutionalist—I think the Hamilton version of the founding documents was entirely too liberal.  I’m an Anti-Federalist by that old definition and if there is movement in the Constitution—it won’t be more toward a socialist state like Obama presents as an option—it will be further to the right—the way that Thomas Jefferson always intended.  Because only in that manner can we get to what we were supposed to always be in America—and Trump is the means to get there.  Cruz is just more of the same.  We don’t need another scandalous preacher from the White House.  We need someone who knows how to manage others—something no politician has shown me they are able to do—because they just don’t have the skill set to accomplish the task.  Ted Cruz has been nothing but a public servant his whole life.  He’s hardly an outsider.  He’s simply sold himself that way—and I’m not buying—under any condition.  The Glenn Beck types are wrong.  They need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged.  Cruz isn’t any of the characters in Atlantis.  He’s at the table with Wesley Mouch.  Actually, Ted’s wife is—while the presidential candidate is doing the dishes.

Rich Hoffman


Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

Why America Loves Melania Trump: When you see a beautiful woman–thank her for the tremendous contributions to a free society


In the political left’s insistent pursuit of “equality” there has been one group of people consistently cast out in the debate which needs to stop.  Personally I notice this discrimination all the time and I think it’s disgusting.  The same people who perpetuate this disgusting form of discrimination are the same people who tell us that everyone is equal and that we should make no judgments—that all sexes and their preferences should be given audience to the table of respect. It’s so bad now that we are actually having a debate in some places as to whether a person identifies themselves as a man or a woman in regard to which bathroom they use.  It doesn’t matter if those people are men, or women—all that does is whether or not they “feel” like a man or a woman.  As President Obama went on his South American tour of socialist countries trying to pave the way for an “American Union” which will demand that all countries within it function from the same economic engine—for instance Canada is being run by a socialist recently elected, Cuba is communist, Mexico is socialist, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and most of the smaller countries around them are all various degrees of socialist—the United States has had the burden of financially carrying all these countries from falling over the edge of civilized advancement.  It could be argued that socialist based countries if they did not have the United States helping them would plummet into an archaic based society regressing back to a nomadic culture.  We see it in the present day Middle East, all across Africa, and of course Asia.  Therefore, it could be legitimately argued that this most disrespected group of people within the United States could be responsible greatly for the reaches of capitalism around the world and are therefore tasked with saving many lives just by their very existence.   I am talking about beautiful women of course—it’s time we stop discriminating against them and to treat them with the respect they deserve.

I have been thinking about this topic a lot on the back of the obvious degradation toward Melania Trump now that her husband is the obvious front-runner who will battle Hilary Clinton for the White House.  The formula is quite simple really, men like Trump—“A type” personalities who work hard and like to hear the praise of their victories, love beautiful women.  I mean, who doesn’t.  Love aside—because without it a marriage is pretty miserable—but nobody wants to share a bed with someone who looks and feels like a potato.  Women don’t like sleeping with a man who is grossly over-weight and men really don’t enjoy it.  When you are successful and have accomplished more than those around you, it is a good feeling to get out of a car at a big event and have a beautiful woman draped on your arm.  It lets people know that you’ve done something to earn her.  Beautiful women in American culture are the goddesses of capitalism—they encourage the nerdy pimple-faced twenty something who can’t get a date on a college campus to invent something—so that they can share their bed with a beautiful woman.  The sum of such a transaction usually means economic expansion.  When men learn that the way to get “hot chicks” is to become rich—they work very hard to do so.  It is great for capitalism.  It could be said that beautiful women drive the American economic engine that saves the world from itself.  Men work hard to have beautiful women, and women work hard to look like beautiful women—the net result is that America makes money that carries everyone else through taxation.

In socialist countries or repressed cultures such as the one that Melania came from—upward mobility in society isn’t possible with just good looks.  You have to know somebody to become successful because of the nature of their “managed” economies—or you have to sleep with someone and hope that you can become something more than a mistress.  Unfortunately once a woman hits 30 years of age, they are usually thrown to the curb in those types of countries.  Most beautiful women in socialist and communist countries are sacrificed at a very young age and never make it to midlife because they are forced to capitalize on their beauty when they are young just to survive—which is very much the case in Vietnam, India, and China—attractive girls work in the sex trade—get abused and end up in terrible situations by the time they are old enough to be mothers themselves.  It’s really a terrible and vicious cycle.

Melania Trump is someone who I greatly respect.  She left Slovenia on a hope and a prayer to become a fashion model and could have easily have been like any other beautiful woman around the world and fallen into bad hands.  Lucky for her she met Donald Trump who greatly appreciated beauty and capitalism and the two started dated which gave her a bit of a refuge from the predatory fray of using her looks to make a living.  Trump was dating her at the time that he loaned one of his private jets to GQ to have Melania take nude pictures aboard it chained to a briefcase.  Trump honestly wanted to see the pictures as did most men.  When Melania got out of a car with him at social events it let everyone know that he had made it in life—especially when all the men who compete against him have seen his wife nude in GQ.  At the time he didn’t know if he wanted to marry her or not, they were just dating.

  After spending time together they eventually decided to tie the knot and marry because she had become more than a sex kitten for him—she became a partner—and that has been great for everyone.  There are few places in the world where Melania could have risen to the top of the world in such a short period of time but in the United States.  Now as a beautiful woman she is poised to be one of our best spokespeople for capitalism from the White House as a first lady.  Sure she used her looks to land a billionaire to her bed.  Some women trap men into marriage by getting pregnant, or some other form of bondage.  There is nothing wrong with a beautiful woman advancing under a capitalist system and becoming fabulously wealthy and successful using the natural gifts they were born with.

I know quite a lot of people with a great deal of money, and most of them have what is considered a trophy wife.  Most of these guys over the years have been developers to some degree and have to attend a lot of charity social events—just like Donald Trump does.  They spend a lot of their life trying to make buildings appealing to consumers and are often very concerned about appearances—so naturally as they try to build up their brand it helps them to have a beautiful woman on their arm.  Women judge the successful competence of men based on the type of mates they attract, and of course men figure out where they stand in the peaking order of the human race based on similar factors.  When a man sees another man married to a beautiful woman he usually thinks—that guy is more endowed than me–that guy is more successful than me–or that guy is tougher than me.  When you are a powerful person you need to gain that leverage over a rival so that when you have to negotiate with them they are already thinking they are inferior to you—so for the powerful developer—or otherwise successful person enriched under capitalism—having a beautiful woman who you are married to that is twice your age younger says a lot about where you are in life—and it gives you a better seat at the negotiating table.

Looks are just one element to a good marriage, and honestly as you get older and sex becomes much less important, you want a good friend to share a bed with of the opposite sex.  But a lot could be said about the value of beautiful women and their upward mobility within capitalist cultures which drive the economic engine of our entire civilization—and I don’t think we give them enough credit.  Melania is a classy young woman and I think she deserves a lot more respect than she has been getting.  The socialists among us know innately what it would mean to have Melania in the White House, so they are in a panic driven fury to demean her in every way fashionable.  But what has been exposed in the process is the gross hypocrisy of the political left and their discrimination against beautiful women in capitalist societies.  Their attraction to socialism after all is that they don’t want to compete with Melania and other beautiful women for attention. They want an “equal” society where beautiful people are just as abused as not such beautiful people—and that equates to substantial degradation in human achievement—but at least they don’t have to feel bad about themselves.  I think it’s time that we end such thinking and recognize beautiful women for the hidden gifts they bring to all of us.  When you see one, make sure to let them know how much they are appreciated.  They are people too, and we should treat them with the respect they deserve.

Rich Hoffman


Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

Proof of a Global Communist Agenda Exposed: Alex Jones and his March 2016 show in full

They are lucky in a lot of ways that in America, we have the 1st Amendment.  Because the outrage is protecting them from those of us who are fully awake.  We are shooting words in an open marketplace instead of bullets.  It is obvious that many on the political left and establishment right don’t like the rebellion that is currently occurring, because not enough people are complying to sustain their formulaic plans.  But, too bad.  I will never submit to their way of thinking.  It’s just not going to happen.  If given opportunities  to compete in the marketplace of ideas, I’m happy to use that method to fight them with debate.  But if that goes away, I’m happy to do it in other ways—and I can assure everyone, that compliance with the current conditions is not an option.  To understand what I’m talking about, do yourself a favor, listen and watch this Alex Jones broadcast from Friday March, 25th.  While you are working in the garage on this nice spring day, or around the house, listen to this very good report—its three hours long.  I don’t agree with all of it, but it is quite good at detailing the fight we are all facing.  Don’t be asleep, it’s time to get up and go to work.  Join me on the battlefield.

And do a friend a favor and send this to them to help them wake up as well.  If you want the evidence of what Jones is saying, I have written millions and millions of words providing the proof.  Just look up any topic in the search bar on the left and you’ll find the evidence to substantiate what you are hearing.  If you doubt any of this remember that last night, the same day as this Alex Jones broadcast, Bernie Sanders–a socialist–filled up a 15,000 seat baseball stadium in Seattle.  The communists are rising, and the only defense there is against them–are us.

Rich Hoffman


Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

Bill O’Reilly’s Question about Donald Trump: Defining a divided party and why Glenn Beck has lost his mind

Bill O’Reilly asked an important question when he wondered why members of his network, Fox News were so divided over Donald Trump.  The same could be said about the different between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz—who are the clear front-runners in the 2016 presidential race. The divide is unusually deep because the two candidates properly represent the philosophic divisions that are taking place within the Republican Party.  As much as hard-core establishment supporters would hate to admit it, Ted Cruz represents what they seek in a president, someone from within their political ranks that is a person of faith who gets their guidance from prayer and deity submission—religiously pious.  They also hold that the presidency is America’s version of royalty, and they that take that oath of office very seriously.  Trump on the other hand represents the fighters, the businessmen who have bent over backwards to one too many regulations–the financially independent—the self starters.  Trump appeals to people who turn toward themselves first for an answer before soliciting government help or prayer to a deity whom has never physically manifested in a logical way.  That last type of conservative has never really had a candidate—they have held their nose and hoped that they might get lucky because options were limited—which is often not how they do most things in their life.  But with Trump, they finally have someone running for the White House who thinks like them for a change.  To confirm my statement just read the linked article from Glenn Beck about why no Christian should vote for Donald Trump, and you’ll get the gist.  Glenn Beck whom I used to like—has lost his mind.

Personally I liked that Thomas Jefferson answered the door to the White House in his night robe.  I liked that Teddy Roosevelt skinny dipped in the Potomac River—just a century ago.  I liked that Andrew Jackson would target shoot from the White House grounds.   I’m not big on formalities and in regard to the President of the United States—I feel as Jefferson did, as an Anti-Federalist, such tokens of ordainment should be cast away in America and dropped from assumption.  We should go out of our way to strip away formality anywhere we can in regard to the White House, not increase it.  We don’t elect a king, we elect a public servant—and we should treat them that way.

We also need a president who makes decisions based on their life experiences and the use of cold hard logic.  I don’t want a president who gets his decisions from “praying.”  For instance, let’s look at the reasons that John Kasich decided to expand Medicaid—which he did in Ohio against an amendment to the Constitution passed to protect residence from the grips of Obamacare.  Kasich claimed when he went against voters and the Ohio legislature that God told him to expand government so dramatically when pressed by reporters.  Well, screw that.  We didn’t elect “God” to run our public offices.  With all the bad dreams and insanity that goes on in any civilization it is difficult to tell God’s providence from the claws of insanity.  While I can claim many similar stories of providence—as miraculous as Andrew Jackson’s assassination attempt by the unemployed painter who tried to kill him with two guns—that both misfired—I don’t make decisions based on providence or the hope of it.  You can only make decisions based on what you know or see.  If God decides to help out, that’s fine.  But such an ill-defined character cannot be a part of any strategic plan—because there isn’t enough evidence to count on such things.  You don’t think with your heart—you do with your head—and having faith that things will just work out is not enough.  When faced with a problem I want a president who works through it, not one that sits at the side of their bed and “prays.”  I don’t care what George Washington did—if he prayed less and acted more—he probably would have won more often.  If you want to pray, be a preacher or volunteer at church.  If you want to lead a nation—come to the table with self-reliance.

Kasich, the closet liberal that he turned out to be could have misread his inclinations.  We as a voting public have no way to know if what Kasich said about God’s desire is true or not.  God did not have a press conference with us and tell us to expand Medicaid.  And we didn’t elect a “leader” to be some ancient go-between between God and man in the form of a priest holding some kingship based on the merits of “godly access.”  This is exactly why we were supposed to have a separation between church and state—not one where the church runs the state.  If people want the church to run the state—as Glenn Beck seems to—you might as well sign up for communism.  Capitalism requires self-reliance and logical thought—not altruistic sacrifice to divine will.   The worst time to make a decision of any kind is after a bad dream where some figure speaks to you in the form of some disembodied spirit.  The even dumber thing to do is to assume that the voice is “God.”  It in all actuality could be anything—some ghost from the past, some vengeful demon, some inter-dimensional terrorist—or it could be the lingering effects of an emerging insanity where deep-seated insecurities manifest into a mythological story played out among the brain’s neurons.  You never know.  When we elect a president, we elect a manager and we expect that person to make hard decisions based on reality as we can observe it.  That is the best that we can do given the limited scope of our human senses.

Then there is this ridiculous notion that the presidency should be beneath earthly squabbles.  I watched Republicans for well over thirty years play the moral high ground game and lose every time—especially George W. Bush.  He thought the office of the president was so elevated that he could not, or should not answer his many critics.  Well, that was the old alcoholic coming out of him, and the kid who was in the Skull and Bones society who participated in embarrassing hazing rituals.  When you are elected by the people for the people—you don’t surrender yourself to the political left by becoming a punching bag—using the “high office” excuse to mask internal fears.  You don’t sit in the White House on my behalf and make yourself a “pussy.”  You are expected to fight when attacked and to represent the constituency that elected you into office.  The office is not a higher authority than the people who put you there.  That kind of thinking leads to kingship—and we should not think of an American President as a king or as royalty.  He’s just a manager.

Just a few weeks ago I had an opportunity to shake Donald Trump’s hand.  I could have certainly had him sign any of my books–easily.  But I didn’t do either—even though I love the guy for president.  He’s on a job interview as far as I’m concerned and I’m the boss.  The boss doesn’t seek autographs and tokens of friendship from the people they employ.  Given that, if President Obama broke down in front of my house and needed to use my car jack or even the phone—I would tell that bastard to get off my lawn.  I wouldn’t shake his hand; I wouldn’t be getting a selfie to show that I had managed to get my picture next to a “powerful” person.  To me he’s just another person and in the case of his actions—he’s conducted his presidency as a domestic enemy that any constitutionally minded person is sworn to protect the nation from.  Needless to say, I will never shake the hand of president Obama under any circumstances.  He doesn’t rule over me, he doesn’t make decisions on my behalf, and he is a proven incompetent that has not earned the right to shake my hand.  And to be fair, I feel the same way about George W. Bush—he blew it.  I don’t care that he made some mistakes—but he was a lot like Glenn Beck—a former alcoholic who turned to “God” to straighten out their weak lives. I don’t fault them for their mistakes but they are smoking crack if they want to tell a person like me—who has never been addicted to anything, who doesn’t drink, has never smoked, has never done any drugs of any kind—who even avoids pain killers for surgery or at the dentist—and assumes that they have some place between me and the everlasting.  Give me a break!  They are not qualified to be in that position, and really, I can’t think of a single person on earth that is—even religious leaders.  If they have my high standards on personal living, I might listen to them—but short of that—forget about it.

Ted Cruz is way too much of a “god boy” to me.  I don’t want someone in the White House praying for answers.  I want someone who can extract answers from reality by sheer will.  I don’t want someone who will only enter the Oval Office with a jacket and tie on.  I want someone who will work there for 14 to 16 hours straight if needed to accomplish whatever task is on the table.  And I certainly don’t want a king—but I equally don’t want a self-sacrificial lamb that is willing to be plucked apart by the political opposition.  So to answer Bill O’Reilly’s question about Donald Trump there are still too many Republicans who want a president for all the wrong reasons—all the types of things that George W. Bush represented—meekness, sacrifice, divine providence-and policy concocted by voices from God which in all actuality were their addictive pasts calling out to them to return to the bottle.  For all those reasons I support Donald Trump—he’s a self-starter, he’s never been addicted to drugs or alcohol, and while he’s respectful of religion—he tends to guide himself before seeking the council of some otherworldly creature.  That’s good because I don’t have to worry about him waking up and starting wars based on dreams he’s had about “weapons of mass destruction,” or expanding Medicaid because God told him in a dream to help people.  I just want someone to do the job as president for the first time in the modern era.  I don’t want a king—I want someone to do the job—and I certainly don’t want a politician with ties to any lobbyist.  The deep divide over Donald Trump within Republican ranks is that not all conservatives quite understand what they want out of a public servant.  They know what they’ve had and are basing everyone on those examples.  But to me, what we’ve had was never good enough.  And the answer is not in more of the same—but in an entirely new direction.

Rich Hoffman


Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

Lyin’ Ted’s Sex Scandal: The fire behind the smoke of Super PAC investment–spilling the beans

Let me say this, I don’t like Heidi Cruz.  I felt that way before the Cruz Super PAC went after Melania Trump recently.  From what I’ve seen about Heidi she reminds me of all the school levy supporters that I have called latté sipping prostitutes in the past.  I tend not to trust people who are too religious because to my experience there are skeletons in their closet that they use religion to conceal.  I also don’t trust people who hide behind children.  However, when Roger Stone was talking about the percolating sex scandal on the Alex Jones Show a few weeks ago concerning Ted Cruz, I wasn’t all that surprised.

  When a man or woman has power, members of the opposite sex do try to seduce them as a lottery ticket toward advantage.  When you are a senator and working with a lot of young people—and you are middle-aged on top of the normal temptations, it is not hard to imagine how something scandalous might happen to Ted Cruz.   But when the National Enquirer came out with a major five woman scandal in their latest issue they either put themselves in a serious libel situation, or there is fire behind the smoke.  Given where things are in the presidential race and the premise of the Cruz candidacy—the pure-hearted Christian conservative that is Glenn Beck’s second coming—this revelation provides insight that needs to be explored further.

I wasn’t going to say anything, but what the Cruz people did—in a roundabout way with the Super PAC in Utah made me mad.  It was a holier than thou presumption that either means Cruz is pure as snow—which part of me has hoped that he was—or he was using religion in the same fashion as so many ministers have–to hide their sexual antics.  And all this would point to Heidi Cruz—there is something not quite right about her.  I don’t want her as a first lady.  Ted Cruz has seemed too good to be true, which usually means he isn’t.  So it will be interesting to see how this story plays out.  I don’t put a lot of trust in the National Enquirer, but apparently this story has been on ice for several months by multiple sources and it was only the Enquirer who took the first step to break it.  Given that the information was first discussed by Roger Stone over a week ahead of this announcement and that one of the women is Katrina Pierson—who is a Trump spokesman, it looks clear that Donald was willing to be a gentleman about the issue until the line was crossed with Melania.  And I don’t blame him a bit. 

I had been watching the Netflix show House of Cards and was enjoying it, except for the sex.  There was just too much sex in it for me.  I finally turned it off when Frank Underwood played by Kevin Spacey and his wife had three-way sex with their treasured Secret Service agent.  It wasn’t just two guys on a girl, it was guy on guy sex and that is something I won’t support.  However, the sex in the show is there for a reason.  People want to see it, it reflects their desires, and is very much indicative of Washington D.C. culture.  There is a part of me that hopes that this Ted Cruz sex scandal is all smoke, and if it is—I hope he sues the Enquirer into oblivion.  But there is something about Heidi Cruz which tells me that it isn’t—and that Trump was alluding to that when he defended his own wife against the Super PAC ads about Melania.

Further angering me was the finger waving Ted Cruz calling Trump a sniveling coward for attacking Heidi.  There are obvious problems with the Cruz marriage and that does not give Ted the authority to preach to Trump or anybody else what’s right.  His campaign continues to have these kinds of scandals, where third-party participants do hit pieces on his behalf that have been downright dirty.  At least with Trump, he’s out in the open about the things he does.  Ted hides and now it looks like we all know why.  If he can’t keep things cleaner than this during a campaign just think what he and his wife would be like in the White House.  Even after Cruz’s little public refute of Donald Trump—the presidential front-runner was extremely quite on Twitter not posting  anything for over 20 hours as this story developed.  That tells me everything I want to know because that hasn’t happened over the entire six month history of Trump’s run.  Why tick off all of the Cruz supporters when Ted let them down himself?  The reason is that this is more than smoke.

After hour 20, this is what Donald Trump said about this issue, written 34 minutes prior to this writing:

I have no idea whether or not the cover story about Ted Cruz in this week’s issue of the National Enquirer is true or not, but I had absolutely nothing to do with it, did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it.

Likewise, I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin’ Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence. Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz.

I look forward to spending the week in Wisconsin, winning the Republican nomination and ultimately the Presidency in order to Make America Great Again.

– Donald J. Trump

Rich Hoffman


Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

Communism in America: Rush Limbaugh’s shock at Chris Cuomo’s sentiments behind the Democratic Party

If I wanted to, I could probably have a pretty successful career in talk radio.  I do occasional guest spots here and there and have in the past made talk radio a big part of communicating hard ideas to people.  But, on the front end, it doesn’t pay much money until you build up a syndicated show, and honestly, I don’t have time for that.  It is one of many things that I have as a substantial talent wheelhouse that I enjoy.  With all that said it does sometimes surprise me that I say things well ahead of the curve before mainstream audiences are prepared to understand them.  I don’t listen to the big talk radio people every day—sometimes I go years without listening because I am busy with my own things—but independently—often—I come to conclusions at the same time as many of the big names—like Rush Limbaugh.  That gives me often a feeling of self-satisfaction in knowing that the things I often say are on target—and not some random thought barely dangling from reality.  If I say something, then a big name talk radio guy says something similar—arrived at independently—it is a good sign that you’re on the right track.

But I felt a little sorry for Rush Limbaugh and his many millions of listeners as he played a clip from CNN’s Chris Cuomo spouting off the benefits of communism as President Obama’s rapturous trip to Cuba unleashed a pent-up orgasm from the political left toward the long-awaited day of fulfillment.  As the world burned in Brussels due to terrorism, Obama was getting pictures of himself in front of Che murals and doing the wave at a Cuban baseball game.  Obama and his supporters who have sweat sweet love for communism for years were unable to contain their excitement and were showing mainstream America what has always been going on within the Democrat party and all progressive affiliations. The sound bites and Rush Limbaugh’s reaction to it are in the above clip.  He was noticeably caught off guard by the love fest toward communism—because as a person who does nothing but analyze the news every day from a conservative view—he had underestimated the level of socialism and communism that has been percolating in America for several decades—really since the 1930s—aggressively.  The communist efforts with strategic implementation peaked during the 1960s on college campuses, and then subsided a bit by the time Ronald Reagan was elected president and went back underground for a while.  It emerged again in small doses during the Clinton presidency—for which Rush Limbaugh made his name so popular.  It went’ back underground during Bush the younger’s presidency especially in the wake of 9/11 terrorism and concerns over the War in Iraq—and other places.  But always brimming under the surface was a progressive push toward socialism then communism—it was evident in the No Child Left Behind act signed by George W. Bush, it was also in the creation of new governmental departments like the TSA and Homeland security—all ushered in on the back of mismanaged crises.  Socialism from both political parties was what led to the 2008 recession as government had been making bad loans all in the name of “equality” and bailing out companies “too big to fail.”  The American people elected a socialist in Obama because the emphasis was on “equality” not merit and the rest is history leading up to this Cuba visit—which for an admirer of communism—appears to be one of Obama’s lifelong goals hatched among his Marxist friends at the University of Chicago in the company of his friend—the terrorist Bill Ayers.

Well before I ever wrote on this site—more than six years ago as of this writing—I talked about these things.  People thought it was a bit conspiratorial. People sometimes looked at me cross-eyed and whispered behind my back often—but it didn’t change the facts.  Those who know me well understand that I’m far from some tin-hated conspiracy theorist.   I’m usually always right when I say something and if I care enough to reveal it to somebody—I feel pretty strongly about it.  It has always been a gift of mine to see right through the thick of things beyond layers of deceit to the truth which is always carefully hidden.  Most adults tell “little white lies” about just about everything and I am extremely good at breaking down reality very quickly to discover the truth of a matter.  When I listen to people say things I am always listening to what they don’t say behind the words.  To me that is the most important voice—and believe me—there are always hidden things behind all forms of communication ranging from body language to Freudian slips of the tongue by selecting certain words to use under specific conditions.  Most of the time the person speaking doesn’t consciously realize they give away hints as to what they are hiding, but like a dog whistle that only I can hear—I pluck from their depths the evidence.

Public schools have for a long time been teaching socialism—and I have always spoken out against it.  Any time a teacher tells a student such as they do starting now in pre-school—that it is the obligation of a child to “share” their toys with others—that school is committed to teaching socialism with the hope that someday that student will embrace communism and vote for some political person like Bernie Sanders or the entire city council of Seattle, Oregon.  These days most of our music is subtly advocating socialist ideals, most of our movies–especially films like the Best Picture movie from last year that I enjoyed a lot called—Birdman.  Socialism is communicated from virtually every sector of our modern society and I have been pointing it out for as long as I can remember.

It’s often easy for people to forget about the hidden messages because they like the product wrapping it comes in.  For instance with Birdman—which was a very good film that was metaphorical to the real life events of Michael Keaton who started all these superhero movies with the 1989 movie Batman—the film direction was so interesting that many of the little socialist messages were easy to ignore because the product was so entertaining.  But the movie did hit all the usual “Best Picture” categories required to win an Academy Award—it had a lesbian scene, it showed the protagonist at war with his I.D. and his collective consciousness, it attacked the nature of art valued in this case by a stage play on Broadway compared to the blockbuster status of a Hollywood film career.  The movie Birdman was very good at doing what it set out to do.  But I also noticed a little rebellion in the movie—the director clearly knew what he was doing—while appealing to the Hollywood left of the Academy—making a movie he knew they would like—he at the end tipped his hat toward capitalism.  It was very subtle, but he did it in clear rebellion of the socialist trend—and I’m seeing this more often from several Hollywood directors.  At the end, not to give anything away when Michael Keaton’s daughter looks to see if her father had jumped out of a window to commit suicide.  Instead of seeing a mangled body down below she looked up at the birds flying above and smiled as if acknowledging that her father was flying with them.  Metaphorically of course she meant to imply that he had decided to give up the ridiculous art of his theater career and embrace his Birdman heroic persona crafted by the Hollywood blockbuster culture which was the central conflict of the entire picture.  Does art mean personal fulfillment in material possessions acquired or is itself sacrificial in going to the extreme of blowing off one’s nose in front of a live audience to commit suicide on stage to show the world the extremes he would go to be an “artist?”  Michael Keaton answered the question—he became the physical manifestation of who he really was in the end even though any Hollywood leftists would obviously miss the point.  Birdman is a brilliant movie!  Watch it!

I see more film directors now than ever putting subtle messages in favor of capitalism in their films that are meant to be concealed.  It used to be the other way around, which is why the Chris Cuomo references were so shocking to Rush.  We all grew up on certain kinds of influences, and in American culture, movies and music are huge reflections of our culture so unless you know what you are looking for, it is easy to miss.  For instance, go back and watch the original Robocop and the anti capitalist messages are quite obvious—the villains are capitalists and the good guys are public sector employees.  Still a good movie—but the subtle influence shaping the elements is obvious.  Dirty Dancing had a harsh anti-Ayn Rand message, Dances with Wolves an obvious progressive dialogue that fully embraced Native American versions of westward expansion—which directly led to political legislation.  The list goes on forever really—those are just a few examples.

But the pro-communist message has been spread for decades very quietly and carefully, and not even Rush Limbaugh understood the enormity of it.  Conservatives have always joked about it, but assumed that the situation was overstated in regard to Democrats.  It wasn’t.  If anything, even people like me understated it because it forced us to admit that there were domestic enemies that were seeking to topple the United States from within and that they were our neighbors, our teachers, our firefighters and other public servants—which was just too much to deal with.  It is much easier to think good of things than to admit that there might be a problem.  It’s similar to the wife married to an alcoholic where the abusive husband is in denial.  America has been in denial that the political left always intended communism—even many on the left themselves.  But now that Obama is in Cuba—Marxism has infested the thinking of the entire Islamic community and is inspiring terrorism against “western—capitalist” targets, it was too much for Rush Limbaugh to even admit.  A sitting president was in Cuba at a baseball game with a known criminal dictator as Brussels exploded with terror.  Many thought Obama should come home and address the nation.  Instead he was having the time of his life doing the wave in a Cuban crowd with a Castro communist.  It might have shocked Rush Limbaugh—and I understand it, but it didn’t shock me.  It only confirmed what I have been saying for decades.  My only reason for reminding people about it now is in the hope that they will shut up and listen in the future.  When I tell you something dear reader—you better listen.  I don’t write all these things to make money.  I do it to save the human race—because what good is money if nobody is around to use it.

Rich Hoffman


Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.