Why You Should Cancel your Facebook Account: Finally, Sean Parker is saying what I have all along

I first heard about Facebook in the mid 2000 time frame while I was on the set of a movie.  The celebrities there were the first to get it and promote it, and among themselves it was the latest great thing.  At that time I had a Myspace account, which is probably still out there somewhere.  I haven’t been to it in years, and it was through that site that my networking with all the movie people happened.  I participated in that first jaunt into social networking and my work in Hollywood at that time was proof of the validity of that type of use.  We were all on break at the lunch from the catering truck and sitting at picnic tables having sandwiches and having a first look at this Facebook thing and comparing it to Myspace.  My reaction to it was that the new thing was evil and I told that to Jennie Garth who was sitting next to me showing me how the new platform worked.  The people around us of course thought I was being dramatic.  They were all part of her network and they were nice people excited about this way to speak to so many people so easily.  But I knew when I first looked at the Facebook platform that this thing was different, and was a bad thing.  I had recently read a book by Jim Marrs called Rule by Secrecy and it was obvious to me that Facebook was that big device that came along through the private sector that would connect as a spy to the Deep State and that it was essentially a mouse trap to track our thoughts and actions for a wider behavior grid of big brother management of our lives.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/11/09/former-facebook-exec-sean-parker-says-god-only-knows-what-its-doing-to-our-childrens-brains.html

My resistance to Facebook was fine for a while until my novel Tail of the Dragon in 2012 came out and my publisher had a fit that I refused to network on the site.  As they said, everyone was on Facebook and part of my marketing contract with them stated that I needed to do everything I could to promote the book to the public and Facebook was the best modern age mechanism to do so.  It was at that point that I half heartedly let my son-in-law create an account for the book so that my personal information wasn’t on the site.  The Tail of the Dragon had a little site that fulfilled my contractual obligations, but it never went anywhere because it wasn’t connected to any real activity.  Facebook needed my network to be alive, so without my input it wasn’t like Myspace, or even Twitter in that people can follow you and watch you—which they can on Facebook but not in the same way.  What is different about Facebook is that it requires the users commitment to the wall in order to network to other people.  Otherwise nobody will find you.  Facebook essentially demands input and use of your time and if you don’t give it your time and attention, it doesn’t do anything for you.  That makes it all too human in the way it manipulates behavior patterns.  My relationship with my publisher up until the marketing of my novel had been great through every phase until we got to the marketing portion.  Even though I had a great blog site and a decent presence online, Facebook was their primary choice in building audiences for their books, so our relationship deteriorated over that sole issue.

Everyone in my family does Facebook and none of them understand my hatred of it but it all goes back to that night in Los Angeles where I was able to see Facebook being launched by celebrities.  They were excited about it and were doing the soft sell to their fan bases which expanded the reach of the social media device so that people could get close to their favorite movie stars on the off-chance one of them might “like” something they say.  Myspace originally came about to help promote musical bands, which essentially worked for everything as a way to connect people who might otherwise not meet.  That was after all how Hollywood found out about me and solicited some of my work with bullwhips.  Of course my refusal to use Facebook put me socially on the out, even with my own family.  That and my work with the Tea Party movement starting in 2009, I’ve described these days as having to make a choice in the cultural civil war that is taking place and I was one of the first to make a serious commitment to that cause, which cost me quite a lot of street credibility.  But it all goes back to my resistance to Facebook and the way it massively took over the lives of just about everyone I knew.  Sure, I could have went along with it and made many millions of dollars, but it went against my personal beliefs of what human beings should be doing with their time, and I wasn’t going to participate.  Facebook counts on peer pressure from family members to pull you in so they can plug into your behavioral profile, but with me it has had the opposite effect.  Neither my wife or I are on Facebook and we never will be because the nature of it is extremely intrusive, and manipulative.

That is why I found Sean Parker’s comments about Facebook to be very validating this past week.  Parker of course is one of the founders of the social media device that has opened up this new revolution of human manipulation.  Facebook takes advantage of several human weaknesses, aspects of existence that I think we should all overcome, not surrender to.  That was my problem with it in the beginning and continues to be.  I call it the nosy neighbor complex where it allows people to observe from a safe distance what you are doing in your life and you are inspired to surrender that information for the validation of your actions in the form of a “like.”  By always seeking that “like” for a new photo or saying, your peer groups are actually steering your intellectual input which then transfers over to real life behavior.  People find themselves wondering if an action they are doing will be judged appropriately on Facebook, because they don’t want the social disapproval of their peers telling them otherwise.  Additionally Facebook connects people of the present with people of the past going all the way back to childhood.  At first this might seem neat, having the ability to contact long-lost people from your high school days and seeing what they are up to, and even maintaining friendships with them.  A sister-in-law of mine actually married her fourth husband who was a friend from high school, and it was Facebook that made that relationship possible.  But what Facebook gets out of the exchange is much more devious, it’s the behavioral trail that the user leaves behind which then builds a case in the Deep State for control of our mass population in a very negative way.  So it was interesting to hear one of the Facebook founders validate everything negative I have said about Facebook  for over a decade now—when I was one of the only ones saying it.

Where Facebook fails is in its ability to capture the free will of people.  In their study of election patterns for example, say in the case of Donald Trump, Facebook was useless to polling groups because people held back on their opinion about Trump due to their fear that they would receive negative social validation feedback from their peers, so they silently supported him more than Facebook was able to detect in their behavioral analysis that they sold to Deep State organizations—which is how Facebook makes their money and why Mark Zuckerberg thinks he can run for president in 2020, based on Facebook feedback, which was faulty from the start.  That left the Deep State ill prepared for the election revolution that followed, and created the first break in trust that Facebook could be counted on to steer society in the proper direction.  Mark Zuckerberg had no explanation that assured the Deep State that they could continue trusting Facebook.  After all, the social media device had been out for over a decade and it had gone as far as it could.  Facebook did what it did, but nothing more.  I did not capture the free will of people, only the things they sought approval from regarding their peers—creating a behavior control mechanism, but not showing the true desires of the human soul.

I have always argued that all societies need to align themselves to their souls and not the persnickety traits of gossip and neighbor watching—the small minded stuff that anchors human beings to primate behavior.  Facebook inspires primate behavior, and I am against it—so much so that I will go against the grain even if I’m the only one—which it feels like I have been.  But I am very happy to be proven right once again.  You know, if you people would listen to me more, you’d be a lot better off in life.  A lot of people read what I write and they profit from it.  But sadly a lot of people read and they silently enjoy the content, but they fail to act on it.  If they listened to what I told them to do, they would be a lot better off.  Think about that in the future.  What Sean Parker is saying now is worthless, he already made his money and I’m sure he’s off on the next big tech revelation.  But just remember I said what he’s saying now all along, which takes a lot of guts, and it wasn’t easy—and cost me a lot personally.  It was the right position to take.  So remember that in the future when I say something and next time don’t wait until someone like Sean Parker provides validation.   Facebook is evil and it always has been.  Your participation in it feeds that evil expeditiously which is not good for the human species in any way.

I have since lost all my Hollywood friends to Facebook, I put myself on the outside of their networks and those contacts dissolved over time.  I’ve also ostracized the publishing industry, which I worked very hard for twenty years to nurture.  Most of my family is only on speaking term on holidays with me due to Facebook.  They love it—I hate it. My blog site, this Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom endeavor didn’t help.  Since Facebook was obviously trying to pull society in the other direction I figured I pissed off everyone anyway, so why not do it diving instead of falling if you know what I mean.  Right is right, and if you are going to take a position, you might as well do it in a spectacular way—so I started this site as a way to hedge against the massive online corruption that is Facebook.  Facebook is no good and it never has been.  It feeds the forces of evil with gossip and behavior patterns and it has surely destroyed at least two generations of people around the world, intellectually. To defeat that evil, you have to stop feeding it.  If you have a Facebook account, you are still part of the problem and will be until you stop feeding that evil for what it wants in spite of your personal desires.   My position against Facebook has cost me a lot, but I’d pay it all over again and more, because it was the right thing to do.

Rich Hoffman

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

Joan Powell Announces she is a Progressive: ‘Putting Women in Their Place’ and more feminist Misery

Just to prove that everything I’ve ever said about Joan Powell is 100% correct just have a look at this polished video done by the kind of people who supporter her for the West Chester Trustee seat she is running for on the November 7, 2017 election.  The organization producing this video is an openly progressive group called Putting Women in Their Place and they are part of that radical leftist ideology that attempted to put Hillary Clinton in office just because she was a woman.  Well, there is a great woman running for trustee in West Chester and her name is Ann Becker.  Yet these hypocritical progressives ignore women who are openly conservative and instead go after supporting candidates who will walk the line of radicalism and man hating that come with groups like this.  If you want a good laugh, just watch this video.

I don’t think Joan Powell is an evil person, or is even stupid.  But she has used her network of radical feminists to come after me before due to her massive failures as a school board member at Lakota where she heavily abused a very generous budget of over $160 million dollars per year and essentially caved to the labor union’s demands for higher wages, then asked tax payers to leverage the expense on their property taxes.  Under the guidelines of these idiots, the Putting Women in Their Place crowd, we aren’t supposed to judge any woman for anything.  We are supposed to always look the other way when they do something because the value of their progressive organization is to put women in charge of things instead of men—regardless of how incompetent those women are.

You can hear that in Joan’s voice when she says that the West Chester Trustees have a “father knows best” approach to life in what has become one of the best places in America to live.  Well, maybe father does know best in this case, because it has obviously worked in West Chester.  But in her video, obviously because she’s running against her, Joan fails to mention that Ann Becker is running for a trustee seat given up by George Lang, and she is the endorsed Republican in the race.  For those who need clarification, Ann is a woman, and a very good one at that.  What these progressive groups really mean is that they want man haters in these seats they are running for.  Just have a look at their website.

https://puttingwomenintheirplace.com/

You won’t find progressive women like Joan Powell and the rest of those latte sipping slobs on that website supporting Ivanka Trump’s quests as a representative of Donald Trump’s administration.  And you won’t see them talking about how wonderful of a first lady Melania Trump is—how gracious and caring she has been in her role as the first lady.  Honestly, the Trump administration has done more positive for women in just the last few months than previous administrations have done during their entire terms.  I don’t see these progressive women cheering on the great work of Sarah Huckabee Sanders as White House Press Secretary.  I mean women don’t need to win beauty contests to be great in those positions—but there is a beauty in competency and Sarah is one of the best that there ever has been.  Where are these progressive groups in support of these very fine women?

That’s how we get to the real truth about what these progressive women are after.  Everyone remembers when I called these types of women latté sipping prostitutes with asses the size of car tires and diamond rings to match, because these were the idiots who were running the pro levy groups at Lakota and damning all of us with high property taxes because they felt they had a right to function without being questioned.  When they couldn’t answer the questions they went straight to gender politics—because they had nothing else.  Their minds were flat and lazy and they relied on their control of sex in relationships to dominate the political landscape.   As an example a very powerful man wanted to give money to our levy fighting group, and it was for a substantial amount of money.  He asked us not to tell his wife who was also a prominent Republican socialite—because she was a school levy supporter and a progressive buddy with Joan Powell who caused all the mess to begin with.  I stood there looking at this very nice man who was a business tycoon in West Chester and he was worried about his wife finding out about giving us money to fight higher taxes because honestly he was worried he wouldn’t get any sex from her for the foreseeable future.  That’s how I came up with the prostitute notion, because these “progressive” women have used these kinds of tactics to bend politics into their direction for many years, and it has really crippled our society.  Men go along with it to keep peace in the house, but is that any way to live?

I have an aunt who is one of these bra burning progressives—a real man hater.  I never really had a bad experience with her except that I never agreed with her politics.  She was horrible to deal with on Holidays and the few times a year I had to see her, she always felt she needed to infuse her political opinions on us.  My mom was a housewife, one of the last ones, and this aunt felt it was her mission in life to change that status.  (Just as a footnote, you can tell the difference in the kind of kids the two families produced.  My mom’s kids are all successful in every aspect of their lives.  None of the aunt’s have been.  Not their fault, because it starts with the parents) She was molded as a 1960s feminist and we all sort of put up with her, and that went on for many years.  Well out of the blue about 15 years ago she contacted my wife for no apparent reason and wanted to take her to lunch.  You have to understand, I am politically as far from this lady as there are units of measure to cover the distance.  So her calling my wife was highly unusual, but she did and they went out for lunch.  The whole purpose of the lunch visit was to attack me for being a traditionalist and to recruit my wife who was a stay-at-home mom into the world of progressive women.

At the end of the lunch this lady actually told my wife, “we women must stick together—or else.”  She actually threatened my wife with implied violence if she didn’t subscribe to her version of feminist radicalism.   I have not spoken to that person since except to tell my family why I have completely painted her out of my life.  I mean I have never been a control freak about what my wife does. I am very easy to deal with in regard to people’s personal decisions.  I have always let my wife and two daughters do pretty much as they saw fit, but I always did make my opinions known.  I certainly didn’t deserve to have this bra burning feminist trying to inject herself into my marriage to create discontent to fulfill some progressive political objective.   My wife was a very strong woman taking great care of my family in a traditional way.  As a former model she was always very attractive and that drove this aunt crazy—so she felt she needed to get control over her for some perverse social reason.   It caused a rift in our family that still exists.  I never forget anything, and don’t intend to start now.

We have another one who is the mom of one of the people who have married into our family.  When we get together to go shooting she sometimes is there, but she hates guns.  Actually, hate is too light of a word.  She is insanely against them, yet she comes to these family events knowing full well what’s going to happen at them.  She is very dramatic in her hatred and she openly imposes herself on everyone at the gathering.  She loves all that hippie rock from the 60s and 70s and expects us all to just shut up and let her rattle on and on about it, and if we say anything to her she demands that we are women haters.   When we go on and shoot anyway you’d think we threw Holy water on her during an exorcism.  She is ridiculous.  Her husband who is a staunch conservative just sits there and smiles.  When she’s away we ask why he puts up with her.  The answer is an embarrassing one, but you get the picture.  No man wants to be locked out of their own bedroom and these types of progressive women feel that is their right to use sex as leverage to control the politics of a family.  If a man gets tired of it and goes to Vegas to have a weekend with a bunch of whores then those women want half of everything the man possesses—including the kids.  These progressive women have become a menace to happiness and they think they are empowered to create all this misery because they embed themselves like Kathy Bates into every part of our lives.

Speaking from my personal experiences I just think they are crazy.  Somewhere in their ideology and their menopausal hormones is the villain of insanity.   Most of them are older and beyond repair.  Younger women can find moments of sanity after a good romp, because they aren’t yet biologically disposed of.  As younger women they still enjoy the company of a good man, but when they get older and no longer care for sex, they hold their husbands hostage to it because he has nowhere to go.  He’s not allowed to cheat on her by their marriage contract, but if he wants if from her, he has to do what she says.  So the man does what most do and they develop a hobby out in the garage, whether its model airplanes, fixing up a classic car, or playing golf with the guys so they can get away from these progressive idiots and the insanity that always follows in their wake.  Speak to any of these progressive women for a little while and you’ll find some variation to the stories I have just articulated.  Insanity is a common theme with them.   They may speak well socially, but dig a little deeper and you’ll see it.

Progressive women don’t really want women in power; they want certain kinds of women in power.  Conservative women are not welcome, only the man hating radicals who will play the game of imposing liberal politics into their marriages so that they can corrupt every relationship they have in their contacts—from family events to manicures.  Progressive women have all the power and they do use sex to control the world around them.  They play the victim socially, but in their bedrooms that is how they expand their kingdoms and there are many, many men who are prisoners in those bedrooms.  They wish they had a wife that wanted to share a life with them, but those types of progressive women only want misery so they can maneuver everything around them to the insanity of their twisted politics.  And now you know dear reader what Joan Powell is, and what she wants to do.  And you know who backs her.  Now all you have to do is stop her at the ballot box—because she by her politics is a hypocrite, like all progressive women are.    They are hypocrites because they use politics to hide a deep hatred they have about women who are beautiful, or smart—or are truly happy on their own.  Progressives require group think and they need to pull in as many women as possible into their vortex of misery so they can still look in the mirror and deal with what looks back—a hateful loser who often ruins the relationships of all the sane people in their lives—and they need to hide from those mistakes behind some political cause invented to conceal their folly.   Remember that when you vote.

Rich Hoffman

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

Ann Becker and Mark Welch Work Together Down the Stretch: Lazy Lee Wong and many others fall short of a critical Tuesday election in West Chester

 

Now that we are coming down to the final days of the 2017 election for the West Chester Township Trustees it’s easy to see who really wants the job and who doesn’t—as well as who has the passion to do the job correctly, as opposed to those who only want the position for a social statement.   I was quite impressed by the efforts of Ann Becker and Mark Welch in the final days.  In the picture below you can see that they pulled together to go door to door on the last Saturday before the election which says a lot about them as candidates.  There are a lot of people running, but these two joined together to make a statement which reveals a lot about what kind of people they would be in office together.  It takes a lot of teamwork to pull together resources in the way that they have and in the world of politics, that is wonderful to see for a change.

We already know what we are getting with Mark Welch, he is the current president of the trustees and has done a great job.  Electing him only gets more of the same, which in West Chester is precisely what voters want.   However with Ann Becker, this is her first crack at the job, and she brings fresh ideas to that seat which would only expand its effectiveness.   I can’t imagine two better people running for a political office anywhere in the country than these two.  Ann isn’t a carbon copy of Mark Welch politically by any stretch of the imagination.  She brings her own flavor to the role, but as conservatives holding a very important office the team work they have shown during the campaign would naturally carry over into a good relationship working together to do the business of the people in West Chester.

That is the beauty of competition, and why we have competitive elections.  Most of the times the candidates put out a bunch of campaign signs and that’s it— those with the most money tend to get the name recognition because people generally don’t know who else to vote for but the name they saw on the side of the road at a traffic light.  They figure that if the candidate has enough money to put out a bunch of yard signs, that someone must like that candidate, so that is typically who they vote for.  But this year there are so many candidates with so many yard signs that they are all running together in the mind of the political novice, which most people are.  Few people pay much attention to-day to-day politics and the names behind them.  They just want the system to work like the gas gauge in their car.

Competition especially in this current election race has really separated the truly serious candidates from those who just want the social status of being elected.  That’s precisely what we have seen from Joan Powell the ex-school board candidate from Lakota.  In that position she was a big spender and had a reputation for caving into the union demands during teacher contracts which she paid for with tax increases against the public.  In the past she has supported cityhood for West Chester so she is one of those big government types—a person who thinks of herself as a Republican, but she’s more of a John Kasich Republican—a liberal who puts an “R” next to their name so they can get elected in a conservative county.  If Joan were running for the same type of office just ten miles south of her West Chester home she’d be just another Democrat that has virtually destroyed the economic viability of Hamilton County.   Watching her in some of the debates during this campaign season I would have thought that Joan was more savvy than what she showed, but she really fizzled out down the stretch.  She put out a few signs, but showed no energy in the days leading up to the election on Tuesday and even though I don’t support her, her presence in this competitive election was really flat.  Lucky for us all that we did have a lot of candidates to pick from because it has really exposed people like Joan for wanting the job more for a social statement in their personal careers than as a sincere person who really just wants to do a good job for the West Chester community.

Speaking of flat, Lee Wong is a current trustee and aside from a few signs has made very little effort to defend his seat.  One thing about Lee that is obvious to everyone, he’s just lazy.  He’s lazy as a trustee functioning from the politics of yesteryear where a trustee shows up for a few parades and expects free food when he goes out for lunch.  He relies mostly on his time served as a veteran to cover for his socialist tendencies as a trustee.   As an incumbent there is a lot of dirt on Lee that is floating around out there—a lot of smoke with some fire to feed it—you don’t see Lee out with his wife much.   Based on the smoke the fire that produces it says that Lee has issues with people—particularly females.  But that isn’t the most telling example of why he’s a bad candidate—he’s just a lazy person.  By nature, he doesn’t like hard work and it shows in the way he has been a trustee and in this competitive race, he’s far down the ladder as far as effort.  If people didn’t know better, they’d never know that he was running for re-election.

Lynda O’Conner is another one who put out a few signs next to Mark’s along the side of the road, but she hasn’t been out much to sell her candidacy.  In the debate that really counted, the West Chester Tea Party Forum, Lynda was a no-show, instead she sent a note.  As a school board member at Lakota she obviously thought that the run for trustee would be a lot easier than it turned out to be, so her effort matched that miscalculation.  I have supported Lynda as a school board member before, and she isn’t the worst in the world, but as trustee for the high-powered West Chester economy, she showed down the stretch that she just didn’t have the ambition to really make a name for herself.   Putting a few signs out in this election just wasn’t enough to show what kind of candidate she was, and she missed a lot of opportunities to make her mark yielding to Ann Becker when things counted most.  Lynda starting off was probably the best option but Ann clearly outworked Lynda by a lot.

That brings us to Jullian Kelley who has been a well-known socialite within the Republican Party of Butler County for a long time.  She has worked hard because she put her name out there and a considerable budget for signs—and she doesn’t want to lose.  In a typical election Jullian would likely win a seat just because of her name recognition, but in this competitive climate—especially during the West Chester Tea Party debate she has shown that she didn’t know much about the topics and was more like a room mom in school making treats for the kids in class.   Her heart was there, but her intellect just wasn’t prepared and she would likely be no better prepared for an average day at the office as a trustee than Lazy Lee Wong has been.  Getting elected into one of these positions is about more than just showing up and displaying that you can put out signs.  You have to actually know things, and do things.  On that account, Jullian is clearly lacking in competency.  Good intentions aren’t enough this time.

So on Tuesday November 7, 2017 make  sure to vote for Ann Becker and Mark Welch and reward them for a well run cooperative campaign.  Their partnership would only be good for West Chester.  As trustees it takes a lot of cooperation to manage a vast township like West Chester, which has enough people in it to be considered a city, but needs to stay small enough to maintain its competitive edge over Cincinnati to the south and Dayton to the north.  West Chester is the crown jewel of the I-75 corridor between two of Ohio’s best known cities, and it is the preferred destination for business and people of ambition who want to build a good life for themselves in a top 100 community in all of the United States.  It takes work and Ann and Mark have shown that they are willing to do the work, and to do it together—and those are the first foundations of success.  Before they can bring that success to the township however you have to vote for them, so be sure to do so.  You won’t regret it!

Rich Hoffman

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

Robert Mueller Did Justice a Huge Favor: Trump is a tactical genius

In a lot of ways, the Robert Mueller investigation and apprehension of Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort is a blessing. Let’s forget about the hypocrisy of it for this little article, but instead focus on the long-term implications of it. On the morning after the big bomb that Mueller’s investigation had set its sights on Paul Manafort and that’s all he could show for all the efforts over the last half-year of investigation the media keyed on one last-ditch set of efforts at stopping the Trump success story. An article about Rand Paul and Chris Christie announcing that they think Trump may leave after four years out of fear of being primaried out of office, another about how low Trump’s job approval ratings were, but then this strange admission from CNN hoping that this constant special counsel probing will ground Trump to admitting that he has been unusually successful and is now limited. That little chink in the armor tells the whole story of politics in 2017. By 2020 it won’t look anything like it does today and here’s why.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-probe-may-ground-trumps-unconventional-success/ar-AAufWDM?ocid=spartandhp

When Paul Manafort paid his $10 million-dollar bail and left custody smiling and Trump’s supporters were not even slightly phased, a gentle worry floated above the Washington D.C. swamp—and with that came a light cast directly at the Podesta brothers and their actions that have been essentially the same as Manafort’s. The entire world of politics essentially shifted in that moment and not in the way that the anti-Trump forces would have hoped. Manafort knew it. Trump knew it, and several conservative advocates knew it as well. Bob Mueller had set and impossible standard for the Beltway which has been built on corrupt politics for two centuries. If Trump wanted to drain the swamp, Mueller just helped him take the next step. I actually thought of the Battle of New Orleans where Andrew Jackson defeated the established regiments of superior forces in very short order as the Mueller news broke. Trump in a lot of ways is a modern version of Jackson and for the Battle of the Beltway, it now looks like Trump is going to emerge the clear and easy victor. In their vigor to destroy Trump the opposing forces of the new president ran themselves into a trap that has now ensnared them, and there is no going back now. Mueller maybe knowingly understanding that rock and a hard place position he was in did it quite obviously. The standard has now been set and there is no way Democrats can live up to the methodology.

Going back to 2006 and looking at Manafort’s oversea lobbying efforts the book is now open under equal justice to go after Hillary Clinton and the Podesta brothers as well as the entire approach of the DNC operation which has ties to many corrupt dealings that have been reported recently—particularly the Uranium One deal. Nobody defending the Clinton efforts can now claim that 2010 was so long ago because Manafort has been officially investigated and held for his actions as far back as 2006. That puts a lot of things on the table for investigation which obviously would lead to massive arrests in Washington D.C. If Manafort can be apprehended and held under scrutiny in the way he presently is, then a huge percentage of the Beltway can as wall because that is how business is done there. Mueller has opened up a huge can of worms, and I think that’s a very good thing.

Trump had to part with Corey Lewandowsky after the former advisor got into trouble for pushing a female reporter—if you can call it a push. It was obvious at that time that Trump was going to win the nomination so the anti-Trump forces went after Lewandowsky hoping to derail the campaign momentum. Trump showing he could be as savvy as anybody in the Beltway hired Manafort to run the campaign from there to secure delegates for the upcoming convention—which worked as it was supposed to. Many pundits thought the Manafort hiring was a good one because he was an “establishment” type and they felt more secure with him running the campaign. After the nomination process was finished at the Republican Convention in Cleveland, some negative stories came out about Manafort and Trump cut him loose. In his place Trump put Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway in charge of the campaign and became president a few months later. What Trump showed over that span of six months was incredible ability to be very malleable to the political conditions of the moment and this is a major problem for establishment types who rely on conventional rules of engagement to win and lose in Washington. Manafort was only with Trump for a few months and didn’t have time to learn anything much about Trump himself—so with Mueller’s emphasis on punishing Manafort to force him to flip on Trump shows the true lack of understanding that everyone working for Mueller truly has on this entire issue.

That’s why the media was flat on the Tuesday that followed. Their big rabbit in the hat turned out to be a turd and their October surprise was more like a firework that failed to explode as the wick burnt out and uneventfully fizzled out. What we all got instead was an established period of analysis that is now acceptable. Remember over the Benghazi issue when in 2013 Democrats said, “Oh, that was a whole year ago. Who cares about that now?” Well, now we know we can go back to 2006 and look at—–EVERYTHING. All Jeff Sessions has to do now is start his own special prosecutions and let them spin out of control like Mueller did and likely the Democrats will be on such a defense that they won’t have a single candidate to put up in 2020. I actually think John Kasich will at that point flip parties and run against Trump—and Trump will easily beat him. It won’t even be close. Kasich will do it because he wants more than anything else in the world to be president. But Trump isn’t the loser that Kevin Spacey plays in House of Cards. Trump is the real deal.

Speaking of Kevin Spacey in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein sex scandals, Hollywood just showed what will soon be happening to Washington D.C. Anthony Rapp who is now 46 years old claimed that Spacey made sexual advances on him as a 14-year-old boy. Because of that Spacey was locked off the set of the sixth season of House of Cards and Netflix announced that it is ending the show! A top-rated show like that and it’s over so quickly over the slightest controversy. I would argue that if not for Trump Weinstein would still be the head of Hollywood and there would be a seventh season of House of Cards. But when Hollywood came out against Trump for being a womanizer and nothing stuck, they then had to apply the same standard to their own kind, and that is what we see happening now, with the wheels of Hollywood coming off completely. They can’t hold up to that level of scrutiny and neither can those political players in the Beltway. If Manafort is the standard, then the rest of Washington will drown in the wake of the application of that standard. What is happening now to Hollywood will soon happen to the Swamp. All Jeff Sessions needs to do is allow for the special investigations to do their thing and let those houses of cards fall.

Yes, Trump is in charge, but he’s not a bad guy like Obama was. Trump is not one to abuse authority, he certainly doesn’t want to use the IRS and Justice department as weapons against his political opponents. He couldn’t exactly come out and throw Hillary in jail the moment he was inaugurated as president—he could technically, but he couldn’t politically. She is still the best option Democrats have in 2020 so it wouldn’t have looked good to put a prosecutor on her which would then destroy her very criminal life. There’s other ways to skin that cat, and Trump has been very wise to let other people do those things for him and in their vigor to impeach him, Trump’s opposition revealed too much about themselves. Now they are at a serous tactical disadvantage and the momentum will not favor them ever. They can only go downhill from here, and is something that couldn’t have happened better, in our favor as liberty minded patriots, then if we had put the cuffs on Hillary Clinton ourselves. Finally, justice has a voice and it was the enemy that gave it that voice.

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

The Genie is out of the Bottle: Uranium One, the IRS, the fake Trump dossier–and we still have more wishes left!

The Genie is certainly out of the bottle now, and we still have a few more wishes  What’s happening now is everything I hoped for and more on Election Day of 2016.  If Donald Trump had not been elected we wouldn’t be seeing anything close to what we are now, and likely America would be over.  I said at the time that the idea of America may not have lived through the summer of 2017.  After all I had endorsed Donald Trump for president for precisely the reasons we are seeing today way back in 2015.  Donald Trump was saving America by standing against the tide of the criminal minded institutions using his own celebrity and wealth as leverage in a way that nobody had ever done before in world history.  Nobody knew what might happen—I had an idea, but there was no way to know what the impact might be until it happened.  Well, it’s all happening right now and the reach of villainy in our American institutions is presently unfathomable for many to deal with.   If I could have had any wish I wanted in 2015 when Donald Trump was tenaciously staying at the top of Republican polling disrupting all the traditional channels led by the Bush family and the vile Clintons, that Genie would have given me exactly what we are seeing now.

It was April 14th 2014 when what was left of the Liberty Township Tea Party met at the Elk’s Lodge to discuss the case against the IRS that the American Center for Law and Justice was conducting on our behalf against the IRS.  The Liberty Township Tea Party was one of the many targets of the IRS who had attacked those groups any way they could specifically on the 5013C status which was designed to slow down the movement and take the teeth out of reform which was sweeping the nation in 2012.  Establishment Republicans used the Tea Party from 2009 to 2012 to gain House and Senate seats, and they wanted their Party back.  Meanwhile Democrats were on their full assault toward socialism and they figured nobody was equipped to stop them.   While Republicans fought each other the Democrats were on a roll, and they controlled the Deep State emphatically.  We all knew it on that day in April at the Elk’s Lodge and all we had was essentially each other and some hope that if we did all the right things, things could come out well in the end.

I was in trouble for two videos I had done for the Liberty Township Tea Party.  Lucky for me I never do anything in politics that could be construed as payment.  When I do something “political” like this blog, or have dinner with a powerful politician money never changes hands.  I keep things as clean as possible.  It is often hard for investigators to believe that I’d do so much work for free, out of the goodness of my heart—because to their vantage point, nobody does anything like that.   Nobody just does things because it’s the right thing to do. But I do and soon after that fateful meeting Donald Trump would step out of his golden palace atop Trump Tower in Manhattan to essentially cast his resources into the fight for many of the same reasons—because it was the right thing to do.  We all knew then as we can see now that the IRS had been weaponized, but the media hardly covered the story and the Deep State had no fear of any of us, because they controlled all the politics, all the law, and all the money.  They figured that this little ACLJ lawsuit would just go away like so many things had in the past and they had nothing to worry about.

Well just this past week many things came to a boil and for those who resisted the efforts of the Deep State a turning point in that long civil war finally showed itself.  The IRS had to apologize for their behavior as the ACLJ had won their case and a very reluctant government institution had to rectify themselves ahead of the largest tax cut vote in the House which passed, in American history.  With the Dow Jones racing well over the 23,000 mark and Trump pinning down all the holdovers brilliantly forcing them to vote correctly on tax cuts, the IRS could do nothing but stand on the firing line and await their own terminations.  They had abused the American people and they had been caught and there was nothing they or their media cover could say to let them off the hook because an even bigger story was unfolding.   That is the story of the Washington Free Beacon funding the fake Trump dossier to stop him from winning the Republican nomination back in 2016.  That dossier would involve many Republicans and would unite politicians like John McCain and Hillary Clinton behind the common cause of stopping Trump any way they could and at the center of it all was the FBI director himself James Comey.  Comey of course would plot to completely let Clinton off her criminal charges during an election year to help her keep her footing—all which was highly illegal.  But if not for Trump being in the race there would have been no pressure on these people to do so much to reveal their inner workings.  These things would have remained hidden—which was what they all were counting on.

But even worse than that was the Uranium One deal.  That is the one where the Putin regime paid Bill Clinton $500,000 dollars for a single speech in Russia with the unannounced intention to secure U.S. government approval for its acquisition of Uranium One and with it tens of billions of dollars in U.S. uranium reserves.  This is the biggest scandal in the history of the United States, and it’s really too big to cover.  Normal people can’t get their minds around the level of treachery it takes to pull of something with this enormity.  But now we know why the Democrats were in such a hurry to try to create some scandal tying Trump to Russia.  Because they were the ones guilty of the act, not Trump—but they needed the light off them and onto someone challenging their Deep State control.  Yet in doing so they set their own standards for which they are presently choking—which is good.  Without Trump in the White House, this story would have gone nowhere and would have been covered by nobody.  It essentially involves the Obama administration in a very detrimental way as Hillary Clinton was running around the world selling access for personal enrichment and now they are all caught.

So what to do about all this, after all, can we put all these people in jail like they deserve?  To do that we’d have to put several former presidents in jail, many congressman, political candidates, attorneys, media personalities, former FBI directors—a whole lot of people who are guilty as Hell and now awkwardly exposed.   We knew it all along, but now we “KNOW” it.  Their downfall essentially started because they picked on the wrong people.  I mean seriously, the crap I had to go through just for two videos made for YouTube.  Not to mention the ordeal of the people who ran the Liberty Township Tea Party.  It took up a year of their time over nothing—meanwhile these scum bags were doing all this Uranium One activity and spending a lot of money to smear political opposition with fake stories and breaking many laws to obtain any information that could be used against people like Trump before they could ever throw their resources into the ring.   But now we know, and like I said, that Genie is still giving us wishes to grant.  And I have a feeling they will all come true in the weeks that come.

Rich Hoffman

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

Trump and the Opioid Crises: Going beyond just saying no–there is nothing GOOD about drugs

 

And people wonder why President Trump is my guy.  How could they after that opioid speech that he and his wife gave on October 26, 2017? For them to declare war on the opioid addiction problem in the United States is yet another dream come true for me.  This is something I have been worried about for my entire life—including as a kid.  There’s nothing I care about more than this issue publicly.  Drugs used and abused in any way shape or form is something I have been against and have fought my entire life and I am very happy to see leadership coming out of the White House on this crises.  Boy, you can really see the villains by how they responded to what Trump said.  The people most guilty for the addiction problems in our nation currently are the same people who came out against this speech stating all kinds of garbage—such as—“who’s going to pay for it” and “that the president is looking for a diversion.”  Really?  Most Democrats are really disgusting people, knowing now that their party funded the dossier on President Trump—which John McCain sent an aide to get out of Europe and personally handed it to James Comey which turned out to be completely false and a political hit job against the future president.  Democrats now know that their party participated in real scandals with Uranium One directly involving Russia—not some made up story like what they have done with Trump.  And as Trump was competing his speech about opioids the IRS finally revealed that they had weaponized the tax collection government agency against conservative groups during 2010—which I was personally one of the targets attached to the Liberty Township Tea Party.  Those same Democrats actually had the nerve to come out against Trump’s speech on the opioid crises?  What a bunch of evil scum bags!

I have always been against drugs of any kind.  I have proudly never smoked pot even while all the people around me were falling apart because of it.  I was always the leader of my peer groups and I never ever endorsed the behavior—even during days when I ran around with some very rough people.  Everyone always knew where I stood on drugs—even alcohol.  I never endorsed intoxication of any kind.  I’ve always hated it—especially the drugs at the level of marijuana and up.  I never understood how a magazine, a movie, or a television show could even endorse such behavior indirectly—because drug use is evil.  Plain and simple.   What President Trump is talking about doesn’t take a lot of money compared to providing hurricane relief to our nation, or even building another battleship.  Fighting drug addiction is a common sense issue that everyone should be able to support no matter what the background because it’s that obvious.  Most of the essence of Trump’s speech is to not start addiction to begin with—and that doesn’t cost a thing.

At this stage in my life I’m a major employer, and I take it as serious business to supply jobs to people and help them find a good way to build their lives in a positive way with a job. I take that responsibility very seriously.  But do you know how many people you have to interview to hire say 30 people for multiple shift work?  The answer is very disturbing.  Think about it for a moment before I give you the answer.  Both of my daughters are in that Millennial age bracket just shy of 30 years old and they tell me all the time that all the people they know of a similar age is on some kind of drug.  Schools start the process by prescribing drugs to kids with hyper active minds—to slow them down to the rest of their class.  Doctors prescribe medicine for virtually everything, from a sore toe to back issues.  Most everyone my children know is on some form of depression medicine—which is likely the leading cause of this whole opioid epidemic.  You know how you stop depression?  Read a fu**ing book and build up your mind with positive thoughts—that’s how you prevent depression.  You don’t take some drug that makes you more dependent on some third-party to solve your problem.  So many people these days are on medicine for depression and the politicians are fine with it, because it puts money in their K-Street lobby firms.   Our opioid crises in 2017 is so bad that I think most people between the ages of 40 and 15 are on some kind of drug all the time.  The answer to my original question is that you need to speak to roughly 100 people to hire 30 and in an economy with 4% unemployment you have to work your ass off to do so.  The reason you have to talk to so many people is that most of them won’t pass the drug test and that is a major failure in our society.  It’s pathetic how people view drug use today–and that has been reinforced for them by their politics and entertainment culture—and it’s been devastating.

Even as a kid I would go to parties to meet girls and I’d see all these losers sitting around the living room watching MTV smoking pot.  In an upstairs room would be the music of Pink Floyd where kids were listening to The Dark Side of the Moon album and they were blasted in hazes of pot smoke that would creep out from under the door.  In the kitchen kids would be playing quarters and getting drunk off their asses for no reason at all, but to feel the joy of not having the responsibility to think.  Nice girls that I knew from school would be passed out on the floor with their pants off because people would take turns with their lifeless bodies and nobody back then thought anything bad about it.  On Monday those girls would be back to saying hi to people in the hall as if nothing had ever happened.  Nobody thought the girls were raped because everything had been done under the cover of intoxication—as if being drunk or stoned freed everyone of guilt for such a horrendous act.  I am proud to say that I never participated in any of that.  I was able to observe those types of things with a clear mind and it always disgusted me—and I have been fighting it for years with everyone I know.  No young person in my family, or anyone I have ever known period could mistake my position on opioids.  I don’t do drugs and I avoid them under conditions of even the worst pains—such as surgery.  Drugs do no good for anybody under almost every situation.

The government has made it so easy to get people addicted to drugs.  Most young people now are on some form of medical assistance program because they can’t afford insurance so the government actually solicits membership.   I am actually shocked by how many young people with kids are on these government programs, and every time a child has a problem of even a minor kind the parents rush the kids to the doctor where a drug of some kind is prescribed.  Once kids get used to turning to some drug to make them feel better they are ruined for life and will always seek drugs to solve their problems—whether it’s a drink at the end of a day to knock the edge off or a line of cocaine.  People learn to get hooked on drugs from an early age starting recreationally and that leads directly to addiction.  And it all serves to make people much less than they otherwise would be.  Drugs are terrible for the human race.

I have been personally forgiving of people who have abused drugs in the past but are looking to put all that behind them.  I’m happy to help them become better people if they’ll let me.  I have never abused drugs and for some people who is a problem because they can’t relate to me on a personal level.  And that’s fine.  I have never had a desire to know people so much that I had to surrender my personal ethics to associate with them.  I’ve lost a lot of friends over drugs.  I almost didn’t date my wife because she smoked cigarettes when I first met her, and I made it clear from day one that if she wanted to date me, she’d have to quit smoking.   She was attractive enough and interesting enough to help with that problem, but it was never OK with me.  I pushed for her to quit from the very first date and I’m still like that.  I’ve had a few nieces and nephews who started smoking, then started doing other things like smoking pot and I cut them off the moment I found out about it.  I stopped talking to them because for people to have access to me—which is something most people want because I’m an interesting person—they can’t do drugs and be losers in life.  I feel more strongly about that type of thing than most anything else in my life.  I would rather be alone in life completely than endorse drug use—and everyone who knows me understands that I have very high standards—especially in regard to drug use.

Trump shares many of my thoughts on drugs and he has from the beginning of his presidency.  When he told the story of his brother Fred yet again, and how Trump doesn’t even drink alcohol I can see in the president someone I can relate to.  The best way to fight the opioid epidemic isn’t with more money thrown at the problem.  It is to tell people to stay off the drugs in the first place—even the drugs the doctors prescribe.  Stay away from the pain killers.  Stay away from the depression medicine.  Stay away from the mind numbing stuff they want to give kids in school so that smart kids don’t outpace their classmates with hyper intelligence.  Stay away from the recreational drugs at parties.  Stop going out after work to get sloshed with mind numbing alcohol, just stop it all, and that will go a long way to making America a far better country than it is.  I fully support what Trump wants to do with opioids.  I’m behind it 100000000000%.  And anybody who is against the President in this case I would consider a domestic terrorist.  Because losing minds to drugs is the ultimate attack on the sanctity of the individual.  And I personal find it, and have always found it, to be personally a disgusting thing to observe that deserves a zero tolerance policy.

Rich Hoffman

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

Joan Powell Comes Out Anti-Union as a West Chester Trustee Candidate: The difference between good management and being a suck-ass

 

One of the things that most shocked me from the recent West Chester Trustee Candidate Forum at Indiana Wesleyan College sponsored by the West Chester Tea party was that Joan Powell stated quite emphatically that she was anti-union and would like to see Ohio become a right-to-work state.  Who would have ever thought she’d say such a thing because it was Joan who sat on the Lakota school board for so many years caving into the union demands wrecking the budget with increased payroll with no management in sight.  Now that Joan is running for trustee in West Chester she has come out against labor unions which is interesting given the fact that many union radicals have targeted the trustees with their themes of dissidence exclusively because Mark Welch and George Lang had been exploring ideas to bring right-to-work legislation to West Chester specifically because Ohio’s governor Kasich has been soft on the labor unions due to his defeat of Issue 5 several years ago. Because of her friendly attitude toward labor unions in the past, strategists would have thought that Joan would seek the Lakota union votes in this trustee race but oddly she tossed that away with the statement seen below.

This may be the first time I’ve ever agreed with Joan Powell.  When I was heading the effort to make Ohio a right-to-work state in 2012 Joan turned her political guns on me and did whatever she could to erase me from what she was doing as president of the Lakota School Board.  At the time Joan was trying hard to give the teachers who worked for Lakota a raise when I had been showing that the exclusive cause of the operating levy she had been seeking was to add more to the wage rates which were already well over the average household income.  Joan’s position was extremely friendly to the labor union at Lakota, and her track record is her track record.  There isn’t anybody who can assume based on her history that Joan would do anything but lay down in future negotiations with the various unions that are in West Chester’s wheelhouse, like the police and fire departments.  I mean it’s easy to say that we value school teachers, fire fighters and police officers—and to give them all the money they are asking for.  It’s hard to tell them no, and that they already make too much money.  In the case of fire and police officers they always give you the speech about how they run into danger while everyone else runs away, so when their contracts come up public support usually favors the unions but as trustees elected to manage the finances, sometimes you have to do the hard things then explain it to people even when its unpopular.   The easy thing is to do as Joan has done in the past and that is to just give the union what they want to keep them from going on strike, then seek tax increases to cover the costs.  That’s why her statement here is so surprising.

If this Joan Powell had revealed herself 10 years ago we might have avoided a lot of bloodshed in the Lakota school district.  I might have gotten along with her!  But, my experience with her says that she knew what kind of crowd she was speaking to and she formulated her comments specifically to her audience.  What she really believes is something else entirely.  Nobody can look at the record of Joan Powell over the years as a president of the Lakota school board and determine that she was anything but excessively friendly to the public union effort.  Yet you can hear with your own ears her declaration that she is against labor unions so who could really know what to believe.

I personally think public sector unions should be illegal.  If you have a job funded by tax payers you should not be able to organize against tax payers or their representatives for more money.   In private business competition can help bring reality to labor union activism so the free market does the job of helping to manage the situation.  But in government, we are talking about monopoly status over the tax dollars in question so labor unions have unfettered access to the funds of the communities they are supposed to serve.  It’s easy to obtain the funds they desire because often the only people who stand in their way are politicians like Joan Powell who never want any bloody conflicts with their labor unions, just peace.  Elected politicians find the temptation to throw vast amounts of money at these public sector unions too easy.  It’s far easier for them to ask for tax increases from a faceless community hiding the effort behind children or the safety of our citizens.  That makes those types of people terrible managers and Joan Powell is certainly guilty of that.

Yet for the record in 2017 Joan has declared that she is against labor unions so as a note to the police, the firefighters and the public school teachers who might think that they might vote for Joan Powell looking for an easy run over politician to engage in future negotiations with—she has indicated that she is anti-union.   I mean perhaps she has learned some lessons over the years.  I wouldn’t vote for her as a trustee, the only people I think have a chance of doing good work as a West Chester trustee are Mark Welch and Ann Becker.  Lynda O’Conner may be a good pick for that third seat because Lee Wong is a disaster and Joan Powell has a terrible track record at managing big budgets.  But in regard to her statements on labor unions, I actually agree with Joan Powell on something.

In actuality Joan was likely just telling the audience what they want to hear, which is worse than being an open liberal because as a voter you can never be sure what the person you are considering really stands for.  Knowing a bit about Joan Powell I think she is very malleable—her thoughts always go to the path of least resistance and that’s fine if you are a grandma handing out cookies to your grand kids—but when you are supposed to protect millions of dollars from the greedy hands of public employees who want the most money for doing the least work—you want someone who will manage that money with some valor.  Labor unions may want to vote for Joan because they smell the blood in the water, but one thing they won’t be able to rectify is that she did come out against labor unions in the 2017 election.   Her comments are now part of the public record and they will be used against her in the future.  That’s why we have these forums, so that we can test the candidates in the forges of reality to see how they hold up to a little scrutiny.  Obviously Joan Powell says whatever she needs to in order to appease the people she is addressing.  If it’s labor unions, she gives them what they want.  If it’s the Tea Party, she does the same.  So there is nothing about Joan Powell that indicates she would ever do anything but tell people what they want to hear.  The damage she has always done, and obviously seems committed to in the future, is that she is more in love with the popularity of being a public official than in doing the hard work of management.  And that is what deciding this election of 2017 is all about.  If people want good management, Joan Powell is not their person.

Rich Hoffman

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