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.

The Democrat Fight to Continue Mass Murder: Bernie Sanders reveals what we’ve known all along

Even though it is considered radical to have an opinion that goes against the hippie notions of acting together and sharing ideas in modern America, it is good to call things as they are. Conservatives are not obligated to give liberals a seat at some table of discussion just out of fairness. A domestic enemy is a domestic enemy and it requires our values as a civilization to designate them as such, which of course is what I’m referring to as the Democrat party specifically, but more to the point, the socialists and communist who are using that platform to change America into something we all despise. Walmart turning against gun owners is just one step in that change, what they want is murder, mayhem, and the eradication of the human race—and that is in and of itself a clear revelation as to their evil intentions.

It must happen at some point, a general philosophy about what an American is must be agreed upon, just as any business must create something of a company philosophy in order to be productive. Everyone working for the company can function as an individual, but everyone must agree on what the company philosophy is and work toward it in order for the organization to have its own individual identity, which is then a value to its customers. For instance, Apple needs to have its own identity from Microsoft. They both make computers and software, but each has their own philosophy that consumers value to maintain their market sustainability. The same with nations, there must be some agreed upon philosophy that the nation functions from, you can’t have a bunch of mixed messages fighting it out under free speech. The results of conflict is that one side will win over the other and that then becomes the national philosophy.

In America the political left lost the Civil War. They were the slave owners. They were the losers who tried to reinvent themselves with the progressive movement trying to rebrand themselves away from their past evils with feminism, and civil rights, but behind it all was this desire for abortion. Abortion to kill lots of babies from their undesired social circles all the while trying to promote rights for the same people they were trying to kill. Its similar to the liberal gun control arguments where every time a few people are killed, they scream for more legislation to erode away the Constitution, yet they will kill millions of babies every year, even right up to the moment, or immediately after, that the child is born and call it “rights for the mother.” Lets just call it what it is, pure evil, and un-American.

And now its mainstream, the Democrat presidential candidates have admitted what many of us have known about them for years, they wish to tell us all what to do, everywhere we go, at all hours of the day and they have Google and Amazon helping them. They want to manage our healthcare in such a way that we don’t live very long, and that they can kill away as many people as possible to save the planet from a made-up environmental catastrophe. But their real intention is murder, the murder of millions just as it always has been with abortion activists. The racism of the post war Democrats who despised blacks because the Union had won the war, were the Democrats of the progressive party that wanted to kill off those blacks by corralling them up in inner cities and addicting mothers on welfare, making alcoholics of the fathers, and killing the babies before they were ever born. To cover their tracks which was coming to light during the Vietnam War and they wanted communism to spread over Asia, then to America, they took to civil rights to hide their true intentions of mass murder and anti-capitalist carnage.

The situation was never clearer than in 1969 when man walked on the moon proving that our society could migrate into space and take a big step in evolution. Meanwhile a month later there was Woodstock where naked young people rolled in the mud in degradation and drugged themselves into a state of below the line thinking that yearned for the primitive, to get back to nature, and to let nature rule over us all. We were never going to be one America with such radically different philosophies, one side would have to win and push out the other, and that was the way it was always going to be. Ronald Reagan was the first answer. Donald Trump was the second. Conservatives listened and tried to play nice with the other side with both of the Bush presidents, and Clinton then Obama, but at the heart of America was a desire to be above the line in their thinking.

In business above the line thinking and below are ways to make an organization better. Above the line thinking is the can-do spirit that we all like to think about when it comes to contemplation about the American flag. Below the line thinking is essentially the victimization culture, the “I can’ts” which most of us despise at face value. We may have sympathy for such people and try to help them think above the line, but not at our own peril, and that is where we are as a nation presently. Both sides can’t have their own way. It doesn’t work in any business, it doesn’t work in families, and it certainly doesn’t work in nation building. Democrats need to think below the line to exist because nothing about them is about stepping up and becoming better. They are about abortion, banning plastic straws, worship of nature which sounds good at face value until you consider that the four seasons of our earthly year are precisely the same as the Vico Cycle, spring, summer, fall and winter, theocracy, aristocracy, democracy, anarchy, and that is how things have been for tens of thousands of human years. Democrats want to keep mankind on that path even if they must kill millions of potential lifeforms to do it.

Sure it was a little strange to hear Bernie Sanders admit to the reason he supports abortion is to save the planet from human habitation. But let’s face it, mass murder is mainstream in the Democrat party because of the reasons I have provided. They want to remain below the line in spite of how much the rest of us want to think above the line. And we will never agree. One side is going to win, and the other side is going to lose. We can’t co-exist. To say otherwise is to become a contributor to death, to human destruction and to step backwards not forward in the plight of mankind toward a perfection that is embedded. Democrats are not about compassion; they only use that to lure us to sleep so they can have their murder. They want abortion not for women’s rights, but to kill off undesirables and to rid the world of what they consider human filth and future capitalists. They want to worship the earth the way the primitive tribes of yesteryear did, and they would rather be as a political party the village chiefs than to walk on the moon, or Mars. And that is what we are all up against. The only question is which will we choose, because we can’t have it both ways.

Rich Hoffman

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

Don’t Shop At Walmart: Anyone against guns is against the idea of America and is an advocate of domestic terrorism

Do you know what the difference is between “us” and “them” the political right and the political left, both of which cannot have a stake in the future of America because the philosophies of living are just too dramatically far apart? “We” talk about doing things and “they” do them. Such is the case with “us” talking about making Antifa a terrorist organization, which it clearly is, then the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passing a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization.” While the resolution is purely a political stunt, what is at stake is the branding of guns in general and any group or individuals who defend the right to have them—as terrorists. This as Antifa members beat people senseless, harass elderly flag waving veterans, and espouse brown shirt socialism from their corner Starbucks with outward threats of violence and mayhem. Even the now wimpy Walmart is in on the game of banning ammunition and pistols from their inventory refusing to sell them to their customers under pressure from these same forces.

The same mode of attack is at play as Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok suing the FBI for wrongful termination even though they are the ones who committed the crimes, or the school levy supporter who advocates to boycott any business that does not support their mandatory tax increases, or the drug advocate who wants to ignore that all these mass shooters were depressed fatherless young people who by their indicated states had altered their mental acuity into dangerous assassins. The political left doesn’t care if 5 people are killed in a mass shooting or 50. Much higher numbers are shot and killed every weekend in Chicago. The goal for the left isn’t to eliminate shootings and mass killing. If they were for life, they wouldn’t be supporters of abortion which kills many more people every year. So do car accidents, and stabbings. For them mass killings, which they have their hand in the philosophies that cause them completely, are opportunities to exploit their real aim, the abandonment of the Constitution the re-invention of America, and the acquiring of power for a large central government over an independent republic.

My advice to you dear reader is not to shop at Walmart due to their activism against guns, which is the backbone of American life in so many ways. I am writing a book on that subject as a matter of fact and I could easily fill it with content as large as War and Peace. Of course, that would be too long, so editorial considerations must be made in the process, and I’m certainly not going to try to define it here, in these little 1200-word articles. Its beyond the scope of this subject. However, Walmart has built an empire off the American lifestyle and once they turn against guns and their users, they are headed in the wrong direction and are victims of the radicals rather than helpers of a better world.

My wife has to drag me to a Walmart every time we go. She likes it, has a loyalty to them for offering goods at the lowest price possible. But what I see is an ocean of mediocrity and I like to avoid the place and the smell. My thoughts on the matter are that low prices tend to bring out low expectations in life, so in a lot of ways, Walmart has hurt people, not helped them. Lowering the bar for living a good life may not be the best thing. After all, what good is an expensive item gained cheaply if you cheat the real value. The only way to pull off that hat trick is to actually lower the value of the product itself which is the case with Walmart. The value of Walmart to a person like me is that I can buy guns and ammunition while my wife shops for groceries. If I can’t do that, then I have no value for Walmart.

And that’s the way it always is, it’s always conservatives who move toward a position that the left claims—its never the other way around and that is because conservatives are such nice people. They are just and they do have empathy while the left is like that spoiled teenager that can never be made happy. What we never talk about is why they are never happy. Its not because they don’t want to be happy, but because they use their unhappiness to change policy for themselves, so they can get one more hour on their curfew, or the keys to the family car for a night out on the town. The left throws fits of rage for the hell of it, so they can bring hell to the rest of us. They expect us to compromise while they do nothing to meet us halfway. So why in the world would we do it knowing that?

The reason is that conservatives are smarter than liberals and are naturally averse to conflict. They would rather use other aspects of their intellect to solve a problem than fight and that is what the left exploits, because like a spoiled teenager of loving parents, or guilty parents, they know they can get away with it. That is precisely how Antifa expects to inflict terrorism on us, and why the FBI drifted away from justice and became radicalized. They knew they could get away with the effort, so they went for the aggression, because nobody was standing in their way.

I am a proud member of the NRA. I just renewed my membership which I do every year at this time just so I can have the privilege of renewing it. I like knowing that I am a member, so the renewal is my way of keeping it fresh in my mind. And within that membership I see and hear from the true backbone of America, and I like those people. I take offense to it when they are called names and when my organization is attacked and called a terrorist organization. To whom? The actual domestic terrorists within our borders—the political left?

For me I do have other tools to fight with than violence and I spend most of my life using those tools. But unlike other conservatives I am not against meeting violence with violence. If that’s the only language that the left can speak, well I can assure them that I can shout louder than they can. I am not OK with Walmart turning anti-American, I am not OK with my group being called a terrorist organization. And I am not a supporter of Antifa terrorism, radical levy moms and their boycotts of businesses, teacher union losers striking for more money when kids need someone to watch them while their parents are working, and I’m not OK with an FBI that tampered with the last American election and expects to get away with it. Guns mean that my life will not be controlled by those kinds of people. Removing guns from society means those types of people will decide how I live and that isn’t acceptable. The debate isn’t one of gun control, its about what kind of America we want. Mass shootings are caused and exploited by left leaning political activists for their own brand of terrorism, and it is not the task of the political right to appease them unopposed. Since we can’t trust politicians, we have the NRA, which people like me make up. And when it is attacked, I consider it an attack on me. And that is not a good strategy on behalf of the real domestic terrorists, the political left.

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

There is a Storm Coming: Lakota better have a boat

I think the best thing that could happen is that Julie Shaffer would lose her seat to a new school board candidate in this upcoming fall 2019 election. Jim Hahn is a potential for that, he’s running and is a business guy, and if the Lakota school board could pick him up and keep Todd Parnell, and Lynda O’Conner, there would finally be a three vote conservative presence that could avert the current levy plans that are in place for attempts beginning as early as 2020. If there is another tax attempt, I will say right now that I am all on board to resume the fight against it, and I understand that others are also interested. A gentle message to Lakota and all the real estate agents that spawn off the school system, there is a storm coming, so I hope you have built a boat, because the next levy attempt will be a bloodbath. The liberal activities of Brad Lovell Kelley Casper and of course Julie Shaffer along with the very disappointing sentiments that have evolved from the new superintendent Matt Miller, they have squandered a very good opportunity, a great budget with declining enrollment that has even further inflated the payroll for teachers who clearly aren’t worth the money, and they have been caught in gross mismanagement. The two conservative school board members have shown a bit of hope in properly managing the district, but the school board itself hasn’t gone far enough—the liberal activism is still a problem in the management of the government school.

I have no love for Julie Shaffer, we have a history together. When she couldn’t defeat my arguments back in 2012 she had to turn to identity politics to separate the No Lakota Levy group I represented for their 2013 attempt which they ended up winning by a very narrow margin. But it wasn’t Lakota who did anything to turn the tide, it was Sheriff Jones who wanted to put armed cops in the schools to protect them from mass shooters, or the potential. As it turned out, just as I said it would be, the whole thing was a scam, the money from the levy wasn’t used to cover cops or even security. Lakota did do those things, but ultimately the money was only to give teachers raises for their very high wages. My argument back then was that it didn’t bother me that Lakota had several teachers with six figure salaries, but that through collective bargaining the labor union wanted everyone to have those extraordinary salaries and back then the average wage was over 70K per year. We always hear stories about how low teachers are paid, well that’s not the case at Lakota, the teachers are well paid and the union props them all up and makes it nearly impossible to fire problem employees like the recent drama witnessed by the ex-Lakota employee, the transgender activist Emily Osterling. She sued the district for her proposed termination, and she won a settlement of $175,000 which the tax payers had to cough up ultimately.

Lakota is in my back yard so I want them to do well, but only until they become a pain in the ass in asking for too much money. I am proud of Lakota as long as they aren’t asking for money and by looking at their annual budget of over $220 million per year it is clear that the school board has not managed the money correctly. Now to their defense, the collective bargaining agreements by the union make normal value stream assessments nearly impossible. It takes three solid votes to really manage a district when there are five board members. It has taken a long time to get the two good ones that we have now and a lot of pushing and shoving. I have been asked many, many times to take on the job, but for my part, I have no desire to negotiate with a labor union all the time and I think the education system should be completely dismantled and recreated with a school choice competitive option. So its not a job for me, but we do need smart people who understand value creation to do the job. In that regard, there is an option in Jim Hahn.

However, the union vote will come out for their own preservation and they will vote this November for Julie Shaffer, so it will be a tough climb for Jim Hahn. He’s going to need some help and a good turnout. The union will not want him on the school board because they are against anything that does not stop the upward mismanagement of financial resources that are set to run out by 2023. Most of that $220 million budget is all in teacher salaries and that is just ridiculous. In an age where kids are learning more from hand held devices such as smart phones and personal computers, physical teachers are going the way of the drive-in. The test results just do not show that a teacher in the classroom make or break much in a student’s life. Most of the feel good stories are propaganda by the unions which young people are prone to be sucked in to, but are shallow in credibility at best. Just take a look at the Lakota website and their reported financials. They are short on substance but are flashy with surface points and comparisons to other districts who are every bit as much of a disaster as they are—because they are all driven by unionized employees hungry for inflated wages and as little work to do as possible.

The bloodbath that I am promising will be simple value stream analysis of what Lakota really does for our community, which is very little. The high school football games are only important to the students and their families, the other 100,000 people who live in the Lakota school system could care less and people like me without kids in the school system go through our daily days not even noticing the school buildings or their occupants. Life is busy and there is a lot for people like me to do that has nothing to do with the school system, and people like me are in the majority. All it takes is to get them to show up to vote, and they can easily out vote the union radicals which is why it takes Lakota an average of three levy attempts to get a tax increase passed. And to do that they have to resort to guerrilla warfare, not the goodness of people’s hearts. I would personally rather have the bloodbath rather than harm future business growth in our region with another Lakota tax increase, and argued that way, the way all businesses are measured, the story is quite clear. Lakota is not a value to our community, but a hindrance and the product they produce is failing and will continue to fail until the unions no longer run the government schools. That is, unless a third conservative is elected to the school board, and the budget crises that is coming can be averted. The value of the district won’t change but the bad reputation that will put Lakota through a lot of pain could be averted. And I would think that to be a good thing.

Rich Hoffman

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

Its all about Branding: Trump Doesn’t Need Fox News

Of course, the rules are the same for every local candidate as it is in presidential elections, a public official like Donald Trump has a right to protect their brand, for it was their brand that we voted for and continue to support. When that brand is attacked, a public official has a right to protect it. Like most businesspeople, President Trump understands his brand and has done a great job over the years of building it, so it is with no small concern that he would seek to lash out at those trying to destroy his brand. Yes, he has a right to allow his supporters in the White House to dig up dirt from The New York Times reporters who have been activists against him and to seek to destroy them. Why not? And in the great relationship between Trump and Fox News, if the cable news station wavers, as it has under new leadership post Roger Ailes, then yes, Trump has a right to go after them. This nonsense about “journalistic integrity” is a lot of garbage. There is no integrity in the news business, especially in corporate media. It’s all entertainment based and designed toward ratings and for that, they should be very grateful toward the Trump brand.

It was embarrassing to listen to Brit Hume sound off about how Fox News does not work for the president, especially after Trump has given unfettered access to Fox News over the last four years or so. He’s been around long enough to know the game and he comes across sounding like an idiot. To consider that Fox News or anybody in journalism is “protecting” the public with a free and open press is foolish, and for people not to be upset about attacking Trump’s brand when that is what they voted for is disingenuous. I’ve never liked the part of Fox News that has Brit Hume in it, or Juan Williams, the disgraced NPR personality who was brought to Fox by people like Bill O’Reilly out of fairness and friendship. With Ailes out and O’Reilly out and the hiring of Donna Brazile there are obvious signs that the network is turning to the left because they think that’s where the future audience is. But it isn’t.

I never enjoyed the commentary of Charles Krauthammer for that matter when he would appear on Bret Baier. I have watched Fox News because they cover more that concerns me than other stations, but they aren’t nearly conservative enough for me. I would sit through the Krauthammer segments cringing at his institutional diatribes and do something else until he was done. Fox would claim itself to be fair and balanced, and I think that is generally true, but what they have been doing lately under the guidance of their new CEO Suzanne Scott is a sharp turn toward progressivism. And that isn’t much different from before, during the O’Reilly days where Fox News started the horse race with Hillary Clinton two years before the election. They wanted to tell the story of the Democrats and they have been soft on them even when crimes were committed. I would never say that Fox was a hard-hitting news organization. They just didn’t do as bad as the rest of them.

Where was the coverage of the Epstein molestations ten years ago when it mattered, when news outlets like Alex Jones were reporting what was going on and who was involved. Today Jones is de-platformed, you can’t watch his shows except on his website while outlets like Fox and CNN continue to be the dominate forces in news. But look at what they’ve gotten wrong, or rather, what they haven’t covered that has contributed to so much evil. If they really wanted to be fair and balanced, and unafraid, they would have not covered the Epstein rapes and connections to Bill Clinton conspiracy theories but would have followed the evidence to the real villains.

The same could be said of the FBI scandal where the attempt to overturn the Trump election was pushed to small segments and very little activism. We’re talking about a story bigger than Watergate, but nobody wants to touch it, essentially because most of the corporate news world is in on the action in some form or another, either from ties to government leakers or the Washington parties that are hard to get invites to. Fox News lets Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson do their rants on television, and they turn loose a few reporters to dig up the stories because it does feed the Trump base which is a huge part of the Fox News audience, but they never drive the story to a conclusion that would otherwise force resignations or public outcry. They do enough reporting to get people to have an emotional response, but not enough to cause change, so Brit Hume isn’t checking the powerful and holding them accountable. Fox News is just pointing things out and letting them drift into history the next day.

So, what right do they have to attack Donald Trump’s brand, but not to have him and his people shoot back? Why would anybody in the media think such a thing was viable, or even acceptable? Then for others to warn Trump not to upset Fox News because they might not cover his rallies and other events giving him a platform to the public. To suggest such a thing is to propose that it was the media that made Trump. But what nobody is talking about is that it was Trump’s brand that made Fox. Does anybody know what happened to Megan Kelly? She locked horns with the Trump brand and where did that get her? Out.

I wouldn’t say that it is just Trump’s brand, it could be anybody who has worked hard to build their name. They may use media to get there, but it isn’t the media that makes them, they are simply the benefactors of good television drama. They don’t make or break people the way that media operators want to believe. They need the brand of the dynamic in order to put content on their stations and that is the secret they don’t want anybody to know. But Trump understands it, and so do his supporters.

These same rules apply to the local press, wherever in the country you may live dear reader. They are all pretty much the same. They need you more than you need them. In this day and age where there are so many more options to get your name out and to build up your brand, you don’t need Fox News, or even NBC News. You don’t need to suck up to the Disney network of ABC and whisper in the ear of the local newspaper reporters, because nobody reads them anymore, because the content is boring. But they do need you, and Fox needs Trump. Trump doesn’t need Fox. That is the way the game goes and its time everyone realizes it. Especially that media. They are not the makers of the world and those who keep it in check. Rather, it is the branding of politicians that do the most good, because they do have to protect their brand, and that keeps them honest. Not the reporter or their networks. Sorry Brit Hume, but you aren’t very relevant to the scheme of things. And more and more, you are just a boring addition to a network that has added more boring people, not gotten better over time.

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

Why Government Health Care is Bad: Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $572 Million to fight opioids in Oklahoma

There are many more lawsuits ahead for Johnson & Johnson, one particular in Ohio coming in October that will likely end the same way as the one in Oklahoma did which granted $572 million in damages to help the state pay for its opioid crises. Of course, Johnson & Johnson will appeal and will try to settle out of court as many cases as they can. But what cannot be appealed or staved off in any way is the cause of the opioid crises itself, which is essentially the entire medical industry from the local doctor and pharmacy to the multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies that thrive of death and pain. Now that there is a roadmap to prosecute a company like Johnson & Johnson for their role and marketing dangerous pain killers to the public, then neglecting to mention the terrible side effects just so they could sell mass quantities of the drugs, many more states will start to get similar judgements and if the high courts grant payment and reject the appeals, then many of these big companies are done for. Which wouldn’t be a bad thing.

This is the big problem when government and corporations get together against the public good and don’t allow capitalist competition to rule the day. People must understand that the argument over health care isn’t to make people better, it’s to fight over who will get paid off of people’s pain. When there is profit in pain, this is the kind of effect everyone can expect. The solution of course to medical insurance is to have less people sick, for our medical system to repair people, not to prolong their death just so that they can be prescribed medicine to ease their pain. At the heart of the opioid crises is a problem that is the foundation of our entire civilization, are we going to go forward and evolve or will we just decline into dust and be one silly little page in history. The crux of the debate is upon us and it is the result of this latest drug company lawsuit.

Unfortunately, while many of us crave personal freedom about what television shows we want to watch, what cars we drive, who we marry, what schools we go to, what we like to eat on a Friday night, we surrender our lives to doctors almost entirely. We assume they know best because we were taught in school that they did, and we take their advice on everything, how to live our lives, whether or not we can work or be on disability, or what drugs we will put into our bodies which could change everything about us. As a matter of fact, every mass shooter recently had one thing in common besides broken homes, they all were on anti-depressant medicine—which of course taken with marijuana and alcohol can have devastating effects on sanity. But doctors enjoy the free vacations to Hawaii and other exotic places because their name appears as drug dealers from the local Walgreens and they get rewarded for writing the prescriptions. And so long as the trust in doctors is there and they desire to profit off the sick, we will always have this problem.

Personally, I avoid any kind of drug, even when I’m sick. The desire to alleviate pain is to attempt to shut out part of living. If something is painful it needs to be fixed and if you just numb the pain, you will never fix the problem. The purpose of pain is to solve it, not to suppress it. Instead of an insurance industry that pays for all these drugs to suppress pain, our focus should be to get people healthy to the point where they don’t have pain because they aren’t sick. But the massive imprint of the big pharms that drive up the cost of insurance and medical care in general is far too great and the only way to get out from under them is to essentially put them out of business in the way that Oklahoma and Ohio are striving to do. The amount of money at stake in the medical industry is staggering, to the point where $572 million is really just a small fee to pay. Johnson & Johnson would rather not pay it, but that alone isn’t enough to alter their operations. And there are far too many politicians who, like the doctors that prescribe the medicine, profit off of people’s pain.

For all the same reasons that there are political factions who are against President Trump’s attempts to make friends with North Korea or Iran, and to fight China with trade wars, that is because those factions represent those who profit off the suffering caused by the conflict. You don’t have to look very hard to see that dear reader. It’s as obvious as a sunrise in a cloudless, desert sky. The opioid crises was caused for all the same reasons, because there is profit in pain and death, and short term, small minded people would gladly trade in their immortality for a beach house in Florida for twenty years of their gradually diseased life. There is no Republican health care plan that could be unleashed so long as this is the state of the medical industry, to profit off of pain and to drag out the effects of death to give pharmaceuticals a market longer into the lifespan of the average person. It’s not the quality of life that health insurance is seeking to cover, it’s to maintain dependency so the drug companies can flourish, which is why they support politicians who argue for universal health care.

Human beings are just biological machines, there is nothing about them that cannot be fixed or maintained at a certain healthy level. If they were healthy once, they could be healthy again. But our medical industry is not interested in healthy people who do not need them. They need the sick, and ever dying. It is a short-sighted profit path for the partnership between government and corporations and has nothing to do with capitalism. The entire system plays to the worst of human nature, to remain short sighted, and to avoid pain suppressing problems instead of solving them.

If Trump had not been elected president these fights wouldn’t be happening. It is in the lack of a government health care solution that there are any signs in any courts to even consider taking on big pharma, because the lobby money is lucrative. But Trump has changed politics and politicians are seeing the benefits of the long view as opposed to the short and science is finally starting to put courage in the minds of the sick. More and more people are realizing that they don’t have to listen to their doctor, that maybe if they stay healthy, that they can avoid the doctor all together. And when that happens a real freedom can be realized that most people never thought possible. But to have it they can’t be on drugs and under the influence of a medical system that wants to ride them, not to set them free. When we talk about government health care what we are talking about is prolonging this problem and when we talk about suing big pharma, we are actually seeking to free ourselves from their influence. And that is a great thing that couldn’t come fast enough. Then once it does, we can really get started as a species because if there is anything that is truly holding us all back it’s the nonsense about life and death and sickness and health. We can do better and if big pharma goes down, we can have something much, much better.

Rich Hoffman

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