Category: Literature

The Truth About Stonehenge: Comments about the absurdity of summer solistace 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 Sarem 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 Genius 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

Oskar Eustis and his Poor Understanding of History: The director of New York’s Julius Ceaser gets everything wrong

Oskar Eustis as the “artistic director” of the controversial Julius Ceaser play at the Shakespeare in the Park in New York City doesn’t even understand what kind of country America is, let alone have a proper commentary on translating the 400 year old play to contemporary subject matter.  He’s the guy who thought it smart to dress up Julius Ceaser as a modern-day Donald Trump and have the character murdered on stage by a “diverse” senate filled with women, people of color and many others stabbed to death by a mob.  We are a republic Oskar, not a stupid, mind numb democracy.  This play has nothing to do with America—in fact our mode of government was an invention to step away from this kind of mob driven drivel.  Shakespeare’s Julius Ceaser play is about revenge, murder and political conspiracy—and all that plot driven nonsense—but its relevancy to Donald Trump for which you made him the lead character in this modern rendition—with Trump Tower leering on the skyline in full view of the audience is an attempt to taint the waters of the ignorant into poking their unsophisticated asses into open insurrection—and it isn’t forgivable.

I feel like I say this all the time about way too many subjects but I know something about William Shakespeare. My favorite of his plays is Titus Andronicus which is a character I understand completely.  I love the way it reads and to date Julie Taymor has done the best job of taking the play to film with Anthony Hopkins doing a phenomenal job as Titus.  Many creative people have applied their hand to Shakespeare and for good reason, the material is rich and it forces actors to really dig deep in understanding theater from a long ago time in a language that is almost completely foreign to us now.  So it was an insult to me to hear how this latest New York modern rendition of Julius Ceaser was abusing its artistic power and trying to explain it away once Bank of America pulled out as a sponsor for wistfully putting Donald Trump into the contemporary role of “protagonist” brutally murdered by a bunch of conniving senators. You don’t have to look too far to understand that the play’s director in this case is rooting for the Chuck Schumers of the world to plot the same kind of assassination in modern politics and that his grasp on this modern history is as shallow as a dry lake bed in Nevada.

When Oskar Eustis said in his remarks on his play that “democracy depends on the conflict of different points of view, nobody owns the truth, we all own the culture,” he displayed a predilection toward insanity that I found quite alarming.  People clapped because they figured he was an art guy who knows more than they do about these matters, but honestly the lack of understanding displayed by Eustis of this material is shocking.  It is because democracy is unreliable that we even have a republic in America—and the analysis that William Shakespeare was constantly obsessed with about the Roman republic failures in his plays are explorations in mob violence for the sake of theater and the compelling subject matter it evokes.  The Donald Trump presidency is actually an evolution beyond this kind of animalistic chaos.  Trump is not power-hungry in the way that Julius Ceaser was and he is not a person who would ever be in a position to allow a mob of conniving senators access to him in a way they could commit murder.  Trump is much more strategic, and a lot smarter than people think he is.  I would warn people not to assume that they can “outthink” the Trump—which is one of the appealing aspects of his presidency for which people like me voted for him.  I don’t want a Shakespearian White House for a change.  I want an evolution beyond it—and I have found it in Trump.

https://publictheater.org/Tickets/Calendar/PlayDetailsCollection/SITP/Julius-Caesar/

We are not all equal in a democratic America.  Some of us work a lot harder than others and thus we need the representation of a republic to prevent the mob from running the show—because the lazy, the drug obsessed, and the sexually manipulative need to be kept at a distance from the legislative process as much as possible—and the hardest working among us should be the ones running things.  We can only determine value through merit so as far as owning the truth—it doesn’t all belong to us equally.  And regarding the political left, democracy has already defeated the progressive offerings philosophically and they don’t like it and have turned toward these violent threats to stay relevant in the world.  Oskar Eustis can play word gymnastics all he wants in an attempt to take the edge off what he did—which was an open plea for the modern senate to assassinate Donald Trump.  Eustis knew that most people wouldn’t understand the words spoken in the play and that most people haven’t worked hard to gain the meanings of Shakespeare’s language.  But dress up Ceaser in Donald Trump looking suits and make his wife sound just like Melania Trump and even the dumbest people in the audience will understand and that will be what they remember.  And at the pot parties before and after the big show—which always go on with creative people the stoned losers hope that out there in the audience is a James Hodgkinson who might be a committed enough leftist with nothing to lose in life who might sacrifice themselves for the cause of “democracy” otherwise known as “mob rule.”  Don’t kid yourself in thinking that this kind of talk is not happening.  Listen to what leftists say in public—what they say when the cameras are not on is much worse.

I found it particularly insulting that Oskar Eustis on the front page of their website actually said “Act Three, Scene One of Shakespeare’s JULIUS CAESAR takes place on the Ides of March, 44 B.C. By the time that scene is over, democracy will have vanished from the face of the earth for almost two millennia, until some English colonists on the eastern seaboard of North America start throwing tea into Boston Harbor.”  This open appeal toward the conservative movement to connect his play with the efforts of the American Revolution were disgusting—and again it’s not democracy that we’re analyzing, it’s a republic—a representative republic that requires the participation of the engaged and wise and allows the fools and addicts to beg for money on the sidewalk as “unequal” participants in history. There is quite a difference between the players on the field of a sporting event and those who just sit in the stands and watch.  Those who participate in our republic are on the field whether they vote, or become part of the mechanisms of government.  The mob is in the stands cheering or booing depending on how things go—but they are not equal participants.  People who smoke dope and study 400-year old plays about violence and the darkest of human emotions are not equal to the law student who spends 18 hours a day preparing their mind for a big case and will eventually become a senator perhaps after a successful career over many years.  They are not equal people.

Additionally I would offer that Donald Trump is a superior offering to anything that William Shakespeare ever conceived in his plays.  Understanding Donald Trump’s White House is beyond the grasp of people like Oskar Eustis and his thin understanding of history.  We are looking at an evolutionary design for which history will record and will be thankful for over the coming millennia.  To put Trump into the shoes of Julius Caesar is to try to take a full-grown adult and put baby shoes on them—Trump is far more evolved than anything Rome ever created as an emperor. The very stupid of our society may not understand how or why yet because history is being written with each moment that we breathe—but Trump is an idea that will change history for the better.  All Eustis could see as a director of a play was a way to try to hold those animalistic concepts of human nature to a White House that is moving well beyond the reach of the political left and their failed ideas.  All they have is the threat of violence to attempt to stay relevant in this tragedy of modern politics.  They are not equal in this American republic because their liberal concepts for our reality have been rejected in the theater of debate and all they have left is to attempt to redefine the definitions of fairness and the recollections of history to suit their current crises—and to hope that by calling our American system a democracy that enough dumb people will believe them in an effort to get out the vote and ignite their base for the 2018 midterms between the haze of marijuana smoke and a drug induced orgy of dirty, smelly, tattooed covered liberals laced with body piercings and a lack of deodorant forgotten due to their spending the day bitching about Donald Trump instead of getting a job and jumping on the many opportunities this administration has created for them to be more successful.  They like most liberals would rather complain, and plot murder so that they could keep their welfare checks and government jobs intact hoping beyond hope that Karl Marx will find his way into the philosophy of American politics before all the old hippies die off.  But in America its Adam Smith who set the stage and it’s not Julius Ceaser who runs our Republic—its Donald Trump, and he is a creation beyond the reach of classic literature.  That book is being written before our eyes for the first time in history—and it’s much more exciting than anything the human race has ever created before.

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 Uses Sex to Get Alex Jones Interview–and Gets Caught: A huge black eye for NBC News

Remember what I said about Megyn Kelly’s interview with Russian leader Vladimir Putin?   CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. It only pulled in 6.1 million viewers and she was pummeled by the ex-KGB leader in content. In her obvious hatred of Donald Trump she looked for the fire behind the smoke of the Russian investigation story but all she found was a smoke bomb for which Putin placed right in her lap with a smile.  That smile said, “there is no fire in Russia-but it brought you here so I could look up your skirt.  Russia had no collusion with the Trump campaign.”  After that failure you’d think she would have learned but clearly she is an average talent and has used her looks to advance her career and now she has thoroughly blown it—she picked Alex Jones as one of her next interviews. Obviously she is on a female power trip to attack all alpha males in their natural habitats and to launch NBC news back into a reputable place with their liberal base while attempting to discredit the 6 million viewers who watch and listen to Alex Jones. She didn’t know what she was getting into.

Jones had been recording her which she should have assumed, so the way she landed the interview with the controversial radio broadcaster was truly embarrassing leaving Kelly exposed in a big way before her show even aired.  She went for a kill and the gun ended up in her own mouth.  It was unbelievable how she went about convincing Alex Jones to speak to her.  So she did it all to herself.  He certainly didn’t go to her.  She played with fire and got burnt badly.  Jones released elements of their interview together along with secretly recorded tapes which told the whole story before Megyn Kelly was even able to get her content on the air showing that internet journalism is much faster than the old static network broadcasting which attempts to build up a story for days to pad the ratings. Jones beat her to the punch with his recordings which revealed Megyn Kelly groveling like a bar whore on Jones’ recent custody battle obviously pandering to him the way a woman might do who wants to be the next girl in a man’s life. She told him all the right things trying to gain his sympathy and she certainly used her sex to do it.

The subplot to Megyn Kelly’s climb to power started when she was given the 9 PM spot at Fox News where she challenged Bill O’Reilly for supremacy.  Then she accused Roger Ailes of sexual misconduct which if you listen to her interview with Alex Jones, she was obviously prone to flirting with men to get what she wanted.  Ailes probably talked about her sexy bras because she was showing them off hoping to get his attention—then when he did she sprang her trap and built a human resource case against him to bump up her pay and hold her position on the network, until she could find someone else to jump to—like the much more liberal NBC.  When she attacked Donald Trump in the Fox News debate of August 2015 which he turned on her very cleverly, it left her very publicly humiliated.  Over the next year she worked with Gretchen Carlson to oust Ailes at Fox which occurred on July 21st 2016.  He died a few months after a $20 million dollar settlement with Carlson.  And Megyn Kelly’s role in running an underground network of disgruntled women at Fox News continued to give radical leftist groups insight like a Trojan horse into the network which eventually brought down Bill O’Reilly—unjustifiably.  Megyn after her scorched earth at Fox News and a feud with Donald Trump that continued for over a year as he rose to power and prominence eventually winning the presidency, hurt her at Fox so she left for one of Trump’s enemies at NBC still looking for revenge over their inability to get back at him for leaving The Apprentice to run for president. Without Megyn picking a fight with Donald Trump, she doesn’t get the offer to work at NBC.

And that’s what we got from the behind the scenes stuff with Alex Jones is an insight into how she works—and that makes it clear what she’s always been doing.  Kelly has been building herself up as a kind of Wonder Woman—attacking all these masculine forces around the world at the highest level using sex to get into their door then using the evidence of their advancements to turn the tables on them.  Obviously it didn’t work with Putin, or Trump so for some reason she thought she could lure Alex Jones into a gotcha trap to attack his 6 million viewers—but he never let her get off the ground. This was the second big failure for her on a high profile exposé within a month and this one was considerably worse given the pre-interview recordings that Jones put out showing Kelly’s behavior when the cameras were turned off.

Megyn let Alex flirt with her to get what she wanted—she conducted herself no different than a stripper at a gentlemen’s club—massaging the ego of the customer she thought would give her what she wanted while all along she planned to attack him even though she promised that she never would.  Her bosses at NBC wanted blood and she was going to deliver with the progressive intention of further brining down masculinity in American culture by showing what a bunch of pigs these men were.  But Alex avoided the temptation to be taken seriously by a beautiful woman at a traditional network and stuck to his guns.  By recording who she was behind the camera it was easy to see how Ailes and many others over the years had been pulled into traps by power climbing women like Megyn Kelly only to be destroyed as a result when those women stick the knife in their backs–just a hint, if a woman is at your desk and she bends down so you can see down her shirt advertising her goods—she’s very aware of what she’s doing—it’s a good idea not to comment or even consider taking the bait.  In these modern times nobody does it as openly as Megyn Kelly.

When we say we are at war, this is what it looks like.  Long gone is the chivalry of battlefield antics where life and death are articulated with the strategy of political supremacy.  What we have now is literally just the war at the political level without the weapons of conflict to confuse the issue leaving this raw and unromantic battle for which we are seeing play out in our cultural roots. Megyn Kelly is attacking masculinity and tradition to give her political side a victory and Alex Jones is fighting against the corporate structure that is embedded in culture to remove the collectivist roots behind it which seek to spread a form of communism to every corner of the globe—and NBC is obviously committed to that very strategy—proud as a Peacock. But like a soldier being visited by a whore when the bullets weren’t flying Megan Kelly visited the recently divorced conspiracy leader at his home in Austin, Texas and tried to seduce him into a mistake.  But Alex was looking for the knife well before it came out and once again Megyn Kelly has shown that she is what Trump has always said about her—a lightweight. She was only given her show at NBC because of her sex and her ability to use it to get close to powerful men whom she could attack to gain power.  But this time she ran out of luck and her past collided with her future—and when given the chance, Alex Jones didn’t hesitate to conduct his metaphorical kill shot.  And it’s good that he did—because if he hadn’t—she would have.

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

Democrats Are Responsible for Hodgkinson Assassination Attempt: How, when, why and where liberals use violence to advance their cause

No, it’s not up to “us” to make the lunatic liberals who are communist activists feel better when they go too far as to actually attempt to assassinate public officials, to stick up our hands and say we are equally at fault for the rhetoric of our nation. We are at war with them—they started it—and it is completely up to them to correct the situation.  We put up with Barack Obama and his cadre of terrorist friends—(like Bill Ayers) for many years.  We didn’t like him, we spoke against him and we worked to get him out of office.  But we certainly didn’t try to kill him or even play dirty.  Republicans if they are anything tend to be overly honest and good, “turn the other cheek, Christians” even to a fault.  So “we” are not equally responsible for what the Bernie Sanders presidential volunteer did at an Alexandria, Virginia baseball field when he shot up a bunch of congressional Republicans practicing for a charity game.  The fault is clearly with the leftist supporters of Hillary Clinton who like Snoop Dog and Madonna have simulated executions of President Trump for months in their “art” and disguised their message of assassination command behind the veil of “free speech.”  They knew what they were doing—they hoped one of their followers would “sacrifice” themselves the way that ol’ James Hodgkinson did—with violence under the banner of terrorism to stop the Republican advance since the 2016 elections.  The only difference between Democrats and ISIS is that the Middle Eastern terrorist organization at least admits what they are up to.  The Democrats hide their true intentions which is often exposed when they are under pressure—such as they are now.  They don’t want to get along.  They want to destroy traditional value in America and they’ll stop at nothing—even murder to do it. Both Democrats and ISIS depend on terrorism of some form to advance their causes through fear.  So, in that respect, their motives cannot be separated.

When Ted Nugent declared he would not participate in hateful rhetoric anymore the day after the shooting by James Hodgkinson he gave the left what they wanted—what the political right always gives the left—a branch of peace and a seat at the table complete with a hug and reassurance. But these people deserve none of it. The Huffington Post and many other progressive outlets took the Nugent story and ran with it so that other progressives would know that their terrorism had scored a hit and softened the resolve of the Trump base.  That is how these very evil and vile people play the game—they do bad things, throw themselves on the sword to gain the sympathy of others and out of compassion they pull you in to their crimes corrupting forever those who offer out a kind hand of solidarity—then they cut your throat while you sleep.  No, that’s not how this game is going to go down.

I in no way would call myself a radical “fringe” Republican. I love old westerns, the old television show Little House on the Prairie, and old Disney shows like Zorro and Davy Crockett. Both of my grandparents were farmers and my mother was a housewife.  I went to church almost every Sunday during my youth—up until the wife of the pastor of my church wanted a divorce from him.  When he (the pastor) failed to hold his marriage together I left the church because if that could happen to him—something was wrong and I resolved not to listen to people who didn’t have all the answers in life. I’ve always worked hard, treated people fairly—I don’t like to drink, I have never smoked, and I despise drugs, loose sex, and reckless living—for which tattoos are a part of.  I have watched over my years specifically, the world move dramatically to the political left, but I have not moved at all.  So what is considered the radical fringe right is now where I am standing.  But that is only so as defined by the radical lunatic communist leftists who have moved that perception through popular culture so far away from what used to be normal that it looks that way as defined now—in these crazy, turbulent times.

I’m hardly some underwear wearing basement blogger who can’t function in the outside world. I’ve turned down radio jobs, television offers and political advisor positions to do what I do for a living which as of now is international business.  I like challenges and am active in the world—very much so. I’m what many would consider extremely successful in all aspects of my life.  I was in Chef Ramsey’s restaurant in Chelsea, London a few months ago enjoying a very nice lunch—3 Michelin Star ecstasy—but of course during the three-hour meal I had to use the restroom.  Ramsey’s Chelsea restaurant is small—even though it is quite exquisite—it’s a little place.  So it only had one restroom—and it was a typical unisex European kind of thing.  When I walked in a very beautiful woman was standing in front of the mirror so I was concerned that I walked into the women’s restroom and for that she gave me a little giggle. I stepped out and immediately tried to go into the kitchen deducing that obviously the men’s room was in there.  The staff politely told me that the room with the beautiful woman in it was in fact the place I was supposed to be, so I proceeded cautiously.  Once in there the woman shook my hand and let me know that she was OK with everything, and not to worry.  She simply said, “Americano, yes.”  Not having anything else proper to say I replied with a smile, “That obvious, huh?”  For which she nodded and returned to her mirror where she was adjusting her makeup.  I could tell hundreds of similar stories about European travel but my overall impression was that they were pretty “fu**ed up.”  There wasn’t anything about their culture that I thought America should learn from except for maybe more of a love for books and fewer restrictions on the sciences—such as archaeological endeavors which work pretty well in Europe due to all the history recorded there.  Europe is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.  Yet these new American leftists want to turn America into Europe essentially, and I’m not OK with that.  Believe me, I’ve been around the world enough to know what I like and want.  My views aren’t just because I live in a “midwestern bubble of conservatism.”  I’ve even done work in Hollywood and have known my share of stars and producers.  I’ve heard their perspective and I’m not buying into it.  They haven’t changed my mind about things—let’s just say that.  Most of the time the people I have interacted with have wrecked lives based on their stupid left-winged philosophy and it’s never been tempting to me at all.

These leftists moved into America and shipped in ideas that run counter to the traditions of this country shortly before World War II and have been taking over our institutions with a military like zeal for nearly 100 years now—and conservatives like me have been very gracious along the way—thinking that we could have an honest philosophical debate and let bygones be bygones. When Obama was elected and Democrats crammed Obamacare down our throats shortly before Christmas in 2010—and Nancy Pelosi said we had to “pass the bill to read what was in the bill” many of us took that as a final straw.  We were no longer going to put up with the communist insurrection that was hiding itself behind the Democratic Party—so we took steps to fight back and six years later we had Trump in the White House to “Make American Great Again” meaning—a restoration of the traditions and attitudes that made America great prior to World War II.  That didn’t mean we wanted to slap women around and put them “back in the kitchen fetching beers for their men lazily sitting on a couch watching football” but to open doors for ladies at restaurants, at least respect our neighbors, and promote the idea in our children of working hard and smart so that they could live a productive life.

The political leftists always intended to take over our country, they weren’t trying to live within its framework—which is why they support illegal immigration so aggressively—because they want people from other places to help them change America into something else. They thought they could shame the rest of us into putting up with it along the way—which ultimately led to the shooting by James Hodgkinson.  It’s not Republicans who go around shooting presidents and congressman—it’s always been liberals because the essence of their political philosophy is group assimilation through intimidation and raw force. It starts in the liberal public education system with kids making fun of other kids who aren’t members of their peer group for a strange haircut or a medical condition then it ends in congress or the senate using phony intelligence information from our covert institutions to attempt to drive an honestly elected president out of office by a media that thinks it’s in charge of something as an unelected layer of government.  It’s a contaminated infestation of foreign ideas that do not work and America rejected it when given the option.  So the political left seeks to remove any options such as they are doing now, and when shaming people doesn’t work—they turn to violence.

I remember when it was a huge controversy that the Devil in the television show, The Bible looked like Obama, just a few years ago.  That is about the worst that conservatives ever did to Obama.  Sure they questioned his birth certificate—for good reason.   They questioned his ties to domestic terrorists for good reason—and they hated him for going around the world bowing to world leaders and weakening our foreign policy everywhere—seemingly on purpose.  But we didn’t shoot up congress and we certainly didn’t put out stuff trying to incite our base into killing the president the way Kathy Griffin did and many others on the political “MAINSTREAM LEFT.”  We’re not talking about fringe people—we’re talking about Madonna, Snoop Dog and the entire art community of Broadway—the people who establish “popular culture.”  The political left overestimated their own power when they took over all our entertainment and media institutions thinking that they could turn all of America into drooling idiots similar to what they did in Europe.  What they ended up with is only half the nation going toward their side leaving the other half very upset and ready to fight.  So we elected Donald Trump as a “non-violent solution” to their long-term attack on our country as a “domestic enemy.”  We stopped watching their television shows, their news reporting and reading their papers driving their numbers down toward desperation.  Knowing that, they have turned toward violence because they have nothing else.

Without question when the cameras weren’t rolling Kathy Griffin, Snoop Dog and Madonna along with hundreds if not thousands of other entertainment types hoped that their violent “art” would provoke someone like James Hodgkinson into committing an act they never could—like taking violence to the enemy—the heart of America—a baseball game between Republicans and Democrats. They also knew that invoking such violence would force everyone to look at how they’ve contributed to the situation and reassess their input, like Ted Nugent has. And by doing so, they get conservatives to admit to a fault for which they played no part of.  So, no, we aren’t going to be playing that game.  “We” meaning conservatives, did not contribute to the split in this country, or the angry discourse.  That is completely under the ownership of liberals.  They decided through aggression to antagonize the traditions of America and half the nation refused to go along and are now in open defiance.  The introduction of the hostilities came from the left—not from the right—and the mandate to defend themselves from an insurrection falls on the political right.  It’s not extreme to want to protect what you value and if tradition is it, then that is their prerogative.  But conservatives are not at fault in the least for the violence that let to James Hodgkinson.  The political left, the radical leftist loons who have nothing to win an argument with in America only have the threat of violence to stay alive in this political theater.  And it is they who deserve to feel the pain and punishment of these terrible crimes.

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