I Was Struck by Strzok’s Testimony: Louie Gohmert represented me well during the House Oversight Committee hearings of 2018

This is what happens when being “under oath” has no meaning. When we live in a judgeless, valueless society where nobody is supposed to use values as a hammer against others, you get a lying, deceitful, arrogant FBI agents like Peter Strzok. His testimony in front of the House Oversight Committee was extraordinary, the disgraced FBI agent who had run the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation and started the whole debacle against Donald Trump and the phony Russian conspiracy showed the nation what the true face of evil looked like. Many in the aftermath of the hearing were critical of people like Louie Gohmert from Texas who lost it a bit during his portion of the interview, but I thought his quest for sincerity and honesty were at the core of the entire endeavor. Not that I have any love for Peter Strzok, but if I had been his attorney I would have had him take the fifth, because the disgraced FBI agent said too much in what he figured would be a Beltway endorsement of his bad behavior.

The miscalculation that he and many of the Democrats made approaching the hearing was that the value of institutionalism would triumph over the bad deeds of Peter Strzok who was having an affair with FBI lawyer Lisa Page and was sharing copious amounts of information while on the job and using FBI communication devices to essentially start the ending of the Donald Trump presidency before the election even took place. It’s no conspiracy theory to conclude that the FBI using Peter Strzok sought to tamper with the election of 2016 in many ways, first in meddling with the Hilary Clinton campaign, allowing her to be a candidate when she technically should have been facing the same type of prosecution that was targeted at former celebrities like Martha Stewart. But when Donald Trump emerged that summer to head the Republican ticket, Peter Strzok along with several other agents purposely sought to destroy his candidacy and they hid their efforts behind a completely made up Russian story to give them cover from public judgment. And the whole thing had blown up in their face leaving the arrogant Peter Strzok to appear before the committee to attempt to talk his way out of the mess and restore faith in the FBI. Things did get heated, as they damn well should have.

Louie Gomert wasn’t just interviewing a witness in what appears to be one of the biggest scandals in American history, he was literally sitting in front of a devil, a representation of evil that overwhelmed him with emotion to confront such a beast. I can’t blame him one bit. Peter Strzok wasn’t testifying to get to the truth, he was there to take one for the team at the FBI who desperately needed him to show up and earn back the respect of the American people. Instead of pleading the fifth, Strzok offered a defense in public that was supposed to satisfy people and to take Republicans off the conspiracy case and turn America’s judgement back to Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian tampering of the Trump campaign, as if such a thing would explain to the institutionalists why Trump was in the White House and not one of their own kind. It used to be that no matter how villainous a person was, there was at least some agreed upon civility that we could all find in each other under a respect for a God and an oath taken with a hand on the Bible to him. But we aren’t living in those times. Few people believe in anything anymore, especially whether or not their eternal souls will burn in the damnation of Hell for lying. People like Peter Strzok these days pledge their oaths to the institutional values of their respective group associations instead and that makes them very dangerous when they attempt to play on the traditions of American civil conduct.

The Democrats were just as bad as Strzok, they were using the same deflective tactics to explain away Peter Strzok’s very dangerous conspiracies as they did to explain the law breaking of Hillary Clinton in both her email scandal and the debacle in Benghazi where in both cases at a minimum she showed terrible judgment. If her behavior wasn’t grossly illegal, which I think it was in both situations they certainly showed that she was an incompetent leader, which was a clear indicator that the Democrats should have been looking for someone else to run for president. Instead of judging Hillary Clinton on the content of her character they were supporting her for president just because she was a liberal woman—and nothing more. It was up to the FBI to fix up her mistakes from the vantage point of the intelligence community and put a stick up her back to keep her standing so she could be elected president. What nobody counted on was that those smelly people who live between the big cities and shopped at Wal-Mart were so mad at the system that had evolved out of the Beltway that they were poised to vote for Donald Trump, which is precisely what they did. To support their own illusions of how things were supposed to work, the FBI, the DOJ and the Obama White House created the fake Russian story, which had new revelations that came out of this hearing which came from Jim Jordan’s line of questioning. The point of the Russian story was to divert attention away from the reality that American’s were rejecting liberalism as it had evolved in Washington D.C. People didn’t want a House of Cards type of representative republic, they wanted Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

To sell his position, Peter Strzok and the rest of the FBI behind him miscalculated what was really happening behind the Donald Trump presidency, even up to the House Oversight Committee testimony. For them the entire testimony was about selling whether or not Peter Strzok’s bias toward Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump played a part in his investigations into two presidential candidates to help shape the nature of the election. He needed to establish in is testimony that even though the text messages he exchanged with his lover Lisa Page showed bias that he professionally was above and beyond that kind of behavior and that the investigations he worked on were not corrupt with his influence. That is why he didn’t take the fifth, because he needed to offer an explanation that the Democrats could then sell as a way to still believe in the integrity of the FBI. But what they don’t know—actually they probably do because they spy on us extensively—is that people like me were planning to turn toward the Second Amendment if Donald Trump wasn’t elected, because if a guy like Peter Strzok ever came to my home to obtain records or make an arrest, he and his associates would be in big trouble. The people doing the arresting needed to be turned around. I voted for Trump to turn things back toward justice, back to an America where a hand on the Bible still meant something. Not an FBI agency that was trying to give the White House to Hillary Clinton by not only tampering with the election process, but in destroying the people who would run against her.

It might not have been civil, but Louie Gohmert represented my thoughts on the matter, he asked the questions I wanted him to ask, he represented me in that hearing. If a man like Strzok will lie to his own wife and use such bad judgment in sending 600 text messages a week while he’s supposed to be doing the work of an FBI agent to a lover of his, then how can we believe anything he has said ever—especially on the matter that he didn’t have any personal bias against Donald Trump and favored the election of Hillary Clinton and intended to use the tools and power of the FBI to steer the election in that direction. That is very serious stuff and if not for Gohmert’s line of questions what other option do we have to remove such people from the FBI or reform it back to something that it should be—at least an organization that can take an oath of office and mean it. If a man won’t keep an oath to his wife, how in the hell can he keep one to a company he works for? It really does come down to that. Such thoughts are not popular these days in a world that isn’t supposed to judge anything, but in essence, that is the central argument in this case. We are supposed to believe that Peter Strzok can lie about this or that, but not about that or this and everyone is supposed to live happily ever after. Well, no, that’s not how things work. And if not for these hearings, things would be much worse. What happened this week at the House Oversight Committee hearings was civil discourse. It’s a whole lot less violent than armed insurrection to take back our country. Democrats should be grateful that such mechanisms are still options in the pursuit of civil discourse. Louie Gohmert’s comments to Strzok are a whole lot more peaceful than what I had in mind and for that, they should consider themselves very lucky.

Rich Hoffman

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

How to Have a Happy Life: The nature of love and meaning of Pavarotti’s ‘Nessun Dorma’

I ran across this unique article linked below which of course inspired comment. So many people in life are drowning in misery and self-doubt which is a real tragedy because it’s all avoidable. It’s one thing to have little regrets in life which start when we are all very young, but if not dealt with properly they become monstrosities as we age, and it really destroys people. The burden of regret is a tremendous liability on most people as this little article explores in Best Life. Things get even more complicated philosophically for people as we instruct them that a sense of “self” is selfish and that they should always put others before themselves 100% of the time. Such a position in life is not conducive to a successful existence, so for the sake of inspiring people to live just a little bit better not just in the short-term, but the long-term as well, perhaps a few encouraging words are appropriate.

https://bestlifeonline.com/this-is-biggest-regret-in-life-most-people-have/

From my earliest memory I have always had a strong sense of self and I’ve protected that concept vigorously for over 50 years now. I’m not a believer in reincarnation, but my inner compass has always pointed toward the need to protect my individuality. For that reason, I have never struggled with peer pressure attempting to take me away from my personal goals which later led to regret. I can honestly say that at age 50 that I have no regrets in life. Not a single one. That is true of both good and bad memories. Of course, not everything is always rosy, but when I’ve needed to I’ve certainly defended my sense of self with arguments and fist fights—and even though some people did get very hurt, for me those events didn’t lead to regrets because I was defending my sense of self. I think a lot of people go wrong in their lives because they feel like they should say this or that when other people impose themselves, yet the target of those negative emotions never say anything, they just internalize the emotions leaving them to reflect later in life back to a regret, which then destroys them in thousands of negative ways always from the inside out. Speaking personally, when I felt I needed to do something to defend my sense of self, I have always done it, sometimes recklessly and against the advice of everyone. At the time such things seemed crazy, but it has led me to a life without any regrets and that is a huge benefit to me now.

We are all taught that there is something bigger than ourselves, which is really stupid. The person that people fall in love with and want to be near and to learn from is what we are, not what we sacrifice to others. If you are the type of person who is always giving of yourself and your time you should not be surprised that the people you attract in your life are all people drowning from their bad decisions in life, and that they migrate to you to take whatever you can give them. So unhealthy relationships persist under such conditions. On the other hand, you can’t be psycho about your sense of self either going to the extreme opposite, never letting anyone near you because you feel you are so weak that you can’t let people tow in your wake. I find that the definition that we all have for “love” is wrong. Love isn’t about “falling” for other people, a spouse, a child, or a friend, it’s about taking the substance of one’s existence and allowing people to share in the fruits born from the pronoun “I.” If a person does not have a strong sense of self, than what is there for anybody to “love” about you.

What people love is not what you can give them, but what they can “love” about you—that strong sense of self. For instance, children might love their father but if the guy is just sitting around on the porch of his house thinking about all the things he regrets about his life, the times he should have made more money, or the times he stepped away from a fight with a neighbor over grass clippings, or even gave up his seat in the employee cafeteria to avoid some kind of conflict, there isn’t much for the children to love about such a person except for the sacrifice they provided to their own existence. Compare that to the father who builds a model train set in his basement which the grand kids play with whenever they come over. The material representation of the train set is a reflection of the sense of self of the grandfather which provides some hook for which others in his life can love about him, and the relationship is much more beneficial for everyone. The self-interest of the father to pursue a train set is much more value to a family than a regretful shell of a man rocking in a chair at the end of his life handing out twenty-dollar bills to his children who appreciate the gesture but are craving a sense of love for their father.

I had a tremendously bad day the other day at the start of it and as I am known to do on such days things got a little hairy. One of my daughters was coming over for dinner that night and as the sun was starting to set they asked me what I wanted for dinner and were putting their toes into the water to check my mood. By the time we had the conversation I had solved many of my problems and my response to them was that I had taken a lot of curvy roads through the mountains that day and turned them straight through a desert terrain. Upon further inquiry they asked for details so I sent them by text this video of Luciano Pavarotti singing the famous opera of Nessun Dorma. It is a favorite of mine not because it has inspired me to great things, but because it often matches my mood and approach to things in my life. When I hear Pavarotti sing this opera it reflects my sense of self for which provides many people in my life with something to love about me. I had two choices in such an interaction, I could say that “oh, my day was so bad, I just don’t know what to do” which for me would be uncharacteristic, because I always know what to do. Or I could send them an uplifting message for which they could invest their love—which they could trust because they understand my need to turn curvy roads into nice straight roads and solve problems—no, to “conquer” problems.

It is far better to live a life with bumps and bruises and occasional broken legs than to learn to live with regrets. Similarly, on that bad day I described I gave a little class to some of my employees who needed to hear It about the road less traveled which I’ll share here for context. Do not expect in life to take the safe paved roads that are provided for you and expect to find rare treasures just laying along the side of them. All you ever find is pocket change that people who came before you accidentally drop. The way to really find treasures in life is off those paved roads in the places in the forest where no trail exists. That is where snakes will bite you, thorn bushes puncture your skin and you can even break a leg stepping on the uneven surfaces. But it is also there where treasures are more likely to be found and they don’t all come from actual gold, but in other valuable forms that are otherwise left unmolested due to the difficulty in retrieving them. Yes the road is safe, but the sense of self that we have for which people fall in love doesn’t like safety—because it leads to regret. Not asking that girl for a date, or not taking the time to read that book, or driving that car, or taking that vacation to Hawaii because it’s too expensive leads to a life filled with regret. Life can be difficult and it often can be punishing just to breathe in it, but for me I expect to end each of my days with that feeling you get from Pavarotti singing Nessum Dorma “I will win.” Win what and why, that is defined by our sense of self, and you must have that to know what winning means and how being a winner brings more love to the people in your life who care about you than just being a loser that stays on the safe roads of life and does what everyone tells you to do, leading to an obvious life of misery and regret that isn’t good for anybody.

Rich Hoffman

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

A Note to the Political Left: You want to fight, I’m more than ready

31% of people polled in a recent Rasmussen poll believe that we are headed to a second civil war in America.  I am one of them and when and if it happens, I offer myself to help win it on behalf of traditional America.  Just let me know.  It would be fun, and is greatly needed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2018/31_think_u_s_civil_war_likely_soon

I am an excellent communicator with a great vocabulary. I’ve done radio broadcasts, television, given public speeches, written a few books and conduct myself at a high professional manner in business. Additionally, I have a martial art background, am a professional bullwhip artist and am one of the fastest gun owners on the draw from a holster to target that there is in the United States. No matter what kind of confrontation I find myself in, I can deal with it easily. I can debate any topic with any person at any time and any place in any format, and I know that 99.9999999999999% of the time that will be enough. For that rare time that physical violence does erupt, which the older you get and the smarter you get is much less often—that I can take care of the situation. The reason I bring this up is that I know how to avoid conflict and prefer debate over violence any time. But I also know where the limits for debate are and when physical violence is unavoidable—and I am quite certain that the situation the political left is in currently, a year and a half into the Trump presidency, that likely violence is the only thing that will work against the threats that are being made against conservatives. Liberals cannot and will not listen to reason about the things that are going on in the world because their entire political platform is about avoiding reason and functioning from pure emotion—how they would like the world to be, not how it actually is, so no matter what format they choose to fight on, they are going to lose leaving them to retreat to the most primal of threats—physical violence.

I have said often what the purpose of public education is. I know a lot of school board members both current and former, and many of them want to believe that they can have some positive impact on public education, but they really can’t. The way public education was designed from its inception as a government instruction tool it’s primary concerns were not to make children literate or to learn math. It was to shape them into peer groups for which they would be controlled for their entire lives. The children were always meant to confront bullies in school and to learn later in life that when a neighbor, a homeowner’s association, a boss, an IRS official, a FBI agent or a mob of leftist protestors confront them that they were to yield to that bully. The reason there are bullies in public schools is because the system is designed to bring them forth and to confront the masses to teach them conformity to the system as a whole—not to nurture individualized feelings.

In addition to the things I mentioned above I had a very unusual period in grade school, from kindergarten to my senior year in high school—I never once in all that time yielded to a single bully so naturally I stepped into adulthood unbroken completely—which is an unusual vantage point. I learned these lessons very early in life when getting a paddling from the teacher and being sent to the principal’s office were supposed to be the scariest things a kid would have to endure. I’ve told this story before but it’s very relevant to this situation, in the first grade there was a really scary bully that everyone was terrified of and the teachers avoided because he was impossible to deal with. He had terrible parents and they knew there was nothing they could do with the kid. Yet he was learning in a classroom environment with all the other kids. He was twice the size of all of us and he was just mean. He was smoking cigarettes in school in the first grade! So he was hopeless and everyone knew it. But the suggestion was that we would all have to learn to live with him and learn to like it. We were supposed to go out of our way to appease the kid so that we wouldn’t get beat up. Well, not me, he happened to sit in front of me and I didn’t like the way he smelled or spoke, so we never got along. And one day he turned around to punch me in the face for smarting off to him and to defend myself I poked him in the eye with my scissors, as a raw reaction to his aggression. I got into a lot of trouble, and essentially the rest of my school years I was in and out of the principal’s office not because I was a bully, but because I refused to yield to them. The bullies never got into any real trouble, but I sure did. I was the good kid that was supposed to be molded into a productive citizen that would learn his place under the rule of the bullies. I did learn to be a productive person, but I never learned to yield to any bully. That has given me clarity to speak from regarding this present problem.

The political left is largely untested radicals who were nurtured from their youth to be bullies in their adulthood, not individually of course, but as pack hunters. Their greatest weapon is the kind of mass force that was experimented with during the Berkley Riots of 1965—where the students were used to drive social issues in a left leaning direction by essentially using mobs as a bully to instigate fear into the voting public. They were created in our public schools and deep in their subconscious have key words programmed into their minds which are activated by media buzz words for which they act like robots upon hearing them. And just like that they are trying to kick out Sarah Sanders from The Red Hen, or confronting Mitch McConnell outside his Georgetown condo and are roaming the country under the hoods of ANTIFA threatening to rape, destroy and vandalize any Trump supporter because they have the sense that the mood of the country has finally turned away from them and they may very well lose the next election cycle to even more Republicans.

Violence is all the political left has, they don’t have ideas, they don’t have a strategy, and they don’t have a future. All they have and all they ever had was fear driven by emotions. If they fail to evoke fear in their audiences, they have no impact legislatively, and as we all know, all rules in society should be made by reason, not emotional fears. The strategy of the old conservatives who hold a Bible in one hand and tell us to have compassion for our fellow people on the other side of politics are wrong. You cannot appease a bully when they are programmed to do nothing else but destroy. Like that bully I mentioned and many that came after him, there was no talking to or reasoning with the guy. He had to be destroyed, because that’s all he understood. And that is what we are dealing with now, people who will destroy you if you give them the chance. They are not ever going to listen to reason, they will never seek peace from thuggish aggression—because they don’t know anything else. We have to deal with them the only way that anybody can, with the offer of debate, but the moment that doesn’t work, violence. I certainly know the difference between the two, debate and violence. Debate is always preferred, but this fight before us isn’t a rational one. All the political left has in their arsenal is fear. And without that they have nothing. So when an opponent is intent to use the only weapon they have left, you have to meet them with at least an equal force. That means the time for talking is over, they will have to be beaten into oblivion in order for peace to ever have a chance. You must take away the only weapon they have before anything can change, and that takes courage, and the self-confidence to do so.

I can only speak for myself in this matter but when I hear the political left threatening violence against Trump supporters it makes me want to confront them and actually beat them into submission. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, I have all the tools to engage them with methods other than with violence, but if they think we are going to yield to them out of fear, they have a lot to learn. I would say, again, speaking for myself, it is impossible for them to beat me. I’ve been threatened in every way possible in the past and been through more than enough to know what happens during physical confrontations and there is nothing that worries me about anything they have to offer either as individuals or as mass groups. If you know how to defeat such people it doesn’t matter if the threat is one or a million, they can all be beaten—easily. Nobody is going to hurt me under any conditions. And nobody is going to hurt my family, friends or associates. There is no way for them to make a person like me comply to their brute force tactics and peer pressure. Being very Kantian philosophically they are inclined to believe that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody was around to hear it, that the event didn’t happen, because for the event to happen, they as a collective would have to accept that the event occurred. But reality says that if a tree falls in the forest it doesn’t matter if anybody heard it or not. It fell, and it happened regardless whether everyone agreed that the event occurred. That is the game that political leftists are trying to play with the Trump presidency. They are in denial that it happened, and they are willing to use whatever force necessary to deny its existence, not just from us, but from themselves. So for the good of mankind and of reality, we must take away their weapons and meet them with force equal to or superior to what they offer. And they must be destroyed, utterly, and completely as a philosophic species and be reborn as children of reason. That is the only option there is in 2018.

Rich Hoffman

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

Case of The Red Hen: Stephanie Wilkinson showed us why breaking the law on gun legislation is perfectly justifiable–if the “left” wants to fight, let’s go

Sarah Sanders, the White House Press Secretary for President Trump was with her family 200 miles into the Virginia countryside when they stopped by the little town of Lexington for some food at The Red Hen. From outside, it looked like an arty little place, badly painted and small—with only 26 seats, yet it had been a rough week and a little cultural experience seemed like just the thing, so they stepped inside to have a family meal, hopefully without the media paying much attention so they could relax. Yet the staff recognized her and wanted to make a political issue of the visit. Lexington was a liberal town centered in a conservative county, so they are already at odds with the Trump supporters of the rural countryside surrounding the town.

Not sure what to do they called up the cousin of Meryl Streep herself who was the restaurant owner and also the Director of Main Street Lexington which was a group designated to inspire a friendly business atmosphere in the downtown area. Stephanie Wilkinson as a liberal activist who had hired a lot of radicals to her staff had to take their side so she came in during the appetizer portion of the meal that was being served to Sanders and pulled her aside to ask her to leave. Sarah respected the restaurant owners right to serve whoever they wanted, so she and her family left. More specifics about this case can be seen at The American Thinker article below as well as this very interesting video featuring an interview with Stephanie Wilkinson herself. So much for her efforts at trying to help downtown Lexington—she just put a black eye on that poor town with her liberal activism, and everyone will have to pay for it, not just the little dump they call The Red Hen.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/red_hen_bigotry_or_moral_conviction.html

The hypocrisy couldn’t be clearer, when pressed by reporters in the wake of the aftermath, Wilkinson said she would do it again, and that she felt morally compelled to make the decision citing that the restaurant had certain standards that they had to uphold and that she had to uphold those standards by asking a member of the President’s staff to leave. Obviously, this is a problem because it calls to mind the rantings of the political left over the refusal of bakery owners to serve to gay people, or the Kentucky case of the clerk of courts to certify a marriage certificate because it was a gay couple, the notion of “standards” is quite an open issue, because those standards could be defined differently by different people in different regions. As much as the political left made of the issue you’d think they wouldn’t be so stupid to attempt such a refusal to serve, but obviously as the Supreme Court recently upheld, such places do have the right to discriminate if they so choose.

The case of the week which Sarah Sanders had to deal with by members of a very ignorant and immature press corps, was the breaking up of children from their parents at the border who had to be detained for trying to illegally cross the American border from the south. The political left was involved in attempting to spread the notion that illegal immigrants should ignore the law so to change the nature of the American population more to their favor. The political left at just about every issue they care about feel quite comfortable ignoring laws they don’t agree with and using mass force in the form of protests to legislate by overwhelming the courts. The same approach could be said to be in play over the marijuana controversy, where states are supposed to say, “oh well, people are going to smoke it anyway, so let’s just make it legal.” They are trying to do the same thing over border security, “look at all these poor children without their parents, let’s just let everyone out of jail and open up the borders.” The children are used as pawns, the media plays long with the narrative and law breaking is advocated as a viable option to the current state of things.

Yet mysteriously, those same liberals assume that if they lobbied for gun control for example, that the other half of the country who are not liberals would just magically obey the law if it were liberals who were in charge. Does that make any sense? What good would more gun rules be if all the people who like guns, like me, ignored those laws, overwhelmed the courts with cases they couldn’t possibly deal with, and filled the jails to the point that they couldn’t afford to send anybody else to jail. There are probably around 1.20 guns per American citizen, which comes out to well over 360 million and counting. Who in the right mind thinks that those gun owners would ever comply with the gun confiscations that the political left are always advocating for? The sheer numbers make it impossible, because if pushed, those of us with guns would just refuse to comply, the same way that liberals do on issues like border security, drug legalization, and even common decency such as restaurant service. I mean two can play at this game and I look at the case of Stephanie Wlkinson as a perfect example of how the political left has shown us their cards opening the refusal of any future liberal administrations to outright rebellion against any rules they might come up with. Lawlessness, and physical violence such as we’ve seen by the liberal group of anarchists called ANTIFA that have opened the door toward that type of reasoning. Do they think that conservatives won’t fight back, or that we won’t push back against incursions of our value judgments? Just because we tend to settle disputes with legal recourse and polite debate, that doesn’t mean that we will accept lawless administrations dictating terms to our lives.

Sarah Sanders did the right thing, if she had stayed, the radical lefts in the kitchen probably would have just spit in her food and sabotaged their experience passive aggressively. So they did her a favor to ask her to leave. She likely had a much safer meal elsewhere. What’s more dangerous than people like Stephanie Wilkinson openly protesting conservatives they don’t agree with are the saboteurs who just piss in your food from the kitchen, and believe me, that does happen. It’s good to know their minds, to watch how they probe the fences and how they react when they are not in charge, because when and if they ever are again, we have just as much right to break the law as they do, especially over the issue of gun control. The political left has shown us what they are willing to do when they aren’t the ones making the rules, and they have opened the door to outright lawlessness. So when they beg the police to come and confiscate our guns, they shouldn’t be surprised when we say no.

Liberals like Stephanie Wilkinson and her crappy Red Hen restaurant is a small player in the world economy. It is likely that people from outside of downtown Lexington, Virginia are not flocking to her restaurant of gay servers on a Friday and Saturday night for a “cultural meal.” Now if there were a Chick-fil-A in town, that place would be swamped, but not the Red Hen. Wilkinson probably thought that this whole deal with Sarah Sanders would be a good publicity stunt and fellow liberals would flock to Lexington to fill up their empty storefronts with like-minded liberal losers. But the opposite is happening to her, the Trump supporters from the countryside are just a little pissed off now, and the ramifications of that can be pretty scary. And like her cousin Meryl Streep learned, because Hollywood isn’t doing so well these days in the aftermath of their Trump protests, Stephanie Wilkinson poked the wrong bear. And that serves as a greater metaphor for all future legislation. If liberals are going to break laws and ignore conduct of proper decency in restaurants, than why should the rest of us respect them? Oh, didn’t think that far, did they?

If these liberal losers want to fight, I’m game.  If I were them, I wouldn’t bet on winning that fight.  After all, we ain’t playing patty cake.  The “left” better watch what they wish for.

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

The First Day of Summer at Premier Shooting: A nice way to celebrate what America is all about

I can’t say enough about Premier Shooting and Training Center which is in West Chester, Ohio. Every time I go there I feel renewed it is one of those places that has a spirit about it that is extremely positive. It’s a unique creation of American philosophy that does not shy away from their positive impact into the local community. They make West Chester so much better in what they do which is train people not only in proper firearms conduct, but general self-defense with various martial art forms. They are a really neat operation. Of course I’ve been to a lot of gun ranges over the years, but Premier is absolutely the best.

I was taking a VIP there the other day and it just happened to be the first day of summer and Premier was giving out free water bottles with the Premier logo on them and hot dogs. In addition to a really nice gun range that is wonderfully well ventilated and training classrooms that are equal to any college campus, they have a cafeteria overlooking their fishing lake which is very well stocked. So after doing a little shooting, they welcomed us to some hot dogs as a way to celebrate the arrival of summer which I thought was a very nice touch. Me and this VIP might have otherwise have gone to Jags for lunch, but the hot dogs were good enough given the atmosphere.

I’ve been to Premier before but recently since acquiring a gun that I had been thinking about for a very long time I have been going regularly to shoot it. Most of my shooting these days has been in my private range in my home where I shoot Cowboy Fast Draw. While that is fun, and still constitutes most of my shooting activity, the bullets are wax and not the same kind of experience as shooting my .50 AE Desert Eagle. To shoot that, you really need a range like they have at Premier. On this particular day I brought along my .500 Magnum, so we were shooting some very big ammunition for which the Premier ventilation system really showed its use. There was no lingering smoke from those big guns hanging around, it was all scooped up leaving a very pleasant environment to shoot in which is what they do best at Premier.

When I shoot in my garage with Cowboy Fast Draw, my wife loves the smell. The gunsmoke is part of the appeal for her. I leave the garage door closed when I shoot there so that the sounds don’t wake up the neighborhood. It’s not uncommon for me to shoot really early in the morning or late at night. But as good as the smoke smells it’s not good to breathe. When I’m done I usually open the garage door to let the smoke out and get the ventilation moving again. But with that type of shooting the only real explosive element is the 209 shotgun primers which are used as the propellent for the wax bullets. We’re only talking about a 7 grain bullet with about 600 FPS velocity at the barrel. You always need to use proper gun safety but these are not the types of bullets that are killing anyone. They can sting, but are perfectly safe to use in a sport like Cowboy Fast Draw. They are effective up to about 15 feet, although we compete with them up to 21 feet. But firing the .50 AE is a different matter, it typically has a 300 grain bullet with muzzle velocity of 1475 FPS and a whopping 1449 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. It really is a remarkable cartridge and what I consider an engineering marvel, to be able to contain all that power into a relatively small gun. The Desert Eagle is not a small gun by any means, but for the power output that it is utilizing, it is a real engineering feat to have such a thing work so well under such violent conditions. The smoke that is left behind if you are shooting indoors can be a lot, but at Premier, you don’t even notice it. Their ventilation system picks it all right up, it’s very impressive all its own.

Shooting for me is a daily occurrence so it’s very disingenuous to listen to people who don’t understand the sport of shooting to cry out against the 2nd Amendment. It really gets on my nerves because guns in America are not a brutal thing, they are a deeply philosophical element to the freest country on earth. Because without all the guns that we have, and places like Premier which helps take the gun from a thought to a practice, the Constitution would have been eroded away a long time ago. The only thing that keeps the three branches of government working properly, in that one doesn’t try to take over the others is the very defined understanding that the people of the nation can at anytime take back their country from the grips of corruption, should they choose to. That gives weight behind our police to do their jobs in defending our laws because if that doesn’t work, an armed society is there is a backstop. I view gun ownership as an essential American right that every household should participate in. But that right comes with responsibility and places like Premier Shooting do a fantastic job of defining that balance. The atmosphere of the place is very family oriented and patriotic. It’s the kind of place that certainly charges me up whenever I step into their doors and by the time I leave I’m good for a few days. My new Desert Eagle gives me a reason to go there more now than I did in the past and that has greatly enhanced my life.

Smaller caliber guns really don’t excite me, because I do so much shooting with the wax bullets. Working on my accuracy just on paper targets wasn’t a big attraction for me prior to the Desert Eagle. My big .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum was just too expensive, ammunition is over $3 a shot, so shooting it regularly isn’t practical. It wasn’t until this Desert Eagle for me that the slightly over $1 per shot made visits to Premier Shooting a viable option for my personal lifestyle. If I’m going to shoot a gun, I like it to be a big one because that’s kind of the point. The ballistic power so self-contained is amazing to me and is part of the joy. But to enjoy it I need a good range and that is where Premier comes in. They are the best certainly in Cincinnati and compared to most places in the country. Specifically, to West Chester, they are a great asset to a community that already had it all. I’m glad they are there. When I want to have such an experience with a VIP and we don’t feel like spending a whole half of a day playing golf or some similar activity, a half hour on a shooting lane at Premier is just the right thing. We were in and out and back to our professional tasks within the hour, and that included enjoying a hot dog by the fishing lake—and that is what makes shooting in America such a special thing, and Premier does it better than anybody.

Rich Hoffman

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

There Will Be No Trade War With China: They can’t afford the bullets

I really haven’t heard too many people cover the real ambitions of President Trump’s trade talks, that he wants to essentially get away from trade tariffs all together. Rather Trump wants to move to an international system of free trade in a way we’ve never seen before, where real value is exchanged evenly between countries based on the real needs of the products. Who wouldn’t like that unless the whole goal of tariffs were always intended to redistribute wealth around the world using the United States as the foundation for the theft? The whole issue has left many countries vulnerable who have been doing just that, robbing America of goods and services by making a lot of money off the imbalance, it has all been just another way of subsidizing socialism at the expense of capitalism and Trump has put the issue front and center, where it should have always have been. Given that, it’s a mystery how this would cause anxiety in the markets, other than it destabilizes the old way of doing things. It’s a mystery, because it actually is a chance for a lot of investors to make a lot of money. But it does expose many of these socialist and communist governments who have been hiding their terrible efficiencies behind trade tariffs displaying for the first time in the modern age the true value of goods and services.

I have found it fascinating over the last few days to watch Elon Musk’s Twitter account where he has been arguing with socialists and anarchists with some rather bizarre new definitions of what it means to be a socialist. For those who don’t know many people under forty these days socialism is the new trend, and we should have expected this, because that is what young people learn in their public educations. I would attach the press corps into that category, they are mostly young people who were born during the 1990s when the Clinton’s were in the White House and they only really have ever known a Clinton, a Bush, or a Obama in the White House so they only understand extreme government tampering with markets as a reality of basic economics. But Trump as a true capitalist is suggesting a global trade policy that terrifies many of those nations who are filled with the kind of youth who were quite perplexed over Elon Musk’s ostentatious definitions of socialism.

The reason that China is particularly vulnerable to the debate of the theft of intellectual property essentially comes down to their communist closed society. Such countries where people are not free typically do not have the ability to generate new and creative products, so they must obtain those creative endeavors from outside their country. Up until the time of Trump American presidents, especially Obama have sort of allowed China to cheat off our paper in class because it helped them advance on the global stage—because Obama had a soft spot with communism and wanted to see it work. So trade deals were worked out in a way that China could openly loot American markets in a way that fed intellectual property into the communist country that was suffering from creative infusion by their people.

 

 

As things have been China has artificially been propped up as a superpower, they were given vast amounts of wealth as an emerging economy due to their cheap labor and closed society as a state-run government. That has allowed them to pour a lot of money into destabilized regions of the world knowing that they wouldn’t get back their money but could trade those debts for control of those investments. That ironically has been the plan behind Chinese investments into the United States, to eventually call in those loans and to gain control instead of money. The fuel behind that opportunity has been trade imbalances and intellectual theft China has been able to exploit with a lot of help from governments around the world who want to see the communist formula work.

However, what makes them particularly vulnerable in China is their very nature as a closed society. Without the protections of tariffs that allow China to play big boy ball on the global stage, they are extremely vulnerable to foreign competition, such as American agriculture. The typical American farmer can outproduce anyone in China and Russia simply do to the type of society that America is, a free nation that has functioned from minimal government tampering, so they tend to be highly efficient due to the fact that most of the personal investment of the farmer goes back into their trade. That is not the case in communist countries where private ownership into their trade is micro managed by the state. That makes it extremely difficult for Chinese farmers to compete with American farmers for the trade of food. Even though China outnumbers the United States with population density, America is able to do much more with much less because of the incentive of their workers to own and produce their own goods.

Trump’s trade policies are not isolationist as many economists would like to believe. Simply Trump’s trade position is to recognize the obvious, the strength of the American markets is the high ground for which the rest of the world must rise up to in order to compete toe to toe, and to do that those origin countries will have to give up on the restrictions of communism and socialism to do so. For a world that has been taught that socialism is the way to go, of course they are disjointed to see how Trump is advocated free trade for everyone. Trump’s high/low game with China is to eventually get them to accept open trade, which he knows they cannot afford to do. But they’ll also never admit it as a communist country—so Trump is very quietly doing back to China what they have been doing to the United States since Clinton was president, he is calling their bluff which is a capital investment of its own and letting them hit the rocks where America will be there to pick them up off the ground with a huge demand for American products. It won’t be other world markets that suffer under a Chinese collapse, it will simply put value where it belongs, into countries who have allowed capitalism to thrive and can meet the true needs of global production against the theft and corruption that occurs in closed markets.

Without discussing the different economic philosophies of these trading nations, it has allowed the communists to hide their vast evil behind tariffs artificially propping up the authoritarian regimes at the expense of those functioning from freedom. We have been led to believe that China is doing something special and that we all need to bow down to it, but in reality, the opposite is true. America doesn’t need China, China needs America. From the perspective of Trump how can the United States stop the threat of China into the South China Sea at the expense of Japan—don’t threaten them militarily, expose them financially. Keep them from making such moves because they simply don’t have the funding to invest in such projects. Up until now the fuel that has allowed the Chinese government to threaten to become superpower status has been in these trade imbalances. By Trump forcing a value to value trade of equal measure it will force all these communist and socialist countries to produce on an equal footing with America, which they will not be able to do because of the nature of freedom over totalitarian control. People are far more efficient when they get to keep the wealth they produce as opposed to countries who siphon off that wealth through corruption to enrich themselves off the effort. That happens in China in extraordinarily evil ways, and Trump is exposing it. There won’t be a trade war, because China can’t afford the bullets.

That is the brilliance of Donald Trump’s trade plans with everyone. Those most hurt are those who have been allowed to hide their true value behind poor economic philosophies. When Trump says the United States isn’t going to continue to be the world’s piggy bank are those same socialists arguing with Elon Musk who don’t understand, because they haven’t been taught, what the real difference between capitalist governments and socialist ones really are. The fairest thing to do would be for all markets everywhere to be fair and open, trade value for value. But governments that are used to lots of government tampering and use state ownership of resources to attempt to compete with free people in the United States know they have to be subsidized through tariffs if they even want to participate in the big global game. And by forcing markets to compete with each other evenly, Trump is exposing the tyranny of communist regimes who have big problems going toe to toe with freedom. Trump isn’t an isolationist, he’s simply calling a big global bluff that has been allowed to simmer but was always a house of cards about to fold. China is a propped-up superpower and investors were always going to find that out eventually. Forcing fair trade only brings that to a reality faster, which is good for everyone really, because it saves America so that the United States can continue to help the world the way it has. But the wealth redistribution that has been going on is coming to an end so that everyone involved can measure value for value the way it should have always been. And that is a good change that will bring great peace to the world in just a few years without having to fire a single shot from our military.

Rich Hoffman

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

Pulling Away the Masks: The brillance of Donald Trump’s Singapore Summit revealed

So many interesting things to talk about. It is all so very astonishing. Probably the most remarkable part of President Trump meeting with Kim Jong Un was the very powerful Return of the Jedi metaphor of pulling away the mask of Darth Vader only to find a nice kid under the layers of hyperbolae. The ironic thing is that it took a person from outside the established order to take away the masks that same order uses to drive public emotion, and that effect has many people reeling from the sudden exposure to the outside world. Kim Jong Un really is just another 20 something kid who wants to watch NBA basketball. He loves the West and wants to be a part of the fun, and Trump offered it to him in a way that nobody had ever done before. I watched very carefully the CNN interview with Dennis Rodman where he became very emotional over the Summit in Singapore between both of his friends Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un that it became very obvious what had always been going on. The old aristocracy that has always wanted to rule the world needed people to be afraid of something, so they put a mask on Kim Jong Un for us all to look at while they attempted to manipulate us with global ideals and the theft of American wealth for the rest of the world committed to socialism to enjoy. Using that same fear to drive people out of their native countries and into the United States the intent was always to change America from the inside out, but now that is changing. Trump’s foreign policy that many people think doesn’t exists isn’t to welcome the oppressed to our doors at the border, its to teach their home countries how to be more like the United States—and that has many in a panic.

Yes, the Bush presidents could have made peace with Kim’s family many years ago, Bill Clinton could have, and if you watched the Dennis Rodman interview, Barack Obama could have as well. As crazy as Rodman is in his public appearance, any president of the United States should have been interested in what went on in the interactions of an American who just returned from North Korea with a personal message from Kim Jong Un with any hint at a peace-offering. The really sad answer was that none of those presidents really wanted peace, and neither did the rest of the world at the aristocratic level. They needed a Darth Vader character to scare the world into their arms of leadership, so they ignored the cries for attention that came out of North Korea making the world a much more dangerous place, on purpose.

It took a very self-confident man in Trump to see past the illusions and to simply take the mask off Kim Jong Un so that peace could be discussed and more than that, to introduce western capitalism to the country that has been left so far into the dark. As it turns out it wasn’t North Korea who wanted to repress their people into the darkness of communism all this time, it was people like the Bushes, the Clintons, and Obama who did. Trump wants to build a condo on the beaches of North Korea and give their people opportunities to eat at McDonald’s, like everyone else in a developed country can. But that old order needed a bad guy to scare everyone into following their leadership and what has now happened is that we are all free of that fear, for the first time.

I would expect the Democrats to be upset with Trump’s successful Singapore Summit, because they really have nothing to offer as a party and by making North Korea a friend instead of a foe, Trump has more than earned a second term, and destroyed any fantasy they had of a blue wave in November. Trump has done something in record time that many proposed was impossible. A less confident person would have listened to the pundits, to the political hacks, to the lawyers cautioning him to listen to the “experts” instead of simply walking over and taking off that Darth Vader mask to reveal a smiling young guy underneath who just wants to have what any other millennial would like to have, a cool car, a big fast airplane and a good place to get a hamburger. The Democrats have nothing to do but complain that Trump should have done this, and that he should have done that. Even Republicans in congress who have drag assed for years can only now try to associate themselves with the peace process by attaching themselves to Trump’s deal for their review. But we all know that nothing would have happened if Trump had not been willing to simply pull off the mask and help the kid from North Korea join the world with an invitation that was only issued from a White House backed by a voting sector tired of the games that aristocrats play.

What is so surprising to many people is just how manipulative so many people at the top have turned out to be, how much they have lied to all our faces about what constitutes a threat and what doesn’t. Trump really did make the whole thing with North Korea look easy and as he said in his press conference, he reminded the world that China’s economy is less than America’s and that Iran was next, which I believe my readers will recall I have been saying for some time. Capitalism and communism are not equals on the world stage. Many of the people who wanted to make Kim Jong Un into Darth Vader, which the kid played along with because his father and grandfather had put him into that role—and that role was globally accepted for what it did—even if people did die—wanted to support the managed economy world view of a lesser communism driven by the necessity to join together against a common enemy—so they made up their world enemies to provide justifications for their own existences. The miracle of what Trump is doing is what the United States should have always been doing. There was never a reason to make deals through the CIA with dictators around the globe to make peace, the way to beat them all was through economic strength, and the way to do that was to pull away the restraints of capitalism and open up free markets in a way that had never been done before.

Understanding the power of financial leverage, which Donald Trump obviously does, as well as any decent business person, it isn’t hard to bring peace to the world. A country like Iran is easy to destroy if you attack their ability to hide their Marxism behind a scary mask of radical Islam. By pulling away the mask, often we find just simple people who want all the things that the rest of us want—opportunity. When opportunities are limited the small minds will fight over table scraps, which is what the global aristocrats have been doing for many decades to us all. Trump didn’t just put an end to that practice in North Korea, he set the motion going into the other direction the entire motivation behind the immigration problem. People flee to America always to get away from some terrible place on earth. But why not make where they are coming from not so terrible? Why does North Korea have to be such a bad place—or Honduras, El Salvador or even Syria? Because the social order in favor of global communism has always wanted to use fear to drive people from one place to another, and in that transaction, voting patterns changed those destination countries to their tactical favor. But now, Trump with the simple meeting with Kim Jong Un, has just reversed that everywhere in the world, and that is a major miracle that won’t have the full ramifications of its impact measured until many future decades finally realize the significance. And when they do, the history books will all have to be completely rewritten.

Rich Hoffman

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