The Morality of being a Gunfighter: How guns make America a more intellectual culture–and improve lives

From the anti-gun people, especially after the Vegas mass shooting there has been this constant term they use “you don’t need so many guns.” They say it as if they were the authority on living and had the complications of life all figured out as a superior philosophic matrix. Yet I look at their lives, the losers on Saturday Night Live, the Hollywood industry, the open criminals like Hillary Clinton and the DNC workers of 2016 and I must conclude, who on earth would take advice from people so messed up? Who are these people to give us advice about anything? I wouldn’t trust them to tell me where the corner deli is in New York city that could sell me a pack of gum, let alone advise me on how many guns I should have or even why I should have them. Even worse, their declarations that guns should be made illegal in any form indicates a complete lack of respect for the kind of living we have in the Midwest of the country—essentially the Red State middle of the entire country. Essentially only the coastal regions have these liberal losers driving policy. Guns for everyone else is a fact of life. They are certainly a big part of my life. Here is video of what I do almost every night for exercise. It’s how I practice Cowboy Fast Draw in my private range. The goal of this activity is to draw and fire my Ruger Vaquero as fast as I can once the target light blinks on solid. Once the target blinks three times it lets me know that the next time the light comes on that I need to draw and fire. My time is registered on a display on my workbench. It’s a fun activity that really sharpens your mind, and I enjoy doing it almost every night at least for 15 to 30 minutes.

When people say that we don’t need guns, well I’d say, we don’t need footballs, golf clubs, or baseball bats either. All of those things could be used as weapons if people were so inclined, but in a civil society nobody would even think of such a problem. Most of the people I know have guns and nobody goes out on a killing spree after dinner. When shooting in my private range I never think to use those guns on other people. Always my use of them is to increase my speed and accuracy in shooting a target under conditions of duress. The process of doing that helps me in other parts of my life. Now to the pot smoking loser on Saturday Night Live who does things during the after party that they’d never want to tell their parents, I wouldn’t expect them to understand my love of guns. Because they are still looking for mechanisms in life to help them manage all the pressures they experience. I look at their lives where they smoke, drink or have too much sex and would say that those are all factors contributing to the problems they have in their lives. I don’t have those problems. Instead I shoot and spend time in my range working out solutions to very complicated problems. Shooting helps me and many others live a better life.

If you visit England presently you will find everywhere some visage to their Norman period where knights were part of their national identity. It doesn’t mean that people want to go cut off the heads of their enemies when they hold a wooden sword from a gift shop in London—it’s just means that people are paying regional respect to an order which built the identity of the nation. If you go to Japan you find much of the same, everywhere is some visage to the samurai culture and behind that is the constant symbol of the sword. Even going to a hibachi grill to get some very expensive Kobe Beef you will see the cooks emulating the ghosts of their samurai heritage as they prepare food in front of you. It is very important to them and is a huge part of their national character. You don’t see radical leftists attacking these countries for their history of violence and the modern respect that is still given regarding the weapons which forged their nations.

In America it is the cowboy which created the nature of our country. And behind the cowboy was the six-gun and the mythology of dueling. The reason that dueling is still such a romantic idea in the period of the Old West is that it is respectable that people would face off against each other to settle a value judgment. To have a value that people were willing to defend to the death is actually a noble idea—especially in these complicated days of leftist interpretation into the events that leave people always feeling empty. In that emptiness they seek to fill the void with bad habits—such as the smoking, drinking and over charged sex. Regarding sex, if you spend more than a half hour per day thinking about sex—you are wasting your time. When you are young and always looking for some flower to pollinate, maybe you spend more time thinking about it if you are a male. If you are a female you likely won’t because you are in charge of the sexual experience and can decide when and how often, but nobody should spend more time on average than a half an hour per day. Anything more is an obsessive activity that degrades the experience. People who do think about it more than that allotted time need to develop more hobbies.

I view shooting in America as a deeply philosophic experience. The political left has successfully painted an opposite picture, that gun users in America are a bunch of dumb hillbillies who can’t speak in words longer than two syllables. Yet the opposite is true, liberals who criticize the gun culture are the dumb people, they are ones who can’t change their own oil, or fix a leak in their sink. They are the ones who fall apart whenever there is a death in the family or run to substance abuse when they feel insecure about something. People I know who shoot guns, especially people in the Cowboy Fast Draw Association, or in SASS are some of the nicest and well-rounded people I’ve met anywhere—including in those European and Asian countries that people think have so much “rich” culture. I would argue that in America we have our own rich culture built on westward expansion—which was a very “moral” enterprise in the scope of history—and guns were the backbone of that culture that we should all be proud of.

In the video the times I was recording were in the .450 range. I’m not happy with those numbers and the purpose of the slow motion is to show myself that I need to fire the gun much sooner out of the holster instead of pushing the gun forward. That is what makes that kind of training so satisfying, and worth pursuing. Shown in regular speed everything happens very fast. But when you slow it down, I can see where I need to improve, and that requires training my mind to think that much faster. In applying those techniques to my life that I learn at the gun range, it makes me a much better person in my day to day life. I think much faster when there are problems to solve and my thinking is much more accurate. After all, the brain doesn’t know if you are trying to solve the problem of hitting a target or trying to solve global economic problems. It sees everything in context, so by practicing something productive like “shooting” it helps the mind solve other problems not directly connected to the shooting sports. That is why shooting is a good thing for all Americans to do, and if more people did, especially the coastal liberals, they’d find that they could lead better lives and would have a lot fewer problems.

I’m not personally going to allow people who are broken intellectually—which most liberals are—and have them beat on gun owners anymore. My experience with guns is a very positive one and violence has nothing to do with it. Guns may have been invented to expedite the experience of death, or make people more efficient in killing others—but as tools of intellect, they are more useful in making a respectful class of people who think independently, and can manage their affairs in a superior way over their liberal protestors. I see nothing negative about my experiences on my private gun range in the sport of Cowboy Fast Draw. The practice of it makes me more efficient as a person and gives me an outlet for the stresses in my life that shooting baskets in my driveway or playing golf don’t quite reach. People who speak against guns just don’t understand why they are important culturally, and there are likely a lot of reasons for it. Maybe they had crappy parents. Maybe they didn’t have grandparents around to teach them important lessons when they were younger. Maybe they are just losers in life. Whatever it is, it’s not the problem of gun owners to bend their habits to these broken people. Broken people are not allowed to create the standard for what America is. And gun owners are not the broken people. It’s the people who criticize that culture who are in true need of a different way of thinking. A trip to the gun range would help a lot of them. But for the rest, they need a lot more.

I am proud to call myself a gunfighter. For me it’s no different from training to be a boxer, a martial artist or an MMA fighter—it’s a sport. And becoming good at that sport has a carryover effect into other things in life that are more important to good living. That is why the anti-gun people are so wrong on the gun culture in America. They don’t like America even though they try to sell their ideas by saying they are part of our culture—they clearly aren’t and seek to change it in everything they do. For them it starts by pissing on a bar wall outside drunk off their young asses and it ends with them becoming radical progressives in congress, or heads of major networks. They are all equally wrong. To speak against guns is to speak against the concept and intentions of American life. Part of that life is displayed in the sports we use to articulate our culture. Being a gunfighter isn’t the same as being a killer. These days it means a person is building foundation skills to become more precise and quicker in their life—and it’s a personal challenge worth the undertaking. It’s certainly not something to be outlawed because the more sensitive and less intellectual people on the west and east coasts are afraid of guns. What they really fear is what they might learn about themselves if they were to embark on a journey where they had to become better at something and challenge themselves. What they might learn in that process is what they are running from—and that is all the reason why guns should be more prevalent in America, instead of less.

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

Transference: The woman in the kitchen

People really should read Dinesh D’Souza’s new book The Big Lie.  It’s truly well done and surprisingly packed with information. I say that because I have read a lot of these types of modern political books and I seldom learn much from them but in this one I have learned quite a lot.  I would attribute that to something that D’Souza has uncovered that is exploding before our eyes, and that is this propensity of our collective society to function from a mass psychological trauma induced onto us from our early educations and that is to function from a gross case of mass transference.  Transference psychologically speaking is when a villain claims to be the hero or vice versa and shockingly it was on full display at the C-SPAN event shown below where Dinesh debated on stage with two members of the Alinsky Institute, David Alinsky son of the infamous Saul Alinsky and Ralph Benko.  Benko in particular who claimed to be a “right winger” was using transference to sell the merit of his institute which was incredibly interesting.

On a mass scale what the Donald Trump presidency has exposed is something we all knew was there from the beginning. The villains who are really guilty of serious crimes are attempting to pass those off onto passivist Republicans which has worked for many years but because Trump won’t accept that guilt a major clash is ensuing.  This is exposing the Democratic Party because there is nowhere to hide their crimes if Republicans won’t allow them to transfer that guilt to the GOP as has been going on for over one hundred years that I can tell.  For instance, it was Democrats who supported the KKK and slavery.  I was Democrats who inspired Hitler to give rise to his Nazis.  It was Democrats that colluded with Russia.  It was Democrats that destroyed evidence.  It was Democrats that issued many terrible pardons to enemies of the United States.  It was Democrats who want to use the power of the state to control all our lives in every way imaginable.  Republicans are against all those things yet by the psychological trick of transference they have accepted the sins of their rivals because they were defenseless against the way Saul Alinsky used his tactics to take command of the entire party giving people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton power they otherwise wouldn’t have had. Watching Benko and David Alinsky not be able to defend the things Dinesh D’Souza said about Saul Alinsky was truly fascinating.  They spent most of their time trying to defend the dedication of Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals to Lucifer than in defending the acts of transference that the Democratic Party has been using to beat Republicans through the media they control by associating their guilty acts onto an innocent party using Alinsky tactics to apply it.

To put the situation in a way that most people can understand transference would be when a man who is cheating on his wife quite audaciously comes home with perfume from another woman on him, and lipstick smeared on his collar then starts yelling at his wife who is just there cooking dinner accusing her of sleeping with other men.  The woman knows she hasn’t slept with other men and that she has been busy getting food for the meal she’s preparing yet now she has to defend the accusations of her husband.  If she fails to answer her husband’s criticisms she’ll look like she’s hiding something.  If she does answer them then she gives value to the charge by acknowledging it.  Either way, she is forced to make a move of defense or silence, both of which will get her accused of the act.  It’s an old liberal trick that has been going on for a long time and it’s odd that an entire political party could use a psychological mechanism to advance such an evil.

One of the primary themes of the great American novel Atlas Shrugged is the idea of making innocent people an accomplice into mass, group evil through transference.  This is done by getting people who are the movers and shakers of the world to admit to some level of selfishness if they won’t share their gains with people in need—without addressing why people are in need.  This is essentially how Mitt Romney lost his election against Barack Obama.  Democrats painted Romney as selfish, rich, and under using women as a role under his management.  Romney in fact was far from selfish and he had a history of being very fair to women, but when Democrats put that transference application to him he couldn’t defend it because he did feel guilt about his wealth.  That hook along froze him into inaction and allowed Obama to win the presidency.

Years ago when I was doing a radio interview on a popular daytime talk show I was involved in a lot of controversy and the host was trying to get me to apologize on the air.  It was baffling to me why this person cared so much to get an apology and this is something that is going on constantly these days—where people are being encouraged to apologize for everything.  Well, I meant what I had said in spite of the public backlash, and I knew all this psychology of transference so I stuck with my guns much to virtually everyone’s professional sensitivities.  To apologize to an unidentified group of women whom I said had asses the size of car tires and diamond rings to match would be to admit guilt.  Well, I wasn’t guilty.  What I said was a factual statement in the metaphorical application of it and the circumstance for which I said it.  By apologizing because it sounded harsh or was politically incorrect as determined by the reality of Democratic transference I would have undercut my entire platform—which I wasn’t about to do.  The Republicans around me at the time instinctively wanted to apologize and wanted me to do so—which I wouldn’t so we all went our separate ways.  They should have listened to me then because a few years later Trump became president doing essentially what I had done—not allowing the transfer of guilt from one Party to the other by accepting responsibility for it.

The only thing the woman in the kitchen could do when her husband came home to accuse her of cheating was to point out that he was the one with the signs of cheating for which his only comeback from that would be to rant, rave and threaten her with violence to shut her up—and that is what the political left is doing now that Donald Trump is refusing to apologize or accept any guilt from the Democrats.  Republicans on the Hill simply don’t know how to play the game any other way.  The way to beat the political left is to not accept the transference of their guilt.  If they threaten violence, then we must be willing to crush them just like the woman who is the victim of being cheated on must do against her husband.  Whatever she must do she must implement, like having a gun, or a can of mace—something that can overtake her husband if he attempts violence against her because she won’t accept his transference of guilt.  Donald Trump understands this issue, and I have been trying to teach it to people for years—and thankfully people are starting to listen.  But even I am shocked by the level of transference articulated in D’Souza’s new book.  I suppose I never really thought much about the Nazis and why they hated the Jews, or how they have more in common with Democrats than Republicans.   But they do and the reason why is transference.  Democrats are guilty of many crimes, but Republicans have come to their rescue so many times—it has enabled such a vast evil to be unleashed through good intentions.

The way Republicans have behaved was similar to the wife in saying, “honey, no, I haven’t been with anyone.”  You can check my cell phone, you can put a camera in our room, you can ask our neighbors—I haven’t even been out of the house.”  Meanwhile the husband has naked pictures of many girls on his cell phone and his wife doesn’t even know the password—so she could never check him out.  That dysfunction has to stop for Republicans.  They should be thankful that Trump is fighting on their behalf this physiological deficiency.  Because it happens far more than most people want to believe and each occurrence is a function of evil.  By endorsing such evil through shared responsibility—Republicans perpetuate it.  The moral thing to do is not to accept any guilt, even though we were all taught from infants up to the present to do so, and to keep the blame where it belongs—on the Democratic Party and their vile soldiers of disinformation.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Beauty of a Long Goodbye: Institutional failure and a new kind of day

 

I think the best way to explain it is that we are now in a generation of people—mostly youth driven—who grew up entirely with The Simpsons, South Park, and The Daily Show.  Those people went to college, were fed large doses of Marxist influence, graduated from some form of journalism and are now working in the media and other culture shapers within our professional institutions.  Their cynicism and hatred of Donald Trump comes from some foreign place for sure.  For instance, we are now on over a week of the whole Russia, Donald Trump Jr. story—which is nothing yet the ferocity for which the media presents the information is truly amazing.  The subconscious message to the Trump family has been that they did not use the professional pundits, lawyers, and inside the box thinkers—and pay them accordingly during the presidential campaign, so they feel entitled to pounce on the Trumps for their inexperience.  But if a few controversies emerge from saving the kind of money Trump did during the election with just good ol’ fashion hard work, then why not.  That is the biggest difference between the parades of phonies that typically would act as a foreign representative to major events.  President Trump is doing a great job—and he’s doing it rather easily.  At the Bastille Day parade the newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife had a very sincere reaction to President Trump and Melania’s departure resulting in a long handshake that virtually everyone made fun of who presented it through the media.  I thought it was a beautiful thing—four people with very important jobs who are normally very fake with one another in similar circumstances were overflowing with positive emotion.  It showed me that Macron might be a guy who will actually do a decent job in socialist France—but to the media, they saw nothing but negativity and they pounced in a way that was clearly out-of-touch with the flow of modern observation.

When Trump was running for president and I was so vocally supportive it was fun to watch these establishment types squirm in dealing with Trump.  It is fascinating to me because it is a microcosm of a much more systemic problem and I always knew that if a sincere businessman as opposed to a person breed within the political institutions—a person from Harvard—the typical Skull and Bones initiate—a military guy, or a senator formed within the fraternity of Capital Hlll—or even a state governor who was at least a part of an association, ran for any politically powerful position that they would excel because business has a way of forcing people to deal with reality and they’d do a far more superior job.  So I knew Trump would be very effective and I wanted to see that change.  What is happening with the stock market having all the incredible gains it is producing and the global reaction to President Trump’s natural charisma was something I counted on.  Trump as a personality has always loved controversy and attention, but under it all he’s always been smart.  Just read a few of his books and its very obvious that Trump knows exactly what he’s doing, including the whole controversy of the Don Jr. story.  Trump isn’t the only one with these skills—most people who are good at business have similar abilities and they get them outside of the institutional systems that we have in America—but that was always the point.

Clearly Jeffery Zucker who is running things at CNN is deeply jealous of Donald Trump.  He wants to think that he made Trump through The Apprentice when he was head of NBC Universal.  Now he’s the president of CNN Worldwide and the evidence that it wasn’t him who was so successful, but was the talent around him has been a harsh reality.  He’s failing miserably because he has gone after Trump in a way to sink the President in a very personal way.  For a guy whom Trump spoke so highly of in the book Think like a Billionaire, Zucker hates Trump because the evidence within the circles of business is so obvious.   As they parted ways leaving Zucker to run CNN in 2013 and Trump to run for president in 2015 there was nobody for the former NBC head to hide behind.  Zucker fell from grace quickly as just another overpaid institutionalist while Trump no matter what anybody threw at him continued to succeed.  Nobody understood it at the time, but the situation was obvious.   People build the institutions, the institutions do not make people—that is a basic law that all successful people understand.  I knew that if someone who had always made things work behind the institutional façade that they’d be great in politics for a change—and that is what is going on with Trump.  He’s always been good at anything he does because he loves to work, he’s intellectually curious about the world around him, and he has a natural love of life that emerges from whatever he’s involved with.  Once people had a taste of that, they’d never go back to the old institutional model—but business people would from now on be the choice of every political office, from school board members to future presidents.  The mold has effectively been destroyed and now everyone involved can see that it was always people like Trump who made the Jeff Zucker’s in life, not the other way around.

Ayn Rand wrote about this phenomena many years ago, it was obvious to her how institutions fail and how it is individuals who constantly carry them as a value.  Without strong individuals institutions always fail.  They are only propped up by a kind of social ignorance which has always been used as a collective way to hide the truth from human beings.  Whether the institution was a church, a television network, or a political party their effectiveness is always a mask hiding the reality that there must always be a strong individual who is doing all the heavy lifting that makes the institutions successful.  It is never the collective whole that does it.  Trump will always be successful whether he’s working at NBC with Jeff Zucker or running the Republican Party as he his now—but Zucker cannot be successful on his own without someone to carry him.  Within just four years of running CNN Jeff Zucker has nearly destroyed that network.  It may not be so obvious now, but they’ll never recover from his terrible management where he went after a popular president in very personal ways just to prove that it was the institutions that made Trump, not the other way around.   The failure of The New York Times, CNN, and NBC to recognize the basic talents of Trump is proving to be their undoing—and these young people who grew up over the last twenty years watching The Simpsons and South Park have been taught to either trust institutions too much, or to make fun of them without offering solutions.   Virtually everyone has missed the point except for those who understand that individuals make institutions, institutions do not make individuals.  Pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into any institution, whether it be a college, a network or even a religion cannot make success.  Only individuals who have mastered basic elements of life can do that and that reality is essentially what people are upset about in Trump.

It’s not always easy to see but the reaction that foreign leaders have in Trump whether it’s Russia, Saudi Arabia, China or the newly elected president of France, displays clearly the skills of a person at the top of his game in communication.   That’s because Donald Trump is a real person—a star of his own making.  The institutions tried to keep him at NBC working on a television show, but as a self-made person not really interested in millions of dollars for hosting a popular show, he wanted to apply his skills at the highest level and he walked away from the money.  Money is usually used to soften up individuals so that they never challenge the supremacy of the institutional controls that are used to mask the individual contributions of their talent.   Trump stepped away from one institution to another—one that had previously been forbidden.  He won and is now doing such a marvelous job and the institutions themselves have no other means of correcting the situation except for resorting to an infantile rejection of the behavior.  But the results can’t be ignored and the evidence was on full display between Macaron and Trump.  The French President didn’t want Trump to leave—that much was obvious.  Institutions can be scary because in them are a lot of little people like Jeffery Zucker who want to take credit for what good individuals do—but when someone like Trump comes along, things aren’t nearly so scary because it’s obvious that he’s the source of success and people want to be close to it, including the French president.   The truth has been revealed and all the institutions can do in defense of themselves is to use their young employees to verbally assault Trump hoping to protect themselves from further embarrassments.  But it’s too late.

Rich Hoffman

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Donald Trump Making Looney Toons out of Everyone Else: Being poor is a choice in America

At this point it’s obvious, the Democrats are like the Looney Toons characters of Yosemite Sam and Wile E. Coyote compared to Donald Trump who is to them a combination of Bugs Bunny and Road Runner all rolled up into one terrifyingly president of the United States. Nobody out-thinks the “Trump” I suppose is the way the situation should be phrased.  Trump is playing chess while everyone else is playing some child’s game in the media and within the Beltway. Trump has totally turned upside down even the most terrifying Deep State insurgents and made them look stupid just five months into his presidency—and I’m so glad to see it.  I hoped this would happen, but Trump is even more successful than even my wildest imagination could articulate and I’m loving it.  Yet when Trump made a small remark about the kind of people he had in his administration who were handling the economy—for which the political left has been critical because Trump’s people are very wealthy—Trump said to an Iowa rally audience that he wanted rich people instead of poor people managing economic affairs and this was somehow controversial.  When I heard it I didn’t think anything about it until I saw the reaction of the media the next day, and I have to say I was shocked that they were so shocked.

In covering this episode of leftist babble Sean Hannity made a good point, he said on his Fox News show that out of all the jobs he had ever done in his life from busboy to radio station on air talent—he never worked for a poor person. As I thought about that it was obviously a correct statement.  I reflected on my own colorful past of work experience and it was true, I never did work for a poor person.  I can think of one guy who did struggle to pay for his monthly bills but that wasn’t because he didn’t have access to financial resources—it was because he was reckless with his money.  After all he had just spent $23,0000 dollars on a stripper in Newport, Kentucky—so that did soak up some of his expendable cash during that time period.  But nobody was ever poor who signed a pay check to me—and there’s a reason for that.  Job creators are those who have financial resources beyond what they can handle themselves to manage—they have access to productivity which places them in a category of understanding that is beyond the concepts of a poor person.

As the poor are described Biblically, as people with limited resources who were not part of the political structure of their times, I can understand the nobility of being free and clear spiritually to live life simply and close to God. But the term is no longer relevant today with the invention of the United States of America.  In America, you can be religious and wealthy and there is nothing wrong with it.  It’s not like you have to live in sin to appease the Roman Empire or the Pharisees to hold wealth.  America made it so that any person who wanted to work hard regardless of their social stature could become wealthy and that is essentially what is wrong with liberals today—they don’t understand that.  They still want to apply merit to the poor because like most churches, it holds people’s minds to socialism and communism.  Poor people to the socialist is a badge of honor.  To an American conservative who loves their guns and their Bible—they are just lazy pot smoking losers.

There is no reason to be poor in America. There is always a job that needs to be done in a productive society and if you want to hold three or four jobs to climb out of a financial hole, you can do that.  I know I have.  I also know that Sean Hannity has.  The main reason I enjoy listening to Sean Hannity is because he has a similar background experience as I do.  I have nothing in common with news commentators who get up and go to work around 9 am and are pretty much done for the day by 3 pm.  I get up at 5 am every day and I go to bet around 11:30 pm and I work pretty much all day on and off.  Even in my leisure I’m still working on something—and that’s how it’s been for me for four decades now.  Sean Hannity always worked hard, and so does Donald Trump—even now.  The primary reason he’s running circles around everyone is that he’s used to this pace, and the swamp in Washington isn’t—and they look like fools trying to compete with him—because they aren’t prepared.  People who are poor in America are that way because they made a choice to limit their income to only 40 hours a week—or less.  There are 168 hours in a week and people who are poor likely are only being productive a quarter of that time.  For those under that ratio—they are even worse off—and that is by their own inclination.

To dig out of a financial hole I once worked 96 hours a week at a regular job then on weekends I had a paper route and I worked for a tree trimming business. Essentially, I worked seven days a week on a primary job, then in weekend slots I trimmed trees all over Cincinnati and my wife and I shared several paper routes and that was the time we spent together.  I was in my late 20s and 30s when I was doing all this.  And I still found time to spend with my kids.  We still went to see movies together.  We still went out to eat and took nice vacations.  We had Kings Island season passes and went often—we made it work.  I never felt like I wasn’t getting enough sleep.  I read at least a book a week still and I felt I lived a very good and productive life—and we weren’t poor—that’s for sure.  We didn’t have unlimited money to throw at things and had to manage it, but we had to do that with every hour of our work day.  When my kids need braces or musical instruments we bought them.  Whatever they needed, we took care of it and we never used any form of welfare or government assistance to get through life—even though we could have.  If we needed more money—I just took on another job.

In that context, I have no sympathy for the poor or those who complain about not having enough money. Being poor in America is a choice and there isn’t merit to it when you drag all your loved ones through a depressed lifestyle just because you are too lazy to work.  The Bible for such people is often used as a mask—they might say something stupid like, “well you can’t take ‘it’ with you,” meaning material possessions and other justifications to explain away their inherit lazy nature—but it’s only an excuse for laziness.  I don’t admire the mountain man or the monk who decides to quit life and retreat to their thoughts on top of a mountain and devote themselves to poverty and lack of possession.  But I do admire the person who works 18 hours per day and employees over a 100 people—because they are the keys to being a productive society.  Those are the type of people who should be in charge of the economy.  Not some driveling idiot who hates money, wealth, and production. And in that context, we should all thank God that Donald Trump is finally in charge so we can talk about these things properly instead of with a bunch of emotional flap designed to hide a lack of personal ambition.

It’s not against the law to be lazy, or poor. If that is what people want to do, then let them have it.  But, they don’t have a right to skunk up the works of a perfectly successful, and wonderful capitalist economy where the natural spillover of productivity makes even the poorest people in America far better off than some of the richest in the godforsaken third world countries of the world—where political connections and aristocracy still rule the who has from the wish they dids. In America, it’s a choice and that is what makes America such a beautiful and moral country.  The best of the best are the job creators—because they bring opportunity to those who enjoy working hard.  By their very nature, they are not poor.  Rich people give jobs because they have produced an excess in their lives—poor people do not.  So to Trump’s point it’s quite clear he understands the difference—and for that we should celebrate with the flare of a Bugs Bunny as the stupidity of Yosemite Sam blows up his carefully laid plans in his face yet again as America cruises one more day toward a prosperity that was attempted to be robbed from future generations—but in a nick of time—wasn’t.

.Rich Hoffman

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

How Trump is the New Normal: The media can’t really make or break people

I heard something truly fascinating the other day from the liberal political left when they said that they were afraid of interviews like the one done with Lester Holt, because it might “normalize” the Trump presidency—as if they had some hope of stopping that now. I mean the guy is President of the United States.  From the Executive Office he is setting up the kind of culture that we will have in the United States likely for the next several decades.  I mean being a bunch of loser lefties, I can understand that they don’t like him as president, but hey, I’ve had to put up with presidents I didn’t like for the last 24 years—so shut the hell up.  It’s our turn—“Trump supporters” to enjoy the Executive Branch for a change.  I had to watch years of embarrassments from the lefties and it’s only fair that now they have to endure what I’ve had to for once. But worrying about “normalizing” Trump—if that’s what they’re worried about, they have some big problems on the horizon because the way the Executive Branch works in America it sets the discourse for our nation from a leadership position.  What is “normal” is what Trump does—not what the lefties desire—otherwise they would be winning more elections.

It reminded me of something that happened to me once, I had been in the newspapers, on the radio, and on television all the time and my political enemies just didn’t understand how I was doing it. They lobbied the radio stations and the publishers decrying them for given me “legitimacy.”  Well, I had news for them, I am a perfectly “legitimate” person.  In many cases I was smarter, faster, had loads of more stamina, worked much harder than any of them and here they were preaching to these media types that I shouldn’t be given coverage for my political issues because in doing so they were legitimizing me.  Eventually they became frustrated and they organized a hit against me much like they did recently with Donald Trump and Bill O’Reilly, only I didn’t cave in which of course infuriated everyone.  They couldn’t understand why such a thing didn’t ruin my life—and of course I still did television, gave interviews, and did radio.  I stopped answering the phone from those who had betrayed me, but by no means did I stop getting coverage because I had discovered that I could give myself everything I needed.  I didn’t need them—which is largely why I write on this blog everyday.  It’s my own newspaper and people read it, and visitors can pull up stories that are very old and read them again—which you can’t seem to do anymore with the major newspapers.  And of course in the world of today, the ability to hold information for retrieval is the key to news exchange because so much comes at people so quickly that customers want the ability to revisit stories later.

The point of the matter was that I understood my own “legitimacy.” When I did a now famous photograph on the cover of the Cincinnati Enquirer it wasn’t they who made me into anything, it was me who they wanted on their cover to sell newspapers—and putting an anti-tax person on the cover with a cowboy hat and a bullwhip was a sure way to get people reading.  They didn’t create the story at the Enquirer, I did. But those lefties at Gannett Publications want to believe that they make or break people—that they give rise to governors, senators and presidents—but in reality, they don’t and Donald Trump is the evidence.

Anybody who wanted could go back to the business section of any bookstore and see the three to seven books that Trump has written over the years and understand that Donald Trump is the self-contained essence of “the power of positive thinking.” He is a person not at all interested in what people think of him and when he constantly highlights his consistently high ratings it’s his reminder that he is the one in control, not the media.  They didn’t make him, but he does them. So the media, and everyone else for that matter, have no ability to make or break Donald Trump because the billionaire businessman has never given that power over to anybody.  He developed power within himself and he does not give it away to anybody.  Media outlets may seek to ride in the wake of the stories he creates—but they don’t make him.  That is the important distinction that virtually everyone fails to understand when it comes to Trump or even the Republican Party.

I tried to explain all this to the Republicans who run the county I lived in, but they weren’t used to thinking in these ways and what ended up happening was a fractured, divided party—which was purely their fault. I was happy that they did invite me to many events where only VIPs were allowed to attend because of my contributions, but after the hit job on me, they put some distance between me and themselves.  Well, my life went on just fine.  All that changed was that I had a few less social engagements to turn down because I don’t have time for that stuff anyway, but as for the things I do I still do what I want to because my life was not contingent on the actions of other people.  If it was, there is something wrong—and even though 99% of everyone lives in a way that requires “people” It is not “people” who make or break something.  It is individual behavior.

In grade school probably the biggest thing we learn, which I think is an incredible negative, is how to conform to peer pressure. It is in grade school where we learn our social clicks which are supposed to guide us though life under the lefty’s Brave New World vision.  We learn how to take orders from our peers and from what peers that we are best matched—group associations.  It is there that we die to our individual selves, the little creature that was coddled by our parents and given all kids of special treatment as infants.  We are born again as collectivists who require other people’s approval in order to function.  We want peer approval of our cloths, of our musical choices, of our speech patterns—and thus we become something much less than we were before—by default.  The media happens to care very much about the same types of things because of their continuous drive for ratings, so they immediately fall into this default mode.   But they fail to understand the kid in the public school hallway who dresses the way they want, does what they want—and doesn’t give a rat’s ass if anybody wants to be their friend.  And when one of those people end up in the White House, the press are truly terrified because it runs counter to everything they understand.

So thus the great misunderstanding has occurred, the collective masses do not determine reality—individuals do, and no collective agreement can erase a fact. And the fact is, Donald Trump is President of the United States and he cannot be “de-legitimized.”  The media cannot “un-make” him.  And as far as being normalized, it was always the popular kids in school who decided what “normal” behavior was.  I have noticed over time that those “normal” people ended up in life absolute messes who are boring, and very unhappy as adults.  They are not the type of people who should be in charge of walking a dog let alone running a country.  So for a change the exceptional person is now in the White House and that’s the way we wanted it.  What the lefties are really worried about is now that he is, Trump will make the new normal “exceptional.”  Which is exactly what I expect from him—and so far he has delivered.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

The Network Boycott of Donald Trump: Life is going on without them

It was a little astonishing that the television networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN refused to play the political ad from the Trump campaign highlighting the first 100 days accomplishments by the new president.  After all, they didn’t have a problem highlighting every little thing that Barack Obama did.  But Trump isn’t Obama and the networks are seeing the difference already.  They are being exposed for what they always were; liberal outlets designed to promote progressivism and are now discovering that people are willing to turn away from them really for the first time in their history over political ideology.  As everyone now knows ESPN is a dying network owned by the Disney Company and they are losing their conservative viewers due to their extremely liberal on-air positions.  ESPN President John Skipper, a former employee at left-wing Rolling Stone magazine, insisted that the network had little intention of putting on the brakes of its liberalism even in the wake of their viewership exodus saying:

“It is accurate that the Walt Disney Company and ESPN are committed to diversity and inclusion,” Skipper said. “These are long-standing values that drive fundamental fairness while providing us with the widest possible pool of talent to create the smartest and most creative staff. We do not view this as a political stance but as a human stance. We do not think tolerance is the domain of a particular political philosophy.”

 

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017/05/05/survey-of-viewership-in-swing-state-market-shows-republicans-abandoning-espn-in-droves/

Then Ellen DeGeneres said just yesterday that Donald Trump wasn’t welcomed on her show—as if that were going to somehow hurt the feelings of the president—or change what’s happening.  Stephen Cobert—the former Comedy Central liberal who openly has a night show directed at pot smokers unleashed a potty mouthed rant that could only be justified through definitions of insanity—yet CBS allowed it to air anyway which should have provoked attention by the FCC.  If Cobert had been a conservative, he’d be out of a job, but since he’s a liberal like most of the people in entertainment—he gets a free pass.  What we are seeing is unprecedented—the political left is drawing a line in the sand and hoping that we all love them enough to keep watching their programs.  But the evidence is already in that conservatives are finding other alternatives.

What is really scary to the networks is that Trump is actually better at the job of communicating than they even understand in the industry.  George Will the conservative commentator actually quit the Republican Party because he thinks President Trump chews up the English language in an illiterate fashion.  He clearly has taken the side of the liberal networks in thinking that he knows more than Trump does about communicating.   Yet Trump has had great success in entertainment and obviously knows more about communication than even the most seasoned Hollywood actor.  Trump doesn’t just speak, he communicates with his entire body when he gives a speech and people understand him.  He may not articulate the English language in a scholarly fashion, but he communicates better than most anybody in the public eye today and he can do it without an army of advisors and Hollywood producers to help him along.  While Obama used to seek counsel from Steven Spielberg and Jeffery Katzenberg, Trump takes care of things himself and is able to produce a video illustrating his first 100 days without the entertainment industry’s involvement—and it drives them crazy.

It’s in Trump’s independence that has exposed the leftist tendencies of the major networks and now half the country is looking for alternatives.  They are used to making or breaking people and they can’t have an impact on Trump in any way and they don’t know what to do about it except make asses of themselves.  Now they are taking positions they can’t walk back and it will eventually destroy them.  I warned the Disney Company about this years ago, and they didn’t listen.  They insisted on putting little gay characters in their entertainment products and force-fed liberalism into their productions, and their bottom line is going to take a hit.  ABC is owned by Disney so like ESPN they are committed to leftist ideologies which run against the current of modern American politics and they are positioning themselves for extinction.  Trump actually did work on NBC with the hit show The Apprentice and even now after 14 seasons the executives cannot figure out for the life of them why Trump was so much better at that show than some Hollywood actor who gets paid to say what other people think.

What’s even funnier is that the political left thinks that they are going to find their own Hollywood star to run against Trump in 2020.  They are throwing around names like George Clooney, Dwyane Johnson and even Disney’s Bob Iger—but they really don’t understand that it takes more than “celebrity” to win as a president.  Trump didn’t win the presidency because of his celebrity—he won it because he worked harder than anybody else.  Hillary Clinton rolled out the celebrities in her final days and they didn’t help her at all.  The power that the networks and media companies had with their celebrates has evaporated before their eyes and they really don’t know what to do about it which is what I have been saying all along in regard to the value of Donald Trump being president.  There’s not just his skills as a businessman, or the self-reliance of his celebrity—but it’s the presence of a Republican who can simply rob the political left of their stronghold on the media all by himself.  The Democrats don’t have anybody like Trump and with all their resources in Hollywood there isn’t one person who can compete with Trump on the stage in 2020 and they all know it now.  They might have the celebrity, but they don’t have the work ethic or an understanding of all the modes of communication that Trump has naturally.

Trump wasn’t made into a celebrity by others the way that George Clooney was—or any other actor who gets paid to read off a script.  Trump made himself and that is a different kind of political candidate and the failure of the networks to work with this new administration will be their end.  They won’t survive the change in demographic posture combined with the economic burden of the modern cord cutters—the people who have decided that they don’t want or need cable television in their lives.  Ellen and Stephen Cobert can’t afford to cut off half their audience the way they have—yet they have done just that.  And that decision will prove detrimental to them all.  People will still see Trump’s ad about his first 100 days regardless of the participation of the networks in showing it because they don’t have a monopoly any longer on information.  They can’t stop Trump by cutting him off the networks because he can reach many more people through new media.  The only people getting hurt by the network boycott of Trump are the networks.  They can’t survive off only half the country watching their programs.  They can’t appeal only to liberals and hope to lure advertisers to their channels.  Look what happened to Curt Schilling at ESPN.  He represented the kind of man who many of their viewership were themselves, and when they took him down for being a conservative, ESPN lost viewers. I used to love watching ESPN, but since they fired Schilling, I haven’t watched them since—because they didn’t have talent on their programs that spoke and thought the way I do.  So I turned them off and moved on to something else.

There is a lot to feel good about Trump, the stock market is soaring, money is coming back to the American economy and the president is well on his way to becoming simply the best occupant of the White House ever to reside there.  History is already starting to overshadow the cries of the liberal left and that’s where the networks are making a major mistake in not aligning themselves with history.  Rather, they are sticking with their ideology which will be their undoing.  Trump works harder and is good at so many different things that his presidency will be a new defining marker in history.  The old guard is quickly finding themselves on the outside looking in and they know it. Right now they are protesting with defiance, but they are rapidly learning that nobody really cares about them.  Nobody cares about the opinions of The View girls, and nobody cares about Ellen.  Trump is going to be a good president with or without them.  And that is the hard lesson that the world is learning—but I’ve said it all along.  Maybe next time they’ll listen—for those who survive long enough to have a next time.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

In Trump We Must Trust: Now the senate has to do the right thing

Remember just a few days ago when the American media was contemplating the second failure of congress repealing Obamacare—and how devastating it would be for the Trump administration? Then as if out of nowhere, congress did the right thing and voted to repeal that legislative monstrosity and Trump had the Republicans firmly behind him at the White House announcing the victory of the first leg of that journey.  This is why we voted for Trump—because any other president would have let the issue go and would not have wrestled the challenges to the ground the way he did—and it is only because of him that the Republicans in congress were able to consolidate around something they could all get on board with—and the American media was awe-struck by the effectiveness of the deal it took to get the votes in such a short period of time.  The same kind of thing will take place in the senate. It’s still a long battle, but we are well on our way toward finally getting rid of Obamacare.

People can say what they want about Trump—that he’s not conservative enough, or that he’s not against a single payer system—but in regard to health care we are on a steep ledge with our insurance premiums for that industry. Dealing with health insurance providers every year I am amazed by how much they continue to rise—8 to 12% in a lot of cases with no sign of decreasing—and no politician has been willing to deal with it.  Obamacare made the situation much worse and was meant to collapse the system driving us all to a single payer mandate—which would essentially make health care a socialist right as they view it in Europe and Canada.  The health care in those places sucks so that is certainly not the model we should be following.  Changes have to be made toward making health care cheaper and more effective—not the opposite.  And if the ball didn’t get rolling in the first days of the Trump White House, it was never going to happen as the spiraling effect would destroy all hope of solving this problem with free market solutions.

Now with the debate in the senate, the president and the marketplace—there will be ideological differences. People like Rand Paul will want complete free market approaches, but to keep the health care providers we do have alive, they need help because of the last six years of government intrusions.  They can’t be cut off cold turkey—they’d fold otherwise.  So, it’s a complex problem made worse by the Obama White House.  To have a hope at a free market solution we have to put the problem in Trump’s hands and trust him to work the situation backwards over an 8-year period.  That is one of the biggest reasons to have a billionaire capitalist in the White House, to help make that deal a reality.  We can’t trust government to step out of the picture on their own.  We need a president to direct them out of it over the coming years while the health insurance industry grows its own legs again and can start to drive down premiums with options—like the phone industry did after deregulation.

The best hope we have of avoiding a single payer system is in trusting Trump—and Rand Paul is going to have to embrace that along with others in the senate who are economic puritans. Unfortunately, they are in the minority and this is a deal that will have to be walked back toward free market applications by a pro capitalists in the White House, congress, and senate letting the Democrats rot on their socialist stagnation.  The fear many have in repealing Obamacare is that this might empower Democrats to take back the house and senate during the next midterms, but that’s not going to happen if they stick close to Trump.  If anything, they’ll gain seats.  But they’re going to have to have courage and forge forward with boldness under the Trump flag otherwise the whole thing will come unraveled.  We are in uncharted territory and none of the news pundits know how to define things—so there is no guide on how to proceed.  So they will just have to trust in Trump.

That’s not to say that Trump is a dictator that should be followed blindly, but that he is a representation of free market associations and is but a guide toward that economic means of philosophic national understanding. In eight years Trump will not be president anymore, but his commitment toward capitalism should endure and that is essentially the same approach we all need to take regarding health care.  We need to trust the market, but we have to keep that market on life-support until it can leave the hospital so to speak—because Obamacare essentially shot it leaving it for dead in the streets.

Of course the socialist loving progressives were upset, and that was evident by the late night television people who dominate that European style thought process—and they are a growing infusion of failed policies that they intend to import against the individual based economic structure of our day. They didn’t think Trump would pull together everybody and they are now quite scared because socialized medicine is a big objective for them.  And how Trump did it scared them even worse, he caved on elements of the budget deal to keep everything running, and while the Democrats were celebrating, Trump was working out the health care issue in congress—and that was all a tactical decision coming from the White House.  Very clever, and masterly stuff from a strategic point of view. Given how everything occurred, you could hear real fear in the voices of the liberal leaning progressives after the fact—they know what this means and what’s at risk.

It is terribly hard to take away an entitlement which is why Democrats pushed through Obamacare in the first place—to get enough people addicted to it so that socialized medicine would become a mainstay in American politics. But, there is time to turn back the clock and Republicans have a very narrow window to do so—and it will take them all to see the vision clearly.  Trust the capitalist in the White House who has built a fortune building up brands and marketing goods for great profit.  He has to make health care a good free market enterprise for more insurers so that they can enter the market and compete to drive down those out of control costs.  That is the only way to really fix it—because doing nothing won’t get things done at this point, and socialized medicine will be even worse than those escalating premiums which increase because of the lack of insurers and the top-heavy need for coverage.  So there is a lot of work that has to be done, but I am very confident in Trump to do it.  It would be wise for the senate not to get caught up in ideological chest pounding, because this is a tight rope, and we must walk it now.  The sooner the better, because each day that passes, it gets more complicated and harder for a free market to be part of the future.  The public expectations for reality are too polluted and we have a young generation of socialists raised by our toxic public education system that will vote for the single payer route once they are over 30—and at that point free market options will not be on the table, coverage will be terrible, and the costs will be extraordinary.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg