Bill O’Reilly Wants Gun Control?: The true ‘THIN BLUE LINE’

Bill O’Reilly is not alone in his confusion over the role that government plays in the gun debate. There has been a lot said about his heated debate with Rep Chaffetz over stricter gun laws. Bill O’Reilly the popular author and TV reporter on Fox News is typically a conservative leaning investigator, but due to his roots in working class Levittown, New York, he has a soft spot for labor unions, and due to the fact that he’s lived and worked around New York City for a good part of his life, where they have banned guns completely, his view of the outside world is somewhat tainted.

O’Reilly blew up recently on the air with Chaffetz stating that while he did support American ownership of firearms, O’Reilly thought that the FBI should be contacted when heavy weapons or ammo are purchased. On the surface, what O’Reilly says makes sense; law enforcement should know what’s going on and what they are getting involved with if they are required to apprehend a suspect like James Holmes who has been stockpiling assault rifles and ammunition ahead of an intended shooting spree. O’Reilly’s reasoning is that if the FBI had the ability to know that James Holmes was buying large amounts of ammunition that law enforcement might have been triggered to watch Holmes more closely and therefore might have stopped the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting before it happened.

People who live in gun banning cities like Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York share with people who live in gun banning countries such as Canada and England the naïve assumption that law enforcement is always on the side of the people they are sworn to protect. These people believe that law enforcement should have 100% of community cooperation yielding all freedoms to the scrutiny of those law enforcement officers. Typically the people who are worst in this complete yielding of their personal freedoms to government authority have lived in the coastal cities at some point in their life and already had to face the concessions of living in those gun banning zones, so the premise of their argument is corrupted by their experience.

In the fly over states, gun ownership is a fact of life. Virtually everyone I know who does not live in a metropolitan area treasures their guns. Many own 3 to 5 per household, and these are typically very intelligent people who have very good jobs, raise very good families, and are overall good citizens. There are probably as many guns within 10 miles of my home as there are on a small military base, and that’s good. That’s exactly how it should be. In my community there isn’t much for police to do except break up domestic violence situations and petty theft. People in my community do not shoot each other when someone cuts the grass over on the property of their neighbor. Generally, people get along nicely, even when some of those people support school levies and others do not. We take our differences out at the ballot box, but generally are kind to each other while in public. Part of the reason for the peace and prosperity in rural areas are because of the large amounts of guns.

Cops are not shot when they come to our doors in suburbia. They are respected even when all they really have to do is sit on the side of the road and give us traffic tickets. There is a respectful tension between the general public and law enforcement. But there is not fear, because we are armed, and so are they.

But law enforcement by its title takes their orders from the political system that is in place, and if the political system is corrupt, like we all know it is abuses are bound to occur. In areas where guns are confiscated, stories of police violence against citizens goes up dramatically. Now, in my family there are several members who are cops, and one of my nephews who I have always been close to wants to be a cop. So what I say is taken in context and from experience. I have personally employed cops, and have known some of them as good friends, and with all that said I would not surrender my life completely to them under any circumstance. I do not trust them to make decisions on my behalf that will dictate the direction of my life, the lives of my family, and my property. I respect them and the danger of their job, but that is also what they are being paid for. I don’t give them a right to my life and property in the name of safety, I don’t give them the right to molest my wife and daughters, and I certainly don’t give them the right to draw a gun on me because they have a tendency to overact with grand theatrics when danger is present. I’ve seen this kind of behavior in more than one fight outside of bars where they show up on the scene and see a person laying face down in a pool of blood and assume the guy still standing did something wrong. Cops just like most people panic at the site of blood and guns, and they let their fears get away from them often. Cops are dangerous under this condition. Many of the gun laws created have been created under the pretense of panic where law makers have pandered to police officer’s fears.

Before the baby shower that my wife and daughter where holding for my youngest daughter over the previous weekend they sent me up to the local convenient store to purchase ice for the multiple coolers that were to be filled with drinks. I found myself in line behind a derelict of a man who was buying lottery tickets. Once he had his tickets he left and I was able to pay for my ice and get the key from the attendant. I went outside to get my ice out of the freezer and found that the man with the lottery tickets was sitting in his car scratching off the numbers. As I pulled out my bags of ice, the man cried out in glee from his car. “I won—I won!”

He jumped out of his car as though he had just won a million dollars and held the tickets up for me to see. “It won me some big money today! I won twenty dollars! I was afraid I was going to have to borrow money from my brother-in-law for cigarettes, but now I don’t have to!” As I loaded up my ice I couldn’t help but smile at the man who wasn’t any older than I was. “Now, if that happened every day, you’d never have to work another day in your life,” I said. He looked at me with confused attempts to connect neurons in his brain and relate something in his life that would help him understand my context. But my comment was completely foreign to him. I might as well have spoken a foreign language to him, because his lifestyle and mine are so far apart they might as well be from different countries. As I watched him run in to cash out his lottery tickets and come back out with a box of cigarettes and a toothless smile from ear to ear I thought—that was a guy I don’t want to have a gun—because he’s not smart enough to carry one.

It is people like that guy who police worry about when they have to arrest them for domestic violence because they beat the hell out of their bother-in-law over cigarette money, or had sex with their wife’s sister because they were all drunk and passed out on the floor of their smoke infested trailer. The wife erupts into a violent range wanting to kill the man for his reckless sexual exploits. It is often the poor and destitute who have trouble with guns, just like they have trouble with money. I have tried to employee such people for years, and they often lose their jobs because of attendance—they just don’t have the ambition to get out of bed. Many of them would rather use government regulation and unemployment benefits to keep from having to show up for a job, and because they are essentially lazy, they have low quality people in their lives and a low quality life style, and it’s there choice.

I should not be restricted from owning military grade weapons because of people like that lottery ticket guy. I should be able to have the guns of my choice in case politics fail completely and I need an equalizer against tyranny. Hopefully, just by having the gun, it will mean I never have to use it. But in not having it, police abuse and political cover-ups will occur, because they do now—and always have. My life is more important than the collective sum of the lottery ticket guy, or the nature of a politician’s congressional district, or presidential reign. All those kinds of things are just blips on the radar screen and don’t mean much in the scheme of things.

The FBI, the CIA, the ATF, the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA and our local police officers cannot be trusted to do the right thing 100% of the time. The need for the gun is for the 1% of the time that humans fail their fellow-man with the knowledge that one group has power over another. When the officer cuffs a man for a traffic warrant late on a Saturday night and discover his wife is in a compromised position and is quite attractive and unprotected, they may offer to turn the man loose if the woman has sex with them. Yes it does happen. The wife may want not want her husband arrested, or maybe going to jail will bankrupt them so she might be inclined to do as the officers suggest. I know of cops who have sat in my backyard and bragged about this kind of stuff. The arrested man at that point should have the right to defend his wife, and is property from intruders. But because the man is handcuffed in the back of a patrol car and the law has taken possession of his home, the police are in complete command to dictate the terms of release or apprehension. If the police know that the man is not a registered gun owner who might seek revenge for the indiscretion, they are much more inclined to abuse their power and take advantage of the wife.

If the man is a gun owner, the police will treat the man with much more respect. They’ll be much more careful with any suggestions that man might interpret as threatening because after the court hearings are over, they don’t want that man to come after them for revenge. So they treat everyone with more respect. That respect comes because of the gun.

The bottom line is no government agency needs to know any more about our lives than they need for basic government operation. They do not need to have the ability to have complete control over the American population in times of martial law. The President of the United States does not have the right to impede our rights over some political panic. And the weakest links of our society cannot be allowed to create legislation to keep certain guns out of their hands which punishes all of society. If we allow the weak links of our culture to determine the levels of our freedoms then we might as well consider ourselves a conquered civilization.

People like Bill O’Reilly are well-intentioned, but they are corrupted with the gradual erosion of progressive politics that have made such slight indiscretions seem minor and reasonable. When gun grabbers suggest that the Constitution was written in a time when the only guns were balls of lead and single shot muskets they are missing the point. America is not a land of law run by lawyers, and the Constitution is not a legal document as typical lawyers might consider it. It’s a political philosophy that has law draped from it as decoration. The decorations can all be removed yet the structure is still intact. It does not matter if the gun is a single shot musket, or an automatic machine gun, the need for guns in society are to equalize all participants with the ability to wipe temptation from the minds of the would-be thief, the looting politicians, and the ruthless dictator.

The government does not need to know what, or when we buy something or what we intend to do with it. It’s none of their business. Having more law enforcement officers does not make me feel safe. Only a gun at my own hip, or the guns next to my bed, or in my garage make me feel safe, and the need for them is an acknowledgment of human philosophy that understands the true nature of people. Gun control is social engineering that assumes that the people who look over our records, and monitor our activities are superior in their decision-making skills to society in general, and that just isn’t the case. In fact, it couldn’t be further from the truth. For those who assume that dangerous weapons are OK to ban from the public the meaning of the weapons are lost in the discussion. No—we do not need an AK47 to shoot a deer. But we may need it if a major storm comes through and knocks out power for days on end and bands of looters roam from house to house to rape, pillage, and destroy the property and lives of the inhabitants while the police are overwhelmed with the emergency. That is the time when all you have is yourself, and your guns to keep tragedy from making another victim of a family that trusted the law completely even though all the rules of society changed the moment the power went out. In times like that, more than a .22 six shot rim fire will be needed. That’s when the big guns come out, and the threat of those guns becomes the true “Thin Blue Line,” that was always the reality but never acknowledged.


This is what people are saying about my new book–Tail of the Dragon

Just finished the book and am sweating profusely. Wow, what a ride !!!  Fasten your seat belts for one of the most thrilling rides ever in print.

Visit the NEW Tail of the Dragon WEBSITE!  CLICK HERE!

Rich Hoffman!/overmanwarrior

Please Save Us Young People: Only The Mindless Will Follow!

There is without question a social engineering strategy behind the political left. Their ideas taken on their own merit are flimsy, and cannot withstand the test of time, they must, must recruit members of their rank from people who have difficulty reading, foreign immigrants trying to get the rest of their families into the country which creates an effective and loyal voting bloc, minorities that have been carefully nurtured into the welfare addiction, and the youth which aren’t old enough to know much because they don’t have the benefit of experience.

That’s why Van Jones below is pandering to the youth. He knows deep down inside that thinking people who can actually reason out the type of rhetoric he utters and won’t follow him. So he needs ground troops that are in a natural state of rebellion from their parent’s conservative ways that are seeking to create their own orbits with insubordinate behavior that provides the escape velocity from their childhoods to do so.

Such rhetoric is seductive to the weak mind, and most youth have not yet acquired strength.

What does it speak of a movement that requires mindless acceptance, or the sole benefit of a charismatic speaker? How deep are the roots of a movement that must capitalize on ignorance and naïveté? We can see the effect of this brain washing ability as thousands of idolizing media students studied Walter Lippmann in college and set them on a course which is obvious to this day.

Lippmann believed that the“governing class” must rise to face the new challenges. He saw the public as Plato did: a great beast or a bewildered herd – floundering in the “chaos of local opinions.” Thousands of those same media students, who now work for CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times and many others carry out what they learned in their youthful drunkenness of the university. Lippmann’s philosophy has been eagerly embraced by left leaning professors to shape the minds of those young people in much the same way that Van Jones is attempting in the above clip.

But not everyone bought into the Lippmann idea. Some journalist approached the profession with an open mind, and formed their own opinion, and never lost the ability to think “critically.” Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your position, Fox News attracts those types of “critical” reporters, and the success of that network says everything. The public sees through the smoke.

Want proof? Have a look at this clip from the 9/12 Rally on Washington in September of 2009. Look how many people were there. Yet only Fox was covering it.

Even if Fox put the rally on, which they didn’t, so many people gathered in one place in Washington D.C. was news. Big news! But the networks and newspapers virtually ignored it, as if they hoped to wipe the incident from the minds of the public. Such an act is a form of collective censorship and this is right out in the open. The media was caught with their hands in the cookie jar on this.

There is a force from within our country to subvert us all and convert us into something else. Those that point it out will be labeled as “crazy” “conspiratorial” “delusional” and any number of names designed to discredit the messengers who attempt to wake up the masses.

Lucky for us all at least one media outlet attempted to hold the media role in the proper context, and for that we all have Bill O’Rielly to thank for it. As Fox News rose to power, it was Bill that set the pace with “real” journalism. And Fox built the network around his philosophy.

Now for people like Van Jones, Fox is a threat. Jones certainly isn’t the only one. But in their quest to expand the welfare state, immigration voting blocs and an ever more influential youth, people like him is ultimately doomed to fail.

Once those kids grow up and learn that everything Jones is saying is a lie, those kids will become the conservatives of their parents, and they’ll switch from MTV, to Fox News, unless they lose too many brain cells in the process to ever fully recover. For those types of people, they are lost beyond recovery. But fortunately for the human race, most of those people can be recovered from the depths of their liberal madness.

Rich Hoffman!/overmanwarrior

We Are At WAR!

You won’t see tanks driving down your street. You won’t see troops knocking on your door. But you will see your way of life being destroyed in a way that is no different than a military unit cutting off a railroad or other major supply line to a strong opponent. Philosophically, economically, ethically, we are at war.

Another one of my favorite books, which is a book I studied carefully over a period of years because it’s one thing to read the book word for word and gain a basic understanding. But the work of Sun Tzu requires an understanding of eastern philosophy, which is something specifically unique to Japan and China. The following quote is from The Art of War under PLANNING A SIEGE.

Complete victory is when the army does not fight, the city is not besieged, the destruction does not go on long, but in each case the enemy is overcome by strategy. So the rule for use of the military is that if you outnumber the opponent ten to one, then surround them; five to one, attack; two to one, divide. If you are equal, then fight if you are able. If you are fewer, then keep away if you are able. If you are not as good, then flee if you are able. This advice applies to the case where all else is equal. If your forces are orderly while theirs are chaotic, if you are excited and they are sluggish, then even if they are more numerous you can do battle. If your soldiers, strength, strategy, and courage are all less than that of the opponent, then you should retreat and watch for an opening. Therefore if the smaller side is stubborn, it becomes the captive of the larger side.

There are five ways of knowing who will win. Those who know when to fight ad when not to fight are victorious. Those who discern when to use many or few troops are victorious. Those whose upper and lower ranks have the same desire are victorious. Those whose generals are able and are not constrained by their governments are victorious. These five are the ways to know who will win.

This section is under FORMATION:

To perceive victory when it is known to all is not really skillful. Everyone calls victory in battle good, but it is not really good. Everyone says victory in battle is good, but if you see the subtle and notice the hidden so as to seize victory where there is no form, this is really good. It does not take much strength to lift a hair, it does not take sharp eyes to see the sun and moon, it does not take sharp ears to hear a thunderclap. What everyone knows is not called wisdom. Victory over others by forced battle is not considered good. In ancient times those known as good warriors prevailed when it was easy to prevail. If you are only able to ensure victory after engaging an opponent in armed conflict, that victory is a hard one. If you see the subtle and notice the hidden, breaking through before formation, that victory is an easy one. Therefore the victories of good warriors are not noted for cleverness or bravery. Therefore their victories in battle are not flukes. Their victories are not flukes because they position themselves where they will surely win, prevailing over those who have already lost.

Great wisdom is not obvious, great merit is not advertised. When you see the subtle it is easy to win—what has it to do with bravery or cleverness? When trouble is solved before it forms who call that clever? When there is victory without battle, who talks about bravery?

For those who will say that I am over exaggerating or that I am seeing what I want to see in the matter, you are part of the problem. The information is in books. Sun Tzu to the Chinese is probably revered more highly than George Washington is to the United States. Chairman Mao used The Art of War to defeat Chiang Kai-shek. I was a big fan of Kai-shek. My favorite modern military figure is Claire Lee Chennault leader of the Flying Tigers. Chennault worked closely with Kai-shek to hold off communism in China, but weak US policy after World War II lead to Mao taking over the country in 1949. Chennault warned of the possibility of future war with China in his WONDERFUL book Way of the Fighter published in 1949. In that book, that is now considered a rare book, Chennault predicted the trouble with Korea and Vietnam years before they occurred. It was a shame that nobody listened then.

Starting on page 505 of Joseph Campbell’s masterpiece called Oriental Mythology, published in 1962 and was part of four books he spent 12 years writing; he chronicles the beginning of communism in China quite startlingly. While China was showing propaganda pictures to the world such as a family sitting at the table under a picture of Mao, the following events occurred. Keep in mind this is just one account of many.

A man, aged twenty-two from Doi-Dura in th Amdo region was told by the Chinese that he required treatment to make him more intelligent. The Chinese at the time were telling Tibetans that they were a stupid inferior race and would have to be sup-planted by Russians and Chinese. They took blood tests of this man, his wife, and many others, and there are a number of corresponding reports from different parts of Tibet detailing the sort of operation to which this young man and his wife were the next day forced to submit. They were both taken to the hospital. “He was completely undressed, placed on a chair and his genital organs were examined. Then a digital rectal examination was carried out and the finger was agitated. He then ejaculated a whitish fluid and one or more drops fell on a glass slide which was taken away. After this a long pointed instrument with handles like those of scissors was inserted inside the urethra and he fainted with pain. When he came round the doctors gave him a white tablet which they said would give him strength. Then he received an injection at the base of the penis where it joins the scrotum. The needle itself hurt but the injection did not. He felt momentarily numb in the region until the needle was removed. He stayed ten days in the hospital and then a month in be at home….he had been married for only two years and prior to this treatment had very strong sexual feelings…Afterwards he had no sexual desire at all….”

Meanwhile, his wife “was undressed and tied down. Her legs were raised and outstretched. Something very odd which became painful was inserted inside the vagina. She saw a kind of rubber balloon with a rubber tube attached, the end of which was inserted inside the vagina. The balloon was squeezed and his wife felt something very cold inside her. This caused no pain and only the tube and not the balloon was inserted. She remained conscious throughout. Then she was taken to bed. The same procedure was carried on every day for about a week. Then she went home and stayed in bed for about three weeks,” and thereafter she had neither sexual feeling nor menstruation.

There will always be the types of individuals on this planet that seek to control others. And with the United States having the most advanced war weapons on the face of the planet, enemies of the United States will not attack us directly, because they can’t. But they will undermine us from within. They will use propaganda to divide our nation. They will use our movie stars to perpetuate their message. They will seek to wreck our economy, our life style. They will seek to get our politicians moving in a direction that is not of the people’s wishes. And they will be patient and strike when they are sure to win.
Don’t kid yourself. We are at war right now.

And if you don’t watch any of the above, watch this one.

This is extremely serious. Pay attention and understand what’s happening. That’s the first step to turning this around.
Nothing is impossible. For inspiration I look to our AMERICAN games. If we get our minds in the game, this could be our a nation instead of just a game from my favorite sports team. I look to this game as a metaphor that nothing is ever lost until the clock runs out of time. Here is Matt Bryant’s 62 yard field goal against the Eagles in the final seconds of the game. In theory, a kick from mid-field should be impossible.

Here is the view from the stands, under the Pirate ship, where I like to sit.

And the box seats.

And leaving the stadium after the big kick.

America needs a victory like this. We need to get our currency strong again, and to regain our strength on the world stage. It’s not too late.

Rich Hoffman

What Keeps America Free?

What keeps America free?

Two things:

First, it’s an educated and thoughtful public. Obviously, Americans have become lazy over the years, and this has opened the door for propaganda to penetrate our culture.

The second thing is journalism. For my money Bill O’Reilly is the best reporter of our modern age. He’s really the only one I can think of in mainstream media that does the job the way it’s designed to be done. There’s a reason he’s so popular. It’s because he’s done the work and people know he’s doing the job with his heart behind it.

Who could say that Bill O’Reilly doesn’t work hard or care?

A journalist or reporter isn’t supposed to be friendly, or even liked. They are supposed to be the watchdogs of our society. Not instruments of propaganda.

Those that say Fox News is the right hand of the Republican Party are part of that first point; they are lazy in that they just buy into what people tell them because they are too lethargic to find things out for themselves.

Reporters are supposed to be confrontational. They are supposed to dig out the truth.

More and more however, in this non-confrontational society, reporters are afraid that they’ll miss the scoop if they tick off those in powerful positions. That too is because they are lazy. They are waiting for someone to tell them something, instead of doing the digging themselves. Again, this is why Bill O’Reilly does such a great job.

I’ve watched local newspaper reporters totally fold to school board members because they spend so much time with the elements of the stories they write, that they form friendships and become lap dogs. So inadvertently, they don’t do their jobs correctly either because they are closer to the story than the people they are presenting the story to.

So before proclaiming that one network or one reporter or another is part of an agenda, just look at their work ethic. Reporters that work hard for the news are not likely to be a lap dog for powerful interest. And I’ll trust a hard working reporter every time, because I value what they tell me no matter what the material they worked hard to get, says.

I think a lot of you Bill. Keep up the great work!

Rich Hoffman

A Journey through Progressive Philosophy

What is the Progressive Philosophy and why it’s a misguided and naive journey that millions of good Americans have fallen to?

What follows is a video journey of progressive ideology. The below video is a clip from Angeles in America.  You will recognize Meryl Streep and Al Pacino, both of whom I think are fantastic actors.  But you have to remember, they are actors, and their thoughts generally come from a writer, which makes them perfect pitchmen of political philosophy.  They often don’t investigate matters too deeply, the same as everybody else in every workplace.  Because the money in Hollywood goes to projects and people who embrace progressive thought, naturally successful actors will reflect that philosophy.  That’s how they stay in work. 

This is the platform:

This is the implementation:

This is the reality:

The Warning from 1946.

The hope to stop the Snake oil salesman that have dominated our political system.

The War:

What are the weapons and when did they strike hardest………sex:

This in 2003

And this in 2004

After these events, sex officially became mainstream on public air waves. Films then had to take the next step, and the pornographic industry had to turn up the marketing blitz. And during this great distraction, which is so very easy and seductive, progressive ideas have grown deeper roots.

With this information, do what you will with it. But don’t be gullible in thinking that this is not an organized insurrection from foreign powers no different than mankind has always experienced. For all those literature buffs out there, read Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus, one of my all time favorite plays. The motives from then are the same as now.

My advice, don’t buy the snake oil.

Rich Hoffman