Its Good to be a Counter-Revolutionary: Every age has its own fight to conduct

I know it’s not convenient.  I understand that most people want to live their lives by the rules of their American citizenship and to be left alone.  But, every generation has its challenges, there are always enemies out there looking to act on their own accord, and when you live in the best country on the face of planet earth, there will be attacks that whoever must defend is in the care of the day.  In the future, it might be those generations.  In the past, it was others.  And now, we have a task, and we cannot ignore it.  We have among us in America, intense revolutionaries who want to undo all of us and force us to obey them.  They come from all over the place; some are very wealthy, some are dirt poor broke, but they all hate America and want to undo it.  Our first task is to admit that to ourselves.

All of us are not pro-American supporters.  Some of our neighbors and friends are these revolutionaries.  Go to your local school board meeting, and you will see lots of enemies. These people are revolutionaries who actively work through education to destroy our children’s minds and destroy America from within.  Go to a poor neighborhood hampered by Democrat policies, and you will see attacks against our legal system to bring down our American system of constitutional law.  Look at our corporations, even the Coke that we buy at McDonald’s.  You will see global interests seeking a stable communist political environment to spread their brand to every corner of the world, who want to destroy American sovereignty to unleash their growth toward those markets, working as enemies against us all.  They are all revolutionaries who wish to revolt against American sovereignty, and they are willing to commit treason to unleash it, which of course, provokes a response from us. 

In the video above, I proposed embracing the counter-revolutionary role that sounds radical and even militant to many ordinary people.  But it is our task in this time and place to do so.  We are under attack and have been for a long time.  American massive growth and GDP hid it, and many of those named forces remained in a somewhat docile state.  It all came undone openly for the first time in our lives when the assassination of JFK occurred.  In a brief history of what went wrong, dueling was common in our founding fathers’ day, in the start of America as an idea.  Dueling was needed to protect the value of the name and reputation of the individuals involved.  Slowly dueling emerged into gunfighting in the age of Western Expansion.  Not so honorable, usually provoked in a drunken rage, but the intent was the same, to protect the reputation of individuals.  As the age of progressivism seeped in, and central government began taking control more and more every decade after that, up until the period of WWII, the killing of other people migrated from a very personal experience with gunfighting to the actions of the mob, where assassinations occurred blindly, and from a safe distance.  This took the courage out of combat and unsettled people’s minds in a new way.  When the KGB worked with American intelligence to get rid of a common rival, and a threat to the various city mobs all over America, JFK was a rich target, and the killing of him unleashed an attack on America through the revolutionaries that followed in the 60s right up to the present.

This is important because these actions created radicals of all kinds to act violently from the protection of a mob.  Fights between factions used to be settled face to face, with the antagonists being forced to take responsibility for their actions in the light of day.   This new kind of killer came from a blob of ideology and has eroded our country ever since, which has been entirely by design.  The enemies of America knew what they were doing.  First, it was the various city mobs that started the fall, which ironically became the leaders of the Democratic Party (Saul Alinsky, Hillary Clinton). It migrated to the KGB of Russia.  Today, China has bought up massive amounts of influence in American media, sent honeypot spies into the beds of many politicians to compromise them and steer favorable legislation toward communist causes and manipulate currency to collapse the influence of the American dollar.  Most of these things happen over such an extended period and on such a vast scale with so many people involved that everyday people don’t see it or refuse to see it because acknowledging it would mean they’d have to take responsibility for the action.  Yet there it is, and it’s on our doorstep today as a result and demands that strong people face them down in opposition. 

That is where my suggestion of becoming a counter-revolutionary comes from.  It is a term you should embrace.  It’s not an act of terror to insist that we return our nation to a foundation of constitutional law instead of accepting the chaos of a change state toward communism, which is precisely what is happening.  Being a counter-revolutionary is an honorable thing when revolutionaries have indicated openly that they mean to ruin your lives at any cost and that they dare you to meet them on the battlefield for a fight.  They have issued the dare.  Unfortunately, we have been taught in our public schools that we are supposed to walk away from fights, not participate in them for the last century.  Our legal system has punished the second act in a conflict, not the first.  Prosecutors are going after those that respond to violence, not those who issue it.  So we are gun-shy and have been for way too long.  We have sat by and watched other people speak for us at school board meetings.  We have allowed good people to be punished just because they don’t fit into a woke culture intent on undoing our country.  We were, after all, too busy taking our kids to soccer practice.  We didn’t want the responsibility for action, so the revolutionaries of our culture felt entitled to attack and unleash their will upon us, expecting an easy go of destroying all of us. 

As human beings in this particular age, we must defend America from its attackers in the media, from insurgents in the streets, and those compromised within our elected offices.  Failure to meet that challenge will leave history to consider us the losers who let it all slip away to the parasites of sociology.  To the revolutionaries who hated us because they weren’t us or were too stupid to join us and take our lessons and improve their lives accordingly, revolutionary intentions cannot be accepted.  But make no mistake about it, they meant to end us all, and we should not back down from being a counter to their intentions.  There is nothing radical about that.  It is patriotic and honorable to stand against revolutionaries who intend ill will and malice robbing all future generations of the opportunity to be Americans.  It’s not enough to light fireworks on the Fourth of July and celebrate what others have done to make American Great.  It’s time for us to do it all over again in a way specific to our times. 

Cliffhanger the Overmanwarrior

Share, subscribe, and see you later,

Sign up for Second Call Defense at the link below. Use my name to get added benefits.

Socialism is Taught in our Public Schools–so why are we surprised that its all kids know?

There was a recent poll that indicated 43% of people in North America support socialism which seems to be a surprise to many people. As everyone knows, I have been screaming this from the roof tops for many, many years—more like decades. This isn’t a new idea and if you take that poll and lay it over the same type of people who voted for Hillary Clinton and may support Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders they almost match perfectly. The new element is in accepting that the Democrat Party essentially is a part of socialists who have simply changed their name. And that evidence is quite clear in how that part of politics has taken over our public education system, which was finely exhibited in the New York City public school system with their recent ban of words that are consistent with above the line behavior, words like success, exceptionalism, and winning.

Many people don’t want to get involved in political matters, as our culture has successfully stigmatized it. It is far safer to talk about grilling hot dogs and talking about the statistics of hitting a ball with a baseball bat. And the people who want power like it that way. While we have been off appeasing everyone’s temperaments and worrying about hurting their feelings with aggressive words, they have taken over our public education system and sought to destroy the minds of our young people from their very foundations, and they have not been shy about it. We’ve let them get away with it by playing nice. And they have taken advantage of our niceness and set about ruining our nation from the inside out by controlling not only our education system, but what people learn, and this has occurred by allowing labor unions who are typically very progressive to run the school boards.

All that has changed is that Bernie Sanders and other very progressive elected officials have moved the political bar even further to the left leaving people like me, who have always been conservative looking in comparison to be some deranged lunatic by the measure of the political spectrum being analyzed. If prior to the 1960s the politics of the middle ground was exactly where a person like me is today, the victory of the communists, the hippies, and the leaning left Democrats ever more moved way away from the center and set a new benchmark that stated the new centralist views were radically to the left of what it used to be. And this has largely happened by a communist plan that started with the beginning of the Department of Education in 1980. It can be argued that public education worked better before a new department at the federal level got involved, and since it has, the entire country has moved further to the left.

I still remember what public school was like in 1980. I was in the sixth grade and I watched it quickly deteriorate. I can at least report a reference point to what it was like before and what it was like after, and each year thereafter from then until now has moved further and further to the political left. For those who say they don’t want to get involved in politics, because of hostile elements that have attacked our way of life, particularly in public education, none of us really have a choice. I have lost a lot of friends and family members over this very issue, which I’d do happily again. To me, what’s the point of talking about grilling out in the back yard, when entire parts of our population are being destroyed by liberalism in our public schools?

To my point of view this is one of the worst issues to confront us in the modern era. That we have allowed academia to be infested by liberalism only to eat up all the value of an education with political activism has been a major travesty on the action of learning. We have allowed intelligence to be stigmatized also with liberalism, and if we aren’t liberals, then we can’t claim to be academics. Through our American niceness, and through our Christian roots we turned the other cheek time and time again to allow these antagonizers to climb into the minds of our children and to take them from us, to attempt to destroy our families, to stand for death and the rights of some feminist version of womanhood as the only way.

Another recent poll that came out revealed that happily married women tended to be Republican in nature, which set off a torrent of anger from the political left. The threat to them was always in controlling the message of what being a woman really was. In their minds they accomplished two things, they keep mothers busy at work doing “things” in the pursuit of being equal to men. The other thing was that it pushed kids out of the house and into schools and pre-school day cares. This is also something I watched firsthand. My mom was a traditional housewife, one of the last of them. And she took a lot of grief for it being ridiculed by virtually everyone and it harmed her in many ways very deeply. She just wanted to care for her children and ironically, we all grew up very emotionally stable and productive. My wife actually followed in her path and for her the situation was even worse. Far worse actually. I watched all this with great curiosity, how could something so good, like loving kids, be considered socially so bad? Well, we were told in public education that liberalism was the way to go and they took our tax money to fund one sided political debate. And if you had a different point of view, then those individuals would be hunted down like the Salem Witch Trials and executed either literally or metaphorically. Whatever methods were used, the results were always clear. Destroy any hint at conservatism so that liberalism could grow.

It is actually surprising that more people don’t call themselves socialists these days with all the effort at attacking American that culture has gone into the promotion of that point of view. Capitalism and conservatism have held up remarkably well considering the efforts spent against it. But its time for us to turn the tide and to not be ashamed to admit what we value and to continue allowing liberalism to advance with our shut mouths and funding by turning our cheeks again and again until they’ve slapped away all the skin. Values can’t just be surrendered to a mob of trained socialists who believe they have a right to pluck us all dry to satisfy their whims. We need to focus on competition for the public education system so one brand of socialist instruction is not the only thing available to young people. By allowing that single source of failure to infect our children we are actually dooming them for life, and its time we stop that cycle. 1980 wasn’t that long ago and people have been educating themselves for many years. Well before the Department of Education came along with an agenda toward socialism. And until we change our thoughts on this, we will continue to see an erosion that eventually won’t be correctable. Time is certainly running out—I don’t think we are there yet, but we are getting close.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

Why Socialism Fails Every Time

Even though I have been talking about the great socialist conspiracy for years, well before anybody wanted to admit that it was the goal of public education and government to bring it about. Why else do you think dear reader that most of Washington D.C. wants open borders, because they want socialism in America, even Republicans. Socialism puts centralized government as a top priority, and they work as leaders in government, so just like that, they have been advocating for socialism. So, with that understanding nobody can point and say that identifying the truth of the matter, as I have for many years under conditions not so pleasant, was a tin hatted conspiracy. It was always the goal for government to embrace socialism because it gave them something to do and made elections seem more logical and achievable for them to win. Make people more dependent on government and the voting patterns that promised re-election would be easier to understand. So why is it that socialism doesn’t work, such as in the most recent tragedy of Venezuela? That is the purpose of this article, to identify that hidden ingredient that often decides success or failure in everything, and for our purpose we can name it properly as leadership.

It was only a few years ago that my wife and I had been planning a nice vacation to Angel Falls in Venezuela. The country just isn’t’ stable enough so it’s not worth the trouble. When people become as desperate as they now are in Venezuela you have to watch your back constantly to keep your assets in tact, and that just isn’t worth it just to go see a natural wonder. But Venezuela should be capitalizing on its natural resources better than they are, such as tourist attractions like Angel Falls, but they can’t because they have pushed all vision and leadership out of their country. I mean how else does a loser like Nicolas Maduro who was just a bus driver end up president, it takes a lot of dumb people in a democracy to even allow such a thing in an open vote. Then there is the other president Juan Guaido with whom the United States officially recognizes as their leader who is running the country from the city streets. Venezuela is now a mess in every way that it could be and it all happened within a decade. The country continues to be one of the best examples of what a lack of leadership in a culture really does when it’s not present. When leadership is lacking, it can be said that nothing happens in the world. It’s not people and their labor that makes things move, its in the vision of leadership that effort is focused and made into something which generates cultural growth that economies work and governments emerge. Not just the will of the masses and their whims represented by a mass vote. Without leadership involved in the emergence of anything, the task itself will always fail.

Unfortunately, leadership is one of the least understood attributes of modern culture. Yet it controls the success or failure of everything. As a society we are sort of happy if leadership happens yet we don’t understand they whys and hows. We just know it when we see it. Fortunately, in America we find lots of leaders emerging in a variety of fields because it tends to occur when individuals are empowered to act with great autonomy. The more rules and restrictions to individual behavior, the less leadership emerges in a culture. For instance, we can see the lack of leadership in the sports world when LeBron James fails such as he has on the L.A. Lakers basketball team. The evidence is obvious when we see the best basketball player in the world sitting at the end of the bench cast aside by his teammates because they aren’t buying what he’s selling, and the record of the team shows it. We can see the results of leadership in sports all the time and we enjoy it in American culture. Yet we fail to find ways to generate leadership in our education system so most people grow up not understanding the value of it or how to bring it about.

When leadership is not present its obvious. A culture like Venezuela happens when leaders are put in jail because they are perceived threats to the current administration and the goal of the country is power through popular vote rather than the antics of leadership. Once the competency of any leader is lost to the cultural castigation of leadership than whatever the endeavor may be, failure is soon to follow. Leadership can further be broken down into a couple of categories. Direct leadership which is what happens when a person is in the field building a reputation for themselves which other people are quick to ride on their coattails. Such as Michael Jordon had as a young start out of North Carolina with a knack for hitting game winning shots as the buzzard sounded. Direct leadership is results based and it inspires in others the desire to follow that influence. Then there is influence leadership, such as what I do with this blog. Once you have a reputation that is beyond the control of any established state or organization, you can then use that reputation to carry others to lofty considerations. In that way an entire culture can be elevated with just a few simple words, even if only very few leaders are inspired to act directly. Without those basic elements of leadership in a culture nothing happens. Work, art, science, nothing happens in life without leadership.

Venezuela sitting on massive oil reserves and other avenues to great wealth can’t even play on the world stage because they lack leadership. Their culture through socialism has pushed away all their old leaders and stifled the growth of new ones. When leadership is pushed away from any process, failure is soon to follow. Leadership is the most important ingredient to any hope of cultural advancement whether or not we are just talking about sports, industry or even entertainment. If leadership is missing, what is being down will fail, 100% of the time with no exceptions. But to accept such a premise a culture has to be willing to recognize that it’s not equality that a society should value, because leadership is a value judgement that must emerge when exception is what drives activity and people show a willingness to follow the best in an effort to improve themselves.

Leadership is not a group decision, it’s what happens when a group follows someone who has a history of rising above the norm. Leadership inspires others to become more than they have been, but when that element is missing there is nothing to encourage others to do anything above and beyond their circumstances, so mundanity occurs and so does the efforts of the masses. This is the case under every example of socialism and why it fails. It puts an emphasis on equality among the masses instead of recognizing the basic fact of all nature and that is that leadership among human beings is the engine that drives all aspects of culture. And that is a truth I have yet to hear anybody else discuss. But if it takes leadership to bring it about, then so be it.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

Why Socialism Fails: The science of political and economic structures is completely dependent on autonomy

I’ve been writing about the coming of socialism in America for a very long time. In some ways, many ways its been with us since just before the presidency of FDR. But it has been a bad word in our capitalist economy, and for good reason. Yet many people really don’t understand why. It’s not enough any more to say that socialism doesn’t work, look at Venezuela. Now that it is essentially the platform of the Democrat party and so many kids have been taught socialism openly in public schools over the last couple of decades its time to explain exactly why socialism doesn’t work and why all countries should avoid it, especially these days because the world is actually growing more independent not more collectivist. Socialism is an old fantasy that took over a 100 years for the political left to spring into the light of day in the most powerful country on earth but they are about 20 years too late. Here’s why:

I was driving next to a person the other day who could not get off his cell phone. My first thought was that he could and should wait at least until he came to a stop light to do so much texting, but he was really engaged in his phone which reminded me of the question many have these days, why do people like their phones more than they enjoy talking to a person who is right in front of them. The answer is simple really and can best be understood in the great book on psychology called Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. The reason people spend more time on their cell phones than with real people is purely because of autonomy, the ability people have to control their own destiny on a moment to moment basis. Often in direct contacts with other people individuals do not control all aspects of the conversation, and often the people present represent varying degrees of less personal autonomy including subject matter, the pace of a conversation, and even how the other people smell as their breath enters into your own lungs by inadvertent biological necessity just by being in close proximity with them. Whereas a smart phone puts the whole world and everything that has been learned in it literally in the palm of your hand and allows you to control the pace of a conversation. If someone sends you a text, you decide how long to answer if at all and it gives the user great autonomy and unlimited creativity which is the primary motivator of all human beings. Four main things have ignited in modern human beings a great revolution in the need for more personal autonomy, the smart phone, the explosion of the video game industry as a means of personal recreation, smart televisions and the decentralization in general of all entertainment options, and the use of personal transportation such as cars, motorcycles and even airplanes. Because of these four factors, and I’m sure we could break down even further, but socialism will never take hold again in an industrialized country.
Socialism in the modern sense, at least the way governments try to sell it to people is that essentially free pay checks not connected to any kind of real performance is attractive because it allows people not to worry about how they pay their bills so that they can think with more autonomy what they really enjoy in life. But the ways ultimately that people actually receive those paychecks is to essentially give up great autonomy in the factors that truly generate wealth so every nation that has tried socialism fails due to this condition. People may get a pay check but the work that is performed that generates wealth lacks the creative need for humans to contribute to it, and is missing making those workers much less effective than people who are performing those tasks with great autonomy. The key to all future economic growth in all nations isn’t to just give a pay check to workers who go through the motions of a job title with the same mundanity that they communicate with other people when a smart phone gives them freedom of autonomy to do and say what they want to other people when they want to. Those same traits need to be brought into the marketplace of employment in order to continue with efforts at nationwide economic expansion.

The problem in America is obvious because there is a free market system to serve as a backdrop. Socialism that we see in labor unions is much less effective than an industry where the workers have great autonomy in the work they do. The love of work for instance in a unionized school teacher who has a class full of children in kindergarten is much happier and autonomous compared to the history teacher of high school kids who aren’t as bright-eyed and willing to learn as the five-year old’s. With the labor union mandating collective bargaining and taking away incentives for personal performance and all other things being equal what makes a job happy or not for the employee is the degree for which they have autonomy. The kindergarten teacher is likely to spend the night before a class cutting out little pictures and words that might ignite learning in the children because they will react to it positively and feed the autonomy of the teacher whereas the history teacher knowing that the students will be more interested in dating, playing on their cell phones, and what they are going to wear the next day might only manage to make a cup of coffee for themselves in order to get autonomy in their jobs as misery looms over most of their lives due to those conditions.

Socialism fails because jobs are collective based and measured instead of the individualized results of productivity and the joy of creating and doing the task. Socialism robs individuals of their autonomy in performing work so it destroys the actual output of the task. When the only reason a person shows up for work is to just get a paycheck the reason for having a worker there in the first place is lost—employers might as well hire a robot, they’d be better off. People need autonomy in their jobs and where that personal freedom for performing a love in work is lost, productivity is destroyed and a culture dies, since culture is entirely made up of human input. Humans are thinking creatures and they require autonomy to bring about what’s unique about them to a marketplace and they need the ability to figure out what that is so they can get there. Socialism is too rigid of a structure and is entirely too social for autonomy to exist and that is why it has always failed and will always do so.

Autonomy in the world of productivity is the most important ingredient. Where great autonomy exists in workplaces, great productive output is common. Where a loss in autonomy is prevalent, a stagnant workplace will result. It doesn’t matter what industry it’s in or where in the world the work is performed, if autonomy is part of the management, companies and nations do well. If autonomy is controlled, the company and nation fail. It’s not that people in Venezuela conspired to hurt the government by not being as productive. Its that they lost their autonomy for performing work because of the means of instituting socialism even when the nation is sitting on vast resources for creating wealth. When the government took away the incentive to think freely on how to use those resources for the creation of wealth the ability to do so became impossible because humans cannot function well without autonomy, and socialism robbed the entire culture of that essential ingredient. Socialism can’t be made to work under any form of government management, it was an idea created by Karl Marx who clearly was illiterate in these understandings of psychology. But we’ve learned a lot about ourselves over the years. Socialism was pretty attractive to people who still had to hunt for their food and wash their clothes by hand, or couldn’t just go down to McDonald’s to get a hamburger when they were hungry. As people gained more autonomy in their lives through leisure time, they wanted more of it which is why we’ve had such explosive growth intellectually by way of invention in the last century as opposed to every century that came before it. But in the 21st Century autonomy is the expectation and if our jobs don’t factor that into their plans, they will have miserable work forces and therefore much less productivity which is the purpose for doing work. That is why socialism fails, because it destroys personal autonomy and the good work that comes with that invisible ingredient to anything that might be considered successful.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

The Old Hippie Neil Young and his Pro Communist song “Ohio”: Liberals want to take away guns so they can finish what started in China

I didn’t appreciate it at all when Neil Young resurrected his old hippie song “Ohio” ahead of the November 6th election hoping to influence the Republican “red wave” that was obviously emerging. In an updated video of that old Vietnam protesting diatribe about the “Kent State Massacre” the implication is that the Nixon administration deserved to have college protestors speaking out against the American war effort in Vietnam, and that when the National Guard was called in the quell the protests, the four people who ended up dead and many others one of whom was permanently paralyzed should have never occurred and is part of a larger gun violence problem. Neil Young these days is a fat slob who in the video wondered about on stage in front of a large crowd of degenerates likely high on marijuana smoke and other intoxicants and celebrated that the old hippie managed to come up with a catchy guitar riff about that massacre. For many years the leftists, who are generally all communist sympathizers have used the entertainment industry to sell liberal ideas to the public and Neil Young is certainly one of them. But these days conservatives have someone in Donald Trump who can draw bigger crowds and he doesn’t even need a guitar. Sure, times are changing and the assumption that anybody cares what Neil Young does is negligible. Yet his message is disgusting and deserves to be ripped to shreds for his attempt at political discourse.

Colleges during the two decades leading up to the May, 1970 shooting on the Kent State campus in Northern Ohio had been leaning to the political left that entire time and it was becoming a real problem. American youth were being taught in those places to think like communists and many of them never got over it. They are now a big part of the progressive left and are now running large media companies which has allowed the MSM to wholly be considered leftists organizations and a big part of the anti-Trump movement. For them a lot of what they know started in liberal universities like Kent State. It is disgusting that as Americans we have spent so much money on all these liberal colleges thinking them to be good things for our young people, only to find that they had a number one goal of liberalizing America for the sentiments of globalism. Those intentions clashed on that day in 1970 that Neil Young was singing about in his hippie song.

Even worse, American academia took their influence from Europe, which they never should have done, and decided to sell to their students this utopian idea that guns were not part of any society, and that the use of them by the National Guard in the case of Kent State was part of an authoritarian government that took up arms against its own people. Yet the colleges themselves were stoking the fires of communism in support of the spread of it across the entire Vietnamese peninsula. One of the biggest mistakes the United States ever made in the history of our young country was not to listen to General Claire Chennault at the end of World War II when he warned that the communists moving into China were more of a threat than the Japanese ever were. But nobody listened and communism ended up taking over all of China, and Korea then Vietnam. If communism had been stopped in 1948 in China, many lives would have been saved, but the American left wanted the spread of communism, so it paralyzed the American political system and we ended up with at least two bloody wars over the issue which killed many more people than some protesters at Kent State.

You see, there is always cause and effect. The American universities were guilty of allowing the spread of communism in America by radicals and attempting to hide that activity behind free speech protected under the American Constitution. Liberals have always been acting as Trojan Horses against American capitalism and using the sentiments of rule of law to hide their aggressions. Entertainers working on behalf of the political left soft sold those aggressions with hippie songs like that disgusting “Ohio” that Neil Young put together. And they are still using those same methods this time trying to tap into the leftists love of communism, socialism in pursuit of an anti-gun utopia. Liberals hate guns because it is the gun that has perpetuated American capitalism. Take the gun out of the culture of any society then leftists can have an unimpeded access to the minds of that portion of civilization. Liberals have never been about love, peace and sentiments of passivity, they are about cramming their vision of the world down everyone’s throats and they need everyone defenseless while they did it.

The National Guard panicked on the day of the Kent State Massacre. They should have never fired shots into the crowd. These days the protestors at Kent State were mild compared to some of the losers like ANTIFA that we have now. But back then in 1970 nobody really knew what to do with insurgents functioning on American soil and using the Constitution as a way to undo life in the United States. People should never have to die in protests, but then again, the colleges shouldn’t have been using their student body as soldiers for the spread of communism either, because that’s what America was fighting in Cambodia and Vietnam at that time. That was after spending a very costly war effort against North Korea in the previous decade. The battle was between the different political philosophies, capitalism against communism, and that is essentially what the battle of today is in what many consider a split America. Democrats want communism, they have just changed the name to progressivism, and Republicans generally want capitalism, although until Donald Trump came along, many didn’t really understand capitalism. American universities have left most people lacking a proper understanding of the economic power of capitalism leaving many weak on the subject, and susceptible to catchy songs by liberal artists like Neil Young. We all have an obligation to protect the American Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and from the point of view from the National Guardsman, that’s what they were doing. The American press, which leaned to the political left because they had been trained at those same liberal universities of course chose to blame the violence on the National Guard.

And that brings us to the point of Neil Young’s updated video to that old song, the implication is that gun violence is out of control, especially in our schools and that if people want to see an end to it, that they need to vote out Pro NRA candidates. And this theme comes from one of the most liberal senators presently functioning who happens to come from Ohio, Sherrod Brown. During the many debates with his challenger Jim Renacci during this campaign season Brown tried to paint Renacci as a pawn of the gun lobby. Well, I am the gun lobby, and so are you dear reader if you are a member of the NRA. Of course, I expect politicians to listen to me from the power position of the NRA. I am part of what makes up that gun lobby through my membership dues and other things that I buy from them to help them fight away the corrosive influence of liberal senators like Sherrod Brown. If Neil Young had his way all of America would be run by liberals like Sherrod Brown and not conservatives like Jim Renacci. And they are so audacious to suggest that they had a big crowd at a Neil Young concert full of old pot smokers and communist sympathizers and think they have a right and obligation to continue making schools gun free zones, when it is the exact opposite for which the solution resides. But Trump gets bigger crowds than Neil Young and that is a real game changer for Republicans. For the first time they have someone who can actually sell conservative ideas back to people who need to hear it leaving old, fat slobs like Neil Young with nothing to do but sit in the forest, in the last house on that street and look at all the animals and redwoods and contemplate that America didn’t listen to their bullshit hippie talk. They voted for a red wave anyway and turned finally away from the communism the liberals have always dreamed of.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

The Best Article on Socialism that you will Ever Read: Trump will never experience a recesssion while he is president

When economists said that Trump was out of his mind to propose that the United States would ever have a GDP of over 3% again, they were speaking from the failed perspective of a socialist philosophy. Just because a majority of economists were all trained in the same places by the same socialist radicals it doesn’t mean that reality is shaped by a majority opinion that may want to promote socialism from the halls of academia, or network television. The same economists and promotional efforts to insist that they have intellectual knowledge worth listening to are the same as those who are putting the 28-year old girl Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on every media outlet that they can find hoping to promote democratic socialism before Donald Trump’s economy puts that fantasy out of reach forever. Donald Trump is a man from a real background in understanding how economies work. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is just another young radical stuck on the Marxist theories she learned in her education, like a lot of kids. But here’s the reality, Trump’s economy will continue to boom, there will not be a recession on the horizon, there will not be a slowdown of growth. So long as government is kept from tampering with the economy human enterprise will unleash tremendous economic growth and that is the reality of the 2018 election, for which Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t even elected yet. All she did was win a primary, but the media knowing that Trump’s economy is pulling ahead of their broadcasted fears are in a panic to put a young lady that they think is pretty in front of the cameras to promote their global intentions, and it’s not going to work.

I met the type of economists that have been declaring that Trump’s economy would fail or that even the good numbers of today are bound to have a major downturn while I was in college. I thought from day one that the economists in college were idiots. I had read several books on my own before getting to college so I had a reference point, but I also had a lot of real life experience. Prior to going to college, I did many fundraisers for the Boy Scouts of America, I worked for mobsters, I chauffeured celebrities, I was a repo man, a gunsmith, and a car salesman, a male model and I did all that before I was 19. So I had a lot of experience with money and commerce and at that time I started to read serious books on economic matters, so the ridiculous cycles that economists at the University of Cincinnati tried to teach were ridiculous. I knew it then, and I am even more sure of it now.

As a basic lesson of economic reality, I speak often about how much I enjoy the yearly Annie Oakley Western Showcase in Darke County, Ohio every year where we conduct bullwhip competitions for the public with the host Gery Deer. This example could apply to anything, but it speaks to the nature of human beings no matter what race, sex, or age—it is the way that humans are wired which obviously Karl Marx never understood. That’s why he died dirt poor and broke in London with just a few people attending his funeral. Because Karl Marx was an idiot, but the governments of the world thought that socialism and communism might be a good way to give themselves lots of power, they started promoting it, and whenever someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could be used as a spokesman, they have tried. But all those efforts will fail because of the basic realities of the human experience. In our bullwhip competitions there used to be cash prizes and big trophies. That brought competitors from all over the world to our event to try to win something that they could put on their mantle at home and be proud of. After all, we all practiced very hard to get good with bullwhips so winning a prize, and or money was a vindication of those efforts. Not that I’m bragging, but I won most of the time, and so did Gery Deer. A handful of us tended to always be in the top rankings so people who didn’t win would get angry. Since Gery was always organizing these events the losers of the competitions would call him a “money grubbing charlatan” because they accused him of hosting these events just to make money. Sound familiar?

So to silence the critics my friend Gery Deer took away the prize money and the trophies and made it so that we would just compete out of the goodness of our hearts for the fun of it. Well, guess what happened, over the next five years attendance dropped from both the spectators but also the competitors. Most of those professional bullwhip artists who practiced so hard just had no ambition to attend a competition just for the fun of it. If there wasn’t money or a trophy involved, they decided to stay home, save the plane fare and do something else. But I still came and so did a few other people. I enjoyed the event for what it was and I really didn’t care if I won a trophy or not. That is what makes me in all things I do in life one of the 1% to 5% who always do things for the right reasons. I would say Donald Trump is a similar personality. He plays golf for many of the reasons I do bullwhip work, because he just enjoys the endeavor, and he likes playing and competing whether or not there is a trophy involved, because of the spirit of doing the task. But when you take away the personal recognition for a lot of people, they just aren’t interested in doing something, and that is why socialism will never work, as it has never worked.

The reason Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can’t tell anybody how her democratic socialism would be paid for, how socialism could give people free college educations, how there could be free healthcare, how we could have a $15-dollar minimum raise is because socialism ignores the values of a task performed. The work of doing something is what generates value, just as resistance can generate electricity in a generator as magnets pass over coils. But if the reward for work is not individualized then the desire to put forth effort is lost. If everyone is going to get $15 dollars an hour, or everyone is going to get a trophy, or nobody is going to get a trophy, then people will do only what they have to, and that means that all the ambition for work is lost to the participants. Socialism under any form assumes that people will work hard and be productive just out of the goodness of their hearts, and that isn’t how people are wired. Socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or some hippie college professors might think that humans should behave differently, but reality doesn’t indicate that such a thing will ever happen. Just as we took trophies and cash out of the Annie Oakley competitions the best whip artists in the world stopped coming and the sport itself has nearly gone extinct again. A few of us do the event still, but where we used to have 25 to 30 artists from as far away as Australia come to Ohio for the competitions, now there are only five or six a year. The same could be said about any professional endeavor from the medical industry to building cars. If you take away profit and a reward for achievement, you stop the economy. If you reward such things, then people will invent and work their asses off just for a little recognition—even if its minor in nature.

Trump clearly understands how economics works, better than most economists. The people who speak against him and his new economy want to ignore reality and assume that the socialism of Karl Marx might still happen if they could only plaster the young face of a girl voters might like on the front of it. But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is just a kid. She’s a nice kid but she has a lot to learn and a lot of experience to gain. I was lucky to have had a lot of experience before I was 19, and it was easy for me to call bullshit on the professors I met in college. Now as a person with a lot of experience in many endeavors, I know the Trump economy is only going to increase. There will not be a recession during Trump’s years in office. The cause of recessions is government tampering and taking away incentives for excellence among a society’s participants. I am one of those people who will do the right thing whether or not there is money or a trophy involved, but I am also one of those 1% people. Karl Marx might have known people like me when he came up with his communism idea, but he didn’t apply it to reality. Most people, 99% of all people, will only do something if they get some opportunity at a personal reward, whether it’s a big wage increase, a new car, or an opportunity for sex. If those potentials are taken away, people stop trying and that is how recessions come about. If you open up the rewards, then there will never be a shortage of people who want a chance at those rewards. And that is what drives economies. More rewards, the bigger the economy. Less rewards the smaller the economy. And that is precisely why China is so worried, because as a communist country, they can only look like a global superpower so long as all other economies were artificially restricted, as the United States was. But under Trump and a new rewards system for innovation and effort, China doesn’t stand a chance.

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

With the Election of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador Mexico is now an Open Enemy: People will finally understand why we needed to build the wall

In a lot of ways the election of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as the new Mexican president is a good thing because it removes the masks of pretense and allows us to deal with the true nature of what Mexico is. Mexico has never been a friend to the American government. It is a socialist hell hole that has been barely surviving off the tourism of Americans looking to do things there that they couldn’t do in their home country. It is a country run by drug cartels as that is their primary export, and Lopez Obrador knows that, which is why he is seeking amnesty with the main drug lords to just make everything official. As a radical leftist, his election will just take the mask off what the Mexican people always were—social radicals desiring an openly socialist state-run confiscation of all wealth. At least we know what we are dealing with without the fake handshakes and kind words through the media.

There is no heritage of the Mexican people. They are a conquered people infused by the country of Spain and have been on a social justice campaign experiment that nobody would have tried in Europe that was a spectacular failure. Most of the Central and South American countries that have attempted the kind of turn to the left that Mexico has have not survived which is why they have gangs running their economies instead of legitimate governments. That is certainly the case in El Salvador and Guatemala, but at least in Mexico they benefited in spill over money that came from the richest country on earth.

Out of frustration since the election of President Trump the real strategy of Mexico as a country has been revealed, the desperate poor have been encouraged to flood the U.S. border and to overwhelm the court system and to bring all that destructive socialism into America to loot the value of the capitalists and destroy the country from within. That attack was to take place on two fronts, with poison from the drug cartels infecting the youth of the United States then by mixing socialist people desperately poor with the American people to change the voting patterns. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador not surprisingly has proposed to make peace with drug cartels and to use drugs as one of Mexico’s greatest exports, openly. People in Mexico who elected Lopez Obrador are desperate to try something, and conservative ideas are not in the Mexican vocabulary, so at least we are dealing with villains that we can see for once. Instead of pretending to be friends to America, the open hostility has been revealed for what it always was.

This will help the Trump proposal of a border wall and secure the funding much easier than before where too many Americans were willing to give the Mexican people the benefit of the doubt. But essentially you can’t have one of the world’s poorest economies right next to the richest and expect everything to go well. It’s like leaving a mansion unlocked at all times with a next-door neighbor living in a double-wide. The poor will always seek to steal from the rich because they are poor for a reason. A lot of people from the Mexican culture are hard workers, but they lack a proper philosophy that would allow them to become wealthy, as much of their “heritage” has either come from the collectivist based Aztec and Mayan cultures, the socialist Christian conquistadors from Spain or the Marxists from Germany. The people of Mexico need a capitalist revolution in their home country before they are ever ready to be a proper neighbor to the United States and I can’t think of any better way for them to get there than to learn what will happen to them under a Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador presidency.

It was stated during the Lopez Obrador campaign that he desires to sit down with the United States as equals and negotiate NAFTA. The trouble is, Mexico is not “equal” to the United States. Capitalists and Marxists are not equal—one takes from the other so there can be no terms that promote a conducive relationship. That is like a robber negotiating with their victim, either I shoot you and I take all your money, or you give it to me so I don’t have to shoot you. That is the kind of negotiating that Mexico is proposing under Lopez Obrador. There is no equality, and its time that people who don’t pay much attention to politics in the United States finally learn what kind of neighbor Mexico has always wanted to be.

For a long time, open border progressives have attempted to fuse the two countries together playing on the sympathy that most people have for each other. Nobody wants to see some of the dirt-poor conditions that people live under in Mexico. Any right-thinking person would want to help, and Americans have, which is the only thing keeping Mexico barely hanging on. But the two cultures don’t mix as their value systems are radically different which is why there needs to be a wall to separate the two. Up to this point there just haven’t been enough Americans willing to admit that such divisions existed between Mexico and America. Large American businesses wanted to believe they could move to Mexico and run manufacturing plants, but now that will be nearly impossible as socialists will seek to take control of their facilities now that the pretension of civility has been removed leaving Mexico to rely on their primary export—drugs—poison.

Things needed to get worse in Mexico before anything would ever get better—and with the election of Lopez Obrador they have. As a far-left leaning activist everyone on all sides will finally get to see what it looks like to be an openly socialist country interacting with North America. Canada is another socialist leaning country that is now finding itself at odds with the American government under Trump. The business community of course wants peace between all countries just as Mexico hopes that Americans will still travel south and spend their money on Mexican tourism. But you can’t have something of value next to something seeking value by looting it from others and that is where Mexico is as a country. Canada is as well, only their mixed economy interacts with North American capitalism in more dynamic ways which blurs the lines for people who don’t see the socialism on the surface of things. But Mexico doesn’t have such blurred line.

While its true that the election of Lopez Obrador likely wouldn’t have happened if not for the election of Donald Trump, trying to maintain the illusion of civility would have only prolonged the inevitable. So, we might as well get to the meat and potatoes of this dilemma and let the American people see what has always been going on in Mexico. We’ve always been at war, we just never talked about it. Now we will, and now the intentions will be obvious. The border wall will further define the differences between the two cultures. The pain of that difference may have elected Lopez Obrador, but it has also caused Mexico to reveal their true problem, their Marxist roots and the failures that were created in that country because of it. By stripping away the civility that has camouflaged that difference for too many years, now we can all deal with reality, Mexico is a country of leftists made that way from the very beginning and they want to attack America. Some within our own country who call themselves leftists want to see that happen and they are domestic enemies for attempting the insurrection. But now the illusions have been lifted and we can see what really divides us and that is ultimately a very good thing.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

The Socialists of Seattle: Jeff Bezos tried to feed red meat to the wolves, and they bit him

Way back in 2013 I told you dear reader about Kshama Sawant, the socialist who was recently elected to city council in Seattle. Remember that? Well, she and the rest of her socialist brethren have proven me more than 100% correct with their anti-American brand of socialism that is going after the rich at every turn these days. The budget of Seattle is a disaster and these idiots are seeking measures to pay homeless shelters and taxing their big businesses to cover the costs—which has already pushed Boeing to remove a lot of jobs from the city to avoid the high taxes. Now the Seattle City Council has voted a new “head tax on their large businesses with an 8 to 1 vote on any company that earns $20 million or more in annual sales, 14 cents per employee hour, in an effort to raise $50 million per year toward outreach efforts for the homeless, including affordable housing and emergency shelters. This is what happens when people who have no idea what the value of businesses are truly for their communities or lack the understanding of what makes people homeless in the first place. Throwing money at the problem by stealing it from valuable companies is not the way to solve the problem. But when people follow the failed philosophy of Karl Marx, this is what you get in human intellect—deficient people too stupid to help themselves.

It’s a little funny that the big time liberal Jeff Bezos tried to appease these socialists in Seattle with his war on Trump by using The Washington Post as his personal blog to create an impeachment of his billionaire rival. Bezos is now the richest man in the world and he gambled wrong in thinking that the socialists of Seattle would stay away from him because of their mutual hatred of Trump. Obviously, Bezos is a smart guy who runs a great business in Amazon. But like many in his position he got caught trying to feed the wolves red meat hoping they would go away. Instead they only became hungrier.

The thing with socialists is that they always are looking for people of value that they can steal money from in an effort to call it “social justice,” “equality for all” and one for all and all for one, and all that garbage. Socialists mask their parasitic tendencies behind altruistic intentions, but what they really are reveals itself in decisions like their Seattle Head Tax—theft granted by government for the sake of those who work and produce and those who simply are too lazy to exist on their own. Socialists are those who want to live off the efforts of others, its that simple. There isn’t anything morally just about their actions, they are thieves—pure and simple.

If Jeff Bezos didn’t build Amazon up bit by bit over the last several decades what would it be? Would Kshama Sawant create Amazon, would the city council? Would the homeless people they want to help make Amazon the great company that it is today? If Jeff Bezos didn’t have all those sleepless nights in the 1990s when he was building his empire of e-commerce with distribution warehouses all over the nation for a business that was on the cutting edge at best—where were the socialists of Seattle back then—playing video games, reading books about Karl Marx, protesting the breeding patters of fruit flies cut off from a thousand-year old hole in the ground where someone wanted to build a housing development? They certainly weren’t trying to create jobs like Jeff Bezos was.

In a capitalist society—in ANY society a job creator is one of the most important aspects of civilization. Without job creators there is no economic expansion. Government doesn’t create jobs unless you count useless bureaucratic positions equivalent to slow ass workers at the BMV or a Clerk of Courts. People like Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump have far more value than a socialist looter trying to use the power of government to steal the hard work of those who take the big chances in business to create jobs from nothing. Yet where Bezos went wrong is that he tried to appease those progressive minded by tossing money at them hoping they’d go away—only they didn’t. Once they realized where the money was—after all Bezos is now known as the world’s richest man—and he lives in the neighborhood so to speak of people like Kshama Sawant—their target went to him. For a socialist it’s like a nice pile of shit for a fly to swoop on to take away all they could get while the gettin’ was good. Such lessons have come hard and now Amazon doesn’t have much choice in the matter, they’ll have to move their operations out of the Seattle area. Starbucks is in the same situation—Seattle is now notoriously unfriendly to business, and the word is out. Businesses will have to leave Seattle.

I was in Paris, France recently and the effects of their open socialism is grotesquely obvious. There are no big chain restaurants, no big factories—not like there should be for such a large city with so much history. The socialism of France has pushed away so much business investment because it’s a pain in the ass to do anything. It’s hard to even use the restroom in Paris, even near the tourist attractions the restrooms were dirty, and they charge you money to use them. I was stunned to see a toll turn style at the bathroom at Notre Dame with some Pakistani guy smoking a cigarette and collecting $2 a piss. I told him I’d just piss on the sidewalk outside which is what I dd. And so were about five other guys. No wonder Paris these days smells like piss everywhere you go. The city to deal with the exodus of their most productive turned to immigration to refill their empty apartments which has created their current crises—of mixing Muslims from the Middle East with the Christian Crusaders of old to extract revenge for the long conflict between religions that are left over from the Dark Ages. Instead of thinking of building new vehicles for space and colonizing Mars, the people of Paris are trying to keep piss off the sidewalks and nobody in their right mind is opening up a McDonald’s with free bathrooms across from the Eiffel Tower. Socialism has destroyed the opportunities for private investment to make a deal.

I’ve seen plenty of homeless people, I got to know them quite well in Canterbury, England where I’ve spent some time living in the city. Because of the social justice policies of that town ran by first the church, then by a much more socialist government in England after World War II homeless people have been incentivized into sleeping on the sidewalks. They are actually well fed and people befriend them letting them know that there is a safety net in case they fall from life. Knowing that, the weakest among us tend to throw in the towel too soon and retreat to a sleeping bag on the sidewalk rather than to shake a drug addiction, a family problem or whatever crises has come at them and destroyed their ambitions. When you give people free shelter, food and companionship—what reason do they have to keep fighting in life? Nothing, which is why when you start giving such people resources you get more of them, not less.

So Seattle has quite a problem now and there is no end in sight. I think it’s a good thing that the people of America can watch Kshama Sawant and her city council destroy their city, because it’s a good warning shot to the rest of the nation—socialism is dangerous, and it doesn’t work. And this is also a good lesson for people like Jeff Bezos. He should have never have tried to appease the socialists in the way that head hunters tried to appease their gods with human sacrifice, because it just makes the blood thirsty even thirstier. The only way out of all these messes is more capitalism and a defining stance against socialism before everyone can advance. Anybody who wants to help the homeless truly will learn these lessons quickly, the best way to keep people off the streets is to give them a job and let them earn their way through life. Giving things away for free while stealing from those who work hard and truly are people of value destroys opportunity for everyone. And that is something I think we can all agree is not what we want to see happening.

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

Iran is Finished: Those with money always determine the rules–and the outcome

How wonderful it is that Donald Trump as President of the United States pulled America out of that treacherous scam of a deal with Iran. With all the talk about how dangerous it was I have not heard a single media outlet tell the truth about Iran and why the Democrats under Obama were so willing to give so much to them without anything coming back in return. The answer which is key to the entire situation is that it was Marxist revolutionaries that moved in and took over the Iranian government in the late 1970s and they still rule to this day. Hidden behind the radical Islamic practices of showing anger toward the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 is the not so subtle push to spread Marxism to the entire planet, and to use force wherever necessary to do so. Most everything done in the Middle East including the support of Saddam Hussein of Iraq was to deal with the mess created by Sykes-Picot and the spread of Marxism that was generated in anger over that World War I negotiation. In the stalemate of a century of policy failures in that region it was always Marxism and a strong desire to spread socialism and communism to despot countries around the world, like Cuba, El Salvador, all of Africa, North Korea, Vietnam, Russia—virtually everywhere—which drove the politics of the Middle East. And the deal Obama’s administration made was meant to provide money to the struggling economy of Iran to keep them active in that original aim of spreading Marxism to every corner of the world through terrorism. Isn’t it something that nobody is talking about any of that?

The truth of the matter is that Iran isn’t much different from what happened to Venezuela in South America. Sitting on major oil reserves the world was willing to put up with the socialism and Marxism that was destroying the governments of those two countries—because of their oil. Socialism had already infected Europe, so they had no real reference point to judge the evils of the behavior in Iran—since they weren’t far from being in the same boat. Obama’s deal negotiated by John Kerry was designed to tie Europe, the United States and Iran together in an effort to keep the economy of the failing Iran together so they could perform their role in the great scheme of Marxist expansion.

Any college professor in America could tell you what I just did dear reader, which is why they support Iran mysteriously even though currently the country is the number one sponsor of terrorism. That is because most liberals support that Marxist spread of influence, and they are rooting for Iran to do their damage for the acquisition of socialist triumphs globally. But for everything to work the United States had to be involved because it is only from that capitalist country that there is any real value for Iran to loot and continue to exist. What Trump did was cut off that support. The deal Iran has with everyone else suddenly became worthless—Europe doesn’t have anything of any value to add. With the United States out of the deal, Iran has no cover and no way to prop themselves up on the world stage to hide their acts of terrorism, or to fund it.

Put another way that might be easier for people to understand, many years ago I had a group of family members who wanted me out of their way. They didn’t want me in the family and they wanted control of my wife. When I wasn’t intimidated by their outright aggressiveness toward me they regrouped and decided to play nice to my face in order to bring about financial ruin behind my back. The trouble was, my wife and I had great love for their children so if we wanted to see those children have a good life, we had to deal with these people in a civil fashion. These family members calculated they could put us in a dangerous position to bring about financial ruin to my family achieving their objectives of destroying me to get me out of it, because if I had no money, the thinking was, my wife would divorce me and they’d all live happily ever after—from their point of view. They didn’t care about my own children, or even my wife, they just wanted me out-of-the-way any way possible. So when frontal aggression failed to scare me off, they decided to make a “deal” and they used their children as the bargaining chips knowing we wouldn’t do anything to risk their wellbeing.

Once the father of these kids realized that I would do anything to make sure his kids were well off he became lazier and much less motivated to work. He spent most of his time lying around the house feeling sorry for himself and complaining that he wasn’t wealthy. Eventually the whole family ended up moving into my house because they had no place to go. I had to put up with it because the fear was that great harm would come to the children if we kicked them out. They had in many ways made themselves addicted to my every effort.

For many months on and off over several years the entire family loafed around and mooched off my efforts. My wife was a housewife, as she stayed home with our children. I was already carrying my whole family the way men have always been expected to. But now there was an entire family of five living in my house composing of nine people and essentially only one adult working. My situation was a perilous one, it was a situation that directly affected my wife.  I thought having a knock down drag out fight might be needed which is how I prefer to do things, but then that would have damaged the children and the larger aspects of the family, so what was I to do? Things are almost never literal enough for a good fight, strategy is often the most important combatant, and winning without physical confrontation. Well, I worked three jobs, two of them full-time and one part-time on the weekends and I made enough money to cover everything. In doing so I accomplished two things, I gained leverage of the situation over the lazy parents who found themselves addicted to my efforts, and because of that, it gave me power over the situation to protect the children, for the sake of everyone involved. But for the husband of that ridiculous couple, I showed him that he wasn’t man enough to keep pace with me and he gradually withered away in guilt. It took a few years, but the experience destroyed him as a person, as he deserved it. I did all that work and I still made time to play with all the kids and help them anyway I could, and it had a major impact on them. They grew up moderately intact. Not the way they would have if my wife and I had raised them, but better than they would have been without us in their lives. The couple ended up divorced once the kids were grown, and in exactly the condition we predicted they would at the time. Looking back, I am proud of how we handled a very delicate situation. The key was that by having all the money in the situation it gave us the moral authority to do what needed to be done in the long run. Instead of giving them what they wanted, which was to crush me out of existence, I simply showed that I was so much of a man who I could hold up the entire world and then some—and still smile and have fun with life.  Gaining the high ground is important in every major conflict if you can get it.  Money in all civilized society decides who has the high ground and holding the high ground in an effortless fashion, meaning you do not give your enemy the impression that you are exhausted is the most demoralizing thing you can do to win over such opponents.  And when they have ill intentions for your life–who the hell cares how much you hurt them.

Essentially this is what Trump has done with the Iran deal, only he has cut it off at the time when everyone was most addicted to America’s money. Like my situation, he had to wait for the kids to grow up, when they could no longer be harmed by any action on our part. For the United States that time came when North Korea decided it would rather have season tickets to NBA games from the West rather than carry on the failed policies of Kim Jung-Un’s communist father and grandfather. Once Iran was isolated, the time to choke off their income was there, and because they had grown dependent on the efforts of the United States, they are now unable to survive without the money from the most successful capitalist country on earth. Iran has no money to carry on their nuclear program, just as North Korea didn’t. And the Iranian people are tired of a Marxist regime limiting their opportunities for the future, so they are ripe for their own revolution back into a capitalist country. But they won’t act until the current Marxist regime is broke of money—so Trump made a move that Iran can’t survive. They will be crushed without anybody having to fire a single shot. Europe will be fine, and perfectly safe, because everything always depended on the United States, because it was they who had all the money. And when you have the money, you get to rule the circumstances.

Much like my personal story, the Iranian deal centers on financial power. Rather than sitting around feeling sorry for ourselves, we always had the power to solve the problem by using our money to control the situation. Trump held his cards long enough to squeeze out North Korea so now is the time to make the move against an only slightly stronger Iran. But Iran unlike North Korea already has internal rebellious elements hungry to seize power back into the people’s control. Marxism has failed in Iran, and everywhere else it has been tried. Their plan was to loot off the United States until there was nothing left, just like the family I described who wanted to get rid of me tried to work me into my own death—literally. But once that failed and all the financial leverage was on my side of things, they found themselves crushed by the guilt and their own lack of resources and the rest is now history. Iran has suppressed their own people and they will no longer be able to bring death to the West by looting America until there was nothing left. Now all the wealth is in our court and they need it to survive—so they’ll have no choice but to submit. Mark it down on your calendars. Iran is as good as gone.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

The Socialist Bernie Sanders: Why public schools want the Nordic Model

Many snickered when I stated emphatically that it was versions of communism and socialism that was being taught in public schools. They really didn’t want to deal with that reality. Others snickered when I said that Democrats like Obama and Clinton were functional socialists—that their political ideology was driven by Karl Marx and that liberalism in general had the goal of socialism. Well, the times are what they are—drug abusers want legalized pot, the lazy want great pay for little work, and two decades of children have been raised on liberal causes like global warming, Keynesian economics, and philosophies of collectivism. And now they are ready for socialism in America—openly. That is why Bernie Sanders feels that he now has a platform for a presidential run. Old Democrats like George Stephanopulous are used to hiding their love of socialism behind cocktail parties and racist issues so to deflect attention away from their intentions. But Sanders is one of the only open socialists in the U.S. government. To his credit, at least he’s honest about his intentions. His open embrace of socialism made Stephanopulous cringe a bit in the following interview. While watching, remember I have been saying this kind of stuff for a long time—longer than Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or any other modern pundit. What follows is a bit of an article from a millennial website obviously proud of Sanders. This is what we are up against. These are not the Democrats of the 1990s. These are no longer ashamed of their socialism. These Democrats are openly advocating it—and because the youth has already been trained in socialism from their public schools, they are likely to vote in favor of it.

After raising more in 24 hours than each of the declared GOP candidates individually, Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders went on ABC’s This Week to let America—and the D.C. pundit class that has already written him off—know he’s a real player in 2016.


“For 30 years I’ve been standing up for workers of this country and I think I’m the only candidate who is prepared to take on the billionaire class which now controls our economy and increasingly controls the political life in this country. We need a political revolution in this country.”

After a bit of half-snark from Stephanopulous over his embrace of the “S” word, Sanders went on to defend democratic socialism and explain, in detail, why America should be trying to emulate Northern European countries rather than belittle them. The ABC host and former Bill Clinton advisor tried to pin the Vermont senator down, musing aloud, “I can hear the Republican attack ad now: [Sanders] wants America to look like Scandinavia,” to which Sanders deadpanned in response, “That’s right. And what’s wrong with that?”

The Nordic Model that Sanders likes so much is a joke; the GDP of those Nordic countries is like comparing a fly to an elephant. They may both be creatures of biological design, but that is the end of their similarities. The United States has a GDP of over $17 trillion per year, Sweden only has $570 billion, Denmark $340 billion, Finland $271 billion, and Norway $500,000. Most of that GDP is exports from companies Ikea, but other than that, there’s not much going on economically. Yet this is what socialists like Sanders are advocating for.

The Nordic Model – Embracing globalization and sharing risks” characterizes the system as follows:[15]

  • An elaborate social safety net in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare.[15]
  • Strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business.[16]
  • Public pension plans.[15]
  • Low barriers to free trade.[17] This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programs, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.[15]
  • Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[15]
  • Low levels of corruption.[15] In Transparency International’s 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index all five Nordic countries were ranked among the 12 least corrupt of 176 evaluated countries, and Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway all ranked within top 5.[18]
  • High percentage of workers belonging to a labour union. In 2010, labour union density was 69.9% in Finland, 68.3% in Sweden, and 54.8% in Norway. In comparison, labour union density was 12.9% in Mexico and 11.3% in the United States.[19] The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.[20]
  • A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace among themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.[21] Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination, while Finland is ranked the least flexible.[15] The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.[15] At the same time, reforms and favorable economic development seem to have reduced unemployment, which has traditionally been higher. Denmark’s Social Democrats managed to push through reforms in 1994 and 1996 (see flexicurity).
  • Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflects very high public spending.[17] One key reason for public spending is the large number of public employees. These employees work in various fields including education, healthcare, and for the government itself. They often have lifelong job security and make up around a third of the workforce (more than 38% in Denmark). Public spending in social transfers such as unemployment benefits and early-retirement programs is high. In 2001, the wage-based unemployment benefits were around 90% of wage in Denmark and 80% in Sweden, compared to 75% in the Netherlands and 60% in Germany. The unemployed were also able to receive benefits several years before reductions, compared to quick benefit reduction in other countries.
  • Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in comparison to the OECD average.[22]
  • Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world’s highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[23] and Finland (43.3%), compared to non-Nordic countries like Germany (34.7%), Canada (33.5%), and Ireland (30.5%).
  • The United Nations World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe, with Denmark topping the list. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.[24]
  • The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation’s 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.[25]

Even though per capita income is high in these Nordic Model countries their average tax rates are hovering around 50%. So a $50,000 a year income is only $25,000 a year in useable income. Socialists like Sanders will tell supporters about the nice quiet life in Scandinavia, how happy people are, how long their vacations are—how all their educations were paid for—but what they don’t talk about is how they are not a people creating much of anything new, and that their economic power is largely dependent on their exports from markets that are rich because of capitalism. The Nordic Model is like socialism itself, a bunch of smoke and mirrors—and in the end all its really good for is some cheap meatballs at Ikea along with a table that breaks the first time a child falls into it.

Yet the point of this particular article isn’t to show what an embarrassment the Nordic Model is compared to the United States, or even a country of comparable landmass, such as Japan—it is to show that all along socialists were advocating these Democratic values intending always to advance socialism as a socially acceptable means of political and economic approach. Bernie Sanders in all his ignorance and naiveté is at war with billionaires because he assumes that they have an obligation to share their wealth—as if wealth is a finite resource that all people are born into. He does not know or understand that wealth is created, and that rich people make wealth because of the prospect of profit. When you take away the motivation to elevate oneself by giving them free education, free housing, long vacations and free health care, that you get a population of cattle that is happy to just graze in the field living off the efforts of others. Of course they’ll be happy to eat when someone puts food in their trough, and sleep in the provided shelter. But don’t ask them to invent anything new, or to advance the state of life in the world—because their minds are turned off—fat, dumb and happy. And that is what Democrats like Bernie Sanders always intended with their love of socialism.

It is that brand of socialism that our kids are learning in public schools at this very moment, and is also why Bernie Sanders thinks he can actually be president in this 2015 America. I’ve only been talking about it for around 30 years. They used to say it was crazy, but now Bernie has come clean with it, which for me is a justified poke in declaring that “I told you so.”

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.