The NFL isn’t for the Players: Why Donald Trump is right–as usual

Part of making America great again is to give everyone something to be proud of.  Even in the case of the NFL the infusion of socialist thought has drowned out the respect we should all have for our flag, which is only a symbol, but largely distinguishes us as a people from the rubble of global awareness.  The forces that have wanted to destroy our sovereignty and turned us from Americans into some “global citizen” are the same that have desired to destroy the game of football which is unique to America and represents so much more to our culture than just scoring touchdowns.  Football is a game of capitalism, as I’ve said many times before in hundreds of articles.  Soccer as we think of it in America is a game that is very popular in countries corrupted with socialism—and represents that political philosophy dramatically—most obviously in the way the offside’s rule is established.  In football a player is offside’s when the defense jumps the snap count.  In soccer it happens when an offensive player gets behind the deepest player on a defense.  It’s as plain as anybody could make it, soccer favors regulatory constraints which is why the score is always so low, where football puts the burden on the defense—on regulatory resistance to stop an offense if they can.  The offense is meant to find creative ways to dominate a defense—and it is that basic essence which has made the world target American football as a game meant to be destroyed, and to have soccer replace it.

I would go so far to say that as spectators we don’t care about concussion protocols.  It’s not that we don’t care about the players lives, it’s just that we love the game of football more and we figure as fans that the trade-off to be able to shorten your life to play in the great arena of an American gladiator sport is worth it.  I can say that I have had the opportunity to deal with NFL players off the field and have liked them.  What I have personally witnessed at the Penthouse Club in Tampa Bay where players from the Seattle Seahawks and of course the hometown Buccaneers went to have a little fun after a big Sunday night game revealed why many of these young kids play such a dangerous game.  My wife and I were staying at the same hotel as the Seahawks were so we had an interesting behind the scenes look at life off the field in the NFL and I can’t think of a better time for young men to be treated like kings in the fast lane of life than what I saw happening to those NFL players.  Yes, it was a situation of depravity and all those players were living the life by choice—and they were being rewarded that night.  I had to shake my head knowing they would never live the kind of life that my wife and I did—but they didn’t care at the time.  They were millionaires in most cases and they had women climbing all over them willing to do anything just to get a little bit of it.  The Penthouse Club actually makes a pretty good steak and it was very close to our hotel so we had a front row seat to all the activity and from the vantage point of the NFL players, I could see they were having the time of their lives.  How many people would trade 30 to 40 years off their life to go through the experiences those guys was having?  Perhaps 99% of the population would if they were big enough, strong enough, and charismatic enough to have the opportunity to play in the NFL.  Knowing about all the potential for injury–they’d give up their arms and legs to have women crawl all over them like that just once in their life—not to mention for 3 to 5 years as a professional athlete—maybe longer for the lucky ones.

Payton Manning was always the good guy of the NFL, the guy who we most liked and respected.  He conducted himself as a great all American Boy Scout who was at the top of his field.  He was respected, lawful, and professional, the best that there was—which is why he became the spokesman for the NFL.  Payton was just vulnerable enough to be likeable, unlike Tom Brady who is just inconceivably clean, but professionally dominate.  But life in the NFL quickly degenerates once you get past those types of professional players.  The lifestyles they lead in the NFL are far more dangerous than ramming into other 270 pound men with their heads—from the conditioning, the diets, the stress of making the team each year for a chance to become a millionaire—they are expected to give up their health to play such a gladiator sport.  And most people if they could would trade those players in a minute for their long 70 to 80 year lives to live the NFL life for just 1 year.  To be loved and admired by a city, to have women on speed dial anywhere in the world who would do anything you wanted, and to have a press eating out of your hand everywhere you went.  To have access to the very best that life has to offer—so long as you are playing “the game.”   Most people would do it if they knew they’d die by age 30—and they’d die happy.  That is some of what we mean in America when we say live hard, die free.  It is a trait that comes from tasting freedom, and in the NFL nobody tastes it greater than those players.  In exchange we expect them to give us a good show.  We don’t expect to see a hard hit between two warriors on the field of battle only to have both put into a concussion protocol tent for examination, and a removal from the game.

It wasn’t Donald Trump who brought the politics into the game of football; it was all these progressive groups who have been year by year increasing their infection of attaching social causes to the fast life of the typical NFL player.   Now the concussion protocol standards have taken away our love of the game by softening it into nearly a game of flag football that could be played by girls, which is where all this is headed.  The critics of the NFL want to destroy the game and replace it with soccer, or to have women playing on the field with men, so they are trying to slow boil away the danger while hoping to retain the interest and it’s just not happening.  Trump was right to point it out; people want to see NFL players hitting each other.  We don’t want to see concussion protocols.  We don’t want to see players hurt necessarily, or ruined for life—but many of us understand what’s going on.  Most people would trade their boring lives in a second if they could walk into the Penthouse Club in Tampa and have some of the most attractive women in the world jump all over them such as what typical NFL players’ experience.  And for the girls, where else on earth could they make so much money but in a place like that.  Many of them come from areas around the world drowning in debt.  Beautiful girls from east European countries with exotic accents would have to sell themselves on the sex market anyway just to feed themselves due to the lack of economic activity in their home towns—due to the socialism that has destroyed their economies.  Who could blame them for coming to America to work at the Penthouse Clubs in Tampa, or New Orleans, or even in Vegas?  They have something that the millionaire NFL players want so the exchange is mutual.  It’s better for them that it’s not some middle-aged loser who is fat and disgusting buying their time than some young stud at the peak of physical condition that is willing to blow $50K per night on satisfying his fantasies.  Let’s face it, that’s what young men play the game for, and why we as parents have always signed them up for it—to live the dream even if it means a shorter life.  And we certainly don’t expect them to bitch about it.

What we are seeing is the player’s unions trying to soften up the game for reasons that are un-American, which we should expect from a socialist organization.  Football isn’t for the players—as I’ve said, they get the money and the wild life in exchange for their services.  Football is for the fans and it is the owners of these teams who are tasked with satisfying the market need.  They control the business of the NFL—not the players, not the lawyers, and certainly not the networks.  Without the owners nothing happens—and without the fans—nobody makes any money, and the girls at the Penthouse Club in Tampa have to live off tips from people who want to cheat on their wives, business people who are so stressed out and unhappy that they are miserable to spend time around, and married couples looking to spice up their lives a bit—then feeling guilty afterwards.  Nobody comes out well by softening up the NFL—except for the socialists who want to destroy it and thus to remove an American pastime from the concerns of a world that can’t compete with it.  Those people do want to destroy America—especially symbols of American capitalism such as what the NFL represents.  Believe me; they don’t care about concussion protocol either.  They aren’t doing it to save the players lives—they simply use that as the cover story to destroying the game itself and what it means to American society.  As is typically the case with Donald Trump—he is right in every point, and was correct to address the issue in a bold fashion.  Football is America’s game, and it is part of making America great again.  To do that we have to understand what it is we like about it.  And concussion protocols are not something we care about as fans-or the social causes of the players.  We just want to see them beat the hell out of each other to justify the high-priced beers and hot dogs on a wonderful October afternoon in America.

Rich Hoffman

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

New Rules to the Game of Power: From Henry the VIII to the NFL–the world is changed forever

If you know anything about European history, or actually the history of anything human—you will find extensive evidence of people worshipping other people as their rulers.  It is something that is wired into our DNA—we seek masters to rule over us.  Even in America virtually every place of business has some semblance to their own version of the Game of Thrones—Which George R.R. Martin actually based on the War of the Roses in Europe.  People will do almost anything to gain a title that they can then use to acquire power over others and typically that is the name of the game.  When people acquire those titles and that power they have a right to rule over the minds of mankind in whatever capacity the title gives them as defined by our human history.  Such as, a village chief makes all the executive decisions that concern the culture of the people connected to that collection of people.  A CEO at a company performs the same type of function, and of course there are underlings who are always plotting and scheming to nock that person out of their seat so they can then acquire control of a company.   If people cannot become the CEO then they will usually do anything to acquire some seat of power under the CEO—in whatever capacity they can get—because the behavior is toward power acquisition and naturally assumes that the structure of that particular society will obey mindlessly the unspoken conformance to the rules of conduct that has been with us since the beginning of time.  In that pecking order politicians have always assumed that they were greater than say a CEO and thus ruled over all others because they controlled the rules in society that the CEO had to live by, and often this forces the businessman to contribute donations to the cause of the politician to gain assistance with the law giving the impression to all that in the rock, paper, scissor game of life, the politician was superior to the businessman, and that all people under those titles were to mindlessly follow their “betters” without question.

America, or the concept of it anyway, decided to revolt against this trend and provide people with the freedom to choose for themselves to rule themselves and this introduced a very confusing dynamic to the scheme of human endeavor.  It’s only been a few hundred years since this idea was created and compared to the many thousands of years of history within the human race, it shouldn’t be surprising that we are just now getting used to the idea.   Donald Trump is essentially the first president to ever be elected to a position of power based purely on the merit of his life—a free man living by his own inclinations and not given some seat of power by boot licking and heredity.  His political enemies have tried to frame his rise to power in that fashion, but it doesn’t stick because Trump is a man of his own making.  That makes him the most unique world leader in all of human history—which is the source of the anguish against him.

There is a lot of fear leveled at Donald Trump by those who have been playing their own version of Game of Thrones for years and have always thought that if they did this, or that—they’d acquire a seat of power and would then be given some authority over their peers—which they seek desperately.  There are a lot of psychological reasons for the insecurity that drives people to seek these seats of power, but for the context of this article, we must focus strictly on the desire to acquire power.   Donald Trump has changed the rules to the overall game of politics—and that has every establishment person upset because all the rules are changing to the “game” and they don’t want to adapt to it.

There is a secret to those who seek the most power through the acquisition of titles—most of them are notably lazy people.   They want to gain some title for which they can sit and boss other people around without being the smartest, fastest, strongest or most qualified person—and they count on fear to force everyone into compliance.  If merit becomes the dominating factor in acquiring power—as it should always have been—then new rules for acquiring power become mainstream and the lazy people of our species are at a loss.  That is why the establishment is and has always been against Donald Trump.  It is also why people will stick next to Trump no matter what he says or does, because Trump has a track record of success and he acquired his power based on it.

In the past people were so easy to destroy who had these positions of power because they always acquired their power through some sentiment—or some connection to others.  This gave the groupthink people leverage over the title seeker in case they ever stepped out of line.  If a politician slept with some woman while on the campaign trail and later they got out of control with their donors, or they voted incorrectly on something the violator could quickly be dispelled by scandal because what was given by emotional invisible rules could be easily destroyed by the same.  In the days of Henry the VIII if he wanted to overthrow the Roman Catholic Church from controlling his kingdom through the Pope he would marry a protestant rebel and use her to give rise to the movement against the church.  Then after the king had England’s politics wrestled away from the Pope and he was tired of his queen and wanted to change her to another he simply dreamed up chargers of infidelity against her so that he could cut off her head and marry a new woman.  What was given by sentiment and emotion was easily taken away—you see dear reader.

In politics the media has played their own version of kingdom building, they build people up, they tear them down and they use that leverage to control who has power and who doesn’t.  But that doesn’t work on Trump because the former Apprentice star has been through the fires of merit and has earned everything he became.   The media came to Trump to boost their ratings but to their dismay they never gained control of him because what was given was done so to acquire power from the natural aptitude of Trump.  The Apprentice went on to become a big success and introduced reality TV to an unsuspecting audience and would change entertainment forever.  Trump wasn’t cast to the top of the heap because of a bunch of executive producers.  He was already there.  NBC snuggled up to Trump always thinking that they’d gain control of him in some way like they did everyone else in history but it never happened.  Trump went on to become president because of his natural inclinations and is completely free of lobbyists, media influence, or peer groups which is the most terrifying aspect of his presidency to those who have spent their lives playing the games of power only to find out now all the rules have changed.

All the things Trump has said this previous week, from the Rocketman comment regarding North Korea to the blasting of the NFL for not requiring their players to stand during the National Anthem the president has done as a free person—and that is new to the stage of human achievement.  We like that Trump says those things because we feel those things ourselves, but have not had a seat at the table of power to communicate to others.  But in America we elect a president to represent us to the world, we don’t elect a king or a noble overlord—we elect a representative, and Trump represents all those who strive to have a merit based system of power acquisition so that we can actually solve problems in our government, not just to have a class of aristocrats to admire from afar who enchant us with entertainment as our “betters.”  I recognize no person on earth as my “better.”  And the people supporting Trump through thick and thin are of the same mind.  On the stage of history this is the first time this has happened, and it’s scaring the crap out of the world that has never had to deal with this elected phenomena.  Democracies have always paid lip service to this idea of a freely elected person to represent the masses, but always that person was easily controlled by traditional methods.   Now with Trump those rules are changed forever.  Our society will never be able to go back to the way it was—because the way it is, is so much better.  That is the pain you hear on the news from those who have always thought that if they did this or that they would be rewarded with seats of power.  Now those seats are meaningless making their lives meaningless because they have put so much of their lazy selves into that game that now they are left empty and staring into an abyss of future values that are beyond them.  Which is a very good thing.

Rich Hoffman

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

Donald Trump’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Moment: Venezuela’s epic failure due to their commitment to socialism


I know, I write about Donald Trump a lot these days.  Yes there are many other things going on in the world—especially local issues,  but as I see it we are witnessing the greatest political trend change that the history of the world has ever seen—and I can’t think of anything more important.  It dosen’t do any good to chase the tail of something as long and elusive as our current social trends which are like a very long snake.  What Trump does today will have a tremendous effect on tomorrow, so it is important to capture those little moments as they occur.  Specifically it was the great United Nations speech that Donald Trump gave which illustrated so many positive things for American culture, but none as great as when the topic of Venezuelan socialism was brought forth and put on the world stage for all to see.

I was surprised years ago when so many people were upset that the great American novel Atlas Shrugged was being made into a movie.  I knew the filmmakers, and was a friend of the crew throughout the production and for them it was a love project.  They had a small budget in order to tell a gigantic story—an epic on the scale of Game of Thrones.  Yet Hollywood wouldn’t touch the project through a legitimate studio with A-list actors essentially because the media companies were so deeply contaminated with socialist and communist supporters that such a pro-capitalist story like Atlas Shrugged was never going to get “green-lit.”

Hollywood has always been a little left but it has only been recently that they were so overtly advocated out-right socialist—as a general philosophy.  Their A-list actors, even people like Harrison Ford, have stepped out of reality and onto the socialist band wagon because it is the social trend of Santa Monica valley these days.  If you go into a bar there by the pier talking about the merits of capitalism those weak-kneed she-males and braless bitches will be ready for a fight—they believe in socialism that much.  So when the independent filmmakers of the new Atlas Distribution Company wanted to make a movie out of one of the great American novels for which Atlas Shrugged is and has always been, all the studios laughed at them.  Many years before the studios laughed at Star Wars too, but that’s another story.  I only say that because “group think” does not understand how to make good movies, or how to detect social trends.  Individuals do.  Remember that.

I thought the movie attempt at Atlas Shrugged was ambitious and they managed to do a pretty good job getting the high points down in a visual form.  I would like to see a big budget Netflix series done for Atlas Shrugged that spans for 10 one hour episodes, because I think that’s what it would take to properly tell the story—but it was a bold attempt even as the entertainment unions pushed back hard on anybody associated with the project.  The production could not keep actors from one film to the next as the movies were divided out into three parts.  The actors were beat on so much by the rest of the Hollywood community that all three movies had a different cast and the only ones who signed up were actors looking for something to do.  It was a real challenge and showed me how bad Hollywood really had become.  All the friendly meetings I had with various people over the years flew right out the window as their true intentions were revealed during the production of Atlas Shrugged.

For those who have read the book you know what I’m talking about.  The modern situation in Venezuela is essentially the plot of the book.  A successful country (the United States in the story) is pushed into socialism by their government and the world plunges into darkness.  Once the government establishes things like price controls and root themselves into a severe crony capitalist market, the world falls apart and it is the point of Atlas Shrugged to identify why.  Essentially the “engines” of the world go on strike and that leaves everyone else starving—literally.  The beauty of Atlas Shrugged is that it does something that Karl Marx never achieved—it identified why some people make everything happen while others destroy the world around them—so if the makers of the world fail to participate, economies fail and countries wither away into dust.   The political Left has never come to grips with this phenomenon and this is the aspect of our civilization that is most important to our continuation into the future.  Marxism and all the fruits that fell from it like socialism, communism and fascism all turned out to be rotten short-lived fantasies first breathed by Sir Thomas More in his classic book Utopia—that were destroyed during westward expansion in the United States.   While Marx and his followers were pushing for labor unions to take over the world by controlling the means of production the railroads, the gold rush and the promise of private property in America used capitalism to fill the sky lines of the worlds next great cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles which until that period was just a border town–until the gold rush then the movie industry gave people a reason to live there.

Venezuela had been a pretty good place to live; it was a thriving country living off its oil reserves until Hugo Chavez brought socialism to their economy.   Once Chavez died a member of his inner circle Nicolás Maduro, a former bus driver (seriously) rose to power as a union leader and became the next president.  If you want to see what happens when labor unions get their way by controlling the “means” of production, just look what happened to Venezuela in just a few short years. As the state took over more and more of its industry, they became much less productive and their economy essentially died right in front of the world.  Now the people of Venezuela are starving—literally, and nobody seems to understand why, at least those who have advocated for socialism. Yet it is the nearly seventy year old book Atlas Shrugged that provided an almost page by page analysis for all to read—but the world watched and let it happen to Venezuela anyway.

What was remarkable about Donald Trump’s speech was that most of the people in that general assembly at the United Nations have emotional connections to socialism.  They are either members of Socialist International or they have been thinking about it.  Only the United States has maintained a defense of capitalism and our economy shows it.  The way for more countries around the world to prevent more people from being poor or from having terrible GDP numbers is to unleash capitalism and reject communism.  China’s communism only works if it attaches itself to a capitalist country and can keep the other nations around them poor so that they can maintain some form of price controls.  But if a country to the south like Vietnam were to adopt capitalism, or Cambodia, India or even North Korea—Russia and those types of places—China’s economy would sink because of their communist system.  What happened to Venezuela was that the price of oil went down and they couldn’t compete. That is all the unsaid story before, and no American president would strongly defend capitalism allowing everyone to shrug their shoulders as if they had nothing to do with anything happening to countries like Venezuela.  But when Donald Trump said what he did it put the issue on the front burner in a way nobody was prepared for, and it properly articulated the problem—boldly, people had to listen.  And that was a significant moment in the history of the world that will be remembered for many centuries.  I thought it was tremendous and it will prove to be bigger than anything that happens on the local level because that culture change will flow into the rest of the country rather rapidly.  And I love it!

Rich Hoffman

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

Guns and Books: The keys to a happy and free civilization–Samantha Power’s guilt

I say it quite a lot these days, and I’ll continue to do so. If you have two main things in your life you can consider yourself a free person. The first is the ability to read and to use it to consume many books over your lifetime. Having the ability to read and use the knowledge gained from books can make a person nearly invincible—95% of the time. If you are smart, you can get through most anything in life, even physical threats—just with what you learn from books. If you put a smart person in an MMA ring with a beast of a world-class fighter—I will bet on the smart person every time. Because there are more tools to beating brute force that come from intelligence that severally put people who rely on just physical strength to get by in life. Then for that last 5% of the time—you need to own and know how to use firearms. The gun is the great equalizer in life, so by having that you can keep villainy away no matter what anybody may throw at you. That’s why in American society, those two things are what I’d say are the two most important elements to living a free life.

To prove my point just look at the mess Samantha Power is in, who used to be the UN Ambassador under the Obama administration. The academic radical used her position to spy on political rivals and essentially brought in most of our intelligence agencies in the process into a grand scheme that showed just how dangerous collectivism in any capacity can be. Most everyone involved in the federal government activity under the Obama administration told the same story revealed by the Power unmasking of Trump political players—which was the modern equivalent to a witch hunt as we’ve ever seen. Many pundits including Rush Limbaugh did a fabulous job of exploring the who, what, when and hows of this story—so my point here would be on the “why” it is necessary to never trust any institutional system that uses collective force to enforce a philosophy. Having the ability to read and to shoot takes away that power from these types of people and are paramount in stopping villainy as we detect it.

It should come as no surprise that fascists—such as the type the Democratic Party have always inspired to become were in the business of book banning and controlling knowledge—because they needed stupid people to follow them. Smart people who are well-informed would never follow these losers who rallied behind Samantha Power to unmask people connected to the newly elected President Trump. If it can happen to a sitting president with made-up chargers created to justify wiretapping, or any other spying the government wished to conduct on their quest to control political dialogue—then it can happen to any of us. What stops that behavior is of course a well-informed society where internet information is free and easy to access, books of all kinds are available on the open market, and people are free to assemble as the Tea Party did to share educational treasures uncovered during intellectual quests that inspire others to also gain knowledge.

The same people who want to limit what people read, and watch on television under the umbrella of free speech, are the same as those who are always demanding a control on firearms and want to ban personal guns. I personally think that people should be able to carry guns everywhere—that we should be able to wear them on our hips everywhere we go, even to weddings and to court appearances. If someone doesn’t have ill intentions toward you, nor you toward them—it keeps everyone honest. The gun banning people want to put themselves between you and a potential rival as a mediator taking away the responsibility for two parties to actually work out their problems allowing passive-aggressive activity to take control of the process of peaceful exchange replacing mutual respect for fear of the law.

It is highly unlikely that a person would pick a fight with another person if that other person was wearing a gun. It doesn’t matter how big they are, or what sex they may be—when people see a gun on their hip, respect for what that gun can do is the first thing on everyone’s mind—which forces all dealings with that person to be done at an elevated level of respect. If you take that respect away and replace it with fear of prosecution, then those who think they can buy and twist the laws of our land to their advantage may not be so hesitant to do something corrupt. This is clearly what we see in the case of the Obama administration using Samantha Power to commission the many weapons of government to attempt a coup against an American election. They did it because they didn’t fear that anybody would shoot them, and they figured they controlled the strings of government so what was a person like Trump going to do to them—so long as the media played along? That’s the kind of world you get when you take respect for other people out of the equation and replace it with an adhesion to fear. The more fearless, or less moral of the human species will always think they can gain an advantage over others if they are stupid, and unarmed. That’s why Samantha and her partners under the Obama administration thought they would get away with what they did. They never expected they’d ever get caught because at the time they controlled the law and most of the people they deal with were either stupid, or unarmed—likely both.

Carrying a gun isn’t about killing other people, its more about preventing other people from killing you. Just having it does most of the work for you which then frees up your mind to pursue more intellectual pursuits. When you don’t always have to worry about some power-hungry fool coming into your life to disrupt you in some way, you can then read books and contemplate bigger ideas. Some of the best people you’ll ever meet in life are those who read more than fifty books a year and also do a lot of shooting—like people in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and in the Dakotas. They are not stupid people and they are mostly all heavily armed. You don’t see their cities being shaken to the ground in protests, and you certainly don’t associate them with any kind of crime. There’s a reason for that—and it starts with the gun and ends with the average intelligence of the people who tend to read more than other places in the country. Books and guns are the keys to a healthy and happy life and those who best utilize those two very simple things are those who end up most successful at the very foundations of existence. The proof is clear, and where those things are missing—such as in our Beltway culture, the worst that comes out of the human experience is prevalent. That is why Obama and the Democrats in general always look for ways to impose gun control. That is also why they have problems with free speech. They need people unarmed and stupid so that they can rule your minds. Once people are armed with knowledge and weapons, people like Samantha Power are just pests who can quickly be swatted aside, and that’s exactly what is happening in the age of Trump.

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

“Rocket Man”: Ghost writing and the hidden value of being a voice in the dark

It was 2010 and I was meeting with my congressman John Boehner with a Power Point presentation I had put together about the United Nations and how much America put into it compared to other nations, and I was urging my representative to get out of that body of government because it was intrusive, out-of-touch, and seeking to end American sovereignty.   Of course the reaction I received from my proposal was a sneer and an attitude toward me of ignorance which pissed me off greatly—as if my little mind couldn’t grapple with the realities of the world.  It pissed me off so much that I immediately resolved to create this blog.  I was smarter than any of the people I met with, yet because I suggested ending the American participation into the United Nations I was treated with contempt and ignorance as if those things applied to me.  Well I’m still at it while Congressman Boehner is now a lobbyists in Washington D.C., as he essentially always was, and finally there is a new president of the United States who does understand as I always have what the United Nations really has been, and he gave a speech which properly represented my view points—and I enjoyed it greatly.  The best part of the speech was where Trump called the war mongering North Korean despot, “Rocket Man” for his constant threat of nuclear war.  The stunned chamber listened mostly in silence as a new kind of American bravado finally launched itself on the world stage and it gave me tremendous pride.

Critics of President Trump will say that he doesn’t read off the teleprompter very well, and that the magnanimity of that UN speech was written for him, and that he’s not sophisticated enough to come up with those line of sentences on his own.  But I’d say that it takes a lot of guts for someone like Trump to even read words written for him in front of such an audience because once he does they will forever be associated with him, and that is something different we haven’t seen before—a person in a major leadership position who will own that kind of dialogue on the world stage.  John Boehner certainly wouldn’t do it way back in 2010 and he was the closest person who I thought might.  Certainly John McCain who had just run for president in 2008 wouldn’t because he lectured our local radio celebrity Bill Cunningham on using too harsh of language against Barack Obama during a Cincinnati GOP rally—so even during elections where much was either gained or lost, the GOP leadership would not commit to the kind of terms that were needed to stand against a global tide seeking to end American sovereignty on its way to world domination of thought and deed—while we as Americans paid the bill.

A few years later when I needed them most, many local GOP people left me hanging on a vine as I had committed myself to harsh language at our political enemies and they wouldn’t stand with me.  They cowered in fear because they were not in politics to accomplish anything seriously; they simply wanted the titles and the money that came from crony capitalism and stirring the pot the way I wanted to, in order to fix the situation didn’t give them what they were looking for in politics, so villainy continued and they would look toward me and say behind my back, “he just doesn’t understand.”  Like hell if I never understood—I knew far better than they did what was happening because I could look at the situation objectively.  My career wasn’t tied to the stars of the senate or the House of Representatives.  I had no plans to be Washington lobbyist the way that Boehner did, so I had no fear of pissing anybody off.  I always thought that was the purpose of government—to represent the people who are really out there—not to become some party caricature for bridging business with money and hiding the whole escapade behind rules and procedural conduct.

I can say starting this blog has been one of the best things I’ve ever done.  Personally I’m quite a successful person, so there isn’t anything anybody can “give me” by being a nice, polite person who plays nice with others in the realm of politics.  Writing comes easy for me because I’ve spent a lifetime reading and thinking about things to a level most people just aren’t comfortable with.  So if I’m not looking to be the next George R.R. Martin or Steven King in the writing world, I have a substantial talent to apply to the hard work of intellectual reform that needs to take place regarding the role of government in our lives—and that work can then get done.  I write lots of articles—daily—and people voyeuristically read them.  Often times its speech writers and people in positions of power who get from what I write an affirmation of their own thoughts—but it helps them to hear it from someone else, and this gives them the license they need to act accordingly in their lives.  I don’t mind at all if something I say ends up in a speech somewhere spoken by some important person—I consider the exchange an act of ghost writing.  I don’t expect to be compensated just as I didn’t expect John Boehner all those years ago to credit me with ending the United Nations.  It became obvious to me that people like that guy needed to have everything spelled out for him so that actions could be taken, and if I waited for the publishing world to publish my books on the subject, the work just wouldn’t get done.  The liberalized attorneys and editors at the big New York firms who publish books these days would never give me a chance unless I had a cable news show that could push the product—and I had no plans of doing something like that—even though I probably could have.  From that time of meeting with Boehner to the present I’ve had a chance to host my own radio shows on major stations, but I didn’t take the jobs because honestly I make more money on my own than any of those studios were paying so I endeavored to put my thoughts out to the public and to keep the money out of it to keep the exchange as clean as possible.  I’d let the people who did have to write speeches, and give them on important matters take whatever inspiration I could give them to the next step—and it has been working—slowly and surely.

What went into that United Nations speech took a lot of people who spent time writing it and drawing inspiration from a number or sources to even string together the thoughts.  It wouldn’t surprise me if some of my own words were drawn from these very pages to help create the framework of that speech—because it’s those people who are behind the scenes for whom I write for most.   We live in a confusing world and it’s not easy to see things clearly when you have to bang champagne glasses together to keep fundraising going, or you are at a cigar gathering with other powerful people but still need the clarity to stay on point.  I offer to those people a flashlight in the dark by way of ghost writing that I hope moves the ball in the right direction—a direction that John Boehner clearly was afraid to advance himself.  All that behind the scenes stuff means nothing if we don’t have a spokesman willing to take the words and apply them to life and that is what makes Trump so magnificent.  There are many hundreds if not thousands of minds behind that speech, who have written as I have here, and many other places which culminated into the actual formulation of that speech.  But before such a thing could be read to a hesitant audience at the United Nations we needed someone who would take ownership of those words and to unleash them in a dramatic way.   Watching Trump deliver that speech was very satisfying to me, because it took a long time to get someone in an elected position who would actually say what needed to be said.  Ghost writing may help nurture an idea forward, and that’s always what I hope to do.  I whisper to people after they’ve read something I’ve written in the middle of the night when their minds quiet down, and it usually assists their own thoughts—but those thoughts go nowhere until that person acts and takes responsibility for advancing the cause.  Speaking personally, it was more satisfying to watch Trump give that speech to the United Nations than it would have been if a major publisher had given me several million dollars in royalties for all my writing on these matters.  It means more to me to hear Trump say these words than to have a public who enjoys reading these kinds of things, but spends no time in the world acting on them, throwing credit in my direction.  My millions came to me when Trump said “Rocket Man” to that U.N. assembly on September 19th, 2017.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Reality of ‘Game of Thrones’: How Hillary Clinton is all too similar to Cersei Lannister

It has taken several years but my youngest daughter has finally talked my wife and I into watching the Game of Thrones, the popular HBO series based on the books by George R.R. Martin.  My first impression was forged when my daughter was watching an episode from Season Two many years ago where two women were essentially involved in pornography and each time I looked up from my work while she watched these episodes someone was naked.  So I didn’t have a very high impression of the show but for an excuse to get people naked and make it a medieval setting.  I thought it was just another tacky enterprise and I wasn’t impressed.   But it has done well over the years and people obviously like it for some reason, so my wife and I gave it another chance recently and started watching it from the beginning, and much to our surprise, we both actually like it.  For me, I find myself living in the Game of Thrones literally as I have those experiences in most of the people I know in politics, business, and family quite literally.  I find the characters created by George R.R. Martin to be very realistic in their motivations and how they apply those needs to the world around them.

I can’t help but draw parallels to the Game of Thrones and real life, specifically in the case of Hillary Clinton.  The character of Cersei Lannister comes to mind—the queen who will literally do anything to stay in power and close proximity to the throne for which her son sat for most of the first seasons once her husband had died.  House of Cards involves much of the same kind of power grabbing soap opera style narrative and when I was watching that series drew unmistakable parallels to the Clinton White House.  Now that Hillary Clinton has been caught and the DNC exposed the United States is having its moment or discovery where we learn how vile all these characters in this real story actually have been.   When we voted for Donald Trump many of us only suspected it, but now in the aftermath, we understand all too clearly what Hillary and her minions have been up to and the plots are not unlike the Game of Thrones stories, and for the same reasons that exist in the realms of that fiction.

My mom and my grandmother used to get very involved in their day time soap operas.  When I was a kid and went to the store with them on their daughter mother days I’d often make fun of how they’d cackle after the various narratives of whom was sleeping with whom and for what reason.  I never understood their fascination with such boring stories of love, lust, betrayal and scandal—it seemed small-minded to me even at a very young age.   However I do like fantasy stories, such as Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings, and clearly these are very similar styles of stories with a soap opera quality to them when you start getting into the private motivations of the human condition.  A fantasy backdrop seems to work well for our society in observing things that might otherwise be all too real for us.  And this appears to be the big secret of Game of Thrones.

I think this is why the actions of Hillary Clinton and many politicians just like her go by people generally unknown.  People may suspect many of these things but their only real acceptance to these motivations are best presented through fantasy stories which seem removed so far from our reality that the villains often get away with hiding from us in plain sight, and once we discover their villainy, we don’t know what to do with them because our only experience with understanding these types of characters is from the voyeuristic comfort of our television screens.

It wasn’t ironic to me that as I was watching Game of Thrones for the first time seriously and I heard the dialogue by the character Cersei Lannister that Hillary Clinton was doing media for her new book, What Happened.  What was revealed was a character right off the pages of George R.R. Martin.   Hillary was so insulted by the Donald Trump election that she couldn’t stop herself from showing the world just how arrogantly she believed she had a right to the throne of the American White House.  For her it was a rightful claim passed down to her from some progressive assumption that American politics was the same as European politics, or those throughout the world functioning from the same kind of social illness as we see on display in fantasy stories like Game of Thrones.  We rebelled in America to get away from this kind of thing, not to advance it.  We don’t look, for kings to worship in America, at least we aren’t supposed to.  Literally, the American White House is not supposed to be just another episode of the Game of Thrones or House of Cards.

In many ways I think this is the problem people have with Donald Trump—he is truly something different.  I know that’s why I voted for him.  Trump has virtually the perfect wife, he has perfect kids—Trump himself is a pretty perfect person—he’s not sick, he never sleeps; he doesn’t have little insecurities that he’s trying to hide behind public office.  He’s just a guy who loves to solve problems and be in the heat of the kitchen—and this doesn’t fit the narrative of the typical American politician that we have come to think of as corrupt.  Hillary Clinton does, but Trump requires us to accept all new motivations which have not yet been explored in a contextual way articulated through our fantasy stories.  I would go so far to say that only a novel by Ayn Rand begins to cover the Donald Trump presidency while most of us experience the range of human emotions driving modern politics through fantasy works like Game of Thrones, or even Harry Potter.

Deep inside us all is still that European fascination with names and titles—the very things we rebelled against as Americans.  We may not like people like Hillary Clinton, but we trust that dysfunction because it’s what we understand at a primal level.  In Game of Thrones I haven’t yet found a character I can relate to except for some of the Stark kids—but even then the idea of duty to a family name and the promise of a reign on some Iron Throne doesn’t make much sense to me.  But most people watching can find something they can relate to in the characters of the very sprawling epic that has become Game of Thrones.  And to my experience it works because it’s not so much fantasy, but is actually quite real.  The fantasy settings of dragon stories and magic allow us to create some emotional distance to the subject, but honestly the psychological explorations of the characters themselves is all too real.  What is shocking about Hillary Clinton is that she is every bit as vile as the most dastardly villain from Game of Thrones, but we have been exposed to her without the trappings of a fantasy story set a long time ago in a time long forgotten—but she’s standing right in front of us on full display.  Our modern society may not be as simplified as a medieval setting so to examine all the plotting and scheming that goes on in the human mind for the advancement of infantile ideas about control and human achievement, but the essence of those motivations are all too real—and not so much a fantasy.

Rich Hoffman

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

St. Louis Protesters Vandalize the Mayor’s Home: Lyda Krewson should have gunned down the people on her lawn

The St. Louis protests over the shooting of an alleged drug dealer during a police arrest migrated into radicals upset with the lack of prosecution by the legal system to go over to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home and vandalize it by throwing rocks through the windows and blasting it with red paint.  In the process nine St. Louis police officers were injured, two of them seriously, one with a broken jaw, the other with a dislocated shoulder—and in my opinion the protestors crossed the line from something possibly protected under the umbrella of free speech and migrated into something where an armed defense of the mayor’s home was justified.  Lyda appears to be a nice lady who did everything she could to deescalate the situation with non-violence, but I would argue that in so doing she actually perpetuated the situation.  It would have been better to put bullets into those attackers when they came to her home and to send them to the hospital, or to the morgue at that point in time instead of taking the passive position that she did—because she only empowered them further.

I have some experience with this kind of thing and my general policy is to engage violence with more violence than the attackers can handle.  If they come to your house to throw eggs, then you should burn their cars so they can’t escape and cripple them so there is no retreat-until the police can come to make an arrest.  Playing nice with people who are willing to vandalize private property doesn’t make things better.  As the mayor said, nobody was hurt and that she can fix what was vandalized—but in all actuality people were hurt, police were hurt seriously and getting hit in the face with bricks could have easily have killed those police officers, which to me opens up the options of what should be done to those attackers to deescalate the situation in the future.

Private property is what we’re talking about here.  While Mayor Krewson’s position is the one that current law and order adheres to—it has the assumption that material things can be replaced but lives cannot-it is technically wrong.  The reason for the police, the Second Amendment and the trappings of a legal system are to protect the private property of America’s citizens.  By going to the mayor’s home and attempting to influence her where she lives the mob was purposely attempting to use fear and the destruction of private property to influence the nature of law and order.  That is not acceptable.   When those lines are crossed and a mob of insurgents arrives to your place of residence to influence your behavior in the realm of law and order, then violence in return is the only option.

Obviously the actions of Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA are open about their strategies of violence against those they disagree with, so that opens the play book to violence which can then be conducted against them.  And the battleground which gives merit to the action is in the defense of private property.  I would say to the reporters who had to endure having water bottles being thrown at them, or violence inflicted on them in any way that your personal space then becomes private property and should be defended with any means necessary.  If the attackers lose their life in the process–then so be it—they had it coming.  This is the right way to think about these matters.

I’m writing this now as a kind of qualifying statement for future behavior.  Speaking for myself, I get by most days without having to inflict violence on other people.  If it happens it’s never because I started the conflict.  I have had to be violent with people before on occasion and while doing so have in my mind the complete destruction of those people.  Most of the time things work out alright and everyone lives to see another day.  But when it comes to private property and the defense of it, we have a right as individual American citizens to defend it.  Our politics does not give those rights over to enemy insurgents to do with whatever they want.  If I were the mayor of St. Louis I would have had to engage those people after the first broken window with violence that likely would have ended their existence—because it would have been the right thing to do.  All that stands between such things is law and order and once the mob failed to be contained by law enforcement, then the next tier of defense is personal protection.  For me, I have lots of options, but firearms are part of that defense.

I always try to use other methods before reaching for the gun in this present so-called civilized world.  Someone trained in various combat methods should have various degrees of defensive persuasion to apply against villains.  But for Mayor Krewson who obviously is a nice lady who doesn’t think much about such things, machine gunning down the protesters on her lawn would have been acceptable.  Those protestors made it very clear that they were willing to fight and possibly kill the law enforcement personnel on the streets—so that means that all the rules are off the table and anything goes—essentially.  It is quite obvious that appeasing these radicals is not the best method and that our legal system does not know how to handle these matters.  The path of Mayor Krewson has only made the situation worse.  Turning your back on these types of aggressive people empowers them to do more vile acts, it doesn’t deter them.  So we must draw the line somewhere and a personal residence where your family sleeps and your possessions are kept is where that thin line of justice resides.  If anybody is willing to cross that line, then they are said to be willing to surrender their life to your protection of it.  Because you really have no way of knowing what their intentions are.  Are they there to simply scare you, or under the pressure from the mob and the politics of our times, will they simply revert to the animal nature of rape, pillaging, and death?  We must assume the worst and hope for the best, but if they cross that line, they’ve made that decision for us.

A legal system that cannot protect our private property and our pursuit of happiness is ineffective and they don’t have a right to then prosecute us, the law abiding, with the use of firearms or other things to protect our personal sovereignty—and our bodies are part of that sanctity.  People do not have a right to get in our faces, vandalize our cars, or threaten our homes in any way shape or form.  If politicians cannot get this situation under control and use the rules of law to produce a society filled with justice, then we have no other choice.  In my opinion the mayor should have gunned down those protesters and left the lifeless bodies hanging from the trees of her front yard—because that’s the only language that people corrupted with primal instincts understand.  And in the realm of value assessment private property cannot always be replaced.  It represents more than material possession—it is a token of our personal sovereignty, and if we don’t have that in American society—then we have nothing of law and order.

Rich Hoffman

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