We Have Guns to Keep Politicians Honest: Another pot smoker, Karmala Harris and her gun buyback lust

When people talk about the success of the Australian gun buyback program it must be understood that they only have around 25 million people in their country. For comparison my home state of Ohio has roughly 12 million. And culturally, the histories of the two places aren’t similar, America was founded out of revolution and the Constitution created to uphold that law at gunpoint if necessary. If the police serving the state in the morning was your friend upholding the same Constitutional objectives but by the time of sun set were the enemy, it has been understood that the need for assault weapons could give people a chance to take back their government, whereas in other places around the world it has been assumed that the people would surrender themselves to the state under whatever conditions were presented. And it is under those understandings that the greatest economy in the world flourished, because investment was safe and opportunity boundless, which is good for business. Guns are at the center of American life and in that regard, buybacks of any guns is off the table.

So here we have another Democrat running for president, this time Senator Karmala Harris, another pot smoker, who is suggesting gun buybacks for assault weapons on the Tonight Show, even as we have learned to what extent the FBI and The New York Times conspired to resurrect a smear campaign against the Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh over completely salacious stories going back to his Harvard days in an attempt to destroy him and the Trump nomination that put him in place. The obvious attempt by the government and the forces supporting that government, the liberal press, are obviously willing to do anything to destroy anybody who stands against them with a very thuggish manner and we’re supposed to view these events with candor and entertain the slightest notion that those same people want to buy back our weapons to usher in an age of peace? Give me a break.

I am passionate about this issue for the same reasons that I hate school levies for public schools, because the suggestions come from vile institutions representing failure and they hide behind children to sell their message. You can clearly see that on the Tonight Show townhall like event that had Karmala Harris talking about gun buybacks with students in the audience. You can always see that when labor unions want a raise, they put the kids out in front and their guilty parents to sell the levy at football games and the corner grocer. In the case of the school levy intent to tax private property in order to give kids a free, socialist education, or in the case of gun control, to provide safety. In both cases the plea is meant to rock our sense of security and for a price, we can win it back.

Most of the gun violence in America is committed in low income areas overly manipulated by failed Democrat policies and is generally gang related. Governments like gangs no matter where in the world they exist because they inspire in the public a need for more safety. Voters will vote for more police and more police levies if they think it will make them feel safe, so gangs of thugs and drug dealers are allowed to menace portions of society just enough to keep stories flowing on the front page of newspapers and the nightly news leads. People, especially peaceful people, will always vote for more politicians who promise to do something to solve the situation, which of course never happens. The gangs of our cities and of the world do their purpose, they drive normal people to clamor for safety and that often means more government.

But there is a reason there isn’t much crime outside of our cities where there are likely three to four guns per household and people don’t go around shooting each other. That is where America lives, and they understand that government often fails them. They are ready in case it comes knocking on their door, but they’d prefer to think about other things until that time comes. If and when it does, they have their guns in their gun cases and it reminds them of the laws we all agree to under the Constitution to have them. Once that security is taken away, well that’s another matter. America is not Australia, or New Zealand, or even Great Britain for that matter. Our nation was founded with the understanding that we have a government and we want that government to work. But we also understand that it fails often, government and without the threat of guns in every home, its really the only thing that keeps politicians honest.

We have seen from the same people who are suggesting gun confiscations and increased background checks a tendency to manipulate government for their own climbs to power. Hillary Clinton comes to mind and the FBI that was firmly in her camp to overthrow an American election in 2016 using the courts to do their bidding. When such a world is presented to us we have a choice, we can either take it as the rest of the world has decided, or we can take back our government by force. And that will require more than a BB gun. It will take those AR-15s and even more powerful weapons. I would argue that we should have our own military style weapons bigger than guns to defend our homes and neighborhoods from power hungry politicians who turn our police into weapons of war—friends today, enemies tomorrow. Assault weapons are not for hunting, they are for defense and maybe against property rights abuses from well prepared military figures who beat down our doors with full body armor and heavily plated vehicles. God forbid anything like that might happen, but personally, I’ve seen the roots of it many times and its very, very possible. The only way to keep a government honest is with the threat of gun ownership. The more, the better.

And that is what all the Democrats are afraid of. What they are selling to the public in their runs for office is more government, not less. So of course, if mistakes happen along the way, which they always do, they don’t want people shooting back. Democrats are more than happy to have collateral damage if it takes them to their version of the “greater good.” But we have seen what they are willing to do with 300 million guns in American households, imagine what they would do if that threat wasn’t there, and all we had to throw back at them was a strongly worded letter. Mankind has learned its lesson and America was the result. We’re not going back to European hierarchy. The Australians may have been tricked into it, as is New Zealand, but in the United States, its just not an option. It is well understood how to eliminate the next mass shootings. The FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, all those government agencies just need to do their jobs. And we need to get rid of gun free zones so that good guys can shoot and kill bad guys. It is that simple. But gun confiscation is when government goes too far, and answers will be required that nobody will like. And that is the way it is.

Rich Hoffman

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

Seeing What’s Really There: Why Iran attacked Saudi oil fields and why we shouldn’t give a damn

One thing is very clear about liberal intellectual circles, and even conservative ones, they rely on the rules of society to disguise what they cannot see about life. They are blind as bats without the sonar to navigate a dark cave on a black, moonless night. So, it should not be surprising that they have no idea what to make out of the sudden Iranian attack on Saudi Arabian crude oil facilities launched from within Iran sending cruise missiles into their targets knocking out 5% of the oil production for the world. Obviously, Iran is struggling under the U.S. sanctions and they hope by taking their competitor down a notch or two that they might survive on the world marketplace just a bit longer. Having friends like Russia, North Korea and even China doesn’t mean much these days so all the old Marxist regimes are struggling to find their way in the world of capitalist markets. All they can do is lash out as Iran did.

For those who can’t see clearly what the situation is, the Iranian revolution during the 70s was a Marxist incursion meant to spread socialism and communism all over the Middle East to control the oil fields. Communist policy makers in the United States trained at our best colleges and sent forth to do the bidding of evil over regulated the oil industry in America so that Iran and the Middle East in general could leverage the world and its capitalism through high prices on barrels of oil which is essentially an attack on every one of us and our cars. This game went on all through the past decades as America was pulled into war after war to protect those interests and even when Iran was losing, they were winning because of their Marxist intentions, which was why the Obama administration was trying to help Iran along, to keep that machine running for the cause.

But Americans aren’t stupid, they voted for Trump, he deregulated the industry and that has made America for the first time in our history oil independent and has driven down through competition the prices on a barrel of oil. That has also given us leverage to sanction Iran for bad behavior because we don’t need their oil. In pain, economically since most of the vision of the typical Iranian is regional, they blame Saudi Arabia for that leverage, because they haven’t yet accepted that America can produce its own oil. So they attacked the crude oil facilities to get themselves at a seat at the negotiating table.

It has been a complete myth for intelligentsia to assume that America went around the world controlling territories out of imperialism, or simply so that we could have cheap oil for our cars. Every person who says such a thing is lost as to the real cause of what makes what and who the good guys are in the world. America stands for the creative potential of capitalism and freeing oppressed people who have been living under tyrannical leadership for all of their history. Socialism is all about centralized authority which limits human creativity and freedom, which is why China must steal intellectual information from their competitors just to stay relevant in the marketplace, because imagination and development do not happen when human minds are constrained to regulation.

America had an obligation to stand behind capitalism in the East and in the Middle East as well as Central America because it was an attack on the progress that could be made under that political philosophy. There are of course nuances between Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto but our human development has brought us to a place where we can’t have both. The problem is most people can’t tell the difference. They have been taught in their public educations and their government that socialism is the path of the future, but logic and business say that capitalism is the only means of real advancement. The two aren’t compatible. For many years the United States did go around the world trying to put out every little Marxist revolution to keep markets open and as free as possible, not just for ourselves, but for the benefit of the world that didn’t always appreciate it. But the real villains were within the American government where they set policies to push America beyond its borders and into that imperialist accusation that the liberal pinheads like to talk about all the time.

As a wealthy guy who knows how the game is played President Trump didn’t need a fancy room of advisors to tell him that the way to beat everyone at the oil table was to make ourselves independent. He just did it and now even if nobody sells oil to the United States, we can make our own. That has put all these tyrants at a severe disadvantage and taken away all their leverage—particularly Iran. Even by knocking out Saudi Arabian oil fields, the American economy will not be stifled and that is the big picture as to what happened as a result of this attack by Iran.

Should the United States get involved in the conflict and protect Saudi Arabia, well, no. Its true, we have been selling arms to Saudi Arabia to defend itself. They can defend themselves. The people who don’t see so well, the television pundits and cable news producers will want to tell dramatic stories about how barrels of oil will go up as a result, but the truth is, America doesn’t need their oil. We have our own. And that is a pretty good place to be. There is no reason to attack Iran. They are already on the brink of annihilation due to their commitment to Marxist ideology for which they needed to have domination over the oil market for it to work. The moment that America took that leverage away, Iran as a powerhouse of world affairs ended. It’s just taking a while for the rest of the world, the blind people, to catch up.

There is nothing for America to do about Iran, or Saudi Arabia. We can sell more weapons to the Saudi’s to help them defend themselves, but there is no reason to put boots on the ground in any fashion. The Iranians are lashing out with everything they have left trying hard to excerpt force to bring people to the negotiating table. But there is nothing for them to barter with. The problem that leftists used against America was the anti-imperialist angle that always put capitalism in a bad light, because American leaders just didn’t know how to defend it. They’d provoke America into action then blame them for overreaching in corners of the world over indigenous people who were quietly being recruited into socialism and communism. But you can’t call America an imperialist if they get their own oil out of Texas and Ohio and stay out of wars in the Middle East. We can just make our own. They can fight it out all they want. And that is why this new game is so much better than the old one. And why finally America can win, because the villains are all now exposed and standing behind barrels of oil that nobody really needs or cares about.

Rich Hoffman

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

How School Levy Supporters are Turned into Weapons of War: The secret nobody wants to talk about

Being something as an expert in human communication I have known for a long time what the game of public education was, and that was to turn kids in America from a product of their families into products of the state and yes, there has been a grand conspiracy going back to FDRs administration, even older to turn the American government into supporting such an activity on behalf of the labor unions who have controlled Washington D.C. from their inception. As we all know by now, every labor union in the world is a socialist organization, and that is their goal for everyone else. This is certainly true of teacher unions, but also of the government unions in the Beltway and elsewhere, even on network television, which is of course controlled by labor unions. Hollywood is controlled by labor unions; this is how all these parties have such a unified message. They all want socialism so it wasn’t hard to get public education curriculums to be constructed with socialist messages with the intentions of removing children from their parents and reorienting them to products of the state.

If anybody needed proof just look at how government in general has responded to the Trump administration, and the radicalism even reached deep into the FBI itself, and when they were caught, they tried to blame the Russians. No matter what your political beliefs, this fact cannot be escaped, and is proof of just how deep this problem goes into our own government. So it should not be a surprise that many of the communist planks that we were all worried about as Americas seeped into our government and that their plan to dominate us was not with direct conflict which hard core Americans raised on westerns on television and in movies would fight against, but that they would slow cook the situation over generations of young people and slowly rot the United States from the inside out. The fear of Trump’s America first approach is that all these decades of brainwashing is now in jeopardy of being reversed, that people will turn toward Trump’s Americanism and away from global socialism. That is the reason for the FBI activism that reached into the Obama White House and the panic through the media that is currently taking place. Because this has been a plan from the beginning and hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans were suckered into it, and now its all in jeopardy. But how did that happen? Well, it all started at our local schools and the type of parents that teacher unions befriend to help their cause and how those recruits were brought into the fold.

One thing that most radical school levy supporters have in common is guilt, guilt that they have put their own goals in life above their children, so they want to believe that system is good, so they fight to support public school teachers, their level of pay, and the government schools themselves. Most mothers biologically feel the pull to care for their children at home, but for the ones who have fought that urge, will dedicate themselves to the system that gave them free babysitting so that they could do their selfish contributions to their “own” life. Yet what none of them think to contemplate is that the feminist movement itself was put in place by the same government geniuses to separate the mother from the father, to get women to invest in “society” instead of their families for the primary goal of separating the kids from their parents. That has always been the strategy and to confirm it just look back to the communist writings that took place before the Russian takeover and when China was finally seduced by communists.

These levy supporters, particularly the radical guilt driven mothers are creations of the state to begin with, their guilt given to them by a deliberately faulty system to drive them toward some sort of unity. And that’s where things get diabolical. The public-school system knew that this would be the byproduct of the parental ambitions and that they could take that guilt and make allies out of them, thus you have the maniacal school levy supporter. Knowing that the children are the best weapons to pull on the guilty parent’s heart strings controlling words are sent home to the parents to help bring them into the fold, such as the use of parent teacher conferences and other subtle workshops to control the parent into the public school institutionalized thinking, such as conveying to the parents that “we” the school system, “need the parents to understand our problems—and to use words that make them feel how important it is to help us.” And to accomplish this the school system uses words that provoke anger, fear and joy to control the emotional state of the guilt bound parent, such as “failure of a school levy ‘may’ cause a poor report card for our district,” or it “May mean we must cut busing or teachers.” For parents who have put their own careers over their children, and even their marriages under their own needs to be a “strong individual” the guilt drives them to saying yes to these comments and thus throwing their children even deeper into the public education meat grinder.

Public education is all about control, control over private property by sucking off the tax money of a district to pay teachers with open hostilities toward American values such as proper business conduct and capitalism in general. And they are anti-family and want very much to replace them with instruments of the state ran by socialist teacher unions. They get away with it by hanging guilt, partly what they created in the first place, over people who just want to believe they are doing the right thing for their children whether it is divorcing the father of their children or getting a powerful job serving the state to show that they are independent of their power—yet the state then becomes their new lover and everyone knows it. Daddy government loans them the money for their student loans, owns their mortgage, and it owns their children leaving them with nothing but compliance and turmoil over the guilt of everything they’ve squandered away. So, what’s left for them, they become those sad edifices of adult carcasses passing out pro tax literature at high school football games and looking like suckers in the process that everyone secretly despises. They have sold their children to a socialist public education system and they then become socialists themselves so that they can feel good about it. But they never do, and the government doesn’t care. Once the state has the kids, they don’t care about the parents once they get too old to pay taxes and contribute to the state. The state is done with them and it is in that realization that so many adults are grown up and miserable for the rest of their lives. When it counted most, they weren’t there for their children and the kids always resent them for it.

This game isn’t new, but many are just now coming to understand it. Thankfully, that is part of the Trump administration starting to turn things back to how they should have been. Its healthy for people to have the debate, but in the meantime, a lot of children are having their minds ruined by public education that never wanted a free thinking, and brilliant mind. Public education has always been about individualized destruction and service to the state, to make a compliant taxpayer to big government ideas and once they no longer had the money to pay, they were to be cashed in and replaced with a new generation of youth. And that is what the big asses and overstuffed t-shirts of the levy supporters never want to admit to themselves, but they all learn eventually. Because that is the real name of the game and until that changes, it will always be a problem.

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

Public Education was Free for a Reason: The communist and socialist agenda that was their goal all along

I suppose that its refreshing now to hear so many people finally get what public education has been all about, all along. I’ve never been a fan and something that has bothered me for a long time going way back to the first time I went on WLW radio to discuss the Lakota school finance problems the issue was raised and at the time I was the only one talking about it. Back then the pro tax advocates that are always in every school system cheering on tax increases to pay the bounty on that the teacher’s union demands routinely from contract to contract were pointing out that I wasn’t just anti-tax, I was anti public education and that I shouldn’t be given a legitimate platform to speak from. Well, I was also good for ratings and was willing to publicly take on people like Julie Shaffer, the current pro tax school board member with debate that was embarrassing for the pro tax advocates, because normally nobody ever challenged them. But it was true, the money was always one part of it. My concern has always been, its not that education isn’t offered, but that its what was taught that mattered, in the entire education system that I had experienced in America from first grade to the higher degrees of college was socialism and communism. Not the skills of capitalism that were needed for our society. However, that is changing, many more people are coming to realize decades later what I have been saying all along and they are talking about it much more openly. Videos like the one below is no longer fringe but are part of the mainstream understanding of what public education really is.

Education has always been important to me and continues to be. But I’ve never considered what is offered these days to be education, I’d just call it propaganda. We talk about teachers as if they are “heroes” because they baby sit our kids while we are off working, then we are perplexed when they grow up with all these crazy ideas about “fairness,” gender roles, and economic theory. Lately it has been shocking to the mainstream news that most millennials support socialism over capitalism and are now voting that way for open communists like Bernie Sanders who clearly wants to turn America into China. To the many people who have begged me to be a school board member at that same school of Lakota I have had to explain that my position has always been to dismantle the public education system, not to support it with further ruined minds. I am of the belief that it would be better for parents to pay for their children’s education out of pocket then to get the free public park version that the government offers. I’d be miserable trying to defend a system that clearly wasn’t working and shouldn’t work because the intent all along was to make compliant socialist kids, not free-thinking capitalists.

I do admire people who do care about these education topics and fight to make it better, but clearly the only way that change can happen is from the top, from a presidential administration that then flows down through congress their strategy to finally get their hands around these issues. The philosophy of education must be dealt with. Dealing with the cost can make people assess whether or not the education system is valuable to them, but if they think that they are going to send their kids to public school to make geniuses out of them like Albert Einstein, they have another thing coming. Its not that there are lots of smart kids biologically gifted toward a tendency to succeed, its that they have been taught to push all that deep inside into a repressed state for the socialist goals of the education system itself. After all, a government of any kind wants to stay in power and the best way to do that is to dumb down the future participants that elect them to that power. Not free-thinking people.

I think my kids and now grandkids have a much better shot at a balanced life than I did going through the public-school system. I feel that as an influence leader in the lives of the people I care about that I must overcome the brain washing they get in the public-school system. That in the competitive field of thought, that my ideas needed to be judged better than what they were getting from their social influences. For whatever reason I figured out the public education game early in my life, while I was still there. I had a terrible kindergarten teacher which was probably a blessing and did set the stage for the rest of my life. Later that crazy old lady reportedly had major mental problems which surprised nobody. But she was considered at the time one of those heroic teachers that everyone is always talking about, and I had to somehow survive.

I would say I had above average intelligence, everything came quick to me in school, I always knew the answers before most of the questions were asked, but it was clear to me that the focus of the public school experience wasn’t in developing individualized thought, it was in learning to get along with the other kids and to fall into some invisible category of social behavior for which the school system seemed obsessed with developing. This trend was eased into over the beginning grade school years but seemed poised to exacerbate itself especially during the puberty years once the need for mating was aligned with the government’s need to control ambition and human focus. If the public schools could get kids thinking about their sexual natures, they could lower their aims for bigger things in life and thus keep them comfortably under the thumb of a powerful all needing government that consumes resources like a chocolate obsessed candy lover popping M&Ms like they were going out of style. Most people reading this understand what I’m saying whether or not they are 60 years old or 10. The obvious damage is quite apparent in our adult population.

Its not that these problems could be solved at the local level because everything was set regarding curriculum at the federal level and enforced by an international labor union which beholds the standards across the world. In that way the same basic things taught to some kid in France is the same one taught to a kid in Alabama, regional considerations thus being minimal. And in that way, a path toward global communism, that has been a fantasy of Karl Marx supporters from the very beginning, might be realized.

It has been a challenge to get people to look beyond the “free” nature of education and to accept that you are getting what you paid for. It has always been difficult to convince people that they couldn’t purchase their way into a high paying job by trading away free thought for a college education that for most people has been entirely too expensive and was teaching all the wrong things. I was particularly disappointed to learn when I went to my first year of college, and friends of mine joined fraternities with their hazing rituals that all the intimidating standards that high school teachers had been warning about simply weren’t true. College was all about partying and losing. It was about sexual conquests and puking on the sidewalk after getting shitfaced at one of the many bars. And if you skipped all your classes, nobody cared. The colleges just wanted your tuition money and for you to show up at their sports games that were televised so that they could recruit more financial contributors and run them through the communist meat grinder. Lucky for me, I read a lot of books on my own and had pursued my own education all of my life outside of the public school and college system and I was able to arrive as an adult fully intact. But most people are not so lucky or committed, and the results are obvious.

The solution to the public education problem is not more school levies, or even hiring more teachers. It’s changing the very nature of the education into something that is actually useful. And that education system needs to be specifically American, something that prepares students for life in America, not some global communist community. Until that happens, kids and their minds will continue to be wasted and they will spend most of their lives trying to unlearn everything they have learned. Because if they want to be good contributors to society, and to have good lives of their own, they need to get as far away from public education and the current college experience as possible, if they really want to be smart and functioning under free will. We have a long way to go as a society, but its good to see that more and more, people are asking those questions on their own and finally accepting that what I’ve been saying for four decades was true all along.

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

Americans Love Their Guns Far More Than They Love Their Government: The cost of a Beto O’Rourke gun buyback

I consider even the proposition insulting, but looking at it practically, the ridiculousness of the Beto O’Rourke gun buyback on just “assault weapons” would cost about $20 billion. The amount of money it would take coupled with the manpower of performing the task is by itself staggering. And assuming that most people would cooperate, because they always do, there is a percentage of those who wouldn’t who would make the endeavor impossible. For the greatest military in the world and with trillions of dollars spent, the culture change in Afghanistan and Iran have not changed much. The targets in those conflicts went into hiding and the military struggled to root them out. A gun buyback in the United States would be no easier. It would cause a major civil war and is as impractical as anything ever proposed by government because it attacks the central premise of our entire legal system. Guns are what make America great and there are many, such as myself, who would never support a government that confiscates guns to hold their power.

I am not a fan of the mantras “come and take it” and “over my cold dead hands” because it assumes that we are daring a powerful entity to attack, and assuming that they would win by sheer mass of effort. I never intend to die in such a conflict, or that I am not the superior force. There are over 300 million guns in America and the peer pressure right now is to force retailers like Walmart and Dicks Sporting Goods to pick the pro government confiscation side, and to tax ammunition and to shut down manufactures within America to cut off the supply. That is the Beto O’Rourke view of the world where centralized governments could even garner such power. And they might in the cities where Democrats have ruined the prospects for growth and good human conduct. But outside of the highway loops, and out into the farmland between cities, I know those people well, and let me just say something. No military on earth could take the guns away from those people. And a lot of people would die in the process.

Regarding the Beto O’Rourke t-shirt indicating that he plans to take away the property of the American public in the form of their AR-15s I had to respond by daring him or his campaign to wear that to a stop in Slade, Kentucky, and to see how that goes. Really it could be anywhere USA that is off the path a bit, but I know the area of Slade really well, and understand that even the old grandmothers there are very suspicious of even postal workers and census takers. Try driving into the neighborhoods of Slade with military vehicles and national guard troops with the intentions of confiscating their guns and a blood bath would be quick to follow. They would probably beat the shit out of pot-boy Beto just for wearing that shirt in their community. I think it would be very entertaining for Beto to stop by and see how things go with that shirt on at the local McDonald’s because it would be a good indicator for how it would go elsewhere in the country. It wouldn’t be good.

And that’s the real problem is that these politicians look at the world through their little bubbles of urban life, and they assume they have a bead on everyone, and they don’t. Like most Democrats they view the world in a compliant fashion without ever really considering what human beings really desire outside of their needs for safety. The typical Democrat is a helpless form of human being living as victims to the very nature of breath itself. So, they turn to government to tell them what to do and when to do it. Then politicians like Beto O’Rourke and media types from the big urban markets start believing that all people are that way, which is far from true. I would say it would be impossible to confiscate guns in America, or to instigate a buyback program that would only increase criminal conduct from thieves trying to make money from the government by stealing guns and selling them on the buyback. The effect would fail miserably.

The government foolishly assumes that we need Walmart and gun manufacturers to put a dent in those 300 million guns that we have and to stop the sale. However, as I’ve pointed out often, we can make our own guns and our own ammunition. We don’t need official manufacturers because the science has been invented. People in Slade, Kentucky and all over the eastern part of Ohio down into West Virginia just thinking of my region could set up shops in their garages that could make guns off mini milling machines and ammunition presses. In fact, they would enjoy it. The entire operation would simply move underground like it did in the days of prohibition which gave rise to Al Capone in Chicago where everyone knew he was selling booze, but the law lacked the ambition to enforce the law because they wanted the product. It would be much more severe with guns, the black market for guns and ammunition would be extensive and harder to control than moonshine. The government isn’t big enough and never would become that way to put a dent in the gun market if it were forced underground.

The only way that government can even begin to control guns is through a system kind of like what we have now where there is a little background check and the ATF has some visibility on who is buying and selling guns. Its such big business that is the only way the government can collect some of the tax money off the enterprise, and in reality, that’s the only control they are ever going to get. The government could never get big enough to make a compliant nation without major bloodshed and they could never enforce it. They can’t even control that effort in their big cities such as Chicago. They certainly couldn’t go door to door in Greenville, Ohio and take all the guns from the farmers there. My bet on any government agency that would even try such a thing is that they would just “disappear” without a trace in the middle of the night from wherever they were staying and nobody would ever see them again, or who took them. And even if they did make it to the doors of people who would never give up their guns, shootouts would ensue and things would really start to get out of hand.

The foolish nature of big government advocates like Beto O’Rourke is that they really don’t understand Americans or the love of guns. They simply don’t like those people and want to change America into something else so they have never really taken the time to understand what an American is. For the typical American it is different than any other place in the world and guns are more a philosophical element than a practical one. Most people never intend to shoot a person in their entire lives or want to be shot at. But having that gun in the house is a reminder to them that they are free and independent. The threat of taking that away from them would make a desperate and angry person, and that is what the government is not prepared to deal with. Beto O’Rourke thinks by poking the fence like he is that he can Trump his way into a Democrat nomination. But what they don’t understand, any of the Democrats, is that people love their guns much more than they do their government. And they won’t tolerate any form of confiscation. At all, and that’s more than tough talk. It’s a fundamental element to our country itself.

Rich Hoffman

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

Beto O’Rourke Says He Will Take Our Guns: Yeah, he’s smoking crack

I already know what its like to go to heaven, I was in heaven Thursday night while the Tampa Bay Buccaneers were playing the Carolina Panthers on one television and I was watching the loser Democrats on another TV. Then to fulfill my needs I was reading the latest Star Wars book, The Black Spire Outpost while I answered professional emails on two different computers. It doesn’t get any better than that. I was as happy as I ever get for about three hours until the Bucs finally won late in the early morning hours. However, something did get my dander up, it was the pot smoking skateboarder Beto O’Rourke who said during the Democrat debates that he was going to confiscate all AR-15s and I’ll have to say, it pissed me off considerably.

I’ve heard it before, that making declarations of violence against government officials who come to our homes to confiscate our guns is considered radical, and even criminal. Well, no its not. The law that I acknowledge is that we have a right to own guns not just for our own protection, but to maintain the stability of government. My position is that we can’t completely trust government, ever, certainly not with our lives. So when I hear a politician even assume that they will ever get that kind of power, to send police door to door to collect our firearms, it makes me just a little angry. And I don’t consider it controversial to say that I’m not going to comply. Any government that supports the legalization of drugs, and the confiscation of privately-owned guns is a government that needs to be overthrown and reorganized. And that’s all there is to it.

I want and expect a good and stable law enforcement to do the work of maintaining peace. But have no illusions, even under the best of circumstances, there are always dirty cops and corrupt government officials, we will never be able to trust some altruistic government to lead us into some utopian future. The way to have a good future is to keep government looking over their shoulders at their bosses, the people who elect them into power. If they abuse that power, we must have some kind of recourse to take that power away from them, such as the Second Amendment.

Another thing that wasn’t talked about much on such an active Thursday night with so many exciting things going on was that the Department of Justice had rejected the former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s appeal to avoid facing prosecution for his role in the Russian conspiracy against President Trump. We talk about the FBI being the top law enforcement agency in the world, and that may be true. But we also have seen that it can be very much a corrupt organization whether or not the problem was only at the top, or if it was the regular agents who work in our neighborhoods. Most of them are probably good people, but there will always be some bad cops out there and we never want to be defenseless when they go rogue.

I’ll go further than that, I have too many experiences with police who were very bad to ever trust them completely, even if the president I put in office with my vote is all about the thin blue line. I’m not anti-cop, but I tend to be weary of people who dedicate their lives to having authority over others and at best I think they need to fear the people behind the doors they might be tasked to break down. I’ve never been arrested, but I’ve been in a lot of trouble on many occasions and I’ve seen the way authority treats people when they think the story is one sided. For my roles, I’ve always been unquestionably the good guy so I’ve never had violence with police. But if they manhandled me the way I’ve seen them do people I’ve been near, I can’t say that things would go well for them. I don’t give anybody the authority to treat me roughly, or to force me into some mode of “submission.” If that ever were to happen, I would anticipate a major conflict, let’s just say that. I know more about how much corruption there is in our local police departments to understand mathematically that the situation only gets worse with more power as they get up to the federal level. And to that I would say we are all kidding ourselves if we don’t think there are major issues.

Yet having police is better than anarchy and radical chaos. I’d rather have a police force that has the good guys in it doing the hard work of maintaining that thin blue line. I would tell that stupid politician Beto O’Rourke that the only thing that keeps police in check from letting the power go to their heads is an armed public, that its critical to keeping the balance of power in check. For instance, my community doesn’t even have its own police force. The county sheriff handles everything, we don’t need that extra tax burden. But I also live in an affluent community where people generally don’t commit crimes against each other, and most homes have some form of gun. Nobody shoots each other. People wave to each other when they cut their grass. Life is good. Gun violence is indicative of personal values and behavior, and low-lifes who deal drugs and are too lazy to work tend to be the ones committing violence, and with them comes gun violence and police who like to use that chaos to overreact with antagonism of their own.

I don’t consider it radical to warn authorities that I’m not going to put up with politicians like Beto O’Rourke or the gun grabbing Democrats. They will never have a right to confiscate our guns. The guns are a right for a reason, because we know from history that we cannot trust authorities under any conditions. If left unchecked with power there will always be a certain percentage of law enforcement who will go bad and become part of the criminal element, like Andrew McCabe and James Comey. Comey was in charge of the entire FBI and we know now, that he was a very dangerous person drunk with power, so much so that he thought he was one of the good guys.

Guns are the best way to sort out justice from those who would be tempted to abuse power and those who might become victims of it. Nobody ever wants to shoot someone trying to break into their home, whether it be a criminal element or a law enforcement officer using their power for malicious reasons against the American property owner. Its not controversial to stick up for yourself or to maintain the means to keep power in check, when our election system fails, and bad people use that power to abuse us all for their own entertainment. Owning the guns and letting them know what will happen if they abuse their power is the nicest way to keep things from getting out of hand and is the key to social civility. However, if they cross over beyond that civility, we will unfortunately have to answer that challenge, and violence must be the consequence. I wouldn’t like it, but you must draw the line somewhere, and for me, grabbing guns by any government is simply too far.

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

Should People of Value Express their Political Opinions: What good is freedom if we don’t live to support it?

Everyone must come to these things in their own way, but the question continues to be asked among people in the community who are “valuable,” whether or not they should get involved in politics beyond the occasional donation or remain in obscurity. My answer to that must be defined by the understanding of social value. It’s not politically correct to make such a judgement, but that is also why as a society we have trouble, because under political correctness, value is a loose term defined by government efforts, not reality. People of value are those who move mankind forward. It might be the owner of your local Taco Bell or the industrialist who is running five or six manufacturing plants. The workers who are employed by those establishments can come and go as they’d like, so their impact to that future growth, for which all economic measures are leveraged against is minimal. Meanwhile, it is the risktakers and investors in our society who have more value over those who don’t do such things. So the question is, should such people, such as President Trump who could be living a good life in his retirement years watching the world go by, should they get involved and letting it be known that their business is ran by a liberal or a conservative—or should they show themselves as middle of the road political supporters?

Well for the political left, they have already answered that question. They are not shy about their political beliefs. And for establishments like Chick-Fil-A, they lean toward the religious conservative side and we’ve seen how the political left has treated them—bullying them at every opportunity. Most people who invest in businesses don’t want the extra headache of a teacher’s union protest outside a place they’ve poured a huge amount of their time into at great risk to give jobs to people, so they are shy about such conflict, which unfortunately is the way the political left has established things will be. They are not peace lovers, they are bullies, pure and simple.

I can’t say that I’ve ever been shy about my political affiliation, but for a time while I was contemplating a career as a film director and movie writer, I didn’t run down the street screaming about it. I have always been able to get along with people of all types and never had a problem with people of color, the opposite sex or people from entirely different political beliefs. Even though I have very firm beliefs; I never have felt that my roots were so insecure that I had to yell and scream at people who didn’t think the way I did. So in spite of the Hollywood bias against people with my political affiliation, I found myself at one of those dinners in Glendale, California with around nine people all of whom were at a minimum, millionaires and were looking for ways to make more money, which is why I was at that table.

I remember it vividly; I was at a very nice restaurant at the Americana shopping complex eating at a big round table overlooking a courtyard set in the middle of the complex on a Friday night in early summer. It was literally a seat at the table of some big-time movers and shakers in Hollywood, producer types and money people. I was brought in because of my firewhip demonstrations that I had done at a film festival representing my membership in the World Stunt Association and because I had a hot script that had won some awards there were buyers for it. The talk was to change that script a bit from an anti-progressive horror adventure film to something more mainstream and less violent. This was before the days of Kill Bill, so producers were concerned that would hurt the potential box office. But essentially the people at that table didn’t care about the script or my bullwhip skills, they wanted to know if I would play along with the rest of the industry or would a be a pain in the ass. And that question was asked of me point blank, I was expected to talk down about George W. Bush who was president at the time. I of course didn’t, even though he wasn’t my favorite guy, he was the best that Republicans had at that time. And I thought about the consequences. I had literally worked 20 years to get to that point and the offer was on the table.

After that project I wasn’t invited to do any more, it really does come down to peer pressure and who you know in that business, unless you put up the money for your own movie. I had decided that I’d rather be honest about my opinions than to have a show business career making a lot of money, but not having the freedom to express myself. And that should not have been a decision I had to make. Long time readers here probably will notice that I took a year off after all that to travel the world and do many things with my wife that I had long planned. Then thereafter, I started this blog and became politically active because if I had to choose, I was at least going to be free to have my own opinion about things.

Growing up I loved the Disney version of Zorro and I watched every episode countless times. But I had always promised myself that I could never be like Don Diego and pretend to be foppish. I’d want to be Zorro all hours of the day seven days of the week. When I created the Cliffhanger character in my book The Symposium of Justice which was one of the projects that had landed me at that table in Glendale, California I wanted to answer my opinion about the Don Diego complex. So pushed in reality I had to pick my Cliffhanger character which was unyielding to the pressures of society as opposed to Zorro who played hero at night, but rich fop during the day so that he could have the approval of his peers and not lose his land to corruption.

Yet all conservatives are expected to be like Don Diego. Even if they do give to a political campaign of their choosing, if it isn’t the liberal candidate there will be consequences, and the political left is quite adamant about that. However, I wasn’t about to write about something and not live it in my real life, so that is the paradox we all face these days and that is my opinion on it. You can’t make peace with the political left. And if you go against them, they will come after you. But my experience is that they aren’t that powerful. They don’t have much in their bag of tricks. When pressed, they come up short most of the time, so why be afraid of them. People of value shouldn’t. I understand making decisions to avoid that conflict. But if you run from it, then you empower them even greater in the future, because they know their pressure worked. And we can’t have that. Everyone must make their own decisions about things, but one of the greatest things we have in life is our opinions and the freedom to have them. To squander that away is a crime in and of itself, not worth the money you might make otherwise. And that is the grim reality when such a choice is made, and it’s never easy.

Rich Hoffman

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