Category: Conservative politics

The 2017 Dayton Airshow: Short but sweet–with Trump now president aviation has a new lease on life

IMG_4724.JPGAs usual, The Chairman’s Club hosts at the Dayton Air Show did a great job; the food was particularly good during this 2017 event.  It usually is, but this time it was even better and still proves to be the best way to see the great exhibition of American airpower.  It was a rough weekend for the long running air show at the birthplace of aviation.  On Friday the Thunderbirds had an accident during a reconnaissance flight which essentially ended them for the weekend—a big blow to the schedule.  Then by Sunday the weather was just fantastic except for the very windy conditions.  Several acts were cut making the show which should have been over four and a half hours to a whittled down three hours long.  But the best part of the day was when the great B-25s paid tribute to the Doolittle Raid with a massive wall of fire right in front of my seat.

I normally take more pictures at these types of events but for a change I just enjoyed the day and watched in awe how wonderful the F/A-18 Super Hornet performed as well as the F-35.  I tried to record some of the afterburner action but the sound was so overwhelming that it was difficult to capture the immensity of it.  So for the day, mostly, I just enjoyed the show.  It was a privilege to be there and to witness such a raw exhibition of American horsepower and I think I felt that way because Trump was in the White House now as opposed to years past when Obama was in charge of the military.  I’ve been to the Dayton Air Show a lot of times but I don’t always feel compelled to write about it, because there always seemed to be a cloud over the military in the past prior to the election of Donald Trump.

This year the food did taste better, the sun was brighter and the engines sounded more eager to race out into the heavens to protect the idea of America from the insurgents of anti-capitalist sentiment.  So even though the show was much shorter than normal, the festivities had more teeth to them with an optimism exhumed from a changing administration.  Everyone involved with the show seemed to be functioning from a little less desperation and the multiple American flags displayed around the show seemed to be more proud than usual.  In the past it seemed that people revered the flag almost like a dying loved one.  They respected it but there was always the concern that it might not be there tomorrow.  Nobody wanted to talk about it, but everyone seemed to feel that way.  This year it was like a new lease on life, and the American flag didn’t feel like an ancient piece of nostalgia.

As I sat there in those nice seats and enjoyed the great food I couldn’t help but think about my various trips to different countries over the past year.  Those countries don’t have planes like we do, the good work of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and many others are unique to the United States.  It is planes like that F/A-18 Super Hornet that have really extended the reach of American politics into regions desperately in need of capitalism—and it has kept the bad guys away from American borders for many generations.  The power that was on display has a lot to do with our freedoms—it truly is the birthplace of aviation in Dayton where it all started and essentially made America great to begin with.  Aviation is critical to our global success and air shows like the one in Dayton are monstrously critical to advancements in that field.

They had a Wright Brothers Flyer replica which was the plane they built there in Dayton first flown down in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.  I’ve seen the plane before, or versions of it, but this time there was a guy who was there operating the controls and showing how the Wright Brothers actually steered the plane by twisting the wings ever so slightly.  It was remarkably like a bicycle which made sense because the Wright Brothers were bicycle mechanics.  They applied those general mechanics to invent the concept of flight and it was a minor miracle that they managed to pull it off.  Essentially all the great planes on display at the Dayton Air Show were just further advancements of those basic concepts created by that Wright flyer.

It is a privilege to have so much aviation activity in Ohio and it is a testament to Dayton that everything started there.  Each year when the Dayton Air Show takes place at the international airport it is a special event because it was there and only there where everything started and it reminds me of how important and to what extent aviation plays in the promise of freedom around the world.  It is certainly something to be proud of for those of us who reside in such an aviation rich area.  It is always good to see such a celebration displayed without any pretense of apology for being so good.  There was just so much there that was good that it was overwhelming.

But what stood out for me was the simulation of the Doolittle Raid—where Americans volunteered to bomb Tokyo and show the Japanese that they weren’t safe within their homeland.  The attack had the needed effect psychologically on the Japanese people and it wasn’t long thereafter when they lost the war.  Because of Doolittle’s B-25 raid of Tokyo, Japan had to push out their carriers further from their homeland and it changed the way they conducted the war—which allowed for the tide to turn against them.  Aviation is the key to changing battlefield tactics and the politics which causes conflict—so it’s excessively important.   Similarly the F/A-18 Super Hornet has changed the fight against ISIS–the very threat of them operating in the Middle East forces the bad guys to operate in a clandestine way preventing them from bringing their evil out in open—which is wonderful.  Knowing all that, it is always special to see them up close and operating in all their glory—I never tire of their exhibition of raw power.

I mentioned the Chairman’s Club because it is in my opinion the best way to see the Dayton Air Show.  In that section are many of the people who are on the cutting edge of advancing aviation in our modern age and it’s good to spend time around them.  It is in that continuous march toward innovation in aviation that freedom continues to breath.  Without that natural growth America would lose its edge eventually to a country that invented the next great thing.  But when it comes to aviation, America has always been and will continue to be the absolute best.  Yes, Obama tried to kill our aviation industry with budget cuts while trying to destroy our economy with Obamacare and many other socialist concepts—but now we have a new lease on life.  Trump is president and the afterburners on the F-35 sounded just a bit louder this time—because the cloud of insurrection had been removed and suddenly the world of limitless aviation invention seemed boundless—and that was very nice to see.

Rich Hoffman

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Ron Howard Directing the New Han Solo Film: Why hating Donald Trump is toxic for people in the entertainment industry

There is no way I couldn’t do it because it was only the biggest news story of the week—bigger than Donald Trump’s latest speech, bigger than the latest terrorist threat in Europe—it was so big that it actually led the headlines for three solid days worldwide.  The new Han Solo Star Wars movie production fired its two directors—whom I liked—Phil Lord and Christopher Miller with just three weeks left on the schedule and a summer of re-shoots still needing completion.  Obviously, I have designated myself as a Star Wars fan and out of all the characters in that fantasy sci-fi series Han Solo is my absolutely favorite character.  So even though there are thousands of other topics I might otherwise discuss—I must cover this issue by default of its cultural importance—because as I’ve said many times, Star Wars is not just a movie.  For many people it is a nearly religious event with tremendous cultural ramifications.  And yes, this was big news to a lot of people—and to the film industry as a whole.  My first inclination was optimism for reasons that I’ll describe because it tells me that Kathy Kennedy has her arms around these Star Wars movies—she understands what needs to be done and she isn’t afraid to do it—and I respect that.  Her pick for the next director couldn’t have been better—Ron Howard fresh off the Genius National Geographic drama about Albert Einstein.

I understand now that it was the kid playing the young Han Solo who actually started the process, Alden Ehrenreich.  He apparently was concerned that the directors known for their comedy in films like 21 Jump Street were not taking the picture to a place it needed to go and he spoke to people about it.  His instincts were correct, Han Solo is serious business even though there is comedy that surrounds a character like that—it’s a very fine line.  After Ehrenreich stated his concerns the word got back to Kathy Kennedy who took a look at the dailies and the film just wasn’t working.  It’s not necessarily the fault of Lord and Miller, but if they weren’t getting that fine line—then they needed to be fired.

Additionally, and this is something I don’t think any of them would admit, I noticed that both Miller and Lord were openly protesting Donald Trump and were members of this new Hollywood “resistance” which happens to be the same name of the group that works against the Empire in the new Star Wars films—and this was making Disney and Kathy Kennedy nervous.  The Han Solo film went into production in February of this year and I just happened to be in London at the same time so I was seeing news that wasn’t so available in the United States and I was very concerned that these new Star Wars directors were so openly against Trump and were fully supporting demonstrations in the streets of London.  There is no question that some of that radicalism was finding its way into the new Star Wars movie—where it clearly didn’t belong.  By pissing off half the country in America with political activism in a Star Wars film it would certainly take a hit at the box office and the franchise led by Kennedy these days can’t afford something like that, directly or indirectly.  It was so bad that I actually Tweeted the kids to knock it off—they needed to keep their eyes on the big picture.

Just this week Johnny Depp effectively ended his career when he stated that he thought that a modern actor should assassinate Donald Trump—he was speaking to a group in England where that kind of talk is quite popular these days and he forgot really how far his statements might go—and once it hit the American media it was too late for him.  Depp’s latest Pirates of the Caribbean film had done decent business and if he had kept his mouth shut, he might have recovered as an actor.  His recent divorce and difficulties on the set of Dead Men Tell No Tales have flagged him as a has been that can’t deliver at the box office.  His money was over extended and he really needed to just ride the wave of Pirates and actually hope for another one to pull him out of this slump. But now—he’s toxic. Like it or not, Trump is president and many people are having a positive experience because of it—and they don’t want to hear a bunch of spoiled brat actors and directors taking shots at their president in movies they pay to see. It’s just not good business.  I think Johnny Depp—as much as I like him as an actor—just killed his career forever.  He’ll never recover. He literally just went from riches to rags—because with his financial problems he needed to stay on top to get large pay checks and he just killed that opportunity.

Although I was critical of the Genius show on the National Geographic Channel, Ron Howard did a great job as he always does directing it.  He is one of the top filmmakers in the world clearly functioning from a different place—and when it was announced that Lucasfilm had hired him to replace Lord and Miller I was very happy about it.  Ron Howard knew how to keep the modern politics out of his projects just like many older directors could. For instance, I never knew whether or not George Lucas or Steven Spielberg were conservatives or liberals in the 80s.  When Ronald Reagan invited them to the White House they went and took pictures and they certainly didn’t protest in politics.  If Return of the Jedi had references to the Vietnam War in it sympathetic to the Vietnamese—I couldn’t tell by watching the product.

I was quite shocked to find in the 90s that Spielberg and Lucas gave money to the Clintons and were becoming more active within the Democratic Party—and as much as I liked them—I thought differently about them since then.  No longer did I rush out and see their movies because they had shown themselves to be against conservative positions—and honestly they never recovered their former positions culturally because of it.  However, Ron Howard has never lost that and is the closest thing we have in Hollywood to a good traditional director and actor who established his roots on the Andy Griffin Show.  He knows how to walk that fine line so that people can enjoy a project of his without thinking about the modern politics of the moment—because ten to twenty years from now—you still want the film to be relevant.

For this Han Solo movie to have the kind of appeal that Disney needs out of it they really need to pull off something special and it’s a credit to Kathy Kennedy that she took action before it was too late.  Ron Howard will know what to do and I’m relieved for it.  The world is changing and that radicalism that Hollywood has embraced cannot find its way into something that needs to stay relevant well into the future.  By the time this Han Solo movie is released in May of 2018 we will be living in a different world–largely shaped by Donald Trump’s presidency—and a lot of people will be supportive of him.  They don’t want to see a movie made by people who openly hate him and have filled their Twitter pages with disparaging Trump remarks.  They’ll want to go to the darkened theater and enjoy a new Star Wars movie without politics trying to shape their opinions—and Ron Howard knows how to do that.  After all, it wasn’t Howard’s fault that I liked Albert Einstein less after his Genius series.  It was to Howard’s credit that I was able to get to know Einstein much better than ever before.  As an artist he just presented the facts—he didn’t tell me how to feel—and that is the difference between a great director and people who are just average.  That is why hiring Howard to direct the Han Solo movie will prove to be so brilliant—and I’m glad the production had the courage to do it—before it was too late.

Rich Hoffman

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Donald Trump Making Looney Toons out of Everyone Else: Being poor is a choice in America

At this point it’s obvious, the Democrats are like the Looney Toons characters of Yosemite Sam and Wile E. Coyote compared to Donald Trump who is to them a combination of Bugs Bunny and Road Runner all rolled up into one terrifyingly president of the United States. Nobody out-thinks the “Trump” I suppose is the way the situation should be phrased.  Trump is playing chess while everyone else is playing some child’s game in the media and within the Beltway. Trump has totally turned upside down even the most terrifying Deep State insurgents and made them look stupid just five months into his presidency—and I’m so glad to see it.  I hoped this would happen, but Trump is even more successful than even my wildest imagination could articulate and I’m loving it.  Yet when Trump made a small remark about the kind of people he had in his administration who were handling the economy—for which the political left has been critical because Trump’s people are very wealthy—Trump said to an Iowa rally audience that he wanted rich people instead of poor people managing economic affairs and this was somehow controversial.  When I heard it I didn’t think anything about it until I saw the reaction of the media the next day, and I have to say I was shocked that they were so shocked.

In covering this episode of leftist babble Sean Hannity made a good point, he said on his Fox News show that out of all the jobs he had ever done in his life from busboy to radio station on air talent—he never worked for a poor person. As I thought about that it was obviously a correct statement.  I reflected on my own colorful past of work experience and it was true, I never did work for a poor person.  I can think of one guy who did struggle to pay for his monthly bills but that wasn’t because he didn’t have access to financial resources—it was because he was reckless with his money.  After all he had just spent $23,0000 dollars on a stripper in Newport, Kentucky—so that did soak up some of his expendable cash during that time period.  But nobody was ever poor who signed a pay check to me—and there’s a reason for that.  Job creators are those who have financial resources beyond what they can handle themselves to manage—they have access to productivity which places them in a category of understanding that is beyond the concepts of a poor person.

As the poor are described Biblically, as people with limited resources who were not part of the political structure of their times, I can understand the nobility of being free and clear spiritually to live life simply and close to God. But the term is no longer relevant today with the invention of the United States of America.  In America, you can be religious and wealthy and there is nothing wrong with it.  It’s not like you have to live in sin to appease the Roman Empire or the Pharisees to hold wealth.  America made it so that any person who wanted to work hard regardless of their social stature could become wealthy and that is essentially what is wrong with liberals today—they don’t understand that.  They still want to apply merit to the poor because like most churches, it holds people’s minds to socialism and communism.  Poor people to the socialist is a badge of honor.  To an American conservative who loves their guns and their Bible—they are just lazy pot smoking losers.

There is no reason to be poor in America. There is always a job that needs to be done in a productive society and if you want to hold three or four jobs to climb out of a financial hole, you can do that.  I know I have.  I also know that Sean Hannity has.  The main reason I enjoy listening to Sean Hannity is because he has a similar background experience as I do.  I have nothing in common with news commentators who get up and go to work around 9 am and are pretty much done for the day by 3 pm.  I get up at 5 am every day and I go to bet around 11:30 pm and I work pretty much all day on and off.  Even in my leisure I’m still working on something—and that’s how it’s been for me for four decades now.  Sean Hannity always worked hard, and so does Donald Trump—even now.  The primary reason he’s running circles around everyone is that he’s used to this pace, and the swamp in Washington isn’t—and they look like fools trying to compete with him—because they aren’t prepared.  People who are poor in America are that way because they made a choice to limit their income to only 40 hours a week—or less.  There are 168 hours in a week and people who are poor likely are only being productive a quarter of that time.  For those under that ratio—they are even worse off—and that is by their own inclination.

To dig out of a financial hole I once worked 96 hours a week at a regular job then on weekends I had a paper route and I worked for a tree trimming business. Essentially, I worked seven days a week on a primary job, then in weekend slots I trimmed trees all over Cincinnati and my wife and I shared several paper routes and that was the time we spent together.  I was in my late 20s and 30s when I was doing all this.  And I still found time to spend with my kids.  We still went to see movies together.  We still went out to eat and took nice vacations.  We had Kings Island season passes and went often—we made it work.  I never felt like I wasn’t getting enough sleep.  I read at least a book a week still and I felt I lived a very good and productive life—and we weren’t poor—that’s for sure.  We didn’t have unlimited money to throw at things and had to manage it, but we had to do that with every hour of our work day.  When my kids need braces or musical instruments we bought them.  Whatever they needed, we took care of it and we never used any form of welfare or government assistance to get through life—even though we could have.  If we needed more money—I just took on another job.

In that context, I have no sympathy for the poor or those who complain about not having enough money. Being poor in America is a choice and there isn’t merit to it when you drag all your loved ones through a depressed lifestyle just because you are too lazy to work.  The Bible for such people is often used as a mask—they might say something stupid like, “well you can’t take ‘it’ with you,” meaning material possessions and other justifications to explain away their inherit lazy nature—but it’s only an excuse for laziness.  I don’t admire the mountain man or the monk who decides to quit life and retreat to their thoughts on top of a mountain and devote themselves to poverty and lack of possession.  But I do admire the person who works 18 hours per day and employees over a 100 people—because they are the keys to being a productive society.  Those are the type of people who should be in charge of the economy.  Not some driveling idiot who hates money, wealth, and production. And in that context, we should all thank God that Donald Trump is finally in charge so we can talk about these things properly instead of with a bunch of emotional flap designed to hide a lack of personal ambition.

It’s not against the law to be lazy, or poor. If that is what people want to do, then let them have it.  But, they don’t have a right to skunk up the works of a perfectly successful, and wonderful capitalist economy where the natural spillover of productivity makes even the poorest people in America far better off than some of the richest in the godforsaken third world countries of the world—where political connections and aristocracy still rule the who has from the wish they dids. In America, it’s a choice and that is what makes America such a beautiful and moral country.  The best of the best are the job creators—because they bring opportunity to those who enjoy working hard.  By their very nature, they are not poor.  Rich people give jobs because they have produced an excess in their lives—poor people do not.  So to Trump’s point it’s quite clear he understands the difference—and for that we should celebrate with the flare of a Bugs Bunny as the stupidity of Yosemite Sam blows up his carefully laid plans in his face yet again as America cruises one more day toward a prosperity that was attempted to be robbed from future generations—but in a nick of time—wasn’t.

.Rich Hoffman

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

The Truth About Stonehenge: Comments about the absurdity of summer solstice rituals

Visiting Stonehenge for me recently was one of the most important things I’ve ever done. It wasn’t just a bucket list item that I wanted to see at least once in my life—it was crucial. I have read so many books starting at a very young age where Stonehenge was contemplated that I needed to see the place in person. But to get to it you have to make a trip to England—and to do that you have to see a lot of other things and London usually has some part to play in such an expedition—so enough time in a schedule is necessary to accommodate such a task. However, this year I was able to get there and it was everything I expected and more. More than anything I was extremely impressed by the position the Neolithic complex held on the high plains of western England and the relation that all the mounds in the surrounding countryside had with the ancient stone ritual center. I think Stonehenge is remarkable in many different ways and its history is quite vast—much deeper than what the type of people who showed up at the summer solstice events which happen every year where druid loving people watch the sun rise on the longest day of the year.

I watched the events that these types of people participate in and it actually makes me pretty mad. The druids were not in any way involved with building Stonehenge. Their Celtic heritage is just another rendition of the modern nature worshipping hippie—the earth first losers who plague our modern politics with wishy-washy sentiment rooted in a new religion—making Mother Earth the new Yahweh or Shiva. For them and their followers of the modern age—Stonehenge is an earth worshipping symbol that a bunch of second handers from the region of Germany adopted to have sex parties and conduct themselves foolishly while under the ground dating back over 10,000 years were the relics of civilizations’ origins waiting still to be discovered. The reasons for Stonehenge’s alignments to the sun and other celestial bodies go far beyond the natural worshipping druids.

Yet like the American Indian the true meaning of the people who built Stonehenge goes undetected because intellectual curiosity cannot get past the necessity for spiritual redemption. Even the people studying Stonehenge cannot help but be pulled into the earth worship distortion that people like these druid lovers bring to the site during real archaeological study. When I was there the obvious layers of observation was distinctly obvious. On the surface, you have all these conclusions that are wrapped up in the methods of druid mythology which has always been associated with the site—unjustifiably. The druids came along many centuries after the final stages of construction at Stonehenge in 2500 BC. But to look properly at Stonehenge you have to be willing to look at Old Sarum to the south and Avebury to the north—as well as many hundreds of earthworks over the 50 miles of regional coverage. There was a lot going on in that region of England dating from the end of the last Ice Age to the relative present of 4000 years ago. For many millenniums—much longer than our present age—the Stonehenge region was very important and it goes well beyond the need to worship the earth.

Dating back 10,000 years—at least, are the skeletons of many sacrificed animals. What we know of Stonehenge and its modern rocks were built on the sacrificial site of these animal bones. Even in recent years—the last stages of Stonehenge after final construction, human sacrifices where happening with frequency—many of them quite brutal. I’m inclined to think that the stone alignments with the various solstices had less to do with celestial worship and more to do with keeping track of their progress throughout the year—likely to mark the points in time where interactions with important events occurred—such as when it became known how to calculate complicated mathematical concepts among a bunch of supposed nomads hunting and gathering for their entire lives and doing nothing else. Somewhere along the line of this 10,000-year span something happened that made people do remarkable things in that rather unremarkable landscape.

Then there is the problem of understanding that the builders of Stonehenge were not a regional phenomenon, but a global one. I am quite convinced after visiting Stonehenge and seeing things with my own eyes that the same people who built that place were also in North America building the many similar structures still seen all over the Americas. We are likely looking at a society that was much more advanced than we give it credit for, and was likely part of the culture that existed all over the world prior to the time the Book of Genesis was written. Many calculate that the Great Deluge took place around 2348 BCE which is just a few hundred years after the final touches of Stonehenge so we are dealing with more than just mythology and Earth worshiping killers. We’re dealing with a particularly potent hidden history that is right in front of our faces—yet we hide the truth behind our recent religious inventions—and that is compelling.

Evidence of life—even giant stones like what we see at Stonehenge do not last very long. Once you apply 20 or 30,000 years of wear to anything it often becomes unrecognizable and that to me is the most compelling aspect of the Neolithic monuments surrounding the Stonehenge area. Without question to me the same culture that built Stonehenge ended up in some way in North America and likely China. Without question, there were global sea trade routes moving all around the world at a time when we think of the people of Stonehenge as being separate and rising independently. The evidence simply doesn’t support that if you look at everything instead of just the Stonehenge complex. And then there is the case of the American Indian—they are obviously from the China region and settled in North America as a separate transaction of migration and they were interacting with these Stonehenge people—whoever they were—well before the druids walked out of Germany. All this is very revolutionary and certainly changes what we know about our own history. That’s why I so badly wanted to visit the site in person as opposed to reading about it as I have so much. It is clear that even lifelong researchers into Stonehenge are trying to fit it into what we know about science, instead of letting history properly tell its story with us being a willing audience. We’ve tried too hard to shape the narrative to fit our comfort level.

The biggest question about Stonehenge is—why there, and likely that answer is due to events that occurred before the Ice Age even happened. The uneventful plain of land in western England did not suddenly just pop up all these really remarkable monuments—something inspired people to do these things at a great cost to themselves—and that is where we need answers—and we’re not going to get it by watching a bunch of hippies worship the sun. I think the reason the sun was so important to all these ancient people clearly marks their need to demonstrate to the political masses a way to tell time. The sacrificial elements that often come out of collapsing societies tend to be what we study but the initial cause is where the focus should be. Why, and why there?

The mathematics involved alone extend well beyond the achievements of Greek study—it is time to accept that Greek and Roman empires were only ages and that all this had come before in times long forgotten. I think Stonehenge says to us that society wasn’t so primitive—at least aspects of it. People may have come from the surrounding countryside to become part of something bigger, and wiser at Stonehenge, and Avebury, but the people who built all these things were far less nomadic than we want to admit. They were rather advanced and that is something we need to deal with. They were a global society, not a regional one. It may take us 100 to 200 more years to find enough evidence to support some of the things I’ve said here, but the evidence is stacking up, and much of this is obvious. We just need more evidence before re-writing history books. But mark what I’m saying here, these druid rituals are just a bunch of left leaning hippies who are trying to use history to justify their religion of Mother Earth worship. They are as loony as the fools who sacrificed other human beings at Stonehenge trying to make it rain. They are not the builders of Stonehenge, or the causes for why it’s there to begin with. They are just more of a second-hand civilization riding the coattails of greatness and hoping that they can loot the credit for it over the lens of history. So far it has worked for them, but the evidence emerging is telling us the truth, and they are certainly blind to it.

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Megyn Kelly’s Career Killing Interview with Alex Jones: Karen Handel and many other Republicans win easily

It was even worse than I thought, the Megyn Kelly interview with Alex Jones for her new NBC Sunday night show—which is not performing as expected. In a lot of ways, you could tell the results of the special elections held on June 20th 2017 based on the NBC broadcast by Megyn Kelly. It wasn’t even close in the 6th District Georgia race where Karen Handel easily beat the Democrat Hollywood money, and over in South Carolina Ralph Norman took his seat for the Republicans making it a 4-0 run in these special elections since Donald Trump took over at the White House. And if you listened carefully, the NBC execs behind Megyn Kelly’s new show were screaming in frustration at this strange new mysterious world where they had very little control over the mass population—and that people have instead put their efforts behind people like Alex Jones instead of traditional figures like Tom Brokaw and the new-comer Megyn Kelly. They are lost and simply don’t understand what’s going on.

Megyn Kelly’s Jones interview was technically a ratings disaster and resonated with the many Hollywood productions that are losing money this year because they don’t represent the masses in the fly over states. As the election results came in for the 6th District in Georgia I received the information that the two directors of the new Han Solo movie have left the production over “creative differences.” I liked those guys but they started filming in London on that picture in February, the same time that I was there and they were very enamored with all the anti-Trump rhetoric coming out of all the liberal precincts—and in London that gives the impression of a majority in the world. I thought then as I do now that they were too close to all that anti-Trump radicalism and surely those elements would end up in the Han Solo movie—which wouldn’t be good. Without question Disney has been watching all these events and while it’s too early to tell, I would bet money that those boys decided they couldn’t deal with changing up elements of the Han Solo film to reflect the political realities of the world as of now. It’s a much different place than it was last year when the script was written and if Disney wants a good picture in the spring of 2018, then they better get with the program. Everybody better—because all these witch hunts against Trump are going to amount to nothing—in the end he’s going to be one of the greatest presidents we’ve ever had in the United States—Republicans are going to increase their House and Senate seats and like it or not, more people can relate to Alex Jones than they do Megyn Kelly.

Megyn’s mission was to make Alex Jones look stupid, and he knew that—so he scooped her and beat NBC to the punch by secretly recording her then releasing the tapes over the weekend ahead of the big Father’s Day show. And after listening to her promise Jones that she wasn’t doing a hit piece, then watching how NBC cut up the interview—it was clearly everything she promised it wouldn’t be and Jones came out looking even better. NBC hates that there is competition out there like Alex Jones. Megyn tried to take shots at the Infowars method of reporting—which was essentially a bunch of internet reports that come out of cyberspace and is talked about on Infowars in a very laissez-faire manner—as opposed to the way it’s done at NBC and the other networks where an editor—(usually someone who gives a lot of money to Democratic political causes) validates a story given by a reporter and shapes it to the network’s position—calling it truth. Alex Jones at Infowars wants everything fast and loose and thus can cover a lot more ground than some giant bureaucratic organization like NBC who uses sex to essentially sell their Democratic ideas then uses traditional anchors like Tom Brokaw to reflect back to a time when nobody questioned their news reporting to validate their authority.

The frustration and even exasperation of NBC for this new kind of news which Alex Jones represents with millions of fans gathered up from the internet doesn’t begin to come close to understanding what happened. Essentially, thirty years ago the primary networks of NBC, ABC, and CBS had a stronghold on the media and they controlled the narrative. Back then the conservatives had Reagan in the White House and most of their movie stars like Tom Selleck and Mel Gibson were openly conservative, Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, and many other male actors were open members of the Republican Party so everyone lived in a kind of careful balance with everyone else. But the leftists plotted and schemed behind our backs and we ended up with the Clintons in the White House in the 90s. Our movie stars become noticeably less conservative. Television began to push an openly progressive agenda—such as when Ellen was kissed on network television by Laura Dern—and Madonna was showing us that reckless sex was something we should all be thinking about. In reaction to all these leftist incursions, talk radio rose to prominence and eventually as the internet increased in usability the conservative message went to cyberspace—since it was shoved out of Hollywood and New York media productions.

Alex Jones was one of those upstarts and now just twenty years later he has millions of daily viewers and his monthly hits on his website far exceed that of NBC. That has left all these media organizations exasperated with plots to stop the bleeding by shaming people into changing their behavior. But it hasn’t worked and instead more people have went the other way. They have tried every trick available to them, including fixing the polling numbers as they did in Georgia and with Trump—yet Republicans keep winning. That is because as a media group they arrogantly thought that if they controlled the mainstream outlets like Hollywood and New York broadcasting—that they’d control the message—but instead people have found other ways to get their message—with or without the traditional media. If the question were truly what comes first the chicken or the egg—clearly it was the egg—the roots of conservative values in America. You could still cut the head off the chicken—(the media) but the egg still came first. The media was there to reflect American culture—not to shape it. The media forgot their role and life moved on without them. They tried to take away the conservative influences and what they ended up with were declining ratings and people they had far less control of. With Mel Gibson and Clint Eastwood—at least those guys lived a little hard and fast which the Democrats could understand. People like Alex Jones they can’t understand at all. Alex is like that crazy canoe tour operator in the mountains of Tennessee who is all country, all guns, and all red-blooded testosterone driven maleness—and because the media overplayed their hand—one of those guys ended up with an audience of millions putting out stories by the hour where NBC spends days reviewing stories suitable for the political spin approved by the Bilderberg meetings—just to make sure that Mr. Soros isn’t upset by the slant because those network chiefs want to sit by him at the next charity event and they want his advertising money—indirectly of course. By the time all that happens Alex Jones will have produced 10 headline stories and discussed them for hours on end. That is why NBC has been losing.

It’s not Alex Jones’ fault that he has such high ratings and it’s not the human races’ fault because people don’t like the kind of news that NBC wants to produce. It’s not Donald Trump’s fault that he’s a ratings magnet—because people want to hear what he has to say and how he says it. It has always been NBC and the other mainstream networks who have decided that they wanted to work against the current of American lifestyles to change it into something they thought was more to their liking. And just like they thought they could spin the Georgia election into a close race, and that they could somehow shame Alex Jones into stopping what he’s been doing at Infowars—all it really comes down to is a bunch of losers complaining that the world does not like what they are offering and their feelings are hurt. Everything from the obstruction of justice investigations into Trump’s White House down to his Tweets, people like Megyn Kelly who have played the game to become a part of that losing world now have to face it that the reason Donald Trump listens to Alex Jones and now he’s the president—and Jones has so many millions of followers, is that there is a market need for these people—because they more accurately reflect the America that we are all living in. And that is a reality all these people on the other side have to face. They can trick themselves into believing falls polls, and emotional stories like Sandy Hook—but in reality, a majority of the American people like what they like. And they like Alex Jones, and they like Donald Trump. They don’t necessarily like Megyn Kelly which is obvious by the ratings. And more and more, they don’t like Democrats. They are losing everywhere and the longer Trump is president, the harder time Democrats will have to win anything. Trump is much more popular than the phony polls will indicate. These are the facts and so long as the MSM refuses to see those facts and look toward people like Alex Jones and declare them the problem—they’ll never learn the lessons they need to improve themselves.

I think that was the dagger that will kill Megyn Kelly’s career. After the interview, there were rumors she was in negotiations to return to Fox, but she’s burnt too many bridges there and she has upped her profile to such a level that she will have a hard time just being a correspondent. She had positioned herself to be the next Barbra Walters—but clearly, that is not her skill set. She might have pulled it off if not for this Alex Jones interview—she hoped that a little sex appeal and flirting would entice enough to do a hit piece on Jones—take him down and make all her NBC bosses happy—but instead she exposed herself embarrassingly on tape which was played by Jones who knew what was going on, and now that’s all anybody will remember about her. But the fault really isn’t hers, it was NBC who set the stage to begin with, and let her believe that these tactics would work in the modern competitive news market. We are living in the days of the Drudge Report—where the narrative is set dynamically leaving the crusty old news sources to crawl crippled along an unknown landscape. Even if they did manage to take Alex Jones out, there are plenty of people who would take his place—because the demand is there. And that is a reality that NBC better learn fast. Maybe Disney is finally learning it—but not fast enough. The entire old world of the media should have known better—but they didn’t.

Rich Hoffman

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

‘The Book of Henry’: More than a film review–but an articulation of the very nature of evil

I was stunned by the movie reviews for The Book of Henry—they were illustriously bad.  In fact, they were so bad that there was often hatred in the utterances of the reviews.  Some people just hated this movie.  Yet, I have been very excited about it and did go and see it on the opening weekend—and I thought it was an absolutely brilliant film.  It wasn’t just a little good—it was great and in any other time, it would win many awards.  So how could all the critics be so wrong—well, to get to that let’s study the reaction to just the trailer that Grace Randolph from Beyond the Trailer provided when she reviewed the preview back in March.  I’m not picking on Grace, I usually lover her opinions even when I don’t agree—but this reaction is one of those raw–primal hatreds that certainly influenced all the negative reviews and that is why this is such a brilliant film.  Watch closely.

I think it said a lot about Colin Trevorrow that he wanted to even make this movie between the blockbusters of Jurassic World and the ninth Star Wars film upcoming.  He could have made any movie he wanted yet he picked The Book of Henry, which features a boy genius, 11 years of age who knows that there is great evil in the world and he spends much of his time contemplating how to stop it.  Trevorrow brought in some great talent, wonderful editing, great composer, great actors, great cinematography—great film business people from top to bottom and gave a project like The Book of Henry a top notch indie film treatment.  It’s a movie with a lot of heart but it has a judgment and that is what has people so outrageously upset with the movie and seek to punish it with their own needs to deflect their own guilt for the theme for which the movie is about.

The little girl next door to where Henry lives with his single mom and his little brother is being sexually abused by her step father who happens to be the police commissioner. So let’s answer Grace’s question from above, because her reaction was pretty innocent but some of the people in the film review business, from Variety to Rolling Stone are no doubt like the Sarah Silverman character—whom I don’t like as a political activist.  But she played a wonderful normal person in this movie—a person that likely 90 percent of our population could identify with.  She’s a loser, a hard-core drinker who misses work too much and has an ugly tattoo on her breast which she shows off most of the movie—she is the best friend of Naomi Watts who plays Henry’s mom.  And what a poor creature she is—she represents another large segment of the population who have lost her way in life.  She’s not a bad person, but she’s afraid to make her mark on the world and she drinks and plays too many video games to hide from that inclination—and she is totally dependent on her oldest son Henry who is an impeccable genius.

Most of the reviewers have commented that Henry seems otherworldly and un-relatable. After all, there just aren’t 11-year-olds out there who are as mature and wise as Henry.  But movies are supposed to take us to places we can’t go in normal life and meet people worth the hard work that usually goes into making movies.  And lucky for me, I completely understand Henry.  I knew people like him and there are parts of him that I can directly understand.  There is a scene in the movie that I thought was particularly powerful, it’s where Henry, his brother and his mom are at the grocery and they see a guy beating his girlfriend as they are having an argument. Nobody does anything to help the woman, but Henry is inclined to get involved and his mom stops him telling him its none of their business.  “Don’t get involved.”   Later that night Henry and his mom are in bed talking (innocently because the mother still reads books to her boys even though they are probably too old) and Henry tries to explain how disappointed he was in his mother for not wanting to get involved in the argument between the couple at the grocery store.  Of course his mother uses the excuse that she didn’t want to become embroiled in a violent episode.  Then Henry explains to her that violence isn’t always the worst thing.  Curious, his mother asked the young man what is the worst thing in the world.  Henry pauses for a second and answers, “apathy.”

When Grace Randolph was so outraged that The Book of Henry relied so heavily on a child genius to tell a rather ordinary story about revenge, redemption and family assimilation she made the mistake to assume that these things are normally very obvious to people—and they are in the third person.  After all, we are used to watching other people in the god-like position of viewer, with television and movies where we often have more information about what’s going on than the characters on the screen do and the drama we experience is in hoping that people we care about learn what we do in time to save themselves.  But in real life where stories are not broken down into typical three act plays, introduction, articulation of the conflict, then wrapped up nicely and on que to climax—events do not hold to that structure and because we have trained our minds in such a fashion—we often do not see evil sitting right in front of us.  Evil comes at us in subtle ways through loved ones, our jobs, our politics—even the kid who wants to mow our grass, install our cable, or check out our food at Wal-Mart.  We as human beings trust our structures and our institutions.  But most of the things that happen in the world happens outside of those organized elements and in the case of The Book of Henry, we see a society stuck in its structures and trust in institutional figures—such as the police chief next door who complains that the leaves of his single parent mother neighbor keep blowing into his yard giving him psychological leverage over her to hide his real crime—that he is sexually molesting his step daughter and using the institutions of government to keep inquiries away from him.  It takes someone free of those institutions—someone bigger than what human kind has to offer at that moment to see the evil—and that is why it was necessary to have Henry in this film be a brilliant kid.  Without that genius, nobody would have the courage to step beyond the veil of adulthood with all its trickery and diversion tactics meant to deceive themselves into believing they were living good lives—to see the truth.  That the police commissioner was destroying this poor little girl for extremely selfish reasons he deserved a style of justice that has nearly been outlawed in America. The Book of Henry nails all this and more making it a remarkable work of art.  That it has pissed off so many reviewers say more about them than the movie—for they are like the institutionalists in the film who failed the little girl while only Henry thought to act and took action to start the process. There are a lot of little girls—and little boys in the world who need someone to see how much trouble they are in but unfortunately their plight is invisible to most of our adult population.

The Book of Henry is a rare film that like all great art shows us what is difficult to see and in this case the plot device is genius to show it to an audience stuck in life much like the Naomi Watts character—not a bad person, but a person stuck in hundreds of bad decisions holding her down in life.  Her son Henry is pure and free of such things and it is through him that she comes to see the world for what it really is—and is compelled to act accordingly.  Even with some of the truly tragic story lines in this film it is an uplifting tale of optimism and genuine love of life. It is a truly remarkable work and something everyone should see at least once.  The reviews don’t like the film because it’s a bad movie—but because it makes them look at things they are partially guilty of creating—so that should not be a reason to avoid the picture.  Rather, The Book of Henry should be watched with open hearts and open minds and an honest assessment to what role the viewer might play on the side of villainy so that they can correct the situation for the good of everyone. The Book of Henry nails it and is certainly one of the great films of history and should still be remembered many years from now.

Rich Hoffman

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Puerto Rico Votes to Become a State: How Donald Trump could have several new states join the union under his administration

Context is everything and my reasons for supporting Donald Trump for president even after all the outrageous claims against him are that I have it–context.  Over the past couple of months I have stood in four of the places where great international events have taken place. I stood precisely where an Islamic lunatic plunged a knife at police in front of Notre Dame in Paris.  I was at the bridge near Parliament in London where another Islamic terrorist ran people down killing them for no reason at all—but to support a radical religious theory.  I was also on the same streets and locations as the London Bridge attack just a few weeks ago.  Additionally, I was at the Ecuadorian Embassy where Wikileaks is doing the good work of unleashing material our American media and intelligence agencies can’t be trusted to control.  So I’ve touched the face of history a lot this year and I was in those places before these big events occurred because I identified them as hot spots I wanted to see because of the currents in the world that are moving fast in dangerous directions.  So when I say that Puerto Rico should be the 51st state it is because of that same deductive reasoning.  Donald Trump is a great president that is unlocking much of what these global terrorists are set against—and fear.  Yet the net result will be a love of freedom that will expand under the Trump presidency which is really what these terrorists and liberal assassins in the American media fear.  Nobody does it like Trump, watch his speech from Miami, Florida where he undid the disaster that Obama had created in regards to Cuban relations.

To watch in that clip Luis Haza play the Star Spangled Banner on a violin after hearing the story of how he first came to do it as a young child is precisely what America means to people all around the world.  It is what the terrorists are trying to avoid by stopping the spread of capitalist sentiment.  It is why extreme leftists have sought to move Middle Eastern Marxists into Europe—to maintain their stranglehold on those economies globally with the last resort of religion to hide the evil behind the mask of eternity.  But it’s not working and with Trump, that spread will increase dramatically, including adding the 51st state in America to his list of achievements—yes, in case you haven’t yet heard dear reader, Puerto Rico has voted to become the 51st state in The United States.  They are ready and willing to officially become part of our country and that is a wonderful thing.  They want it for many of the same reasons that Cuba wants it—and as I write this I think Cuba will become the 52nd state and that might happen by the time Mike Pence is in the White House.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/12/news/economy/puerto-rico-june-11-statehood-vote/index.html

http://www.puertoricoreport.com/natural-resources-of-puerto-rico/#.WUZqa-vyuM8

The terrorists in the world—and I’d classify the American political left in that category based on their violent reactions to the Trump presidency—want to sell the joy that American capitalism unleashes around the world by calling it “imperialism” lumping it into the same heap as the British Empire was—or the Roman.  The biggest difference is that America isn’t exactly going out of its way to acquire new territory; new territory wants to join the team.  As things stand now that little 100 mile wide island down in the Caribbean, closer to Jamaica than Florida filed for bankruptcy protection in May.  They have no way out of their financial troubles unless something dramatically changes for them and as it stands now, they are like a state—they have American citizenship—but they aren’t technically a state which has crippled them as far as corporate investments. So they are in a current no man’s land economically.  Their legacy costs far exceed their GDP which is so small; it’s not even worth talking about.  But Puerto Rico is a very nice place and it could easily become a booming economy with a GDP similar to Florida which is about a trillion dollars a year.  Hawaii produces only about $87 billion but it brings much more than that to the entire Pacific in value, and of course Alaska only produces $50 billion.  But Puerto Rico with its gateway access to the Caribbean and the Atlantic shipping lanes has tremendous potential that could and should be utilized to advance industry and economic expansion in that region by taking away the haze of indifferent statehood from the decision-making process.  Once companies know that Puerto Rico is an American state–they could unleash their investments.

That brings us to Cuba—in the 1950s it was a country headed in the direction of American statehood and that’s what should have happened until the Castro regime attacked and took over with communism as the national offering.  People seem to forget or ignore that all those little countries south of The United States have their share of communism, Marxism and socialism in their equations somewhere—and that’s why they are all poor countries.   Most of Mexico’s problems come from the fact that they founded their current country on concepts of Marxism and that has turned them into a disaster currently being run by drug cartels.  So I wouldn’t be against Mexico becoming the 53rd state maybe letting it divide itself up into three more states.  Then of course Guatemala, Honduras and Panama—if they voted for statehood, then I’d be all for letting them become part of the United States.  Their lives would improve dramatically because even the very poor in The United States live better than most of the middle class in Mexico and throughout South America do.  Most of the poor in the United States live better than the rich do in all of Africa–so becoming states in America would be a great thing for everyone.  The big thing they’d gain from statehood would be creating stable governments that businesses could then invest in.  Nobody in their right mind is going to invest much money in Mexico and Cuba as far as business because they do not have stable political climates.  Only tremendously wealthy companies now can afford to do anything in Mexico because the labor exchange is that much more advantageous.  But part of the reason there isn’t any major industry south of the American border is because of the lack of political stability.  Once that occurred everything would improve for everyone.

Under the Trump presidency I would love to see America add at least two more American states—starting with Puerto Rico.  If they want to be in our tent then I’m all for it.  I might even buy a place there as a real estate investment. I wouldn’t dare do it now, because the country is bankrupt, but if it became a state with opportunities to become a satellite of the great state of Florida—I’d be all for it.  Of course the political left would be against such a thing just as open terrorists would because they don’t want to see the spread of capitalism to these regions—they want Marxism in America.  They certainly don’t want America to spread its influence around the world more than it already has.  But if the people in those places want to sign up to become Americans—no matter where they come from—why not?  They’d be better off, and so would the current 50 states.  There would be more taxable revenue and at least we’d all be working with the same founding documents.  And if it were voluntary it wouldn’t be like America ran around the world conquering everyone with a superior military.  All we’d be doing is saying yes. So why the hell not? Republicans will likely increase their numbers in the House and Senate so the timing is about as good as it will get.  It’s all about context isn’t it?  Do we really want to help people become better off under a capitalist system and contributing to our current $18 trillion-dollar a year GDP.  Or do we want to let terrorists both foreign and domestic use illegal aliens from impoverished areas to collapse our system in America with overwhelming force and changing voting patterns.  Or do we control the impact with harmless Electoral votes while increasing our taxable income and expansion of business opportunity?  The situation is pretty clear to me.

Rich Hoffman

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg