The Criteria for State Funding of Education in Ohio: A future state free of Parkinson’s Law

Just as a preview to the upcoming debate at Lakota schools, and the post Trump election of 2020 where Betsy DeVos will unleash her education reforms I think its only fair to give a sneak peak into my position model for state funding problems in Ohio. One thing that became very clear to me while fighting the Lakota levies during the early part of the last decade was that everything pointed to problems with state funding, where the state was having a terrible time of constitutionally providing money to schools due to two major character flaws in the foundation assumptions of the public education debate. First the cost for schools were filled with what I call in this case Parkinson’s Law, which is a business term to describe typical problems in schedules, where allotted time fills to whatever dates are provided, the work fills the time provided, and secondly, the attachment of money to real estate instead of the students provided by the tax payers. Those two elements have made it impossible to come up with a proper funding model and must be solved before the state can do anything, so to answer the questions from the past, how can the pro levy people and the anti-levy people get together to focus their efforts in Columbus toward real education funding change, those two questions must first be solved. Anything that does not deal with those two issues, is off track and a useless gesture, and that will be my position on the upcoming levy fights no matter what frontier we find ourselves fighting them.

Parkinson’s Law occurs when building things like Gantt charts in business where all the parties of a process are allowed to give their perceived dates for the completion of their given task. When looking at a total project and the critical path needed for its completion, it will be quick to note that all the participants in a schedule will give themselves a comfortable amount of safety in case they have runovers and problems in their task. Taken as a whole, this takes the completion date for a project well past the usual funding requirements and must be worked out by taking away all the fluff that finds itself into the assumptions. In public schools where collective bargaining agreements take up 80 to 90% of a $200 million budget at a school like Lakota, the desire to have tax increases is only to fund this out of control filling of a budget with Parkinson’s Law where the money in the budget always fills to satisfy the supply. It has nothing at all to do with the quality of education, but everything to do in order to satisfy the comfort level of the government school in recruiting, and labor management among a hostile organization that is bound to socialist desires, the government labor unions that are embedded and cannot be removed without destroying education as we know it and the free babysitting service that it has become for so many busy, working parents.

Knowing all that, the per pupil cost of education is excessively high and no state law maker can hope to sign their name next to such an inflated figure until the schools themselves work out the true need of their paid staffs, and are getting the most out of those they do have. If a school wants to pay a teacher six figures to do a job, that’s fine. But the teacher better be worth it. However, through collective bargaining, some teachers may be worth it, some may not, but all get it because of the nature of the union agreement which goes well above and beyond what taxpayers should be funding with their property taxes. It’s the same rule that applies to private businesses, if a company has a unionized workforce, that’s fine if they can operate with it. But don’t ask the customer to pay more for those services because the union is present. That is not the fault of the customer, it’s a non-value-added experience for the taxpayer to fund on the top end for mismanaged services passed down to them through the government school looking to appease the radical elements of their labor force. To keep the labor happy and justify all the advanced degrees and other elements, Parkinson’s Law says that the budget will grow to satisfy the demands placed on it by the comfort level of the participants.

How many teachers does it take to teach a classroom in this fast moving world where video games have more influence over students than a stagnant employee teaching things in the front of the room that are already two or three years too old by the time they are trained to teach it, and how much is that teacher worth for 7 or 8 hours of their day, 5 days a week and summers off? Is it worth $70K per year, or $100k, because a lot of teachers at Lakota are making averages of that amount of money and the report cards for the school show that it hasn’t helped them get “A”s on their state report cards. Questions like that have to be asked before state funding can be acquired because those are contributors to the Parkinson’s Law I am proposing must be answered before any model can be created legally. In this day and age couldn’t a government school operate with a lot less teachers and more interactive media, even larger classrooms? Given the state of the results of our current way of doing things, its clear our education system is not doing a very good job as compared to other countries, so why would we stick with the same old same old, its too expensive and its not very effective. Education needs to be faster, and more engaging, and up to date, with the rate that computer processers increase in memory and efficiency. Things kids learn today are almost outdated before they even leave high school, so we need better ways that are much less bureaucratic to keep up. All these considerations are part of the state funding crises that must be solved before anything happens. Just lobbying the state government for more money isn’t going to solve a thing because we haven’t dealt with how that money would be spent.

Of course the answer nobody wants to talk about that thinks of public education as a crowning experience for youth, where football games and dances are centerpieces of culture young people depend on, and parents who need someone to watch their kids while they are busy at work. But the future of public education is to get government out of it, out of the regulations, out of the report cards, out of the business as much as possible and to turn over that effort to private enterprise, which the labor unions are completely against because it would take away all their emotional leverage. But that is where education is headed whether it takes 10 years to get their or 100. The inevitability is fast approaching and it won’t take long for everyone to see it. The need for more personal freedom and faster rates of learning that are not so top heavy in costs demand such a thought and that is ultimately where the state funding will reside. Any discussion besides these things is a useless one.

The assumption among education activists is to lobby for money to feed the old broken system that has not been effective, as is evidence in our present society. The current system is too expensive and does not teach the right things at the rate that kids need the information. I would offer that the cost of an average teacher should be about half what it is now and that many of them should not just do teaching as a career, but as one thing in their lives. The structure of teaching should not need a stagnant employee present to hold down the speed of learning, but should only be present to provide an interface to knowledge. That is a part time job at best in the schools of tomorrow. Certainly not worth 80K per year for hundreds and hundreds of employees only working a fraction of the day in a fraction of the year. I measure a day in 24-hour intervals, so if a job only requires 8 to 9 hours of dedication from an employee asset, it’s a part time job to my eyes. And that is how things will look as we get into the future state of government school funding models. To me, they are already extinct. Its taking other people too long to realize it, because that’s the way we’ve always done it, but once Trump is elected for his second term and his sons or even Candice Owens takes over the future of the White House going into 2030, the word “government” is coming out from in front of schools which must be privately managed. Just like health care is headed, and just about every other utility of economic expenditure. That is the wave of a fast-moving future and government schools are way behind in recognizing it. But soon, they won’t have a choice. Their entire reality will be taken away with the Parkinson’s Law that has built their budgets with so much fluff over the years that people are tired of it. And will vote accordingly.

Rich Hoffman

The Buckeye Firearms Association Endorses George Lang: Getting HB 178 passed

The best hope for a continuation of House Bill 178 getting passed in the Senate is to have George Lang there to help convince Mike DeWine to sign the bill, which modifies weapons law, permitting concealed carry without a license, and many other positive reforms. While many are still in debate about to what extent the Second Amendment can or should be regulated, the crazy leftist who shot up a night spot in Dayton has many conservatives weak-kneed and in need of some hand holding in the aftermath. Of the people running for the 4th District Senate Seat in the upcoming primary between George Lang, Candice Keller and Ding Dong Lee Wong, only George Lang has the clout and ability to help Mike DeWine get off the fence and back to the table to sign such a bill as HB 178. As we get closer to the primary in March, its important that voters understand the strategy and best options for the issues they are most passionate about, and in Ohio the gun rights concerns are a big topic, so a bit of context is worth our time and consideration.

Candice Keller has been asked by the GOP to step down for her comments made in August in reaction to mass shootings in general. I think many people who are logical understood that much of what she said is true, about fatherless homes, and drug users being the cause of many mass shootings, but what hurt her is that she brought up Nazi language and tousled into the gay rights debate in a way that was completely unnecessary, and it hurt the GOP brand, and her stance on Second Amendment rights, which she has been a strong supporter. But she also walked right into the poo poo by giving opponents of bills like HB 178 a face to throw darts at, and therefor a great excuse for Mike DeWine to move away from signing it. So long as Candice was a face of Second Amendment rights in Columbus then she is hurting all the politicians who support the bill but had the political skill to stay out of trouble when pressed by the media for reaction to such catastrophes like the shooting in Dayton last year. This is another reason that the media has given Candice so much prominent coverage—most of it negative, because it has forced this issue underground again and made her look like a front runner in the 4th Seat Senate race. But there is a better option, a much better one in George Lang who is every bit as much of a Second Amendment supporter, I think more so, however, he has the political skill to unite people around the bill in the Senate to the Governor that Candice just doesn’t have. And even if she did, it will take her years to rebuild her political clout within the GOP to be effective in those types of discussions.

The media would like to make the race for that senate seat look much tighter ahead of the primary with its secret hopes that enough people might vote for Candice so that she can be elected to that seat only to waste it on more political scandal, which would then effectively kill HB 178 for many years. However, running for a big office seat like those in the senate takes politicians who can raise money, advertise, and then not step in it when pushed by the media for comments, who can stay on target literally with their message under great stress. And to that point only George Lang has any remote possibility of being an effective senator in the 4th District. In the financial reports for the candidates that were due on Friday of last week, George Lang had cash reserves of well over $200,000 where Candice only had $12,000. So that leaves her only strategy to hope to stay relevant is to be a rock chucker and hope that she can get some headlines and free coverage to get her message out. But the problem is, the GOP wants her to resign, so any coverage she gets is always going to be negative.

Meanwhile the Buckeye Firearms Association has endorsed George Lang for Ohio’s 4th Senate district and by mid-February the NRA is going to give its support as well. George’s record and ability has the recognized strength to advance gun rights as a senator and that momentum should not be wasted by anybody who wants to see bills like HB 178 become law without becoming so watered down by passage that it would be virtually worthless. I would encourage Candice whom I think genuinely cares about gun rights to get behind George as the best option to represent the 4th District in this great debate. But more than that, George has the ability to put that needed arm around Governor DeWine’s neck to get the signature needed to make HB 178 a reality. Those are the kinds of political skills that go well beyond a simple vote in the chamber and how things really happen in any political body.

Candice due to her lack of political skill, not necessarily her fault—time will fix a lot of that—but she’s had to take some of these extreme positions on her Facebook page to try to cover her lack of connections to secure funding for a campaign. It’s a page out of the Trump playbook, but he was rich and didn’t need to raise money for advertising in the traditional way. New media can take a creative politician far, but not that far, and her lack of ability to gather a crowd that will give her thousands of dollars in donations is something that can’t be overcome with political theater alone. There needs to be other layers to the reach of a senator in any district and that range and donation ability is the kind of leverage that gets you a lunch date with the governor to even pitch the ideas outside of chamber protocol. Everything is about political clout and that is how after this 2020 election cycle HB 178 has the best chance to get back out into the voting cycle.

The NRA knows George is the best chance and so does the Buckeye Firearms Association, and others who are sure to follow. If the true goal is to get pro firearm legislation solidified in Ohio then George is the best option. If the goal is simply to get elected into the senate by any means possible and Candice has to be forced to show all these extreme cards to get the free publicity, then she can’t truly say that she wants HB 178 to pass, because she has no ability to help advance it as a senator or as a member of the House. The GOP is distancing themselves from her and I would say to Candice that her political future isn’t over, it needs repaired. Helping to get HP 178 to a senator who can help on the other side and secure sentiment with the governor would go a long way to repairing that relationship. And that would take more guts for all the right reasons than destroying everything from the inside out just to get a political win for the short run.

Rich Hoffman

Why EdChoice is so Beneficial: Removing Parkinson’s Law from the public education debate in Ohio

I’ve been watching and listening to the whole debate about EdChoice in Ohio with great interest. Of course, the Ohio Senate had to vote to delay the implementation of Ed Choice which was scheduled to take effect the day of this writing, until April 1st 2020. The public schools in particular have responded terribly to it, including the school in my own district which I’ve written a lot about, Lakota. It has been nothing short of embarrassing to listen to Lakota’s superintendent complain about the funding model that is coming whether they like it or not and move the entire district into a victimized status so quickly on the issue. The report back from some financial news from Lakota has not been good and they are floating the idea for another levy which would be a terrible, anti-growth tax increase just to supplement their mismanaged spending habits, so the news was bad enough. This EdChoice debate has only made things worse. Dealing with professional educators to me is the worst experience that there is in professional politics because they are so entitled and unrealistic about what they think their financial requirements should be, so we’ll deal with some of that here, and in the coming months. Listening to politicians attempt to put their minds around what to do about EdChoice, which is simply a grading system that inspires the financial contributions of the state to follow the student of that failing school to the school of their choice. This of course leaves variability in public school budgets for money they have been used to getting now going to an unpredictable number of students who may decide to go somewhere else with that precious state money.

I listened to Bill Cunningham and Representative Bill Seitz talk about this EdChoice problem on WLW and every word made me cringe. Here were two people who call themselves rock ribbed Republicans missing the whole point of the public education debate. Now, my history with these two is that they are on the wrong side of many issues. They mean well like a lot of people do, but their perspective has been tainted by years of acceptance of a system initiated by people like John Dewey during an experimentation of many things during the progressive era at the turn of the last century and like many have accepted that that’s just the way things are and the way they will always be. Money goes to the school from the state to teach children living in that district not just skills for a future job, but to turn them into democratic citizens with an emphasis on social change. In hindsight this has been a complete disaster, look at the products of the schools, which many of us are. People aren’t very smart, and they don’t set their sights very high in life. Dewey’s mistake was in attempting to steer society away from republic representation and more toward democratic majority rule, which we all know now is a disaster at the epistemological level.

For the two Bills talking on WLW about EdChoice, they are both people in their 60s and 70s now, to them public school is about sports programs, learning to follow orders so that kids learn to live in a civil society, and in establishing much needed social connections with peers. Way back, many decades ago when my wife and I pulled our kids out of public schools for a year to teach them at home because the results were just so disappointing we had family members literally melt under the news because they were afraid my kids would turn into complete social outcasts, because they believed after so many years of this Dewey philosophy that the goal of public schools was to establish these mental applications. Of course, those sentiments were completely fear based, just as about everything in public education is. We have learned to just accept the failure that is evident because that’s always the way we have done things. People like the “Bills” on WLW enjoy the idea that their public school is the holder of real-estate value, and that Friday Night Lights football in the fall months of every year make for great conversation. But it was flawed from the beginning and never was poised to do what Dewey wanted because his fundamental problem was in thinking that the state as a central authority should be in charge. It was a progressive experiment, but not a very “Republican” thing to do.

Schools like Lakota and many others who are complaining about the insecurity in their funding model should be looking at the situation like any business would instead of some free-loader sitting in a bird nest of a rich district and opening their mouths for tax money to flow in. They should be working to be the best school with the best options in a free market society. No matter what the report card states in giving families the choice of a school they’d like to go to, Lakota should feel confident that kids would want to go to their school for all the reasons that anybody would, to get a good education, be near a good sports program, or just to be around other students who aren’t problems coming from broken families. Students should have a choice and if Lakota wants those students, they should have to work to attract them.

The most tragic thing I have noticed, looking at the situation professionally, is that all public schools have become addicted to the natural state of Parkinson’s Law that has contaminated their budgeting structures. Everyone who has been involved professionally in process improvements understands that Parkinson’s Law is an adage that states “work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion,” meaning that a work schedule blankly stated will allow a worker to fill that time allotment from beginning to end by the nature of human interaction. If you give someone an hour to do a 5-minute job, they’ll take the whole hour. Process improvement demands to understand how long it actually takes to do a job, and to work out the tendencies of Parkinson’s Law to misstate labor needs. Well, that same tendency is at the center of the public education debate all across the country, and is why the EdChoice trend is so badly needed. Budgets have been filled to their maximum to accommodate whatever the state provides and to what extent local school district tax payers will put up with in increased levies driven by labor unions looking to use Parkinson’s Law to attach need to student performance by using the chaos of money going to the schools, not the student, to keep the process centrally controlled and with a false understanding of what education per student should cost, leaving the real state funding model perpetually broken, which is just how the labor unions and lazy superintendents like it.

Clearly what we have had hasn’t worked. Education needs reformed and the centralized aspects of it need to be removed. Free market solutions are the only way to improve schools and the students that come from them. People should have the option to vote with their feet putting schools into the same competitive situation that every restaurant, shopping complex and entertainment destination must do, compete for the dollars available. Education is not so sacred to not be attached to competitive market conditions, end of story. A quick look at our students declares that trying something new wouldn’t hurt, because we couldn’t do worse. And ultimately that is the direction of education anyway, just as the trends of the world are declaring. People want more choices in life, not less, and it’s a matter of time anyway where money for education shouldn’t even come from the state. But while it does, it should go to the students so they can vote with their feet. Not to hold them to a school that doesn’t feel it has to earn their business. If Lakota is such a great school, or any government school for that matter, don’t tell us how good you are. Make yourself one of those schools that people want to go to. Make it so that you are so crowded that you must turn people away, which only increases the value of the product. Sure, it makes the current way that schools do business chaotic, it forces them to understand how much Parkinson’s Law is in their processes. It forces the teacher unions to think differently for sure. But that is their problem, not ours. And the state will never know how much it should spend on students so long as Parkinson’s Law is contaminating their assumptions. That is the key to this whole discussion and we’re going to have it now or in a few years, but the way things have been are not the way things are going to be. The old Dewey model was poised from the outset to fail. But these days, life happens too fast and there is just too much to learn to attempt to squeeze everything into the traditional classroom setting that we have been attempting to do. The times and this new economy are forcing us to change, so let’s get at it and solve this problem once and for all by looking at the entire concept differently.

Rich Hoffman

President Trump is a Lifelong NRA Member: Understanding the nature and history of Genius and the relationship to guns

This attempt to paint National Rifle Association members as some fringe group, especially leading up to the big protest this week that occurred in Virginia is just as insulting as the Democrats attempting to impeach President Trump, spending literally millions of dollars of tax payer money over the simple issue that they are not prepared for the 2020 election with a proper, electable philosophy, or a platform that reflects America in a modern sense. I’m not big on memberships but my NRA membership is something I take great pride in, and yes, it’s very much mainstream. It shouldn’t be surprising for anybody to know but President Trump is a life member of the NRA, and he has joined Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Richard Nixon as presidents who all had NRA memberships. Then of course there was Ronald Reagan who embodied great respect for his membership as a shared value with the American people. The fringe element of gun control rather has been the exception all this time, not the mainstream, yet the attempts to overthrow this assumption has made things look quite the opposite.

As readers here know I have been working on a philosophy/business book called The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business for a while now. It’s not the writing that has been the problem, but rather the scope of the work. I see gun ownership as a fundamental philosophy to the success of American life—which of course extends into business. So, getting the themes down for this work has been interesting. To take complicated sentiments and paint them with words into a mainstream read that reflects life during one of America’s greatest defining moments, the period of 1870 to 1890 has pushed me into many re-writes which has been enjoyable. But the theme has been largely unexplored, and it really paints a value on the NRA as an organization and national treasure. Without the NRA, the domestic enemies that want to change the nature of American life would have long ago succeeded. And they are still at it which is why the NRA has been under so much attack. But in the scheme of things, most of our best presidents have found a lot of value in the NRA including our current one.

Many people just don’t know their history very well, and I have pointed to this wild west period as a point of great significance for a reason. It is clear that the ability of settlers to cross the western frontier with a gun at their hip gave way for the greatest expansion not just of human settlement, but of intellectual monstrosity. It was this very culture that produced Thomas Edison, one of the greatest inventors of any age. It was during this period that Henry Ford came to be, and aviation first flew from a couple of bicycle manufactures in Dayton, Ohio. When we think of the wild west, we think of gunfighters, and I would argue that it was they who carved a path to great intellectual expansion by what professor Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi the great psychologists would term “flow.” For one of the first times in all of human history government was small enough not to get in the way of intellectual genius, and the rapidly expanding market needs of a growing nation with three major wars behind it, The Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War finally was coming into its own philosophically, and industrially. There would have been no time prior in history where a Thomas Alva Edison could have lived without being killed by the churches of Europe, or crushed by intelligentsia seeking to make aristocrats of themselves by holding society under their “in the box” thinking. It was in the wake of the gunfighters and the stories on the wild frontiers that Edison was able to live in something of a vacuum that gave light and radio waves to the world—and many other things that essentially built the world we live in today.

Its not that Thomas Edison was a huge supporter of guns, but he was of the philosopher Thomas Paine, who would be the figure who essentially launched the “American” idea and started the Revolution. But Edison much like Benjamin Franklin was a spirit that was born from the freedoms that came from being an American. It may take millions of tobacco spitting cowboys fighting it out in the dust and rain on an open plain to make one Thomas Edison, but the work was worth it. And without gun ownership, such figures would never find their way into the world. That is clear in my research and has emerged as the primary theme of my new book. The understanding of what makes genius is very much at the core of the issue and how we understand such things to come to be. I would point to the work Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi as one of the greatest breakthroughs, which has been very recent, as the primary cause of genius that we find in people like Thomas Edison, or even modern day examples such as Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Bill Gates. What makes genius is proper intellectual flow, not the stale embodiments of social conformity glued together by authoritarian rules and regulation. But rather the freedom to think and have a gun in the home to keep away those who might seek to bring chaos to your doorstep and interrupt the flow of thoughts by a mind on fire with its own passions.

Edison was a unique personality who was able to match his tireless energy and intellect to the needs of a rapidly expanding market due to western expansion and a government that hadn’t figured out how to stick their noses into everyone’s life yet. It was a perfect storm that created a genius that still is giving us gifts today. Although the world has shrunk since then and government has now figured out how to stick their noses into our business in every aspect. It is no wonder that we don’t have more people like Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein emerging today. Regulation and too much interdependence does not produce genius, it repels it. Guns give genius a barrier from the idiot to the budding intellect and is a key part of American success that no other culture on the face of the earth has duplicated. The reason is complicated and elusive and is the subject of my new book. But the key is clearly something that the NRA understands of itself, and very smart people who have been presidents of the United States at least could sense about the importance. Guns aren’t so much for shooting people, but in preventing natural, intellectual looters so wonderfully displayed in Ayn Rand’s classic American novels, from taking over the efforts of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s “flow.” Some people find their flow in life, some people struggle with it always. But for those who do, we occasionally get a Thomas Edison, and from there great things happen.

I see a world where we could unleash many Thomas Edisons and the way to make them is not with our university system, but rather with NRA memberships who keep the looters away and free minds to think and be creative based on their own inertia. Not to force a mind to comply with inferior intellects, but to free them to the possibilities of tomorrow by asking the right questions and not being afraid of those who don’t want the answers revealed, because there is power for them in the ignorance of mankind. To get flow out of our society we need guns to serve as the barrier to allow genius to flourish. Politicians may join the NRA because they have an understanding that its important even though they may not know why. But I think we are coming to a time where we can define those needs better. And that could pave the way for a very exciting future.

Rich Hoffman

The Schiff Show: Those who are most guilty are the ones pushing for impeachment

After watching the impeachment proceedings in the senate, it is quite clear not just because it is an attack on a president that I voted for, and therefore an attack on me, but that Adam Schiff has more at stake than just a hatred politically for President Trump. It’s obviously personal for them. They obviously don’t think that they can beat him in the upcoming election, so that is the cause of these theatrics of impeachment. There is something much more sinister going on that they are seeking to hide from the public with these antics. Peter Schweizer’s book ‘Profiles in Corruption’ came out a few days ago and I picked it up for a quick read and I am convinced by the arguments made in that book that Peter is on to something big. So big in fact that nobody will cover it because so many people are guilty of the crimes. If only a small percentage of the claims made in ‘Profiles in Corruption’ are true, then we have a huge problem in both houses of congress, which I think is certainly the case. And the proof is in the hatred of Trump and the direct attack on him to defer away from the real crimes that have been committed.

I watched carefully, and without emotion the prosecution in the case, particularly Nadler and Schiff. Nadler has a long history of hating Trump personally, and he is quite clearly abusing his power in office to erect some aspect of revenge against the President for personal reasons. To enough of a degree that Nadler should be removed from office for such bad judgement alone. But the Adam Schiff story is worse, because it looks like he is covering his own layers of corruption for the benefits of his party not just to survive through the 2020 election, but to keep the dogs off his own connections to many lines of corruption, that extend well beyond Ukraine. If anybody looked and acted guilty by all the signs of nonverbal communication, its Adam Schiff.

I would suggest that the Republican approach to this case is all wrong, playing along with the legal grounds as if this were a real trial, and evoking that the “senate” is some kind of stately power that is beyond the quells of politics is not going to work. We are dealing with real criminals protecting a political class that is deeply involved with severe criminal mischief, white collar crimes that go well beyond similar white-collar prosecutions of mass corruption. These criminals are using their powerful statues as law makers to erase away their crimes, and they are willing to bring down a presidency to cover their actions—which should shock everyone, no matter what your political affiliation. The more I watched, the more insulting it was, especially once opening day arguments extended past midnight. All this effort for what—to try to pin their own crimes on a president just asking a question about corruption from the other side. The real issue was why the president felt he needed to ask—that is the cover-up.

Yet Democrats came out swinging throwing out indefensible accusations from the start saying that McConnell was running a corrupt proceeding. The obvious attempt was to make Republicans look weak in response to such aggressive statements that just might tilt the balance in a fall election—if all went well. But the true magic trick here was to keep anybody from even asking the question, “Mr. Schiff, how many of these deals were you involved in with Hunter Biden and his father.” By making it so that even asking a question could evoke so much trouble, who would dare to go further? That is the subtle message here and something only people willing to do the proper study of the situation, like Peter Schweizer, would even think to ask. The evidence is clear that something is wrong and the attack on Trump is far deeper than even election meddling for the 2020 elections, its to cover up crimes committed by many of the people in that senate chamber, and I would bet that everyone there knows it. That’s why they don’t ask those deeper questions, because they too would be implicated.

The purpose of the show is to even help Republicans in the senate appear to make the whole thing appear more lofty than it really is, the proceedings with John “Obamacare” Roberts proceeding as a stately judge hammering his gavel for recess is meant to make them all look like they are in command. That the whole thing isn’t a farce covering up massive international crimes for which Trump’s administration is uncovering just by its existence. What I watched in the hearings from all sides were people either guilty of those mass crimes, or people who knew about them but were worried that if that knowledge hit the public, a complete erosion of their trust in our government institutions would cascade into outright rebellion. Many of those people might disagree in that chamber, but they have lunch together, they golf together, they have formed bonds that it would be painful to expose. They may be political enemies, but all too often they are personal friends, and as most humans are reluctant to do, they don’t want to hurt them. So, they have all agreed to some extent to this ridiculous, and expensive display designed not to seek justice through impeachment of an elected president, but to hide crimes of personal enrichment. And to use their control of the law to cover for their villainy. And they actually have the audacity to stand before us all during all hours of the day, soaking up the news cycle in such an audacious, and selfish way for their personal vanity and desires for destruction of other people so long as the aims of investigation to not point to them.

Like the slob who farts and then cries out, “who passed gas” when they know clearly it was them, but by the smell of it, it could have been anybody in the room. They hope to declare their innocence just by being the first ones to say anything. Yet the fart came from them and nobody else. Others might suspect as much, but because they are friends, they wouldn’t want to embarrass them in public, so they keep their mouth shout and play along. That is what the senate has been doing for Democrats, and it is pathetic. The real crime has not been discussed, and it should be. The real villains are the ones making the accusations, and without a doubt to my notice, Adam Schiff is one of the guiltiest and most corrupt people on the face of the earth. And he is so corrupt that he knows nobody would believe it, so he further covers his trial by being the one doing the accusing so that he is not the one accused. That is the purpose of this impeachment and the voracity of its utilization. And even for the attempt of it, we should all be very angry. Even more than that, we need to look at a serious employment change of these very representatives because we cannot turn a blind eye to this. Justice is begging for attention and our eyes need to reside on the accusers, not the accused.

Rich Hoffman

And People Wonder Why Americans Need Guns: The evidence is all around us–impeachment, abuse of power, and massive corruption

Oh, I don’t know why anybody would question the rights to gun owners to have weapons that can defend itself against a domestic military, or why we might need to carry them even in the streets everywhere we go. After all, the Democrats through a little trickery on a low voter year took both houses in Virginia and went quickly to abuse their power as fast as they could by attacking the Second Amendment. Or even as gun rights advocates marched on the capital in Richmond against those incursions, the House Democrats in Washington D.C. were trying to impeach a president that we voted for to represent us instead of turning to guns to take back our government. Without those tools, the guns that are part of American life to its very core, imagine the level of corruption that Ralphie the Governor of Virginia would embark on. Imagine the world Nancy Pelosi would envision for the rest of us, and just think how much abuse Michael Bloomberg’s billions could purchase with George Soros—a utopia of their infantile state and an all-powerful government that could crush anybody. And these are the people who tell us to trust them and to give up our guns and accept control by the state forever. No thanks. And that was the message at the pro-gun rally at Richmond on Martin Luther King Day of 2020.

Reports are indicating that around 20,000 people showed up to protest the incursions that the Democrats are trying to push through the legalization process there to essentially ban weapons from private ownership. To many reporters, that is a lot of people, but to me, its just a Trump rally. What many people have not yet learned to accept is that Trump, guns and the trend of the world is toward more options, more freedom, and much less government control on everything—and even if Democrats did manage to ban all guns from society, and could impeach President Trump from office so that they wouldn’t have to run against him in November, that the causes that put those things in place would somehow fall in line and the world would be happy. Its like a kid wishing for some magical present on Christmas and prior to that day thinking how great it will be if only someone bought them that special present. Yet when the day arrived, they open it, are happy to see that they finally that that special something. Then two hours later, now that the wanting of it is gone, its just a thing to be forgotten. And the mind moves on to something else. Even in a more primitive mode, sex offers the precise same experience, the thinking about it is much more exciting than what you get. And after the act is over, you are left with the consequences, the children that are born, the hurt feelings, the psychological attachments, the house, the shared cars, the shared refrigerator. Those are things that people often don’t think about until afterwards, and that is clearly what Democrats have been thinking about regarding gun control. They want the laws, they want to think about a society of disarmed people, but they have never really thought about what comes next.

People want options and they don’t want a government imposing on them telling them what soft drinks they can have, how many clips they can put into their guns, or even where they will get their health care. They want you to spend the money they send in taxes wisely and to leave them alone to live their lives. They don’t want potholes in the highways, because that means the state has wasted their money. They don’t want a welfare state, because that means the government is paying people not to work off the backs of those working. They don’t want to waste money on public education if the schools are just going to teach a liberalized curriculum to influential young minds. And as time has gone on government has not earned more respect for a job well done, it has gotten considerably worse. And it is in this environment that politicians think they are going to sell gun confiscation and changes to human behavior. If anything, people will hold their guns closer, not further, because its their only recourse for a change if things go wrong. Obviously, with the Trump impeachment attempts, Democrats do not respect elections. So, what will they respect? And as in the case in Virginia, when Democrats do manage to win elections, look what they do with it—they immediately move to abuse their power.

What is laughable is that Democrats looked at those 20,000 protestors who showed up mostly armed to give warning to law makers of the next steps and they pointed to their recent election in November, as if that gave them permission to move toward a gun ban with 2 million voters putting them in power. There are around 5,660,969 voters in Virginia so nearly 50% showed up to vote for the Democrats, especially in the north where Washington D.C. spill overs are having the same type of demographic change at the polls as illegal aliens are in California. Republicans have to be cautious not to stay home and trust that everything will be alright. Bloomberg’s money inspired Democrats to vote, and they did gain the House and Senate in that state giving the governor a dream scenario for their far left reaching ideas on gun control. And now we have a fight that could have easily been avoided with a simple vote on election night. But those same Democrats claiming elections have consequences are the same ones saying that Trump should be impeached because they don’t like that they lost. They don’t get to have it both ways, and they expect to.

That’s why protestors showed up with guns and why there are actually millions of those people all over the United States. Any overreach by government will be met with armed force as a last resort and that was the message in Richmond. Politicians can squabble all they want about what the numbers mean, but the bottom line is that people are not going to give up their guns, they’ll use them to push back a government looking to inflict less choice in our country. Its as simple as that. The attempts by the governor to paint the pro-gun protestors as potential violent thugs like the leftist ANTIFA goons have been is just wrong. Gun supporters in America are just like those protestors. They don’t need to bloviate for power, because they already have it and know it. It’s in their hands so there is no reason to show off with violence. And they are the majority. They need to learn from this Virginia mishap and vote in November, and not trust that other people will cover their voice—because what happens is that one side out votes the other, and soon you will have to grab your guns just to defend your basic rights. And we shouldn’t have to do that.

But it wouldn’t take much for gun owners to completely retake the American government, so long as we still have our guns, and that may be what it comes to if we learn that elections don’t matter to Democrats. What happened in Richmond is just a small example. Look how long it has taken to fight a war in Afghanistan. How in the world would any Democrat government run the United States in a civil war with so many elements that are beyond their control, even with the full utilization of our military. And that is the balance of power that we must maintain, for the sake of our country. But we first need to fully use the power of elections, just to give the option before the bullets fly. And yes, that is what we are talking about. We are at that place where that discussion must happen because of the actions Democrats are showing in Virginia and now in the Senate in Washington against President Trump. Compliance is less important than freedom and that’s where we are folks. The Democrats want to unwrap that present on gun control and they have not thought through what happens next. Hopefully, they will come to their senses before someone gets hurt.

Rich Hoffman

Richard Jewell, the Movie Review: To understand what’s happening now everyone should watch this great film by Clint Eastwood

The movie, Richard Jewell is certainly one of those that every Trump supporter should see, and those considering becoming one. No wonder it has not done well at the box office, the last time I saw such an antagonistic hatred of a movie was the Atlas Shrugged films for many of the same reasons. Critics hated the movie, it essentially comes down to institutionalism against individual rights when movies take the side of individuals, the college trained movie critics become synonymous with anger at those who challenge their understanding of the world, which was forged in such places as Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Princeton, or some of their copy cats teaching those who didn’t do so well on their ACT tests. When people want to know why the media and our government rally to each other’s needs so often, and so quickly, well, they were all taught in the same places to march to whims of the institutions while those who didn’t enjoy the experience become everybody else. But the best products of our modern education systems, our unionized government schools or our best colleges essentially become guys like the featured FBI agent played by Jon Hamm’s Tom Shaw or the newspaper reporter hot to get any story and generally bored with life, Olivia Wilde’s Kathy Scruggs. And it was those two who were playing around with each other sexually who came up with the whole story against Richard Jewell, because they needed somebody to be the face of terrorism, even if the guy was completely innocent.

There is a Kathy Scruggs in every newsroom from all sides of the sexes. There are guy versions, but this one played by Olivia Wilde was fantastic, and very close to many of the people I have known in the media. 89-year-old Clint Eastwood, who directed this picture with the experience of a man who has been around and seen everything is likely the only person who could have directed Olivia Wilde with such realism. She reminded me of a not so disgusting scum bag as Eastwood showed in his Dirty Harry film Sudden Impact, the bar whore who was the central figure behind the rapes of the two leading girls. For these characters wreaking other people’s lives is a kind of game that they love playing. It fills a void in their lives that they work very hard to hide from other people and they are dangerous. But make no mistake about it, there is a Kathy Scruggs in every newsroom to some extent or another. She is not an exceptionally evil person, she is as common as a raindrop in the world of the media, and it takes a director like Clint Eastwood to pull that kind of performance out of an actress who might otherwise not feel comfortable going to such a dark place.

We all know the story, but as I was watching this movie, I was thinking that this is exactly what has been happening to the Trump administration. Kathy Scruggs might as well have been Lisa Page in the middle of the FBI investigation against President Trump. Sexual manipulation is not a new thing for women to play against horny, stupid men, and Peter Strzok was no exception. Not all people are as flamboyant about their behavior as Scruggs was, they hide their actions better. But these kinds of things are happening all the time at every level of our society, and if you get in the way of their actions, another Richard Jewell is born. We only know of Richard Jewell because the profile of the case was a big one. There are Richard Jewell types losing their jobs every day, or being denied promotions for all the same reasons. What Trump captured of the FBI and the media in Richard Jewell was an examination into the kinds of people who are really part of these classes of people, and it wasn’t pretty.

What happened to Richard Jewell, with the attempted entrapments by the FBI was exactly what happened to Roger Stone in the early morning raid of his home at 5 AM with the CNN reporter tipped off and waiting to capture the images of an arrested Trump confidant to splash on the television at the earliest moment. Or what about pinning down Michael Flynn without a lawyer while attempting to get him to give false testimony by pretending to be his friend in the early days of the White House transition? You can’t lie to an FBI agent, it’s against the law—but they sure can lie to you, or control the evidence in such a way to make you look bad if it makes them look good in the process. This movie Richard Jewell showed how those things happen in a very legally valid way. We should all question ourselves in why we have given the government so much power over us. Well, I’d say it’s because there’s a bit of Richard Jewell in all of us, a do gooder who just wants to live a good life and we don’t want to think that people are so dishonest as Tom Shaw or Kathy Scruggs.

The problem with institutionalists like the villains in the movie Richard Jewell is that the villains see value for themselves in supporting the institutions at all cost, even at the price of humanity. And to the rest of us, we can’t even comprehend such evil, yet we face it every day. Occasionally we get fighters who know the system better than the bad guys like the attorney in the film played by Sam Rockwell, Watson Bryant. President Trump comes to mind as a person who has made so much money in life and seen every trick in the book that he can sidestep the institutionalists easily. But those not so experienced around Trump were not so difficult to pluck into the trash bins of trouble. One little misstatement at that level and you are going to jail, while gang members, thugs, and illegal aliens roam our streets unimpeded. If you lie to an FBI agent when they set up the deceit themselves to trap you in it, and you are going to jail to show their power. It’s a bad, nasty game that many fear almost more than death, and it’s sad that we have allowed it to take such a hold of all our lives.

The problem though isn’t that we are stupid, its that we have been short to admit to ourselves that people are as bad as Kathy Scruggs and Tom Shaw. We find it astonishing that they would take it for granted that we’d just naturally believe them and that we’d put up with their evil ways because we all want to believe in the good in people. But some people just don’t have it in them. They adhere so well to the institutions because as people they are broken likely from birth, and there is nothing to hold them together but the rigid rules for which they control. Whether it’s the FBI or the media, the rules are built to serve the institutions and when they need some diversion, they can always pick on the latest Richard Jewell—the good guy who is so well intentioned that he can’t see the evil that is at work right in front of his face. Yet we all see it, and its not just in the Jewell case, but it’s happening right now to our president by that same FBI. Only that story is a much bigger one that many just aren’t ready to admit has been happening. But to see it for all its possibilities, everyone should see Richard Jewell. Its one of those types of movies for our times.

Rich Hoffman